Pol. Ideology 34: More on Anarchy or Minarchy

One of the regular readers of this blog is Mr. Micky Fernandez, http://mickyandrani.blogspot.in/, an American expat in India. After reading my brief debate with Marc Abela last week, Pol. Ideology 33: Anarchy or Minarchy, he posted this frank and well-argued paper today in his blog. I wanted to drop a comment in his paper but I cannot see the "comments" button, so I will write it after his paper. Here goes.
----------

http://mickyandrani.blogspot.in/2012/07/to-nonoy-oplas-of-funwithgovernmentblog.html

To Nonoy Oplas of FunWithGovernment.blogspot.in

... I must confess that I have not been reading your recent posts at funwithgovernment. blogspot.in. I have been writing a lot and you have been writing a lot. Every day, two or three of your posts come into my blog's Reading List. I can not possibly keep up with all that you have written. However, this post did catch my eye.

As I may have written at a few other places, and on a few other occasions, and especially at this post, I vacillate between Anarchism and Minarchism. I believe in the truth of the U.S. Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [or all people, to use the now more accurate word] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [or simply endowed] with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

and feel that Minarchism can best support the investigatory body (police, sherriffs, detectives and the like) and tribunals (courts, arbitrators, mediators and the like) which are necessary in any and all civilized societies for the remediation of any infractions of rights. However, I am open to a fully Anarcho-Capitalist solution. I have read, watched and listened to many of the works of Stefan Molyneux (1, 2), especially Practical Anarchy. I shall write to him in the near future, asking him to clarify some things, in the hope that I can be more accepting of his ideas.

Although I appreciate and admire Anarchism (Wow! Such alliteration!) and Minarchism, I tend to not appreciate nor admire Anarchists and Minarchists.

I dislike Anarchists' (and Marc Abela's) now-tired argument that "if you can get rid of 90% of government then why not get rid of 100% of it?" However, Anarchism is not about government; it is about rulers, specifically the absence of violent enforcers of diktats. It is true that if you get rid of political rulers then 99.9% of government will simply dissolve, like the Wicked Witch in the Wizard of Oz after water was thrown onto her. Any remaining entity like the Department of Motor Vehicles in the United States would need to become efficient to continue to justify its existence. The idea behind the DMV is that only people who are properly trained to be good drivers are allowed to become drivers. In reality, people who drive while under the influence of alcohol and drugs (legal or otherwise), people who commit road-rage, people who commit hit-and-run and vehicular manslaughter, people who have debilitating illnesses causing them to become poor drivers are still allowed to drive. For this, I do think that an Anarcho-Capitalist solution is desirable, although I am still uncertain how A-C can properly and efficiently replace (and preferably improve upon) the above-stated investigatory body and tribunals.

I find frightening, however, Statists' (and yours, Nonoy) belief that Anarchism is "idealistic". If every shred of evidence showed that government agents are unproductive at best and counter-productive at worst; if every shred of evidence showed that Democracy is TOTM (Tyranny of the Majority); if every shred of evidence showed that for every 1000 pesos taken away from you in taxes and government fees you get no more than 5 pesos worth of benefits; if every shred of evidence shows that politicians lie (How can you tell when a politician is lying? His/Her mouth is moving.) and have absolutely no concern for the welfare of the inhabitants; if every shred of evidence shows government agents kill unarmed civilians first and then ask questions later; if every shred of evidence shows that governments are corrupt, either for money or for power/control, then is it not idealistic to think that a society with such rulers and government would be beneficial to civilians?

Anarchism is not idealistic, it is realistic. You do not need a ruler to tell you when or where to sleep. You do not need a ruler to tell you what, where, when and how to drink or eat. You do not need a ruler to tell you where, when, how to travel. You do not need a ruler to tell you what to buy or sell. You do not need a ruler to tell you what to write in your blog. Just because a ruler wants to tell you what to do does not negate your innate ability to do what you want to do at every moment of every day of your life.