Two Challenges of Minarchy

In my last blog I suggested that minarchy lies midway between the ideals of anarchy and unbridled progressivism. This raises two obvious questions: "How small is small?" and "How do we prevent small from becoming large?" How any government (national, state, or local)  answers to these questions determines the degree of personal liberty within that jurisdiction. I'll try to focus on the United States, but I think these issues apply equally to all governments.

Almost all minarchists argue that there are three main functions that require a publically-funded governmental monopoly: a defensive military, a domestic police force, and a criminal justice system. (Some of us are also willing to provide a basic safety net.) All three represent a realistic collective response to the darker side of human nature. Some individuals and groups of humans are willing to violate the non-aggression axiom and/or the anti-theft axiom,  in order to advance their interests. Anarchists argue that even these functions ought to be be privatized, which would subject those functions to competition, increase quality, and reduce cost. The question here is whether minarchies can maintain competition without caving into cronyism.  

Obviously, all nations need a military force. The the size of that military is contingent upon how governments use those militaries. Minarchists argue that the the military must be defensive in nature. Thus, we must be able to thwart an invasion. If, governments expand that mandate to include "potential invasions," then the size of the military is likely to expand. According to Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, the United States' military has expanded way out of control, and as a result we have troops stationed all over the world and several wars underway. Cronyism is a primary source of spiraling military budgets. The corporations that supply the "War Machine" with supplies are especially powerful, mostly because military contracts are notoriously opaque and non-competitive. Hence, the proverbial $400 toilet seats! One might argue that we've already "privatized" the U.S. military, however, what we've really done is disabled competition via cronyism. In short, privatization does not necessarily imply free markets.

Minarchists also support a publically-funded police force. Now, first of all, the size of a police force is contingent upon the number of laws that it is required to montor and enforce. The more more laws there are "on the books" the larger the police force you'll need. Minarchists argue that lawmaking powers of congress must be limited the laws that address the harm principle; that is "harm to other persons" (assault, murder etc.) and "harm to the property of others" (theft, fraud, breach of contract etc.). The problem with the harm principle is that it tends to become irrationally pre-occupied with preventing low-magnitude harms and low-probability harms. Paternalistic laws that protect us from "self-inflicted harms" have led to an extraordinary expansion of police forces, especially drug laws, laws against gambling, alcohol abuse. The United States leads the world in incarceration, most of those prisoners committed are non-violent drug crimes. The actual cost of providing a police force is also contingent upon how those policemen are paid. Libertarians argue that policement ought to be paid based on free market forces, where the best policement get paid the most (within the bounds of the free market) and the worst policemen get fired. Of course, crony relationships between politicians and law enforcement are way too common and lead to bloated, over-paid and under-paid policemen.   

Minarchists also accept a publically-funded criminal justice system. Like the police force, the size of the judiciary is contingent upon the number of laws it is expected to enforce. The more laws and the more policemen, the more lawyers and judges that are needed. The exponential growth of the judiciary (at all levels) is also related to the fact that our law schools crank out a lot of lawyers, those lawyers often become politicians, and they have a powerful lobby. Thus, cronyism also contributes to bloated judiciaries. The cost of maintaining a judiciary is also contingent upon how much lawyers and judges are paid, and whether they are appointed or elected. Another important cause of  "judiciary creep" is the longstanding legal tradition of writing laws in a private language known only to lawyers, and judges who are empowered to "interpret" those laws. This also artificially enforces their monopoly.

In sum, I have argued that minarchists seek to limit the size and scope of government to military, police, and judicial functions. However, even if our government limited itself to those three functions, there is no guarantee that small government would not morph into large government. Therefore, the most efficient way to limit the size of government is to limit the ability of politicians to endlessly expand the criminal code beyond crimes against persons and properties. I think both libertarians and progressives agree that the U.S. government has expanded way beyond minarchy.                                         

President Obama and the War in Afghanistan

President Obama inherited two ill-fated wars from President Bush. Today, he stands poised to exit Iraq “with honor” and refocus efforts on “winning” the war in Afghanistan. In both cases, Obama has stated that his decisions will be contingent upon the advice he receives from his generals. The underlying assumption here is that these wars are primarily “military events” and that these decisions require “military expertise.” Let’s explore these assumptions. First of all, military generals are loath to lose wars. The military code of honor does not condone losing, and therefore Obama should realize that his generals will not admit that the war cannot be "won" militarily, but they will request more time and more resources, especially troops. The underlying the military perspective is that war resembles a “game,” in fact the lexicon of war is rife with sports metaphors. (war strategy, war games, victory, defeat, etc.) At the root of this vision is the assumption that there are rules of war and that victory is marked by a decisive “final score.” Historically, that final score has always been tabulated based on military criteria: body counts, territorial control, etc. In the end, there is a ceremonial event where the “losers” surrender and sign a peace treaty that acknowledges the “winner.” Throughout human history military generals have always approached war from this “winner-loser” framework. However, this military interpretation is necessarily blind to the fact that war is ultimately a political event, and therefore, “winning” must relate to the realization of political goals. In my view, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been waged based on the pursuit of vague, and unrealistic political goals. In fact, if you look closely at the stated goals of the Bush administration for Iraq you’ll note that they changed over time from eliminating weapons of mass destruction, to removing Saddam Hussein from power, to establishing a democracy, to restoring urban security. Now we can’t blame the military for meandering political goals. Given that the civil war between the three Iraqi religious factions has subsided (thanks to the implementation of a successful military strategy: "the surge"), the most recent political goal (urban security) appears to be within reach. Obama feels as though we can soon leave Iraq “with honor” and pursue victory "with honor" in Afghanistan. What might "victory with honor" in Afghanistan mean? Well... military victory would require a final score based on the realization of military goals, such as killing large numbers of Taliban soldiers (and their sons) and holding territory. In the end, we’d have that ceremony where a Taliban leader admits defeat and signs the proverbial peace treaty. If there is one, single, powerful leader that can sign that treaty I’m sure our politicians know where to find him. A political victory would be marked by the realization of our stated political goals for Afghanistan. What exactly are those goals? Well, again we have that notoriously vague notion of establishing a democracy in a culture that has been dominated by religious authoritarianism. The current “elected” government has been marked by corruption and ineptitude. The assumption is that all Afghanistan really needs to do is militarily defeat the Taliban and elect a new crop of honest and efficient political leaders. But democracy is not a cure-all for all of Afghanistan’s social, political, and economic woes. For centuries it has been one of the poorest nations on earth. Most of its income today is derived from the illegal drug trade and arms dealing. Education in Afghanistan is monopolized by religious leaders. Therefore, their schools do not produce doctors, lawyers, engineers, chemists, or biologists that go to work every day providing goods and services. When there is an election, voters will elect more religious leaders. Women will not go to school and they won’t vote. But they will produce more male children that will attend these religious schools and thus perpetuate the status quo. Therefore, as we move our troops into the Afghan wilderness, Americans must demand clarity in terms of both our military and political goals. What do we really hope to gain for Afghanistan (or the United States) by removing the Taliban from power? How will we know when the war is over? And, most importantly, who will sign the peace treaty? My modest view is that President Obama cannot expect our military generals to answer these questions for him.