Ending the “Anarchist VS Minarchist” Debate Once and For All

For as long as there has been libertarianism, there have been petty divisions and splinter groups and we have been much less effective because of them. If you believe in the core philosophical foundations of libertarianism, (self-ownership, the non-aggression principle, voluntaryism) then all of this is just silly noise. I'm sick of it. It's time to unite around freedom and end the trash-talking and divisiveness. It's time to unite everyone who genuinely cares about freedom enough to understand it properly.

Let's start with the word "anarchist." In its most direct definition, the root word "anarchy" means no rulers. So an "anarchist" is someone who believes that people should not rule others or be ruled by others. Simple, right? Through centuries of deliberate propaganda by those who want to rule us, this word has come to be associated with chaos. The suggestion is that without the violent control of rulers, society would be chaotic. Obviously, the opposite is the case. More importantly, to the idea of libertarianism: I have not heard a single definition of libertarian that means someone who believes we should have rulers. So yes, if you're a libertarian who believes we shouldn't be ruled, that humans should be free ... you're an anarchist. The terms are synonymous!

Of course the issue is a bit more complex than this. Some people define anarchism to mean the believe in a stateless society, or a society without government. This is where this turns into a silly semantic argument that we will put an end to right here and now. There is not a single genuine, thoughtful anarchist in the world who would claim to own the word "government" and say that you cannot form a voluntary coalition of peaceful people and create an organization and call it "government." So when an anarchist says they want a world without government, they specifically mean what we commonly use the word to describe, not "organizational government," "corporate government," or "voluntary government."

So when a "minarchist" says that they want government to perform certain social functions, but to do so voluntarily rather than coercively, they are technically, (gasp!) advocating for anarchy. Conversely, if you define minarchist to mean that government should do only what it can achieve voluntarily, every anarchist is also a minarchist. Of course this DOES NOT include minarchists who advocate that government perform functions that require violating individual rights by coercion.

Which gets us to the more critical divide. It is not between those who embrace one set of definitions vs another. It is between those who embrace a universal standard of ethics and those who believe that "government" should be allowed to exempt itself from basic standards of morality that we all live by. "Don't hit, don't steal, don't kill," does not mean, "unless you have a badge, a law, or a politician's orders to excuse your immoral acts."

This is why philosophically, I identify as a voluntaryist in order to be precise, but really, the word "libertarian" should be sufficient. In any conversation, there needs to be a clear definition of terms used. Often doing so ends the potential for debate. We have allowed ourselves to be needlessly divided by semantics for decades. To me, the clearest explanation of the principles of freedom come from the Libertarian Party Statement of Principles: We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

We can all agree that communities of people coming together voluntarily should have the right to organize and self-govern as they see fit. The way to make this possible is not to argue over ideals, but to create practical policy that immediately improves everyone's lives. This is why politically, I am a localist. Governments should be dismantled from the top down until we achieve the ideal of a voluntary society in which communities and individuals are free to have as much government as they want (as long as it's voluntary!) or as little as they want.

Let's stop identifying as anarchists and minarchists completely. Let's stop indulging and supporting those who tear others down over semantic issues. Let those of us who stand on principle unite against those who do not. Let us stand firm in our convictions and achieve the victory we all seek. There is no divide between the true pragmatists and the truly principled because principles ARE pragmatic. The point of having principles is to show us the pragmatic way forward. Let us unite under the word "libertarian."

I am the author of FREEDOM!, a book endorsed (I mean banned) by the US Department of “Justice.” You can get a copy here. I’m running for Not-President in 2020 on the platform of the peaceful, orderly, and responsible dissolution of the United States federal government. You can find out more here. Whoever has the top comment on this post after 24 hours can claim a free signed copy of FREEDOM! by sending me an email at adam@thefreedomline.com with their address.