Minarchism is not Laissez-faire Capitalism

Libertarians must reject the poison of anarchism.

This is how Libertarianism positions Minarchism on a gradient:

It is no surprise that many libertarians start as minarchists and then become anarchists. The moral principle always wins over technicalities, and in the libertarian world, anarchism is the moral ideal. They argue that under anarchism an individual is not coerced by government. That’s why anarchism is the final goal. As the above chart indicates, they place statism at the “evil” end and anarchism at the “good” end of the gradient.

In contrast, this is how Ayn Rand and her followers (the Objectivists) position Laissez-faire Capitalism on a gradient:

Notice that Objectivists place anarchism at the evil end, not at the good end. And they consider statism to be better than anarchism, because statism has some protection of individual rights, while anarchism has none. The ideal is laissez-faire capitalism: a system in which inalienable rights are protected, leaving an individual free to act within the sphere of his private property.

Objectivist philosopher Harry Binswanger explains [HBL #46425]:

“Minarchism” is an anti-concept. It is designed to destroy the term “capitalism.” Capitalism is not “the minimum amount of government,” it is “the proper function of government: the protection of individual rights through the placing of retaliatory force under objective control.” That doesn’t specify a quantity.

Suppose you had a government that only did one thing: on Tuesdays, it would shoot a random person. Would that be “minarchism”?

Anarchism is poison, and until libertarians completely reject it by placing it at the “evil” end of the gradient, they will continue to fail in their initiatives.

For a full exposé, see the long-read article on this topic at the Anthemism website.