While hardly anyone has experienced anything close to it, the minimal state is a popular idea in the libertarian community. In essence, it is a conceptual structure that promises, once implemented, to only protect peaceful people’s property rights from aggression. That sounds like a solution to the basic problem that concerns libertarians, as Hayek described when clarifying the intellectual objective of The Constitution of Liberty:
. . .its primary concern is “the condition of men in which coercion of some by others is reduced as much as is possible in society”. . .
In fact, imagine that the state—the organization that holds a monopoly on coercion within a given territory—is effectively confined to using its powers to protect its citizens’ property rights. Excluding the countless and highly-detrimental purposes for which it is used today, one can reasonably conclude that it provides an effective solution to the problem. At this point, the temptation to move on to the conceptual design of such an entity and, with naive resolve, start playing the little alchemist—combining concepts such as constitutions, courts, elections, separation of powers, armed forces, and so on—can be great.
Anarcho-capitalists, however, are deeply skeptical about the idea that the minimal state can solve the problem. In studying the (completely failed) attempts of previous “little alchemists,” Rothbard noted:
The State has invariably shown a striking talent for the expansion of its powers beyond any limits that might be imposed upon it.
Despite anarcho-capitalists’ great efforts to persuade their fellow libertarians, many remain unconvinced that abandoning the state and sailing into the uncharted waters of anarchy is a reasonable solution to the issue of minimizing coercion. After all, examples of successful fully-anarchic societies also seem to be lacking.
Let us then try to apply logical analysis to the minimal state and its purpose according to the minarchist proposal, where the organization that holds a monopoly on coercion within a given territory is tasked with minimizing coercion within that same territory. There is no issue when this concerns other coercive organizations or individuals, but what happens when it comes to applying that same coercion-minimizing function to the minimal state itself?
Clearly, a paradox is created in this situation. In such circumstances, the state becomes two opposing things at once: the institution that uses coercion to impose limits and the institution whose coercion those same limits are meant to restrain—a clearly untenable situation. The consequences of this were perfectly described by Bastiat when revealing how the law was turned into its opposite:
. . .[the law] has acted in direct opposition to its proper end; it has destroyed its own object; it has been employed in annihilating that justice which it ought to have established, in effacing amongst Rights, that limit which it was its true mission to respect; it has placed the collective force in the service of those who wish to traffic, without risk and without scruple, in the persons, the liberty, and the property of others; it has converted plunder into a right, that it may protect it, and lawful defense into a crime, that it may punish it.
This is the core issue that we must address before starting to play the alchemist and designing our ideal libertarian state. It is not a matter of writing the perfect constitution, nor of finding the perfect balance of powers. It is a matter of resolving a paradox in the very concepts we use to construct our understanding of such an institution.
Unfortunately, given our current linguistic tools, we are forced to conceptualize the minimal state as a part of the collection of elements upon which its function is applied. The more we try to find a solution within this frame, the more we will fail; with a structural paradox eventually turning our efforts into their opposite. The only solution appears to be to stop and accept that no amount of mixing base metals will produce gold. What comes next is a leap into the unknown.
For a deeper treatment of this topic, the interested reader is referred to my recent work published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies titled “The Social Problem: Is Anarchy the Solution? A Constructivist Perspective.”
