312 Chapter 12
vey thatmostself-proclaimedfree-marketersare too timidandpsychologicallyinsecure
to concedethatperfectlibertyrequiresanarchy.In this interpretation,non-anarchistfree-
marketers—supportersof the nightwatchmanstate—are in a wishy-washyposition,pre-
ferring(a) thattheregenerallybe “lessgovernment” thanthatwhichcurrentlyexists
while(b) theyare not braveenoughto takethe pro-libertypositionto its supposedly
logical(anarchist)conclusion.Allegedly,insteadof beingboldpuristsandembracing
anarchy,non-anarchistfree-marketerscowardlyhidethemselvesunderthe securityblan-
ket of “minimalgovernment” or “smallgovernment.”
Therefore,to Konkin,the “minarchist” positionis a wimpymilquetoastcompromise
betweenthe extremesof totalitarianism(100-percentgovernmentand thereforepureevil)
versusanarchism(0 percentgovernmentand thereforepuregoodness).^19
A comparableattitudecan be foundin variousleft-wingatheistswithrespectto peo-
ple whoare graduallylosingtheirfaith.Throughoutthe Enlightenmentperiod,various
peopletriedto adopta middlegroundbetweenreligionand atheism.Thatmiddleground
wasdeism.A deistis someonewhorepudiateseveryorganizedreligionbut still clingsto
a beliefin someGod.A varietyof atheists,myselfincluded,believethat the deistposition
is a transitionalstagefor someonebraveenoughto leavebehindhis churchbut still not
braveenoughto leavebehindany beliefin a supernaturalentity.Likewise,a libertarian
anarchistcan regard,withsomecondescension,a putativeminarchistas someonein that
sametransitionalstage.He can proclaim,“Youhavemadegreatprogress,but,as longas
youinsiston the needfor policeanda military,youremaina caterpillar.Thedayon
whichyouacceptanarchismis the day on whichyouwillhavematuredintoa beautiful
butterfly.”
The pushylibertariananarchistof my acquaintanceasksotherpeopleto quantifythe
amountof governmentinvolvementtheywantin theirlives.He probes,for example,
whetheryou wouldpreferto have“Zero-percentgovernmentinvolvement?Twenty-five
percent?Seventy-fivepercent?One-hundredpercent?” Shouldyou answerthat you want
“25-percentgovernmentinvolvement” in yourlife,he immediatelyconcludesthatyou
are for “75-percentliberty,as you clingto 25-percenttyranny.” The inappropriatenessof
this line of questioningcan be revealedin anotherexample.Imaginethatyougo to the
hospitalfor an appendectomy.The surgeonin chargedoesnot knowspecificallywhereto
applythe scalpel,but simplyinquires,“Howmuchof yourbodydo you wantslicedup?
Do youwantme to sliceup 15 percent?Thirtypercent?Ninetypercent?Wouldit be
betterif I appliedno incisionanywhere?Shouldyourentirebodybe mincedand ground
intolittlepieces?” Sucha doctorwouldbe evadingthe matterat hand.The issuewould
not be whatpercentageof yourbodymustbe cut up; the issuewouldbe the specificpart
of yourbodyto whichthe surgeonwoulddirectthe operation.Likewise,the issueis not
whatpercentageof yourlife requiresthe applicationof governmentforce;the issueis
whatspecificactivitiesgovernmentforcemustbe applied.Shouldtherebe hundredsof
gangstersin yourcommunityspoliatingthe innocent,a largeamountof government
involvementwouldhaveto be directedto stoppingthem.Conversely,shouldtherebe
nothingmorethana pettytheftonceeveryten years,andno morecrimethanthat,a
legitimategovernmentwouldcorrespondinglydo little.
I thereforesubmitthat the connotationbehindthe “minarchism” expressionis a straw
man.Insofaras the “size” of governmentrefersto (1) its budget,(2) its numberof employ-
ees, and(3) the effectiveness andfirepowerof its night-watchman-stateagencies,a
government’s sizedoesnot directlycorrelatewithtyranny.Shoulda nightwatchman
statehavea large,well-fundedmilitary,thatcouldmaximizelibertyby guardingagainst
foreignspoliators.SupposeCountryJ, alreadya nightwatchmanstate,wereto “shrink”
its government—”minimizing” its governmentor “minarchizing” itself—by guttingits
ownmilitary’s budgetanddraftingRulesof Engagementthatprioritizeenemynations’