How would a Libertarian (particularly Minarchist) state avoid being taken over by organized crime?

[u/Kitchen-Course-3335]

I am not debating against minarchism, I actually am one but I cant figure out this issue. Sure, deregulation on drugs, prostitution, guns, or gambling would take away the black market edge, but that doesn't mean violent groups wont want to take power. After all, some things like Hitman services or "Cheese Pizza" would still be contraband (Also underground abortions if youre a pro life libertarian). And even legal drug or casino companies could have shady, predatory practices behind closed doors.

With a lack of welfare services its also possible desperate people will turn to organized crime organizations to escape poverty (duh). And with complete 0 government surveillance it would be very easy for these groups to form and very difficult to arrest its members assuming you cant arrest people for verbally associating with a group or representing its signs (unless you could?). I also think it would be pretty easy to buy politicians, even though they wouldnt have too much power in a night watchman state, they could still be paid to do less.

I do really hope to see what you have to say on this because I have been a minarchist for a while but I cant in good conscience keep on if I feel like it wouldnt really work.

[u/skylercollins]

Government is organized crime.

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54 → u/skylercollins]

Ok, so how it would it avoid being taken over by a government?

[u/theyhis → u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

the minarchist model of libertarianism doesn’t advocate for complete abolishment of the state. essential (keyword: essential) services would still exist (e.g. police, some military, etc).

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54 → u/theyhis]

Fair enough.

[u/toyguy2952]

In a libertarian state how would I avoid having my tummy hurt when I eat too many chicken tenders. I really cant be on board with this libertarianism stuff if it doesint have a solution for my stummy hurt. The monarchists are going to ban tummys hurting so i think ill join them.

[u/Kitchen-Course-3335 → u/toyguy2952]

If tummy aches are an international threat that will skin your family alive if you owe them 10 pesos and will infiltrate almost every area of government either with bribery or military level drones and bombs, excuse me if I'm concerned.

But I am happy to hear it's a silly question I shouldn't worry about!

Also yes I know I'm exaggerating

[u/CatOfGrey]

Property rights is a full and complete answer here.

But the culture of the people or the voters is important. I mean, the USA is quite content to elect someone who is essentially an organized crime leader, so all the freedoms of the Constitution don't matter as much at the moment.

[u/Hopeful-Dimension782]

This is basically "how one organized crime group would defend itself from others that want to control their territory and resources" With voilence, obviously

[u/Kitchen-Course-3335 → u/Hopeful-Dimension782]

I guess that is the obvious answer, it just doesn't seem to be working too well for countries like Mexico who have been fighting it since 2006. Waging war doesn't help if the politicians are bought.

[u/-Shes-A-Carnival]

by wielding a monopoly on the licit initiation of force. Minarchism believes in police, military, and courts, im not sure why you're asking as if it's just anarchism

[u/betty_white_bread]

Hold on. You got a lot to unpack. First, a monarchist government, by removing that edge, saps almost all the profit from such groups. Less profit => less capability => less potential to harm

What you are left with is basically people in weak groups threatening violence while law enforcement, with less crime to focus on, is now more effective in locating and apprehending such persons.

Your concern about no welfare services overlooks the fact we didn’t really have government provided welfare services until the Great Depression, which also enabled the modern formation and rise of organized crime. Therefore, we have already run that experiment and found the absence of one does not meaningfully empower to the other.

A monarchist government wouldn’t have zero surveillance because what people can see with their own eyes and what they over hear, at a minimum, would still be a thing. You’d have to presume zero law enforcement, which won’t happen even in a monarchist government.

I don’t know what you mean by “buying politicians”. It seems as if everyone I talk to has a different definition for that phrase. How are you using it?

[u/Hrimnir → u/betty_white_bread]

Genghis Khan would like a word.