This analysis uncovers a paradox in minarchism's logic, suggesting the possibility of a more stable social order.
The question of which social setting best minimizes coercion has long divided the libertarian community. Minarchists advocate for a minimal state confined to police, defense, and justice, while anarcho-capitalists call for the complete abolition of the state in favor of market-based alternatives. This enduring debate is not merely ideological but logical. This work, inspired by radical constructivism, employs a method derived from constructivist psychology, and rooted in formal logic, as a conceptual tool to analyze and deconstruct the logical underpinnings of each position. By revealing a paradox at the core of minarchism, the analysis reframes the debate and offers new perspectives on the search for a stable, liberty-maximizing social order.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pietro Brugnolo (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: