The criticism below while correct about externalities is faulty with the fish example. Property Rights(enforced by the state) prevent the tragedy of the commons. As such this is not an issue with the Minarchist ideology.
The criticism section is foolish
- The fishermen can either form a production-limiting cartel like OPEC, or there can be property rights on the fish stocks.
- Externalities can be disincentivised by tort lawsuits, which are allowed under minarchism.
- Government run schools spend a few times more per pupil for slightly worse results than private schools. That is not cost-effective. Categorical safety regulations prevent situational discretion and often lead to waste. And I'm sure we're not getting our money's worth from universities' taxpayer funded lesbian dance theory classes. The theory that welfare reduces crime is completely unsubstantiated bullshit. The exact opposite occurs because it incentivises fatherlessness and over-reproduction of the underclass. — Unsigned, by: 22.214.171.124 / talk / contribs
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Reasons why minarchism will be limited
Having some measure of coordination (and long term planning) is convenient - and economies of scale and common standards etc come into play - and there will be people who prefer being 'the organisers' to 'getting wet and covered in fish-scale' (and if 'ZZ arranges the equivalent of The Knowledge' then fisherpeople G-Z who do not possess it can be marginalised).
There are cases for and against various levels of 'state/guild/other grouping'/agreed common rules- and a minarchist state would probably be operating at a far lower level of economic and technical development than most of its proponents would enjoy. Anna Livia (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)