Talk:Night-watchman state/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

The most widespread objection

Ok, who went out and counted noses so that some objections can be called more widespread than others? Goldfritha 01:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Out it goes, then. Goldfritha 03:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Social contract

As Social contract indicates, governments do not have social contracts; only societies do. And the nightwatch man state would have one: the agreement of the people living under it to live under it. (As the anarchist objection shows, this can not be taken for granted).

Anyone want to clarify that portion? Goldfritha 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In fiction

I noticed that the article on kleptocracy had something about the discworld series, and from the books in it that I have read, that is correct. I think that it can also considered a night watchman state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.100.89.167 (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

eh... I'm really not sure why there's an aside about the right to bear arms in here...

The right to keep and bear arms

The right to keep and bear arms is not part of the basic definition of Night watchman state, so I've moved it to a separate paragraph. I did not add or delete anything. -- Writtenonsand 23:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, a state that does not allow its citizens to bear arms is certainly not minimal. I do not know of any minimal statists that do not support that right. - WarHawk - ( 64.180.217.100 ) <- ISP info added by Writtenonsand 20:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but a state that limits ANY right is not minimal. The right to bear arms doesn't hold any special place.(Dmjboose 16:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

arguments for the night watchman state

this section is either wrong or poorly written, mostly in regard to objectivism. Objectivists don't believe that the actions of a government beyond minarchism can lead to good consequences on the whole, but the article makes it sound like they fall in the same category as the natural law people. I've changed the article to clarify this. Also, the austrian school doesn't sound as though it's a minarchist school of thought, because it only deals with economics, rather than other rights.(Dmjboose 16:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

19th-century England

I was just reading an interview with Charles Stross (http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue343/interview.html) in which he claimed that England was a night-watchman state from 1830 to 1860. Anyone able to go into detail about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.68.112.71 (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Prisons

The prisons can be private also, although in cooperation with the government. The same for the weapons factories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.71.222 (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Link please?

Would a kind soul please put a link to the "tyranny of the majority" article at the end of this paragraph? It is extremely relevant and informative on the topic.

"Another is that if the powers of the night watchman state are limited by a constitution which cannot be amended by the people, then it is undemocratic, although this indicates a general ignorance of the entire point of the night watchman state as an alternative to majoritarian tyranny."

Thanks. MisplacedFate1313 (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this separate from minarchism?

Just curious. It doesn't seem like this subject warrants a separate article, since it seems almost identical to minarchism. -- LightSpectra (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see a short article on the phrase itself if it has an interesting history, but all the pros and cons do belong under minarchism - if they have some sort of reliable resource. For the most part this is all just WP:Original research. Carol Moore 13:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Exactly my question. And why should there be two links on the government portal?

~ender 2008-11-29 11:08:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.18.165 (talk)

"The Left" vs. "socialists"

There is currently a dispute regarding the proper name that should be given to those who oppose a minimal state on the grounds that a welfare state is necessary. The dispute is between calling them "the Left" or "socialism and other ideologies". I strongly believe they should be called the Left. First of all, not all supporters of a welfare state are socialists. Second, not all socialists support a welfare state (radical socialists support a planned economy). "The Left" is a much better term to use. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

While "The left" is better than "socialism and other idealogies", but the left includes a variety of views, most (perhaps all) supporting a welfare state. Liberalism has similar problems. Socialism sounds pejorative when used in this way, and there are many people who do not consider themselves socialist who support some form of a socialist state. Nereocystis 16:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that "the Left" (as well as "the Right") has been historically been used to mean different views, which is especially complicated as we are discussing an historical term. Originally, in the Ball Room, during the French Revolution, the liberals (and that means free market liberals, not American leftists) sat on the Left and conservatives, supporting the ancient regime, on the Right. Nowadays in Russia, Left means the free-market reformers, and Right the conservatives, who would like to return to Soviet era. This means, that the term is really vague. Maybe it would be better sepeak about "the defenders of social security", "the egalitarians" or something alike.--213.243.154.252 10:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The terms Right and Left are indeed vague by themselves, but they have very precise meanings in specific contexts. For example, in the context of present-day Western democracies, Right and Left are very well defined. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing the "Disputed" tag from the article. It gave the misleading impression that there was a strictly factual dispute in progress, while really it's just a fairly tame semantic argument. (For what it's worth, anyone reading the article who's been following politics in any Western nation -- or clicks on "Left" -- will quickly figure out what is meant) --zenohockey 18:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think "the Left" is the preferred term here since the viewpoint is being contrasted with that of the "Right." Having said that, there is the possibility of referring to the aforementioned "Left" as "socially progressive" or "social liberals" in order to further the contrast with the "socially conservative" Right. Perhaps this would provide context for those (including myself) worried about the vague nature of "Left" and "Right." Parallel or Together? 13:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

is not erick mack a mini anarchist ?maybe jan narveson ? what abut exampels of gated comunitys and ferderation of that ? dont rodrick t loong have a bunch of links to mini anrchist ideas and thoeies on his website? will not minianrchist goverment just end up as a federation of gated coumnitys or a fedetartion of clans that have voted ther clan member in to ther goverment and fuled by mony and paperwork/organzation in ther clan dominted terretory (like ubzakistan lebanon somalia or laos )if you dont make a laws that say the mini anrchist can only earn mon as a tax heaven for other countrys or as a gated comuntiy place for ppl in culturers that dont have clans/nepotsim (that from my opion most of orintel/turckis/central asia cultures have ) ?just be a bussnis zone for extropayn stuff made ileagl in europe becuse of religon/tradtion and work like a admsintraon cuncil for that bussnis? xxxboy82.147.38.2 (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism and Minarchism

Here are some sources that I compiled for the libertarianism page. Most of them will work here as well. The diagrams are solely to facilitate discussion.

The sources first establish a strong connection between classical liberalism and libertarianism. Next they identify who the most prominent libertarians are. Lastly they look at their viewpoints on the scope of government.

Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism

The word liberal has an odd history. It comes from the same root as liberty, and originally it simply meant ""free."" In that broad sense, the United States as a whole is a liberal country, and all popular American ideologies are variants of liberalism. In a more restricted definition, a liberal was a person who believed in limited government and who opposed religion in politics. A hundred years ago, liberalism referred to a philosophy that in some ways resembeled modern-day libertarianism. For that reason, many libertarians today refer to themselves as classical liberals. - American Government and Politics Today 2008: The Essentials

The classical liberal movements of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are, of course, the forebears of contemporary libertarian thought. - Total freedom: toward a dialectical libertarianism

Contemporary libertarians believe, with some legitimacy, that the greatest threat to liberty is an expanding government with a monopoly on state power. Their answer: limit government, protect a basic skein of fundamental rights, and the rest will work itself out. In this respect, libertarians are true heirs of the classical liberal tradition. - The Political Centrist

Libertarianism has been more an intellectual than popular movement since its ancestor, classical liberalism, was first articulated by John Locke. William Maddox and Stuart Lillie identified six tenets of classical liberalism to which American libertarians subscribe in a modified form today: individualism, an instrumental view of the state, limited government, individual rights, legal equality, and representative government. These six tenets cluster around two domestic policy questions - the proper role of government and the prescriptions for apparent social inequalities. - Hostile takeover: the House Republican Party, 1980-1995

Scalet and Schmidtz quite correctly identify the classical liberal contribution to political theory as its focus on limited government, rather than (as classical liberals are often accused of preferring) "weak" government. The size of government is not the primary concern of classical liberals; its limits are. Limited governments tend to be small relative to unlimited governments. They also note that "classical liberals have been champions of democracy." The two issues - limited government and democracy - have traditionally been linked together in classical liberal thought by the theory of constitutionalism, which limits the powers of majorities no less than of minorities. - Realizing freedom: libertarian theory, history, and practice

Most Prominent/Influential Libertarians

This source establishes the prominence of Jefferson, Tocqueville, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek and Ayn Rand...

Libertarians cite as progenitors Jefferson, Tocqueville, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill as well as economists of the Austrian school Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom (1944). But most Republican libertarians were first inspired not by these classical liberals but by the author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. - New York Magazine Mar 4, 1996

This source establishes the prominence of John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer...

John Stuart Mill, the great and generous theorist of liberalism, and Herbert Spencer, a major exponent of laissez-faire individualism, whose writings appealed immensely to the Spanish anarchists, can be - and have been - rightly designated as 'libertarians' - Anarchist seeds beneath the snow

This source establishes the prominence of John Stuart Mill...

In contemporary times, libertarians have positioned themselves as the heirs to J. S. Mill and his defense of individual liberty. Their ideas have grown increasingly influential. Contemporary libertarians embrace Mill's On Liberty because it "sounds important libertarian themes: that individuals should be free to live as they choose so long as they don't harm others and that the power of government should be strictly limited." - Putting ideas to work: a practical introduction to political thought

This source establishes the prominence of Robert Nozick...

With thirty years' distance on its publication, one can safely assert that Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) has achieved the status of a classic. It is not only the central text for all contemporary academic discussions of libertarianism; together with John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971), it arguably framed the landscape of academic political philosophy in the last decades of the twentieth century. - Natural rights liberalism from Locke to Nozick, Part 1

This source establishes the prominence of John Stuart Mill, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand...

This political philosophy has a long pedigree. It has roots in the classical liberalism of eighteenth- and nineteenth- century British thinkers such as John Stuart Mill, and, more recently, in the Austrian school of economics represented more powerfully in the United States by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. On a more popular level, the novelists Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein proved effective propagators of a radical anti-statist, individualist ethos, and according to historian Brian Doherty, more than half of the earliest Libertarians cited one of those two authors as their primary ideological influence. - Encyclopedia of American political history

Libertarians on the Scope of Government

John Stuart Mill's viewpoint on the scope of government...

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. - On Liberty

Ayn Rand's viewpoint on the scope of government...

The proper functions of a government fall into three broad categories, all of them involving the issues of physical force and the protection of men’s rights: the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws. - The Nature of Government

Herbert Spencer viewpoint on the scope of government (shorter)...

The challenge facing Americans today in defending constitutionally limited government was succinctly stated by the English libertarian Herbert Spencer in 1884: "The function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the powers of kings. The function of true Liberalism in the future will be that of putting a limit to the powers of Parliaments - Realizing freedom: libertarian theory, history, and practice

Herbert Spencer's viewpoint on the scope of government (longer)...

And now mark that whether we consider government from this point of view, or from that previously occupied, our conclusions respecting it are in essence identical. For when government fulfils the function here assigned it, of retaining men in the circumstances to which they are to be adapted, it fulfils the function which we on other grounds assigned it — that of protector. To administer justice, — to mount guard over men's rights, — is simply to render society possible. And seeing that the two definitions are thus at root the same, we shall be prepared for the fact that, in whichever way we specify its duty, the State cannot exceed that duty without defeating itself. For, if regarded as a protector, we find that the moment it does anything more than protect, it becomes an aggressor instead of a protector; and, if regarded as a help to adaptation, we find that when it does anything more than sustain the social state, it retards adaptation instead of hastening it. - Social statics

Robert Nozick viewpoint on the scope of government...

Our main conclusions about the state are that a minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified; that any more extensive state will violate persons' rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified; and that the minimal state is inspiring as well as right. Two noteworthy implications are that the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection. - The Political Theory of Robert Nozick

Adam Smith's viewpoint on the scope of government...

Although Smith was against governmental interference with the market, he had a a theory of government sometimes known as the "duties of the sovereign". The system of natural liberty required the sovereign to perform three duties; defense, the exact administration of justice, and the erection and maintenance of public works. Even though he was a libertarian, Smith realized that the market could not provide certain public goods which were too expensive for provision by private individuals. - Public Sector Economics for Developing Countries

Ludwig von Mises's viewpoint on the scope of government...

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists. We must emphasize this point because etatists sometimes try to discover a similarity. Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state. Liberals fully recognize that no social coöperation and no civilization could exist without some amount of compulsion and coercion. It is the task of government to protect the social system against the attacks of those who plan actions detrimental to its maintenance and operation. - Omnipotent Government

Friedrich Hayek's viewpoint on the scope of government...

These words were even more significant because of the government services to which he applied them - "without exception to all those services of which government possesses a legal monopoly, with the only exception of maintaining and enforcing the law and maintaining for this purpose an armed force, i.e. all those from education to transport and communications, including post, telegraph, telephone and broadcasting services, all the so-called 'public utilities,' the various 'social' insurances and, above all, the issue of money." In the last pages of Law, Legislation and Liberty, published in 1979, Hayek the classical liberal became Hayek the libertarian. - Friedrich Hayek: a biography

Milton Friedman's viewpoint on the scope of government...

First, the scope of government must be limited. Its major functions must be to protect our freedom both from the enemies outside our gates and from our fellow-citizens: to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets. Beyond this major function, government may enable us at times to accomplish jointly what we would find it more difficult or expensive to accomplish severally. However, any such use of government is fraught with danger. We should not and cannot avoid using government this way. But there should be a clear and large balance of advantages before we do. By relying primarily on voluntary co-operation and private enterprise, in both economic and other activities, we can insure that the private sector is a check on the powers of the governmental sector and an effective protection of freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought. - Capitalism and freedom

Dick Armey's viewpoint on the scope of government...

While one can reject this notion of a stripped-down state, libertarianism is a principled and coherent worldview. It provides an answer to every question. Police departments and the army - yes. Just about everything else - no. Ask most politicians, from Gingrich to Clinton, what the role of the federal government is, and you'll get a stream of mush. Poke a libertarian and you'll get a response like the one Dick Armey gave shortly after becoming majority leader: "Defend our shores, build a system of justice, and construct some infrastructure. Gee, I'm running out of other suggestions." - New York Magazine Mar 4, 1996

David Boaz's viewpoint on the scope of government...

Libertarians argue that we can and should move a long way toward minimal government; outside of the protection of our rights by police, courts, and national defense, it's hard to think of goods and services that could be produced more efficiently by a government bureaucracy than in the competitive marketplace. - Libertarianism: A Primer

James Walsh's viewpoint on the scope of government...

Libertarians accept the need for a limited state - if only to provide basic levels of safety and security. Their focus is keeping the state limited to a disciplined - and small - number of activities. Anarchists still want to smash the mechanisms of state. As I've noted, anarchy is an emotional system. - Liberty in Troubled Times: A Libertarian Guide to Laws, Politics and Society in a Terrorized World

Richard A. Epstein's viewpoint on the scope of government...

This basic insight - law must control the most lawless - lies behind the strong insistence on the basic rules of ordinary society. It also explains the libertarian's constant theoretical emphasis that the function of government is to control the use of force and fraud against the person and property of others. - Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws

Here's a simple yet effective definition of libertarianism...

A political ideology that is opposed to all government action except as necessary to protect life and property - The Challenge of Democracy: Government in America

My favorite definition...

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins. - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr

--Xerographica (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Anarchist criticism

I elaborated upon the reasoning behind anarchistic criticisms of the night watchman state, since other criticisms were more in-depth and because I think the anarchist criticism is the one that resonates most with supporters of the night watchman state. I'm afraid I don't have any citations of the top of my head. --142.244.174.129 (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That like all others need a WP:Reliable source. In fact, it's so bad maybe much of the material should be deleted if no one is going to reference it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

To discuss, go here:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Merger_proposal_:_Minarchism. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this article is a copy and paste of the Minarchism page. There really shouldn't even be a page to link to.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

This has been discussed before. They are two different things and therefore deserve their own articles. byelf2007 (talk) 22 July 2011

The first paragraph of this article is a copy and paste of Minarchism; That’s a merger by default. (Just because everyone was wrong before doesn’t mean they will always be “malinformed.” After al, everyone “kknew” the world was flat for millions of years.)Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

"The first paragraph of this article is a copy and paste of Minarchism; That’s a merger by default."

No it isn't.

Night watchmen state:

A night watchman state, or a minimal state, is a form of government in political philosophy where the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only governmental institutions would be the military, police, courts, and legislatures, with some theories also including prisons. Advocacy of a minimal state is known as minarchism.

Minarchism:

Minarchism (also known as minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism is a libertarian political philosophy which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only governmental institutions would be the military, police, courts, and legislatures, with some theories also including prisons. (Such states are sometimes called night watchman states.) Some minarchists support taxation. Minarchism is closely associated with classical liberalism.

So please read the paragraphs next time.

Anyway, about this issue, one thing is about a type of government, and another is about advocacy of that type of government.

Ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

byelf2007 (talk) 28 July 2011

Do NPOT call me a lair or illeterate again. It IS merged already.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

You said "The first paragraph of this article is a copy and paste of Minarchism; That’s a merger by default." And I pointed out that that wasn't true. Now you're telling me the paragraphs are similar. Yes, they are; they aren't a "copy and paste". I didn't call you a liar or illiterate. I said "So please read the paragraphs next time." Anyway, "minarchism" is advocacy of a "night watchmen state". So minarchism and a night watchmen state a two different things, and, therefore, they deserve two different articles. You claim that "It is merged by default." Where is the wikipedia standard which says something to the effect of "If there are two articles about similar things where much of their respective first paragraphs, are, by necessity, similar, they must be merged."?

There is a precendent already set for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_culture

Oppose see above. byelf2007 (talk) 28 July 2011

All you did was point out several other examples of pages that are, by default, merged already. Simply renaming something doesn’t change its substance; Water is still water, whether it’s Ice, Steam, or Liquid, or for that matter H2O. ¿Do Water Ice, Water Steam, and Liquid Water necessitate their own articles? ¿Why then should Minarchism be considered “different” from “Night Watchman State? It’s a ridiculous assertion that smells of advocacy, rather than neutrality, and is a fine example of my signature: Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

On a less impassioned note, you may wish to work on that list of yours; The way it was constructed, I though “Anarchy” and Communism” were somehow related. A REDDSON

Minarchism in lead is disorganized/POV?

I changed it because:

With anarchism advocating no government, and statism advocating some level of government, minarchism is a form of statism.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] This sentence at the end of first paragraph doesn't even define minarchism and leaves people to figure out it's same as "minimal state." At very least it would come at end of next paragraph.
Advocacy of a night watchman state is known as minarchism. Minarchists argue that the state has no right to use its monopoly on the use of force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that transactions between private individuals are free. Minarchists generally advocate a laissez faire approach to the economy. This is the place to define night watchman state, not minarchism. And it's not even ref'd. Unless you want to just say night watchman state is minarchism, and you need a ref for that. I know some people want to merge the two articles, but this is not the way to do it.

So what is the rationale for leaving it like this? 21:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It's because of anarchists arguing against any form of government. Minarchism threatens the notion of anarchism, and technically minarchism is a form of statism, as to the word denotatively being any form of government. So it is pointed out often when discoursing with an anarchist ideologues; which is a common occurrence, seeing how they both oppose practically all current governments and ones in modern history, and as such are often political allies. The connotation to the word itself is quite important to anarchist argumentation. As are the connotations of the word statism being to minarchists. The anarchist insistence is no doubt why it is sourced with over a dozen citations. This is mortally important to anarchists.

Overall from my experience, the whole string of arguments largely amounts to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pissing_contest

Semantics notwithstanding, I am against removing the information. It could however be re-moved to another area in the article, to better lead into it's presentation. I also don't find a nightwatchman state to be directly synonymous with minarchism. A nightwatchman state could be well argued as being a particular, specific form of minarchism just as Trotskyism is particular, specific form of Marxism. 75.252.123.80 (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Name change without discussion

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Some WP:RS use it; a larger number do not. It's not even used in this article. WP:Hyphen should not override real world uses. Why change it without discussion? CarolMooreDC 00:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree there should be no hyphen, as the term has historically not included one. I'm certainly open to persuasion on this. Perhaps it makes more sense to have it (and we could say it the article that it has generally been written without the hyphen). Unfortunately, the editor didn't explain the edit. Byelf2007 (talk) 22 February 2012

I left a note at the editor's talk page about this and if he doesn't explain soon, I may ask an admin to revert. I don't know how to. CarolMooreDC 21:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears that this move (rename) can still be reverted. Is there consensus to omit the hyphen from the title? Jeh (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I support removing the hyphen and I think you and I are the only people who care right now, so I guess that's consensus. Byelf2007 (talk) 17 July 2012

What is the history of this concept?

To be honest, I'm wondering if this was an inspiration for Alan Moore's graphic novel with its theme of "who will watch the watchmen"? In this case I'm thinking it will be the people with money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.89.186.134 (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is an old proverb which goes far back before the 19th century... AnonMoos (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Prominent criticism omitted

In the 19th century, it seemed clear to many that the concept of a Night-watchman state was contrived to allow those government activities which helped rich people to hold on to their wealth, and forbid all others (along the same lines as the concept of the law which in its majestic impartiality prohibits rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges). I have no idea what modern "minarchists" think about this, but I think it was reasonably prominent in nineteenth century discussions on the topic... AnonMoos (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Standard bearer?

Re: the text in the lead "19th-century Britain has been described^{[by whom?]} as standard-bearer of this form of government among European countries",

Who and why has described 19th-century Britain thus? 19th-century Britain had a wide range of social and other laws and provisions. I'm curious as to who and why it is described in this way and wonder if it represents anything approaching a general viewpoint. Pincrete (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

"Projects"

The projects mentioned aren't necessarily minarchist or aimed at making a night-watchman state. Sure, the New Hampshire project is done to make the state more libertarian, but no where do they mention it being turned into a night-watchman or minarchist state as an end goal. Same with Liberland.

--105.98.56.240 (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

You do have a point. I checked the sources used to cite the New Hampshire project; searching for terms like "Minarchy", "Minarchism", "Night-watchman state", or even just the characters "minar" and "night" show that there are no results. I'll comb through them and see which ones to keep. I'll also add the {{expand section}} tag. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 05:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Done I ended up looking at every source cited and every Wikipedia article with an in-text link. No results for any of the terms used here. To declare these projects night-watchman states or minarchist states would unfortunately be original research and WP:SYNTHESIS as it draws conclusions not provided by the sources. Regretfully, this means the "Projects" section is empty and removed. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 06:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Minarchism

The old Minarchism page was more useful. This merger makes the page uncitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.64.155 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? This article contains the same sourced information that the Minarchism article did, but overall there is more information. Not only that, but the Daily Pageviews appear to have increased, meaning more people are finding the information. The merge proposal lasted a very long time, but in the end there was a consensus reached that we should merge the two. Now the sourced material from both articles (which covered essentially the same information) can be found on a single article, and more people are able to find the information because searching for Minarchism still leads here because of the redirect. I see only positives for those seeking information on the subject. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 05:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Somebody I know inquired about limited government and I was going to send them to this page. Luckily I checked first. It has been gutted. Pointless to send them here now. Don’t have time to figure out what happened (Night Watchman State? Minarchist/Minarchy is now capitalized?). I see from recent comments an editor seems to think a source has to reference either term by name to be a source for this article. That’s showing a total lack of understanding of the topic. I’ll come back to this later. —В²C ☎ 14:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A few things - 1) We spent more than six months straight discussing the merge, and there was a clear consensus in favor of it. 2) Yes, to declare that a project or an event is an example of minarchism or a night-watchman state when no source says that is definitively original research as it draws conclusions that were never made in the source. You can try to say that it's not because your own research has led you to believe that it would make sense to describe a micronation like "Liberland" as "a night-watchman state project" but if the article you use to back up that statement in no way, shape, or form tried to state that, then you can't use it to cite such a statement. These are the basics of the encyclopedia. 3) The number of pageviews since the merge has doubled now that both terms link to the same article, whereas the reader previously had to read two separate articles with neither being in good shape. This page contains all sourced information from both articles. There is no case to be made that this was detrimental. Now the readers can find all sourced content from both pages in the same article, and searching for either term brings them to the same page. We didn't spend half a year discussing to "gut" the page, we spent half a year discussing to merge the page, and the consensus mandated that we go through with it. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

First paragraph

The first paragraph started with what a night-watchman state was associated with even before defining what a night-watchman state is, which is a little confusing when you read it for the first time.

Shouldn't it begin by defining what the term refers to, and then move on to the ideological associations?

So I think it would go better like this:

"A night-watchman state is a model of state that is limited and minimal, and whose only functions are to act as an enforcer of the non-aggression principle by providing its citizens with the military, the police and courts, thereby protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud and enforcing property laws. Its proponents are called minarchists.[1][2][3] Nineteenth-century Britain has been described by historian Charles Townshend as a standard-bearer of this form of government among Western countries.[4]

The theory is mainly associated with libertarianism in the United States, Objectivist and right-libertarian political philosophy. However, Minarchism has also been advocated by non-anarchist libertarian socialists and..."

Also, I'm not sure "theory" would be the right appellation for a night-watchman state. It's more like a form of government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.98.64.51 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)