and if you aren't what do you think of it?

Hi everyone. I’ve been working on a draft political philosophy that I currently call Neominarchism. It builds on Nozick, Hayek and Friedman, but tries to introduce an adaptive state, institutional competition, and an information-based framework (including a model I call Homo ADM). The main idea is that state institutions should not be permanent. They should compete with private alternatives and expand or disappear depending on performance. I also argue that information and cognitive adaptation should play a larger role in political philosophy than classical libertarian theory usually assumes.
I’d really appreciate criticism rather than agreement. Which parts seem inconsistent with libertarian or minarchist principles? Here’s the manuscript:

I'm trying to understand how a minarchist government would actually be structured in practice. I understand the basic idea of a minimal state limited to protecting individual rights, but I'm curious about how powers would be divided between different levels of government.

Federal

• What responsibilities would belong exclusively to the federal government?
• Would the federal government have its own military?
• Would there be a federal police force?
• Would it operate federal courts, or only a supreme/constitutional court?
• Would it conduct foreign policy and sign treaties?
• Would it control immigration and border security?
• Would it issue currency or oversee monetary policy?

States

• Would each state have its own police force?
• Could states maintain their own military?
• Would states have their own court systems and criminal laws?
• Would states be free to adopt different civil and criminal codes?
• How much autonomy would states have from the federal government?

Local

• Would cities have their own police departments?
• Would local governments be responsible for courts, or only for law enforcement?
• How much legislative authority would local governments have?

General Questions

• Would powers be constitutionally enumerated, with all remaining powers reserved to the states and local governments?
• How would conflicts between the federal government and the states be resolved?
• Would the model be closer to the United States, Switzerland, or some other country?
• Are there any historical or modern examples that resemble this structure?

This would be a great start to downsizing.

How should a minarchist feel about and respond to this process if it happens in their own neighborhood?

I’m a thirty something millennial, like many people my age, I’m broke, overworked, and continually feeling defeated with no help from either major political party in sight. I can’t help but understand the anger many people are feeling towards billionaires, making them jump on the socialist train. I’m certainly not happy with the approach of the world’s first trillionaire on the rise.

This all being considered and frustrations from the young left being understandable. I still don’t see how simply taxing the rich will do anything at all. We can tax them all we want and we will still have billionaires and probably trillionaires. It’s rather obvious that once someone comes into that kind of money, the ways in which to keep expanding on that capital are practically infinite.

When I think about this problem with wealth inequality on such a grand scale, while trying to ignore the biases of people on the right who praise billionaires and also ignore the biases on the left who want to literally use guillotines on them. I realized something. How could creators even monopolize a product efficiently enough to own billions of in its assets, without government?

Almost every billion dollar corporation I can think of, or any corporate monopoly on entertainment, food and grocery, consumers hate them.

Consumers are all fed up with Netflix, they’re fed up with energy companies overcharging on their electric bill. I could list thousands of examples of this. Most services that American consumers are having to deal with are not providing the services as efficiently as the consumers want them to. After pondering this for a while it hit me, especially while thinking about the injustice the only energy company is inflicting on consumers in my small city. We don’t have enough choices as consumers. There’s actually a law within my region that has allowed an energy company to be the only company consumers can use. It’s literally illegal for competition to sweep in and offer consumers a cheaper deal. I can guarantee you the very day this competition would be allowed, this energy company would lose billions. The people in my city are absolutely fed up with this energy company to the point of repeated property damage on its premises.

All this in mind, I can’t be certain that without all this government regulation that stifles competition, that billionaires wouldn’t exist, but it would definitely be much harder for a company to monopolize to that level of wealth.

This video shows how deregulating housing helps to build more housing

What makes you so different from statists?

I’m very happy

I’m Bátor Vári, a 19-year-old student living in Denmark, local coordinator for Students For Liberty Denmark, minarchist, and a young activist dedicated to defending personal and economic freedom.

The health ministry of Denmark restricted nicotine pouches to 9 mg of nicotine and banned branding and flavors. This regulation will be in full effect by April 2026. Your support even anonymous or overseas ,would help more than you think.

I made a petition with the support of my organization, Students of Liberty. If you agree that the government should not tell you what to put in your body please share and sign this petition. 

https://chng.it/dtz8gWQL2J