By your choice of methods, we’d all be sitting around with Jim Crow laws still on the books, until the state as a whole collapses. People would of course be free to opt out and drop out, but every now and then the State would keep coming along and crushing people with these odious laws.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this line of thought, and others like it. I don't want to continue in an argument, but I am curious as to your thoughts on this Jraxis:
We all agree that the reason we have a state is because of its perceived legitimacy among most of the people. My question is, when you work to make the state more humane (as opposed to letting it continue in its natural course so that individuals can see its true nature), aren't you lending your humanity to an inherently inhumane entity and increasing its perceived legitimacy in the eyes of others?
First off, I don’t agree with that premise—some believe that the State is legitimate, but some simply fear it or are resigned to put up with its existence. The legitimacy perception certainly isn’t universal. However, that actually doesn’t change the point of your question, so whatever.
As to your question:—
What you’re saying is basically the same as Menno has said, I think: The less oppressive the State is, the more people will perceive it as legitimate or at least tolerate its continued existence. I don’t dispute this. But I don’t think it matters.
The support of the general public is only one part of the equation—the actual dedicated activists who want to see the State completely gone, no matter how harmless it begins to appear, are the other. By the point that we reach something resembling what the minarchists advocate for—a government that protects life, liberty, and property, and goes no further—I believe we’ll have enough activists to keep the movement toward a completely Stateless society going.
So the question becomes, will the general public actually
oppose us at that point (rather than just sit apathetically on the sidelines)?
If the answer is
no, which I think is most likely, then we’ve nothing to worry about. The reason I think that no is the most likely answer is that as we’re going along here tearing down the State, we’re also building up those institutions needed to replace it—the private support networks, private charities, private currencies, private security services, &c., &c.. By the point that we get the State to minarchist levels, we’ll be so close to not even
needing the State anyway, what with all these competing institutions in place, that I don’t believe too many people would be attached to it and even care if we finally do away with it completely. If functioning, successful private security firms exist, that 90% of the people use,
why would someone oppose abolishing the police? Why would people want the government to continue printing fiat scrip when everyone’s using actual precious metals for currency? And so on.
If the answer is
yes, I’m not sure what the solution would be. Perhaps it won’t matter—public opinion doesn’t really seem to affect the course of the State now, so why would it when the State is in the process of abolishing itself? This possibility I’ll admit requires further thought, as we should, and must, be ready for every possible contingency.