Kyrylo Somkin

The Neominarchist Manifesto 1.0V

Introduction

Neominarchism is a political philosophy inspired by Nozick's minarchism but extending it through the idea of institutional competition and voluntary financing. The core idea of neominarchism is not the abolition of state institutions such as courts, hospitals, and other social institutions, but the ability to avoid paying taxes on them and transform them into competitive and democratic structures that compete with the private sector. The state simply shouldn't fund institutions through involuntary taxes and without the ability to see where the money goes, no matter how effective they are, and the question of whether state institutions are even necessary is open to debate. Instead, these structures will have to be paid for voluntarily, not through taxes. Institutions such as hospitals will compete on equal terms with private ones, and if people use a state hospital, it will be able to develop and compete. However, if hospitals are not recognized by the market, the state must either improve their quality, operate at a deficit, or, logically, disband and exit the medical market. It is also denied that taxes cannot have moral value. The manifesto recognizes taxes as being not only economically effective but also morally justifiable in cases where they are deemed effective. Taxes should be flexible payments that are minimally transparent to the economic agent, and their expenditures should be spent efficiently, transparently, and democratically. Each agent should be informed of expenses and taxes, and the state should morally and economically justify its intervention in the agent's work and activities, so that it is not perceived as unpaid labor for the state. The legitimacy of institutions should come not only from their existence or legal authority, but from their ability to continuously demonstrate value to individuals.

Part I — Foundations

Problems of Modern Systems

In the modern world, the idea of a minimal state has lost much of its popularity. At the same time, many societies face increasing state involvement in economic and social life. When citizens become excessively dependent on centralized institutions, the state risks transforming from a provider of public services into a dominant monopoly over important social functions. However, the alternative of a completely unrestricted market also creates significant challenges. Economic power can become concentrated, especially in areas such as housing, infrastructure, and essential services. Without effective institutional competition, both the state and private corporations may develop forms of monopoly power.

Existing economic and political traditions often struggle to address these challenges. Some approaches rely on highly rational models of human decision-making, while others reject formal models and underestimate the importance of empirical research from behavioral economics and neuroeconomics. A modern political framework must recognize that humans are neither perfectly rational agents nor completely predictable actors.

Classical liberalism demonstrated the importance of limiting state power and protecting individual freedom. However, a state without mechanisms for adaptation and competition may gradually lose its ability to provide effective institutions. Conversely, excessive state dominance can create dependency, lobbying, and inefficient allocation of resources.

Neominarchism begins from the idea that the main challenge of the 21st century is not choosing between state and market, but creating competitive and adaptive institutions where neither side can become an uncontrolled monopoly.Critique of minarchism and classical liberalism

Critique of Classical Liberalism and Classical Minarchism

Classical liberalism has become one of the main political forms of government in most countries. But liberalism faces a crisis and a left-authoritarian turn. Hoping to build a compromise between leftists and rights, classical liberalism faces a tension between preserving individual autonomy and responding to demands for security, equality, and social stability. and, in both cases, begins to interfere with individuals' personal lives and the market economy, gradually turning the agent into a dependent of the state. State-provided security measures are not only ineffective (as evidenced by the number of terrorist attacks) but also infringe on freedom and anonymity, distorting the freedoms the state itself offered in exchange for social benefits. Here we see that the state has effectively traded freedom from the individual for bread, circuses, and speed. As a result, classical liberalism begins to consume itself, moving away from its original position toward either right-wing or left-wing authoritarianism.

Minarchism is distinguished by its radicalism and the transformation of the state into an unnecessary institution. A Nozick-style protection agency that becomes a natural monopoly could also lose its monopoly or create oligopolies that would fragment the country, which would simply lead to neo-feudalism and be an unstable institution.The absence of mechanisms addressing land concentration raises the question of whether essential resources such as urban land can become excessively concentrated among a small number of owners. Land itself is needed by everyone, so a lack of demand for expensive, small houses is impossible. In addition, there is insufficient funding for security institutions such as the army. The latter is simply the inability of a state in minarchism to take measures; even in a successful scenario, an extremely limited state may face difficulties maintaining strategic autonomy, diplomatic capacity, and defense capabilities..

We cannot say whether the state of old minarchism will be a victim of lobbying by another global company, even if we take into account that lobbying will not bring such benefits as in the case of classical liberalism. Other corporations with connections in other states will be able to manipulate the foreign and then domestic policies of such a state.

Limitations of Homo Economicus and Homo Agents

Neominarchism recognizes the significant contributions of both the Austrian and Chicago schools to economic thought. Their emphasis on market coordination, individual choice, incentives, and the limitations of centralized planning remains highly influential. However, both traditions face challenges when applied to the complexity of modern economic systems. The Chicago school often relies on models of highly rational agents capable of optimizing decisions based on available information. While these models are useful for analysis, developments in behavioral economics and neuroeconomics demonstrate that human decision-making is influenced by cognitive limitations, emotions, biases, and unconscious processes.

The Austrian school emphasizes subjective knowledge and rejects excessive reliance on formal mathematical models. However, a complete rejection of empirical and quantitative methods may limit the ability to analyze complex economic phenomena and test theoretical predictions. Neominarchism argues that economic theory should integrate the insights of both approaches while incorporating modern findings from behavioral science, neuroeconomics, and empirical research. Humans are neither perfectly rational calculators nor completely unpredictable actors; they are adaptive agents operating under limited information and cognitive constraints.

Therefore, political and economic institutions should be designed not for an idealized human being, but for real individuals with limited knowledge, changing preferences, and the ability to learn and adapt.