I’m a 17 year old male who have been in the background of your forum reading everything :P. I’m trying to get a hold of some books from Ludvig von Mises and others that you recommended in the thread “Praxeology:reading list” but it’s 3 months waiting time untill I get some of them… Nor do the shops got any. Untill I get those I plan on continue readin here and I’m half way through “Essentials of Economics - A brief survay of principles and policies” by Faustino Ballvé. Great so far!
I have a question that involves Africa and anacrcy. Africa is very rogued through the decades with wars, water-, food shortages dictators etc. What in an anacry society prevents “government” foring, exeuting and/or taxiting it’s inhabitants? What I’m saying what protects a person or a group of people from being robbed. As a goverment is a mafia like instution, what would protect you from the mafia. And what would prevent it from arising again and why have this not happen yet in Africa or any country/region/society/group of people yet?
If it’s in the wrong sub forum please let me know so that I might delete it or if you could remove it so that I can repost it, or if you could move it that would be great.
I haven’t found a satisfactory answer to this either. it seems as soon as you institute anarchy, a group of people will get together and start extorting others. if others do not band together to fight these people off they will be picked off one by one. if they do band together you’re back to government that taxes for defense.
I would take adequate precaution by purchasing protection on the competitive marketplace for security.
But unless people shed their fear of competition in security, they will never dare to try anything other than collective security with all of its pitfalls.
People would act to protect themselves. Individuals can pool there resources into a corporation that would provide for their collective defense. This way, through economy of scale, they all would be safer then if they defended themselves personally.(Though don’t overlook the effectiveness of even personal defense).
The state is dangerous preciously because ideology prevents people from reacting to the state’s aggression in the way they react to every other kind.
And why has not this happen in Africa? Is it only a matter of time, speical circumstances or what is it? In my OP I said I wondered why this has not (yet?) happen.
Africa was an anarchic, albeit primitive, society before the European powers carved it up into states. Because the state is an alien concept it has become particularly corrupt there.
Unfortunately there is no inevitable force of history to sweep the state away as some people proclaim. If you want the state to be abolished, then you have to do it.
and why wouldn’t these defense contractors eventually turn into what we would regard as a government? it seems to me like the history of government is the story of small governments slowly gaining more and more power. How was the roman republic protected if not by defense contractors (individual armies loyal to one general or CEO if you will)?
then a smart defense contractor (Julius Casar) comes along and turns the roman republic into the roman empire. “the people” did not band together to stop him. Indeed he had popular support among the people. As long as the bread and circus continued the people don’t give a damn. Increase the bread and circus and you have easy support.
So anarcy is not a natural state of human relationship (or atleast not a natural end of society evoulation?) then how is it to be sustained. Is it a form of stable form or raelation ship (like a partnership between humans) or a unstable form like criminals where you can switch side in ablink of an eye. Granted not any society is natural but they tend to follow each other.
Anarchy is natural so long as there is no worldwide government. The different states are in anarchy towards each other, and support each other against upstart forces.
I don’t consider myself an anarchist because anarchy is not any form of society specifically, just the quality of a society that does not have a single master. “Anarchy” is not an answer to the question of how such a society is to be organized.
When I said natural I ment natural in the sense of it’s self sustainible. Think for a bird it’s natural for it to eat, as it must do so to survive. Also in the sense of swimming of eating not to be so smart.
What do you mean with anarchy is not the answer to how a society should be? Please elaborate.. As I’ve understood it anarchy is a society where the individual has the power to choose for herself. Also the absense of monopoly of force?
Well, you do need, or rather better have, a strongly developed market. I’ve already tried to discuss this in another thread. For example, having a stock market already in place makes it much easier and safer to invest, and this goes for investing in security as well.
Let me put it this way: there are many different forms of societies that fit the label “anarchy”. The global society of states is an anarchy, although it is one that does not allow us mere mortals to participate. Likewise there are many different types of anarchists, some of whom are extremely destructive and would not be inclined to established a prosperous society should they be given the chance.