Though I would consider myself a libertarian, and anarchist only ideally (or just an idea I don’t have total belief in), I always end up in arguments about anarchy, and always get the argument that anarchy is Utopian. How would the anarchists on this board respond? The idea is to show people who are only somewhat politically intelligent,
Why would a libertarian have a marxist for their avatar?
Anarchy is utopian… because?
It is not easy to prove that the policy and the results which the doctrine anarchocapitalism represents is not utopian. It is an extreme doctrine which suggests that we should attempt to enact a system which has never existed within the modern world and which, as far as I can tell, has yet to be adequately substantiated. It is important to note that this thread, whether it will ultimately contain 5 replies or ultimately contain 900 replies, will not ultimately provide any sort of adequate proof that the doctrine anarchocapitalism is not a utopist doctrine.
Lol, finally someone noticed I had George Galloway. I used to be a socialist a long time ago, but I’ve had some libertarian socialist friends. What I share with George Galloway is his anti imperialist stance, especially for being one of the only politicians with enough balls in the west to stand against Israeli imperialism.
I figured it is to a certain extent, I just don’t think people should see it in such a bad light, how could I argue that then.
I noticed a long time ago. I just didnt think you were libertarian, which you are now claiming to be.
No I am. Definitely, when I was younger I didn’t have much of an economic stance, just mostly political (which was classical liberalism/libertarianism). When I was a kid I watched a lot of John Stossel’s programs on the news, and even my father is a free market libertarian. If I can identify with anything politically, it has always been libertarianism. I just have a lot of allies and priorities.
It depends on what they mean by “Utopian”. If enough people stop paying taxes and collecting taxes, then we will have anarchy, and it won’t matter what they think.
I do not think so, either. To be a proponent of it is becoming more and more respectable, though.
I do not understand the above question.
I mean how can one present anarchy in a good light outside of comparing it to libertarianism? Because that’s what I tried to do to this guy (though he just kept on bashing anarchy on the same premise of it being utopian). This topic isn’t made so much to go back and argue with him.
how does he support the assertion that anarchy is utopian?
Some people say anarchy is utopian because…
-It would crumble from the inside
-it would be destroyed from the outside
-we can never get rid of all government
-old ladies would die, dogs and cats would live together, children would run feral in the streets
So what is the reason it is Utopian?
I think that the most effective to do that is to (a) argue that non-monopolic conditions should exist in all other facets of the market and then (b) argue that, if the precedent arguments are true, they would also apply to the provision of law and order. In fact, that is the ratiocination whence most anarchocapitalists originated their conversion to anarchocapitalism.
He said chaos would arise and goverment vanishing is impossible. He took an incredibly negative view on it, as if anarchy would mean rape in the streets.
You mean stuff that happens now and goes unpunished? Golly gee, can’t have teh anarkiez though! That’d be like… insane.
don’t let someone with such a pathetic power of argument bother you for a pico-second. srsly.
I really wish I had at least one person from this forum to pal around to help in political arguments. It’s hard being probably the only libertarian on campus.
To get to capitalist anarchy, most people must first hold self ownership and property rights in very high regard. If they do not, then capitalist anarchy will not come about, or even a remotely libertarian society. If today a state collapses while people still believe in the right of the monopolist, then quickly different factions would wage war in order to get control, and one of them would be successful and there would be a new state. They would have to fly under the democracy banner, because people don’t accept anything else. Or they could blame democracy for failing before and would go for more authoritarian.
The point is, power relies on ideology. Power cannot rely on arms alone. It would be completely unsustainable.
So IF most people will be convinced of liberty, then a micro-state or less would absolutely happen. No group of people trying to get economic control over millions of people could succeed, and certainly not over a longer period of time.
The next question regarding utopia is: can lots of people come to believe in self-ownership and property rights, and reject economic exploitation? So the question is: are these beliefs and actions compatible with human nature? And I would say: absolutely. It totally fits the human psyche: to not hurt other people and respect them and their property. Why? Because our mind processes what we do and we know it when we hurt other people. So to become healthy human beings like that we need to be raised properly and educated properly. To me, all the signs point toward people being raised better and better compared to generations before and the same is true for education. It’s so easy now to find information and learn.
Did he substantiate those claims whatsoever?