Do people really want anarchy?

[Niccolo]

@GWilly

Do People really want Anarchy? - Quite simply & undeniably - as it stands today - the Answer is No!!

some may not like this Answer - some may chosse to write pages of diatribe to conceal this answer - but this does not change this answer.

IMHO if we were able to take a survey you would find that most people are currently Minarchists, and are probably unaware of this themselves.

You Guys seem to treat Mutualism as a dirty word ("Mutualism is a biological interaction between individuals of two different species*, where both individuals derive a* fitness benefit") WIKI and would choose not to allow this interaction, methinks AnCaps are fundamentalists!! extremists!!

I find it distasteful that some would not even consider Minarchists as Libertarians, simply because we are not as Purist as AnCaps

Many AnCap’s religeously spout the Dogma of the great anarchist philosophers, far be it from me to deride their teachings, but can someone here point me at one of their texts which shows that they have fully considered & understood the potential impact of forums like this, the internet & Direct Democracy as a means of combating the expansion & evils of the State?

However I choose to keep an Open Mind - can some of you ex minarchs out there explain to me what eventually swung you over?

UK Minarchist

First, Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. There exists no such thing and anyone that calls themselves one is mistaken.

Second, libertarian has always been synonymous with Anarchist. Look up the etymology of the word.

Third, if you want to establish a state - a monopoly on the use of defense with the sole power of taxation - then you are a statist, not a libertarian. Hobbes did not want any social services either - only a soveirgn to determine his brand of “order.” Are you for Leviathan?

[Stranger]

@Black Bloke

@Jon Irenicus

Yeah, that is one thing I am not so sure I agree with Reisman on.

-Jon

He also doesn’t believe in anarchy (going so far as to label it the opposite of rationality), or praxeology. I’m sure I’ve forgotten some other things that he’s the odd man out about.

In this case he’s more correct than Rothbard, who had a bad habit trying to hijack political fads in his days. Liberty is in no way compatible with the classical definition of anarchy, which implies the absence of any instrument of coercion, and therefore protection.

[ama_gi]

I’m of the opinion that any anarcho-capitalist regime would have such a constant state of freedom, progress, and general well-being that nobody would even think of establishing conventional government–especially when they see the economic disorder and political turmoil in other countries having a centralized political system.

Somalia has been living under under a stateless society for several years now, and they love it.

[Brainpolice]

@Stranger

@Black Bloke

@Jon Irenicus

Yeah, that is one thing I am not so sure I agree with Reisman on.

-Jon

He also doesn’t believe in anarchy (going so far as to label it the opposite of rationality), or praxeology. I’m sure I’ve forgotten some other things that he’s the odd man out about.

In this case he’s more correct than Rothbard, who had a bad habit trying to hijack political fads in his days. Liberty is in no way compatible with the classical definition of anarchy, which implies the absence of any instrument of coercion, and therefore protection.

If you reject anarchy as such, then you are an archist or statist. To my knowledge, market anarchism rejects coercion (and defending oneself from someone who initiates coercion is not coercion). It is not set apart from “anarchy” as such, and to try to make such a distinction means either that (1) anarcho-capitalism is incoherant and really is a form of a statism or (2) “anarchism” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

[Donny_with_an_A]

Bwehehe if you love Somalia so much why don’t you marry it move there?

[JCFolsom]

Unless they get lucky and we really collapse before then, Somalia’s just going to get taken over/bombed to Hell by the US and US stooges anyway. You already missed the good part, I’m afraid.

[Stranger]

@Brainpolice

If you reject anarchy as such, then you are an archist or statist. To my knowledge, market anarchism rejects coercion (and defending oneself from someone who initiates coercion is not coercion). It is not set apart from “anarchy” as such, and to try to make such a distinction means either that (1) anarcho-capitalism is incoherant and really is a form of a statism or (2) “anarchism” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

I am an archist. I believe that liberty implies multiple overlapping producers of security. A pluriarchy, in other words.

P.S. If you have to put “initiate” to qualify coercion, that means protection is coercion and Mises was right.

[Juan]

coercion : n - “use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.”. It says nothing about self-defense.

Liberty is in no way compatible with the classical definition of anarchy, which implies the absence of any instrument of coercion, and therefore protection.

Liberty is in no way compatible with coercion, and no, coercion has nothing to do with self-defense and protection. Maybe we are talking about the same thing but you’re definitely using the wrong words.

[Stranger]

I use the same definition as Mises.

[Juan]

So what ? Besides Mises was a statist as far as the production of security was concerned.

[Stranger]

Mises recognized the right to unlimited secession, meaning he was opposed to subjection.

[Juan]

I heard that. Can I have a source/quote/page number ?

[Stranger]

However, the right of self-determination of which we speak is not the right of self-determination of nations, but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit. If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. This is impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations, which make it necessary that a region be governed as a single administrative unit and that the right of self-determination be restricted to the will of the majority of the inhabitants of areas large enough to count as territorial units in the administration of the country.

Mises Institute

Mises, as a prudent conservative, did not call for the abolition of the state because he did not have a technical program for an alternative to it. However, he proclaimed that should such a program exist, it would be necessary to implement it.

[JAlanKatz]

To answer the initial question, I think it is quite clear that most people don’t want anarchy. I don’t see why this matters. All it means is that most people want to force a government on me, so that I will have to act in ways that (they think) will profit them at my expense. Doesn’t give them a bit of moral standing in my eyes.

[gplauche]

@Stranger

@Brainpolice

If you reject anarchy as such, then you are an archist or statist. To my knowledge, market anarchism rejects coercion (and defending oneself from someone who initiates coercion is not coercion). It is not set apart from “anarchy” as such, and to try to make such a distinction means either that (1) anarcho-capitalism is incoherant and really is a form of a statism or (2) “anarchism” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

I am an archist. I believe that liberty implies multiple overlapping producers of security. A pluriarchy, in other words.

P.S. If you have to put “initiate” to qualify coercion, that means protection is coercion and Mises was right.

The mistake is using the term coercion. It’s too brought. The proper term is aggression, aggression is inherently initiatory. Aggression (i.e., threat or use of initiatory physical force) is what libertarianism rejects.

[Juan]

Thanks for the link. So, Mises is talking about ‘self-determination’ in the context of foreign policy.

“The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars.”

Okay. It’s not totally clear (to me at least) that Mises thinks that individuals can completely secede and form states composed of…just one individual.

"If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. This is impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations, "

So, what ‘technical considerations’ are those ?

Now, with regard to coercion : I know that Mises uses the phrase “the state’s apparatus of compulsion and coercion” all the time. But I don’t think he always endorses such coercion as good, or necessary to preserve ‘social cooperation’. For instance, here he’s talking about people who buy government bonds.

“. He[the bond holder] was no longer under the necessity of investing his funds in such a way that they would best serve the wants and needs of the consumers. He was secure, he was safeguarded against the dangers of the competitive market in which losses are the penalty of inefficiency; the eternal state had taken him under its wing and guaranteed him the undisturbed enjoyment of his funds. Henceforth his income no longer stemmed from the process of supplying the wants of the consumers in the best possible way, but from the taxes levied by the state’s apparatus of compulsion and coercion. He was no longer a servant of his fellow citizens, subject to their sovereignty; he was a partner of the government which ruled the people and exacted tribute from them. What the government paid as interest was less than the market offered. But this difference was far outweighed by the unquestionable solvency of the debtor, the state whose revenue did not depend on satisfying the public, but on insisting on the payment of taxes.”

[Brainpolice]

@Stranger

@Brainpolice

If you reject anarchy as such, then you are an archist or statist. To my knowledge, market anarchism rejects coercion (and defending oneself from someone who initiates coercion is not coercion). It is not set apart from “anarchy” as such, and to try to make such a distinction means either that (1) anarcho-capitalism is incoherant and really is a form of a statism or (2) “anarchism” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

I am an archist. I believe that liberty implies multiple overlapping producers of security. A pluriarchy, in other words.

P.S. If you have to put “initiate” to qualify coercion, that means protection is coercion and Mises was right.

Okay, you say you are an archist. Consequentially, you should abandon the term “anarcho-capitalism”, since “anarchy” and “archy” are dichotomous by definition.

And defense is not coercion, it is a reaction to it. Coercion is something that is initiated. Defending myself from someone attacking me is not “coercion”.

For the purposes of clarity, what I tend to mean by the term “coercion” is the intiation of the threat of aggression. For example, if someone pulls a gun on you and threatens to shoot you if you don’t do something for them or allow them to take something, that’s coercion. If I proceed to resist the threat and try to employ force to negate it, I am not engaging in coercion, I am engaging in defense as a reaction to it.

[Niccolo]

@Brainpolice

@Stranger

@Brainpolice

If you reject anarchy as such, then you are an archist or statist. To my knowledge, market anarchism rejects coercion (and defending oneself from someone who initiates coercion is not coercion). It is not set apart from “anarchy” as such, and to try to make such a distinction means either that (1) anarcho-capitalism is incoherant and really is a form of a statism or (2) “anarchism” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

I am an archist. I believe that liberty implies multiple overlapping producers of security. A pluriarchy, in other words.

P.S. If you have to put “initiate” to qualify coercion, that means protection is coercion and Mises was right.

Okay, you say you are an archist. Consequentially, you should abandon the term “anarcho-capitalism”, since “anarchy” and “archy” are dichotomous by definition.

And defense is not coercion, it is a reaction to it. Coercion is something that is initiated. Defending myself from someone attacking me is not “coercion”.

For the purposes of clarity, what I tend to mean by the term “coercion” is the intiation of the threat of aggression. For example, if someone pulls a gun on you and threatens to shoot you if you don’t do something for them or allow them to take something, that’s coercion. If I proceed to resist the threat and try to employ force to negate it, I am not engaging in coercion, I am engaging in defense as a reaction to it.

I think many people blur battery and coercion sometimes. There is a distinction, though fine.

[Stranger]

@Brainpolice

Okay, you say you are an archist. Consequentially, you should abandon the term “anarcho-capitalism”, since “anarchy” and “archy” are dichotomous by definition.

You have the memory of a goldfish.

@Brainpolice

And defense is not coercion, it is a reaction to it. Coercion is something that is initiated. Defending myself from someone attacking me is not “coercion”.

Neither is all coercion wrong. We coerce children, for example, for their own good.

[Juan]

And government coerces its subjects, for their own good. (I hope there are some real libertarians out there who don’t coerce ‘their’ children by the way)