Is anarchy possible?

[liberty_student]

@Skeptanon

Where?

1.24 PM

@Skeptanon

My point is you were saying that the fact that one can leave rather than submit means there isn’t a state.

No, what I am saying is that one can leave, therefore there are states in anarchy.

@Skeptanon

Are you saying that you don’t live under a state currently?

It depends on your definition. For the purposes of a laymen discussion, yes their are states. Do I actually believe the premise of a state, as opposed to a gang of thieves, is true? No, I do not. There is no state, and all social contracts are frauds. But we’re forced to deal with these abstractions because so many people do believe there is a state, and that the social contract actually means anything in a legalistic sense.

And before you ask me what the difference is, if so many people believe it, I would reply, a lot of people believed the earth was flat. That did not make it so.

[Skeptanon]

@liberty student

You’re joking right?

No, I’m not.

@Skeptanon

Indeed, all rulers rule by consent, not by force.

Trivially true, but the point is consent of who, and under what terms. The situations are manifestly different.

If that was the case, then the American revolution would never have happened.

To the contrary. The American Revolution simply demonstrated that the sovereign at the time lacked this capacity.

@Skeptanon

That politicians are adept at shifting responsibility does not mean those two situations are equivalent.

I’m not claiming they are equivalent. I am saying that the incentives are worse for democratic politicians because they have no stake in things beyond their own re-election and the length of their term. They are short term managers of long term projects. It’s the same reason why you don’t let your three year old plan the family finances.

Thank you for finally giving a reason! And that’s a good point, that I actually agree with in everything except that it’s worse.

[Spideynw]

@Skeptanon

Specifically, is anarchy possible on a large scale over a long time period? To me this seems a more immediate question than whether such a situation would be desirable.

Yes, just like slavery has almost completely disappeared once people realized owning other human beings is wrong, so will government, once people realize it is no different than extortion and slavery.

My wife was watching a reality show where people were put in the same situation as the pilgrims. Women did not have as many rights as the men. Well, after only a couple of episodes, the women started disobeying the dictates because they wanted equal rights. The same concept can be applied to government.

[bgreen]

How about Israel in the time of the judges (Chodorov, Rise and Fall of Society, Chapter 8)?

[Skeptanon]

@Spideynw

@Skeptanon

Specifically, is anarchy possible on a large scale over a long time period? To me this seems a more immediate question than whether such a situation would be desirable.

Yes, just like slavery has almost completely disappeared once people realized owning other human beings is wrong, so will government, once people realize it is no different than extortion and slavery.

My wife was watching a reality show where people were put in the same situation as the pilgrims. Women did not have as many rights as the men. Well, after only a couple of episodes, the women started disobeying the dictates because they wanted equal rights. The same concept can be applied to government.

Hmm, ok. But people thinking a situation is desirable is not the same as that situation being stabile. And I don’t doubt that governments can collapse, or be overthrown. I doubt that a vacuum of power can persist.

[Spideynw]

@Skeptanon

Hmm, ok. But people thinking a situation is desirable is not the same as that situation being stabile.

It has nothing to do with being stable or desirable, it has to do with being acceptable.

@Skeptanon

And I don’t doubt that governments can collapse, or be overthrown. I doubt that a vacuum of power can persist.

How is someone going to be able to setup a government when no one will obey him or her?

[Amanojack]

Democracy is meaningless if you can’t opt out without moving.

You neighbors on either side of you could declare your three-house territory a “democracy,” and say if you don’t like it you can move. If you often disagree with them and they often agree with one another, you are now ruled by an oligarchy.