This view is very common in mainstream environmentalism, that views capitalism and nature as being a fundamental contradiction that needs to be ‘resolved’.
When it is ‘resolved’ we will live in harmony with nature poverty will disappears, the lions will be tame etc. etc. Marxism as intellectual virus is alive and well.
Well said! Unfortunately there’s a lot of this “thinking like a statist” among anarchists.
Is the existence of a minarchist state compatable with the anarchism of individual secession?..or the existence of any other form of societal organization?
I think that is at the heart of the matter as Sage suggests in this topic and as Samarami personally demonstrates.
Anarchy is a viable state to the extent that coercion does not use force against it.
“IN THE END”, then, anarchy and liberty are a metaphysical condition - faith in rational thought (as either evolved or gifted) - manifested in individual human action. The fact that other forms of societal organization exist cannot evade liberty. Utopian aspects are merely illusions. It is liberty that is the reality and coercion the utopian denial of reality.
The proof is in the competition. Liberty suceeds to the extent that coercion does not prevent reality from competing with utopia.
Nope, there’s an anarchist wing of the LP. The platform itself is relatively vague, and even though it may take a minarchist position, platforms don’t represent a party perfectly. Look at the R’s and D’s.
Now a lot of the LPs minarchist postition is for strategic, not ideological, purposes.
Is there a real point to our little off-topic side conversation here? Or were you just looking for a random argument? If it pleases you than replace ‘minarchist libertarian’ in the place of ‘libertarian’ in all my previous posts. By and large it seems like your response to me has been OT and somewhat of a strawman.
Anarchy means no government telling you how you should live your life. As such, we do not have anarchy.
I never said anything about living totally free, whatever that is.
Anarchy is not a lifestyle. Anarchy is not having a government try and dictate to you how to live your life, which we do not have.
[Spideynw: “…which we do not have…”]
Correction: “…which you do not have…” (I’m presuming, since you wrote the post).
In establishing a sovereign state and delving into personal anarchy I’ve striven to avoid the collectivist pronoun “we” wherever possible. I cannot speak for you and you cannot speak for me. I’m free. You may not be. That’s for you to determine.
Samarami
I am not speaking for you. Grammatically speaking, given that anarchy means not living under a government, and given that we all live under a government, I can say we do not have anarchy.
Spideynw: “…given that we all live under a government, I can say we do not have anarchy…”
Actually, Spideynw, you are correct in the sense you mean it, so I won’t argue.
It is necessary for me to protect myself from two distinct types of criminal behaviors: government and non-government . The latter are relatively simple: if I lock my door and my auto, secure my bike and other portable property, teach my grandchildren not to accept candy or get into a car with strangers, steer clear of certain areas alone, etc.; I’ll have little problem protecting myself from non-government criminals. They’re admirably honest, actually. They make no bones about their intention to steal from me. They steal from me. They then leave me alone.
The former is more difficult because, as you have stated, government criminals presume I am going to “live under them”. I don’t.
They feel I should “claim citizenship”, which would, I suppose, automatically make “their” policemen “my” policemen and “their” congresspeople and senators “my” congresspeople and senators – even though I have made no contractual arrangement for their service. I don’t.
That “their troops” are “our troops” and I should support them no matter where or what. I don’t.
They take it for granted I am to be lumped with the many sheep who pledge allegiance to them (well, to a flag, which is tanamount to pledging allegiance to them, because they want me to think of “my country” and “the government of the US” as one in the same: them – symbolized by a flag of a certain design depending upon where you are located). I’m not so lumped.
Protecting myself from government criminals is far more difficult and tricky because even family, neighbors and friends engage in subtle intimidation to bring anarchists like me “into the fold”. That’s why I bristle when someone uses the collective “we” which amounts to one of those subtleties: “we don’t have anarchy, so you can’t be an anarchist..”, etc. etc., which is really meaningless since my anarchy (which in reality is Monarchy, but that’s not for discussion on this forum) does not depend upon anybody else accepting it.
“I believe it is our civic duty to vote!!” chant the sincere. What’s really fun is when some nerd looks disdainfully at me, “why don’t you move to Russia?” Now it would be “Iraq” or “Iran” or some other dreadful place. I don’t even have to move to Vermont or New Hampshire or wherever many of these libertarian types think government would be less invasive – or to a giant raft in the middle of the sea!
In fact, it’s safer for anarchists like me not to advertise my anarchism beyond these Mises forums. Friends and family and some former students think I’m a wacko nutcase. They might be correct [H].
Most don’t even know what “anarchist” means. Even here on this forum many believe the only method of bringing about anarchy or sovereignty is by somehow forcing lots of folks who may not have any interest or desire to “live ‘under’ anarchy” to participate in or abide by elections or some other coercive means. Not.
And even those who end up moving to New Hampshire or Vermont or out to sea on this huge raft will soon discover that governments – perhaps more evil than the government they fled – will arise and create distress and harm and taxation and theft. Gulligan’s Island was only a show, folks.
You can be free.
Yes, you can.
Samarami
Marxism is dead [ intellectually ], social democracy is alive and well. Next to fall though
