If not, can the an-caps explain why there are no anarchist societies today?
Indeed, the few that have existed have become extinct.
In contrast, societies based on representative governance (classical liberalism) have thrived, and they have expanded in size and scope since 1776.
Moreover, these societies have contributed more to the promotion of prosperity, stability, peace, and prosperity than any competing ideologies.
The entire world always has and always will fundamentally operate in a system of anarchy.
The pipe dream is society.
Color coded map of anarchy 
!(http://studentweb.cencol.ca/wtsang15/COMP 213/Midterm/world-map.gif)
You misunderstood my statement. For example, every nation on your map has a central governing authority.
Of course the geopolitic is anarchic, however all of these nations have governments.
Where’s the misunderstanding? There is no government between nations, yet 99.9% of national interaction is peaceful and cooperative. What violence does occur is overwhelmingly funded by those very national governments who are supposedly the keepers of peace.
Government is a superstition, it exists only in the mind. Governments can only be actualized because of the mass delusion of people that it is good or necessary or inevitable. There was a time when we burned innocent women (primarily, but also men) alive over mere superstitions about the supernatural world. And remember there were a lot of highly educated, intelligent, decent, civilized people who participated in this superstitious, ritualized murder. Read the Malleus Maleficarum and compare it to the circular reasoning used to justify a large part of the body of “family” law, especially restraining orders and the like. The superstition of believing that, when a man beats someone to a bloody pulp for the hell of it, it is no assault so long as he was wearing a police uniform and he reports “feeling threatened” by the individual, is also a superstition. The belief that we need a special class of individuals empowered to violate property rights en masse in order to enforce property rights (among other things) is also a superstition. And we put a lot of people in prison over these damned modern superstitions - where they are raped and tortured by inmates and guards alike.
Along with the rest of the masses, you got your head firmly planted in the sand.
Clayton -
Correcting a contradiction of terms… anarchist society is a pipe dream.
Since you acknowledge the undeniable existence of anarchy…
Is there some disagreement society is the pipe dream regardless of the -ism it is labeled with?
There are several threads and videos on the subject matter refuting your claims central government has made greater contributions than voluntary society including pre-conquest Ireland.
Rettoper,
You err when you assume a society can be only 100% statist or only 100% anarchic and implicitly disallow the third possibility. Kinda’ reminds me of the the old chicken and egg “dilemma.”
Nonetheless clayton, you have not answered my question — why are anarchist societies incapable of surviving?
Why are there zero anarchist-capitalist societies on the planet?
and is it rational and practical for an-caps to be advocates for something that is unsustainable in the REAL world?
You need to develop your position better to foster a useful dilogue. You must expand on your inital comments/observations. While you may be right and have interesting things to say, all you have done is made assertions and no proper argument.
jorge,
produce the quote that i said a society can be either 100% statist or only 100% anarchic.
Moreover, there are an-caps on this site who are advocate for 100% anarchic societal framework despite that fact that history has shown that anarchic societies are unsustainable.
If you read my earlier post I clearly stated that representative government (for example – a Federal Constitutional Republic patterned after the USA) is the system that is most prosperous, stable, peaceful, and free.
A statist society that works is a pipe dream.
“If not, can the an-caps explain why there are no anarchist societies today?”
There ARE. Anarchy is all around you, it is just being inhibited by the state. Thinking that doesn’t make sense? Take a listen.
Or take a read.
And drop your utopian conception that the state can be limited, because it can’t. It’s time to start being practical, instead of an ideologue and fairly land dreamer in the land of government. Santa Claus doesn’t exist, nor does the easter bunny.
Dondoolee,
I have challenged anyone to explain why no anarchist societies exist today.
For example, if anarchic-capitalist societies are so desirable and omnipotent, why do none exist?
this is not an assertion ---- it is fact.
Name ANY society that has stood the test of time?
Conza88,
state can be limited and rolled back within a Constitutional framework, a Federal republic. For example, recent history has examples of numerous nations significantly reducing the size and scope of their central governments. Take Sweden for example, they have significantly reduced the size of government as a percentage of GDP since their crisis in the 90’s. The UK and Germany within the last two weeks pledged to make major cuts in government spending. Granted it is a small step, nonetheless it is a step in the right direction while the an-caps have no legs to walk on since they have no society to speak of.
I think that the near future will show dramatic reductions in the size of government in all Western democracies due to the failure of the welfare state.
In contrast, an-caps are on the sidelines with nothing substantive or practical to offer mankind other than unsustainable and impractical theoretical constructs.
Name ANY society that has stood the test of time?–Live_Free-Or_Die
The UNited States for one.
1) In contrast, societies based on representative governance (classical liberalism) have thrived, and they have expanded in size and scope since 1776.
How, and by what measure?
Not only that it looks as if there is a disagreement by what is defined as “anarchy”. So that is a definition that you will have to clear up, so people can see clearly where you are comming from.
Which United States?
The one under the Continental Congress and Articles of Confederation, the one under the Constitution, or the one under military occupation following the Civil War?
Dondoolee,
Western democracies have the highest GDP per capita of all nations
they have not waged war on each other, hence they are peaceful to like minded states,
yet they have demonstrated the ability to aggressively and effectively defend themselves from predatory autocratic nations
THey have high rates of immigration, hence they are a desired place to live.
They have had peaceful transfers of power.
They have relatively impartial and fair judiciaries.
Moreover, at this point in history — they are ascendant of all systems.
including the an-cap fantasy which has no example to compare to classical liberal states.
I guess I’ll take a crack at it to start this conversation somewhere.
It is my opinion that anarchy cannot work unless everyone comes to an agreement not to use physical force as a means of attaining thier ends. However, if all men were angels we wouldn’t need government. Fuedalism was the result of anarchy as peoples’ lives were threatened after the fall of the Roman Empire and the chaos that resulted from the loss of governing authority. People fearing for thier lives from the threat posed by either invaders or thugs sought shelter in the fuedal society where the lord of that society would protect them with a highly trained military.
This however led to serfdom and thus horrible consequences on the part of those seeking shelter. With a total loss of liberty, these people were forced to live like slaves. With people living like slaves, fuedal lords would then declare wars on eachother hoping to gain power, glory or wealth from other fuedal lords all with the heavy labor of the serfs. Governments, however, provided a place for these fuedal lords to negotiate the handilings of power rather than duke it out. The Magna Carta in England is a prime example of this trend and thus a governing body of fuedal lords was established under the rule of parliment and a king to act as overseer to see that contracts between the rivaling factions was upheld.
The same can be said in America when it formed a republic in the hopes of establishing peaceful relations between the states. Whether it is relevant or not, the Constitution that both the US and English established turned out to be failures due to the fact comprimise of peaceful relations was breached numerous times after their creation (America’s Civil War is one example of a breach of contract and court rulings after FDR is another).
However, the problem with anarcho capitalists is that they see the world as being a series of cooperation through trade. While this is the best form of governence in theory, it is impossible as long as conflict exists in society, most particulary violent conflict. Government’s duty is to ensure that a person’s right to life, liberty and property cannot be infrindged by someone who will take it violently from them without a consented exchange.
The best way to accomplish this goal is through a written and BINDING constitution that limits the scope and powers of government to handle disputes at various levels. It is also important to decentralize power and only allow it to centralize in times of crisis, such as invasion.
That’s all I will write for now, can’t wait to hear some responses. Also, if my history is off, just let me know. Its late when I wrote this so I may have mistated something.
oh god…
classical liberalism has thrived? really? where?