Retopper's anti-anarchism thread

[ClaytonB]

Clayton,

Of course individuals, in all of their glorified differences and presuppositions, will have “class consciousness”-enough to maintain a coercionless society under NAP and with private property? Like money, archies are only real so long as they are recognized. Thank you for your postmodern assessment of reality, i.e. the Matrix or false reality at least to you, but history really does show that (now we’re making sweeping generalizations but you started it) that people invest in a leadership class by choice. And to the state by choice.

Yes, that’s why people just voluntarily send in their taxes. Come on.

Of course they lose sovereignty in the short-term roundabout examination of historical statism and fuedalism, but generally speaking states, lords and dictators racously, yet eventually, are dispensed of by the great biological mechanism called death. So from this point of view, what’s the point of even trying to articulate anarchism and inspire the masses?

In case you haven’t been following the thread, I’m not trying to “inspire the masses” and I don’t think that’s what LvMI is about, either. I have written a post on my view of “anarchy” as a goal, here. It’s short.

Future generations are young, and naive, and invest their hopes in a new set of leaders and states. Like you said, archies are only real so long as they are recognized. Naivity ensures their existence!

I’m just not convinced that your argument, soaked in postmodernistic polylogism (which Ludwig points out in Human Action is a blatantly wrong way to analyze society - which I agree with) is really a substantial reply to measuring anarchy’s feasibility. This completely ignores universal truths about the course of humanity’s existence and the choices they have made consistently throughout existence on the role of government and of leaders.

I’m sorry you perceive postmodernism or polylogism in my post, I can assure you that I despise and eschew these. In fact, it is my view that postmodernism is the result of trying to synthesize “government” and “good”. “Good government” is a blatant contradiction of terms and the attempt of the modern mind to hold this doublethought without having an aneurysm is one of the primary motivations behind postmodern thought. If a thing can be both true and false together, then perhaps it is possible for government to be both good and evil at once. It has to be evil in order to be good. It has to violate our rights in order to protect them. Don’t you see?

Clayton -