So are you admitting that the size and scope of government is increased thereby contradicting your earlier statement that government has been decreasing? – cain
of course not, I am challenging you to rationalize how all of these improvements could have been realized when government was expanding
Not at all. The realization of individual sovereignty is not something I wish to regress but progress ahead toward an age without government. --cain
again, how can substantive beneficial changes have occurred in just the last 150 years during a period of supposed government expansion, when these conditions lasted for thousands of year prior to the establishment of democracy?
Force what outcome? The whole point of the anarchism we propound is that people are not forced against their will through violent coercion. --cain
nothing confirms my assertion more that anarchism is an untenable system as long as expansionist autocratic regimes exist then your statement cain. For example, it appears that some anarchists are ideologically incapable of defending themselves from predation from non-anarchic or statist competitors.
thanks.
I don’t care for it because the Constitution is a ridiculous social contract that no one explicitly agreed to in the first place. --cain
it is a social contract that you and millions others accept tacitly since I guarantee you adhere to its laws and covenants, albeit with considerable whining. Moreover, you fail to see the utility of using a government construct to undermine government. It is perhaps the best tool we have at present to fight the statists. Far better than incessant lamentation and whining absent any substantive action.
And who is doing that? – cain
sadly, my contributions to removing statism are modest. do you have any recommendations on what we can do to reduce the size and scope of government ?
Re: Rettoper - Why do you find the answers so complicated to grasp?
Re: Why have free market economies historically been a geographic minority?
This was answered at the beginning of the thread… because we live in a world of anarchy. Groups of people have either been afraid of anarchy or have sought to leverage anarchy by conspiring and forming a pipe dream (society) to intervene against anarchy and the natural order for their own perceived benefit.
The pipe dream is society not the -ism it is labeled with. I did not misunderstand the question. You misunderstood the reply.
Re: What is the path to removing coercive human intervention against the natural order?
Education. A free market can only exist when a majority of people choose to believe in it and act on their beliefs the same way a state can only exist when a majority of people choose to believe in it and act on their beliefs..
Re: Sam and living free
By voluntarily subjecting yourself to the commands or wishes of occupiers whom do you serve?
what does perfection have to do with anything? why are you introducing irrelevancies? I can’t talk to you if you aren’t talking to me.–graham
a preferable system like anarchism is not tenable as long as violent opportunistic autocratic regimes led by imperfect (brutal) despots exist. For example, market forces and private defense will not deter for long the covetous nature of despotism. indeed, the very prosperity of an anarchic society will intice the autocratic to plunder.
A ‘practical’ man with no theory strikes me as a loudmouth who knows not what he talk about, but can still get up in the morning and punch the clock, practically getting things done.-- graham
and a “theoretical” man who is impractical strikes me as a pondering student or academic who knows not what he talks about, but can still get up in the morning, read a book on “why is their air?” and not get anything substantive done.
and with that, this “loudmouth” is punching the clock and heading home.
a preferable system like anarchism is not tenable as long as violent opportunistic autocratic regimes led by imperfect (brutal) despots exist.
You might consider producing some evidence or argument in support of your claims.
(NB: I hope you know the difference between preferable and perfect. anyway…)
For example, market forces and private defense will not deter for long the covetous nature of despotism.
For example. constitutional republican forces and public defence will not deter the covetous nature of despotism and other criminality, be it foreign or home-grown.indeed, the very prosperity of an modern mixed capitalist society will intice the autocratic to plunder, be they foreign or domestic.
we can go like this all day, … unless you want to actually .. discuss things, and think etc.
I said be both, be practical and have theory. I hope you understood. Both.
Anarchy is not “theoretical.” It IS. Society is “theoretical.”
To say anarchy is preferable is not accurate. It is accurate to say non-intervention preferable to intervention, non-violence preferable to violence, non-aggression preferable to aggression.
Limited government has the same flaw as any other belief of intervention or the pipe dream of society. It can only exist when a group of people with a majority of force choose to believe it and act on those beliefs.
‘of course not, I am challenging you to rationalize how all of these improvements could have been realized when government was expanding’
Well you’ve changed your mindset. Before you were saying that government hasn’t expanded but decreased. Now you are saying it is expanding. I just want to be sure where your base is. I think these improvements are realized in spite of government. The government is continually finding ways to suppress challenges to their authority. Sometimes they succeed and sometimes they don’t. I think with the advent of technological advances, control over populace has been increasing difficult thus causing political power to dissipate
‘again, how can substantive beneficial changes have occurred in just the last 150 years during a period of supposed government expansion, when these conditions lasted for thousands of year prior to the establishment of democracy’
Because the concept of individual sovereignty was not always present or mainstream in the world.
'nothing confirms my assertion more that anarchism is an untenable system as long as expansionist autocratic regimes exist then your statement cain. For example, it appears that some anarchists are ideologically incapable of defending themselves from predation from non-anarchic or statist competitors.
thanks.’
That doesn’t even begin to answer what I asked of you. More flame-baiting behavior.
‘it is a social contract that you and millions others accept tacitly since I guarantee you adhere to its laws and covenants, albeit with considerable whining. Moreover, you fail to see the utility of using a government construct to undermine government. It is perhaps the best tool we have at present to fight the statists. Far better than incessant lamentation and whining absent any substantive action.’
It doesn’t follow that just because I don’t murder someone or steal from someone that I respect the constitution. You fail to see the full recourse of your ideas. You suggest using government to stop statists. Apart from turning into a statist in order to stop statism, you would have to keep the same like minded people in office for an extended period of time and to do that you would need a static voter base that never changed for generations. You think government can remain in a static state with expressed powers and yet all these powers are interpreted by the very institution you seek to keep static. It’s like putting heroine next to a heroine user and telling them not to us it.
‘sadly, my contributions to removing statism are modest. do you have any recommendations on what we can do to reduce the size and scope of government ?’
I read Dr. Block’s essay on Plumb-Line libetarianism and agree with his non aggression test for “true” libertarianism. (“Defending the Undefendable” is one of my back-bone texts I’ve use extensively since the day it was published).
I googled “Modal libertarinism” and came up with one of Murray Rothbard’s 1991 essays on Lew Rockwell, in which he harangued the “Modals” for their rudeness.
But come on, E.R.: “Schmodal” libertarianism? I added it to my list at your suggestion. But…you ARE putting me on.
“…do you consider your generalization bigoted and racist?..”
Even if my “generalization” were “bigoted and racist” (it’s not) I claim every right to be “bigoted and racist”.
On second thought perhaps I’d better walk softly on this, Rettoper – maybe you’re right. The white man…er, thought police have now declared almost anything I say or write or fail to say or think or believe to be a “hate crime” nowadays. Better rid myself of any bigotry or racism. The man’l getcha! Yes, he will.
I like “the white man” because it is in keeping with natives to this part of the world before they were systematically and brutally cleansed and their reference to “the white man” and/or “the great white father” in talking of his typical dishonesty and deceptiveness. Actually, it would be appropriate to consider prosecuting the white man for the hate crime of continuing, in his ignorance, to refer to natives as “Indian”.
But you bring up an interesting point. If I were, say black it would be perfictly OK (I suppose this might be open to argument in some circles) for me to call other African folks “niggar”. I don’t do that because I feel it would be disrespectful for me to do so even if I were “black” and I genuinely try not to be disrespectful. And, since I’m really not “white” in any sense of the word I might should back off being so “harsh” on the poor civil “servant”.
When is this stupid thread going to end??? This is worse then when that anarcho-communist came here a few months back and there was like a huge postwar at like 3 in the morning! I’ve been waiting for this thing to end and it just won’t die!! Yet the simple fundumental fact is that no one seems to be adressing the main issue which is the whole reason “why hasn’t anarchy been sustainable and why has the state always overcome it?”
The best societies do not necessarily win out, the society best at PERPETUATION does. In the short run Nazi Germany was able to overun many other nations, was this because its system was better? No, simply that it was better at perpetuating itself over other areas. So too the state is able to perpetuate itself through ideology handed down from generation to generation. Just like 1,000 years ago your idea of a liberal democracy would be considered “a pipe dream” because at that point it had never been tried. Well guess what? I’m unaware of any anarchist voluntaryist revolution that has EVER taken place in the history of mankind. So too, up until 1776, I don’t believe that a revolution supporting a liberal constitutional deomocracy had EVER taken place, or if it had I doubt that it had been sucessful (you could count the glorious revolution I guess but that was rather limited in scope and it maintained the monarchy ECT. and even if you were to count it as one it only took place about a century beforehand)
Ideas are important. If I told you that we were suddenly going to go to a system where only one group had control of law and guns and the military but that a piece of paper said that they couldn’t abuse this, you’d think I was insane. If however I also said that they would be put into power by an educated populous and that there would be coherent checks and balances placed onto the system then it starts to sound more intelligent. If I said that we’d dissolve all government, then this in and of itself would be ridiculous. If I said we would dissolve government in a case where everyone had clearly defined property rights and was willing to form/pay for protection agencies and would work in a mutualistic and communal manner to provide certian goods and services, this sounds better. SOCIAL MEMES AND IDEAS MATTER. If anarchy comes to a place that is aggregatly ready for anarchism it will work, but it never has because anarchism, in the way that we describe it, is the youngest of ideologies.
"…Well, I can’t say I fully understand. All of what you say makes eminent sense, and is excellent survival advice. However, what I fail to see is what it has to do with being free. I’m looking at rule #2. Absolutely good advice - but doesn’t it amount to keep your head down and follow all the rules? How does that make you free?
By the way, I want to amend some of my remarks. There are certain senses, I understand, where solitary (never been there) can be freer than where we are now - at least there’s nowhere to go, it’s considered the worst thing they can do to you.
I’m asking questions because I really want to understand. I think you’re right, I just want to understand you…"
Samarami:
Instead of “survival advice” I should have summed up my lockup and hole time over 40 years ago now as “a significant learning experience”. If we can’t learn from bad experiences, we’ll probably repeat the episode until we do learn. Far too many ex cons do that I can. tell you.
Acquiring freedom is much and arduous learning, but more than that is DESIRE. Once you’ve allowed all your freedom to be removed from you, your desire for freedom will intensify geometrically. I don’t recommend that route, however.
Actually, I did address this. And I would argue that ancap land is way better at perpetuating itself compared to other methods of organizing… but you are completely correct that ideology largely stands in the way of social change.
Actually, I did address this. And I would argue that ancap land is way better at perpetuating itself compared to other methods of organizing… but you are completely correct that ideology largely stands in the way of social change.-- snowflake
please provide substantive real world examples that anarcharism “is way better at perpetuating itself compared to other methods of organizing” It appears that none exist today and those that have existed were isolated, irrelevent, tiny and scattered in strategic insignificant locales.
For example, I am not aware of any ancap societies that are comparable in organization to the representative democracies United States, Japan, Germany, et al — indeed, it appears that ancap societies are less capable of organizing then even corrupt inefficient autocratic regimes like China, Russia, et al.
Sorry about that snow. I haven’t been following this thread (its too damn failful thusfar) and I didn’t feel like wading through 200 posts (of “get nowhere” argumentation) to make sure I didn’t restate someone’s argument. I just skimmed through a page or two and felt that the argumentation provided on both ends has totally missed the point.
There are no real world examples of pure anarcho capitalism. However, there are many examples of free association having great positive influence. Can you cite a real world example of an ancap community that failed BECAUSE it was ancap? I.e. if they had chosen to organize as a state would they have done any better? I’ll save you the time. You can’t. We simply don’t have an extensive history of post-industrial organization.
Organizing what? Military or economy? Real world examples? Any you provide will be like the following: Spain had a civil war, there were anarchist communities that branched off and were doing fine. Soviets come in and back the communist faction in spain, allowing them to take over the anarchist communities. Does this mean anarchism failed? Any other non-communist organization would have failed. If it had been spanish monarchy vs communists, liberal democracy vs communists, theocracy vs communists, they would all have failed. Never mind that the anarchist communities had superior productivity and better man-for-man military, right?
Furthermore, I don’t see why we’re the only ones who have to come up with real world examples. You can’t cite any stable limited governments. The best you can do is say “okay maybe some european nations pulled back some” but I already countered that, and you ignored it, because you know it destroys your claims. [AD HOMINEMS DELETED]
