Oh, completely understand. This thread is a train wreck. Rettoper’s logic is so bad and he never responds to any arguments, so its basically impossible to keep up.
[CONTENT DELETED: PLEASE USE ISSUES FORUM]
For example, is it possible that a despotic element can emerge within an anarchic society that would censor, subjegate, and otherwise use market forces to their own advantage within a quasi-government framework?
Moreover, a sort of pack mentality is at play here – for example, why would anyone be attracted to a society that ostracizes newcomers if they do not “toe the party line” which is “irrefutable”. these are tenets similar to that practiced by despotic regimes. For example, is it possible, even likely, that a despotic element would emerge within an anarchic society that would censor, subjegate, and otherwise use market forces to their own advantage within a quasi-goverment framework.
of course, self-interested actors would immediately form associations that would be government in all but name within anarchic societies that would use “political means” to gain wealth and power at the expense of the free market. Moreover, anarchist society, being totally free, would be extremely vulnerable to these political machinations versus the checks and balances present in the Federal Constitutional Republicanism system.
This illustrates a fact that I have not put forth, namely that the intellectual rigidity and purism of anarchism may lend itself vulnerable to despotic exercises of power. For example, one of the reasons why anarchism is not viable is that it is no more immune to despotic influences than any other ideology. In addition, it may not be as flexible and open-minded a society as presumed since it is founded on the “commandment” that “all governent is evil”.
once an anarchic society is created, what tenet of anarchism protects it from the influence and abuses of statist?
For example, are anarchists naive enough to believe that human avarice, envy, pride, et al are going to disappear thanks to market forces?
which further illustrates that the while anarchism is viable “on paper” – in practice and based on thousands of years of experience, it has not grossly inadequate to deal with the myriad human intangibles that have left it on the ash heap of history.
in summary, anarchism’s belief that market forces will contain human envy, pride, greed, et al has been soundly rejected by historical fact.
for better or worse, it appears that the overwhelming majority of citizens have determined the optimum way to achieve the most freedom, peace, stability, and prosperity is within an open and dynamic society founded on the principle of “all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” versus the anarchic creedo of “all government is evil”.
snowflake
There are no real world examples of pure anarcho capitalism.-- snowflake
Think about what you are asking snowflake. You are challenging my assertion that anarchic societies are untenable since I have no examples to prove are untenable.
Wow!
can anyone cite a more succinct example of a “logical fallacy” then snowflakes argument?
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?–snowflake
Yeah snowflake, I would say that when an anarchic society like the one in Spain is destroyed due to predation – then logically it would be an example that anarchism has failed.
btw, snowflake the fascists in spain eventually removed the communists thanks to germany. of course, liberal democracies eventually sent both fascism and communism to the ash heap of history. Today thanks to American hegemony – europe is more peaceful, prosperous, stable, and free than at anytime in its tumultous past, current statist crises notwithstanding.
Stable limited governments — most of europe, most of western hemisphere, most of the asian pacific rim.
snowflake, if japan, germany, sweden, south korea, singapore, netherlands, canada, the USA, costa rica, chile, et al are not stable – can you produce better examples of stability?
.
Why don’t you read some of the free material on the site. It answers all the question you have been asking over and over again. But you won’t, youll just reply saying the same thing in different words, like you have atleast 6 times now.
No. There are a lot of minarchists on these forums. They just don’t make baseless assertions and straw man every one of their opponents.
Lilburn changed your title because it was trollish. He’d rather correct your behaviour than ban you.
Private clubs can ban whoever they wish.
There are a diversity of opinions on this forum. [AD HOMINEM DELETED]
When you say “for example”, it is usually followed by a real example, not speculation.
Baseless assertion. Flame/baiting/trolling behavior.
More baseless assertions. For a counter argument, you are talking about people cartelizing some aspect of the industry. See Long’s analysis:
Even more hot air. For the counter, see Hoppe:
Do you just make stuff up? See Long again:
Well attacking innocent people and making a group judge in its own case is kind of lame.
If you have so many questions, you should probably do more reading. Bob Murphy:
Actually a lot of us arrive at anarchism explicitly because we expect people to be self interested and underhanded. See the above quotation for the reason why we trust private firms over government.
Actually only 150 years of industrialized history. And all these governments are residual from agricultural economies, which most scholars agree is prone to statism. See Long again:
It may shock you that monarchy, theocracy, and feudalism, are not free markets.
If liberty is an inalienable right, you can’t have any government because its an involuntary association. Fail.
Stable limited governments — most of europe, most of western hemisphere, most of the asian pacific rim.
You have some fucked up notion of limited government.
Well, you don’t put forward any logical analysis. If you can’t show anything empirical you’ll have to give up your position.
And in the future, please try to write better. It is frequently difficult to understand you.
Except if you had read my response in full, you would have realized that this is evidence that any society had failed. A liberal democracy would have been crushed by the communists. It is evidence of nothing.
In name only.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
By what criteria are they limited?
We didnt say states were unstable. We said that all governments have unstable SIZE. That is, they will trend away from the minarchist state.
Enough. Your arguments are faulty, yet few here can challenge them without losing their temper. Rettoper, I challenge you to a debate. One thread. Nobody else. Just you and me. The question: “Is anarchism disproved by history?” You in support of the affirmative. Me in support of the negative. During the debate, neither of us will participate in any other thread discussing the same topic. Do you accept?
Has Rettoper asked why any of us are anarchists? He seems to be attacking anarchism because it is “unsustainable,” however, I don’t recall any ever stating that they favor anarchism because anarchism is “sustainable.”
I think it ultimately depends on the mindset of a poulation. An natural anarchy (one that spontaneously arises from the “state of nature”) seems much more likely to buckle under the pressure of a militant, centralized effort (take the history of native americans in the United States). It remains to be seen if a much more ideologically cohesive, intentionally anarchic society would do the same. There is historical evidence to the contrary. Take the ability of the Mujahideen to effectively wage a geurilla campaign against the USSR, or the current situation in Afghanistan with the USA. Or perhaps the Karen or Hmong in southeast Asia, or the FARC in Columbia. To automatically dismiss Anarchic societies as inevitably failing to defend themselves against more centralized belligerents is a bit premature, IMHO.
But unless a system of governance is enacted, it is impossible to say whether of not said system is viable. I don’t know if I can think of a time or place in which anarcho-capitalism was intentionally enacted (history wonks?), so as far as I’m concerned, the jury is still out on its viability as a socio-economic political system.
As far as the length of time in which Liberalism has been viable, or beneficial to citizens of that form of government, it only took a few years before the terror of Robspierre, and a century before Liberal principles were distorted into the monstrosities of Fascism and Bolshevik Communism. Liberalism is not a panacea for human welfare. Look at the atrocities commited in Africa by (initially, at least) “Democratically elected” leaders in the last half-century.
And I assert that that assertion is either unintentionally irrelevant, or intentionally a strawman. I don’t think anyone is arguing that Liberalism is worse than autocratic dictatorships. To have anymeaning in this conversation, you would have to assert that,
“liberal democracies are the most peaceful, prosperous, stable, and free based on an examination of the economic, social, and political data from these nations compared to Anarcho-capitalistic societies.”
As stated earlier, I can’t really think of any, so it might be a tall order to assert that statement with any grounding or evidence beyond conjecture.
Again, it is irrelevant to this conversation to state that Liberal States are superior to autocratic nations because of large immigration numbers. Of course I would prefer the US to North Korea, or Cuba, but would I prefer the US to an AnCap society? I couldn’t tell you, although I’d imagine I would prefer AnCap.
Well, that may be the case, I’m no economist. But I don’t see how an anarchic society would prevent the “sweet spot” from being found. Ask ClaytonB or AJ, they’ll tell you all about common law and how anarchic societies spontaneously and naturally form cohesive legislative bodies, without centralized direction or control. Anarchism doesn’t necessarily and inevitably lead to chaos. If there is some perfect level of governance required to maximize potential, the free market will determine it, not some graph.
Well, if we agree, then where is the argument. We both agree that the scale of government is too great, but the must be some assumed protocol of interaction between individuals for the market to realize its fullest potential.
The only divergence I can find is that I am confident in individuals to spontaneously and directly determine those guidelines of interaction, wheras you believe that these rules of interaction must be determined by a third party specialist in some centralized location.
Does it matter whether or not anarchy is a sustainable system? After all, If you believe that response to aggression should only be proportional to the amount of force initiated by the aggressor, an ideal, even in large numbers an anarchist “society” could easily be conquered by a Statist one in which individuals believe in disproportionate response to aggression, and trend towards the initiation of aggression as a way to maximize social equity. But even their system is unsustainable in its purity.
I’d go on arguing for anarchy anyways, whether or not it could outlast the other forms of “society” because I believe man has a self-evident, naturalistic right not to be aggressed against.
I’d even assert that trying to “maintain” anarchy would make anarchists and anarchist legislatures morally inconsistent, even if the potential was there to spontaneously organize.
The original poster is totally incapable of seeing anarchism as anything more than another “type of government”: organized, with elected officials, boundaries, “constitutions”, laws and bylaws, desirous of enforcing its tenants upon all within its area of influence. He is charged with an oligarchic mentality. He has no escape.
Gentlemen, there does come a time, I believe, when it behooves the anarchist to cease proselytizing his/her lifestyle and state-free understanding and to knuckle down and practice his freedom in peace. We can be free sovereign states in an occupied land – even this one that has deteriorated from “freedom” to abject police state.
Yes, we can.
Samarami.
That’s specifically what I’m talking about. You can convince a Statist to become less of a Statist, but I’d asert that in certain cases you simply cannot “win them over” without initiating some form of coercion. It’s an inbred culturally sort of thing to be Statist at this point in the world’s history.
snowflake,
you accuse me of flaming, trolling, and baiting – then you repeatedly ask me to respond to your “baseless assertions” retort ?!
how does anyone respond to the “baseless assertion” retort – for example, I could cut and paste with the same inane “baseless assertion” That isnt an argument snowflake, but you use it frequently ??
with respect to the arguments you did provide sources (hoppe)
here is my response:
hoppe did not understand or acknowledge the context in which the US Constitution was developed, namely that in a world of autocratic states, anarchism is subject to predation. thats why no anarchic states presently exist. The US was under seige by statist regimes France, England, native americans, et al.
Our founders understood that the resources of the populace had to be focused to repel these threats, hence a more centralized Federal government. Alas, we surrendered liberties and prosperity for the common defense, but the alternative was predation and enslavement at the hands of a far greater evil, absolutism.
Lastly, these founders recognized the defects in the Constitution and they attempted to forestall or prevent the likely progression toward more statist abuses by installing substantive checks and balances on the power of the statists to subvert the system. These tenets have had mixed results.
for example, the FACT is that techonological advancement, industrial production, life expectancy, free enterprise, free trade, infant mortality, disease, et al have all seen improvements since 1776. So if the US COnstitution is oppressive, then it has not unduly impacted human advancement when compared with the thousands of years of relative stagnation in the human condition prior to 1776. For example, in the last 200 years mankind has seen expontial increases in standards of living. Theoretically, under anarchism these changes would have been far more dramatic, however infant mortality, disease irradication, minority rights, et al are not going to wait for anarchism to emerge while human needs are left wanting in a statist absolutism.
In summary, to paraphrase churchill “democracy is a terrible system, however it is the best one we have at present” until anarchist can provided substantive actions to insure a viable and sustainable model of anarchism in the REAL WORLD, then they would be better served to reserve their invective and vitriol for statist regimes and back off of attacks on minarchism because this tact plays into the hands of the greater evil of absolutism.
grayson,
sure.
it will be interesting and educational thats why I am here.
i will cease posting on this thread.
Anarchists are just following Aristotlean argumentation. You can’t be inconsistent, even if the multiple outcomes of a moral judgement in action are morally inconsistent.
You’re the one initiating verbal aggression here. “Baseless assertion” is, in debate, a value-free assertion. Just because he believes you’re wrong doesn’t mean you should take offense to him for pointing out that you can’t substantively argue within Anarchist logical frameworks.
“The original poster is totally incapable of seeing anarchism as anything more than another “type of government”: organized, with elected officials, boundaries, “constitutions”, laws and bylaws, desirous of enforcing its tenants upon all within its area of influence. He is charged with an oligarchic mentality. He has no escape.”-- sam
I had to break my promise not to post .
of course I know that anarchism is the absent of government. private property rights and individual freedom is paramount in an anarchic society any statist influence for “good” or ill is rejected.
However, I dont think that human nature has a tendency to establish quasi-statist institutions to coerce and extort wealth and power from the citizenry.
For example, in a free society parasites will naturally coalesce and form associations to subvert the natural order in order to extort wealth and gain power in the name of “social justice” “egalitarianism” or some other -ism
In summary, I dont think that market forces alone have demonstrated that they have the wherewithal to overcome the machinations of parasites and those that seek to exploit parasites (statists) to gain power and wealth
You’re the one initiating verbal aggression here. “Baseless assertion” is, in debate, a value-free assertion. Just because he believes you’re wrong doesn’t mean you should take offense to him for pointing out that you can’t substantively argue within Anarchist logical frameworks.-- cognitivist
Baseless assertion.
I can’t tell if you’re trying to piss me off, or actually serious. In either case, you’ve failed.
But at least you’ve succeeded in being obfuscating. So like an ideologue.
It means that instead of simply stating your conclusions, you need to actually argue for them.
Here is an example of your tactics: “The government is evil and unsustainable. Rettoper fantasizes that it is, but he’s actually wrong. He doesn’t realize that government is stupid and will never work”
See. This is just mouthing off. I’m not proving anything. Thats a “baseless assertion”. When I call you out for doing it, it means you need to go back and actually argue.
You missed the point entirely, which was that the US constitution and all minarchist states are doomed to to devolve away from their stated purpose.
False dichotomy. Are there any atrocities you don’t apologise for?
To say the least.
Exactly. We have nice stuff in SPITE of the constitution, not because of it.
What is this argument? “Theoretically anarchism is awesome but there are lots of problems in the status quo?”. Right. We should try to solve these problems whether an anarchist society is realized or not, but this is a red herring.
A lot of people have suggested that education is key. I agree with them. But really, can you take more time with your posts? Like proofread them, run them through a spellcheck? Its probably pretty embarrassing for you to make so many mistakes in front of your opponents.
You always have ignored our charge that minarchism devolves into collectivism. Attacking BOTH minarchism and totalitarian governments is tantamount to attacking both pre-totalitarian and totalitarian societies. Its a perfectly viable option. No State-Communist is going to co-opt the anarcho capitalist movement any time soon 