I agree, people do not see alternatives. But if I may point out that literacy only encroached on the Christian masses very recently in history. Before this all of the information regarding the Biblical stories and Jesus Christ we told through pastors, bishops, artisans and testimonials. Now Christians have important “tools” in facilitating their religion, the ability to read and instant communication. This puts the pastor into virtual antiquity.
Hopefully the same can be done with economics, but I severely doubt the masses will have the right “tools” to facilitate anarchy. Look at all the reading, and challenging of presuppositions you have to do just to understand why anarcho-capitalism is theoretically possible! Real world feasibility is a whole different story.
People just aren’t interested. And if they aren’t interested, they’re ignorant. Then they invest in leaders.
The human race has had government for less than 1% of its total existence. It is only even more recently in the last couple of centuries that governments have begun pretending to take responsibility for the provision of law and security.
Anarchists typically recognize that states thrive in agrigultural economies, which up until 150 years ago was the universal norm. The existence of modern governments merely amounts to the observation that pre-industrial predation can continue a while if the masses believe it is necessary.
When our democratic republic was being drafted, the popular opinion was that democracy would fail as a government, dissolving into chaos within weeks. But if we proceed like Rettoper and chant “well we haven’t tried it before, therefore it won’t work” we’d not only still be stuck with the divine right of kings, but we would starve. We wouldn’t be able to develop new technology or abandon ancient superstition. Reason is the means by which every single academic field has been revolutionized and continues to make progress. Logical argumentation supercedes all other voices.
Tribal leaders do not represent budding forms of government? The most basic definition of leadership, once long ago, was “I’m bigger, therefore I get the food, I can hunt more food, and clobber you for not hunting with me or for me. Plus I get all the chicks.”
I still think the internet is more of an x-factor than many realize.
The state has relied heavily on control of education and the media to keep the masses ignorant and subservient, but the internet, more than anything else, has broken the state’s ability to dominate information channels.
We can’t know for sure if a generation that grows up being able to access all of history’s great literary works at the click of a mouse will necessarily fall for the same statist propoganda as recent generations have.
I actually think the elites are becoming aware of this, which may in part explain the accelerating rate of state power expansion, as governments rob all they can while they can still get away with it.
Citation? The reasoning is suspect because no matter how big or burly someone is, he’s not more so than 2-3 other people, much less his whole tribe. The more recent evidence we have from native americans suggests they favored free association.
Theories on how governments arose usually point to foreign raiders moving in an taking over, rather than tribal chiefs eventually assuming the role of kings.
The big and burly cave man either develops some other edge, such as a new weapon or method of cultivation, or he is overruled. Okay, fine - Native Americans are a hunter-gatherer example of anarchism. But let me propose a very simple question - foreign raiders always have their leader. How did that leadership fall into place? My counterexample to yours is the story of the San tribe of South Africa. Citation: http://www.rebirth.co.za/san_tribe/way_of_life.htm
The hierarchy of leadership grew out of property ownership.
No, it cannot. How utopian of you. Give me one society in the history of the world that has ever kept the power of the state limited. Bonus points if I don’t laugh at the answer.
“Take Sweden for example”
And the Soviet Union collapsed as well. That ain’t an example of keeping the state limited at all. That’s an example of “privatisation”. Try again, this time were the government has been set limits (where are the limits imposed in Sweden, hmm?) and where it has obeyed by them.
“In contrast, an-caps are on the sidelines with nothing substantive or practical to offer mankind other than unsustainable and impractical theoretical constructs.”
Negative. I’ve already linked you to the sources you need to read, but have so far completely ignored. Where is your refutation? Where is the intellectual honesty, the curiosity? Do yourself a favor, read the sources. Alleviate your ignorance.
Like a bigger stick? Even if he had a gun he has to sleep sometime
Challenging this.
Couldn’t it have been voluntarily? “Hey do you guys wanna go beat up some other guys?”
From your link: A chief controlled their resources on behalf of the group
Is this what you are talking about? It doesn’t explain on what terms he had control. A CEO has control over a corporations resources but is not a budding king…
I agree that hierarchy is inevitable in some endavours simply because it is more efficient. But hierarchy =/= involuntarism.
There is much fail in this thread. I’m going to take all of it on.
First Retoper Argument…
P1 - Anarchist socities do not exist today.
P2 - Only few anarchist socities have existed in history and they died out.
P3 - Society today is much relative to that which came before.
P4 - This society has stood for aeons…
Therefore, Anarchy is a pipe dream.
Actually, I’ve changed my mind, Retoper, your argument and logic is impeccable. Voluntaryism is a pipe-dream.
But wait a tick…there are anarchist socities today.
In fact, I can drive to one 30 minutes from here. And buy some green.
See link below
And it turns out that throughout history there have been more then just a few. See above link.
Furthermore the logic involved is faulty. Even IF anarchist society didn’t exist today, and did not exist before does not mean it cannot exist in the future. Democracy, space travel, locomotives, traveling the speed of sound, Denmark winning the European Football cup, England beating Australia at Rugby and cricket, were all pipe dreams. What you should be talking about is what is probable. What is likely. Anarchy is possible, just like making a base station on the moon is possible. Or having a threesome is possible. But is it likely?
Furthermore, human societal organization is not an organism like the dodo or dinosaurs. The only way for Anarchy to never be capable of existing in human society is for all humans to die.
So P1 and P2 are wrong. And even if they were right, are not convincing by themselves.
This really made me chuckle.
Because when you say societies based on “representative governance” you really mean to say societies loosely based (and loose like a prostitute) on “representative governance”.
Then when you say that they have thrived, and expanded, all this shows is that “Democracy” or Democratic Oligarchies as a state framework replaced Monarchy. This does not infer that Democracy or Democratic Oligarchies are better then an anarchist society, or that its even better then a Monarchist society. In fact Democracy, or classical liberalism is not what allowed nor caused the industrial revolution to take place. Not the way I understand it.
Since 1776??? OMGZZZ!!! Just over 200 years. Although your error in assuming government in 1776 was the first representative government. I also think its false to equate classical liberalism with representative government. See Hans Hermanne Hoppe, Democracy the God that failed. But anyway…200 years really is a tiny tiny tiny fragment of Human Civilization let alone Human History. In anything, the idea of anarchy has existed far longer then the current system we have today.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh ok. So If I was a betting man, and a 100m dash is coming up, and I know that child can run faster then a baby, well then I should bet my money on the child, and simply ignore the black man on steroids. Do you see why that doesn’t work?
Oh you mean like how its rational and practical to be arguing for a minarchist society where an institution holds a monoply on the legitimate use of the initiaton of violence to prevent a monopoly from arriving which monopolizes the intiation of violence and that the first monopoly will be kept in check by a piece of paper???
o.O
I hope you live long enough to see how history proves how unsustainable democracy is. Btw, the U.S is the only example as far as I’m aware of your Minarchist utopia, and exactly how long did that last? If you say its lasted today, LOL because it most certainly died in 1860 and probably much longer before that.
I challenge anyone to explain why no minarchist society exists today.
I just lived in Sweden for a year. No where close to minarchy. The state is still pretty big. Lived in the UK for 10 years. Even after Thatcher, the state is still big. Pledges mean bugger all.
You my friend have no legs to walk on. Minarchy has even less history, less presence today, less likelihood in the future of existing, and absolute falls on its face logically. A minarchist state will always over time result in an ever growing and expanding one. The U.S is a perfect example.
Rettoper, classical liberal states do not exist today, and have never really existed.
WHAT!? What about 1860? What about all the imperialist wars after prior to 1930? What about immediately after the Federal Government was created? Whiskey rebellion? Sedition Laws?
If on voluntarily subjects oneself to anthers authority absent initiation of violence…whats the problem?
I think your conception of the tribe might be how some worked, and I would agree that is fundamentally a state, but some could also work in a more voluntary, free association manner.
Simply because a tribe uses fighting as a means to deciding leadership does not then mean that everyone is under the initiation of violence. If one is free to leave at any time, and does not enter into the tribe under threat of the initiation of violence then its not a state.
I was not primarily concerned with addressing voluntaryism in the first place. Not all hierarchies are involuntary associations, but some are. States evolve from hierarchy, which evolves from private ownership, as an extension of self-ownership. People choose to obey their leaders, regardless of whatever consequences behold them i.e. democratic or non-democratic regimes. The decision making processes of individuals cannot obviously be physically controlled.
I’m not arguing for the legitimacy of the state, I’m just arguing that fundamentally opposing it without acknowledging the history of the general course of personal assocations and hierarchies evolved in different civilizations i.e. how they are alike, is tripe.
… Primarly stemming from Clayton’s polylogical postmodernism, overall.
