“Is Sweden proof that statism doesn’t work, somehow?”
The proof is in deductive reasoning. All Sweden proves is that Sweden is no proof for anything.
“If revolution were easy, it wouldn’t be glorious.”
I am not talking about revolution. I am just talking about not obeying.
“If not, can the an-caps explain why there are no anarchist societies today?”
The majority of people are lazy intellectually, stubborn, or not open to new ideas.
Revolutions don’t have to be violent. Civil disobedience and non-violence infact go hand in hand.
Sweden is proof that the state is adaptive. What can we deduce from an adaptive establishment? It’s like the evolution of an organism, to dredge up some of that good old fascist terminology. The state is a “body”.
I’m somewhat in agreement with the original poster. Most of the arguments here sound like socialists/communists defending their ideology… “Well, we’ve never had a pure communist society, so who says it won’t work?”
I guess the point is, we’ve never had a pure anything society, including an-cap. It’s not in our nature, maybe never will be.
Did you even read my reply to the original poster? All his arguments are highly flawed.
And his own proposals suffer from his own invalid arguments.
"I’m somewhat in agreement with the original poster. Most of the arguments here sound like socialists/communists defending their ideology… “Well, we’ve never had a pure communist society, so who says it won’t work?”
I guess the point is, we’ve never had a pure anything society, including an-cap. It’s not in our nature, maybe never will be."
Well we will never have Heaven on Earth, but should we stop working towards attaining it?
Well, an Austrian might infer that you aren’t well-read, and are therefore not qualified to criticize Austrianism. And if you aren’t well read then you probably aren’t qualified to criticize Austrianism. Alas this is a front also put forth by socialists (little or big “s”) and communists (little or big “c”). But while Austrians have been relatively ignored by the Keynesian academia and establishment, socialism and communism have been given the spot light and subsequently given mankind a very bad impression of collectivism. This only invigorates the cause of libertarians, anarchists, and minarchists like the Austrians.
Like MP says, we’ll keep trying to make heaven on Earth. It’s utopian in its own little way.
No, Sweden is proof that the State cannot repeal economic laws. What is forcing the “adaptation” is the market economy and not the State.
Governments never learn.
I was too vague. I did not assert that the State “forced” its own adaptation. It would have no incentive to, especially if things were relatively stable before changes were brought about ala Soviet Union. I’m merely stating that the State did adapt. What can we deduce from a State that acknowledges economic laws and rolls with the punches?
Maybe governments are amnesiac. Continuity of rule is affected, so you can mostly predict amnesiac behavior like “it’s not Fascism when we do it!” or “it’s not socialism, spreading the wealth is good for everyone!” i.e. Neoconservative Republican Administration & Neo-New Deal Democratic Administration, respectively.
" I’m merely stating that the State did adapt"
When there is noting more to loot, then the thief must stop looting. So the thief carries on with less loot for the time being. Am I suppose to now conclude that theft is adaptive. I don’t see any point to your statement. Sweden proves that the State is a sham. Saying that it proves that it is “adaptive” is a rather curious choice of words, unless you are advocating, at all cost, for the preservation of the State.
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.–snowflake
and during this period (1% of human history by snowflake’s definition) mankind under government rule has seen dramatic increases in living standards, life expectancy, and technological advancements. Most notably, these improvements occurred after 1776 with the industrial revolution and the information age – both inspired from classical liberal capitalist societies.
Indeed, since 1776 mankind has seen dramatic increases in civil liberties and political freedom thanks to the advancement of representative governance (universal sufferage, elimination of chattel slavery, due process under law, equal protection under law, et al). No doubt, we are experiencing a “bear market” in human advancement thanks to the hyper-statist policies instituted in the 1930’s and more recently with Bush and Obama. Nonetheless, the march toward limited government has been advancing since the American Revolution, albeit in fits and starts.
Lastly, it is a weak argument indeed to claim that anarchist societies are viable when none have ever survived or even existed. for example, you claim that anarchist societies are viable if only because they have never been attempted.
Then the next question is “if anarchist societies are beneficial and superior, why have none been established?”
an ancap contributor tellingly noted that anarchist societies are “too peaceful” – agreed, thats why they are the subject of plunder and they could never survive in a world of autocratics.
In summary, history has shown that the optimum framework to achieve individual life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been representative governance and NOT an-cap dogma. Moreover, many ancaps have mistaken the Constitution as a framework to solidify increased government power when the exact opposite is true — the US Constitution was a less than perfect document to limit government power and nothing else. it can/ and will be used to further limit government power as the absurdity of the welfare state and egalitarianism are made more apparent. Futhermore, within the framework of representative government, I believe we can transfer power back to the individual without excessive violence or dislocation – note the recent examples in the EU in which the scandanavian nations (1990) and greece, UK, spain, et al (present day) have peacefully rolled back government.
in 1600 you would have argued in favour of ‘King and Parliament’ so in 2000 you argue for ‘republican democracy’ and in 2400 you will argue for anarcho-capitalism.
bet you a dollar.
This also sums up my own opinion on the feasibility of an an-cap society. The blind idealogical faith displayed here by some posters may as well be coming from committed Marxists who are well known for ignoring the realities of the world because, well… it doesn’t suit them! Anyone who disagrees can be dismissed as a sociopathic statist nutjob/Randian stalinist who dares to question The One True Way.
Observe how one could argue that a government created by voluntary consent is just as legitimate as a private business created through similar means. The an-cap default response will usually be along the lines of ‘statistism/government/the state is evil’ which implies his argument is not logic, but formed from a deeper psychological hatred of authority in general. The ancap argument is essentially a Marxian appeal to emotion; everything and anything the state does can be rationalised as pure evil, similar to the leftist refrain that industrialists only ever act for evil selfish ends. There is no middle ground or room for manoeuvre, is there?
Snarkiness aside, I think many here should do well to remember Mises himself was a statist. His economic ideal expected at least a Randian nightwatchman state to exist, so Austrian economics is not exclusively chained to an imaginary construct like an-cap land.
Food for thought.
"in 1600 you would have argued in favour of ‘King and Parliament’ so in 2000 you argue for ‘republican democracy’ and in 2400 you will argue for anarcho-capitalism.
bet you a dollar."
Bingo. Attitudes change. Who would have ever thought, a few hundred years ago, that the power of the mythology of the Catholic Church would be as impotent, especially in Europe, as it is today? Hopefully the power of the mythology of the state will take a similar beating in the general consciousness in the future, as the masses realize that anarchism is both morally and utilitarianally (is that a word?) superior.
The ancap argument is essentially a Marxian appeal to emotion;
I think you are missing all the stuff we know from economic analysis.
What are you talking about? What blind ideological faith? If one grasps economics why is it too hard to imagine the society evolving beyond the state, leaving it to die in the dust like the post office?
You mean like Nozicks immaculate conception of the state? I could find you some links regarding why that doesn’t quite work out if you’d like. 
-
Whilst Mises thought of himself as a statist, unfortunately the logical implication of his night watchmen state actually implied ancap land. Why? Because Mises believed in the right to unlimited secession, all the way to the individual.
-
Austrian economics is not exclusively chained to any type of political structure. What it does do however is allow one to realize is that the market is a “better” provider of goods and services and then a monopoly that initiates coercion.
Correlation established. But not causality. Organized religion and language are correlated, but no one would argue that the former is necessary for language to develop.
States thrive off agricultural economies. That much is clear. But to the extent they are parasites and inhibit the process is revealed by economic analysis.
You missed the point of this argument anyway. Its that we haven’t spent a lot of time living under states. We haven’t spent a lot of time being industrialized. Arguments from tradition fail.
This is not what I’m saying. You notoriously straw-man every argument you can’t answer.
Of course you ignore the links on past and present anarchist societies. Fine.
Anarchist socieities are better for the vast majority of people. They are not better for kings and demagogues who rule the status quo. This is why none have been established; because political power rests in the hands of the few. Duh.
So if we default to collective decision making… we’ll have individualism… and if anyone doesn’t like it they have to be attacked… and this is how we’re going to get to peace.
So? How far has the government been rolled back? Was it rolled back as far as possible to allow the greatest amount of productivity and flourishing? OR was it rolled back only just enough to stop the whole mess from collapsing? States voluntarily give up power only insofar as it is in their own self interest. If they could find a way, they would enslave us all.
For the record, I wholehearted agree with Austrian economic theory. The free market is indeed the most efficient provider of goods but that does not mean that it will magically supplant the state now or in the future. The problem with an-capism is not its economic dimensions but the total refusal to engage in an honest assessment of human society and nature. The monopolistic coercive states we have exist because a critical mass of people either wholeheartedly approve of the system or simply don’t care enough to develop any coherent argument(s) against it. Apathy itself could be a form of tacit consent.
Our current problems aren’t the result of the state simply being evil incarnate, but a big result of granting the masses decision making powers over issues they barely understand or had some emotional bias/prejudice for and allowing them to run for office, too. Instead of 1984’s world, we’re more likely to lumped with Idiocracy’s version of the future. All the right arguments and wishful thinking may have little effect until the last penny has been spent and the whole thing implodes, who can say for certain?
(Here’s another aspect to consider: people are fickle; what suits them today may not suit them tomorrow. California may become an island if the coast of the Americas and a volcano might appear in the middle of Chicago. Circumstances and conditions alter, people make decisions based on good or bad choices… The point I’m making is that an-capism is not somehow exempt from those realities. You could establish your utopia only for it to be invaded, destroyed or perverted into a national socialist state, instead. The passage of time may the utopia’s greatest enemy…)
So why not become truly pro-active in the present instead, such as starting a business and growing to Wal-Mart proportions? Identify the economic incompetancies and intrusions of the democratic state where you can, of course, but focus on creating wealth in any environment and avoid the worst of statist stupidity with your superior economics knowledge. That beats merely dreaming of utopias, I think, although one could also make a tidy living writing books set in the glorious ancap utopia as well!