Doing anything voluntarily is an anarchistic action. Anarchy works because people doing things voluntarily works. Doing something without being ruled over by someone else to do it is anarchistic.
So clearly, people have expressed their preference for every other form of government except anarchy and therefore every other form of government is somehow better than anarchy.
Not at all. This is verging on an appeal to tradition. The situation is more like, most people have never been offered a maple-glazed, apple and bacon donut, so they have no idea how delicious one might be. Once the insurrection comes some anarchist societies may thrive. Alternatively, there will be another attempt at minarchy, hopefully with more clear definitions of “the common welfare” not meaning a welfare state and which allows secession.
Rettoper:
“…If not, can the an-caps explain why there are no anarchist societies today?..”
Samarami**:**
There is one anarchist society that I’m aware of: the society of me. I am a sovereign state. My President is responsibile for the rotation of the earth on its axis. My Legislature maintains continuity of the universe as “we” know it, including the absolutely critical distance of the earth from its sun. So you can thank my Legislators and my President for having the priviledge of living on a habitable planet.
Last time I “voted” was 1964, for our late friend Barry Goldwater. I was devistated when he was so trounced by Lyndon Johnson in favor of those shapeless masses who “desired to sup at the government trough”. Shortly thereafter I suceeded. Since that time I’ve supported The Incumbent.
In order to live close to family and friends I love I’m forced to live in occupied territory. I’m OK with that as long as I know it’s temporary (I’m almost 74 and I too can become extinct). The idea that I don’t need to try to help “shape” society gives me a lot of freedom. I’m only responsible for MY society.
Naturally, there will be those who argue vehemently that I am not “truly free”, that I HAVE to be part of the state, etc. etc. I’ve heard every argument imaginable (but go ahead: you might think of one I haven’t as yet worked through). And yes, I keep some federal reserve notes in my billfold and I bike and drive on government streets.
Live free.
Yes, you can.
Samarami
The glaring problem with this thread is that Rettoper is the biggest anarchist here. Government cannot be representative by definition. Which means that representative government cannot and does not exist. Unless by “representative” you mean that a criminal gang represents the interests of one segment of the population by exploiting the other segment, whereas all government is representative by that definition. Daydreaming about the mythical “representative government” is found nowhere more than writings by the brand of communists that title themselves anarchists.
“The majority of people are lazy intellectually, stubborn, or not open to new ideas.”
The majority of people are educated by the state.
“The majority of people are educated by the state.”
True and that’s part of the problem but people still shouldn’t assume something is right just because some teacher at schools says so. People should want to see all the sides of the story and judge for themselves who is right, yet few people do that. All you have to do is say something that sounds smart and the majority of people will believe you without doing any investigating on their own. The majority of people also never take the time to think about all the consequences of certain actions. They only see what is seen. That’s intellectual laziness in my eyes.
They confederated, sir. But your implied argument doesn’t seem to hold water.-- cognitivist
IF native americans were an example of an anarchist society, then their predation at the hands of autocratic Europeans is another example of the ineptitude of the system.
and all the more reason to reject anarchism as a viable system that can preserve and protect life and property.
Historians with Marxist streaks portray natives as higher beings in numerous respects in attempt to glorify their backward simple life. The truth is that they were every bit as aggressive and backstabbing as the European states both with the colonists and each other. Much of the success of the colonial states was due to the extensive alliances that they made with tribes eager to destroy rival tribes.
Not at all. This is verging on an appeal to tradition. The situation is more like, most people have never been offered a maple-glazed, apple and bacon donut, so they have no idea how delicious one might be. Once the insurrection comes some anarchist societies may thrive. Alternatively, there will be another attempt at minarchy, hopefully with more clear definitions of “the common welfare” not meaning a welfare state and which allows secession.–olovetto
obviously an anarchic society will likely be prosperous, free, stable, and peaceful. That is not the reason that they are not viable – it is because they cant defend themselves.
They are inherently pacific to a fault, decentralized, and their wealth make them a target for plunder.
For example, does any anarchist favor preventative war that is sometimes required to offset a possible pre-emptive strike?
would any anarchist advocate the use of WMD, including nuclear weaponry?
would an anarchist advocate the bombing of vital industrial targets adjacent to civilian population centers?
would an anarchist volunteer to fight and subsequently kill enemy combatants hiding behind civilian shield?
would the mercenaries in a private “for profit” army volunteer for a suicide mission or reconaissance that is always required in wartime?
the list goes on and on … namely mercenaries and pacific anarchist enclaves are completely unsuited for the horrors and rigors of conflict.
"IF native americans were an example of an anarchist society, then their predation at the hands of autocratic Europeans is another example of the ineptitude of the system.
and all the more reason to reject anarchism as a viable system that can preserve and protect life and property."
Sounds like more of a reason to favor anarchism since it was evil government who stole their land. That’s no different than a group of thieves going to your house and kicking you off of your own property. And that’s what you’re in favor for?
fakename,
I have a more optimistic view of anarchism, despite my assertion that at present it is unsustainable and directionless.
For example, I consider anarchism a more advanced human condition, while statism is the least advanced. Classical liberalism can be called the missing link between statism and anarchism. for example, anarchism cannnot be realized by advancing directly from statism – they need a transition — classical liberalism.
note that the real competition is between statism and anarchism. yet sadly, the anarchist reserves much of his vitriol and invective for classical liberals.
they are damaging their own prospects when they engage in this effort. In contrast, they should be united with classical liberals in the reduction of statism and the promotion of representative governance which is a more advanced form of human evolution more likely to transition to anarchism.
Indeed, higher order democracies (representative governments formed after WWII) have never waged war. An anarchist society would have a much better chance at establishing itself in a world of free trading, peaceful democracies than a world dotted with aggressive autocratic regimes.
Samarami,
I probably would have voted for goldwater too, if I was old enough.
but since the 1960’s:
women and minorities have more freedoms,
billions have been freed from the tyranny of marxism,
democracy has proliferated,
life expectancy has increased,
morbidity has decreased,
taxes have been reduced,
free trade has increased,
tariffs have been reduced,
free enterprise has grown,
technological advancements have grown at exponential rates,
global communications has reached incredible heights,
starvation and poverty has been dramatically reduced,
and enclaves of rational thought like the Mises INstitute are emerging.
Things havent gone all that bad while you have been living under occupied rule. INdeed, the statist conqueror may be in the process of being assimilated by the conquered. FOr example, with the right nudges we may yet see dramatic reductions in the size and scope of government due to electronic mass communications.
In summary, the truth is harder to hide in today’s world. I believe with a strong effort at educating the hard working, moral, and productive (yet oblivious) masses – the elimination of much wasteful, corrupt, and inefficient government can yet be realized, albeit slowly and in measured increments.
IN would be beneficial to have the anarchists on board in this effort rather than attacking the very vehicle (classical liberalism) that is anathema to statism in its purest most heinous forms and guides society closer to the anarchist ideal
Imagine how much better life would be if we didn’t live in this “great democracy” you keep praising.
capitalist pig, snowflake, olovetto, et al,
the substance of your posts is that representative governance (minarchism) is evil despite the fact that it has been the framework in which mankind has seen the most advances in technology, trade, life expectancy, individual freedoms, free enterprise, leisure time, et al ----- and that anarchism is preferable despite the fact that it doesnt exist in the absence of either statism, representative governance, or any other non-anarchist system.
For example, where does anarchist societies function in the absence of any central government overseer?
Moreover, the most effective tool to reduce the waste, inefficiency, and corruption of statism is a COnstitutional Federal REpublic that imposes negative freedoms on government. NOt the fantasy of anarchism that has done nothing practical to promote individual rights and freedoms – indeed this dogma may have alienated many citizens we may have otherwise been amendable to replacement of statism with minarchism.
For example, a Constitution that restricts and minimizes the abuses of government is what I would place my trust in. I believe that an educated populace would share my view.
Typically my views have been misrepresented by the anarchists who incorrectly state that I “trust” government. Nothing is further from the truth.
We both agree that government is anathema to societal health and well being – the difference between myself and the anarchists is that I advocate a more realistic and practical way to reduce its size and scope (amending the Constitution – a balance budget amendment to start)
In contrast, the anarchists have never offered any substance plan on reducing government other than criticizing minarchism, ad nauseam posting of dogma absent any call or plan to action, and handwringing doom and gloom scenarios.
In summary, if anarchism is the “be all and end all” — gives us the gameplan for its domination. Don’t you think that your ascendency is about 40,000 years overdue. (alas, all we are likely to get is more philosophical hot air, attacks on the minarchist messengers, and condemnations of alternate systems in the absence of anything practical and substantive)
Look d00d. You’re generally wrong, on everything. I’ve tried to get you to read such things as The Myth of National Defense and various things on the utopianism of “limited government”, but all you do is run your mouth. Don’t address me, I don’t care at all what you have to say.
"…Things havent gone all that bad while you have been living under occupied rule. INdeed, the statist conqueror may be in the process of being assimilated by the conquered. FOr example, with the right nudges we may yet see dramatic reductions in the size and scope of government due to electronic mass communications.
In summary, the truth is harder to hide in today’s world. I believe with a strong effort at educating the hard working, moral, and productive (yet oblivious) masses – the elimination of much wasteful, corrupt, and inefficient government can yet be realized, albeit slowly and in measured increments.
IN would be beneficial to have the anarchists on board in this effort rather than attacking the very vehicle (classical liberalism) that is anathema to statism in its purest most heinous forms and guides society closer to the anarchist idea…"
By “the hard working, moral, and productive (yet oblivious) masses” I’m presuming you mean ME. Do you not??? After all, I had 7 kids, now have 22 grandkids and 4 great grandchildren (#4 came along last week). If I ain’t the masses I FEEL like the masses (although I’m not as oblivious as I perhaps sound).
And all the benefits you list were probably due to my leaving hands off, encouraging home schooling of my grandkids and now great grandkids, and not trying to shape YOURl society.
Samarami
Rettroper:
"…the substance of your posts is that representative governance (minarchism) is evil despite the fact that it has been the framework in which mankind has seen the most advances in technology, trade, life expectancy, individual freedoms, free enterprise, leisure time, et al ----- and that anarchism is preferable despite the fact that it doesnt exist in the absence of either statism, representative governance, or any other non-anarchist system.
For example, where does anarchist societies function in the absence of any central government overseer?.."
Samarami:
Does anybody else get the feeling Rettroper sounds a lot like Bernanke or perhaps a stealth poster from the District of Collectivism…er, Columbia???
samarami,
my guess is that you have been a greater contributor to the societal health and well being then me.
moreover, you are indeed blessed to have brought 7 kids, 22 grandkids, and 4 great grandchildren into the world. NO doubt they will benefit society if you were able to impart some of your wisdom to them.
I have found it difficult to teach young people – you have to be subtle when providing them with life lessons. Once they figure out your preaching, they tend to gravitate to the electronics.
Note that I believe that time is probably better spent with our kids than trying to shape society in general. Indeed, time spent with them is probably the best and most rewarding way to shape society toward a better outcome.
however, dont hesitate to correct me if you identify any errors in my condemnation of anarchism as a viable system.
good night.
Despite being right on every prediction about limited government, the partnership did not work out well for the anti-federalists. I am all too aware of history and if I am able to make any individual contribution at all it will be working to insure the bus does not stop for another game of Monopoly. The typical government solution is make a problem bigger than it is and let it implode. As soon as the dollar implodes and that $500 billion dollar check to the military industrial complex bounces it’s game over for statists. Since we know what the demographics picutre looks like in the coming decades, I don’t see the young intellectuals who flock to austrian economics listening to a bunch of old geezers advocating another coercive state following any big calamity.
Rettoper,
What do you think of this website? Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate