Where are the limited governments, then? As you say, classical liberal governments have expanded in size and scope. Thus, they are no longer classical liberal governments, are they?
A statist society that works is a pipe dream.
“If not, can the an-caps explain why there are no anarchist societies today?”
There ARE. Anarchy is all around you, it is just being inhibited by the state. Thinking that doesn’t make sense? Take a listen.
Or take a read.
And drop your utopian conception that the state can be limited, because it can’t. It’s time to start being practical, instead of an ideologue and fairly land dreamer in the land of government. Santa Claus doesn’t exist, nor does the easter bunny.
I don’t understand this. If anarchy simpily means “no government” then how can you say there is anarchy all around us when there is government around us?
In threads like this I see a pattern almost impossible to break even with the most “intellectual” amongst us. It is the mindset that “anarchy” must be simply a label in the category of a liquid or a fine powder that can be placed in a bottle, set upon a shelf alongside “democracy”, “republic”, and the like – something that must be imposed upon “society” (an abstraction) so that “we” can now say, “Our-Form-Of-Government (‘governance’, to be more erudite)-Is-Anarchy”. The labels go on, and on, and on. I once started to make a list of the various schools of thought I’ve seen labeled on various “Rothbardian” sites (since I, like most of you, am “Rothbardian” and/or “Misean” and/or “Randian” – the attempts at intellectual labels to define all these “schools” are endless). I think I’m up to 50 and counting – too long to post here to make my point.
I submit most posters simply cannot wrap their minds around true anarchy – the LACK of any government capable of being IMPOSED upon the shapeless masses that they think of as “society”. But “society” doesn’t exist – it is an abstraction. People exist. By the same token, “government” doesn’t exist. Another abstraction. State employees exist. You can forget the endless slogans, one of which is, “We-Are-A-Nation-Of-Laws, Not-Men”.
The family unit is a true anarchy. My 7 children, all grown now, were once under my “governance”. At birth each was totally dependent upon their mom and me for EVERYTHING. We were responsible for their education and we were responsible for their behavior (and correction thereof at times) and we were responsible for their well-being. State employees ALWAYS attempt to co-opt that anarchy, however. Their subtle message ALWAYS comes out to read, “YOUR children are not really YOUR children – they’re OUR children”. And of course the first rattle out of the government organizational box has to be government (“public”) school “systems”. It is highly important that “our children” be indoctrinated with a government point of view. It is essential that NO CHILD QUESTION whether government actually serves a socially useful purpose.
If a child today is injured through some careless accident it is likely employees of state will be notified and an “investigation” will ensue and you could “lose your parental rights”. At this point it is important to understand: state employees will NEVER grant you “rights”. State employees can only take away rights you have by nature at birth.
So when I come on here and announce “I am a sovereign state” (living under occupation in those times I can’t fly under the white man’s radar) – well, that goes right over the heads of most of the posters here, I think. That’s because they cannot think of “anarchy” as a way of life. They simply have to think of it as a “system of governance”.
You can be free. Yes, you can.
Samarami
ain’t that the Truth.
- peace and love
If a ruler commanded “thou shall not kill” how would you explain an occurance of one person killing another person? How is it possible to be commanded “thou shall not kill” by a ruler and for a subject to kill another person?
Do you have any answer to offer other than rulers and subjects do not exist?
I’m with you, Samarami. The question I have come to lately is this: I can live free but are not the freest individuals those who use the state apparatus to coerce others? Is it possible to live free in a society indoctrinated in statism without participating in the coercive system? For example, I could become a politician. I would escape taxes and I could arrange business deals without fear of regulations. I would be a much freer man than I am today. But, in the process, I would have done nothing more than left the ranks of the slaves and joined the ranks of the slaveholders. Is there not a third way? Is there a way to escape the slavery while refusing to participate in enslaving your fellow man through the apparatus of State?
Clayton -
But how does one choose to live free while in prison?
Absolutely! I become “subject” to anyone who points a gun at me. So the key to living free in occupied territory is to avoid gun toters. It is much easier to avoid gun toting swamp robbers than it is to avoid gun toting robbers and parasites in state costumes – and the swamp robber doesn’t even expect me to pledge allegiance to any of his flags.
And when I declare, “I am a sovereign state” I often add, "my Ruler is responsible for the rotation of the earth on its axis; my Congressmen are responsible for the continuity of the universe that allows YOU and those you love to live on a habitable, hospitable planet that can sustain life (a condition no “scientist” has yet observed anywhere else in this vast, uncomprehendable galaxy which they now believe is just one of billions – trillions perhaps – of other galaxies in this universe – a dimension you can’t possibly grasp no matter how intelligent you think you might be).
So we should ALL pledge allegiance to MY Government (just kidding, of course – well, maybe I’m not).
Do I have Rules and Laws? Indeed. They can be inscribed upon two tablets of stone. And if I put forth my very best effort to stay within those Rules I will cause neither you nor “the white men” (“our” rulers) difficulty. But on this I tread very, very lightly around professing anarchists and libertarians lest I be misinterpreted as promoting one belief or another.. Many free thinkers call themselves “atheists” and bristle at that idea (although here we are posting endless mini essays, often bemoaning and berating other posters on this forum, trying to convince each other of our absolutely viable theories pertaining to anarchy). I can certainly understand that fear, however, when I consider how thoroughly religions have sullied creation, sustenance and existance. Religion and Government (both abstractons) have walked hand in glove through history and will continue to do so.
Be free.
Samarami
Groups of individuals are more capable to exert physical force than individuals.
Due to the fact that a group can overpower an individual more easily.
And despotic monarchies had thrived for millenia before that. I don’t understand how this is relevant.
That is a values statement on your part.
It is a spectrum. Western European culture has advanced the amount of personal freedoms an individual is allowed to claim over the centuries. We have gone from serfs to citizens. Anarchic ideologies are just this trend carried to its conclusion, with every individual granted unlimited freedoms.
It would be interesting to see of the republics and democracies of the world, which have been more successful (by your criteria, which I am unaware); the ones in which the individual is granted greater choice (the more anarchic varieties) vs. the ones in which the peoples decisions are more closely managed (the more totalitarian varieties). I would be interested in the results as well.
Clayton:
“…are not the freest individuals those who use the state apparatus to coerce others? Is it possible to live free in a society indoctrinated in statism without participating in the coercive system…”
If you believed you could be free while robbing folks through state apparatus you would not be reading Mises or posting on this forum. All of us here believe in being free. We just have different ideas and theories by which to achieve freedom. Most actual statists would never darken the door of a Mises forum.
But you bring up a good point: this is a “society” indoctrinated in statism… (Perhaps better stated: we are men and women who have overcome our childhood indoctrination of statism and we are learning how to live in liberty; but we have no choice but to live among a majority of other men and women – many within our own families – who have not and will never overcome statism or the coercive system).
I threaten to pick up a copy of the old classic, “Gone With The Wind” to look up passages written by Margaret Mitchell where she had Brett Butler lecturing Scarlet O’Hara over basic principles of anarchy and libertarianism during one of the darkest moments of U.S. history. Capt. Butler proceded to make a fortune from both sides of the war while virtually all others North and South were chanting slogans and killing each other and coercing “citizens” to “be-true-to-the-cause” (while most of them couldn’t identify “The Cause” if it bit them in the arse). Butler remained productive and was able to be genuine help to Scarlet and her family while others stagnated in statism. I often felt Margaret Mitchell was actually more talented than Ayn Rand in putting forth the mechanics of living in liberty while the world around was disintegrating into tyrrany.
I operate on state streets and highways and I keep a few frn’s (federal reserve notes) in my billfold. But I am ever mindful it is Caesar’s picture, not MY Ruler’s picture, inscribed on the frn. I go to employees of state to get their stamped approval (“drivers’ license”) for operating on state roads simply because nerds in state costumes threaten me with violence if I don’t. (Remember: living is a priveledge, not a right ). These are conditions I would have to meet if I lived in France or Costa Rica or Iran. Just because I get a license or a visa does not mean I pledge allegiance or am obsequious to their state employees and flags.
I think it’s the free mindset that makes the difference. I would never participate in state elections or try to get laws passed favoring me over you – not because I’m that altruistic – I’m quite selfish, actually – but because I see state apparatus as an evil web in which I do not wish to become ensnared. And I, like you and most here, have become convinced the free market is the most efficient and effective means by which to survive and prosper – free people making free exchanges without interference.
Samarami
Ask me about it!
I learned how to become free while “in the hole” (solitary) before I was forced to stop drinking. U.S. Prisions can be the best liberty courses in town.
Samarami
I just did ask you about it. How did you do it?
I’ve watched the movie but never read the book… I’ve added it to my to-read list.
Yeah, mindset is everything. Guido Hulsmann uses the term “originary secession” to describe the very mindset you are talking about, “I do what I do not because I’m being told to by someone with a badge and a flag stitched on their shoulder but because I have determined it is the best course of action for my own well-being and that of my family.” I pay taxes only because I want to not be in prison and saddled with even more extortion in the form of fines. I would feel no more guilt at not paying taxes than I would feel at not turning over my wallet to the mugger.
One of the things I’m working through right now is the profound mischief of mistaking statutory law for customary or real law. When people hear expressions to the effect that “I drive the speed limit only because I do not want a ticket but otherwise, if I thought I could get away with it, I would drive whatever speed seemed right to me” and so on, they immediately hear these as expressions of lawlessness. But the speed limit is not customary law, it is a statutory law. It is a dictate uttered by the State. Dictates are not law. Laws emerge from human social interactions and result from ethical norms. Laws can only arise where there is competitive production of law and where legal rulings are binding only by virtue of their mutual agreeableness to the parties involved in dispute. Saying that I will only obey statutory laws out of prudence and not conscience is not an expression of lawlessness, it is an observation that the dictates of the State are capricious, self-serving, amoral and lacking any ethical force whatever.
I do recognize a law higher than my own will - and anyone who wishes to maintain credibility in the ethical discourse must recognize a law higher than their own will - but that law can only emerge in the context of a competitive market of legal services. The territorial monopolization of law - like any central planning system - destroys law and makes it impossible to know what the law is and ought to be. The State creates lawlessness, I don’t and liberty certainly does not.
Clayton -
So are you suggesting government doesn’t exist?
chloe,
Thanks for the link.
Indeed, logical fallacies are rife among the anarchist arguments on this thread.
For example, they have engaged in every argument and lamentation except answering my simple challenge of “Why don’t market anarchic societies exist?” or if this question is an example of a “logical fallacy” and anarchic societies do indeed exist in the absence of other systems, “where is this anarchic society?”
Instead of answering this simple challenge or excepting the premise that the anarchic society is unsustainable, a fantasy, the ancaps have resorted to red herrings by misrepresenting my position on the efficacy and morality of government. For example, I have never fawned over statism, indeed I consider it to be “a necessary evil at best and an intolerable evil in most cases”. Yet, because I state the fact that anarchist societies are unsustainable – I am presumed incorrectly to be a statist. Amusingly, a contributor even surmised that I was a adherent of Bernanke despite the fact that I have advocated the elimination of the federal reserve on this very thread ! – logical fallacies if ones ever existed.
Amusingly, the ancaps adhere to the logical fallacy that all government is evil, for example that no good has ever been dispensed within the framework of central governance hence the articles of confederation, the magna carta, and the admirable goal of amending the Constitution to dramatically reduce the size and scope of government are nonetheless “evil” simply because they are constructs of government – yet they fawn over a system that they claim is perfect, yet paradoxically has been unable to consistently defend or establish itself ?!?!
If anarchism is perfect, why doesn’t it exist in any appreciable size?
Another example of the intellectual rigidity of the anarchist is that many cannot even qualify which system is the least oppressive among those that are currently practiced. For example, in their view the most heinous and repressive statist regimes are equivalent to the most enlightened liberal democracies.
It seems to be the belief of some anarchists to cling to the dream that his system of choice will somehow materialize in thin air, simply market forces will make it happen despite 40,000 years to the contrary. Other anarchists attack all other systems (reserving the most virulent for minarchism) despite the fact that they acknowledge that their desired system may never be realized. For example, if they cant have a fantasy, they wont have anything – even when one imperfect system (classical liberalism) that has led to far less poverty, violence, instability, and loss of freedoms when compared to autocratic regimes.
In summary, ancaps offer nothing except ad nauseam theoretical cheerleading of anacharism in the absence of any substantive plan or framework to achieve its realization, doom and gloom predictions on the collapse of civilization, again in the absence of any rational and substantive alternative strategies, and criticisms of the most dynamic, virulent, viable and least repressive of all current governing constructs, namely liberal democracy. In contrast, I strongly advocate dramatic reductions in the size and scope of government — however, I differ from the anarchist in understanding that the anarchist’s goal of elimination of ALL government is a fantasy that ultimately undermines the ability of society to achieve more realistic and attainable outcomes. For example, islamic extremists want a world dominated by sharia law – yet the more aggressively they pursue this end, the more likely they will see the opposite occur by exposing themselves as rigid closed-minded ideologues.
Rettoper, I insist that henceforth you say “some anarchist/ancaps” instead of simply “anarchists/ancaps” when denouncing their alleged faults. Otherwise, ancaps here who are not guilty of those faults will take it as an unfair ad hominem directed at them.
your challenge is easily met, why don’t market anarchy societies exist? because we haven’t succeeded in bringing them about yet.
This is no different from the challenge a Royalist might put to rascal ‘radical’ constitutional republicans in the late 17th Century when The articles of confederation were not even in the offing. Guess what,an early experiment was the Corsican Republic, founded in 1755 by Pasquale Paoli but annexed by France in 1769.
It is a logical fallacy to say that because something is not instantiated that it could not be instantiated.
Will you now at least admit that your ‘knock-out argument’, is not a knock-out argument, however skeptical your interpretation of history and political science might have led you to be in respect of marketanarchy…?
Jackson LaRose,
I see that you have provided arguments for why anarchic societies are unsustainable, namely anarchic societies are decentralized and therefore subject to predation by less advanced but more centralized enemies who can concentrate power.
…despotic monarchies had thrived for millenia before that. I don’t understand how this is relevant.-- jackson
It is relevant from the standpoint that if you are an advocate for a system, that system should be viable. It took liberal democracy less than 200 years to destroy monarchism that had existed for hundreds of years. In contrast, anarchism is not a proven viable system by any objective measure.
I 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 autocratic nations. Moreover, people vote with their feet, and Western democracies generally have the highest rates of immigration, even among those states that try to restrict illegal immigration.
Lastly, I agree with you completely that the less government a society has – the more peaceful, prosperous, free, and stable. However, there is empirical research to suggest that when government gets “too small” growth rates begin to decline.
http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/Papers/rahncurve/fig2xl.jpg
NOnetheless, I dont discount your assertion that we are advancing toward “every individual granted unlimited freedoms” For example, the recent statist entitlement experiment has failed abysmally and this failure will lead to less government in the long term.
Conservativism is a flop for the ages. Now, what fool wants to board that sinking ship?–caley
I agree, conservatism is inferior to libertarianism.
However, dont underestimate its sway. There are far more conservatives than libertarians.
of course, this doesnt imply that conservatism is superior, but it does imply that your assessment that conservatism is a “sinking ship” may be overly optimistic.
Ask yourself why conservatives are on here by the score pining day in day out about everything they find unrealistic. When you come up with the answer, share it.–caley
who are the conservatives?
in summary, i think you are manufacturing phantoms or generalizing and misrepresenting the views of some of the contributors on this thread.