Retopper's anti-anarchism thread

Economics Political Theory
161

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.–jared

We have seen dramatic reductions in the size and scope of government in the last 200 years. FOr example, do you think free enterprise, free trade, and individual rights and freedoms were greater in 1775 than today?

Indeed, in the last 50 years, we have seen huge reductions in central governance with the decline and fall of the soviet union and communism.

Moreover, I think that when it becomes glaringly apparent to the masses of the abject failure of the welfare state – the size and scope of government in the USA will decline significantly.

Lastly, with the advent of electronic global communications more people can find the truth (mises.org, et al) that was previously hidden from view for thousands of years by the statist monopoly on information. Of course, we need to continue the fight to reduce the size and scope of government, especially considering the correction we are experiencing due to bush and obama – however the “200 year moving average” is decidedly bullish in favor of limited government.

162

So you did. Sorry.

OK, J Alan, you’re forcing my hand, are you not?

It’s much easier to work with money and marbles than it is internal stuff like emotions. But here goes:

Rule #1 of the hole: Don’t be a joiner or a follower. “Leaders” and “rulers” are nothing but parasites. They won’t help you and they can’t protect you.

I came to quit blaming “the white man” (formerly “our” rulers or “our” leaders – I ceased using those terms many years ago) for my problems. I know how the white man works. So why go crossways with him? He performs something like a rattle snake – he will normally warn you prior to striking to allow you to get out of his way (or more likely to let you give him space so he can get out of YOUR way). But the armed white man, whether in a state costume or not, is far more viscious than a snake. There’s a Hebrew book that refers to him as “more subtle than any beast of the field”, and that he is. He works in organized groups, always led by smiling, waving gangsters who collect themselves in city and county court buildings or state “capitols” and always face their Mecca: the District of Collictivism (well, Columbia). S/he has the acumen to convince a very high percentage of our neighbors and friends and family and loved ones that s/he represents “Our-Country” and that joining hands with Leviathan is not only your duty but a distinct advantage for you. Not.

Rule #2 of the hole: Take responsibility for your own behavior.

If I’m careless and get myself crosswise with “the man” there will be no mercy. He will not help me. Nor will any of his “superiors”.

“If it’s going to be, it’s up to me”. Stay out of his way. And don’t, for Pete’s sake, petition him to restore “voting rights” or any other “rights”. He can only take away rights you had at birth. He can never grant or protect rights. It’s much easier and more productive to be a sovereign state within your own boundaries than it is to “support the troops”. As in Rule #1, stay away from “movements”.

Rule #3 of the hole: White man gratuities are traps. Leave them lie. Politely.

The white man, just like me and perhaps you, is full of ego and vanity and pride. He responds and basks in politeness and “respect” (baksheesh). You might need to oil his hand, but never hold his hand.

When in lockup it gives one lots of time to think, and I could probably have given you many more “rules of the hole” that ultimately lead to freedom once one achieves the “outs”, but this will have to do for a start.

Thanks for asking. Be free.

Sam

163

Rettoper: “I consider [statism] it to be ‘a necessary evil at best[.]’”

It is contradictory to say that you consent to the state because it is contradictory to say that you consent to having non-consensual acts done upon yourself. It is analogous to saying that you consent to non-consensual sex. In reality, when you consent to a “state,” you are consenting to a private defense agency. Note: Although that “state” would be a private defense agency in relationship to you, it would still be a state in relationship to those who have not consented.

164

Rettoper: “[sic] who are the conservatives? […] [sic] in summary, [sic] i think you are manufacturing phantoms or generalizing and misrepresenting the views of some of the contributors on this thread.”

Ironic statement.

165

Rettoper: “Why don’t market anarchic societies exist?” “where is this anarchic society?” If anarchism is perfect, why doesn’t it exist in any appreciable size?

“Society” might be more anarchistic than we realize. As individuals we have all sorts of voluntary, non-coercive relationships and arrangements.

We select and pursue romantic partners, have children, create and maintain careers, build or purchase homes, etc.. All without the need for a centralized coercive monopoly.

People create works of art and wondrous inventions, say hi to their neighbors, dream of the future, play poker, create Websites devoted to discussing Austrian Economics, etc… All without resorting to violence or monopoly or voting.

The majority of our daily lives are handled in an Anarchist manner. There just happens to be this state/monopoly thing that has laid claim to certain areas of it. You and I live in a MOSTLY anarchist society. Now we just need to figure out how to purge the violence (state) from the rest of it.

166

Well, I can’t say I fully understand. All of what you say makes eminent sense, and is excellent survival advice. However, what I fail to see is what it has to do with being free. I’m looking at rule #2. Absolutely good advice - but doesn’t it amount to keep your head down and follow all the rules? How does that make you free?

By the way, I want to amend some of my remarks. There are certain senses, I understand, where solitary (never been there) can be freer than where we are now - at least there’s nowhere to go, it’s considered the worst thing they can do to you.

I’m asking questions because I really want to understand. I think you’re right, I just want to understand you.

167

I think Sam is talking of freedom as a state of mind or attitude rather than politically or metaphysically or what have you. I could be wrong though, that’s just my impression of the statements

168

But wait a tick…there are anarchist socities today. :open_mouth:

In fact, I can drive to one 30 minutes from here. And buy some green. :slight_smile:

See link below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities– andrew

andrew, the anarchic societies outlined by wikipedia (btw a dubious “source” that can be edited by five year olds) have a life expectancy of less than 10 years with the exception of iceland in the 1000’s. Congrats on identifying scattered, irrelevent, and obscure societies that are extinct. your source more than confirms my assertion that anarchic societies are unsustainable. MOreover, the present examples only survive under the benevolence of statist governments. Indeed, the occupants of the danish “anarchic” enclave pay taxes !!! The enclave in mexico has an elected assembly !?!

Dont you read your own sources andrew or do you know what an anarchic society really is ?

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.–andrew

What?! because locomotives exist today when they didnt exist before, then anything that does not now exist is possible, including anarchism. For example, it is not important that santa claus doesnt exist, it is still possible a fat man in a red suit will materialize and dispense presents to the free world by climbing down chimneys – all in one night. seriously, no amount of philosophical babble can alter the obvious fact that anarchism has a trifling history when compared to liberal democracy or autocracy.

of course, the USA, sweden, et al are heavily handicapped by statist influences, particularily with the recent election of the democrats in both houses and the executive branch however the overall trend is positive and I think you will see a significant lurch in the right direction in the next decade in response to the failure of the welfare state.

If the size and scope of government has increased since 1776, the following has occurred within this trend which would indicate that statism at least does not completely stifle the benefits of capitalism – for example, as bad as government is, benefits can still be realized within its framework:

dramatic increase in free trade,

dramatic increase in free enterprise,

dramatic decrease in infant mortality,

dramatic increase in food production per capita,

dramatic increase in production per capita,

dramatic increase in leisure time per capita,

dramatic decrease in mortality,

dramatic decrease in morbidity,

dramatic increase in technology,

dramatic increase in the rights of minorities and women,

the list goes on and on…

not bad considering that by your definition the size and scope of government has increased during this period.

of course the reality is that the size and scope of freedoms have increased since 1776, while the size and scope of government has decreased otherwise these improvements would not have been realized. No doubt we have seen cyclical moves to both the upside and the downside during this period, however the overall trend is less government.

nonetheless, if anarchism is NOT a pipe dream, then presumably you have an outline or plan to realize the goal of an anarchic global society.

what needs to occur to realize the goal of achieving a global anarchic society ? FOr example, if you were the architect of the coming anarchic society give us the causal mechanisms and events that will occur that will lead to this fantasy becoming a reality?

169

Rettoper: “[…] wikipedia (btw a dubious “source” that can be edited by five year olds)[…]”

Appeal to authority.

Btw, how do you measure “dramatic”?

170

‘of course the reality is that the size and scope of freedoms have increased since 1776, while the size and scope of government has decreased.’

Let’s see, we’ve gone from the Department of War, Department of State, Department of Treasury in late 18th century

To

Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Labor, Department of Education, Department of Transportation, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Commerce, Department of Veteran Affairs, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Treasury, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of the Interior

so the size and scope hasn’t decreased at all.

171

And taxes have gone from around 1% to about 50%. The number and scope of federal regulations have increased. The budget of the federal government has increased. The number of federal employees has increased.

172

I came to quit blaming “the white man” (formerly “our” rulers or “our” leaders – I ceased using those terms many years ago) for my problems. I know how the white man works. So why go crossways with him? He performs something like a rattle snake – he will normally warn you prior to striking to allow you to get out of his way (or more likely to let you give him space so he can get out of YOUR way). But the armed white man, whether in a state costume or not, is far more viscious than a snake. There’s a Hebrew book that refers to him as “more subtle than any beast of the field”, and that he is. He works in organized groups, always led by smiling, waving gangsters who collect themselves in city and county court buildings or state “capitols” and always face their Mecca: the District of Collictivism (well, Columbia). S/he has the acumen to convince a very high percentage of our neighbors and friends and family and loved ones that s/he represents “Our-Country” and that joining hands with Leviathan is not only your duty but a distinct advantage for you. Not.–samarami

Sam,

in reflection, do you consider your generalization bigoted and racist? for example, if I made a similar statement but substituted another race in place of “white men” would you consider me an intolerant racist ?

do you equate statism and collectivism with “white men” as opposed to any self-serving opportunist irrespective of his race, color, creed, et al?

moreover, if all white men were executed do you think statism would disappear?

and what is your guess as to why “white men” are so viscious, snake-like, and conspiratory by your definition?

173

Rettoper, with your Santa Claus argument you seem to have an inkling that appeal to mere history (without explanatory arguments based in economic and political theory) is no good for either side vis the feasability of market anarchism. Surely you can respond to my post directly and do me the courtesy of acknowledging that before consitutional republics had success (by your definition of success) in the 18th and 19th centuries, you as a minarchist arguing for a consitutional republican minarchy would have faced the exact same argument as what you now wield against market anarchists…

So, why don’t we actually talk economic and political theory, using history as a guide and sense check, but bringing our critical reason to bear on the issues rather than our received wisdom, or surface analysis.?

174

Rettoper:

"…If anarchism is perfect, why doesn’t it exist in any appreciable size?.."

Samarami:

Well, I think you’ve got me there, Rettoper. Of course I would counter and ask you to define “appreciable size”, because I already told you about one anarchistic state: The State of ME.

And I was the guy who made the quip comparing you to Bernanke, and I herewith admit that was out of order and withdraw and offer you an amend for that. I agree name calling and (il)logical fallacies have no place here and I’m far too old to engage in pissin’ matches over philosophical issues. It’s just that the Bernankes and other “white men” of the world tend to fiddle while Rome burns – to try to convince “We-The-People” that they are in charge and the economy is in good hands and that green shoots of “recovery” are all over and that “our leaders” are taking steps to prevent that evil capitalism from repeating the errors that led us…you know the drill.

My question: Please define “ancaps”. As stated earlier I’m frequently moved by the sheer number of ideas and philosophies surrounding “libertarianism” and “anarchy” and that’s one I haven’t added to my list. Just for the fun of it I’ll try to copy what I have so far:

Various Libertarian and

Anarchist Labels

  • Agorism
  • Anarchism
  • Anarcho-Capitalism (Mises)
  • Anarcho-communism
  • Anarcho-syndicalism
  • Anti-Positivism
  • Apriorism
  • Carsonian mutualism
  • Classical Liberalism
  • Collectivist anarchist
  • Communism
  • Consequentialism
  • Eco-Libertarianism
  • Eco-Socialist-Libertarian
  • Establishment liberal left
  • Explicitly anarchist, pro-decentralist libertarians (Kinsella)
  • Geoanarchism
  • Geoism
  • Geolibertarianism
  • Georgism
  • Green-Libertarianism
  • Individualist anarchism
  • Individualist/collectivist anarchist Individualist/collectivist anarchism
  • Left Libertarianism
  • Left-Rothbardians
  • Liberal socialism
  • Liberalism
  • Libertarian Populism (James Ostrowski)
  • Libertarian Socialism
  • Libertarianism
  • Localism and decentralization
  • Market anarchism
  • Minarchism
  • Modern Liberalism
  • Moral consequentialism
  • Mutualism
  • Natural-rights libertarianism
  • Neo-liberalism
  • Neolibertarianism
  • Objectivism
  • Panarchism
  • Praxeology
  • Primitivist Anarchism
  • Progressive Libertarianism
  • Punkish/syndicalist/queer radical social anarchism (above two from Rad Geek site)
  • Queer anarchism (“sex workers?”)
  • Radical minarchists
  • Right Libertarianism
  • Rothbardian strain of market anarchism
  • Social Darwinian right-wing economics
  • Socialism
  • Socialist-Libertarianism
  • Syndicalist Anarchism
  • Utilitarianism (Friedman’s strain of Anarcho-capitalism)
  • Utopian socialism
  • Voluntarism

I get the feeling this list merely exposes the tip of the iceberg for anarchistic labels – and some are obvious duplications – but I started it on a lark when I first got onto the web and discovered “google” (I’m rather of a late bloomer on the web). It seems to me that anarchists (I suppose I should say “self-proclaiming anarchists”) can fight and they can feud and they can scrap and they can bicker and they can form this and some other “movement”. And my observation, as previously stated, is that few actually see anarchism as a personal way of life. As if with one voice they will start with the presumption that anarchism must be some sort of “movement” that, when consumated, can be forced upon large numbers of people. Perhaps we need to all move up to New Hampshire (or is it Vermont – I forget) and all vote until we virually take over the government of that state. And once all those “free” thinkers get their central “free” government set up it will deteriorate right back to the place from which each participant wanted to escape in the first place with scrapping and political infighting and tyranny.

Hope springs eternal that “governments” can be formed that will be benevolent and kind and small and effective and always serve the interests and the needs of “the people” within their area of influence. I state that government in the hands of human beings will always become tyrannical in time and that joining “movements” like “anarchism” (foisting it upon others) is pissin’. “Power” (actually, the ILLUSION of “power”) is addictive.

Often at election time I would ask (back in my teaching days): “Once these elections are final, just who do you think will emerge as the most powerful man or woman in the country…?” Of course I’d get puzzled looks and wrinkled brows and responses such as, “Obama” or “Hillary”. I’d always answer: “I will! That’s because the world revolves around MY belly button – NOT yours, and NOT theirs! MY world. If I die there will be no power, so it’s important that I live healthfully and happily. But what gives ME so much power is my knowledge that YOUR world revolves around YOUR belly button, whether you admit it or not. And that lets me know if you’re having a bad day it’s not MY fault and you’re not really blaming ME and we can remain friends no matter how each of us sees an issue…”

Be free.

Sam

175

cain,

how do you account for the fact that the human condition has improved markedly while all of this government expansion has been occurring.

moreover, slavery was practiced in 1860 and women did not have the right to own private property or make decisions regarding their own body, yet presumably you long for a return to the “good ole days” of “limited government” ?

Note that I believe we would have seen far greater improvements in the human condition had all of the agencies that you outlined never existed. For example:

since we have had the dept of education costs have increased and quality has decreased,

since we have had a dept of energy, costs have increased and dependence on foreign oil has increased,

since we have had a federal reserve, bank failures have increased, the dollar has declined 95%, and cyclical downturns have been unchecked,

since we have had a Securities and exchange commission, the societal cost of fraudulent financial instruments have increased

the list goes on and on…

alas, i acknowledge we would be far better off with less government – nonetheless, what have anarchist done to force this beneficial outcome ?

and Do you oppose my proposal to amend the Constitution to remove the commerce clause and establish a balanced budget amendment as a modest start on the road to significantly reducing government ? Note that the republicans significantly rolled back the welfare state in the 1990’s and there was a noteworthy attempt at a balanced budget amendment. More recently, an attempt to force the privatization of social security was attempted. In summary, I think the general public is more amendable to chopping away at statist abuses today than at anytime in recent memory.

it is at least worth a shot — [AD HOMINEM DELETED]

176

HI Sam, I didn’t read the end, but you need to add at least:

Plumbline Libertarians (I consider myself a part of this group)

The Modal libertarians

The Schmodal libertarians

177

since we have had a Securities and exchange commission, the societal cost of fraudulent financial instruments have increased

lol

178

‘how do you account for the fact that the human condition has improved markedly while all of this government expansion has been occurring.’

So are you admitting that the size and scope of government is increased thereby contradicting your earlier statement that government has been decreasing?

‘moreover, slavery was practiced in 1860 and women did not have the right to own private property or make decisions regarding their own body, yet presumably you long for a return to the “good ole days” of “limited government” ?’

Not at all. The realization of individual sovereignty is not something I wish to regress but progress ahead toward an age without government.

‘alas, i acknowledge we would be far better off with less government – nonetheless, what have anarchist done to force this beneficial outcome ?’

Force what outcome? The whole point of the anarchism we propound is that people are not forced against their will through violent coercion.

'and Do you oppose my proposal to amend the Constitution to remove the commerce clause and establish a balanced budget amendment as a modest start on the road to significantly reducing government ? ’

I don’t care for it because the Constitution is a ridiculous social contract that no one explicitly agreed to in the first place.

‘Note that the republicans significantly rolled back the welfare state in the 1990’s and there was a noteworthy attempt at a balanced budget amendment. More recently, an attempt to force the privatization of social security was attempted. In summary, I think the general public is more amendable to chopping away at statist abuses today than at anytime in recent memory.’

Because of the libertarian mindset.

‘it is at least worth a shot — much better than the anarchist wailing and handwringing that nothing can be done.’

And who is doing that?

179

nirgrahamUK,

I prefer the practical versus the theoretical and philosophical pondering favored by many anarchists.

if human beings were perfect, then they could exist in a “perfect system” like anarchism.

however, humans are not perfect. Sam will tell you based on his prison experience that many are no better than reptiles. We are alike in that we dont trust government, however I dont trust the individual either. like you, I consider the government the far greater of two evils. However, just because imperfect men live in a “perfect world” doesnt mean they won’t cut your throat just to see the funny look on your face when you expel your last wheezing breath.

in summary, as long as large autocratic regimes still dot the globe, anarchism is untenable. however, I do expect that liberal democracy will ultimately prevail in the ongoing competition with autocracy. When the majority of the globe’s states are liberal democracies the threat of conflict will decrease to latent levels – then the chances of an anarchist enclave taking root and establishing itself will be greatly enhanced. this will lead to further reductions in statism within these democracies when the benefits and blessings of individual rights are seen first hand by observing the strengths of the anarchic system – however, statist forces will see this survival level threat emerging and at this time the risk to the nascent anarchic “state” will be most severe. Ironically, it will be the very minarchists that are vilified by the anarchists that will come to the defense of these same anarchists and insure their ultimate survival.

who knows when the cycle will reach equilibruim between private and public power. My guess is that it will experience swings and shifts above and below some optimum point between liberal democracy and anarchism that reflects both the strengths and weaknesses of the human spirit.

180

I prefer the practical versus the theoretical and philosophical pondering favored by many anarchists.

I don’t understand this concept of preferring one necessary understanding over another.

you must be a practical man with theory and philosophy, or else what are you ? A ‘practical’ man with no theory strikes me as a loudmouth who knows not what he talk about, but can still get up in the morning and punch the clock, practically getting things done. Is he qualified to even discuss the viability of political system? he is not even willing to think about it, he is far too practical…

if human beings were perfect, then they could exist in a “perfect system” like anarchism.

what does perfection have to do with anything? why are you introducing irrelevancies? I can’t talk to you if you aren’t talking to me.