Lilburne, you should make this your profile pic.
?
Grayson Lilburn → Grillburn.
ha!
I think Rettoper made some good points in his long list of problems with anarchy, and I benefitted from reading Grayson’s well-reasoned responses. I am not quite an anarchist, mainly for reasons of practicality, so the debate is very interesting to me. I would enjoy taking an “anti-anarchy” position in a similar one-on-one debate sometime. On the other hand, the ancaps here have given me tons of literature to read which I should probably dig into before engaging in more debate.
Grayson Lilburn → Grillburn.
Actually, it was a “short list.” Apparently there is more to come…
LeeO: “I am not quite an anarchist, mainly for reasons of practicality, […]”
What do you mean by “reasons of practicality”?
That, practically speaking, it may be more feasible in the near future to work toward a freer society by attempting to establish a state limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property. It’s part of the old “are politics useful or not” debate.
Is this the thread we make the bets in?
Retopper brought up a similar point, and I don’t quite get it. I don’t see why anarchists somehow hurt the battle for limiting the state just because we believe things would be best if the state was done away with all together, or why arguing for a stateless society comes at the expense of arguing for reining back the state. It’s not as if the populous will one day be given a ballot in which they may choose 1) the status quo, 2) a minimal state or 3) no state, and those arguing for no state take away votes from the minimal state option. A free market anarchist scholar also does not somehow take away from the minarchist argument; that one studies how law can be formed voluntarily and without the state, instead of studying how something like roads or education could be provided privately under a minimal state, does not hurt the minarchist struggle.
“That, practically speaking, it may be more feasible in the near future to work toward a freer society by attempting to establish a state limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property”
Except that there is nothing practical about it, considering your goal is impossible and thus utopian. It will never be reached and must therefore be discarded - if you want to be practical, that is .
Ffs, I get errors every time I try edit my post..
Anyway, here is your problem:
The Trouble With Libertarian Activism by Stephan Kinsella.
I don’t see why anarchists are particularly hurt by the difficulty in achieving social change. It would be even more difficult if you were trying to start a monarchy in the United States, or a democracy in Saudi Arabia. Ancaps have an advantage because their movement simply wants to be left alone; they don’t claim to own everyone else in the country.
Rettoper: "Difficult is the US team winning the world cup – that may occur within this century.
However establishment of a viable and significant ancap society is in another league because there is no precedent and nothing on the horizon has changed to engender optimism for this happening." (emphasis added) source
This is funny because the USA has never won a World Cup. Btw, nothing on the horizon has changed to engender optimism for team USA to win the World Cup.
Here is the most recent version of the debate question, interation #3: “History has proven that enclaves of anarcho-capitalism cannot survive for long given the existence of non-anarcho-capitalist societies. Rettoper in the affimative, Grayson in the negative.”
Retopper brought up a similar point, and I don’t quite get it. I don’t see why anarchists somehow hurt the battle for limiting the state just because we believe things would be best if the state was done away with all together, or why arguing for a stateless society comes at the expense of arguing for reining back the state. It’s not as if the populous will one day be given a ballot in which they may choose 1) the status quo, 2) a minimal state or 3) no state, and those arguing for no state take away votes from the minimal state option. A free market anarchist scholar also does not somehow take away from the minarchist argument; that one studies how law can be formed voluntarily and without the state, instead of studying how something like roads or education could be provided privately under a minimal state, does not hurt the minarchist struggle.
I understand and agree with these points. Here is the general problem I see:
Throughout history, humans have tended to organize themselves into two groups: a leading minority and a following majority. While there are examples of successful anarchic societies, no such societies currently exist on a large scale. Right now, Earth is dominated by coercive governments. Even when governments collapse, there have always been new rulers ready to fill the void and masses ready to follow them without complaint.
In order to become a member of the ruling class, one must have a desire to lead and then acquire the power to lead. Since political power grows from the barrel of a gun, human history is full of violent, predatory rulers. Oh, and power also tends to corrupt. All of these coercive and corrupt leaders are very good at one thing: destroying human liberty.
So what is the champion of liberty to do? As long as he remains in the group of de facto followers, all he can do is complain about the policies of the current tyrant. He does not have the power to implement his own policies. If he wishes to enact change, he must seek power and become a member of the leading minority. He must organize with other like-minded leaders and seek to establish a different sort of ruling structure based not on theft and violence, but on protecting individual liberty. Otherwise, he will forever be ruled by the predators and criminals who will always be interested in running the show.
However, an anarchist does not want to establish or implement anything - he simply wants to break the monopoly on law held by government. The anarchist envisions a society without rulers making rules - rather, with law and order determined by people working competetively within the structure of the free market. Therefore, anarchists are averse to the idea of entering the power structure, especially through politics. On the other hand, minarchists are more inclined to seek political power with goal of limiting the scope of government.
In principle, I am an anarchist who opposes all coercion and is able to envision a society without a monopoly on law. In practice, I believe it will perhaps take thousands of years for anarchy to emerge. In the meantime, I am trying to cope with the more immediate threat of the rise of totalitarian government all around the world with the understanding that more freedom is always better than less freedom. Therefore, I am tempted to take up the stance of the libertarian activist who is willing to become a member of the ruling class in order to shape the path of mankind.
In principle, I am an anarchist who opposes all coercion and is able to envision a society without a monopoly on law. In practice, I believe it will perhaps >>take thousands of years for anarchy to emerge.
would you analyse prospects for anarchy differently if your peers held the same opinions that you hold?
would you analyse prospects for anarchy differently if your peers held the same opinions that you hold?
Yes. If the “common people” like me were all anarchists, then we would be in much better shape. With a certain critical mass of people unwilling to enslave themselves, it seems that governments would topple and the world would become much more free. Unfortunately the masses are all too easily brainwashed by statist propaganda.
Do you believe in critical mass?