Your conceptions of “hierarchy” and “leader” sound totalitarian. Did Ancient Greek society have a single identifiable hierarchy or a single identifiable leader? Or do you have a certain delineation in mind when you use the word “society” - namely “a group of people under a single identifiable hierarchy”?
Perhaps you’d like to explain what led you to that feeling (does this really have a place in logical debate?) than the vague notion of “everything I have read on this site”?
I have no idea what you mean by “try and take power”, sorry. Can you explain? Then can you explain how, if people are evil as a rule, it makes sense for some of the evil people to rule over the rest?
By the way, you’re making the same kind of argument from ignorance that Centinel was making - if indeed you’re trying to make an argument at all.
The future is unknowable. So you’ve also read nothing that has proved to you that an anarchistic society will fall to an outside invasion from a more organized group (wait, what?) that doesn’t recognize their “natural” rights.
I, for one, don’t think that an anarchist society would eliminate crime. Am I still a utopian, in your opinion? Why or why not?
Would you consider the system of government established by the United States Constitution to be “minarchist”? If so, how then do you explain where the United States government is today?
Then the same question I have for .500NE applies to you as well.
Would you say that businesses are human institutions? If so, would a stateless society that allows businesses to form and operate be a “utopian impossibility”?
Please support this contention besides insinuating that “anyone with a modicum of military knowledge” knows it. Otherwise, by your reasoning, there should be only a single military for the entire world, right?
I can see that you define the role of the state primarily, if not exclusively, in terms of “national defense”. Tell me, what exactly do you think is a “nation”? Can any group of people form one, in your view? Or do you think there are certain qualifications for “nationhood”?
Yet you provide no support for these contentions. Given that you’re making categorical statements, which fall under the realm of logic, this means you must provide logical reasoning for them. Are you up to the challenge?
I would say that sooner or later you get to one person or small group of people that make the big decisions. Whether they get that way through elections, heredity, or whatever. The result is the same, you have an identifiable leadership.
Feeling was probably a bad choice of words – “in my opinion” based on the arguments for anarchy that I have read so far. (on this site and others) I have not found those arguments to be wholly persuasive.
By “take power” I mean that there will always be those who seek dominion over others to serve their own self interests.
I would say what make you think only evil people will rise to power in a monarchist government? There are a few good people even in the current American government. The Idea as I understand it is that in a minarchist system things are limited to such a degree that a more favorable balance is achieved.
Ignorant in what way? I came to the “Austrian” perspective only in the last year. Before that my positions could best be described as a sort of free market - low taxes nationalist. I have come around to the libertarian perspective on certain issues after hanging out here for a while that I initially disagreed with. (like no drug prohibition)
All this is really just my personal views – but I am willing to be convinced on things.
Oops that‘s what I get for typing fast – replace will, with won’t.
The issue is not crime. For me it is the idea that Anarchy will not fall prey to the same human machinations that lead to warlords and charismatic people (or just a group of people who band together for common reasons) rising to power and creating a state of some type. I find that idea to be “utopian” for lack of a better word.
In my opinion the US constitution is a far sight from minarchist. The first 10 amendments were virtually an afterthought. And the original articles were a series of compromises between the federalists and anti federalists.
I would say it contains Minarchist elements, but it is not what I would call a minarchist form of government.
I’m sorry but I think your phrase “the big decisions” is really vague. For example, Steve Jobs makes big decisions for Apple. Does that make him a leader, in your view? Why or why not? If it does, would you say he’s the same kind of leader as, say, Barack Obama?
We can get into this more later on, but I think the above is a good starting point for us.
That’s fine. You might be surprised, but I hardly find all of the arguments for it to be persuasive, either. My question for you at this point is, why haven’t you found any of the arguments to be wholly persuasive? Here I think it’s a good idea to concentrate on the arguments that you think are the best.
Most people who seek dominion over others (if I understand your use of this term correctly) to serve their own self interests are called “murderers”, “rapists”, “thieves”, “vandals”, “kidnappers”, etc. The only differences between such people and politicians are 1) the politicians typically don’t do the “dirty work” themselves, and 2) people by-and-large still see politicians as legitimate.
The operative word there, I believe, is “few”. How many people are there in Congress alone? How many do you see as actually being good people?
You might again be surprised, but I’d actually say I’m in favor of “limited government”. What I mean by that is I’m in favor of minimizing those things that people think can be legitimately dealt with by force. Something tells me that you’re in favor of this as well. The question now is, which means do we think would most likely achieve this end?
Sorry, I guess I should’ve included a link to the Wikipedia article on arguments from ignorance. An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. It involves asserting the notion that, because a given proposition hasn’t been proven false, therefore it must (logically speaking) be true. This does not follow because, as Carl Sagan famously put it, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I also think the argument from ignorance applies to more general cases where people try to use empirical evidence (or lack thereof) as logical proof.
You did write “won’t” in your earlier post. I was simply pointing out that “the jury is still out” on whether an anarchist society would or would not necessarily and inevitably fall to an outside invasion from a more organized group that doesn’t recognize their “natural” rights.
As James (I believe) wrote in the “Nationalism or World Government?” thread, it actually seems more difficult to conquer a stateless society than to conquer one that’s rule by a state. After all, a stateless society has no single ruling hierarchy that can be replaced and which people are used to obeying.
Okay. How about the Articles of Confederation? Would you say that it was minarchist?
I consider myself a minarchist too, although many anarchists on this site only know two extremes, either your an anarchist or a statist. [emphasis mine]
Examination of the words makes this intrinsically true. The same way that there is no gray area between atheism and theism, no matter which flavor of god(s) you worship (I prefer the pasta variety). Just because minarchism is preferable to a dictatorship doesn’t make it any less a ‘state’.
Yes, 1 degree above absolute cold (zero heat) is still heat. There’s heat, and then there’s the absence of heat. Light or the absence of light. It’s not a false dichotomoy. Either you’re an anarchist, or you’re a statist (however limited). That’s a true dichotomoy.
And minarchism is a dictatorship, a full dictatorship. When you argue for legitimacy of any degree of illegitimacy (the state, based on “consent of the governed”), you concede the entire statist argument. If it is legitimate for 99 out of 100 people to use force against all 100, including the lone dissenter, to fund security and enforce it’s monopoly, then it’s just as legitimate for them to do so to fund universal health-care, or public education, etc.
And minarchism is a dictatorship, a full dictatorship. When you argue for legitimacy of any degree of illegitimacy (the state, based on “consent of the governed”), you concede the entire statist argument.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m an anarchist. My concession was only an attempt to cede that there are quantities of “bad” so that I’m not accused of hyberbole with regards to characterizing minarchy–I agree with your statement.
Skyler Collins: Who says heirarchy and leaders are incompatible with anarchism (a la Rothbard)?
True, anarchism is also compatible with a territorial monopoly on physical force. You got to admit that the only way force works effectively is if it is in proximitity to whatever it is trying to defend or steal. and eventually anarchist society will see a mosiac of territorial monopolies or private military companies (PMC) that will capture and hold power in a particular region or city
and voila! a dictatorship from a heirarchial PMC that holds a monopoly of force within its territory.
and of course, adjacent anarchist societies dont do humanitarian military missions or attack anyone unless they get attacked first, so the civilians within this terroritorial monopoly are what we call in the business SOL
to make it simple, Anarchism is the precursor to dictatorship.
bipolarmoment: And minarchism is a dictatorship, a full dictatorship.
not quite, at least liberal democracy is a cage for dictatorship. it places all of the elements of dictatorship in a glass cage which we as citizens can watch, monitor, and check when necessary.
jefferson, madison, franklin, and the rest of the founding fathers wanted to trap statists in a prison with some power to keep them occupied and arguing with each other, but not enough power that they could form a dictatorship overnight.
of course, statists are wily beasts so they found a way to gain power by leveraging the commerce clause, general welfare clause, and other indirect methods. we just need to seal the cracks in the brick and mortar of the prison that allow statists to sneak out an commit economic coercion and throw them back in. i am thinking of an economic bill of rights to complement the political and civil bill of rights that riggenbach correctly notes has been effective.
but we dont need to destroy the whole prison and let the inmates run free without any restrictions, balance, decentralization, or transparency
anarchism is like tearing down the prison of liberal democracy and releasing the statist inmates to work their schemes without any restraint.
really dudes, the constitution, the federal system, the republic is not government designed to protect us from ourselves, it is government designed to protect us from government. I think the founding fathers were pretty smart dudes and understood this and that was their intent.
they just didnt build the prison secure enough. we need more brick and mortar in the form of an economic bill of rights.
just some ruminations from a war crazed, power hungry neocon.
Centinel: I mean if someone wants to live under a government isn’t that their right ?
Paul: Err…no!
you mean anarchists are going to deny folks the right to surrender themselves to government ?
isnt that contradictory , I mean I thought anarchists believed in freedom. If someone wants to smoke cigars or pot or bang fat chicks, what right have you got to deny them ?
and if they want to surrender some freedom to live under the dominion of a government organization, it is none of your business.
of course, we are witnessing an anarchist advocate a position that denies someone self-determination. Why am I not surprised.
What distinguishes “government” from a voluntary arrangement is precisely the forcing-others aspect of it. You’re free to live however you choose, as long as you’re not infringing on anyone else’s right to the same; but to “voluntarily live under a (statist) government” means to support that government’s infringment of other people’s rights, which is a crime (in the same way as knowingly hiding a murderer, etc.) You’re not free to be a criminal!
Your self-determination ends at my nose, as they say!
we are kinda at an impasse here and this is another reason why anarchism apparently doesnt work in the real world because it is a sad fact that there are four kinds of people out there
one that truly want to live in a nanny state for a variety of reasons, sadly in many societies these folks are a plurality of citizens.
two there are plenty of corrupt and self interested ‘politicians’ that will accomodate them by leading them
three self-sufficient folks who dont need or want a government overlord, in many cases these guys are in the minority.
four folks who are on the fence largely self-sufficient most days and go along with whatever program is in power just cuz they got more important stuff to do, like earn a living and raise families, drink beer and watch the futbol game . probably these guys are competing with the parasites for a plurality.
so how do you deal with this ?
do you use violence or smack some sense into the parasites and their leaders ?
or do you try to find a little corner of the globe to temporarily hide from the eventual statist plunder of your home ?
