The purpose of government

[Solreyus]

@Bank Run

This is a good article on anarchisms by Robert LeFevre Autarchy Verses Anarchy.

As I saw it then, and as I still see it, the anarchist philosophy is internally contradictory. It professes a sparkling and shining individualism, at which point I warm to the arguments. Then it advocates some kind of procedure to interfere with the processes of a free market, e.g., elimination of interest and rents; denial of the right of a man to own land, or to own land beyond some stated amount; abolition of profits; placement of management control in the hands of workers through democratic processes conducted within factories, and so on

You’ve gone ahead and created a straw man out of anarcho-capitalism. What you’re really critisizing is the fairly stupid forms of anarchy that try to “enforce” something, or perhaps you’re thinking of the more collectivist types of anarchy that are based on thinking that all humans are no longer, well humans…

No, the whole point of anarcho-capitalism is that it stresses the natural order of things, and focuses on how people do act, as opposed to how socialists would hope them to act. And without a state, I don’t see how any of these things could be enforced.

[Bank_Run]

@Inquisitor

So the charges LeFevre makes do not touch upon anarcho-capitalism.

He doesn’t even mention anarcho-capitalism, did you see when those peices were written? Anarcho capitalism wasn’t, around at the time.

Anyone, how is anarcho-capitalism different from laissez-faire? For me anarcho-capitalism is a method, a mental tool used to describe a stateless economy.

Anarchy derives from the Greek. The prefix, an, denotes not or without. Archy denotes rule or ruling. Thus, anarchy means without rule. And in the hyphenations which have proliferated, it appears that few if any wish to be known simply as anarchists. Each person who will accept the label anarchist today probably has in mind a qualification of his position.

It would follow that a word in general usage which cannot be precisely applied to any particular person or doctrine without some type of explanation or modification, is more handy as a term of opprobium and scorn than otherwise.

I estimate from the responses, either no one read the LeFevre links, or no one is getting this whole autarchism thing.

Also, minarchism is not socialism, that statement is absurd.

As both the union-anarchists and the Georgist individualist-anarchists have demonstrated, economic reform with no state assistance whatever is probably impossible. Thus, the position of the anarchist is internally in conflict. The reduction of the state, either in whole or in major portions, is unquestionably meritorious and many of the anarchists have provided magnificent arguments in support of this reduction. However, their protestations are perpetually marred by their primary ambition, the revision of the economy and the wiping out of laissez-faire capitalism, in whole or in part.

Honestly, I’m looking for the best path towards freedom. I am still trying to evaluate the structures of thought going into any of these systems. What I’ve found so far is that autarchism makes the most rational case, for a path to liberty.

Having a state that protects folks from the state is not a contradiction, it is the premise behind negative rights.

[Brainpolice]

In my understanding, there is nothing to stop people from voluntarily forming co-ops, unions, common property, communes, and worker-run buisinesses in a market anarchist society. That is, such things could theoretically be options within a free market. So in a certain sense the more socialistic forms of anarchism are compatable. Only they would have to compete on their own merits (or lack thereof). They most certainly would not be universal within a free society, but I could see them existing. I could also see them being outcompeted over time. Unfortunately, most social anarchists don’t see it that way and have a vision of such things being universal.

[Inquisitor]

Bank Run, that is my point - that the citations against anarchism have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism because the anarchists he is referring to are not anarcho-capitalists. Anarcho-capitalism is based on sound economics. There is a difference…

[macsnafu]

@Bank Run

No less a fantasy than a peaceful anarchy. I am encouraged by a few constructionists.

This is a good article on anarchisms by Robert LeFevre Autarchy Verses Anarchy.

As I saw it then, and as I still see it, the anarchist philosophy is internally contradictory. It professes a sparkling and shining individualism, at which point I warm to the arguments. Then it advocates some kind of procedure to interfere with the processes of a free market, e.g., elimination of interest and rents; denial of the right of a man to own land, or to own land beyond some stated amount; abolition of profits; placement of management control in the hands of workers through democratic processes conducted within factories, and so on

As already pointed out, LeFevre was criticizing what is increasingly being called left-anarchism, anarcho-socialism, or anarcho-communism, not anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism. “Autarchy” as LeFevre defines it might indeed be similar to market anarchism, but it looks to me like it still takes some redefining to use it as LeFevre did. And I’m not sure it’s an improvement over other terms.

[Brainpolice]

Just a point of clarification: “anarcho-socialism” is not a term that anyone uses to describe themselves. It is a term sometimes used by certain market anarchists or anarcho-capitalists to describe non-market-oriented anarchists. The labels most used by people in the traditional “left” anarchist camp would be anarcho-syndicalist, anarcho-communist, anarcho-collectivist and mutualist. And there are some distinctions among them, they’re not an entirely homogenous bunch. Anarcho-syndicalists favor using unions as a strategy (and pretty much are anarcho-communists), and mutualists tend to be market-oriented when compared to the communists and syndicalists. As a market anarchist, I tend to get along rather well with mutualists. It’s mostly the anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists who put up a big stink and fight, as many of them seem convinced that it’s their way or the highway.

[MacFall]

@Brainpolice

It’s mostly the anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists who put up a big stink and fight, as many of them seem convinced that it’s their way or the highway.

And while they would prohibit market activity in their “free” societies, a market society would let them set up their communes without the slightest objection. Not enough to live and let live for a collectivist.

[Brainpolice]

@MacFall

@Brainpolice

It’s mostly the anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists who put up a big stink and fight, as many of them seem convinced that it’s their way or the highway.

And while they would prohibit market activity in their “free” societies, a market society would let them set up their communes without the slightest objection. Not enough to live and let live for a collectivist.

That’s been my experience as well. I’ve gone out of my way to extend the olive branch and tell them that they could voluntarily form their communes and unions in a market anarchist society, as it would just be one possible option out of many competing ones, yet they refuse to accept free association as a means towards peaceful co-existance. They insist on the inevitability of conflict.

In a video on youtube, I posed the question to them “what if I want to be a wage slave? will you use force to stop me from engaging in such an association? does the community have legitimate decision-making power over me in this way?” and the answer was a veiled “yes” and otherwise the question was completely evaded. The user Mr1001Nights is the notorious one that I’ve clashed with.

So it does seem that a significant part of the anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndalicalist movement is constitued by what actually are statists, since they appear to propose a universal system which is to be imposed onto everyone without an option for the individual to truly opt out. In conflicts between communal authority and individual sovereignty, they side with communal authority.

[Bank_Run]

@macsnafu

And I’m not sure it’s an improvement over other terms.

Perhaps this is just a bunch of quacking over terms. Understanding terms and where they come from, helps the rationality of argument.

I am sticking with the terms I find to be most constructive like, contractual society, laissez-faire, self-rule/autarchism.

If everyone understood anarchism, as the belief that governments always harm their own people, than you really wouldn’t need to add a thisX or thatX.

Also, it is somewhat(should always be) comforting to know the law is on your side when piggy wants to subjugate you.

[MacFall]

@Brainpolice

. . .

So it does seem that a significant part of the anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndalicalist movement is constitued by what actually are statists, since they appear to propose a universal system which is to be imposed onto everyone without an option for the individual to truly opt out. In conflicts between communal authority and individual sovereignty, they side with communal authority.

I have met quite a few who take the position that voluntary communal societies coexisting with voluntary market societies will win out in peaceful competition. I like those types. But unfortunately, they seem to be in the minority.

[Ross]

@Spideynw

Wow, anarchists post such enlightening comments. I am not asking if we should or should not have government. I am just asking if we do have government, is there any ethical justification for government above protecting our rights?

To suggest government should get involved in wealth redistribution violates protecting our rights. As such, a government cannot both protect our natural rights and engage in wealth redistribution. Not only that, but wealth redistribution is completely subjective. Whereas our rights are much more objective.

@Spideynw

Another fabulous post by an anarchist. Again, this is not a discussion about whether or not we should have a government. Please open your own thread if you would like to discuss whether or not we should have a government. This thread assumes there is reason to have a government, and is asking what that purpose should be.

Respectfully, I must point out that asking whether government has any ethical justification is indeed a normative question so you are asking whether we should have a government. How could one possibly disagree with the question you posed without saying that there should be no government? Unless you were fishing solely for pseudo-socialist responses. For the record, I would not call myself an anarchist.

[Spideynw]

@Spideynw

The only purpose of government should be to protect our natural rights. Anyone here disagree?

That is impossible for it to do. By its very nature, government must violate our natural rights!

Wow, how quick you learn here huh?

[Jon_Irenicus]

My sole concern, as stated elsewhere, regards national defence. I’m curious to see how anarchist societies would deal with aggressive, subversive foreign states. For the time being I favour something of a subscribed government.

[Spideynw]

@Jon Irenicus

My sole concern, as stated elsewhere, regards national defence. I’m curious to see how anarchist societies would deal with aggressive, subversive foreign states. For the time being I favour something of a subscribed government.

There is no reason to believe anyone would want to invade a free society. First of all, the free society would be producing so much wealth for the rest of the world, that no one would want to harm that golden goose egg. Second of all, and more likely, people would just simply have absolutely no reason to do so. There is absolutely no threat from a free society. Lastly, who would want to invade a free society, where everyone has their own weapons for defense. Even in this country, as stated in another thread, there are people who have their own artillery weapons.

The reasons the United States has “enemies” is because the government of the United States mingles in the affairs of other countries. If the United States simply brought all its troops home, quit giving out foreign aid, canceled all treaties, and opened up free trade to the world, the United States would almost immediately cease to have “enemies”, and as such, all threats would almost immediatly disappear.

[Stranger]

@Jon Irenicus

My sole concern, as stated elsewhere, regards national defence. I’m curious to see how anarchist societies would deal with aggressive, subversive foreign states.

The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security...

[Stolz25]

@Jon Irenicus

My sole concern, as stated elsewhere, regards national defence. I’m curious to see how anarchist societies would deal with aggressive, subversive foreign states. For the time being I favour something of a subscribed government.

Ah, the ole we need the government to protect us argument. The government doesn’t fight any battles though, the citizens of a country do, and those citizens are still going to be there whether they are in an organized military or not. Look at Iraq right now, their formal military was wiped out years ago during the initial invasion, yet the country is still giving “the most powerful country on earth” trouble everyday. Imagine if, on the other hand, Iraq had been a well advanced, free and wealthy country instead of a poor country ruled by a dictator. How much more resistance would there have been?

As long as the people have the idea that they will not be ruled by anyone there is no threat of a true invasion. Any invading army would have to wipe out the entire populace leaving them nothing to rule or get kicked out.

[Spideynw]

@Jon Irenicus

My sole concern, as stated elsewhere, regards national defence. I’m curious to see how anarchist societies would deal with aggressive, subversive foreign states. For the time being I favour something of a subscribed government.

Hmm, seems my original response was lost. Let me try again.

Why would anyone want to invade a free society? Most of them would have guns. Some people in the United States have their own artillery. Not only that, but why would you want to attack your golden goose egg? A free society would be trading with the world, with no trade barriers. This can only serve to create wealth for the world.

The only reason the United States has enemies is because the government meddles in the affairs of others and restricts trade. If the United States brought all of the troops home, quit giving foreign aid, ended all treaties, and ended trade restrictions, the United States would almost immediately have no enemies. Think about it.

I myself do not think that a free society would provide any standing armies. It would simply be a waste of money.

[Inquisitor]

Yes, I think reading The Myth of National Defence will bring you around.

[Jon_Irenicus]

Hmmm fair enough, I’ll give it a look. My principle worry concerns governments using dirty tactics to undermine an anarchist society. If that could be dealt with, it’d be pretty fantastic. Why the italicization of book names by the way? Standard citation procedure?

[Paul]

@Spideynw

Another fabulous post by an anarchist. Again, this is not a discussion about whether or not we should have a government. Please open your own thread if you would like to discuss whether or not we should have a government. This thread assumes there is reason to have a government, and is asking what that purpose should be.

“If black is white, are roses still red?”

“But black isn’t white”

“This is not a discussion about whether or not black is white. This thread assumes black is white and is asking whether roses are red.”