I’ve heard the argument many times over that free-marketers neglect the fact that a stateless society could not exist in the long run because of our human nature. Inevitably, they say, the people’s voluntary associations will eventually devolve back into a monolithic state as we have today and we will simply be stuck back inside the belly of the leviathan.
People, they say, need authoritative structure and security, and they will run back to the state in the long run because it offers the illusion of both.
A corollary to this argument is that, since people are power hungry by nature, they will violently capitalize on one-another in a stateless society and form a state all over again to their personal benefit.
I find that arguments like this are usually employed by those who can no longer reject anti-statism on real grounds and so they try to pull our the impossibility card using human nature. Human nature is vague as hell and practically non-existant, at least on a macro "this specifically must exist’ level. The fact that democracies have proved as stable as they are is evidence that almost any social system is possible.
Are they assuming that anarchy can work great in the short-term?
If so, they need to explain how the long term would differ…
if not, they have not bothered to understand market theory, and so they are basically pulling the wool over your eyes, by appealling to the long-term, when they really don’t have ‘long term’, in their analysis.
“Fine. So let all those that wish to under the authority of the state be in such a condition. Myself, and possibly the majority of other libertarians, simply wish to be left alone, because we wish not to live under a state and it’s violent society, even if we are the radicals of the so-called theory of humans desiring “structure” and “authority.” The issue then would seem that those that see the state as inevitable cannot stand the thought of a some people being free, because they couldn’t be conscripted (enslaved), taxed (plundered), or targeted for assassination by said state legitimately, unless that state had laws like the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA to even worse extremes. But then, are these people that clamor for “structure” and “authority” really clamoring for such a state where they have no freedom and the state has absolute authority over all things arbitrarily? I doubt it; thus, their argument is nothing more than clamoring for a zero-liberty society.”
… and they probably find that a laughable, and not in the least bit ironic, statement coming from a defender of a socio-political organization that has arguably never existed in the entire history of the planet. Since the state has always existed in some form or another of violent authority, it’s not off base to argue that it might be inevitable. And, in my opinion, it’s something anarcho capitalists might want to take more seriously than endless pondering about how the murderer of a homeless drug addicted thief would be ‘punished’ by the market when the murder took place in a none homesteaded area where no arbitration agency had prior jurisdiction and no contracts were in force, and the guy’s mother happened to be a popular lady who made canned hams in another area…
Or put another way, dealing with reality as opposed to endlessly and ever more complicated hypotheticals might go a good long way to making real progress. And the reality is that at least back to the begining of recorded history there was some kind of state that made a living bashing people and forcing them to do stuff for other people. It does seem to be inherrent in human nature that some people would prefer to achieve by force what they could achieve through persuasion. Anyone who has seen the smug satisfaction on one of these busybody’s faces when they get a neighbor in trouble for breaking some minor zonming ordinance or some other such nonsense knows this.
“… and they probably find that a laughable, and not in the least bit ironic, statement coming from a defender of a socio-political organization that has arguably never existed in the entire history of the planet.?”
So then they wouldn’t have any argument. An argument from inevitability is laughable since every system was at one point new. The people who reject anarchism on these grounds of semi-empiricist non-thought are the ones who would have been monarchists who would have rejected constitutional democracy in 1776, or the aristocrates who would have condemned the possibility of capitalism and the industrial revolution in the early part of the 18th century.
Arguments like this aren’t based on any logical evidence and can ironically be disproven historically if one uses the same logic.
Well, someone who would make this argument would almost certainly think that anarchy is not a viable option for any length of time. The type of person would attributes the last 300 years of human progress to the state for finally allowing humanity to thrive, in spite of that pesky thing called capitalism.
As a political science professor I had said once, “Ferrari’s are amazing machines. In a state of anarchy there would be no reason or way for them to exist; property would be unprotected and society would be unable to maintain its amazing level of stability and cohesion without the protection and guidance of the state.”
There are mind-numbingly closed minded people out there masquerading as intellectuals.
Good point. But as the kind sir with the bodybuilding avatar mentioned, there always has been a state. Not to say that there always has to be. But, much like many Marxists advocate socialism not entirely in line with his beliefs, I think that anarcho-capitalism could be regarded as the “final stage” of humanity, and we much progress through the tiers, minarchy being the only one that has a current real-world potential for application.
I have no idea who in the world would be saying that humanity was historically threatened by capitalism. It’s a widely known fact that even Marx had admiration for the capabilities of the system, and less widely known but still known that capitalism in any coherent form has only really been around for about three hundred years and in a very small part of the world for much of that.
As for the property thing, it all comes down to your worldview. If anarchy=no defense of property rights, then you’re correct in condemning anarchy. As soon as you’ve heard of anarcho-capitalism, then either your argument has to get a whole lot more complicated, or you’re lying.
If humans are naturally inclined to have a state, then why do many often find groups that oppose the state, or are very critical of its policies? If the state was absolutely necessary for our survival then why must it extract its wealth by using force against others. If we are all naturally inclined to love the state and ador it, why cant the state get our money through voluntary means?
That means that we are not naturally inclined to have a state, or ALL humans would accept it.
Therefore, those people are pro strate? Because if they are, then they voluntarily accept the state; which is to say that they accept the state as a voluntary PDA, which is to say, with regards to them and the state, that they are in a state of anarchy (pun intended).
Interpersonal utility comparisons.
To your professor: so, it’s okay to rape a woman it if satisfies society?
As much as I’d like to accept that argument, I don’t think that line of reasoning works:
I think it’s pretty accepted that humans are naturally inclined to reproduce; yet not every human accepts/wants/chooses to reproduce. Yet I don’t think this means that we aren’t inclined to reproduce. Same goes with the state.
If its human nature to reproduce why do people use condoms, all kinds of birth control methods, and even resort to abortion if needed?
As far as his woman raping analogy, private properrty would be protected in an anarcho capitalist society. You can defend yourself (self ownership, self defense), or you can hire someone to protect you and your property. Your professor seems to think that anarchist-capitalist systems abolish private property, which clearly they do not.
The same reason people intentionally eat less food (an animal kingdom no-no) and go on diets: choice.
And it’s true that conscious choice makes human behavior completely erratic, and that’s what gives rise to praxeology.
Yet, I think to say that it is not in our nature to reproduce is a bit deluded. And if you just don’t like the phrase “in our nature” perhaps it could replaced by “as evidenced by all human history heretofore”.
It is in man’s nature to act, as well as to choose. And the state simply eliminates choice (albeit gradually, but nonetheless a state will eventually need to squash all liberty to continue).
Therefore, because man acts naturally and chooses naturally (this can just be rephrased as man is naturally free), it is in man’s nature to be averse to a state and to be inclined to liberty.
I agree, and that is the main argument against state inevitability that I use. However, inevitability is a plausible argument because if being a dick is inherent to human nature, and there’s no way to bread it out of us…
Or one could also argue that while the forms of government have changed superficially, we have always been under some form of oligarchal or monarchal rule. And in that light, the inevitability of the state becomes more plausible. Also in your original post you stated you wanted a ‘real’ argument against anarchism. That it has never existed once in known history might not be the most logically pure argument, but for practical purposes it holds water. Especially if people offer a plausible reason as to why it has never existed.
Incorrect. All animals including humans demonstrate extreme and everage behaviors which can oftem seem contradictory. Just because every wolf can’t be the Alpha and routinely challenges that wolf in that status doesn’t mean the basic pack hierarchy is unnatural. There is nothing in nature, or religion that I know but I’m admittedly not an expert on the subject, that dictates human behavior need be consistent.
While it’s true that the state fundamentally eliminates choice, I’m speaking about a more elemental level of nature: do you have a “choice” of whether or not to go to sleep? Yes, in a sense. You can choose to not go to sleep during class.
However, try to “choose” not to sleep for more than a couple days, then your “choice”–if it can even still be called that when you pass out from exhaustion–becomes overwhelmingly influenced by internal factors that have been set by millenia of evolution and genetic programming. We are programmed to eat, have sex, and maximize our self interest. A subset of maximizing that interest would be to form hierarchies, at least in my opinion, and that seems to often manifest into a state.