Would a majority ever allow anarchy?

[Maxliberty]

@Nitroadict

Despite the merit of the argument of not wasting the movement’s resources, I counter that the movement (and those within it) may burn itself out if it’s focus is too narrow. The State retains it’s monopoly on the services of everyday life on more fronts than political, more fronts than local, more fronts than financial, etc.

Besides, so many already disagree with approaches; it appears the real waste of resources if bickering over which approach is correct or wrong, & proxy, whether those who advocate such an approach, are correct or wrong (resulting in the maligned personal feuds that drive many discussions into the Forest of Punditry & the Valley of Semantics)

I think the question is more so, “Would a majority ever voluntarily participate in anarchism, whether they know it as anarchism or not.”. It would be contradictory to speak of forcing anarchistic activity upon those who are ignorant of it.

I think if alternative services, currencies, organizations etc. proved profitable / worthwhile, those who hear good things through the grapevine would participate in it regardless if they are for anarchism or not. That is, if the incentive (saying, during a possibly nasty depression in the future) is strong enough for them to consider it.

Imo, for some, if it works, they will look closer as to why; for others, they just want it to work & get on with their lives. If The State is further perceived as not working (as well as inefficient & illegitimate by proxy), I think this would help to get more of a majority at least interested.

Action is everything. Your point is well taken that there does not have to be simply one answer. If there is to be change though it will require action and most of the criticisms of one course of action over another come from the people doing nothing criticizing the people doing something. We should applaud all action that trends toward the general direction we want society to move. This would include Ron Paul and a whole host of others that might not be intellectually perfect to some but are moving in the direction of freedom.

[Maxliberty]

@GilesStratton

@Maxliberty

Very well said JC. I believe people all want freedom but it is not easy. There are benefits to forming groups and humans naturally form them. If people have a choice they always choose the most liberated society possible that provides a safe environment. We in the freedom movement if we really want change have to provide an alternative. We can not expect the masses to create the change, it never works that way. This is why the education route is doomed to failure.

What’s the alternative?

Forcing freedom upon them?

The alternative is creating a freer society that is just as safe if not safer.

[ladyattis]

I think a panarchy will more likely happen than a ‘pure’ anarchy. But I do believe that North America may become the birthplace of the soon-to-be Agoras for many reasons, but mostly because the attitude of enough North Americans is slanted toward individualism over collectivism. And it’s that slant that will define the future more so than the current paradigm of the “Nanny State” by comparison as this paradigm is showing itself a fool yet again (as it had in the previous century). But for it to be ‘learned’ as true, it must fail to such a severity that people may die from it, which those that survive will probably have two possible opinions: the State wasn’t big enough or the State is a failed construct.