They don't see alternatives, ... When the system fails, utterly "unlibertarian" people will be finding solutions to the probelms we're faced with
I agree, people do not see alternatives. But if I may point out that literacy only encroached on the Christian masses very recently in history. Before this all of the information regarding the Biblical stories and Jesus Christ we told through pastors, bishops, artisans and testimonials. Now Christians have important "tools" in facilitating their religion, the ability to read and instant communication. This puts the pastor into virtual antiquity.
Hopefully the same can be done with economics, but I severely doubt the masses will have the right "tools" to facilitate anarchy. Look at all the reading, and challenging of presuppositions you have to do just to understand why anarcho-capitalism is theoretically possible! Real world feasibility is a whole different story.
People just aren't interested. And if they aren't interested, they're ignorant. Then they invest in leaders.
1) Limited gov't is a farse; constitutional or otherwise. No limits are ever kept.
2) Anarchy is impossible this century and probably next because sheeple are too STUPID!
The human race has had government for less than 1% of its total existence. It is only even more recently in the last couple of centuries that governments have begun pretending to take responsibility for the provision of law and security.
Anarchists typically recognize that states thrive in agrigultural economies, which up until 150 years ago was the universal norm. The existence of modern governments merely amounts to the observation that pre-industrial predation can continue a while if the masses believe it is necessary. When our democratic republic was being drafted, the popular opinion was that democracy would fail as a government, dissolving into chaos within weeks. But if we proceed like Rettoper and chant "well we haven't tried it before, therefore it won't work" we'd not only still be stuck with the divine right of kings, but we would starve. We wouldn't be able to develop new technology or abandon ancient superstition. Reason is the means by which every single academic field has been revolutionized and continues to make progress. Logical argumentation supercedes all other voices.
The human race has had government for less than 1% of its total existence.
Tribal leaders do not represent budding forms of government? The most basic definition of leadership, once long ago, was "I'm bigger, therefore I get the food, I can hunt more food, and clobber you for not hunting with me or for me. Plus I get all the chicks."
Logical argumentation supercedes all other voices.
To logicians it does.
I still think the internet is more of an x-factor than many realize.
The state has relied heavily on control of education and the media to keep the masses ignorant and subservient, but the internet, more than anything else, has broken the state's ability to dominate information channels.
We can't know for sure if a generation that grows up being able to access all of history's great literary works at the click of a mouse will necessarily fall for the same statist propoganda as recent generations have.
I actually think the elites are becoming aware of this, which may in part explain the accelerating rate of state power expansion, as governments rob all they can while they can still get away with it.
cognitivist:Tribal leaders do not represent budding forms of government?
Theories on how governments arose usually point to foreign raiders moving in an taking over, rather than tribal chiefs eventually assuming the role of kings.
No, but nor can we say whether or not people will fall for more of it than before they had the internet to feed their brains loads of various drivels.
The reasoning is suspect because no matter how big or burly someone is, he's not more so than 2-3 other people, much less his whole tribe. The more recent evidence we have from native americans suggests they favored free association.
The big and burly cave man either develops some other edge, such as a new weapon or method of cultivation, or he is overruled. Okay, fine - Native Americans are a hunter-gatherer example of anarchism. But let me propose a very simple question - foreign raiders always have their leader. How did that leadership fall into place? My counterexample to yours is the story of the San tribe of South Africa. Citation: http://www.rebirth.co.za/san_tribe/way_of_life.htm
The hierarchy of leadership grew out of property ownership.
"state can be limited"
No, it cannot. How utopian of you. Give me one society in the history of the world that has ever kept the power of the state limited. Bonus points if I don't laugh at the answer.
"Take Sweden for example"
And the Soviet Union collapsed as well. That ain't an example of keeping the state limited at all. That's an example of "privatisation". Try again, this time were the government has been set limits (where are the limits imposed in Sweden, hmm?) and where it has obeyed by them.
"In contrast, an-caps are on the sidelines with nothing substantive or practical to offer mankind other than unsustainable and impractical theoretical constructs."
Negative. I've already linked you to the sources you need to read, but have so far completely ignored. Where is your refutation? Where is the intellectual honesty, the curiosity? Do yourself a favor, read the sources. Alleviate your ignorance.
cognitivist:The big and burly cave man either develops some other edge, such as a new weapon or method of cultivation, or he is overruled.
cognitivist:But let me propose a very simple question - foreign raiders always have their leader
cognitivist:How did that leadership fall into place?
From your link: A chief controlled their resources on behalf of the group
Is this what you are talking about? It doesn't explain on what terms he had control. A CEO has control over a corporations resources but is not a budding king...
I agree that hierarchy is inevitable in some endavours simply because it is more efficient. But hierarchy =/= involuntarism.
There is much fail in this thread. I'm going to take all of it on.
First Retoper Argument....
P1 - Anarchist socities do not exist today.
P2 - Only few anarchist socities have existed in history and they died out.
P3 - Society today is much relative to that which came before.
P4 - This society has stood for aeons...
--------------------------------------------
Therefore, Anarchy is a pipe dream.
Actually, I've changed my mind, Retoper, your argument and logic is impeccable. Voluntaryism is a pipe-dream.
Rettoper: If not, can the an-caps explain why there are no anarchist societies today? Indeed, the few that have existed have become extinct
If not, can the an-caps explain why there are no anarchist societies today?
Indeed, the few that have existed have become extinct
But wait a tick....there are anarchist socities today. :O
In fact, I can drive to one 30 minutes from here. And buy some green. :)
See link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
And it turns out that throughout history there have been more then just a few. See above link.
Furthermore the logic involved is faulty. Even IF anarchist society didn't exist today, and did not exist before does not mean it cannot exist in the future. Democracy, space travel, locomotives, traveling the speed of sound, Denmark winning the European Football cup, England beating Australia at Rugby and cricket, were all pipe dreams. What you should be talking about is what is probable. What is likely. Anarchy is possible, just like making a base station on the moon is possible. Or having a threesome is possible. But is it likely?
Furthermore, human societal organization is not an organism like the dodo or dinosaurs. The only way for Anarchy to never be capable of existing in human society is for all humans to die.
So P1 and P2 are wrong. And even if they were right, are not convincing by themselves.
Rettoper:In contrast, societies based on representative governance (classical liberalism) have thrived, and they have expanded in size and scope since 1776.
This really made me chuckle.
Because when you say societies based on "representative governance" you really mean to say societies loosely based (and loose like a prostitute) on "representative governance".
Then when you say that they have thrived, and expanded, all this shows is that "Democracy" or Democratic Oligarchies as a state framework replaced Monarchy. This does not infer that Democracy or Democratic Oligarchies are better then an anarchist society, or that its even better then a Monarchist society. In fact Democracy, or classical liberalism is not what allowed nor caused the industrial revolution to take place. Not the way I understand it.
Since 1776!!!??? OMGZZZ!!! Just over 200 years. Although your error in assuming government in 1776 was the first representative government. I also think its false to equate classical liberalism with representative government. See Hans Hermanne Hoppe, Democracy the God that failed. But anyway...200 years really is a tiny tiny tiny fragment of Human Civilization let alone Human History. In anything, the idea of anarchy has existed far longer then the current system we have today.
Rettoper:Moreover, these societies have contributed more to the promotion of prosperity, stability, peace, and prosperity than any competing ideologies.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh ok. So If I was a betting man, and a 100m dash is coming up, and I know that child can run faster then a baby, well then I should bet my money on the child, and simply ignore the black man on steroids. Do you see why that doesn't work?
Rettoper: and is it rational and practical for an-caps to be advocates for something that is unsustainable in the REAL world?
and is it rational and practical for an-caps to be advocates for something that is unsustainable in the REAL world?
Oh you mean like how its rational and practical to be arguing for a minarchist society where an institution holds a monoply on the legitimate use of the initiaton of violence to prevent a monopoly from arriving which monopolizes the intiation of violence and that the first monopoly will be kept in check by a piece of paper????
o.O
Rettoper: Moreover, there are an-caps on this site who are advocate for 100% anarchic societal framework despite that fact that history has shown that anarchic societies are unsustainable.
Moreover, there are an-caps on this site who are advocate for 100% anarchic societal framework despite that fact that history has shown that anarchic societies are unsustainable.
I hope you live long enough to see how history proves how unsustainable democracy is. Btw, the U.S is the only example as far as I'm aware of your Minarchist utopia, and exactly how long did that last? If you say its lasted today, LOL because it most certainly died in 1860 and probably much longer before that.
Rettoper: I have challenged anyone to explain why no anarchist societies exist today.
I have challenged anyone to explain why no anarchist societies exist today.
I challenge anyone to explain why no minarchist society exists today.
Rettoper: Take Sweden for example, they have significantly reduced the size of government as a percentage of GDP since their crisis in the 90's. The UK and Germany within the last two weeks pledged to make major cuts in government spending. Granted it is a small step, nonetheless it is a step in the right direction while the an-caps have no legs to walk on since they have no society to speak of.
Take Sweden for example, they have significantly reduced the size of government as a percentage of GDP since their crisis in the 90's. The UK and Germany within the last two weeks pledged to make major cuts in government spending. Granted it is a small step, nonetheless it is a step in the right direction while the an-caps have no legs to walk on since they have no society to speak of.
I just lived in Sweden for a year. No where close to minarchy. The state is still pretty big. Lived in the UK for 10 years. Even after Thatcher, the state is still big. Pledges mean bugger all.
You my friend have no legs to walk on. Minarchy has even less history, less presence today, less likelihood in the future of existing, and absolute falls on its face logically. A minarchist state will always over time result in an ever growing and expanding one. The U.S is a perfect example.
Rettoper, classical liberal states do not exist today, and have never really existed.
Rettoper: No doubt, we have seen an undesirable and unsustainable increase in the intrusion of government in many facets of private life since the 1930's -- however I believe that 2008 will be the high water mark for hyper-statism in the USA.
No doubt, we have seen an undesirable and unsustainable increase in the intrusion of government in many facets of private life since the 1930's -- however I believe that 2008 will be the high water mark for hyper-statism in the USA.
WHAT!? What about 1860? What about all the imperialist wars after prior to 1930? What about immediately after the Federal Government was created? Whiskey rebellion? Sedition Laws?
hierarchy ≈ involutarism. Squares and rectangles.
cognitivist:hierarchy ≈ involutarism. Squares and rectangles.
cognitivist: The human race has had government for less than 1% of its total existence. Tribal leaders do not represent budding forms of government? The most basic definition of leadership, once long ago, was "I'm bigger, therefore I get the food, I can hunt more food, and clobber you for not hunting with me or for me. Plus I get all the chicks."
Depends on the tribe.
If on voluntarily subjects oneself to anthers authority absent initiation of violence...whats the problem?
I think your conception of the tribe might be how some worked, and I would agree that is fundamentally a state, but some could also work in a more voluntary, free association manner.
Simply because a tribe uses fighting as a means to deciding leadership does not then mean that everyone is under the initiation of violence. If one is free to leave at any time, and does not enter into the tribe under threat of the initiation of violence then its not a state.
Or guilds in wow, or corporations in EVE.
Hey Snowflake do you know if anyone has written any papers about anarchy, voluntary association and cooperation in MMO's like WoW, EvE?etc.
My guild on EQTitan, a private everquest server, has a leader. Is it an involuntary association?
You missed my statement.
"... Squares and rectangles."
I was not primarily concerned with addressing voluntaryism in the first place. Not all hierarchies are involuntary associations, but some are. States evolve from hierarchy, which evolves from private ownership, as an extension of self-ownership. People choose to obey their leaders, regardless of whatever consequences behold them i.e. democratic or non-democratic regimes. The decision making processes of individuals cannot obviously be physically controlled.
I'm not arguing for the legitimacy of the state, I'm just arguing that fundamentally opposing it without acknowledging the history of the general course of personal assocations and hierarchies evolved in different civilizations i.e. how they are alike, is tripe.
... Primarly stemming from Clayton's polylogical postmodernism, overall.
Rettoper: Take Sweden for example, they have significantly reduced the size of government as a percentage of GDP since their crisis in the 90's.
Take Sweden for example, they have significantly reduced the size of government as a percentage of GDP since their crisis in the 90's.
Interesting. Somehow, economic reality that forces the liquidation of the welfare state is proof that statism works?
Rettoper: Take Sweden for example, they have significantly reduced the size of government as a percentage of GDP since their crisis in the 90's. Interesting. Somehow, economic reality that forces the liquidation of the welfare state is proof that statism works?
Is Sweden proof that statism doesn't work, somehow?
"If not, can the an-caps explain why there are no anarchist societies today?"
Not enough people have been unwilling to pay taxes or disobey other bad laws.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
"If not, can the an-caps explain why there are no anarchist societies today?" Not enough people have been unwilling to pay taxes or disobey other bad laws.
If revolution were easy, it wouldn't be glorious.
"Is Sweden proof that statism doesn't work, somehow?"
The proof is in deductive reasoning. All Sweden proves is that Sweden is no proof for anything.
"If revolution were easy, it wouldn't be glorious."
I am not talking about revolution. I am just talking about not obeying.
The majority of people are lazy intellectually, stubborn, or not open to new ideas.
Revolutions don't have to be violent. Civil disobedience and non-violence infact go hand in hand.
DD5: "Is Sweden proof that statism doesn't work, somehow?" The proof is in deductive reasoning. All Sweden proves is that Sweden is no proof for anything.
Sweden is proof that the state is adaptive. What can we deduce from an adaptive establishment? It's like the evolution of an organism, to dredge up some of that good old fascist terminology. The state is a "body".
I'm somewhat in agreement with the original poster. Most of the arguments here sound like socialists/communists defending their ideology... "Well, we've never had a pure communist society, so who says it won't work?"
I guess the point is, we've never had a pure *anything* society, including an-cap. It's not in our nature, maybe never will be.
Did you even read my reply to the original poster? All his arguments are highly flawed.
And his own proposals suffer from his own invalid arguments.
"I'm somewhat in agreement with the original poster. Most of the arguments here sound like socialists/communists defending their ideology... "Well, we've never had a pure communist society, so who says it won't work?"
I guess the point is, we've never had a pure *anything* society, including an-cap. It's not in our nature, maybe never will be."
Well we will never have Heaven on Earth, but should we stop working towards attaining it?
I'm somewhat in agreement with the original poster. Most of the arguments here sound like socialists/communists defending their ideology... "Well, we've never had a pure communist society, so who says it won't work?" I guess the point is, we've never had a pure *anything* society, including an-cap. It's not in our nature, maybe never will be.
Well, an Austrian might infer that you aren't well-read, and are therefore not qualified to criticize Austrianism. And if you aren't well read then you probably aren't qualified to criticize Austrianism. Alas this is a front also put forth by socialists (little or big "s") and communists (little or big "c"). But while Austrians have been relatively ignored by the Keynesian academia and establishment, socialism and communism have been given the spot light and subsequently given mankind a very bad impression of collectivism. This only invigorates the cause of libertarians, anarchists, and minarchists like the Austrians.
Like MP says, we'll keep trying to make heaven on Earth. It's utopian in its own little way.
cognitivist: DD5: "Is Sweden proof that statism doesn't work, somehow?" The proof is in deductive reasoning. All Sweden proves is that Sweden is no proof for anything. Sweden is proof that the state is adaptive. What can we deduce from an adaptive establishment? It's like the evolution of an organism, to dredge up some of that good old fascist terminology. The state is a "body".
No, Sweden is proof that the State cannot repeal economic laws. What is forcing the "adaptation" is the market economy and not the State.
Governments never learn.
What is forcing the "adaptation" is the market economy and not the State.
I was too vague. I did not assert that the State "forced" its own adaptation. It would have no incentive to, especially if things were relatively stable before changes were brought about ala Soviet Union. I'm merely stating that the State did adapt. What can we deduce from a State that acknowledges economic laws and rolls with the punches?
Maybe governments are amnesiac. Continuity of rule is affected, so you can mostly predict amnesiac behavior like "it's not Fascism when we do it!" or "it's not socialism, spreading the wealth is good for everyone!" i.e. Neoconservative Republican Administration & Neo-New Deal Democratic Administration, respectively.
" I'm merely stating that the State did adapt"
When there is noting more to loot, then the thief must stop looting. So the thief carries on with less loot for the time being. Am I suppose to now conclude that theft is adaptive. I don't see any point to your statement. Sweden proves that the State is a sham. Saying that it proves that it is "adaptive" is a rather curious choice of words, unless you are advocating, at all cost, for the preservation of the State.
The human race has had government for less than 1% of its total existence. It is only even more recently in the last couple of centuries that governments have begun pretending to take responsibility for the provision of law and security. Anarchists typically recognize that states thrive in agrigultural economies, which up until 150 years ago was the universal norm. The existence of modern governments merely amounts to the observation that pre-industrial predation can continue a while if the masses believe it is necessary. When our democratic republic was being drafted, the popular opinion was that democracy would fail as a government, dissolving into chaos within weeks. But if we proceed like Rettoper and chant "well we haven't tried it before, therefore it won't work" we'd not only still be stuck with the divine right of kings, but we would starve. We wouldn't be able to develop new technology or abandon ancient superstition. Reason is the means by which every single academic field has been revolutionized and continues to make progress. Logical argumentation supercedes all other voices.--snowflake
Anarchists typically recognize that states thrive in agrigultural economies, which up until 150 years ago was the universal norm. The existence of modern governments merely amounts to the observation that pre-industrial predation can continue a while if the masses believe it is necessary. When our democratic republic was being drafted, the popular opinion was that democracy would fail as a government, dissolving into chaos within weeks. But if we proceed like Rettoper and chant "well we haven't tried it before, therefore it won't work" we'd not only still be stuck with the divine right of kings, but we would starve. We wouldn't be able to develop new technology or abandon ancient superstition. Reason is the means by which every single academic field has been revolutionized and continues to make progress. Logical argumentation supercedes all other voices.--snowflake
and during this period (1% of human history by snowflake's definition) mankind under government rule has seen dramatic increases in living standards, life expectancy, and technological advancements. Most notably, these improvements occurred after 1776 with the industrial revolution and the information age -- both inspired from classical liberal capitalist societies.
Indeed, since 1776 mankind has seen dramatic increases in civil liberties and political freedom thanks to the advancement of representative governance (universal sufferage, elimination of chattel slavery, due process under law, equal protection under law, et al). No doubt, we are experiencing a "bear market" in human advancement thanks to the hyper-statist policies instituted in the 1930's and more recently with Bush and Obama. Nonetheless, the march toward limited government has been advancing since the American Revolution, albeit in fits and starts.
Lastly, it is a weak argument indeed to claim that anarchist societies are viable when none have ever survived or even existed. for example, you claim that anarchist societies are viable if only because they have never been attempted.
Then the next question is "if anarchist societies are beneficial and superior, why have none been established?"
an ancap contributor tellingly noted that anarchist societies are "too peaceful" -- agreed, thats why they are the subject of plunder and they could never survive in a world of autocratics.
In summary, history has shown that the optimum framework to achieve individual life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been representative governance and NOT an-cap dogma. Moreover, many ancaps have mistaken the Constitution as a framework to solidify increased government power when the exact opposite is true --- the US Constitution was a less than perfect document to limit government power and nothing else. it can/ and will be used to further limit government power as the absurdity of the welfare state and egalitarianism are made more apparent. Futhermore, within the framework of representative government, I believe we can transfer power back to the individual without excessive violence or dislocation -- note the recent examples in the EU in which the scandanavian nations (1990) and greece, UK, spain, et al (present day) have peacefully rolled back government.
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government
in 1600 you would have argued in favour of 'King and Parliament' so in 2000 you argue for 'republican democracy' and in 2400 you will argue for anarcho-capitalism.
bet you a dollar.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
tfr000: I'm somewhat in agreement with the original poster. Most of the arguments here sound like socialists/communists defending their ideology... "Well, we've never had a pure communist society, so who says it won't work?" I guess the point is, we've never had a pure *anything* society, including an-cap. It's not in our nature, maybe never will be. This also sums up my own opinion on the feasibility of an an-cap society. The blind idealogical faith displayed here by some posters may as well be coming from committed Marxists who are well known for ignoring the realities of the world because, well… it doesn't suit them! Anyone who disagrees can be dismissed as a sociopathic statist nutjob/Randian stalinist who dares to question The One True Way. Observe how one could argue that a government created by voluntary consent is just as legitimate as a private business created through similar means. The an-cap default response will usually be along the lines of 'statistism/government/the state is evil' which implies his argument is not logic, but formed from a deeper psychological hatred of authority in general. The ancap argument is essentially a Marxian appeal to emotion; everything and anything the state does can be rationalised as pure evil, similar to the leftist refrain that industrialists only ever act for evil selfish ends. There is no middle ground or room for manoeuvre, is there? Snarkiness aside, I think many here should do well to remember Mises himself was a statist. His economic ideal expected at least a Randian nightwatchman state to exist, so Austrian economics is not exclusively chained to an imaginary construct like an-cap land. Food for thought. Ludwig von Mises: "We must see conditions as they really are, not as we want them to be." | Post Points: 50
This also sums up my own opinion on the feasibility of an an-cap society. The blind idealogical faith displayed here by some posters may as well be coming from committed Marxists who are well known for ignoring the realities of the world because, well… it doesn't suit them! Anyone who disagrees can be dismissed as a sociopathic statist nutjob/Randian stalinist who dares to question The One True Way.
Observe how one could argue that a government created by voluntary consent is just as legitimate as a private business created through similar means. The an-cap default response will usually be along the lines of 'statistism/government/the state is evil' which implies his argument is not logic, but formed from a deeper psychological hatred of authority in general. The ancap argument is essentially a Marxian appeal to emotion; everything and anything the state does can be rationalised as pure evil, similar to the leftist refrain that industrialists only ever act for evil selfish ends. There is no middle ground or room for manoeuvre, is there?
Snarkiness aside, I think many here should do well to remember Mises himself was a statist. His economic ideal expected at least a Randian nightwatchman state to exist, so Austrian economics is not exclusively chained to an imaginary construct like an-cap land.
Food for thought.
Ludwig von Mises: "We must see conditions as they really are, not as we want them to be."
"in 1600 you would have argued in favour of 'King and Parliament' so in 2000 you argue for 'republican democracy' and in 2400 you will argue for anarcho-capitalism.
bet you a dollar."
>>The ancap argument is essentially a Marxian appeal to emotion;
I think you are missing all the stuff we know from economic analysis.
AndrewR:The blind idealogical faith displayed here by some posters may as well be coming from committed Marxists who are well known for ignoring the realities of the world because, well… it doesn't suit them! Anyone who disagrees can be dismissed as a sociopathic statist nutjob/Randian stalinist who dares to question The One True Way.
What are you talking about? What blind ideological faith? If one grasps economics why is it too hard to imagine the society evolving beyond the state, leaving it to die in the dust like the post office?
AndrewR:Observe how one could argue that a government created by voluntary consent is just as legitimate as a private business created through similar means
You mean like Nozicks immaculate conception of the state? I could find you some links regarding why that doesn't quite work out if you'd like. :)
AndrewR: think many here should do well to remember Mises himself was a statist. His economic ideal expected at least a Randian nightwatchman state to exist, so Austrian economics is not exclusively chained to an imaginary construct like an-cap land
1) Whilst Mises thought of himself as a statist, unfortunately the logical implication of his night watchmen state actually implied ancap land. Why? Because Mises believed in the right to unlimited secession, all the way to the individual.
2) Austrian economics is not exclusively chained to any type of political structure. What it does do however is allow one to realize is that the market is a "better" provider of goods and services and then a monopoly that initiates coercion.
rettoper:and during this period (1% of human history by snowflake's definition) mankind under government rule has seen dramatic increases in living standards, life expectancy, and technological advancements. Most notably, these improvements occurred after 1776 with the industrial revolution and the information age -- both inspired from classical liberal capitalist societies.
States thrive off agricultural economies. That much is clear. But to the extent they are parasites and inhibit the process is revealed by economic analysis.
You missed the point of this argument anyway. Its that we haven't spent a lot of time living under states. We haven't spent a lot of time being industrialized. Arguments from tradition fail.
rettoper:for example, you claim that anarchist societies are viable if only because they have never been attempted.
rettoper:Then the next question is "if anarchist societies are beneficial and superior, why have none been established?"
Anarchist socieities are better for the vast majority of people. They are not better for kings and demagogues who rule the status quo. This is why none have been established; because political power rests in the hands of the few. Duh.
rettoper:Futhermore, within the framework of representative government, I believe we can transfer power back to the individual without excessive violence or dislocation
rettoper:recent examples in the EU in which the scandanavian nations (1990) and greece, UK, spain, et al (present day) have peacefully rolled back government.
A.L.Pruitt: 2) Austrian economics is not exclusively chained to any type of political structure. What it does do however is allow one to realize is that the market is a "better" provider of goods and services and then a monopoly that initiates coercion.
For the record, I wholehearted agree with Austrian economic theory. The free market is indeed the most efficient provider of goods but that does not mean that it will magically supplant the state now or in the future. The problem with an-capism is not its economic dimensions but the total refusal to engage in an honest assessment of human society and nature. The monopolistic coercive states we have exist because a critical mass of people either wholeheartedly approve of the system or simply don't care enough to develop any coherent argument(s) against it. Apathy itself could be a form of tacit consent.
Our current problems aren't the result of the state simply being evil incarnate, but a big result of granting the masses decision making powers over issues they barely understand or had some emotional bias/prejudice for and allowing them to run for office, too. Instead of 1984's world, we're more likely to lumped with Idiocracy's version of the future. All the right arguments and wishful thinking may have little effect until the last penny has been spent and the whole thing implodes, who can say for certain?
(Here's another aspect to consider: people are fickle; what suits them today may not suit them tomorrow. California may become an island if the coast of the Americas and a volcano might appear in the middle of Chicago. Circumstances and conditions alter, people make decisions based on good or bad choices… The point I'm making is that an-capism is not somehow exempt from those realities. You could establish your utopia only for it to be invaded, destroyed or perverted into a national socialist state, instead. The passage of time may the utopia's greatest enemy…)
So why not become truly pro-active in the present instead, such as starting a business and growing to Wal-Mart proportions? Identify the economic incompetancies and intrusions of the democratic state where you can, of course, but focus on creating wealth in any environment and avoid the worst of statist stupidity with your superior economics knowledge. That beats merely dreaming of utopias, I think, although one could also make a tidy living writing books set in the glorious ancap utopia as well!