Involving "anarchism" or anything else other conservativism in an assessment of how the world reached its present state is like Leo Messi missing the net by a mile and complaining that the "vitriolic" "invective" of some spectator in row Z distracted him. Conservatives are much like artists. They scratch out some hideous glop and when too few appreciate it the masses are dismissed as hopeless degenerates blind to obvious brilliance. But there is another way to view things- a much simpler way, indeed. The painting is shit. The history of conservativism is one of failure from its outset to hold ground against any competing idea, even the most insane ones that have chewed people up and spit the bones. It's only stabilizer has been the abominable youth prison system that it contrived to farm young men to die in pointless battles for pointless causes, yet even that has not made a mite of progress in its favour and has slipped through its fingers and made a snowball effect of belief in the most insideous statism.
Conservativism is a flop for the ages. Now, what fool wants to board that sinking ship?
It's true that people haven't really been offered a mapley-bacon donut in all of its sticky glory, but what I did and do argue is that such a thing might not have its market, because if there was a desire for it, there would've been some sort of high-interest/immediate need among the "consuming public of political systems" for this anarchism. The fact that on the contrary, there is a much greater profit to be made in expanding the state shows that the state is somehow superior to anarchy.
I guess one response against the above argument would be to point out the number of anarchist governments throughout history (somalia, the pirates and pirate nations (that date back to the ancient world), the earliest cultures in egypt and mesopotamia, etc.) as evidence of the natural appeal and marketability of anarchism but I do find the lack of instances for anarchy (as it relates to the provision of law) to be evidence of the lack equilibrium between that system and the values of people.
The fact that on the contrary, there is a much more profit to be made in expanding the state shows that the state is somehow superior to anarchy.
That is impossible, much less a fact. Everyone can't profit simultaneously from a zero sum transfer. You can only keep that up by tricking everyone else into thinking that you unilaterally exploiting them is actually beneficial to them. Which is how it goes, as in the phantom called "representative government". "We owe it to ourselves!" Egad! Like anything else, the fewer people are looting the more profitable it is. That is why you don't see things like election candidates promising to confiscate all wheel chairs, melt them down for scrap and distribute the proceeds to non-disabled. It isn't worth it for pennies. On the other hand, it is worth it to borrow the entire pool of funding and let the saps in the distant future worry about the economic apocalypse.
Ask yourself why conservatives are on here by the score pining day in day out about everything they find unrealistic. When you come up with the answer, share it.
True, not everyone can profit from a zero-sum transfer but at least some people do and indeed, statism seems to offer some high psychic profit which is above that offered by freedom: The whole world is falling over itself in the race towards bigger states -they seem to hope to reach that lower-equilibrium called totalitarianism!
... representative governance (minarchism) is evil despite the fact that it has been the framework in which mankind has seen the most advances in technology, trade, life expectancy, individual freedoms, free enterprise, leisure time, et al
If you accept the Nockian-Rothbardian thesis that the state, however small, is nothing but legalized crime then it should be easy to see the absurdity of your characterization of minarchism. A sufficiently small amount of crime does not somehow become good, no matter how much less dire its consequences than more severe crime would be. Also, the advances of modern civilization are at most correlative to the changes in government. The Scientific Revolution began well before the end of monarchy in Europe, the Industrial Revolution also began while all of Europe was monarchical and grew most rapidly during the 19th century where all of Europe, except France, was monarchical. The 20th century is supposed to be a triumph of democracy but it is a mixed bag, at best... it is also the bloodiest century in human history, a fact which Hans Hoppe has shown to be no coincidence.
I'm not going to try to persuade you that the State is criminal... if you don't already see it, my yammering won't change your mind. I'm only saying that given that the other posters you were addressing largely accept the Nockian-Rothbardian thesis, you should not be surprised that they do not view minarchism as a positive, merely as less negative than megarchism.
----- and that anarchism is preferable despite the fact that it doesnt exist in the absence of either statism, representative governance, or any other non-anarchist system. For example, where does anarchist societies function in the absence of any central government overseer?
For example, where does anarchist societies function in the absence of any central government overseer?
Human society is logically antecedent to any sort of governance/oversight. Human ancestors were roaming the plains of Africa and forming complex social groups long, long before there was anything that could be characterized as a "territorial monopolist of law and security." In fact, now that I think about it, I suspect that the Agricultural Revolution was a logical antecedent to government.
Moreover, the most effective tool to reduce the waste, inefficiency, and corruption of statism is a COnstitutional Federal REpublic that imposes negative freedoms on government. NOt the fantasy of anarchism that has done nothing practical to promote individual rights and freedoms -- indeed this dogma may have alienated many citizens we may have otherwise been amendable to replacement of statism with minarchism. For example, a Constitution that restricts and minimizes the abuses of government is what I would place my trust in. I believe that an educated populace would share my view.
For example, a Constitution that restricts and minimizes the abuses of government is what I would place my trust in. I believe that an educated populace would share my view.
Not if they're educated about the history of the greatest experiment in Constitutional limitation of government in the history of the world, the United States. The Constitution has spectacularly failed to do its "job" of restricting the Federal government.
In summary, if anarchism is the "be all and end all" --- gives us the gameplan for its domination. Don't you think that your ascendency is about 40,000 years overdue. (alas, all we are likely to get is more philosophical hot air, attacks on the minarchist messengers, and condemnations of alternate systems in the absence of anything practical and substantive)
Well, I agree to an extent. I think too little thought is given - in anarchist/liberal circles - to the social and technological factors which have made governance possible. Take the invention of the printing press, for example. It is generally held that the printing press has made mankind freer because of the greater availability of information. But if the freedom of mankind was greater after the invention of a certain device, then there is a technological component to freedom. Certain technologies can leave us more or less free. The same goes for "social technologies", that is, forms of human organization.
But, all-in-all, I think we are on a multi-millenial arc of evolution away from the alpha-male society where there are two types of individuals, those who are empowered to exploit others and those who are condemned to be exploited by the genetically and historically well-endowed and toward a society where everyone is ultimately subject, one way or another, to the same law (market law). It is getting harder and harder for the parasitic class to rationalize its parasitism and the tools which enabled them to get away with their parasitism - genetic advantage, religion, academic sanction, and so on - are being crushed under the inexorable wheels of evolution toward human freedom. Maybe it will take another 40,000 years but, sooner or later, Henry David Thoreau will be proven right,
"That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." - Civil Disobedience
Clayton -
The whole world is falling over itself in the race towards bigger states -they seem to hope to reach that lower-equilibrium called totalitarianism!
I don't see anyone skipping down the street singing merry songs about totalitarianism. All I see is people regurgitating the same lines that the rest of us heard in school. When I was a totalitarian I found nobody that would agree with me. It is astounding how widely it can be believed that elections make states benefit the majority when this has always been false and no reason exists to believe it.
-The ancap argument is essentially a Marxian appeal to emotion;
If you had read Marx then you would have realized that there are no appeals to emotion concerning the inevitable progression of history toward a communist society.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
chloe732 wrote the following post at Thu, Jun 10 2010 11:35 PM:
Rettoper, What do you think of this website? Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate
What do you think of this website? Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for posting that.
Roetteper - Please bookmark and study the above link. Then try to formulate an argument that does not utilize logical fallacies.
It is not easy to do - especially when not formally trained to do so.
"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther
Hey, how come you never addressed my point?
I spelled out very clearly why your premises were flawed and that even if they were true they apply more to your own beliefs.
Retopper. Please tell me. Where is this Minarchy that exists that is constrained by a piece of paper?
WHERE?
Andrew Cain: -The ancap argument is essentially a Marxian appeal to emotion; If you had read Marx then you would have realized that there are no appeals to emotion concerning the inevitable progression of history toward a communist society.
Let me be clear: I said that the an-cap argument is exactly equivalent to the leftist emotional appeal that businessmen are evil incarnate –– no matter what they do –– their every action is obviously directed towards some nefarious and selfish end to spite the poor little worker. Ancaps apply that same appeal to the state and go on to dismiss unbelievers or even the mildly sympathetic as morally equivalent to Hitler or Stalin, as far as I can see. I did not mention anything to do with the inevitability of communism(?)
To address other points: Mises's works only 'imply' anarcho-capitalism because people choose to interpret them that way. Did he himself write Human Action et al with an ancap utopia in mind? I'm not sure he did.
Moreover, just because Rothbard says the state is a criminal organisation doesn't mean the world's population will suddenly grasp that as some self-evident truth. People believe whatever suits their sentiments and prejudices. One can quite easily legitimise the plundering state if it directly benefits them, such as those who demand to rob peter to pay paul and those who expect some strong central authority to kill foreigners and beat up 'degenerates', for instance. Just look at the early successes of the French revolutionaries, the Bolsheviks, Mussolini's fascists and the Nazis. They all had wide popular support of their immoral policies – until reality set in – so the masses simply threw their support unthinkingly behind the next best cause that came along.
The reality is that the modern world won't become more totalitarian but will more likely resemble Idiocracy's future, as I stated earlier – at least in the West. The majority of people probably don't care much about academic arguments or picking up a academic text unless they are forced to listen, either by gunpoint or circumstance; they're more interested in free lunches and gladiator fights. So the modern state we have is an expression of, or embodiment of, society's current priorities since they vote for it and run for office in it. The state itself isn't merely some cabal of evil-doers planting ideas in everyone's heads for some grand plan of world domination – its guiding principles are derived from what society today values, such as easy money, quick fixes, vanity contests and bombing foreigners. Society has become its own worst enemy in effect.
So I don't believe some an-cap utopia will remove that tendency for some to be naturally lazy or wilfully ignorant of the consequences of their beliefs. They'll believe the state is criminal when it suits them and abandon that sentiment when it doesn't. Please bear in mind that I'm not saying ancapism is 'wrong' but that it ignores that the 'state' (and whatever form it takes) will exist as long as humans do. Cavemen had their alpha males; the ancients their chiefs, tribal elders; the Romans their emperors and the medieval period their kings and queens and so on. Some of those leaders may have been illegitimate, cruel and stupid yet they existed nonetheless. Ancap land might have its business leaders and community chiefs as proto-'government', see?
(Here's a some extra questions: would Ron Paul be as popular if he advocated a pure anarcho-capitalist line instead of his minarchism? If anarchy is man's 'default preference', then why does he need to sell himself as a minarchist at all?)
Ludwig von Mises: "We must see conditions as they really are, not as we want them to be."
AndrewR, did you read my post? Do you see why continuing to say "an-cap utopia" makes you look foolish? IT isn't that minarchists are morally equivalent to Stalin, it's just that their theory is utterly flawed. It's no more dogmatic than refuting someone arguing that gravity doesn't exist.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
E. R. Olovetto: AndrewR, did you read my post? Do you see why continuing to say "an-cap utopia" makes you look foolish? IT isn't that minarchists are morally equivalent to Stalin, it's just that their theory is utterly flawed. It's no more dogmatic than refuting someone arguing that gravity doesn't exist.
Fair comment.
I'll certainly never claim that my own sentiments are somehow infallible or better than yours but it doesn't change my mind that ancapism lends itself to the same pitfalls as any human philosophy promising salvation. Randian minarchism may fail miserably, but so might ancapism too. We could both end up looking foolish.
My overall point is that the state isn't necessarily evil or bad, but can easily transform into hell amidst a society whose priorities shift over time. I once remember reading that Carl Jung described the Nazis as the physical embodiment of the German subconsciousness and its attendant desires. So I believe that each state can be viewed as a mirror to the overall nature of a people. The state isn't evil for evil's sake, its incompetence and bloodlust (and so forth) is the result of voters without a clue or an axe to grind.
So can you remove the 'tool' (government) without another one merely replacing it?
My overall point is that the state isn't necessarily evil or bad
you keep saying that...but if you define non-voluntary relations as evil then it is and must be. So either define your terms or stop saying the same thing over and over again
yessir: but if you define non-voluntary relations as evil then it is and must be. So either define your terms or stop saying the same thing over and over again
but if you define non-voluntary relations as evil then it is and must be. So either define your terms or stop saying the same thing over and over again
So who does the defining? You? Me? Someone else? One can classify any action they wish as evil or immoral with the right amount of rationalisation. If a state enacts policies that the majority consent to, vote for or publicly approve of then how can that be non-voluntary? Sure the policies might be stupid but the people get what the people want.
If you can convince as many people as possible that government coercion is pure evil then great, although you might encounter comments like "well what have I got to complain for?", "Those rich pricks deserve to be taxed until they squeal!", "Those illegal immigrants should be shot at the border!", "we must raise the minimum wage to protect the poor!" and so on.
Unless people are faced with stark choices, they'll cling to whatever fallacies they like and rationalise government coercion as a good, especially if they benefit from it. Can ancap philosophy reach such people? I'm not sure.
AndrewR:My overall point is that the state isn't necessarily evil or bad, but can easily transform into hell amidst a society whose priorities shift over time
Yes it is. I've seen objections to using the word 'evil' along religious lines before. No word, though, is more appropriate for 'states' and 'statism'. The people who parasitically thrive on the statist ideology accomplish absolutely nothing without first initiating violence. No goods or services which would be otherwise provided as any other in a free society are given by the state without first initiating violence via taxation or military conquest.
So I believe that each state can be viewed as a mirror to the overall nature of a people. The state isn't evil for evil's sake, its incompetence and bloodlust (and so forth) is the result of voters without a clue or an axe to grind.
This is an invalid excuse. Ignorant barbarism and tribal fashion fuel modern electoral politics. Simultaneously, a current of voluntary trade and the explosion of knowledge that the internet age has brought us, exposes statist fallacies and leads us toward a future of anarchy as law. The same "unwashed masses" of modern egalitarian utopias will submit to any system that brings order and comfort. The revolution is both statist failure to deliver on promises and anarcho-libertarian entrepreneurship.
amidst a society whose priorities shift over time
---
What does that even mean. Why do other's priorities become law for me? You are making a lot of assumptions that you are not defending or even making explicit.
Do we as anarchists really want to rely on this argument? I hear it so often, but all I can think is "I don't want a world with a huge bully like the US attacking others constantly."
Where are the limited governments, then? As you say, classical liberal governments have expanded in size and scope. Thus, they are no longer classical liberal governments, are they?
A statist society that works is a pipe dream.
"If not, can the an-caps explain why there are no anarchist societies today?"
There ARE. Anarchy is all around you, it is just being inhibited by the state. Thinking that doesn't make sense? Take a listen.
Or take a read.
And drop your utopian conception that the state can be limited, because it can't. It's time to start being practical, instead of an ideologue and fairly land dreamer in the land of government. Santa Claus doesn't exist, nor does the easter bunny.
I don't understand this. If anarchy simpily means "no government" then how can you say there is anarchy all around us when there is government around us?
In threads like this I see a pattern almost impossible to break even with the most "intellectual" amongst us. It is the mindset that "anarchy" must be simply a label in the category of a liquid or a fine powder that can be placed in a bottle, set upon a shelf alongside "democracy", "republic", and the like -- something that must be imposed upon "society" (an abstraction) so that "we" can now say, "Our-Form-Of-Government ('governance', to be more erudite)-Is-Anarchy". The labels go on, and on, and on. I once started to make a list of the various schools of thought I've seen labeled on various "Rothbardian" sites (since I, like most of you, am "Rothbardian" and/or "Misean" and/or "Randian" -- the attempts at intellectual labels to define all these "schools" are endless). I think I'm up to 50 and counting -- too long to post here to make my point.
I submit most posters simply cannot wrap their minds around true anarchy -- the LACK of any government capable of being IMPOSED upon the shapeless masses that they think of as "society". But "society" doesn't exist -- it is an abstraction. People exist. By the same token, "government" doesn't exist. Another abstraction. State employees exist. You can forget the endless slogans, one of which is, "We-Are-A-Nation-Of-Laws, Not-Men".
The family unit is a true anarchy. My 7 children, all grown now, were once under my "governance". At birth each was totally dependent upon their mom and me for EVERYTHING. We were responsible for their education and we were responsible for their behavior (and correction thereof at times) and we were responsible for their well-being. State employees ALWAYS attempt to co-opt that anarchy, however. Their subtle message ALWAYS comes out to read, "YOUR children are not really YOUR children -- they're OUR children". And of course the first rattle out of the government organizational box has to be government ("public") school "systems". It is highly important that "our children" be indoctrinated with a government point of view. It is essential that NO CHILD QUESTION whether government actually serves a socially useful purpose.
If a child today is injured through some careless accident it is likely employees of state will be notified and an "investigation" will ensue and you could "lose your parental rights". At this point it is important to understand: state employees will NEVER grant you "rights". State employees can only take away rights you have by nature at birth.
So when I come on here and announce "I am a sovereign state" (living under occupation in those times I can't fly under the white man's radar) -- well, that goes right over the heads of most of the posters here, I think. That's because they cannot think of "anarchy" as a way of life. They simply have to think of it as a "system of governance".
You can be free. Yes, you can.
Samarami
Samarami:That's because they cannot think of "anarchy" as a way of life.
ain't that the Truth.
- peace and love
If a ruler commanded "thou shall not kill" how would you explain an occurance of one person killing another person? How is it possible to be commanded "thou shall not kill" by a ruler and for a subject to kill another person?
Do you have any answer to offer other than rulers and subjects do not exist?
I'm with you, Samarami. The question I have come to lately is this: I can live free but are not the freest individuals those who use the state apparatus to coerce others? Is it possible to live free in a society indoctrinated in statism without participating in the coercive system? For example, I could become a politician. I would escape taxes and I could arrange business deals without fear of regulations. I would be a much freer man than I am today. But, in the process, I would have done nothing more than left the ranks of the slaves and joined the ranks of the slaveholders. Is there not a third way? Is there a way to escape the slavery while refusing to participate in enslaving your fellow man through the apparatus of State?
But how does one choose to live free while in prison?
Absolutely! I become "subject" to anyone who points a gun at me. So the key to living free in occupied territory is to avoid gun toters. It is much easier to avoid gun toting swamp robbers than it is to avoid gun toting robbers and parasites in state costumes -- and the swamp robber doesn't even expect me to pledge allegiance to any of his flags.
And when I declare, "I am a sovereign state" I often add, "my Ruler is responsible for the rotation of the earth on its axis; my Congressmen are responsible for the continuity of the universe that allows YOU and those you love to live on a habitable, hospitable planet that can sustain life (a condition no "scientist" has yet observed anywhere else in this vast, uncomprehendable galaxy which they now believe is just one of billions -- trillions perhaps -- of other galaxies in this universe -- a dimension you can't possibly grasp no matter how intelligent you think you might be).
So we should ALL pledge allegiance to MY Government (just kidding, of course -- well, maybe I'm not).
Do I have Rules and Laws? Indeed. They can be inscribed upon two tablets of stone. And if I put forth my very best effort to stay within those Rules I will cause neither you nor "the white men" ("our" rulers) difficulty. But on this I tread very, very lightly around professing anarchists and libertarians lest I be misinterpreted as promoting one belief or another.. Many free thinkers call themselves "atheists" and bristle at that idea (although here we are posting endless mini essays, often bemoaning and berating other posters on this forum, trying to convince each other of our absolutely viable theories pertaining to anarchy). I can certainly understand that fear, however, when I consider how thoroughly religions have sullied creation, sustenance and existance. Religion and Government (both abstractons) have walked hand in glove through history and will continue to do so.
Be free.
Rettoper:can the an-caps explain why there are no anarchist societies today?
Groups of individuals are more capable to exert physical force than individuals.
Rettoper:Indeed, the few that have existed have become extinct.
Due to the fact that a group can overpower an individual more easily.
Rettoper:In contrast, societies based on representative governance (classical liberalism) have thrived, and they have expanded in size and scope since 1776.
And despotic monarchies had thrived for millenia before that. I don't understand how this is relevant.
Rettoper:Moreover, these societies have contributed more to the promotion of prosperity, stability, peace, and prosperity than any competing ideologies.
That is a values statement on your part.
It is a spectrum. Western European culture has advanced the amount of personal freedoms an individual is allowed to claim over the centuries. We have gone from serfs to citizens. Anarchic ideologies are just this trend carried to its conclusion, with every individual granted unlimited freedoms.
It would be interesting to see of the republics and democracies of the world, which have been more successful (by your criteria, which I am unaware); the ones in which the individual is granted greater choice (the more anarchic varieties) vs. the ones in which the peoples decisions are more closely managed (the more totalitarian varieties). I would be interested in the results as well.
Clayton:
"...are not the freest individuals those who use the state apparatus to coerce others? Is it possible to live free in a society indoctrinated in statism without participating in the coercive system..."
If you believed you could be free while robbing folks through state apparatus you would not be reading Mises or posting on this forum. All of us here believe in being free. We just have different ideas and theories by which to achieve freedom. Most actual statists would never darken the door of a Mises forum.
But you bring up a good point: this is a "society" indoctrinated in statism..... (Perhaps better stated: we are men and women who have overcome our childhood indoctrination of statism and we are learning how to live in liberty; but we have no choice but to live among a majority of other men and women -- many within our own families -- who have not and will never overcome statism or the coercive system).
I threaten to pick up a copy of the old classic, "Gone With The Wind" to look up passages written by Margaret Mitchell where she had Brett Butler lecturing Scarlet O'Hara over basic principles of anarchy and libertarianism during one of the darkest moments of U.S. history. Capt. Butler proceded to make a fortune from both sides of the war while virtually all others North and South were chanting slogans and killing each other and coercing "citizens" to "be-true-to-the-cause" (while most of them couldn't identify "The Cause" if it bit them in the arse). Butler remained productive and was able to be genuine help to Scarlet and her family while others stagnated in statism. I often felt Margaret Mitchell was actually more talented than Ayn Rand in putting forth the mechanics of living in liberty while the world around was disintegrating into tyrrany.
I operate on state streets and highways and I keep a few frn's (federal reserve notes) in my billfold. But I am ever mindful it is Caesar's picture, not MY Ruler's picture, inscribed on the frn. I go to employees of state to get their stamped approval ("drivers' license") for operating on state roads simply because nerds in state costumes threaten me with violence if I don't. (Remember: living is a priveledge, not a right ). These are conditions I would have to meet if I lived in France or Costa Rica or Iran. Just because I get a license or a visa does not mean I pledge allegiance or am obsequious to their state employees and flags.
I think it's the free mindset that makes the difference. I would never participate in state elections or try to get laws passed favoring me over you -- not because I'm that altruistic -- I'm quite selfish, actually -- but because I see state apparatus as an evil web in which I do not wish to become ensnared. And I, like you and most here, have become convinced the free market is the most efficient and effective means by which to survive and prosper -- free people making free exchanges without interference.
Ask me about it!
I learned how to become free while "in the hole" (solitary) before I was forced to stop drinking. U.S. Prisions can be the best liberty courses in town.
I just did ask you about it. How did you do it?
Clayton: "...are not the freest individuals those who use the state apparatus to coerce others? Is it possible to live free in a society indoctrinated in statism without participating in the coercive system..." If you believed you could be free while robbing folks through state apparatus you would not be reading Mises or posting on this forum. All of us here believe in being free. We just have different ideas and theories by which to achieve freedom. Most actual statists would never darken the door of a Mises forum. But you bring up a good point: this is a "society" indoctrinated in statism..... (Perhaps better stated: we are men and women who have overcome our childhood indoctrination of statism and we are learning how to live in liberty; but we have no choice but to live among a majority of other men and women -- many within our own families -- who have not and will never overcome statism or the coercive system). I threaten to pick up a copy of the old classic, "Gone With The Wind" to look up passages written by Margaret Mitchell where she had Brett Butler lecturing Scarlet O'Hara over basic principles of anarchy and libertarianism during one of the darkest moments of U.S. history. Capt. Butler proceded to make a fortune from both sides of the war while virtually all others North and South were chanting slogans and killing each other and coercing "citizens" to "be-true-to-the-cause" (while most of them couldn't identify "The Cause" if it bit them in the arse). Butler remained productive and was able to be genuine help to Scarlet and her family while others stagnated in statism. I often felt Margaret Mitchell was actually more talented than Ayn Rand in putting forth the mechanics of living in liberty while the world around was disintegrating into tyrrany.
I've watched the movie but never read the book... I've added it to my to-read list.
I operate on state streets and highways and I keep a few frn's (federal reserve notes) in my billfold. But I am ever mindful it is Caesar's picture, not MY Ruler's picture, inscribed on the frn. I go to employees of state to get their stamped approval ("drivers' license") for operating on state roads simply because nerds in state costumes threaten me with violence if I don't. (Remember: living is a priveledge, not a right ). These are conditions I would have to meet if I lived in France or Costa Rica or Iran. Just because I get a license or a visa does not mean I pledge allegiance or am obsequious to their state employees and flags. I think it's the free mindset that makes the difference. I would never participate in state elections or try to get laws passed favoring me over you -- not because I'm that altruistic -- I'm quite selfish, actually -- but because I see state apparatus as an evil web in which I do not wish to become ensnared. And I, like you and most here, have become convinced the free market is the most efficient and effective means by which to survive and prosper -- free people making free exchanges without interference. Samarami
Yeah, mindset is everything. Guido Hulsmann uses the term "originary secession" to describe the very mindset you are talking about, "I do what I do not because I'm being told to by someone with a badge and a flag stitched on their shoulder but because I have determined it is the best course of action for my own well-being and that of my family." I pay taxes only because I want to not be in prison and saddled with even more extortion in the form of fines. I would feel no more guilt at not paying taxes than I would feel at not turning over my wallet to the mugger.
One of the things I'm working through right now is the profound mischief of mistaking statutory law for customary or real law. When people hear expressions to the effect that "I drive the speed limit only because I do not want a ticket but otherwise, if I thought I could get away with it, I would drive whatever speed seemed right to me" and so on, they immediately hear these as expressions of lawlessness. But the speed limit is not customary law, it is a statutory law. It is a dictate uttered by the State. Dictates are not law. Laws emerge from human social interactions and result from ethical norms. Laws can only arise where there is competitive production of law and where legal rulings are binding only by virtue of their mutual agreeableness to the parties involved in dispute. Saying that I will only obey statutory laws out of prudence and not conscience is not an expression of lawlessness, it is an observation that the dictates of the State are capricious, self-serving, amoral and lacking any ethical force whatever.
I do recognize a law higher than my own will - and anyone who wishes to maintain credibility in the ethical discourse must recognize a law higher than their own will - but that law can only emerge in the context of a competitive market of legal services. The territorial monopolization of law - like any central planning system - destroys law and makes it impossible to know what the law is and ought to be. The State creates lawlessness, I don't and liberty certainly does not.
</rambling>
If a ruler commanded "thou shall not kill" how would you explain an occurance of one person killing another person? How is it possible to be commanded "thou shall not kill" by a ruler and for a subject to kill another person? Do you have any answer to offer other than rulers and subjects do not exist?
So are you suggesting government doesn't exist?
chloe,
Thanks for the link.
Indeed, logical fallacies are rife among the anarchist arguments on this thread.
For example, they have engaged in every argument and lamentation except answering my simple challenge of “Why don’t market anarchic societies exist?” or if this question is an example of a “logical fallacy” and anarchic societies do indeed exist in the absence of other systems, “where is this anarchic society?”
Instead of answering this simple challenge or excepting the premise that the anarchic society is unsustainable, a fantasy, the ancaps have resorted to red herrings by misrepresenting my position on the efficacy and morality of government. For example, I have never fawned over statism, indeed I consider it to be “a necessary evil at best and an intolerable evil in most cases”. Yet, because I state the fact that anarchist societies are unsustainable – I am presumed incorrectly to be a statist. Amusingly, a contributor even surmised that I was a adherent of Bernanke despite the fact that I have advocated the elimination of the federal reserve on this very thread ! – logical fallacies if ones ever existed.
Amusingly, the ancaps adhere to the logical fallacy that all government is evil, for example that no good has ever been dispensed within the framework of central governance hence the articles of confederation, the magna carta, and the admirable goal of amending the Constitution to dramatically reduce the size and scope of government are nonetheless “evil” simply because they are constructs of government – yet they fawn over a system that they claim is perfect, yet paradoxically has been unable to consistently defend or establish itself ?!?!
If anarchism is perfect, why doesn’t it exist in any appreciable size?
Another example of the intellectual rigidity of the anarchist is that many cannot even qualify which system is the least oppressive among those that are currently practiced. For example, in their view the most heinous and repressive statist regimes are equivalent to the most enlightened liberal democracies.
It seems to be the belief of some anarchists to cling to the dream that his system of choice will somehow materialize in thin air, simply market forces will make it happen despite 40,000 years to the contrary. Other anarchists attack all other systems (reserving the most virulent for minarchism) despite the fact that they acknowledge that their desired system may never be realized. For example, if they cant have a fantasy, they wont have anything – even when one imperfect system (classical liberalism) that has led to far less poverty, violence, instability, and loss of freedoms when compared to autocratic regimes.
In summary, ancaps offer nothing except ad nauseam theoretical cheerleading of anacharism in the absence of any substantive plan or framework to achieve its realization, doom and gloom predictions on the collapse of civilization, again in the absence of any rational and substantive alternative strategies, and criticisms of the most dynamic, virulent, viable and least repressive of all current governing constructs, namely liberal democracy. In contrast, I strongly advocate dramatic reductions in the size and scope of government --- however, I differ from the anarchist in understanding that the anarchist’s goal of elimination of ALL government is a fantasy that ultimately undermines the ability of society to achieve more realistic and attainable outcomes. For example, islamic extremists want a world dominated by sharia law – yet the more aggressively they pursue this end, the more likely they will see the opposite occur by exposing themselves as rigid closed-minded ideologues.
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
Rettoper, I insist that henceforth you say "some anarchist/ancaps" instead of simply "anarchists/ancaps" when denouncing their alleged faults. Otherwise, ancaps here who are not guilty of those faults will take it as an unfair ad hominem directed at them.
Rettoper: For example, they have engaged in every argument and lamentation except answering my simple challenge of “Why don’t market anarchic societies exist?” or if this question is an example of a “logical fallacy” and anarchic societies do indeed exist in the absence of other systems, “where is this anarchic society?” Instead of answering this simple challenge or excepting the premise that the anarchic society is unsustainable, a fantasy, the ancaps have resorted to red herrings by misrepresenting my position on the efficacy and morality of government. For example, I have never fawned over statism, indeed I consider it to be “a necessary evil at best and an intolerable evil in most cases”. Yet, because I state the fact that anarchist societies are unsustainable – I am presumed incorrectly to be a statist. Amusingly, a contributor even surmised that I was a adherent of Bernanke despite the fact that I have advocated the elimination of the federal reserve on this very thread ! – logical fallacies if ones ever existed.
your challenge is easily met, why don't market anarchy societies exist? because we haven't succeeded in bringing them about yet.
This is no different from the challenge a Royalist might put to rascal 'radical' constitutional republicans in the late 17th Century when The articles of confederation were not even in the offing. Guess what,an early experiment was the Corsican Republic, founded in 1755 by Pasquale Paoli but annexed by France in 1769.
It is a logical fallacy to say that because something is not instantiated that it could not be instantiated.
Will you now at least admit that your 'knock-out argument', is not a knock-out argument, however skeptical your interpretation of history and political science might have led you to be in respect of marketanarchy...?
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
Jackson LaRose,
I see that you have provided arguments for why anarchic societies are unsustainable, namely anarchic societies are decentralized and therefore subject to predation by less advanced but more centralized enemies who can concentrate power.
....despotic monarchies had thrived for millenia before that. I don't understand how this is relevant.-- jackson
It is relevant from the standpoint that if you are an advocate for a system, that system should be viable. It took liberal democracy less than 200 years to destroy monarchism that had existed for hundreds of years. In contrast, anarchism is not a proven viable system by any objective measure.
I assert that liberal democracies are the most peaceful, prosperous, stable, and free based on an examination of the economic, social, and political data from these nations compared to autocratic nations. Moreover, people vote with their feet, and Western democracies generally have the highest rates of immigration, even among those states that try to restrict illegal immigration.
Lastly, I agree with you completely that the less government a society has -- the more peaceful, prosperous, free, and stable. However, there is empirical research to suggest that when government gets "too small" growth rates begin to decline.
http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/Papers/rahncurve/fig2xl.jpg
NOnetheless, I dont discount your assertion that we are advancing toward "every individual granted unlimited freedoms" For example, the recent statist entitlement experiment has failed abysmally and this failure will lead to less government in the long term.
Conservativism is a flop for the ages. Now, what fool wants to board that sinking ship?--caley
I agree, conservatism is inferior to libertarianism.
However, dont underestimate its sway. There are far more conservatives than libertarians.
of course, this doesnt imply that conservatism is superior, but it does imply that your assessment that conservatism is a "sinking ship" may be overly optimistic.
Ask yourself why conservatives are on here by the score pining day in day out about everything they find unrealistic. When you come up with the answer, share it.--caley
who are the conservatives?
in summary, i think you are manufacturing phantoms or generalizing and misrepresenting the views of some of the contributors on this thread.