Looking for critiques of the below 22-page article by Shayne Wessler of www.forindividualrights.com.
http://www.forindividualrights.com/against_anarchism.pdf
A cursory reading seems to indicate a straw man, or straw anarchist, has been set up and knocked down.
tia, Skyler.
www.skylerjcollins.com www.libertysearch.info
Pardon my ignorance, but do anarchists respect contract rights?
What are "contract rights"?
IMHO, It would be nice if enough anarchists got together and formed your own country so the rest of us can see how that works --- oops I forgot, anarchists aren't supposed to get together, that would be government, and government is always bad.
Uh, no, government is an institution which claims a monopoly over the use of force over a given area. A collection of private property owners hardly fits this description, unless they actually create a state.
Way too long and wordy. I scanned it and it seems that his central contention is that anarchists (and Statists) mis-define government as a territorial monopolist of law and security whereas he defines it as simply any association that "formally identifies, enforces, and adjudicates the laws governing a given jurisdiction." I find this quite disingenuous. While putting forward a pretense of being a stickler for definitions, Wissler has slipped in the concept of monopoly through the words "governing" and "jurisdiction" while asserting that it is his opponents who make the mistake of asserting that the State operates a monopoly of law and force. Jurisdiction refers to the extents of the authority of a court, in particular, of a government court. Government courts are territorial and hierarchical in nature - there are not a multiplicity of competing government courts to which a person may apply for justice.
Wissler is basically obfuscating and waffling on whether adjudication may be produced in a market of competing adjudicators or not. If legal adjudicators operate in a competitive market, then law is nothing more than the settlement of disputes. If, however, adjudicators have the power to compel patronization (as government courts do), then they are not adjudicators at all but dictators.
If he's going to write 22 pages and expect people of an adversarial persuasion to read it, he had better cite some source material and answer it, rather than trying to reframe the debate in a vocabulary more favorable to his waffling and meandering arguments.
Damn crazy objectivists.
Clayton -
Centinel:History supports this first statement since anarchism, if any ever existed, is always replaced by statist governments.
This is simply an argument from ignorance.
Centinel:the dude means that if a powerful plurality of society decides it wants government then the anarchist can either deal with it, overthrow it, or leave it. But bitchin about it is pretty much a waste of time, unless you like complaining.
Are you trying to get us all to shut up? Or what?
Centinel:he has a point, if enough people want to screw themselves under government regulation and taxation, then that is their perogative. I mean if someone wants to live under a government isn't that their right ?
If a person wants to be heavily taxed and regulated, how is he screwing himself over by living under a government? Conversely, if a person doesn't want to be heavily taxed or regulated, how is he screwing himself over by living under a government?
Centinel:I mean what right does anyone have to stop me from smoking cigars, eating steak, drinking whiskey, or chasing sleazy broads? There is not much the anarchist can do if enough people like government other than bitch and moan on a forum. I guess you guys don't like violence, so good luck trying to change society to your liking.
Then what right does anyone have to stop me from smoking weed, drinking absinthe, or hiring prostitutes? Otherwise, this just looks like another attempt to shut us up. Good luck trying to change us to your liking.
Centinel:And this statement from Wissler could be considered one of the many reasons why no anarchist societies exist, Anarchism, in a single stroke, both addresses one's precious energy to the actual enemy's strongest point – the legitimacy of government in principle – and in that same act, dissolves the power to fight it by teaching one to shun organized political action. IMHO, It would be nice if enough anarchists got together and formed your own country so the rest of us can see how that works --- oops I forgot, anarchists aren't supposed to get together, that would be government, and government is always bad.
Anarchism, in a single stroke, both addresses one's precious energy to the actual enemy's strongest point – the legitimacy of government in principle – and in that same act, dissolves the power to fight it by teaching one to shun organized political action.
First, to address the Wissler quote, how can one expect to fight the legitimacy of government in principle through the use of organized political action?
Second, I do support the idea of somehow carving out stateless niches in the world. I wouldn't consider such places to be "countries" in the usual statist sense - but in the sense of "areas of land where people interact", they certainly would be.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Most libertarians I know say that the State is maintained by ideological support with death threats for taxation at the margins. Erase the cloak of legitimacy and it comes tumbling down. Of course, it's not as simple as this since there is some game theoretical stuff at play. I'm sure 99% of North Koreans hate the government and I'm sure the government would collapse if everybody ignored it, but the state would kill off a good deal of the population and it's not worth it to them to risk their lives. So I understand that the aggressive nature plays a large part in maintaining it.
From the conclusion:
The question of anarchism vs. government is of extreme importance, for if anarchism is correct, then government is in principle evil, can therefore only do evil, and therefore any action to reform it is futile. But if government can be good and valid under certain circumstances, then it is imperative to identify these precisely and to take action to reform government.
If a government is reformed in such a way that it no longer demands taxes or forces regulations or has any monopolies, then in my opinion it is no longer a government. That is where minarchists go wrong in my opinion, they have a very optimistic and positive view of human nature with regards to collective organization, which in itself is not so bad. But when they are not very specific about the "mere semantics" as he says in the article, then they are disingenuous about the nature of man and organizations that resemble the state.
A Statist is one who believes that the State is imbued with magical rights that transcend and supersede the natural rights of the individual. It is to them not a mere human organization constrained by the same Natural Law that constrains every individual, but one that it is a god to bow down to and worship. In order to imbue the the god-like qualities into The State, a magical ritual incantation is performed by those inclined to idol-worship7, calling upon such fantastic other-worldly ideas as as “Divine Right of Kings” or “Mandate of Heaven” or “Manifest Destiny” or “Will of the People.” Once imbued with this imaginary magical quality, The State proceeds to take its god-like action, by destroying this or that race, squashing this or that yearning for self-governance, or such other megalomaniacal things that those wielding the power of The State desire. In the corrupted mentality of the idol-worshiper, The State thus becomes an entity unto itself, commanding worship and obedience, doling out punishments and rewards. Its devout and deluded followers then permit it to behave literally as if it were a God on Earth, when really it is merely a bunch of men, some with various degrees of psychological derangements, acting in a variety of ways, some of their actions good, and some of their actions evil.
The guy pipes on about definitions but he seems to have a strange definition of the state himself. On the one hand he acknowledges that anarchists accept that a type of collective association could be formed under anarchism, then on the other he says that this means they must be consistent because this collective association is government.
To be consistent, an anarchist must either reject anarchy or reject the individual right to form government, and if he chooses the latter, then notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary, thus reveal himself as not in actuality being a true defender of Man's Rights.
hahahaha, Bit of a weak argument to set the grounds for a statement that anarchists are actually confused and not consistent and that they are not a true defender for Man's Right's because of this.
Centinel:No it isn't dude. It is fact that there are no anarchist governments of any significance, and most if not all are replaced by statist governments. Sorry that I have to break that to you dude.
It is fact that there are no anarchist governments of any significance, and most if not all are replaced by statist governments.
Sorry that I have to break that to you dude.
Yes it is. Read your argument again:
History supports this first statement since anarchism, if any ever existed, is always replaced by statist governments. [Emphasis added.]
The phrase "is always" is a timeless statement. Hence it includes the future. However, the future is actually unknowable by anyone and everyone. So your argument is implicitly the following:
1. I don't know whether anarchism in the future will (ever/always) be replaced by statist governments.
2. Therefore, anarchism in the future will always be replaced by statist governments.
This is a classic argument from ignorance.
On another note, how is the phrase "anarchist government" not an oxymoron?
One more thing - I take it that, since you didn't respond to the rest of my post, that you concede my points? I believe it contains questions for you to answer, though. Can you answer them?
Dude dude dude answer the question dude.
I'm sure 99% of North Koreans hate the government and I'm sure the government would collapse if everybody ignored it, but the state would kill off a good deal of the population and it's not worth it to them to risk their lives. So I understand that the aggressive nature plays a large part in maintaining it.
I suspect that North Koreans are in a much worse way than most people in that their predicament is reinforced by powers that far exceed their combined economic productivity (even under conditions of freedom). The Kim Jong Il regime is a creature of the US militarization of the North-South border and it appears that a good deal of his government's revenues come from involvement in dirty work - counterfeiting, drug and weapons dealing, etc. In other words, Kim Jong Il is just a classic gangster. But the fact that he's not been toppled suggests to me that he has covert support from an external power... perhaps China but it is also possible that Western intelligence agencies work with him to maintain a status quo - after all, North Korea is the only thing separating US forces on the DMZ from China.
All the victims of colonialism are in a similar predicament. They are imprisoned by forces that are more powerful than their combined productivity... in other words, Etienne de la Boetie's prescription for toppling governments* simply will not work for those trapped in colonies. This is also why slaves are generally unable to free themselves. But the disgusting irony of the situation is that Western colonizing powers are the very ones enslaving people while they strut around the world pretending to "free" people from slavery, as in the toppling of Hussein.
* "Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces." - Politics of Obedience
Centinel:lets correct one fallacy at a time. sorry for the bad grammar, unintentional oxymorons, and bad choice of adjectives but semantic diversions, trivialities, and red herrings aside the point of my original post was that there aren't any anarchist governments societies of any significance that exist today or yesterday past history
sorry for the bad grammar, unintentional oxymorons, and bad choice of adjectives but semantic diversions, trivialities, and red herrings aside the point of my original post was that there aren't any anarchist governments societies of any significance that exist today or yesterday past history
Here's an itemized list of my responses:
1. Where did I correct your bad grammar?
2. Where did I engage in "semantic diversions, trivialities, and[/or] red herrings"? I challenge you to support this implicit assertion.
3. If your point was that "there aren't any anarchist [...] societies of any significance that exist today or [... in] past history", then why did you use the timeless phrase "is always" in your original formulation?
Centinel:the anarchist ideology or whatever you want to call it has a pitiful record when compared to statist any political system. Is this a fact or isnt it ?
Is this a fact or isnt it ?
Honestly, it depends on what you mean by "record". For most of Homo sapiens sapiens' time on Earth, its members lived in anarchic social groups. There's also a distinction to be made between anarchist ideology having not succeeded in modern times and the notion that, therefore, anarchist ideology will never be able to succeed. Once again, the future is unknowable.
In any case, I, for one, have never denied anarchist ideology's heretofore lack of success, so there's nothing there for me to concede at this point. Your argument isn't even about that, really. It's about trying to predict (i.e. claim facts about) the future on the basis of the past. Anytime this is done, it's an argument from ignorance, as I've already demonstrated.
Now, could you please respond to the rest of my original post?
Centinel:No that really was my point. So what are we debating ?
You know full well what you were trying to argue. Don't play dumb with me.
Centinel:I agree with you that anarchism has a bad track record at best
Between the two of us, you're the only one crying. Let me know if you need a tissue.
Centinel:YOu mean there really could be a Santa Claus, unicorn, tooth fairy, and easter bunny !!!! My parents were just committing an argument from ignorance. just because they didnt exist in the past doesnt mean they cant exist for my kids. Hooray. THe past doesnt matter !!!! We can't learn anything from the past, cuz it dont matter!!!!! burn the history books !!! (my kids will love that one) Hell, maybe Marxism or Luddism has a chance now. At least they existed as a failed experiment, but that doesnt matter, history doesnt matter Hooray if your a follower of a failed system, imaginary system, or anything... past failure doesnt matter. Hooray!!!!
My parents were just committing an argument from ignorance. just because they didnt exist in the past doesnt mean they cant exist for my kids.
Hooray. THe past doesnt matter !!!! We can't learn anything from the past, cuz it dont matter!!!!!
burn the history books !!! (my kids will love that one)
Hell, maybe Marxism or Luddism has a chance now. At least they existed as a failed experiment, but that doesnt matter, history doesnt matter
Hooray if your a follower of a failed system, imaginary system, or anything... past failure doesnt matter.
Hooray!!!!
Brush up on your logic, kid. Otherwise, perhaps you'd like to, you know, make an actual argument instead of trolling.
For most of Homo sapiens sapiens' time on Earth, its members lived in anarchic social groups.
Anarchic how exactly??
Every known hunter-gatherer tribe has a hierarchy. There is a leader or headman of some kind, and there are cultural & social mores and taboos that the members are expected to live by.
Please correct me if I am wrong, (and I’m sure people will), but from what I understand an Anarchistic society is one where there is no identifiable hierarchy, or no one individual or group is designated as a “leader”.
Even the basic family group is not what I would call anarchistic. And certainly not a tribe made up of several family groups.
Although I find that I identify myself more with the “minarchist” side of things –the following is what I personally believe and I do not speak for all “miarchists”.
Personally I feel that you have it exactly the opposite. From everything I have read on this site I feel the anarchistic point of view that has: “…a very optimistic and positive view of human nature…”.
People are greedy, selfish and lustful creatures. And I feel that sooner or later a person, group or organization within that anarchistic society will try and take power.
And I have read nothing that has proved to me that an anarchistic society won’t fall to an outside invasion from a more organized group that doesn’t recognize their “natural” rights.
The modern “democratic” state as we know it has been empirically shown to suck…
But all authority sucks. There are no utopias there are no magic wand solutions.
I believe that a “minarchist” Government would be sufficiently different from the system(s) that we have now, that at the very least I feel it is an option worth perusing and not just dismissed out of hand.
Well, disregarding 9/11, I iz so glad we haz a centralized military to protect us. Oh, wait:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1767327/breach-of-the-week-how-the-pentagon-hack-was-done
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
.500NE:Anarchic how exactly?? Every known hunter-gatherer tribe has a hierarchy. There is a leader or headman of some kind, and there are cultural & social mores and taboos that the members are expected to live by. Please correct me if I am wrong, (and I’m sure people will), but from what I understand an Anarchistic society is one where there is no identifiable hierarchy, or no one individual or group is designated as a “leader”. Even the basic family group is not what I would call anarchistic. And certainly not a tribe made up of several family groups.
Your conceptions of "hierarchy" and "leader" sound totalitarian. Did Ancient Greek society have a single identifiable hierarchy or a single identifiable leader? Or do you have a certain delineation in mind when you use the word "society" - namely "a group of people under a single identifiable hierarchy"?
.500NE:Although I find that I identify myself more with the “minarchist” side of things –the following is what I personally believe and I do not speak for all “miarchists”. Personally I feel that you have it exactly the opposite. From everything I have read on this site I feel the anarchistic point of view that has: “…a very optimistic and positive view of human nature…”.
Perhaps you'd like to explain what led you to that feeling (does this really have a place in logical debate?) than the vague notion of "everything I have read on this site"?
.500NE:People are greedy, selfish and lustful creatures. And I feel that sooner or later a person, group or organization within that anarchistic society will try and take power.
I have no idea what you mean by "try and take power", sorry. Can you explain? Then can you explain how, if people are evil as a rule, it makes sense for some of the evil people to rule over the rest?
By the way, you're making the same kind of argument from ignorance that Centinel was making - if indeed you're trying to make an argument at all.
.500NE:And I have read nothing that has proved to me that an anarchistic society won’t fall to an outside invasion from a more organized group that doesn’t recognize their “natural” rights.
The future is unknowable. So you've also read nothing that has proved to you that an anarchistic society will fall to an outside invasion from a more organized group (wait, what?) that doesn't recognize their "natural" rights.
.500NE:The modern “democratic” state as we know it has been empirically shown to suck… But all authority sucks. There are no utopias there are no magic wand solutions.
I, for one, don't think that an anarchist society would eliminate crime. Am I still a utopian, in your opinion? Why or why not?
.500NE:I believe that a “minarchist” Government would be sufficiently different from the system(s) that we have now, that at the very least I feel it is an option worth perusing and not just dismissed out of hand.
Would you consider the system of government established by the United States Constitution to be "minarchist"? If so, how then do you explain where the United States government is today?
Centinel:I consider myself a minarchist too, although many anarchists on this site only know two extremes, either your an anarchist or a statist.
Then the same question I have for .500NE applies to you as well.
Centinel:Your correct that human institutions are naturally based on heirarchical structures. so that means that anarchism is a utopian impossibiliity.
Would you say that businesses are human institutions? If so, would a stateless society that allows businesses to form and operate be a "utopian impossibility"?
Centinel:anyone with a modicum of military knowledge knows that you dont divide your forces and centralized command structure is most effective.
Please support this contention besides insinuating that "anyone with a modicum of military knowledge" knows it. Otherwise, by your reasoning, there should be only a single military for the entire world, right?
Centinel:anarchists dont believe in centralized command or concentration of armed force so that pretty much kills this utopian system.
I can see that you define the role of the state primarily, if not exclusively, in terms of "national defense". Tell me, what exactly do you think is a "nation"? Can any group of people form one, in your view? Or do you think there are certain qualifications for "nationhood"?
Centinel:could they act decisively on the battlefield with a command by committee approach ? could they take and hold large swathes of territory with a decentralized, 'competitive' free market model ? the answer to both of these are NO.
could they take and hold large swathes of territory with a decentralized, 'competitive' free market model ?
the answer to both of these are NO.
Yet you provide no support for these contentions. Given that you're making categorical statements, which fall under the realm of logic, this means you must provide logical reasoning for them. Are you up to the challenge?
Autolykos: Your conceptions of "hierarchy" and "leader" sound totalitarian. Did Ancient Greek society have a single identifiable hierarchy or a single identifiable leader? Or do you have a certain delineation in mind when you use the word "society" - namely "a group of people under a single identifiable hierarchy"?
I would say that sooner or later you get to one person or small group of people that make the big decisions. Whether they get that way through elections, heredity, or whatever. The result is the same, you have an identifiable leadership.
Autolykos: Perhaps you'd like to explain what led you to that feeling (does this really have a place in logical debate?) than the vague notion of "everything I have read on this site"?
Feeling was probably a bad choice of words – “in my opinion” based on the arguments for anarchy that I have read so far. (on this site and others) I have not found those arguments to be wholly persuasive.
Autolykos: I have no idea what you mean by "try and take power", sorry. Can you explain? Then can you explain how, if people are evil as a rule, it makes sense for some of the evil people to rule over the rest?
By “take power” I mean that there will always be those who seek dominion over others to serve their own self interests.
I would say what make you think only evil people will rise to power in a monarchist government? There are a few good people even in the current American government. The Idea as I understand it is that in a minarchist system things are limited to such a degree that a more favorable balance is achieved.
Autolykos: By the way, you're making the same kind of argument from ignorance that Centinel was making - if indeed you're trying to make an argument at all.
Ignorant in what way? I came to the “Austrian” perspective only in the last year. Before that my positions could best be described as a sort of free market - low taxes nationalist. I have come around to the libertarian perspective on certain issues after hanging out here for a while that I initially disagreed with. (like no drug prohibition)
All this is really just my personal views – but I am willing to be convinced on things.
Autolykos: The future is unknowable. So you've also read nothing that has proved to you that an anarchistic society will fall to an outside invasion from a more organized group (wait, what?) that doesn't recognize their "natural" rights.
Oops that‘s what I get for typing fast – replace will, with won’t.
Autolykos: I, for one, don't think that an anarchist society would eliminate crime. Am I still a utopian, in your opinion? Why or why not?
The issue is not crime. For me it is the idea that Anarchy will not fall prey to the same human machinations that lead to warlords and charismatic people (or just a group of people who band together for common reasons) rising to power and creating a state of some type. I find that idea to be “utopian” for lack of a better word.
Autolykos: Would you consider the system of government established by the United States Constitution to be "minarchist"? If so, how then do you explain where the United States government is today?
In my opinion the US constitution is a far sight from minarchist. The first 10 amendments were virtually an afterthought. And the original articles were a series of compromises between the federalists and anti federalists.
I would say it contains Minarchist elements, but it is not what I would call a minarchist form of government.
.
yes there are typos in my reply replace monarchist with minarchist.
Who says heirarchy and leaders are incompatible with anarchism (a la Rothbard)?
.500NE:I would say that sooner or later you get to one person or small group of people that make the big decisions. Whether they get that way through elections, heredity, or whatever. The result is the same, you have an identifiable leadership.
I'm sorry but I think your phrase "the big decisions" is really vague. For example, Steve Jobs makes big decisions for Apple. Does that make him a leader, in your view? Why or why not? If it does, would you say he's the same kind of leader as, say, Barack Obama?
We can get into this more later on, but I think the above is a good starting point for us.
.500NE:Feeling was probably a bad choice of words – “in my opinion” based on the arguments for anarchy that I have read so far. (on this site and others) I have not found those arguments to be wholly persuasive.
That's fine. You might be surprised, but I hardly find all of the arguments for it to be persuasive, either. My question for you at this point is, why haven't you found any of the arguments to be wholly persuasive? Here I think it's a good idea to concentrate on the arguments that you think are the best.
.500NE:By “take power” I mean that there will always be those who seek dominion over others to serve their own self interests.
Most people who seek dominion over others (if I understand your use of this term correctly) to serve their own self interests are called "murderers", "rapists", "thieves", "vandals", "kidnappers", etc. The only differences between such people and politicians are 1) the politicians typically don't do the "dirty work" themselves, and 2) people by-and-large still see politicians as legitimate.
.500NE:I would say what make you think only evil people will rise to power in a [minarchist] government? There are a few good people even in the current American government. The Idea as I understand it is that in a minarchist system things are limited to such a degree that a more favorable balance is achieved.
The operative word there, I believe, is "few". How many people are there in Congress alone? How many do you see as actually being good people?
You might again be surprised, but I'd actually say I'm in favor of "limited government". What I mean by that is I'm in favor of minimizing those things that people think can be legitimately dealt with by force. Something tells me that you're in favor of this as well. The question now is, which means do we think would most likely achieve this end?
.500NE:Ignorant in what way? I came to the “Austrian” perspective only in the last year. Before that my positions could best be described as a sort of free market - low taxes nationalist. I have come around to the libertarian perspective on certain issues after hanging out here for a while that I initially disagreed with. (like no drug prohibition) All this is really just my personal views – but I am willing to be convinced on things.
Sorry, I guess I should've included a link to the Wikipedia article on arguments from ignorance. An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. It involves asserting the notion that, because a given proposition hasn't been proven false, therefore it must (logically speaking) be true. This does not follow because, as Carl Sagan famously put it, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I also think the argument from ignorance applies to more general cases where people try to use empirical evidence (or lack thereof) as logical proof.
.500NE: Autolykos: The future is unknowable. So you've also read nothing that has proved to you that an anarchistic society will fall to an outside invasion from a more organized group (wait, what?) that doesn't recognize their "natural" rights. Oops that‘s what I get for typing fast – replace will, with won’t.
You did write "won't" in your earlier post. I was simply pointing out that "the jury is still out" on whether an anarchist society would or would not necessarily and inevitably fall to an outside invasion from a more organized group that doesn't recognize their "natural" rights.
.500NE:The issue is not crime. For me it is the idea that Anarchy will not fall prey to the same human machinations that lead to warlords and charismatic people (or just a group of people who band together for common reasons) rising to power and creating a state of some type. I find that idea to be “utopian” for lack of a better word.
As James (I believe) wrote in the "Nationalism or World Government?" thread, it actually seems more difficult to conquer a stateless society than to conquer one that's rule by a state. After all, a stateless society has no single ruling hierarchy that can be replaced and which people are used to obeying.
.500NE:In my opinion the US constitution is a far sight from minarchist. The first 10 amendments were virtually an afterthought. And the original articles were a series of compromises between the federalists and anti federalists. I would say it contains Minarchist elements, but it is not what I would call a minarchist form of government.
Okay. How about the Articles of Confederation? Would you say that it was minarchist?
Another irony alert! Another irony alert! Another irony alert!
I consider myself a minarchist too, although many anarchists on this site only know two extremes, either your an anarchist or a statist. [emphasis mine]
Examination of the words makes this intrinsically true. The same way that there is no gray area between atheism and theism, no matter which flavor of god(s) you worship (I prefer the pasta variety). Just because minarchism is preferable to a dictatorship doesn't make it any less a 'state'.
Yes, 1 degree above absolute cold (zero heat) is still heat. There's heat, and then there's the absence of heat. Light or the absence of light. It's not a false dichotomoy. Either you're an anarchist, or you're a statist (however limited). That's a true dichotomoy.
And minarchism is a dictatorship, a full dictatorship. When you argue for legitimacy of any degree of illegitimacy (the state, based on "consent of the governed"), you concede the entire statist argument. If it is legitimate for 99 out of 100 people to use force against all 100, including the lone dissenter, to fund security and enforce it's monopoly, then it's just as legitimate for them to do so to fund universal health-care, or public education, etc.
I wrote on this here: http://truth.skylerjcollins.com/2010/03/defend-state-defend-socialism.html
And minarchism is a dictatorship, a full dictatorship. When you argue for legitimacy of any degree of illegitimacy (the state, based on "consent of the governed"), you concede the entire statist argument.
Don't get me wrong, I'm an anarchist. My concession was only an attempt to cede that there are quantities of "bad" so that I'm not accused of hyberbole with regards to characterizing minarchy--I agree with your statement.
I mean if someone wants to live under a government isn't that their right ?
Err...no!
Centinel:True, anarchism is also compatible with a territorial monopoly on physical force.
Please support the notion that the absence of a state is compatible with the presence of a state.
Centinel:You got to admit that the only way force works effectively is if it is in proximitity to whatever it is trying to defend or steal.
I guess "proximity" is a relative term, since current US military doctrine (at the very least) seems to be all about "global force projection".
Centinel:and eventually anarchist society will see a mosiac of territorial monopolies or private military companies (PMC) that will capture and hold power in a particular region or city and voila! a dictatorship from a heirarchial PMC that holds a monopoly of force within its territory. and of course, adjacent anarchist societies dont do humanitarian military missions or attack anyone unless they get attacked first, so the civilians within this terroritorial monopoly are what we call in the business SOL
and voila! a dictatorship from a heirarchial PMC that holds a monopoly of force within its territory.
and of course, adjacent anarchist societies dont do humanitarian military missions or attack anyone unless they get attacked first, so the civilians within this terroritorial monopoly are what we call in the business SOL
This is just another argument from ignorance. Keep racking them up, buddy!
Centinel:to make it simple, Anarchism is the precursor to dictatorship.
To make it simple, you seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Try actually substantiating/supporting your points next time - if you can.
you mean anarchists are going to deny folks the right to surrender themselves to government ? isnt that contradictory , I mean I thought anarchists believed in freedom. If someone wants to smoke cigars or pot or bang fat chicks, what right have you got to deny them ? and if they want to surrender some freedom to live under the dominion of a government organization, it is none of your business
isnt that contradictory , I mean I thought anarchists believed in freedom. If someone wants to smoke cigars or pot or bang fat chicks, what right have you got to deny them ?
and if they want to surrender some freedom to live under the dominion of a government organization, it is none of your business
What distinguishes "government" from a voluntary arrangement is precisely the forcing-others aspect of it. You're free to live however you choose, as long as you're not infringing on anyone else's right to the same; but to "voluntarily live under a (statist) government" means to support that government's infringment of other people's rights, which is a crime (in the same way as knowingly hiding a murderer, etc.) You're not free to be a criminal!
of course, we are witnessing an anarchist advocate a position that denies someone self-determination. Why am I not surprised.
Your self-determination ends at my nose, as they say!
Autolykos:
Aggressive/profane post deleted. Please refrain from this.