Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Should Anarchy Happen Suddenly or Should it be a Slow Process?

rated by 0 users
This post has 14 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 256
Points 5,630
Al_Gore the Idiot Posted: Wed, Dec 12 2012 1:14 PM

Suppose we were to have anarchy, but had to choose the duration of the process. Would you want anarchy to occur overnight and all forms of government suddenly disappearing? Or would you want to see government gradually disappear with the process taking 5, 10, or 15 years? What are your thoughts?

  • | Post Points: 95
Top 500 Contributor
Female
Posts 260
Points 4,015

Overnight.  I couldn't rationally justify actually choosing a minarchist type of government even in the short term. 

Aside from the logical-ethical part of that decision, there's obviously the question of impact on society and I honestly believe the impact would be almost instantly positive.  Think of the speed with which the market adapts to any new conditions! 

I think the elements of society that currently depend on public programs would have alternative private options just as fast.  And in the longer term, the ability to be free of such dependency.

The few who could not adapt to change and communicate with others in order to get help in the transition are probably, realistically, those who are failing in spite of the availability of public programs now. 

In other words, I doubt there'd be much actual suffering in an overnight transition.  Some unrest in cities, probably a lot of crime initially-that'd be the biggest issue.  Until people find out through experience that they're still answerable for their actions.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Dec 12 2012 2:03 PM

Overnight. The infrastructure already exists. The culture, norms, and laws already exist. While many laws are unjust and the system itself is bad, it's not like the police, lawyers, judges, and the physical court houses would cease to exist. These people will still want to be employed. Surely there will be some problems during the transition, but it's not like we'd be reinventing the wheel.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Wed, Dec 12 2012 2:22 PM

 

My humble opinion: even if any overnight switch could be managed, it would yield but civil unrest and chaos. Evolutionism, says I.

 

 

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 113
Points 1,685
RagnarD replied on Wed, Dec 12 2012 2:27 PM

I definitely wouldn't be against either, and I find it hard to say that peoples rights should continue to be violated for a few years more, but I lean towards thinking a 5-10 year process would be best. Using that time to phase out government functions and giving the market time to respond. 

I fear an immidiate transition would lead to a quick backlash and restrengthen the state.  I imagine schools being privatized tomorrow , suddenly all the teachers are out of work, people have nowhere to take their kids, daycare prices go through the roof, yes it's transitional, but I doubt we would reach the point of the market catching up, people would demand that the schools be reopened. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Dec 12 2012 2:36 PM

I never get what people mean by "getting anarchy." I mean, what? To achieve anarchy you need broad education and cultural shift. This cannot be achieved overnight. And if it actually can, then why the heck not?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Dec 12 2012 3:03 PM

I think education is needed to get people to want anarchy, but I don't think education is needed for a private law society to exist. Resolving disputes through nonviolent argumentation seems to be intuitive for pretty much everyone. The idea that only one group should be in charge of doing the resolving seems to be something that must be learned. After all, we are not born with knowledge of customs, norms, and laws. We must learn those. And kids seem to avoid resolving disputes with authority figures (e.g. teachers). It's only when something gets really bad that teachers are sought out, and even then I think most kids would prefer to go to their parents and have them sort it out. But that's if it's something they even want to bring to their parents.

My point is that I think education is required only to break the indoctrination of the state.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Dec 12 2012 3:24 PM

False dichotomy.

People right now cannot accept what they can't see already working, can't see the benefits of--only imagine the problems.

I advocate parallel construction. Build a libertarian region, make it work, and watch people slowly trickle in from around the world, and then watch that trickle turn into a flood.

There is no better education than what you can see with your own eyes.

We will show them streets flowing with milk and honey, roads paved with gold. The original promise of America reborn. Land of the truly free. Oceans of opportunity :P

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Dec 12 2012 3:50 PM

Oceans of opportunity.

You've been saving that one.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Wed, Dec 12 2012 7:41 PM

Whichever was sooner obviously. I wouldn't wait 15 years so I could have it overnight, if I can have it gradually in 5.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 151
Points 2,705

My personal libertarian fantasy is give me temporary control of the United States. I roll back all government, federal and state, and make the country a classical liberal/minarchist society, except for a small state, say, Rhode Island. Abolish the State all together in Rhode Island and allow all the an-caps to move there and set up shop. If it works well, then we copy the formula in other states.

(For the record I'm a classical liberal/minarchist who sympathizes with an-caps philosophically but who just hasn't studied it enough to justify calling himself an an-cap)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 228
Points 3,640
Blargg replied on Wed, Dec 12 2012 8:09 PM

IMO the worst thing that happens is when government rolls back just enough to satisfy people, when they manage to just avoid the disaster they're heading for. This ensures that it stays in place as worse as possible without going over the line that instigates sweeping change. So a slow shift would just have people saying "oh, that's enough, we'll leave it here" before it was done.

Not that there's a choice. At some point it will quickly fall apart, but we won't have anarchy, just chaos and people addicted to the state wondering what to do.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Dec 12 2012 8:50 PM

John Locke moved us forward theoretically quite a bit. But he didn't see the end-game. His contribution in the field of rights is excellent. But he ended up advocating the kind of minarchism that resulted in the US Constitution. He couldn't at that point envision a truly free society.

Libertarians are, quite literally, carrying the US revolution forward with us. It lives or dies with us. The age-old fight has not ended between the forces of liberty and the force of tyranny.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

 A fast progression, but not overnight.

Its best to go into a minarchy first then into anarchy.

And remember, the state is a cultural part of society, people are used to it. Think abou tthe shock people will get when the state no longer exists..... Education must precede anarchy.

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Thu, Dec 13 2012 2:26 AM

I don't think the state can be reverted to minarchy.

It's like a jenga tower. For the tower to get smaller you have to knock down at least parts of it.

People will be hurt by that, people plugged into and living off the tower. Therefore it's politically impossible. The only one who can pull it off is reality, due to contradictions inherent in the system. Like spending trillions of dollars a year more than you have income :\

Rather I think we should take a sinking ship approach.

We know their ship is sinking, therefore those who see it will attempt to flee it.

Simply give them a place to flee to.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (15 items) | RSS