Attackdonkey:It's an uphill battle, but one we have a shot at. Oklahoma has 2 represenatives in its house that are "Libertarian" (though under the republican party) and many more that are getting ready to run. myself and 3 other guys my age intend to run for the house in 2010. I can only hope and assume that more young people are planning and doing the same thing... Liberty is growing, and the reason it will be at the local levels that you see changes the first, is that the system works that way, a man starts at city council, then the state house, the state senate maybe, and then the US house, and US Senate... with minor variations including governor somewhere in there, or a run for president, or skiping a step... but remember its how its packaged. no one, and I mean no one is going to vote for the gov't to be done away with, or at least not enough for the man to win
Well, I certainly wish you the very best of luck in your endeavor. I agree with you that it is an uphill battle all the way.
Where I have a problem is that these sorts of arguments seem to assume is that we're sort of standing still while the forces of liberty gain strength, so all we have to do is keep on keepin' on, so to speak, and over time, liberty will incrementally win. I don't think that's accurate. The forces of tyranny have been gaining serious ground for well over a century (twice that by some counts) while liberty has yielded ground - just as Jefferson noted. Since 911, of course, that shift has accelerated dramatically. Every government policy that is needed for a police state is now in place, and there is little or no sign that a sizable percentage of the citizenry even grasps this or is troubled by it. When we look at history, I don't remember a single instance where a people started with a Republic, slid into democracy and tyranny, and then managed to incrementally find their way back to liberty. This is sort of like making incremental forward progress - step by painful step - along a glacier, only to find the whole thing has been sliding backward at 10X your forward speed the whole time.
The point is: the State isn't sleeping through all of this, and many of those who start with ideas about using the "system" to regain liberty will inevitably become corrupted or broken by it. I see our political system as serving exactly the purpose for which it was designed - a vehicle of exploitation. I don't think it's even possible to use such a system in a way that is fundamentally contrary to its nature, and that's what trying to use it to bring about liberty represents.
The system is clearly rigged - and I don't think continuing to sit down and plunk our money down at the table makes a whole lotta sense when we know the damn thing is rigged to begin with.
I could be wrong. Maybe if enough folks run for and win office and stick to their guns, a sea change can be effected. I suppose there's gotta be a first time for everything. But that's one helluvan uphill battle indeed, and precious little time to fight it before it's too late.
Watching what happens to the Ron Paul campaign will be very interesting. The traction he can get will probably be a good indicator of the number of citizens who are ready to wake up.
Regarding: "the system works that way, a man starts at city council, then the state house, the state senate maybe, and then the US house, and US Senate" - you do realize that this is a symptom of the very disease we're discussing? That this is precisely what's wrong with the system - the aggregate power increases as you go UP, when it should increase as you go DOWN? It seems that this is so deeply embedded by now that even folks who favor liberty accept this upside down paradigm as 'just the way things work.'
I think the delusion most people continue to labor under is that our political 'machine' is just broken here and there and so needs to be repaired. I maintain that the system is working perfectly and as designed - to convert social power to State power and serve as the 'arbiter of economic advantage' [Nock] - and so there is no 'repair' possible. The thing needs to be junked and a new machine, different from the State, put in its place.
But as I said, I wish you all the luck in your effort to bring forth liberty from a system designed for tyranny.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan154.html
Interesting, but overly simplistic article by Callahan. To use his analogy, consider that 'spousal abuse' is currently the law of the land and is encouraged all over the globe and is getting more egregious every day in just about every nation. Working with people who want to reverse the trend toward ever more wife beating, and in so doing reduce its incidence, even if their goal is not the anarchist's goal of zero tolerance, is not a terrible thing, practically speaking and considering the alternatives.
Any action that leads to a reduction in State power, on net and within ethical boundaries - that is to say, that leads to inhibiting or reversing the ongoing conversion of social power to State power - is in and of itself good, in my view. If minarchists and anarchists working together have a higher probability of achieving this, compared to anarchists working alone, then to NOT work together on it because of the doctrinaire and purist view espoused in this essay would be foolhardy or even unethical, IMO.
ozzy43:Interesting, but overly simplistic article by Callahan. To use his analogy, consider that 'spousal abuse' is currently the law of the land and is encouraged all over the globe and is getting more egregious every day in just about every nation. Working with people who want to reverse the trend toward ever more wife beating, and in so doing reduce its incidence, even if their goal is not the anarchist's goal of zero tolerance, is not a terrible thing, practically speaking and considering the alternatives.
How do the anarchists propose to have zero tolerance towards wife beating? Most men in this country don't and wouldn't beat their wives, even under anarchy, but nonetheless we must recognize that the power differential between men and women is probably the oldest to plague our species. Men are bigger and VASTLY stronger than women. Most men are better than twice as strong, in their upper bodies, and in other ways are built both skeletally and neurologically to be better combatants. The point is, men can EASILY dominate women. While, granted, there is nothing to stop the wife from shivving the husband in the night if he gets out of line and has no plan to prevent such a thing, I think this lack of individual protections is one of the weaker points of anarchy. If men in general decide to beat women in general, there is precious little a woman can do about it herself, and without a government, there is no one else to do it for her.
Please read the article linked a couple of posts above, to which I was referring, and which makes that analogy.
If two men are stranded on a boat in the middle of the ocean (an horrific situation, to be sure), and they know how long they have before there is even a chance for rescue, and they know that they have only supplies for one of them, is the anarchist, then, the one that would hold to be morally correct they must both die a terrible death of exposure, hunger and thirst in the middle of the ocean? Or, perhaps, the one who would throw themselves to the sea? I for one, can not fault the man who lifts the oar and smashes the other's skull. Yet, this is clearly an initiation of force.
Similarly, in Korea there is a tradition where stealing food is not truly considered theft... stealing anything else is, but survival, at least in that culture, trumps property rights. As, I think, it ought. If you are starving, you are not morally wrong to steal food.
Fortunately, there are few situations in this country that would force an individual to steal or kill and be justified for it. However, the anarchist position that the initiation of force against a non-aggressor is NEVER justified disregards duress, which most courts of law take, in the rare circumstances when it occurs, as a defense against the charge of murder.
JCFolsom:If two men are stranded on a boat in the middle of the ocean (an horrific situation, to be sure), and they know how long they have before there is even a chance for rescue, and they know that they have only supplies for one of them, is the anarchist, then, the one that would hold to be morally correct they must both die a terrible death of exposure, hunger and thirst in the middle of the ocean? Or, perhaps, the one who would throw themselves to the sea? I for one, can not fault the man who lifts the oar and smashes the other's skull. Yet, this is clearly an initiation of force. Similarly, in Korea there is a tradition where stealing food is not truly considered theft... stealing anything else is, but survival, at least in that culture, trumps property rights. As, I think, it ought. If you are starving, you are not morally wrong to steal food. Fortunately, there are few situations in this country that would force an individual to steal or kill and be justified for it. However, the anarchist position that the initiation of force against a non-aggressor is NEVER justified disregards duress, which most courts of law take, in the rare circumstances when it occurs, as a defense against the charge of murder.
We are not programming robots. We are trying to determine what is right and what isn't right. If one man on your boat takes a swing at the other, then the other man can rightfully defend himself from this aggression. So that means that the aggressor does not have the right to aggress, otherwise the aggressed could do nothing.
The same is true of Korean food thieves. If a food thief is harmed while stealing food, can the person defending his food be punished?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
What the hell? What on earth does the fact that most women tend to be weaker have to do with anarchism? We're not primitivists, we're not advocating a return to the laws of the jungle.
As for Callahan's article, I agree with Ozzy that we should side with minarchists when they're advocating shrinking down the government. The less evil there is, the better.
Inquisitor:What the hell? What on earth does the fact that most women tend to be weaker have to do with anarchism? We're not primitivists, we're not advocating a return to the laws of the jungle.
No, but you're expecting every person to defend their own freedom with violence. This is an insane way of protecting liberty, since "might" and "right" have nothing to do with eachother. Some men -- including evil men -- are braver than others and would be able to plunder the cowardly and weak.
And since men are better at violence, women would have less liberty, as the average man attempting to aggress the average woman would win. Why else do you think that patriarchy is near-universal throughout mankind's history?
And on a broader scale, the ability of one militia to engage in a greater degree of violence has absolutely nothing to do with whether that violence is right or not, or aggressive or defensive. Without government, all you need is a large mob of people that support aggression and you've got the laws of the jungle, whether you like it or not.
Bravery and strength have nothing to do with ethical integrity. And so, a system where strength alone is relied upon -- whether it's government or not -- cannot be a basis for protecting liberty. Such strength has to be rooted in an entity which values justice above immediate self-interest. Government can be such an entity, but Anarchy cannot because people are all just scrambling to get whatever they can as quickly as possible, without regard for any universal principles of justice.
Even assuming we all have a fairly random ability of attacki\defense, there's a very simple dilemma:
If I aggress you unsuccessfully, I lose life, liberty and property.
If you defend yourself unsuccessfully, you lose life, liberty, and property.
If I aggress you successfully, I gain your property and you lose your life, liberty, and property.
If you defend yourself successfully, you keep your life and liberty, but some of your property is lost as attrition damage (damaged property, fees to defense agencies, etc.) as a cost of defending yourself.
As a result, from a strictly game-theoretic standpoint, Anarchy favors aggressors, which is probably why government exists to begin with. It begins as a series of small aggressive mobs based on shared family or cultural heritage, then continually gets bigger and bigger until it's a nation.
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
Dude, you're *such* a troll.../sigh
Is concision an unfamiliar term to you? You must have ample time to waste on these forums. Anyway.You've done nothing, really, but assert that government can protect rights (in the process of violating them, of course... nevermind all the rights violations governments actively participated in and enabled) whereas 'anarchy' (is this yet another one of Nathyn's strawmen?) cannot. What is the basis of this silly supposition? Government favors aggressors, and one does not even need flawed game-theoretic inferences to establish this.
Let's keep in mind, too, that there was an extended period of anarchy in human history, or rather, prehistory. There are still places, in the jungles of South America, for instance, that tribalism rules, and no state can truly be said to exist. Yet wherever people have advanced beyond hunter-gatherer models, the beginnings of government are born. It happened everywhere in the world, seemingly independently.
You say the state has a tendency to grow. You are right. Alas, this is not a tendency of the state itself, but of people, who naturally desire security and authority. People are naturally hierarchical. The moment the possiblity of centralized control manifests, some demand it and others are all too happy to fulfill that demand. My point is this: Anarchy is not the natural state of man. People want someone they can turn to who will resolve their disputes. Yet those who plan to abuse others, even if short of violence, will likely not sign up with arbitration agencies that have deals with those they plan to steal from/defraud/vandalize. Justice, alas, must be imposed upon the guilty, they will not submit to it willingly. Indeed, if one man murders another, and the criminal does not sign up with that agency, but instead with one antagonistic to it, what happens?
The state grows because the selfish demand of the people, particularly in a country with voting such as this one, demands it grows. Do you really think that abolishing the state will abolish that demand. Or will it merely remove the fetters of the mob, that it might impose its short-sighted wrath fully on the scapegoat of the hour?
Anarchy MIGHT last until the first major crisis, then the people would welcome whomever made the best promises, in all likelihood a tyrant, as a savior. Anarchy is against human nature, and will never be sustainable. The state is a beast, one most difficult to restrain, but better that governments be formed by men of conscience than by tyrants in times of deperation.
JCFolsom:Is it inconceivable, though, that rather than throwing out the idea of government altogether, that we might learn from the failings of the last attempt and try again?
I won't say it's inconceivable, but I will say this: I myself am unwilling to wield authority over others, and I do not trust people who think that they have either the ability or the moral right to hold authority over me to actually wield that authority without abusing it. I am an anarchist because I do not want to rule others, and I do not want to be ruled by others.
JCFolsom:Let's keep in mind, too, that there was an extended period of anarchy in human history, or rather, prehistory. There are still places, in the jungles of South America, for instance, that tribalism rules, and no state can truly be said to exist. Yet wherever people have advanced beyond hunter-gatherer models, the beginnings of government are born. It happened everywhere in the world, seemingly independently. You say the state has a tendency to grow. You are right. Alas, this is not a tendency of the state itself, but of people, who naturally desire security and authority. People are naturally hierarchical. The moment the possiblity of centralized control manifests, some demand it and others are all too happy to fulfill that demand. My point is this: Anarchy is not the natural state of man. People want someone they can turn to who will resolve their disputes. Yet those who plan to abuse others, even if short of violence, will likely not sign up with arbitration agencies that have deals with those they plan to steal from/defraud/vandalize. Justice, alas, must be imposed upon the guilty, they will not submit to it willingly. Indeed, if one man murders another, and the criminal does not sign up with that agency, but instead with one antagonistic to it, what happens? The state grows because the selfish demand of the people, particularly in a country with voting such as this one, demands it grows. Do you really think that abolishing the state will abolish that demand. Or will it merely remove the fetters of the mob, that it might impose its short-sighted wrath fully on the scapegoat of the hour? Anarchy MIGHT last until the first major crisis, then the people would welcome whomever made the best promises, in all likelihood a tyrant, as a savior. Anarchy is against human nature, and will never be sustainable. The state is a beast, one most difficult to restrain, but better that governments be formed by men of conscience than by tyrants in times of deperation.
This is exactly the kind of confusion that follows when we call something anarchy that isn't anarchy.
JCFolsom:How do the anarchists propose to have zero tolerance towards wife beating?
How do the anarchists propose to have zero tolerance towards wife beating?
Wife beating has to be about the least serious problem to discuss. If a woman chooses to marry an abusive man that is no one's fault but her own. She has two options: leave him or put up with the abuse. Many woman simply choose to put up with the abuse. Perhaps you'd like to run their lives for them?
Are you asking who will protect people from their own stupidity under anarchy? Do I really need to answer that?
Peace
Men can change, become abusive. What if there are children, and the wife has no way to extract them from the abuser? What if she knows, if she leaves, that his rage will turn on them? Are the children "stupid" for having an abusive father?
Again, the utter lack of compassion displayed here will not win any converts. I used the wife beating example as only that: an example. There are endless cases one could point out where individuals with power over other individuals, whether via employment or simple brute force or some other means, could abuse that power without fear of reprisal, and without the victim having any recourse in an anarchy. Perhaps you are such a wise person that you've never made an error in judgement that led to dire consequences? Perhaps you've never faced a situation where the right thing to do was unclear, and you had to take a risk? Perhaps you think that a woman ought not enter into an intimate relationship with any man, unless she can somehow scry the future and know he'll never become abusive. Otherwise, she's "stupid". Right?
And yes, I think the woman in that situation would appreciate it if I came in, with her permission or not, and killed the *** who oppressed her. Now, I know there are some women with a pathological tendency to get into abusive relationships and stay there, regardless of the dire risks, but I think that a big part of the abuse issue is women being afraid of dying, or their children being killed, by a murderous man when she tries to leave.
In a state of anarchy, said abused wife could simply catch said abusive husband asleep and kill him with an axe. Simple as that. There would be no state, so there would be no repercussions for her, officially. Of course, there is always the chance she could face a reprisal killing from his family. She would have to weigh that possibility prior to taking action.
Nathyn:Even assuming we all have a fairly random ability of attacki\defense, there's a very simple dilemma:If I aggress you unsuccessfully, I lose life, liberty and property.If you defend yourself unsuccessfully, you lose life, liberty, and property. If I aggress you successfully, I gain your property and you lose your life, liberty, and property.If you defend yourself successfully, you keep your life and liberty, but some of your property is lost as attrition damage (damaged property, fees to defense agencies, etc.) as a cost of defending yourself.As a result, from a strictly game-theoretic standpoint, Anarchy favors aggressors, which is probably why government exists to begin with. It begins as a series of small aggressive mobs based on shared family or cultural heritage, then continually gets bigger and bigger until it's a nation.
Call him a troll if you like, but Nathyn brings up a valid concern among many who would be more liberty-minded but fear for their safety in a world of Anarchy.
The only way I see we can get around this problem is (sigh) by pursuading everyone to value life and liberty above all else. This would make aggression for the sake of monetary gain unprofitable. The Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afghans have demonstrated how to throw off organized aggressors: Low cost insurgency coupled with international attention to conflict will trump standing armies in the long run. Now we just need low cost insurgencies *everywhere* and organized aggressors wouldn't stand a chance.
Of course, the Vietnamese, Iraqis, and Afghans are able to coordinate such insurgencies because they had a quasi-governmental structure to begin with, and intend to impose a new government once the invaders leave. Keep in mind, too, that this "low cost insurgencies" may not have a large cost in terms of dollars, but in terms of lives, they're incredibly expensive. Insurgents can, on a very good day, lose 20 men for every 1 well-organized, well-funded professional military. Also keep in mind that international pressure comes only from governments, and even international associations of governments.
Keep in mind this, too, that insurgency of the types in the cases you mention only works because the invader has some principle in the matter. An aggressor such as ourselves sweeping through, willing to kill every man, woman, and child, even without turning the land into radioactive waste, can EASILY do so. Thus, as with many things, it is only the restraint of the aggressor that allows for any hope of resistance.
Nathyn:No, but you're expecting every person to defend their own freedom with violence. This is an insane way of protecting liberty, since "might" and "right" have nothing to do with eachother. Some men -- including evil men -- are braver than others and would be able to plunder the cowardly and weak. And since men are better at violence, women would have less liberty, as the average man attempting to aggress the average woman would win. Why else do you think that patriarchy is near-universal throughout mankind's history? And on a broader scale, the ability of one militia to engage in a greater degree of violence has absolutely nothing to do with whether that violence is right or not, or aggressive or defensive. Without government, all you need is a large mob of people that support aggression and you've got the laws of the jungle, whether you like it or not. Bravery and strength have nothing to do with ethical integrity. And so, a system where strength alone is relied upon -- whether it's government or not -- cannot be a basis for protecting liberty. Such strength has to be rooted in an entity which values justice above immediate self-interest. Government can be such an entity, but Anarchy cannot because people are all just scrambling to get whatever they can as quickly as possible, without regard for any universal principles of justice. Even assuming we all have a fairly random ability of attacki\defense, there's a very simple dilemma: If I aggress you unsuccessfully, I lose life, liberty and property. If you defend yourself unsuccessfully, you lose life, liberty, and property. If I aggress you successfully, I gain your property and you lose your life, liberty, and property. If you defend yourself successfully, you keep your life and liberty, but some of your property is lost as attrition damage (damaged property, fees to defense agencies, etc.) as a cost of defending yourself. As a result, from a strictly game-theoretic standpoint, Anarchy favors aggressors, which is probably why government exists to begin with. It begins as a series of small aggressive mobs based on shared family or cultural heritage, then continually gets bigger and bigger until it's a nation.
Time will tell
Mark B.: In a state of anarchy, said abused wife could simply catch said abusive husband asleep and kill him with an axe. Simple as that. There would be no state, so there would be no repercussions for her, officially. Of course, there is always the chance she could face a reprisal killing from his family. She would have to weigh that possibility prior to taking action
Vinnie:Call him a troll if you like, but Nathyn brings up a valid concern among many who would be more liberty-minded but fear for their safety in a world of Anarchy
I don't know if anyone else here reads Robert Higgs, but if not, you should. Those who like Rothbard will love him. This snippet from his 'Neither Liberty Nor Safety' is on target, in terms of this thread topic:
************************************************************
HL Mencken famously said that "every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." By now however, I am no longer ashamed, because I do not identify with the government under which I live. Rather, I view it as a criminal organization that without provocation has chosen to make war on my just rights - not only mine, of course, but everyone's. Although this vile enterprise is my problem, because it robs and bullies me relentlessly and without mercy, it is not my responsibility: the nail is not the hammer. I did not ask for it and I do not want it. I fervently desire that it would simply disappear without a trace, leaving individuals free to conduct their affairs by means of voluntary cooperation, free of its incessant, gratuitous thrats of force and violence against unoffending people, and free of the ceasless, insulting drumbeat of its moronic propaganda.
Of course, the government is not about to disappear; indeed, it grows stronger daily. Social scientists must therefore understand how it operates and what consequences its operations have for the public. The foremost difficulty of understanding the threat of modern government is its nearly complete infiltration of society. Not only does it permeate virtually every part of social and economic life, but people constantly pass back and forth across the line that separates predator and prey - so commonly, in fact, that the masses easily fall for the myth that in our blessed democracy "we are the government."
This highlights the problem I have with the notion of minarchy as it tends to be put forth: those putting it forth do not generally seem to be aware of the facts as outlined above by Higgs. And so any solution they posit is not based on fact and reality, but upon wishful thinking. And such solutions are, simply, not worth serious analysis. If someone were to acknowledge the above, and then go on to show how a minarchist system could function in a way that seemed likely to - on an ongoing and ceaseless and powerful basis - constrain the criminal organization that is the State, then I'd be willing to look at the proposal. But I don't think I've ever seen a minarchist proposal that actually did that.
As in this threat, there is instead the presumption that we have 'learned' from our mistakes and would surely be able to do 'better next time.' But no specifics, nor evidence, is given that these presumptions do or would hold true.