Could anarchy work in human society?

Zeddicus writes "Yes, people do have a right to us force against criminals. There is no problem with forcing someone who have harmed me to be put on trial in the court i choose." It seems to me that there are several problems here. First, if we posit a right to use force against criminals, it isn't clear how, in an anarchist order, that translates to the right to use force against accused criminals. Next, if a person can be forced to use a particular court, without any previous committment, that seems to open the door to abuses far worse than what we see in states. What we'd have would be what we have now in defense contracting and private prisons - private companies, driven by profit motive, but without the usual market restraints. Just how will you incentivize fair and impartial courts if only the accuser gets to choose the court? Why won't the courts compete regarding how often they can get a guilty verdict, and how harsh the sentences are?

maxpot46:

In my experience, I have been quite persuasive and am responsible for several converts.  Of course, I'm no Ron Paul...  yet.  But there seems to be more support for a limited state than for anarchy.

Right and it's my belief that it is easier to get to anarchy from a limited state mentality, than it is from a totalitarian state mentality.  Either way, I like that Ron Paul uses his office to spread libertarian, free market and sound money ideals.  He's the heretic preaching in the temple.

 

 

liberty student:

maxpot46:

In my experience, I have been quite persuasive and am responsible for several converts.  Of course, I'm no Ron Paul...  yet.  But there seems to be more support for a limited state than for anarchy.

Right and it's my belief that it is easier to get to anarchy from a limited state mentality, than it is from a totalitarian state mentality.

QFT. That was certainly the route I followed.

--Len

maxpot46:

No, I hold anarchy to be impossible because it's far too frightening for most personality types.  Personally I think like, and share the values of, an anarchist, but as a political strategist I think minarchy is the best we can hope for.  I mean, is anyone else profoundly unimpressed by the lack of progress Agorism has made over the last 30 years?

The level of Statism that USAians live in today would have been impossible 100 years ago - it would have been horrifying for most personality types.  The current popular understanding of economics, freedom, statism, and anarchy may make anarchy unreachable at present, but that does not, in itself, make anarchy impossible or unworkable.

I first heard of the libertarian movement back in the late '70s, and only heard about Agorism very recently, but I share your disappointment in the progress that they've both failed to make.  From what I've seen on the libertarian end of things, it's largely because of the energy spent on debates within the movement, that could have been more productively spent in convincing the population at large.  Far too many are unwilling to work towards any transitory-but-promising step, because it's not "pure", a compromise of their goals.  They want to go from standing on the beach to swimming in the deep end without wading at knee depth.

Expecting that you'll be able to swim when you get there is important when you're wading in ankle-deep, and avoiding the unintended consequences that turned Marxism into the USSR is clearly essential - so modeling the end result with careful attention to loopholes, methods of dealing with those who would seek power over their neighbors, and contingency plans for dealing with Bruce the Shark if he shows up are clearly important. 

How will we cope when the waves get high?  Will our faces being wet prevent us from breathing effectively?  Will Danno let go of the metaphor? When we have workable answers to every question we can think of, or questions arise that we cannot answer, then we'll know whether anarchy could work or not.

Keynes was wrong; what happens in the long run does matter, and governments can't write bad checks indefinitely.  The financial policies of most countries will lead to collapse, just as surely as they led to the collapse of the USSR.  Preventing that by switching to a workable system would be lovely, and switching to a workable system after such a collapse would be essential - but neither of these is possible if there is no workable system on the drawing board.

Thus, my question: can anarchy be made to work in a human society?  My jury's still out, but the roads monopoly and the certainty that some would refuse to cooperate do look to be unsurmountable problems - if they can't be solved, it's time to look at other systems, to see if they can be made to work.  Personally, I'd prefer to work toward a system that would maximize freedom, and avoid a system with the unforseen consequences of the one they tried with an eye toward maximizing "fairness".

Danno

maxpot46:

No, I hold anarchy to be impossible because it's far too frightening for most personality types.  Personally I think like, and share the values of, an anarchist, but as a political strategist I think minarchy is the best we can hope for.

Personally I think minarchy is what is impossible. It can never work, in order to limit government so much it won't just expand again you need to limit it so much it will dissapear shortly after. I have a sked a lot of minarchist to give me a model of a limited government that have any chance of keeping doing what it's supposed to and nothing else, I havn't gotten a decent answer yet. Minarchy is utopian and it has other problems as well. You are actually legitimising the current system by saying "yeah, the state is good and all we just need less of it."

Minarchist are damaging the case for liberty impensly. If people had been saying we don't need to abolish slavery, we just need a few laws restricts abuse of slaves and everything will be fine. Then we would probably still have had slavery today...

Molyneux explains part of this problem here http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/molyneux/molyneux3.html

 

 

 

 

 

JAlanKatz:

What we'd have would be what we have now in defense contracting and private prisons - private companies, driven by profit motive, but without the usual market restraints. Just how will you incentivize fair and impartial courts if only the accuser gets to choose the court? Why won't the courts compete regarding how often they can get a guilty verdict, and how harsh the sentences are?

I only said you have the right to use force against someone you know have stolen from you. What courts or anyone else have to say about it is completley irrelevant. This is a very basic part of your right to life, liberty and property. This gives you the right to force a criminal into any court you choose. I didn't say that this is the likley way in which things will happen.

If you are dealing with organised criminals you will be at war with them and it will happen this way. Most people who didn't plan a life of crime however will have some insurance that offer them the support of loads of guys with guns until there guilt is proven. These guys with guns have however no interest in protecting a criminal so they will work thogheter with my guys with guns to figure out if this person have commited the crime i am accusing him of or not. There is no reason why these shouldn't be able to agree on a court in which this is determined.
At this point they booth want the same thing which is the truth, so agreeing shouldn't be that difficult. If this guy actually is a criminal he will cause more proplems for his company down the line too so they want to know it also.

If it is decided he is guilty his contract with his defence agency or what not will most likley be rendered void (he will become an outlaw) and be turned over to the mercy of my agency which will take what they think is approriate compensation for me from him and send him on his way. It is unlikley that he will ever be able to get a contract with any agency except some ex-con charity groups or such ever again. There may however still be some limited protection from his old agency as well as various charity groups against him being subjected to exessive force.

Also it is more problemetic if the crime in question isn't considered substantial enough by his agency to render his contract void. This is pretty unlikley though because it will be very expensive to protect people against stuff that are viewed as crimes by the rest of society.

And yes this possibility of creating outlaws is a problem in anarchy, however there is no way to solve it that doesn't lead to worse things. It's also a problem limited by the markets demand for harsh penalties as well as various groups that might take an interest in various types of criminals and protect them from exessive force. It is not unlikley that there will be charity groups for young criminals and people whos criminal behaviour is a result of them being in some form of desperate situation. Almost no-one will take an interest in murderers, rapists and child molesters ofcourse. But I don't see a problem with them becomming complete outlaws after guilt is decided....

Zeddicus:

Personally I think minarchy is what is impossible. It can never work, in order to limit government so much it won't just expand again you need to limit it so much it will dissapear shortly after. I have a sked a lot of minarchist to give me a model of a limited government that have any chance of keeping doing what it's supposed to and nothing else, I havn't gotten a decent answer yet.

And anarchy is going to keep doing what it is supposed to do?  Only by being educated, vigilant and defending your rights.  Both systems can exist with enough resolve, however anarchism is a form of perfection (the complete absence of government).  I haven't had much luck finding perfection in this world.

Zeddicus:

You are actually legitimising the current system by saying "yeah, the state is good and all we just need less of it."

Nonsense.  This is a strawman and I think it's a false proposition as well.  The argument is not that the state is good, the argument is still anti-state, however there is a recognition that you cannot close the state in one day, with one act, in one moment.  That in order to keep a majority from pushing a state on a minority, attitudes have to shift, and the state needs to be defeated in hearts and minds, before it can be dismantled or collapse physically.

 

Zeddicus:

Minarchist are damaging the case for liberty impensly. If people had been saying we don't need to abolish slavery, we just need a few laws restricts abuse of slaves and everything will be fine. Then we would probably still have had slavery today...

Slavery still exists today.  It wasn't abolished.  We have tax slavery.  We have the potential of conscription.  We don't own our own property.  Your argument is bizarre.  You're anti-state, and yet you are making the case that the state abolished slavery throgh state processes.  If anything, that's an argument for minarchism in my opinion.

 

liberty student:

And anarchy is going to keep doing what it is supposed to do?  Only by being educated, vigilant and defending your rights.  Both systems can exist with enough resolve, however anarchism is a form of perfection (the complete absence of government).  I haven't had much luck finding perfection in this world.

Well, isn't minarchy in the eyes of minarchists?

As to the question of whether anarchy "will keep doing what it is supposed to do," there is no guarantee with any political system. However, I do think that anarchy lacks the strong structural incentives that even a minarchist state has that lead to the state's inevitable growth into Leviathan.

liberty student:

And anarchy is going to keep doing what it is supposed to do?  Only by being educated, vigilant and defending your rights.  Both systems can exist with enough resolve, however anarchism is a form of perfection (the complete absence of government).  I haven't had much luck finding perfection in this world.

There will still be crime and there will still be government wannabies. There will be poverty, sucides, prositiution, drugs. It's not a recepie for a perfect world in any way. Such a thing is impossible.

liberty student:

That in order to keep a majority from pushing a state on a minority, attitudes have to shift, and the state needs to be defeated in hearts and minds, before it can be dismantled or collapse physically.

And you do that by defending the state and claiming it could be good if it was just smaller? It won't start to go away until people realise it's bad and unecessary.

liberty student:

Slavery still exists today.  It wasn't abolished.  We have tax slavery.  We have the potential of conscription.  We don't own our own property.  Your argument is bizarre.  You're anti-state, and yet you are making the case that the state abolished slavery throgh state processes.  If anything, that's an argument for minarchism in my opinion.

Ehm, most laws we have seen this far are written by states. What does that have to do with anything? Maybe if it had been abolished by internal preassure inside the state alone, but I still don't see the relevance. It's not about that it's, about how people would have responded to a situation where there had been very few aboloshinishts and most of them instead had just been preaching on about a little less slavery then there was. It wouldn't have been very effective at all in creating any preassure to either abolish or reduce slavery, cause they would have been saying that there really isn't that much wrong with it. The system just needs to be tweaked a bit and everything will be fine...

Basically you are giving people a false choice, that let's them avoid necessary change. Really statists can't find better allies then a few minarchist in there mists to legitimise the state's existence with there precense and throwing people of the real issue.

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

As to the question of whether anarchy "will keep doing what it is supposed to do," there is no guarantee with any political system. However, I do think that anarchy lacks the strong structural incentives that even a minarchist state has that lead to the state's inevitable growth into Leviathan.

Is human nature a structural incentive?

 

 

 

liberty student:

Is human nature a structural incentive?

No. Structural incentives operate at the level of political and market institutions, organization structure, market processes, etc. See Robert Higgs's book Crisis and Leviathan, for example. Chris Matthew Sciabarra's Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism is good for getting you to think about social phenomena on multiple levels of analysis: personal (psycho-epistemological, ethical), cultural (linguistic, aesthetic, etc.), structural (politics, economics, law)

Zeddicus:

liberty student:

That in order to keep a majority from pushing a state on a minority, attitudes have to shift, and the state needs to be defeated in hearts and minds, before it can be dismantled or collapse physically.

And you do that by defending the state and claiming it could be good if it was just smaller? It won't start to go away until people realise it's bad and unecessary.

Who is defending the state?  It's a matter of attacking it strategically, breaking it up, chunk by chunk.  It won't go away until we actually make progress.  Until then, it's all theory and high ideals.

Zeddicus:

Ehm, most laws we have seen this far are written by states. What does that have to do with anything? Maybe if it had been abolished by internal preassure inside the state alone, but I still don't see the relevance. It's not about that it's, about how people would have responded to a situation where there had been very few aboloshinishts and most of them instead had just been preaching on about a little less slavery then there was. It wouldn't have been very effective at all in creating any preassure to either abolish or reduce slavery, cause they would have been saying that there really isn't that much wrong with it. The system just needs to be tweaked a bit and everything will be fine...

The assumption here is that minarchists see minarchy as an endpoint, not as a waypoint.  I don't believe that is true.  I believe anarchists are the true radicals, who see only complete anarchy as a measure of progress.  Basically, all or nothing.

The system does need to be tweaked.  Tweaked and tweaked and tweaked until it is declawed, defanged and almost complete powerless.  Death by a thousand cuts.

Zeddicus:

Basically you are giving people a false choice, that let's them avoid necessary change. Really statists can't find better allies then a few minarchist in there mists to legitimise the state's existence with there precense and throwing people of the real issue.

Avoid necessary change?  Not at all.  I'm proposing that instead of debating if mutualist socialists syndicalists left anarcho-capitalist libertarian objectivists are really left or right, we should start pursuing change, even if it is in small steps.

Or we can keep alienating the minarchists because we don't think our arguments for anarchy are persuasive enough.  That's the problem here.  It's Anarchy or Statism, with nothing inbetween.  It's success or failure, with nothing in between.  Extremism.  Opinions and self-growth don't transition through a lifetime like that.  It's unnatural.

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

No. Structural incentives operate at the level of political and market institutions, organization structure, market processes, etc. See Robert Higgs's book Crisis and Leviathan, for example. Chris Matthew Sciabarra's Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism is also good for getting you to think about social phenomena on multiple levels of analysis: personal (psycho-epistemological, ethical), cultural (linguistic, aesthetic, etc.), structural (politics, economics, law)

Thanks, but I was being facetious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

liberty student:

Who is defending the state?

Everyone that sais if we just had less government everything would be fine...

liberty student:

The assumption here is that minarchists see minarchy as an endpoint, not as a waypoint.

Not any minarchist I have meet. Then thend to belive anarchy is impossible and will de-rail into chaos or at least a higher degree of offensive force then under a limited government. (The latter might actually be true, unless limited government had been impossible.)

liberty student:

I believe anarchists are the true radicals, who see only complete anarchy as a measure of progress.  Basically, all or nothing.

Who would that be? Every piece of the government that is sliced of is a victory which I think most anarchist agree on. Even if it tends to grow back someplace else. The problem is when a person who just thinks something is wrong with the government in general. The first person he sees who thinks something remotley the same is Ron Paul. So he goes and votes for Ron Paul.

This is not only a completley futuile guesture to create more liberty it also legitimises the system since Ron Paul is part of it. If instead of finding Ron Paul had just shouted out that the government is crap and should go and die, and enough people had done this it might actually scare politicans enough to roll back the state a bit so these upset people don't see as much of it and hopefully (from the politicans viewpoint) go away. By then these people might have been sucked up by anarchist movements and don't go away so the state needs to retreat further and further.

Now you get a cycle where every once in a while someone that does a lot of tweaking but not nearly enough is voted into power. It doesn't solve anything so people loose interest, they go away and the state grown back.

Zeddicus:

liberty student:

Who is defending the state?

Everyone that sais if we just had less government everything would be fine...

I haven't seen anyone here say that.  I've not seen anyone here refute the idea that less government would be better than existing conditions, either.

liberty student:

The assumption here is that minarchists see minarchy as an endpoint, not as a waypoint.

Not any minarchist I have meet. Then thend to belive anarchy is impossible and will de-rail into chaos or at least a higher degree of offensive force then under a limited government. (The latter might actually be true, unless limited government had been impossible.)

If, from a minarchist system, an anarchist can show how anarchy would work, successfully defending itself as a system from those who would see a power vacumn and try to appropriate it, you could probably convince them to convert - 'maximum freedom possible' seems to be common ground between the two philosophies.  Since I remain unconvinced that anarchy is practicible with actual human beings, I guess you'd have to call me a minarchist - and the minimum amount of government possible to ensure maximum general freedom is, indeed, an endpoint I'd be happy with.

liberty student:

I believe anarchists are the true radicals, who see only complete anarchy as a measure of progress.  Basically, all or nothing.

Who would that be? Every piece of the government that is sliced of is a victory which I think most anarchist agree on. Even if it tends to grow back someplace else. The problem is when a person who just thinks something is wrong with the government in general. The first person he sees who thinks something remotley the same is Ron Paul. So he goes and votes for Ron Paul.

This is not only a completley futuile guesture to create more liberty it also legitimises the system since Ron Paul is part of it. If instead of finding Ron Paul had just shouted out that the government is crap and should go and die, and enough people had done this it might actually scare politicans enough to roll back the state a bit so these upset people don't see as much of it and hopefully (from the politicans viewpoint) go away. By then these people might have been sucked up by anarchist movements and don't go away so the state needs to retreat further and further.

The system doesn't need (or particularly desire) to be legitimized - it is there, in place, by law - legitimate, to all purposes other than sniveling debate  It doesn't need to convince people to put it into place, it is in place.  If voting for Ron Paul would lead to a lessening of state power, then it's not futile.  Heck - if it'd merely slow down the increase of state power, it'd be better than any of the alternatives I can see.

Here in Minnesota, we had Jesse Ventura as Governor for a term.  Not (publicly, anyway) an anarchist, or even a minarchist - but a 'less government control' change of direction.  His effectiveness was debatable - between being overridden by the state legislature, and blatantly misrepresented in the press, the long-term results may have just been a temporary slowdown of government takeover in Minnesota.  I strongly suspect that, if Ron Paul is miraculously elected, his effectiveness will be just as hobbled.

However, for a time, the minarchists and libertarians had hope and a public voice - or at least a representative they felt fairly safe with.  This did much more to sway (and express) public opinion than any LP candidate to run in this state ever did.

In the long run, it may well not have mattered - but if the LP had used that opportunity differently, rather than sulking because he'd run on another 3rd party ticket, it may have.  That's coulda-woulda-shoulda, and we'll never know what would have been different if they'd done differently.  We'll never know what would have happened if that Burr-Hamilton duel had been fought a few years earlier, either.  What we have is what we have, and that's all we can ever work with.

People have been, loudly and clearly, sounding the alarm about government errors for over 100 years - it hasn't helped, or even slowed the Statist agenda down notably.  If you want the people to embrace anarchy or minarchy en masse, you're going to need to get their attention, and give them reason to listen to you.  Shouting loudly doesn't work - supporting the candidate that comes closest to your ideal can't hurt, and may actually help.

Unless, of course, you have a plan of action that's more likely of success.  I'm all ears.

Danno

Zeddicus:

liberty student:

Who is defending the state?

Everyone that sais if we just had less government everything would be fine...

I think that is a strawman.

Zeddicus:

liberty student:

The assumption here is that minarchists see minarchy as an endpoint, not as a waypoint.

Not any minarchist I have meet. Then thend to belive anarchy is impossible and will de-rail into chaos or at least a higher degree of offensive force then under a limited government. (The latter might actually be true, unless limited government had been impossible.)

Again, I think that's a strawman.  From reading Ego and Maxpot46, they seem to be close to my perspective.  That anarchy may be a goal, but you don't get there in one day.  And that means the state failing progressively.

Zeddicus:

liberty student:

I believe anarchists are the true radicals, who see only complete anarchy as a measure of progress.  Basically, all or nothing.

Who would that be? Every piece of the government that is sliced of is a victory which I think most anarchist agree on. Even if it tends to grow back someplace else.

Well then minarchists should be companions and fellow travellers to a point.

Zeddicus:

The first person he sees who thinks something remotley the same is Ron Paul. So he goes and votes for Ron Paul.

It could be Ru Paul.  But maybe Ron Paul turns that person onto Mises.org.  And the next thing you know, they are here, and you are destoying their reality by showing them the purity and morality of anarchy.

Zeddicus:

This is not only a completley futuile guesture to create more liberty it also legitimises the system since Ron Paul is part of it. If instead of finding Ron Paul had just shouted out that the government is crap and should go and die, and enough people had done this it might actually scare politicans enough to roll back the state a bit so these upset people don't see as much of it and hopefully (from the politicans viewpoint) go away. By then these people might have been sucked up by anarchist movements and don't go away so the state needs to retreat further and further.

I think the idea that fighting the state by using the state's processes legitimizes the state is a false proposition posted here ad infinitum.

Ron Paul is creating more minarchists, anarchists and libertarians in general.  I wouldn't be here today, if not for Ron Paul.  In fact, we could probably take a poll of the forum, and you'd find a healthy number of folks who are here, who are inspired to learn more because of Ron Paul.  The constant haranguing that Ron Paul's only contribution is abject failure, or legitimizing the state is blatantly false, and intellectually dishonest.

Zeddicus:

Now you get a cycle where every once in a while someone that does a lot of tweaking but not nearly enough is voted into power. It doesn't solve anything so people loose interest, they go away and the state grown back.

If you can build enough people, with enough knowledge, doing enough tweaking, for long enough periods of time, you will move mountains.

Agorism is based on the same notion.  Building agorist cells, creating black and grey markets, and creating enough independence and momentum, to make the state punchless.  It's a progression.

But we're subjected to the same argument day after day, that if Ron Paul can't become President, his movement is a failure.  And if he does become President, his movement is a failure.  Meanwhile, agorism is some snails pace counter-culture approach that never has to answer for it's relative ineffectiveness or gradualism.

Danno:

The level of Statism that USAians live in today would have been impossible 100 years ago - it would have been horrifying for most personality types.  The current popular understanding of economics, freedom, statism, and anarchy may make anarchy unreachable at present, but that does not, in itself, make anarchy impossible or unworkable.

I see my inelegant phrasing has led to a miscommunication, so let me restate my thought.  I doubt anarchy will ever be possible, even if the logistics are hashed out, because I believe some people will always prefer a sovereign.  Since it's more a desire for a sovereign than an emotional fear, the idea is consistent with the observation that the state grows easily, and my opinion that anarchy is impossible. 

I think Anarchy is much like the ERE -- an unrealizable state that is used as a mental construct to contrast and explain aspects of real life, and not meant to imply that it's actually acheivable.

Zeddicus:

in order to limit government so much it won't just expand again you need to limit it so much it will dissapear shortly after

You touch upon one of the IMO naive views of anarchists.  They seem to think that all they have to do is win one time, and it's over...  anarchy reigns, the statists are vanquished.  What about the next generation?  It'll probably have some natural born leaders in it, charismatic and smart, people obeying them since they day they were born.  You don't think they're going to try to coerce others?  You don't think people will flock to them?  You don't think they'll sell and market the state, probably as a counter to some whipped-up fear, and actually find lots and lots of people who eat it up?  

These people will have to be opposed in every generation.  Anarchy simply creates a new battleground on which to clash, and it seems to me to be a waste of energy when there's already a perfectly good battleground available.  The only problem with the current battleground (politics) is that authoritarian leaders choose to enter politics, while libertarian leaders choose to enter business or academia.

 

maxpot46:

You touch upon one of the IMO naive views of anarchists.  They seem to think that all they have to do is win one time, and it's over...  anarchy reigns, the statists are vanquished.  What about the next generation?  It'll probably have some natural born leaders in it, charismatic and smart, people obeying them since they day they were born.  You don't think they're going to try to coerce others?  You don't think people will flock to them?  You don't think they'll sell and market the state, probably as a counter to some whipped-up fear, and actually find lots and lots of people who eat it up?  

They seem to think? Perhaps some anarchists are that naive, but it would be nice if you could point to specific examples among leading theorists.

maxpot46:

These people will have to be opposed in every generation.  Anarchy simply creates a new battleground on which to clash, and it seems to me to be a waste of energy when there's already a perfectly good battleground available.  The only problem with the current battleground (politics) is that authoritarian leaders choose to enter politics, while libertarian leaders choose to enter business or academia.

Now this strikes me as the corresponding naivete of the minarchist. Of all who embrace the state actually. If only we could get the good guys in power, or so the endless refrain goes. What is overlooked is that the nature of the state is such that the bad guys will tend to be the ones who get into power.

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

it would be nice if you could point to specific examples among leading theorists.

What do leading theorists have to do with it?  I'm talking about anarchists, like the one I responded to and the ones I've been hearing here.  But as long as you're implying that there are leading theorists who touch on this, help a brother out and point me in the right direction, please?

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

What is overlooked is that the nature of the state is such that the bad guys will tend to be the ones who get into power.

Not overlooked here.  I'm not too happy about it, but "will tend to be" seems like an easier thing to deal with than whatever you want to call anarchy, IMO.

maxpot46:

What do leading theorists have to do with it?  I'm talking about anarchists, like the one I responded to and the ones I've been hearing here.  But as long as you're implying that there are leading theorists who touch on this, help a brother out and point me in the right direction, please?

What do leading theorists have to do with it? Well, they're the ones doing the theorizing about anarchy. Are Brainpolice and I among the anarchists here that you are talkinga bout? And you would base such a claim on just one thread here. Have you read any of our essays or more developed blogposts?

As for the leading theorists of anarchy. They've been linked to quite a few times in this forum. Quite a few of them have been listed in the reading list posted at the top of the political theory forum, but others have been linked to in various threads on anarchy and the law. Some searching should bring them up.

maxpot46:

Not overlooked here.  I'm not too happy about it, but "will tend to be" seems like an easier thing to deal with than whatever you want to call anarchy, IMO.

I was putting it mildly. The growth of the state into Leviathan is pretty much inevitable. I'd much rather fight my battles for liberty against demagogues and petty tyrants in the more even playing field of an anarchic society than have the vast and concentrated power of a relative handful of states as in the current system.

maxpot46:

They seem to think that all they have to do is win one time, and it's over...  anarchy reigns, the statists are vanquished.  What about the next generation?  It'll probably have some natural born leaders in it, charismatic and smart, people obeying them since they day they were born.  You don't think they're going to try to coerce others?  You don't think people will flock to them?  You don't think they'll sell and market the state, probably as a counter to some whipped-up fear, and actually find lots and lots of people who eat it up?  

That is possible to do in a democratic elaction, or when there is a government to overthrow. But how eactly will these people raise guerillas to overthrow a buch of security firms? Why would anyone want to join them? What propaganda will they use to make people want risk there lives figting a bunch of companies that leaves them alone anyhow?

There is no stability problem with anarchy (unless the market is very small).

Companies don't grow there market shares forever. Disadvantages of scale come into play.
Having complete market domination without a monopoly or some form of government subsidy is a very rare thing that only happens in new industries which create very cool, very expensive stuff that no-one can actually buy yet. It will not happen in production of security. Unless there is some extreme economic advantage in having territorial monoply in production of security, but iI don't see why there would be.

liberty student:

I think that is a strawman.

I think I may be exagerating to make the point more clear. Your post is however packed with strawmen....

I am simply saying we would have a much better chance at getting rid of the government if everyone who called themselfs a libertarian was an anarchist. A strong anti-state movement would be effective, while an equally strong small-state movement is pretty much wasted. You need to get a whole lot of people involved in the latter before it starts being any use at all except for the state's survival.

A minarchist movement is however still much better a few stray anarchists or no movement at all. That is should have refuted this seems to be the basis of most of your post so I won't go into it further.

I would however like to point out that working within the system is completley useless. When a party becomes big enough to do any difference it will become like any other party.

Also it's unnessary since the government will abolish itself all on it's own if no-one tolerates it's precense.
Because doing this would be the only way for the politicans within it to stay in power as long as possible. Regardless of who is in charge the state will bend to public opinion.
Well either that or try to establish totalitarian control, but that isn't easy in a rich democratic state lacking any major social or economic problems.

It is also possible to make the governemt go away by enough people simply ignoring it. Just break the currency monopoly first and it should be fine even if a few [Ha! I got cencored. So insert another word for german style socialist] are the only ones left voting.

This also means that the system have to appear legitimate in the eyes of the people, it is vital to the existence of the state.
I think a guard in Auswich wase a criminal and legitimised the system wheter he beat jews or protested everytime his buddies was about to.
The only way anyone in that system could be without blame is they where there as a spy or sabotour. I am afriad that just voting against every tax raise doesn't qualify as sabotage. Government employes that steal money from the system, take a job at the IRS just to go into private tax consulting a few year later or voting yes on some crackpot propsal that will cause havoc when it's to be implemented are however all fine.

I am simply saying we would have a much better chance at getting rid of the government if everyone who called themselfs a libertarian was an anarchist. A strong anti-state movement would be effective, while an equally strong small-state movement is pretty much wasted. You need to get a whole lot of people involved in the latter before it starts being any use at all except for the state's survival.

I don't pretend to know whether you're right, but there's something to be said for your viewpoint. Working "within the system" is painfully slow, most of all because libertarians themselves will constantly work at cross purposes because they disagree what goes and what stays, or what goes first. The electoral system is designed to prevent big changes in government unless overwhelming masses of people cooperate over a period of time.

On the other hand, helping the state collapse of its own weight is as simple as counter-economic activity, or non-cooperation, or even hyper-cooperation. The US government is stabler than the USSR's, but the same problems plague it, and eventually will bring it down. Meanwhile, a healthy counter-economy means that there are existing institutions when it falls.

--Len

liberty student:

. . .

Meanwhile, agorism is some snails pace counter-culture approach that never has to answer for it's relative ineffectiveness or gradualism.

 

No it is not. Counter-economics is a means to achieve a little bit of liberty now at the expense of the state, and it works. There are already people who don't pay taxes, existing entirely through counter-economic means. And they don't live as hermits, either.

Agorist strategy is about making counter-economic goods and services more easily available than they already are in the counter-economy which already exists.

It's not an incremental approach by any means. It is a means to grasp hold of what liberty is available now while working to expand liberty in general, realizing that every time you exchange with someone and nobody gets taxed or regulated or inflated in the process, you starve the beast just a little more.

Zeddicus:

I think I may be exagerating to make the point more clear. Your post is however packed with strawmen....

On the contrary, I went back and read my post.  I don't think it is packed with strawmen.

Zeddicus:

I am simply saying we would have a much better chance at getting rid of the government if everyone who called themselfs a libertarian was an anarchist. A strong anti-state movement would be effective, while an equally strong small-state movement is pretty much wasted. You need to get a whole lot of people involved in the latter before it starts being any use at all except for the state's survival.

I think you would have a stronger chance if all of the statists became anarchists....

The reality is, people aren't interested in anarchy.  Not as a mass movement.  Maybe one day, when slome of the ideals of liberty have been won back and institutionalized in the cultural identity, but not from today as a starting point.  I've mentioned numerous times, that anarchy doesn't jive up with working class family folk, who just want to raise their children and enjoy life.  It might be convenient for transient young radicals, who have less self-imposed responsibilities,

Zeddicus:

I would however like to point out that working within the system is completley useless. When a party becomes big enough to do any difference it will become like any other party.

I don't necessarily believe this.  Just because you use a car to go from A to B, doesn't mean you have drive in that same car for the rest of your life.

Zeddicus:

Also it's unnessary since the government will abolish itself all on it's own if no-one tolerates it's precense.
Because doing this would be the only way for the politicans within it to stay in power as long as possible. Regardless of who is in charge the state will bend to public opinion.
Well either that or try to establish totalitarian control, but that isn't easy in a rich democratic state lacking any major social or economic problems.

It is also possible to make the governemt go away by enough people simply ignoring it. Just break the currency monopoly first and it should be fine even if a few [Ha! I got cencored. So insert another word for german style socialist] are the only ones left voting.

Now this reads like wishful thinking to me.  A state will not collapse in the absence of major social or economic problems.  The state won't allow it's citizens to out-evolve it.  Not when it controls industry, health care, education etc.

If my loved one has cancer, and I have to go to the state for treatment, because the equipment, drugs and doctors are not available in the agora, then I will.  And so will most other rational creatures.  We will compromise.  That's how torture works.  That's how coercion works.

I'd like some anecdotal evidence of a government collapsing and anarchy emerging.  Has it ever happened before?  Or was the power vacuum filled by another regime, another state?

MacFall:

No it is not. Counter-economics is a means to achieve a little bit of liberty now at the expense of the state, and it works. There are already people who don't pay taxes, existing entirely through counter-economic means. And they don't live as hermits, either.

Good for them.  Honestly.  If they can make it work, great.  We just need to find 20 million non-hermits in  Canada and 200 million non-hermits in the USA, and we can probably swing the tide.

MacFall:

Agorist strategy is about making counter-economic goods and services more easily available than they already are in the counter-economy which already exists.

Right, so let the secret out. 

MacFall:

It's not an incremental approach by any means. It is a means to grasp hold of what liberty is available now while working to expand liberty in general, realizing that every time you exchange with someone and nobody gets taxed or regulated or inflated in the process, you starve the beast just a little more.

Do economies collapse from people starving them?

 

liberty student:

Good for them.  Honestly.  If they can make it work, great.  We just need to find 20 million non-hermits in  Canada and 200 million non-hermits in the USA, and we can probably swing the tide.

Yeah, that is the goal. And it is going to be a lot easier to convince 220 million people to become counter-economists in their own interest than it is to convince just 30 million people to vote for a particular semi-libertarian candidate.

Right, so let the secret out. 

That's what we're doing.

Do economies collapse from people starving them?

Look at it this way - no government has EVER lasted forever, and there's no reason to believe that the modern state will, either. The state is a parasite that will outgrow its host. And that will happen soon. Maybe not next year, or this decade, but SOON. That is an economic certainty. The state weakens itself through the use of that which is assumed to be its advantage - its ability to create money.

If say, 25% of people start trading food for car repair service, that takes a HUGE chunk out of the state's revenue. Or what if the 40 million or so libertarians started bartering for 25% of everything they consumed? Or if half of them bartered for 50%?

That would simultaneously strengthen the counter-economy, and weaken the state to that extent. And that would make the counter-economy even MORE appealing to those who are not conscious participants. Which will bring some of them over. Which will make it even stronger, and weaken the state even more. Which will bring more over, which will strenthen the counter-economy and weaken the state... and so on until the state launches its counter-revolution, at which point we find out just how strong free-market security can be. Which, as I consider it to be a case of the market vs. the state, will result in the beginning of the end of the state.

Agorism is a viable theory because it shows people that liberty works - no academic proof needed.

Zeddicus:

maxpot46:

They seem to think that all they have to do is win one time, and it's over...  anarchy reigns, the statists are vanquished.  What about the next generation?  It'll probably have some natural born leaders in it, charismatic and smart, people obeying them since they day they were born.  You don't think they're going to try to coerce others?  You don't think people will flock to them?  You don't think they'll sell and market the state, probably as a counter to some whipped-up fear, and actually find lots and lots of people who eat it up?  

That is possible to do in a democratic elaction, or when there is a government to overthrow. But how eactly will these people raise guerillas to overthrow a buch of security firms? Why would anyone want to join them? What propaganda will they use to make people want risk there lives figting a bunch of companies that leaves them alone anyhow?

Oh, it would be frighteningly easy.  Who needs guerillas?

Friends, we're overlooking the economies of scale - if we band together to buy in quantity, negotiate as a bloc, and quit duplicating each other's efforts, we'll have pie in the sky, a chicken in every pot, and a glorious future.  Join The Movement today, and ensure a sunny future for yourselves, your children, and your grandchildren.

Comrades - we're facing a crisis here - The Movement, which has been here for you from the start, is now asking you for your help.  The Movement has supported you, done much for you, and asked for nothing in return - and I wish it could stay that way.  But Acme has come in, taking unfair advantage of the widget, and is threatening The Movement.  Can we count on you to back us up, this one time?

Citizens, there's a problem.  These old-fashioned, selfish people around us - they're sapping our strength, preventing us from becoming as prosperous as we could be.  It's unfair, selfish, and old-fashioned of them.  The Movement had hoped to coexist peacefully with them, but they refuse to allow it, so we must defend ourselves, our families, and our way of life.  Once we're rid of these few enemies of Truth, Motherhood, and Freedom, we'll be able to step into a glorious future, brimming with freedom and justice for all.

Brothers - that group over the hill has tricked us, lied to us, stolen from us.  The unspeakable heathens have used every underhanded means they could to rob us of our birthright.  Once we eradicate them, we can reclaim our birthright, and enjoy the prosperity they've stolen from us.  They're disgusting perverts who sacrifice the newborn babies they steal from us in the full moon, and they've got all of the loot that rightfully belongs to us. Let's reclaim what's ours, and show everyone for once and for all that nobody can mistreat The Movement - nobody!  To arms, brothers!

Like that wouldn't work - people are too smart to fall for such lines.  Feh.

There is no stability problem with anarchy (unless the market is very small).

The only anarchy that wouldn't have to work hard to prevent that would be a very small market.  The larger the market, the better such things work.

Danno, who has successfully depressed himself.

Danno:

Danno, who has successfully depressed himself.

I want to create a Mises blog where all I do is keep track of Danno's 3rd person sign-offs.

 

 

MacFall:

Yeah, that is the goal. And it is going to be a lot easier to convince 220 million people to become counter-economists in their own interest than it is to convince just 30 million people to vote for a particular semi-libertarian candidate.

You guys just refuse to "get it".  Ron Paul was not really running to win.  He was running to use the state electoral process as an educational opportunity.  This is a man who said (paraphrased), "if I win, I should take a paycut, because I will not be doing very much in office".  Serious candidates don't say crap like that.

MacFall:

Right, so let the secret out.  Smile

That's what we're doing.

If I have to ask again!  grrrrrrr

MacFall:

If say, 25% of people start trading food for car repair service, that takes a HUGE chunk out of the state's revenue. Or what if the 40 million or so libertarians started bartering for 25% of everything they consumed? Or if half of them bartered for 50%?

That would simultaneously strengthen the counter-economy, and weaken the state to that extent. And that would make the counter-economy even MORE appealing to those who are not conscious participants. Which will bring some of them over. Which will make it even stronger, and weaken the state even more. Which will bring more over, which will strenthen the counter-economy and weaken the state... and so on until the state launches its counter-revolution, at which point we find out just how strong free-market security can be. Which, as I consider it to be a case of the market vs. the state, will result in the beginning of the end of the state.

Agorism is a viable theory because it shows people that liberty works - no academic proof needed.

Right.  So the only stumbling blocks I see are...

The counter-revolution.  Blockading ports, attacking civilians, rounding people up in prisons, using bio-weapons etc.

Oh, and the international response to the revolution.  Where the UN decides to take over North America and impose martial law.

Don't get me wrong, I think agorism makes sense, mostly.  I don't think it' being marketed well, at least on this forum, and I don't think that the government will wait until it is weakest to wage a counter-revolution.  On the contrary, I'd be really surprised if this didn't get nipped in the bud around 5% participation.

You guys just refuse to "get it".  Ron Paul was not really running to win.  He was running to use the state electoral process as an educational opportunity.  This is a man who said (paraphrased), "if I win, I should take a paycut, because I will not be doing very much in office".  Serious candidates don't say crap like that.

It got him my vote. And about $300, which is the first penny I've ever given to anything remotely political.

--Len

liberty student:

You guys just refuse to "get it".  Ron Paul was not really running to win.  He was running to use the state electoral process as an educational opportunity.  This is a man who said (paraphrased), "if I win, I should take a paycut, because I will not be doing very much in office".  Serious candidates don't say crap like that.

Note that I didn't say "Ron Paul" anywhere in that post. I was comparing market-based strategy to political strategy.

If I have to ask again!  grrrrrrr

What?

Right.  So the only stumbling blocks I see are...

The counter-revolution.  Blockading ports, attacking civilians, rounding people up in prisons, using bio-weapons etc.

That isn't going to occur until the state percieves the counter-economy is a real threat, at which time the counter-economy will be a real threat to the state...

Oh, and the international response to the revolution.  Where the UN decides to take over North America and impose martial law.

I'd just LOVE to see the smerfs try that, with 60 million armed Americans, nearly all of whom are libertarians or conservatives who despise the UN.

I don't think it' being marketed well, at least on this forum

I agree 100%. That is being worked on. The movement is still new - only about 30 years. But it is expanding geometrically, and among its new members are people with the skills needed to make it work. It's not just an intellectual exercise anymore.

and I don't think that the government will wait until it is weakest to wage a counter-revolution.  On the contrary, I'd be really surprised if this didn't get nipped in the bud around 5% participation.

I also doubt until it will wait until it is at its weakest, but it is already beyond 5% participation. The IRS's own data shows that "underground" transactions constitute about 8% of economic movement.

Also, I think you underestimate the state's actual ability to control people. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the state to keep track of everything its people do. The idea that the government can possibly know about even a fraction of all the unreported activity that goes on within its borders is logistically absurd. Even the USSR, for all its horrible accomplishments, couldn't squelch the black market. It saturated the bureaucracy, because it was in the interest of the bureaucrats to join it. That's how it will happen here, as well. The state won't be able to maintain its enforcement apparatus if it can't pay its members.

And even if the state does start to crack down while its money (and hence, its control mechanism) is still strong - how does that guarantee its victory? State abuse makes the state less popular, even if it does scare the majority of its subjects. Did the arrest of the Browns stop people from resisting taxes? No; there were less income tax returns this year than in many years past, and more people starting to openly defy the IRS. Did the raid of the Liberty Dollar stop people from buying barter money? No; even more new companies popped up. And look at the smoking bans of late. They didn't stop smoking; they created "smoke-easies". And the attempts to clso those and fine transgressors have been almost ENTIRELY fruitless.

Finally, so what? Even if that is not an indication of the state's ineptitude, I don't see why that should matter. We don't oppose the state because dissent is fun, or easy. We oppose the state because it is our enemy. And if they start shooting, they will find that at least some Americans remember why they are American and not British. And then we might lose. But I don't think we will.

I suspect that you are objecting to market-based strategy because it requires one largely to abandon political strategies. Is that correct? Because if so, I would point out that I support the saturation of local political structures with libertarians. But I maintain that it is impossible for the state to be changed from within, through top-down reform measures. Remember, the state doesn't follow its own rules.

Even ignoring for now that a libertarian in posession of political power cannot act libertarian - a libertarian congress would effect an executive that ignores the powers of congress. A libertarian executive would effect a legislature that marginalizes the executive. A libertarian executive AND congress - that's a pipe dream. Libertarians can't even make change happen in state governments.

And the reason for that is simple - the vast majority of people prefer their comfortable prison to the personal responsibility and risk involved with liberty. That is why revolutions are NEVER won by majorities. They are always won by dedicated minorities - who cannot, as a matter of mathematical fact, win elections.

MacFall:

What?

Right, so double top , got it.  But that's sorta my point. If everyone has to be individually vetted, how is this supposed to grow to any meaningful mass?

Btw, in Canada, when they ban smoking, we just roll over and take it. 

 

I'll see if I can reply to the rest of your post later.  I'm extremely hungry.

 

 

Len Budney:

It got him my vote. And about $300, which is the first penny I've ever given to anything remotely political.

--Len

Right.  But did you really believe he stood a reasonable chance of winning?

 

 

liberty student:

Len Budney:

It got him my vote. And about $300, which is the first penny I've ever given to anything remotely political.

--Len

Right.  But did you really believe he stood a reasonable chance of winning?

 

I didn't, but I think a lot of people who got caught up in the hype did.

liberty student:

Right, so double top , got it.  But that's sorta my point. If everyone has to be individually vetted, how is this supposed to grow to any meaningful mass?

 

Wait, do you think we have access to some vast, secret underground that we're not sharing? Because we don't. There may not be anything in your area.

In my area, there is actually a network of economic secessionists (not all libertarian, but I'm not picky). I regularly barter for food and car service. In some places, people advertise that they take Liberty Dollars. A pawn shop that says "buy, sell or trade" is counter-economic to the extent that it trades rather than buys or sells. The Mennonites are somewhat counter-economic; the Amish almost entirely so. And EVERYONE makes exchanges with others on which the government demands they should report and be taxed - and they don't report them.

Right now, every counter-economist is an entrepreneur because the infrastructure isn't widespread and interlocking yet. As entrepreneurs, we are doing things that haven't been done yet. I'm working on a counter-economic almanac, and an agorist craigslist. I'm also hoarding coins for their melt-value and buying barter money such as the Liberty Dollar. I personally know a counter-economic farmer, and know impersonally of several others. I have cooresponded with a car mechanic who is a libertarian and is interested in economic secession. My pharmacist is a libertarian, and has talked with me conspiringly about the benefits of black-market healthcare. I haven't convinced him to contribute to the Agora yet, but if I can - we have a counter-econonomic medical providor. One of my friends is an Agorist and is currently in school for medicine - that makes two. My dad is a master electrician and has journeyman skills in other trades, and believes in economic secession even though he is a minarchist.

That's just in my small town. We are starting to coordinate - and then we will expand until we are self-sustaining, and begin to network with others.

I suggest you find people in your area who would be willing to participate in economic secession, and also do what you can on your own. If the infrastructure isn't there yet, you'll need to build it. It won't be done for you. And that's another reason why I oppose political activism - I reject the idea that anyone can give us economic and civil liberty besides ourselves.

liberty student:

If they can make it work, great.  We just need to find 20 million non-hermits in  Canada and 200 million non-hermits in the USA, and we can probably swing the tide.

The problem with this, and the problem with all incremental approaches, is that it takes as axiomatic the necessity to get 200 million people to go along with it, that a necessary pre-requisite for freedom is to "swing the tide".  Agorism says "I'm going, you guys can come along if you like.  If not, have a nice life."  That's why it's not incrementalist, at least not in the same way.  Rather than moving the masses a little bit at a time, leaving any real payoff until that magic threshold is crossed, it moves the individuals directly to some kind of real payoff much more immediately. 

Of course it would be easier if 200 million went along, but it doesn't require them.  Look at it this way:  the incrementalist approach might take a couple of generations.  Until it happens, this generation gets 0 (or very little) additional freedom, but is 50% of the way toward getting a lot of freedom.  The Agorist approach is to take 10% of the freedom now (or whatever can be accomplished), 10% more in another few years, 10% more, etc.   It might take the same amount of time for the same payoff in the long run, but this generation doesn't have to sacrifice itself.

The big difference is that the incrementalist approach at least runs a serious risk of strengthening the state and leaves those practicing it and their resources at the mercy of the state, while the Agorist approach, if it has any effect at all, it will be to weaken the state and to be a magnet for those hard-headed practical folk who don't care about the politics, but just want to do their thing and make their money. But even if the state never weakens, Agorists at least have some freedom now, and more freedom means more resources means more options means better ability to adapt, move, hide, whatever it takes.

I, for one, am glad there's people working on the frontal assault.  I'm also glad it's not me, because I suspect y'all are going to end up as cannon fodder.

 

 

MacFall:

liberty student:

Right, so double top , got it.  But that's sorta my point. If everyone has to be individually vetted, how is this supposed to grow to any meaningful mass?

 

Wait, do you think we have access to some vast, secret underground that we're not sharing? Because we don't. There may not be anything in your area.

Danno sent me a message through the forums, reminding me to be a little more discreet.  Sorry if I pressured you to post any details.  Feel free to edit your post.

 

Danno:

Oh, it would be frighteningly easy.  Who needs guerillas?

Friends, we're overlooking the economies of scale - if we band together to buy in quantity, negotiate as a bloc, and quit duplicating each other's efforts, we'll have pie in the sky, a chicken in every pot, and a glorious future. 

Hah!  Once that becomes the approach, the "terrorists" (anarchists) have already won!

You forget the corrupting influence that exercise in capitalism would have on socialist or populist ideas.  We see it already, most old Marxists spend all their days grubbing for money selling pamphlets or Che t-shirts and working at Mickey-D's to pay the rent.  They probably spend their evenings huddled around a smoky table in some radical cafe plotting which mutual funds to invest in to fund the revolution they just know they'll start one day.

It's like the idealistic politician who thinks that once he has gained high enough office, has enough power, he'll push through all those reforms he's dreaming of.  At some point, he realizes that it's never enough power, and just keeps doing what it is he so successfully did to get to where he already is.  One day he wakes up and sees a fat wrinkled old Senator in his mirror looking forward to the lunch appointment with Ted Kennedy he has that afternoon, and the rendezvous with his intern later in the evening.

Let the socialists try to gain enough economic power to overthrow the capitalist anarchists.  They'll find it's never enough, and that what they're doing is working pretty well in it's own right.  The revolution can wait till tomorrow, there's a marketing campaign to plan.