If not, can the an-caps explain why there are no anarchist societies today?
Indeed, the few that have existed have become extinct.
In contrast, societies based on representative governance (classical liberalism) have thrived, and they have expanded in size and scope since 1776.
Moreover, these societies have contributed more to the promotion of prosperity, stability, peace, and prosperity than any competing ideologies.
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government
The entire world always has and always will fundamentally operate in a system of anarchy.
The pipe dream is society.
Color coded map of anarchy :)
You misunderstood my statement. For example, every nation on your map has a central governing authority.
Of course the geopolitic is anarchic, however all of these nations have governments.
You misunderstood my statement. For example, every nation on your map has a central governing authority. Of course the geopolitic is anarchic, however all of these nations have governments.
Where's the misunderstanding? There is no government between nations, yet 99.9% of national interaction is peaceful and cooperative. What violence does occur is overwhelmingly funded by those very national governments who are supposedly the keepers of peace.
Government is a superstition, it exists only in the mind. Governments can only be actualized because of the mass delusion of people that it is good or necessary or inevitable. There was a time when we burned innocent women (primarily, but also men) alive over mere superstitions about the supernatural world. And remember there were a lot of highly educated, intelligent, decent, civilized people who participated in this superstitious, ritualized murder. Read the Malleus Maleficarum and compare it to the circular reasoning used to justify a large part of the body of "family" law, especially restraining orders and the like. The superstition of believing that, when a man beats someone to a bloody pulp for the hell of it, it is no assault so long as he was wearing a police uniform and he reports "feeling threatened" by the individual, is also a superstition. The belief that we need a special class of individuals empowered to violate property rights en masse in order to enforce property rights (among other things) is also a superstition. And we put a lot of people in prison over these damned modern superstitions - where they are raped and tortured by inmates and guards alike.
Along with the rest of the masses, you got your head firmly planted in the sand.
Clayton -
Correcting a contradiction of terms.... anarchist society is a pipe dream.
Since you acknowledge the undeniable existence of anarchy....
Is there some disagreement society is the pipe dream regardless of the -ism it is labeled with?
There are several threads and videos on the subject matter refuting your claims central government has made greater contributions than voluntary society including pre-conquest Ireland.
Rettoper,
You err when you assume a society can be only 100% statist or only 100% anarchic and implicitly disallow the third possibility. Kinda' reminds me of the the old chicken and egg "dilemma."
Nonetheless clayton, you have not answered my question --- why are anarchist societies incapable of surviving?
Why are there zero anarchist-capitalist societies on the planet?
and is it rational and practical for an-caps to be advocates for something that is unsustainable in the REAL world?
You need to develop your position better to foster a useful dilogue. You must expand on your inital comments/observations. While you may be right and have interesting things to say, all you have done is made assertions and no proper argument.
jorge,
produce the quote that i said a society can be either 100% statist or only 100% anarchic.
Moreover, there are an-caps on this site who are advocate for 100% anarchic societal framework despite that fact that history has shown that anarchic societies are unsustainable.
If you read my earlier post I clearly stated that representative government (for example -- a Federal Constitutional Republic patterned after the USA) is the system that is most prosperous, stable, peaceful, and free.
A statist society that works is a pipe dream.
"If not, can the an-caps explain why there are no anarchist societies today?"
There ARE. Anarchy is all around you, it is just being inhibited by the state. Thinking that doesn't make sense? Take a listen.
Or take a read.
And drop your utopian conception that the state can be limited, because it can't. It's time to start being practical, instead of an ideologue and fairly land dreamer in the land of government. Santa Claus doesn't exist, nor does the easter bunny.
Dondoolee,
I have challenged anyone to explain why no anarchist societies exist today.
For example, if anarchic-capitalist societies are so desirable and omnipotent, why do none exist?
this is not an assertion ---- it is fact.
Name ANY society that has stood the test of time?
Conza88,
state can be limited and rolled back within a Constitutional framework, a Federal republic. For example, recent history has examples of numerous nations significantly reducing the size and scope of their central governments. Take Sweden for example, they have significantly reduced the size of government as a percentage of GDP since their crisis in the 90's. The UK and Germany within the last two weeks pledged to make major cuts in government spending. Granted it is a small step, nonetheless it is a step in the right direction while the an-caps have no legs to walk on since they have no society to speak of.
I think that the near future will show dramatic reductions in the size of government in all Western democracies due to the failure of the welfare state.
In contrast, an-caps are on the sidelines with nothing substantive or practical to offer mankind other than unsustainable and impractical theoretical constructs.
Name ANY society that has stood the test of time?--Live_Free-Or_Die
The UNited States for one.
1) In contrast, societies based on representative governance (classical liberalism) have thrived, and they have expanded in size and scope since 1776.
2) Moreover, these societies have contributed more to the promotion of prosperity, stability, peace, and prosperity than any competing ideologies.
How, and by what measure?
Not only that it looks as if there is a disagreement by what is defined as "anarchy". So that is a definition that you will have to clear up, so people can see clearly where you are comming from.
Which United States?
The one under the Continental Congress and Articles of Confederation, the one under the Constitution, or the one under military occupation following the Civil War?
Western democracies have the highest GDP per capita of all nations
they have not waged war on each other, hence they are peaceful to like minded states,
yet they have demonstrated the ability to aggressively and effectively defend themselves from predatory autocratic nations
THey have high rates of immigration, hence they are a desired place to live.
They have had peaceful transfers of power.
They have relatively impartial and fair judiciaries.
Moreover, at this point in history --- they are ascendant of all systems.
including the an-cap fantasy which has no example to compare to classical liberal states.
I guess I'll take a crack at it to start this conversation somewhere.
It is my opinion that anarchy cannot work unless everyone comes to an agreement not to use physical force as a means of attaining thier ends. However, if all men were angels we wouldn't need government. Fuedalism was the result of anarchy as peoples' lives were threatened after the fall of the Roman Empire and the chaos that resulted from the loss of governing authority. People fearing for thier lives from the threat posed by either invaders or thugs sought shelter in the fuedal society where the lord of that society would protect them with a highly trained military.
This however led to serfdom and thus horrible consequences on the part of those seeking shelter. With a total loss of liberty, these people were forced to live like slaves. With people living like slaves, fuedal lords would then declare wars on eachother hoping to gain power, glory or wealth from other fuedal lords all with the heavy labor of the serfs. Governments, however, provided a place for these fuedal lords to negotiate the handilings of power rather than duke it out. The Magna Carta in England is a prime example of this trend and thus a governing body of fuedal lords was established under the rule of parliment and a king to act as overseer to see that contracts between the rivaling factions was upheld.
The same can be said in America when it formed a republic in the hopes of establishing peaceful relations between the states. Whether it is relevant or not, the Constitution that both the US and English established turned out to be failures due to the fact comprimise of peaceful relations was breached numerous times after their creation (America's Civil War is one example of a breach of contract and court rulings after FDR is another).
However, the problem with anarcho capitalists is that they see the world as being a series of cooperation through trade. While this is the best form of governence in theory, it is impossible as long as conflict exists in society, most particulary violent conflict. Government's duty is to ensure that a person's right to life, liberty and property cannot be infrindged by someone who will take it violently from them without a consented exchange.
The best way to accomplish this goal is through a written and BINDING constitution that limits the scope and powers of government to handle disputes at various levels. It is also important to decentralize power and only allow it to centralize in times of crisis, such as invasion.
That's all I will write for now, can't wait to hear some responses. Also, if my history is off, just let me know. Its late when I wrote this so I may have mistated something.
Rettoper: If not, can the an-caps explain why there are no anarchist societies today? Indeed, the few that have existed have become extinct. In contrast, societies based on representative governance (classical liberalism) have thrived, and they have expanded in size and scope since 1776. Moreover, these societies have contributed more to the promotion of prosperity, stability, peace, and prosperity than any competing ideologies.
oh god....
classical liberalism has thrived? really? where?
Live-free,
all of them, including the future USA that will see a dramatic reduction in the size and scope of government which is possible under our dynamic political framework of a Constitutional Federal Republic.
No doubt, we have seen an undesirable and unsustainable increase in the intrusion of government in many facets of private life since the 1930's -- however I believe that 2008 will be the high water mark for hyper-statism in the USA.
to paraphrase Churchill, 2010 will usher in the end of the beginning of overblown statism in the West. greece, spain, portugal, ireland, California, Michigan, Illinois, et al has shown that the welfare state is dying.
Western democracies have the highest GDP per capita of all nations --> so?
they have not waged war on each other, hence they are peaceful to like minded states, --> myth, read some hoppe
yet they have demonstrated the ability to aggressively and effectively defend themselves from predatory autocratic nations --> so?
THey have high rates of immigration, hence they are a desired place to live. --> so?
They have had peaceful transfers of power. --> yeah so?
They have relatively impartial and fair judiciaries. --> right! prove this one to me
including the an-cap fantasy which has no example to compare to classical liberal states. --> because it doesn't exist it can't...is that really your argument?
classic liberal sates have thrived...in the future?
ok im going to bed, good night!
Michael,
Well said.
Your question assumes we can neatly divide society into that which is "anarchist" on the one hand and that which is "non-anarchist" on the other hand. It's not that easy. Before we can talk about anarchy, we first need to talk about what government is. A government, in the Weberian/Hoppean tradition, is an organization which operates a territorial monopoly of law and security (in that order). The essence of this organization is the maintenance of a dual legal standard, that is, two sets of laws. In natural order society, there is only one law to which everyone is subject. In statist society (society where governments exist), there is one set of laws for agents of the state and another set of laws for everyone else.
Government in itself is not the problem, government is a symptom of a deeper problem, a social sickness. That sickness is the belief that there ought to be legalized hypocrisy. There ought to be individuals in society permitted to break the rules that everyone else is required to abide by. This is, of course, a superstition. There is no rational basis for such a belief. There is no justifiable action which requires that certain individuals be subject to "special" rules, that is, exempt from the laws that apply to everyone else.
Without a legal double-standard, taxation becomes impossible. Without taxation, there is no government. Taxation is a logically necessary condition for the existence of government.
To get back to your question - why are "anarchist societies" incapable of surviving - I think you are thinking about the issue incorrectly. What we really need to be asking is why are humans so amenable to blatant legal double standards, especially regarding certain familiar sets of behavior - law, national defense, vices, etc.? I am not sure what the answer to this question is. I think Hoppe answers it in part by noting that people want to avoid their financial obligations and overestimate their ability to escape these obligations through participating in a coercive political machine that voids contractual obligations in an "egalitarian" manner, that is, by giving partiality in legal disputes (whether through statutory law or judicial activism) to those who are apparently poorer over those who are apparently richer. The rich, in turn, defend themselves by buying lawyers and lobbyists, ultimately turning the juggernaut of the state to its natural use, expropriation of the politically alienated masses by the politically connected elites.
The idea of rightful government is an childish delusion. "Archy" only exists in your mind so far as you believe in it. If you obey statutory law out of a sense of moral duty rather than a mere prudential calculation of your own interests, you are brainwashed by the system, you are in the Matrix. Law predates the perversion of dual-law (government) and law in the natural order (unitary, competitive, market law) is both morally compelling and prudential. Anyone can see that murder is immoral, illegal and punishable. No one can reasonably explain why I have a legal duty to pay taxes.
Michael, read myth of national defence. available for free. let me know what you think!
I disagree with your definition of the sickness. I consider the disease fear (of death) and a belief someone or something else can make you safe.
A minor disagreement.
"state can be limited and rolled back within a Constitutional framework, a Federal republic."
Not within our constitutional framework. I mean look at the growth of power just under the commerce clause.
BTW, I think Clayton is right, the foundation of the state is a dual legal standard. Some people are allowed to do very violent things and most are not.
I disagree with your definition of the sickness. I consider the disease fear (of death) and a belief someone or something else can make you safe. A minor disagreement.
But I don't think it makes any sense to diagnose fear of death as a sickness of society... how could it be any other way? Humans are biological organisms and, like all biological organisms capable of feeling, we have a strongly evolved fear of death that keeps us alive long enough to propagate our genes.
It will always be the case that few people can stomach life-or-death confrontations. An even smaller number of people relish them (these ones tend to become boxers, MMA fighters, hardcore criminals, special forces, backwoods survivalists, and so on). Those that are good at violence are the natural elites of violence... not to be confused with the much larger (and more important) class of natural elites. It seems that you're saying that all - or at least most - individuals in society must be violence-elites, that is, people who can stomach the thought of a violent confrontation, or society cannot be free.
Live-free, all of them, including the future USA that will see a dramatic reduction in the size and scope of government which is possible under our dynamic political framework of a Constitutional Federal Republic. No doubt, we have seen an undesirable and unsustainable increase in the intrusion of government in many facets of private life since the 1930's -- however I believe that 2008 will be the high water mark for hyper-statism in the USA. to paraphrase Churchill, 2010 will usher in the end of the beginning of overblown statism in the West. greece, spain, portugal, ireland, California, Michigan, Illinois, et al has shown that the welfare state is dying.
This sucker is going to end. The only variable is whether it is going to be a peaceful or violent human evolution. Peaceful people that do not live in fear are only going to take so much poop before they decide to defend themselves.
I have zero inclination to fight in order to save an aristocracy. However when the inevitable happens and the proverbial crapola hits the fanola, if alive I will fight like hell to set the aristocracy and statism back as many centuries as possible.
I guess I'll take a crack at it to start this conversation somewhere. It is my opinion that anarchy cannot work unless everyone comes to an agreement not to use physical force as a means of attaining thier ends. However, if all men were angels we wouldn't need government. Fuedalism was the result of anarchy as peoples' lives were threatened after the fall of the Roman Empire and the chaos that resulted from the loss of governing authority. People fearing for thier lives from the threat posed by either invaders or thugs sought shelter in the fuedal society where the lord of that society would protect them with a highly trained military.
This is the essence of government, generally, not just feudal government.
This however led to serfdom and thus horrible consequences on the part of those seeking shelter. With a total loss of liberty, these people were forced to live like slaves.
This is still on my "to-study" list, but I still have yet to see a historical exposition on exactly what was so bad about life in feudal society. I'm not saying that feudal governments were not coercive monopolists of security, but my understanding is that feudal lords by-and-large did not exercise a monopoly on law, especially in legal disputes not involving themselves. In fact, from the fall of the Roman empire until the dawn of the modern era, law in Europe was pretty roughly and approximation of natural order, except in disputes between peasants and nobles or the wealthy. If I wrote a contract promising to pay X on date Y, you could haul my ass to court and I'd be SOL if I hadn't paid X by date Y unless you were a peasant and I was a lord or wealthy merchant, in which case, you might be SOL. Solution: Avoid doing business with those who can screw you over in court. That's called "enforcement of contract and private property rights."
With people living like slaves, fuedal lords would then declare wars on eachother hoping to gain power, glory or wealth from other fuedal lords all with the heavy labor of the serfs. Governments, however, provided a place for these fuedal lords to negotiate the handilings of power rather than duke it out. The Magna Carta in England is a prime example of this trend and thus a governing body of fuedal lords was established under the rule of parliment and a king to act as overseer to see that contracts between the rivaling factions was upheld. The same can be said in America when it formed a republic in the hopes of establishing peaceful relations between the states. Whether it is relevant or not, the Constitution that both the US and English established turned out to be failures due to the fact comprimise of peaceful relations was breached numerous times after their creation (America's Civil War is one example of a breach of contract and court rulings after FDR is another). However, the problem with anarcho capitalists is that they see the world as being a series of cooperation through trade. While this is the best form of governence in theory, it is impossible as long as conflict exists in society, most particulary violent conflict.
However, the problem with anarcho capitalists is that they see the world as being a series of cooperation through trade. While this is the best form of governence in theory, it is impossible as long as conflict exists in society, most particulary violent conflict.
As Hoppe likes to say, there is nothing about a natural order society that presupposes that men are angels. In fact, quite the opposite, it is statist society that presupposes that at least some men are angels imbued with supernatural goodness, capable of completely suspending their natural impulse to act in their own interest. Natural order society does not presuppose a suspension of violent conflict or pursuit of self-interest. It presupposes a suspension of belief in the dual-legal standard of government and suspension of belief in collectively-funded defense.
Government's duty is to ensure that a person's right to life, liberty and property cannot be infrindged by someone who will take it violently from them without a consented exchange.
Except by government itself, of course.
Been there, done that.
But I don't think it makes any sense to diagnose fear of death as a sickness of society... how could it be any other way?
What can I say... I think Yoda pegged it:
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
The opposite of that could be:
Courage leads to peace, peace leads to love, love leads to happiness.
Just keep your money out of the bond market, that's my advice to you. People with superstitious belief in the viability of democratic governance will all lose their shirts when they find out that sovereign default is possible, even for the largest, richest, most powerful governments in the world.
Yes, in 2010 there is almost no hope of ending government. But keep in mind in 1710 there was almost no hope of ending slavery. And yet there are virtually no slaves for hundreds of miles from my home. Hopefully in a few hundred years I can say the same of governments.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Michael (not J. Green) - You've said very little of interest. Anarchists do not envision a society in which there is no conflict or violence - such would be like envisioning an economy in which scarcity is no concern (which some people out there do seem to think is plausible). Free market scholars tend to focus their thought on just how law and order forms absent the state. You say that it is the government's duty "to ensure that a person's right to life, liberty and property cannot be infrindged," but as Gustave de Molinari asked, why is the provision of security best served by a monopolist, when economic theory tells us that competition outperforms monopoly? The belief is not that people will only act cooperatively and never coercively, but that people will act cooperatively and voluntarily to suppress and resolve violent conflicts.
The best way to accomplish this goal is through a written and BINDING constitution that limits the scope and powers of government to handle disputes at various levels.
How can we call it the best method when it is inherently ridiculous? What kind of constitution can bind the state? You may as well say, "The best method to jail undesirables is to throw them in a cage of their own design, locked by a key that remains in their possession."
As for Rettoper's belief that modern welfare states will roll themselves back: It's certainly possible, but I don't find it likely. Something must be done eventually, as the modern system is not sustainable, but it is horrendously difficult for a democratic government to shrink itself in any meaningful way. Again, it's possible, but I think it is more likely to end... not so civilly.
Anarchist societies have existed around the world since the beginning. Plus you advocate for the constitution which was shoved unto the people who were fine with the articles of confederation. Constitutions are never ratified by the people and that includes here. The document is a despotic document that forces people to accept this government under threat of force. Governments are just gangs that take over b/c people are too unwilling or too naive to prevent and stop these gangs from gaining power.
The only reason a purely anarcho-capitalist society hasn't come into being is because A)Ancap theory was never really a solid theory till rothbard and B) Ancaps really only believe in peaceful protest and have never really organized to create a large peaceful movement.
The idea of rightful government is an childish delusion. "Archy" only exists in your mind so far as you believe in it. If you obey statutory law out of a sense of moral duty rather than a mere prudential calculation of your own interests, you are brainwashed by the system, you are in the Matrix.
Clayton,
Of course individuals, in all of their glorified differences and presuppositions, will have "class consciousness"-enough to maintain a coercionless society under NAP and with private property? Like money, archies are only real so long as they are recognized. Thank you for your postmodern assessment of reality, i.e. the Matrix or false reality at least to you, but history really does show that (now we're making sweeping generalizations but you started it) that people invest in a leadership class by choice. And to the state by choice. Of course they lose sovereignty in the short-term roundabout examination of historical statism and fuedalism, but generally speaking states, lords and dictators racously, yet eventually, are dispensed of by the great biological mechanism called death. So from this point of view, what's the point of even trying to articulate anarchism and inspire the masses?
Future generations are young, and naive, and invest their hopes in a new set of leaders and states. Like you said, archies are only real so long as they are recognized. Naivity ensures their existence!
I'm just not convinced that your argument, soaked in postmodernistic polylogism (which Ludwig points out in Human Action is a blatantly wrong way to analyze society - which I agree with) is really a substantial reply to measuring anarchy's feasibility. This completely ignores universal truths about the course of humanity's existence and the choices they have made consistently throughout existence on the role of government and of leaders.
The same can be said for land ownership by the way.
And to the state by choice
They don't see alternatives, "cognitivist". We're just preparing for the collapse of democratic regimes, as Mises anticipated the failures of the more blatant forms of socialism. When the system fails, utterly "unlibertarian" people will be finding solutions to the problems we're faced with.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Because you say so, scineram? Land ownership is an extension of self-ownership. If you really believe in neither, please jump off a bridge because I tell you to.