People being fickle, apathetic, or whatever isn't a good criticism of "an-capism". Re: the charge of utopianism read Rothbard here. (Link may not work so go to page 297)
While it is vital for the libertarian to hold his ultimate and "extreme" ideal aloft, this does not, contrary to Hayek, make him a "utopian." The true Utopian is one who advocates a system that is contrary to the natural law of human beings and of the real world. A Utopian system is one that could not work even if everyone were persuaded to try to put it into practice. The Utopian system could not work, i.e., could not sustain itself in operation. The Utopian goal of the left: communism — the abolition of specialization and the adoption of uniformity — could not work even if everyone were willing to adopt it immediately. It could not work because it violates the very nature of man and the world, especially the uniqueness and individuality of every person, of his abilities and interests, and because it would mean a drastic decline in the production of wealth, so much so as to doom the great bulk of the human race to rapid starvation and extinction. In short, the term "utopian" in popular parlance confuses two kinds of obstacles in the path of a program radically different from the status quo. One is that it violates the nature of man and of the world and therefore could not work once it was put into effect. This is the utopianism of communism. The second is the difficulty in convincing enough people that the program should be adopted. The former is a bad theory because it violates the nature of man; the latter is simply a problem of human will, of convincing enough people of the Tightness of the doctrine. "Utopian" in its common pejorative sense applies only to the former. In the deepest sense, then, the libertarian doctrine is not Utopian but eminently realistic, because it is the only theory that is really consistent with the nature of man and the world. The libertarian does not deny the variety and diversity of man, he glories in it and seeks to give that diversity full expression in a world of complete freedom. And in doing [p. 304] so, he also brings about an enormous increase in productivity and in the living standards of everyone, an eminently "practical" result generally scorned by true Utopians as evil "materialism." The libertarian is also eminently realistic because he alone understands fully the nature of the State and its thrust for power. In contrast, it is the seemingly far more realistic conservative believer in "limited government" who is the truly impractical Utopian. This conservative keeps repeating the litany that the central government should be severely limited by a constitution. Yet, at the same time that he rails against the corruption of the original Constitution and the widening of federal power since 1789, the conservative fails to draw the proper lesson from that degeneration. The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, "Limit yourself"; it is he who is truly the impractical Utopian. There is another deep sense in which libertarians scorn the broader utopianism of the left. The left Utopians invariably postulate a drastic change in the nature of man; to the left, man has no nature. The individual is supposed to be infinitely malleable by his institutions, and so the communist ideal (or the transitional socialist system) is supposed to bring about the New Communist Man. The libertarian believes that, in the ultimate analysis, every individual has free will and moulds himself; it is therefore folly to put one's hope in a uniform and drastic change in people brought about by the projected New Order. The libertarian would like to see a moral improvement in everyone, although his moral goals scarcely coincide with those of the socialists. He would, for example, be overjoyed to see all desire for aggression by one man against another disappear from the face of the earth. But he is far too much of a realist to put his trust in this sort of change. Instead, the libertarian system is one that will at once be far more moral and work much better than any other, given any existing human values and attitudes. The more the desire for aggression disappears, of course, the better any social system will work, including the libertarian; the less need will there be, for example, for any resort to police or to the courts. But the libertarian system places no reliance on any such change.
While it is vital for the libertarian to hold his ultimate and "extreme" ideal aloft, this does not, contrary to Hayek, make him a "utopian." The true Utopian is one who advocates a system that is contrary to the natural law of human beings and of the real world. A Utopian system is one that could not work even if everyone were persuaded to try to put it into practice. The Utopian system could not work, i.e., could not sustain itself in operation. The Utopian goal of the left: communism — the abolition of specialization and the adoption of uniformity — could not work even if everyone were willing to adopt it immediately. It could not work because it violates the very nature of man and the world, especially the uniqueness and individuality of every person, of his abilities and interests, and because it would mean a drastic decline in the production of wealth, so much so as to doom the great bulk of the human race to rapid starvation and extinction.
In short, the term "utopian" in popular parlance confuses two kinds of obstacles in the path of a program radically different from the status quo. One is that it violates the nature of man and of the world and therefore could not work once it was put into effect. This is the utopianism of communism. The second is the difficulty in convincing enough people that the program should be adopted. The former is a bad theory because it violates the nature of man; the latter is simply a problem of human will, of convincing enough people of the Tightness of the doctrine. "Utopian" in its common pejorative sense applies only to the former. In the deepest sense, then, the libertarian doctrine is not Utopian but eminently realistic, because it is the only theory that is really consistent with the nature of man and the world. The libertarian does not deny the variety and diversity of man, he glories in it and seeks to give that diversity full expression in a world of complete freedom. And in doing [p. 304] so, he also brings about an enormous increase in productivity and in the living standards of everyone, an eminently "practical" result generally scorned by true Utopians as evil "materialism."
The libertarian is also eminently realistic because he alone understands fully the nature of the State and its thrust for power. In contrast, it is the seemingly far more realistic conservative believer in "limited government" who is the truly impractical Utopian. This conservative keeps repeating the litany that the central government should be severely limited by a constitution. Yet, at the same time that he rails against the corruption of the original Constitution and the widening of federal power since 1789, the conservative fails to draw the proper lesson from that degeneration. The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, "Limit yourself"; it is he who is truly the impractical Utopian.
There is another deep sense in which libertarians scorn the broader utopianism of the left. The left Utopians invariably postulate a drastic change in the nature of man; to the left, man has no nature. The individual is supposed to be infinitely malleable by his institutions, and so the communist ideal (or the transitional socialist system) is supposed to bring about the New Communist Man. The libertarian believes that, in the ultimate analysis, every individual has free will and moulds himself; it is therefore folly to put one's hope in a uniform and drastic change in people brought about by the projected New Order. The libertarian would like to see a moral improvement in everyone, although his moral goals scarcely coincide with those of the socialists. He would, for example, be overjoyed to see all desire for aggression by one man against another disappear from the face of the earth. But he is far too much of a realist to put his trust in this sort of change. Instead, the libertarian system is one that will at once be far more moral and work much better than any other, given any existing human values and attitudes. The more the desire for aggression disappears, of course, the better any social system will work, including the libertarian; the less need will there be, for example, for any resort to police or to the courts. But the libertarian system places no reliance on any such change.
But consider this also from Kennedy's The Revolution Will Be All Business
What kind of businesses can advance market anarchism? Businesses which make people more expensive to govern. Businesses which offer their customers the means to protect their property and their persons from government. One of the highest leverage possibilities is a business that offers its customers the means to shield their income from taxation. Taxes become voluntary to the extent that individuals can avoid them, and when taxes become sufficiently voluntary governments must fail. What is the incentive for businesses to offer such services? Such businesses would be going after a piece of the same massive revenue stream that governments now control, the financial rewards would be immense.
I work in finance & insurance, so I'm a part of this. I prosper regardless of the existence of the state, but I want a better life for all people.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
[CALL PEOPLE OUT IN THE MEMBERS ISSUES FORUM ONLY.]
Fairplay.
AndrewR:The free market is indeed the most efficient provider of goods but that does not mean that it will magically supplant the state now or in the future.
Sure it won't magically supplant it, but wouldn't that be sweet? I mean, do you like the idea of a voluntarist society?
What I was saying is that the society would evolve beyond the state.
Look at it this way. The state is a technology. And over time, I think it will fall into disuse as the markets begin to out compete, that is offering services that are either traditionally offered by the state, or that the state has monopolized.
AndrewR:Instead of 1984's world, we're more likely to lumped with Idiocracy's version of the future.
The thought has occurred to me and others that the welfare state could bring about this possibly. (subsidizing the less productive members of society, incentivizing their expansion).
AndrewR:So why not become truly pro-active in the present instead, such as starting a business and growing to Wal-Mart proportions? Identify the economic incompetancies and intrusions of the democratic state where you can, of course, but focus on creating wealth in any environment and avoid the worst of statist stupidity with your superior economics knowledge. That beats merely dreaming of utopias, I think, although one could also make a tidy living writing books set in the glorious ancap utopia as well!
Sure, and to those that can do that *two thumbs up*. However I don't know if I'm one of those people. I've wasted 3 years studying economics at a engineering school, another in Sweden, and now trying to see if I can finish it in Danmark. Further more, i think my aptitude lies more in law.
But anyway, no I'm quite content to theorize and eventually act on how mankind can reach and actively get to a free voluntary society.
When there is noting more to loot, then the thief must stop looting.
Exactly.
Am I suppose to now conclude that theft is adaptive.
Yes.
Saying that it proves that it is "adaptive" is a rather curious choice of words, unless you are advocating, at all cost, for the preservation of the State.
I do not advocate preserving the State. I am completely value-less in my description of Sweden's welfare state. If people want to dismantle the Nordic model, then they will eventually elect politicians who will heed the call for dismantling it.
Politicizing my statement was a nice touch, though.
snowflake,
virtually all of the technological, social, and poltical advances since 1776 occurred within Western liberal democracies. In contrast, statist and/or autocratic nations contributed nothing but violence, instability, enslavement, and poverty. Simarily, anarchist societies contributed absolute nothing since none existed or those small enclaves that were present were irrelevent and soon to be extincted. So causation can be established between the assembly line (henry ford), telecommunications (bell), rocketry (goodard), semiconductor (bell labs), operating systems (gates), republicanism, seperation of powers, balance of powers, inalienable rights, et al because these improvements occurred almost exclusively in liberal democracies that possessed more economic and political freedoms.
(Note that liberal democracy does not imply pure democracy. For example, the USA is a Constitutional Federal REpublic and NOT a democracy. IN summary, democracy is simply a term for representative governance)
In addition, if you DONT think that representative governments facilitated these advancements -- then what was the causal mechanism ? Presumably, you believe that another independent variable would drive progress irrespective of whether that society was autocratic or representative. Then provide your explanation for the vast improvements in life expectancy, technology, leisure time, freedom, free trade, free enterprise, et al if liberal democracy was not the framework in which these changes occurred.
for example, what was the driving force (of course capitalism) ? And note that capitalism, albeit impure, has functioned most effectively under a classical liberal framework as opposed to an ancap framework (which history has shown isn't viable)
Moreover, in the absence of classical liberalism and capitalism, how would the industrial revolution have occurred? Note that if we waited for anarchism to force this beneficial change we would still be living in log cabins.
Of course you ignore the links on past and present anarchist societies. Fine.--snowflake
I am aware that there have been anarchist societies in the past (small, insignificant, and scattered) -- and they do not exist today! Indeed I did not ignore this fact. It supports my argument that anarchist societies are simply plunder for autocratic states, or largely irrevelevant. In contrast, liberal democracies have grown at a pace unprecendented in human history. They are the most virulent of all governing systems, absolutely viable, prosperous, and dynamic.
Anarchist socieities are better for the vast majority of people. They are not better for kings and demagogues who rule the status quo. This is why none have been established; because political power rests in the hands of the few. Duh.--snowflake
How can something be "better for the vast majority of people" if it doesnt exist and in the rare instances that it occurs it cant defend or nurture itself? Note that every anarchist society has become extinct. Anarchism is a defective societal gene, probably more fatal than even marxism. For example, christmas, candy, and nuts everyday is in theory better for the vast majority of people, however, like anarchism, it is not practical or sustainable.
So? How far has the government been rolled back? Was it rolled back as far as possible to allow the greatest amount of productivity and flourishing? OR was it rolled back only just enough to stop the whole mess from collapsing? States voluntarily give up power only insofar as it is in their own self interest. If they could find a way, they would enslave us all.--snowflake
Of course we all want government rolled back as much as possible. and of course, the recent modest reductions will not reverse the survival level threat from the welfare state to our political and economic freedoms ---- yet events have shown that representative government as established in the late 20th century is a dynamic instrument in which to force negative freedoms on central governance. In contrast, the anarchists offer nothing except doom and gloom in the absence of a viable practical alternative.
So if we default to collective decision making.... we'll have individualism... and if anyone doesn't like it they have to be attacked... and this is how we're going to get to peace.--snowflake
not collective decision making ---- self-evident truths outlined within a COnstitutional Federal Republic designed to limit government power. FOr example, a balanced budget amendment, state's rights, elimination of the welfare state, free trade, reduced military expenditures, reduced foreign entanglements, elimination of government agencies and departments, the elimination of the Federal reserve, et al.
the anarchist fail to see the utility of a governing framework (US Constitution) that strengthens indivisual rights and institutionalizes checks and balances on government power.
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
Citation? The reasoning is suspect because no matter how big or burly someone is, he's not more so than 2-3 other people, much less his whole tribe. The more recent evidence we have from native americans suggests they favored free association.-- snowflake
and what happened to these native americans snowflake ?
[PLEASE BE CIVIL]
[COMPLAINTS ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS BELONG IN THE MEMBER ISSUES FORUM]
Rettoper: Citation? The reasoning is suspect because no matter how big or burly someone is, he's not more so than 2-3 other people, much less his whole tribe. The more recent evidence we have from native americans suggests they favored free association.-- snowflake and what happened to these native americans snowflake ?
They confederated, sir. But your implied argument doesn't seem to hold water.
Rettoper:virtually all of the technological, social, and poltical advances since 1776 occurred within Western liberal democracies. In contrast, statist and/or autocratic nations contributed nothing but violence, instability, enslavement, and poverty.
Rettoper:Simarily, anarchist societies contributed absolute nothing since none existed or those small enclaves that were present were irrelevent and soon to be extincted.
Rettoper:then what was the causal mechanism ?
Rettoper:And note that capitalism, albeit impure, has functioned most effectively under a classical liberal framework as opposed to an ancap framework
Rettoper:(which history has shown isn't viable)
Rettoper:I am aware that there have been anarchist societies in the past (small, insignificant, and scattered) -- and they do not exist today!
Rettoper:How can something be "better for the vast majority of people" if it doesnt exist
Rettoper:and in the rare instances that it occurs it cant defend or nurture itself?
Rettoper:Of course we all want government rolled back as much as possible. and of course, the recent modest reductions will not reverse the survival level threat from the welfare state to our political and economic freedoms ---- yet events have shown that representative government as established in the late 20th century is a dynamic instrument in which to force negative freedoms on central governance. In contrast, the anarchists offer nothing except doom and gloom in the absence of a viable practical alternative.
Rettoper:not collective decision making ----
Rettoper:self-evident truths outlined within a COnstitutional Federal Republic designed to limit government power. FOr example, a balanced budget amendment, state's rights, elimination of the welfare state, free trade, reduced military expenditures, reduced foreign entanglements, elimination of government agencies and departments, the elimination of the Federal reserve, et al.
Rettoper:and what happened to these native americans snowflake ?
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 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.
Yes, that's why people just voluntarily send in their taxes. Come on.
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?
In case you haven't been following the thread, I'm not trying to "inspire the masses" and I don't think that's what LvMI is about, either. I have written a post on my view of "anarchy" as a goal, here. It's short.
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.
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.
I'm sorry you perceive postmodernism or polylogism in my post, I can assure you that I despise and eschew these. In fact, it is my view that postmodernism is the result of trying to synthesize "government" and "good". "Good government" is a blatant contradiction of terms and the attempt of the modern mind to hold this doublethought without having an aneurysm is one of the primary motivations behind postmodern thought. If a thing can be both true and false together, then perhaps it is possible for government to be both good and evil at once. It has to be evil in order to be good. It has to violate our rights in order to protect them. Don't you see?
Clayton -
Aliens killed them. The same way Aliens could so easily destroy the democracies and any other government on the planet. Superior firepower and disease.
Take it literally. Take it literally. rofl
I heard a rumor the Aliens did not have proper documentation when crossing the atmospheric border and we're illegal. :)
I would keep my taxes if I could opt-out of the State's social system at one moment and be assured my social security is somehow provided for by non-State entities later in the course of life.
Read it. Liked it. The definition of anarchy in the public vernacular is intersubjective, but we can all agree that there is a universal meaning to anarchy and I strongly agree with (at least what I understand as) your conception that it simply is the ideal behind the realistic task of breaking the State monopoly on laws.
"Rather, we (anti-statists) should focus our energies on exposing and explaining the crimes of State to which the law monopoly is accessory."
Clears it up for me. You were sounding like trying to portray utopia as a consequence of logic at the beginning of this thread. People would of course have de facto leaders, yet still. I question whether or not anarchy can persist independent of cultural norms that clearly violate NAP. People can simply be naive.
Let me argue that anarchism is a pipe-dream from another point of view than the OPs.
Just playing Devil's Advocate but by AE, it is true that if something is valued by someone, then there will be much competition for it. The thing that most people tend to value is the equilibrium point. In politics, the equilibrium is essentially some arbitrary form of government. Also, another premise is that what most people value is something that will satisfy their values.
Now assume that anarchism is the best form of government. If this is true than most people would value it, hence we would be getting closer and closer to anarchism and world history would have many more anarchist societies than what is recorded. But that is not true, and most people value the state. So some other form of government is better than anarchy because it is more highly valued -it has the theoretical backing of revealed preference. It is possible though, that anarchy is/was being decreed out of existence by statist laws. But this means that anarchism would aquire an even higher value and people would want it even more even if it meant breaking the law and establishing anarchism anyways -a black market for anarchism. But that doesn't happen. So clearly, people have expressed their preference for every other form of government except anarchy and therefore every other form of government is somehow better than anarchy.
Okay, lets argue over the conclusion.
So clearly, people have expressed their preference for every other form of government except anarchy and therefore every other form of government is somehow better than anarchy.
Draw an equilibrium between propoganda and cultural preferences and you might have something there.
What does it mean for anarchy to "work"?
That there are no states?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
What does it mean for anarchy to "work"? That there are no states?
Implying that anarchy is merely the non-existence of states?
I question whether or not anarchy can persist independent of cultural norms that clearly violate NAP. People can simply be naive.
I'm not a huge fan of the NAP... when combined with a realistic theory of property, I think it is a good first-order approximation of what rights would likely emerge in a natural order society but it is not more than that. The difference between the NAP and what actual human rights would pertain in a natural order society is like the difference between mental arithmetic tricks and higher mathematics.
And yes, I do agree that there would be quite a few corner-cases where "naive libertarianism" - that is, slavish application of the NAP to every situation no matter how inapplicable - breaks down. The value of the NAP, in my view, is that it is a handy, compact tool for quickly evaluating the moral status of most any government action... and the government's actions never satisfy the NAP, that is, the government always acts as an immoral coercive agent. So, the NAP has its uses but it only goes so far. To really get to a robust theory of human society in a natural order, I think we have to incorporate the realities of human nature.
Take, for example, Hoppe's theory of disputes, which he carefully and precisely exposits at the beginning of almost every one of his lectures. In a world of abundance, there is no scarcity. In the absence of scarcity, there can be no conflict except over standing room and the use of one's body (the only things that would be scarce even in the Garden of Eden). His analytical approach is useful in viewing disputes through a propertarian lens. And it seems to hold up until you consider something like a dispute between a man and his cheating wife's lover. Naive propertarianism would say that the law must simply ignore the rage of the cheated husband and any property damage that occurs (say, as the result of a fight between the two) must be treated solely as a tort by the cheated husband against the interloping lover.
But I don't think this approach would hold up in the real world. If we look at how marriage and family emerged in human history, jealous violence has played a crucial role. That doesn't make any violence motivated by jealousy OK but it does mean that there is something more complicated going on here than propertarianism would lead us to believe. Marriage is ultimately a kind of pseudo-property in females*, specifically, in access to the reproductive capacity of females. A marriage is a public claim of exclusive access to a woman's reproductive capacity and violations of that claim are extremely serious and have extremely serious material (property) consequences. If your wife becomes pregnant with another man's child without your knowledge (cuckoldry), you will unwittingly invest your effort (property) propagating someone else's genes. So, retaliation is a natural response to this and the threat of retaliation is a an integral disincentive to violations of the marriage-based "pseudo-property" in females.
*I am speaking descriptively, here, not normatively, and I am speaking of marriage through the majority of human existence not the modern, Western conception of marriage which is very quirky in its own ways. By "pseudo-property" I mean that the property claim is not against the woman herself but against any other man who would attempt to gain access to her. The husband is claiming a right to ward off all other reproductive partners from the wife but he doesn't thereby obtain a right to force her to have his children or otherwise own her. This distinction has not always been maintained through history, wives have often fallen to the status of owned objects, but by-and-large marriage has not constituted outright ownership of the wife by the husband.
Doing anything voluntarily is an anarchistic action. Anarchy works because people doing things voluntarily works. Doing something without being ruled over by someone else to do it is anarchistic.
www.skylerjcollins.com www.libertysearch.info
Not at all. This is verging on an appeal to tradition. The situation is more like, most people have never been offered a maple-glazed, apple and bacon donut, so they have no idea how delicious one might be. Once the insurrection comes some anarchist societies may thrive. Alternatively, there will be another attempt at minarchy, hopefully with more clear definitions of "the common welfare" not meaning a welfare state and which allows secession.
Rettoper:
"...If not, can the an-caps explain why there are no anarchist societies today?..."
Samarami:
There is one anarchist society that I'm aware of: the society of me. I am a sovereign state. My President is responsibile for the rotation of the earth on its axis. My Legislature maintains continuity of the universe as "we" know it, including the absolutely critical distance of the earth from its sun. So you can thank my Legislators and my President for having the priviledge of living on a habitable planet.
Last time I "voted" was 1964, for our late friend Barry Goldwater. I was devistated when he was so trounced by Lyndon Johnson in favor of those shapeless masses who "desired to sup at the government trough". Shortly thereafter I suceeded. Since that time I've supported The Incumbent.
In order to live close to family and friends I love I'm forced to live in occupied territory. I'm OK with that as long as I know it's temporary (I'm almost 74 and I too can become extinct). The idea that I don't need to try to help "shape" society gives me a lot of freedom. I'm only responsible for MY society.
Naturally, there will be those who argue vehemently that I am not "truly free", that I HAVE to be part of the state, etc. etc. I've heard every argument imaginable (but go ahead: you might think of one I haven't as yet worked through). And yes, I keep some federal reserve notes in my billfold and I bike and drive on government streets.
Live free.
Yes, you can.
Samarami
The glaring problem with this thread is that Rettoper is the biggest anarchist here. Government cannot be representative by definition. Which means that representative government cannot and does not exist. Unless by "representative" you mean that a criminal gang represents the interests of one segment of the population by exploiting the other segment, whereas all government is representative by that definition. Daydreaming about the mythical "representative government" is found nowhere more than writings by the brand of communists that title themselves anarchists.
"The majority of people are lazy intellectually, stubborn, or not open to new ideas."
The majority of people are educated by the state.
"The majority of people are educated by the state."
True and that's part of the problem but people still shouldn't assume something is right just because some teacher at schools says so. People should want to see all the sides of the story and judge for themselves who is right, yet few people do that. All you have to do is say something that sounds smart and the majority of people will believe you without doing any investigating on their own. The majority of people also never take the time to think about all the consequences of certain actions. They only see what is seen. That's intellectual laziness in my eyes.
They confederated, sir. But your implied argument doesn't seem to hold water.-- cognitivist
IF native americans were an example of an anarchist society, then their predation at the hands of autocratic Europeans is another example of the ineptitude of the system.
and all the more reason to reject anarchism as a viable system that can preserve and protect life and property.
The more recent evidence we have from native americans suggests they favored free association.
Historians with Marxist streaks portray natives as higher beings in numerous respects in attempt to glorify their backward simple life. The truth is that they were every bit as aggressive and backstabbing as the European states both with the colonists and each other. Much of the success of the colonial states was due to the extensive alliances that they made with tribes eager to destroy rival tribes.
Not at all. This is verging on an appeal to tradition. The situation is more like, most people have never been offered a maple-glazed, apple and bacon donut, so they have no idea how delicious one might be. Once the insurrection comes some anarchist societies may thrive. Alternatively, there will be another attempt at minarchy, hopefully with more clear definitions of "the common welfare" not meaning a welfare state and which allows secession.--olovetto
obviously an anarchic society will likely be prosperous, free, stable, and peaceful. That is not the reason that they are not viable -- it is because they cant defend themselves.
They are inherently pacific to a fault, decentralized, and their wealth make them a target for plunder.
For example, does any anarchist favor preventative war that is sometimes required to offset a possible pre-emptive strike?
would any anarchist advocate the use of WMD, including nuclear weaponry?
would an anarchist advocate the bombing of vital industrial targets adjacent to civilian population centers?
would an anarchist volunteer to fight and subsequently kill enemy combatants hiding behind civilian shield?
would the mercenaries in a private "for profit" army volunteer for a suicide mission or reconaissance that is always required in wartime?
the list goes on and on ..... namely mercenaries and pacific anarchist enclaves are completely unsuited for the horrors and rigors of conflict.
"IF native americans were an example of an anarchist society, then their predation at the hands of autocratic Europeans is another example of the ineptitude of the system.
and all the more reason to reject anarchism as a viable system that can preserve and protect life and property."
Sounds like more of a reason to favor anarchism since it was evil government who stole their land. That's no different than a group of thieves going to your house and kicking you off of your own property. And that's what you're in favor for?
fakename,
I have a more optimistic view of anarchism, despite my assertion that at present it is unsustainable and directionless.
For example, I consider anarchism a more advanced human condition, while statism is the least advanced. Classical liberalism can be called the missing link between statism and anarchism. for example, anarchism cannnot be realized by advancing directly from statism -- they need a transition --- classical liberalism.
note that the real competition is between statism and anarchism. yet sadly, the anarchist reserves much of his vitriol and invective for classical liberals.
they are damaging their own prospects when they engage in this effort. In contrast, they should be united with classical liberals in the reduction of statism and the promotion of representative governance which is a more advanced form of human evolution more likely to transition to anarchism.
Indeed, higher order democracies (representative governments formed after WWII) have never waged war. An anarchist society would have a much better chance at establishing itself in a world of free trading, peaceful democracies than a world dotted with aggressive autocratic regimes.
Samarami,
I probably would have voted for goldwater too, if I was old enough.
but since the 1960's:
women and minorities have more freedoms,
billions have been freed from the tyranny of marxism,
democracy has proliferated,
life expectancy has increased,
morbidity has decreased,
taxes have been reduced,
free trade has increased,
tariffs have been reduced,
free enterprise has grown,
technological advancements have grown at exponential rates,
global communications has reached incredible heights,
starvation and poverty has been dramatically reduced,
and enclaves of rational thought like the Mises INstitute are emerging.
Things havent gone all that bad while you have been living under occupied rule. INdeed, the statist conqueror may be in the process of being assimilated by the conquered. FOr example, with the right nudges we may yet see dramatic reductions in the size and scope of government due to electronic mass communications.
In summary, the truth is harder to hide in today's world. I believe with a strong effort at educating the hard working, moral, and productive (yet oblivious) masses -- the elimination of much wasteful, corrupt, and inefficient government can yet be realized, albeit slowly and in measured increments.
IN would be beneficial to have the anarchists on board in this effort rather than attacking the very vehicle (classical liberalism) that is anathema to statism in its purest most heinous forms and guides society closer to the anarchist ideal
Imagine how much better life would be if we didn't live in this "great democracy" you keep praising.
capitalist pig, snowflake, olovetto, et al,
the substance of your posts is that representative governance (minarchism) is evil despite the fact that it has been the framework in which mankind has seen the most advances in technology, trade, life expectancy, individual freedoms, free enterprise, leisure time, et al ----- and that anarchism is preferable despite the fact that it doesnt exist in the absence of either statism, representative governance, or any other non-anarchist system.
For example, where does anarchist societies function in the absence of any central government overseer?
Moreover, the most effective tool to reduce the waste, inefficiency, and corruption of statism is a COnstitutional Federal REpublic that imposes negative freedoms on government. NOt the fantasy of anarchism that has done nothing practical to promote individual rights and freedoms -- indeed this dogma may have alienated many citizens we may have otherwise been amendable to replacement of statism with minarchism.
For example, a Constitution that restricts and minimizes the abuses of government is what I would place my trust in. I believe that an educated populace would share my view.
Typically my views have been misrepresented by the anarchists who incorrectly state that I "trust" government. Nothing is further from the truth.
We both agree that government is anathema to societal health and well being -- the difference between myself and the anarchists is that I advocate a more realistic and practical way to reduce its size and scope (amending the Constitution -- a balance budget amendment to start)
In contrast, the anarchists have never offered any substance plan on reducing government other than criticizing minarchism, ad nauseam posting of dogma absent any call or plan to action, and handwringing doom and gloom scenarios.
In summary, if anarchism is the "be all and end all" --- gives us the gameplan for its domination. Don't you think that your ascendency is about 40,000 years overdue. (alas, all we are likely to get is more philosophical hot air, attacks on the minarchist messengers, and condemnations of alternate systems in the absence of anything practical and substantive)
Look d00d. You're generally wrong, on everything. I've tried to get you to read such things as The Myth of National Defense and various things on the utopianism of "limited government", but all you do is run your mouth. Don't address me, I don't care at all what you have to say.
"...Things havent gone all that bad while you have been living under occupied rule. INdeed, the statist conqueror may be in the process of being assimilated by the conquered. FOr example, with the right nudges we may yet see dramatic reductions in the size and scope of government due to electronic mass communications.
IN would be beneficial to have the anarchists on board in this effort rather than attacking the very vehicle (classical liberalism) that is anathema to statism in its purest most heinous forms and guides society closer to the anarchist idea..."
By "the hard working, moral, and productive (yet oblivious) masses" I'm presuming you mean ME. Do you not??? After all, I had 7 kids, now have 22 grandkids and 4 great grandchildren (#4 came along last week). If I ain't the masses I FEEL like the masses (although I'm not as oblivious as I perhaps sound).
And all the benefits you list were probably due to my leaving hands off, encouraging home schooling of my grandkids and now great grandkids, and not trying to shape YOURl society.
Rettroper:
"...the substance of your posts is that representative governance (minarchism) is evil despite the fact that it has been the framework in which mankind has seen the most advances in technology, trade, life expectancy, individual freedoms, free enterprise, leisure time, et al ----- and that anarchism is preferable despite the fact that it doesnt exist in the absence of either statism, representative governance, or any other non-anarchist system.
For example, where does anarchist societies function in the absence of any central government overseer?..."
Does anybody else get the feeling Rettroper sounds a lot like Bernanke or perhaps a stealth poster from the District of Collectivism....er, Columbia???
samarami,
my guess is that you have been a greater contributor to the societal health and well being then me.
moreover, you are indeed blessed to have brought 7 kids, 22 grandkids, and 4 great grandchildren into the world. NO doubt they will benefit society if you were able to impart some of your wisdom to them.
I have found it difficult to teach young people -- you have to be subtle when providing them with life lessons. Once they figure out your preaching, they tend to gravitate to the electronics.
Note that I believe that time is probably better spent with our kids than trying to shape society in general. Indeed, time spent with them is probably the best and most rewarding way to shape society toward a better outcome.
however, dont hesitate to correct me if you identify any errors in my condemnation of anarchism as a viable system.
good night.
they are damaging their own prospects when they engage in this effort. In contrast, they should be united with classical liberals in the reduction of statism and the promotion of representative governance which is a more advanced form of human evolution more likely to transition to anarchism
Despite being right on every prediction about limited government, the partnership did not work out well for the anti-federalists. I am all too aware of history and if I am able to make any individual contribution at all it will be working to insure the bus does not stop for another game of Monopoly. The typical government solution is make a problem bigger than it is and let it implode. As soon as the dollar implodes and that $500 billion dollar check to the military industrial complex bounces it's game over for statists. Since we know what the demographics picutre looks like in the coming decades, I don't see the young intellectuals who flock to austrian economics listening to a bunch of old geezers advocating another coercive state following any big calamity.
Rettoper,
What do you think of this website? Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.