The Reluctant Anarchist

[jsgolfman]

Good read from Joe Sobran on his journey to anarchy:

The Reluctant Anarchist by Joseph Sobran

 

[mrjarrell]

Score one for the good guys! I've always thought Sobran's writing was headed our way. Nice to see he made the jump.

 

[MTC]

Excellent article addressing topics of interest to me, particularly the concepts of legitimacy, and The State as a political entity, not as it is commonly understood or defined in the traditional American sense.
Thanks for sharing.

 

[rambone]

I'm chuckling at the fact that you two (jsgolfman & mrjarrell) have anarchist avatars and both posted this story within minutes of each other. Are you guys on the anarchist mailing list?

 

[jsgolfman]

My pleasure. I've enjoyed a lot of what Joe has written over the years and one could see the gradual trend toward this transformation. The crucial bit is getting people to disentangle themselves from the emotional attachment. Looked at from a purely factual standpoint, the State is a deadly, evil enterprise.

Edit: Didn't you know all anarchists are telepathic?

 

[level.eleven]

I'm always interested in hearing an individual's account, journey if you will, to discovering personal liberty. I have found that many follow the same general path as laid out by the author. Then one day, the switch is flipped. Thanks to both of you for posting the article.

 

[groovatron]

Score one for the good guys! I've always thought Sobran's writing was headed our way. Nice to see he made the jump.

You do know that Sobran has claimed the Anarchist-like ticket for about a decade now?


Pssst.....this was written in '02.....

 

[jsgolfman]

Yeah, but it's interesting to read the journey.

 

[dross]

Could you please explain anarchy the way you understand it? Do you really advocate no government whatsoever?

 

[jsgolfman]

Its not the absence of government, its the absence of the state. My own anarcho-capitalist philosophy relies on elements of Murray Rothbard's non-aggression axiom:

"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." -Murray Rothbard in Society and State

The individual is sovereign, the market is free.

 

[Tallenn]

One of the best ways I've heard it defined:

Anarchy doesn't mean NO RULES, it means NO RULERS.

The concept that finally sealed it for me was this: All government power and authority stems from the legal sanction to use violence and threat of violence to enforce government will on the people.

Good people don't seek that kind of power. Sure, there may be a few that don't realize this, and just want to do what's right for the people, but the vast majority of people that seek public office are, by definition, evil.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

""Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others?"

 

[dross]

How then, do you enforce laws?

 

[jsgolfman]

There are differing schools of thought on laws and their enforcement. Yes, even we anarchists differ on the type of anarchy we promote. There are those who advocate what I term anarchy-lite, whereby functions such as law enforcement and military activities are still under the auspices of some nominal State. Then there are those who advicate that whatever service can be provided by the state, can be provided by the market and be provided cheaper, more efficient, etc. The main issue with the first example is the inherent coercion and concentration/exclusivity of power. In the second type, those services are a business and as such subject to market demands and satisfaction. Simply put, competition rather than monopoly.

 

[dross]

There are differing schools of thought on laws and their enforcement. Yes, even we anarchists differ on the type of anarchy we promote. There are those who advocate what I term anarchy-lite, whereby functions such as law enforcement and military activities are still under the auspices of some nominal State. Then there are those who advicate that whatever service can be provided by the state, can be provided by the market and be provided cheaper, more efficient, etc. The main issue with the first example is the inherent coercion and concentration/exclusivity of power. In the second type, those services are a business and as such subject to market demands and satisfaction. Simply put, competition rather than monopoly.

Am I to understand that in your ideal world, we would abolish our Constitution?

How do you feel about the basic libertarian ideal of, "no one may initiate force," and that the government is there to deter or prevent others from initiating force against you?

 

[mrjarrell]

I don't think you'll find many real anarchists against the Zero Aggression Principle, dross, but government can't protect you against aggression or enforce it. In fact government is the largest aggressor I can think of when it come to individuals. Against everyday street level aggressors you are your best defence. As for the Constitution it wouldn't be necessary would it? Individuals interacting with each other only need the ZAP and good intentions. The Constitution restricts government, not individuals. If you, or your voluntary community wanted to form a constitutional government that'd be fine. You just couldn't impose it on others.

 

[Fletch]

Am I to understand that in your ideal world, we would abolish our Constitution?

How do you feel about the basic libertarian ideal of, "no one may initiate force," and that the government is there to deter or prevent others from initiating force against you?

"No one may initiate force" is an inherently anarchic statement. The argument is that the very existence of a State is an initiation of force, because the State is a territorial monopoly on government services, its reach defined solely in geographic terms.

 

[mrjarrell]

The libertarian version is:

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

The same could be said of most anarchists (depending on what flavour they are).

 

[dross]

So, in an anarchist style society, how are disputes resolved? For instance, I contract with you, then you refuse to pay me for the services I rendered. How do I collect?

I live on a stream. I dump my garbage in the stream below my house, and the garbage runs down and pollutes the water you drink from. How is this resolved in an anarchist society?

There is a predator in my neighborhood. We would like to defend ourselves against him, but he's grown too powerful. How do we stop him?

 

[Fletch]

So, in an anarchist style society, how are disputes resolved? For instance, I contract with you, then you refuse to pay me for the services I rendered. How do I collect?

An anarchist society would necessarily rely much more heavily on reputation, a concept with which we are all familiar here. If you sue for damages or arbitration and I refuse to even enter the process, you make it known that I have negotiated the contract in bad faith, damaging my ability to do business in the future. In practice, this would eventually be a function absorbed by voluntary associations of rules -- we agree to work together because we have joined the same association and agreed to be governed by its rules, and we would tend to avoid doing business with the unaffiliated or with those who are affiliated with associations that have incompatible rulesets.

I live on a stream. I dump my garbage in the stream below my house, and the garbage runs down and pollutes the water you drink from. How is this resolved in an anarchist society?

This goes to property rights; there's a discussion of this exact problem somewhere at Mises.org, but I'd have to look for it.

There is a predator in my neighborhood. We would like to defend ourselves against him, but he's grown too powerful. How do we stop him?

Hire someone who's strong enough to do so. The difference here is that once the threat is ended, you don't have to pay protection money in perpetuity, as you do with the State.

 

[dross]

Do you have examples of this type of society working anywhere in the real world?