The Reluctant Anarchist

[Fletch]

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

You're looking at it (the internet).

 

[dross]

You're looking at it (the internet).

The internet only represents a tiny slice of life. It might serve as an analogy, but not as an example.

 

[Fletch]

It may be one tiny slice of your life, but don't assume that's true for everyone.

 

[Fletch]

There is also the excellent case of Shasta County, California's informal "fence law", as presented by Robert Ellickson in Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. The reading is a little thick if you don't have a background in economics, but should be accessible to anyone who puts the time and effort into it.

 

[jsgolfman]

Medieval Iceland, certain aspects of the old west, early Pennsylvania are some examples of AC in practice, at least to an extent.

For a list, check out this Wikipedia page:

List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember though, just as there are variants of the other political philosophies, there are variants of Anarchism as well. Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Socialism, Anarcho-Liberalism, etc.

5 matches found. :: Mises Institute This is a link to the book Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard, take time over the next week and read it.

If you've the time, bookmark the site hosting that book, mises.org and peruse the literature. Probably the best collection of libertarian/anarchist knowledge on the web, and a lot of it is in pdf form for download.
Truly, though, if you look you can find examples all around you similar to the link fletch posted. If you live in a community with a neighborhood covenant, you live under a variant of anarcho-capitalism.

 

[mrjarrell]

Most of us live in a state of anarchy on a daily basis. I don't allow government to run my life on a day to day basis, nor do most people. We voluntarily interact with each other in a civilised manner.

 

[Fletch]

Most of us live in a state of anarchy on a daily basis. I don't allow government to run my life on a day to day basis, nor do most people. We voluntarily interact with each other in a civilised manner.

True, but the statist counterargument here is that without the background knowledge that we can always appeal to government to fix things, we would descend into cannibalism at the first opportunity, because it's never too early to resort to cannibalism.

I know, I know... I don't buy it either.

 

[JNG]

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.

That seems circular. What's to stop your bodyguard to continue demanding money in exchange for his continued protection . . . including from himself? And then do the same thing to your neighbors, until you all pitch in and hire a bigger bodyguard, and the cycle repeats . . . until you end up with a government to stop the oppression.

 

[mrjarrell]

That seems circular. What's to stop your bodyguard to continue demanding money in exchange for his continued protection . . . including from himself? And then do the same thing to your neighbors, until you all pitch in and hire a bigger bodyguard, and the cycle repeats . . . until you end up with a government to stop the oppression.

It would be a bad business practice and no-one would ever hire their services again. Not to mention that others in the security field would likely band together to do them in for the safety and integrity of all.

 

[dross]

How would you deal with an aggressive, expansionist state, willing to use the military to expand its domain?

 

[Fletch]

How would you deal with an aggressive, expansionist state, willing to use the military to expand its domain?

That's what we're in the process of doing and figuring out. It starts by engaging its defenders in peaceful discussion.

 

[groovatron]

Most of us live in a state of anarchy on a daily basis. I don't allow government to run my life on a day to day basis, nor do most people. We voluntarily interact with each other in a civilised manner.

I agree with this to an extent. The problem lies with the stupid people. Stupid people occupy 99% of this planet...(IMO). I don't think they would be capable of taking care of themselves. They need someone to tell them what to do, what to think, where to go, etc. In some ways, the modern Anarchist philosophy reminds me alot of Communism. Sounds wonderful in theory, but it will never work. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a very interesting way to think about things. I just believe that in true Anarchy, certain chaos in inevitable. People will reconnect with their animal side and the rest is history.....

 

[Fletch]

I agree with this to an extent. The problem lies with the stupid people. Stupid people occupy 99% of this planet...(IMO). I don't think they would be capable of taking care of themselves. They need someone to tell them what to do, what to think, where to go, etc. In some ways, the modern Anarchist philosophy reminds me alot of Communism. Sounds wonderful in theory, but it will never work. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a very interesting way to think about things. I just believe that in true Anarchy, certain chaos in inevitable. People will reconnect with their animal side and the rest is history.....

So, the USA has about 3 police officers per 1,000 people. 99% of the people are stupid, which is 990. That leaves 7 more non-stupid people, if we assume that cops are never stupid. And it's your contention that those 3 police officers are enough to protect the 7 (plus themselves) from the other 990?

Put another way, if 99% of the people are stupid (and by implication from your post, amoral and animalistic, seeking only to gain at the expense of others), that means that 99% of the people in government are this way, only those people have the power to get what they want. Is that really a system worth defending?

I find it far more likely that, rather than you ivory tower types and your 3 cops being the glue that holds society together, the truth is that the other 99% of us have no interest in beating the hell out of each other, and for the most part are willing to deal fairly and honestly with our fellow man, so long as we can expect the same in return.

 

[PatMcGroyne]

One definition:

"Anarchy only works for me while I have food, armor, bullets and several ways to deliver them." Think "MLK" riots, "Rodney King" riots, Katrina riots, the rioters in Haiti with machetes. As long as "you" keep yourself under "control", by my definition, Anarchy works. We need NO laws, because of swift and sure retribution. "Order" just doesn't "happen"; it is enforced. By MY laws, if I have the best armament. My opinion is the trip-wire. Pat

 

[level.eleven]

Anarchy in the streets.

Shared Space - CBS News Video

As an example of the overall goodness in man.

 

[JNG]

It would be a bad business practice and no-one would ever hire their services again. Not to mention that others in the security field would likely band together to do them in for the safety and integrity of all.

1) Why would they care if no one will hire them, if they can extort whatever they want from those who already have?

2) At the point where "others in the security field band together to do them in for the safety and integrity of all," you have established a proto-government, haven't you? The anarchist principle is compromised already at that point.

 

[Fletch]

At the point where "others in the security field band together to do them in for the safety and integrity of all," you have established a proto-government, haven't you? The anarchist principle is compromised already at that point.

Not at all. Those who have violated the ZAP have been dealt with accordingly (just not by their intended, immediate victims), and folks are once again free to engage in voluntary exchange.

 

[Lex Concord]

1) Why would they care if no one will hire them, if they can extort whatever they want from those who already have?

That's a mighty big if. Although, apply the same logic to congress and the state at large. They already behave in this manner with the false legitimacy of law.

2) At the point where "others in the security field band together to do them in for the safety and integrity of all," you have established a proto-government, haven't you? The anarchist principle is compromised already at that point.

No, as the others in the security field in this example did not band together to oust the extorter and replace him, simply to oust him.

More likely in my mind, however, they would have been hired to do so in the first place and, unlike the prior example, probably with a binding dispute arbitration (randomly selected from a list of previously agreed upon private providers) baked into the contract into which both parties would have willingly entered.

 

[JNG]

Not at all. Those who have violated the ZAP have been dealt with accordingly (just not by their intended, immediate victims), and folks are once again free to engage in voluntary exchange.

Assuming, of course, that the "banded together" security professionals don't decide that, with their de facto monopoly on force, they can take whatever they want with little labor and minimal risk. At that point, you have all the things you dislike about government, with none of the material benefits. Your whole theory seems to rely on the same flawed assumption as communism--that people are inherently good, and will voluntarily act against their immediate self-interest in the name of some greater good even when they can do otherwise without foreseeable consequence.

 

[WabashMX5]

Here's my hangup. Is the tendency of governments to expand their own powers something inherent in the concept of government itself? Or does it happen because of the avarice of the people the government's comprised of?

If it's the former — an inherent weakness in the very concept of government — then why wouldn't any other form of aggregated power (ex., the very best private security firm in an anarcho-capitalist society, "voted in" by being hired by the most people because of its superior performance) suffer the same tendency? Isn't the very fact of consolidated power the thing that tends to corrupt the people who hold it?

And if it's the latter — an effect of the avarice of the individual humans who comprise the government — then why wouldn't that same individual human avarice manifest itself anytime anyone gets a little extra power?

Bottom line, whether accomplished by popular vote, or by self-earned competitive advantage in a free market, isn't the end result the same?

And if private coalitions were really enough to snuff out abusers of power, then how have so many tyrannical governments succeeded for as long as they have? (My only half-answer to this is to use the U.S. as an example — that the only we haven't devolved as fast as other self-governed societies is that the Second Amendment still has some teeth....)

EDIT: Thanks, JNG — you came up with a much simpler way of asking basically the same questions as me.