The Reluctant Anarchist

[Lex Concord]

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.....

Why would you believe that anyone needs to be told what to do?

What is the accepted universal definition of someone taking care of himself? If someone else has a differing definition, by what moral authority should any person or entity be permitted to use force to alter his ways, so long as he does no harm to another or his property?

If so many people are so stupid, why would you trust their ability to select those who would tell them and you how to live your life above your ability to guide your own affairs?

Regarding "sounds wonderful in theory", please name a form of government that does work, and define what you mean by "it works".

The one thing at which all governments excel is visiting violence (real, figurative, or both) upon those who will not conform to its standards.

Dictatorships, monarchies, democracies, republics, oligarchies, theocracies... history is replete with examples of each of these committing heinous crimes against unfavored individuals and groups.

While the definition of unfavored may vary from time to time and place to place, as may the level of their offenses, the fact of the matter remains that our rulers sleep well at night because they know rough men stand ready at all times to do violence on their behalf.

For those unfamiliar, please be sure to check out Lysander Spooner. His is the story of a true anarchist hero. Though he never worked for the US Postal Service, he is the father of the $.03 stamp, and the reason why UPS and Fed Ex are prohibited by law from delivering "First Class Mail" anywhere in this country.

 

[dross]

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

Clever answer, but could you please answer the question you know I was asking?

 

[Lex Concord]

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.

Quite the contrary. The bedrock principle at work is that people are inherently self-interested and that they will behave accordingly. It is not the fallacy of the "greater good" -- how often do liberals, conservatives and, at times, self-proclaimed libertarians raise this evil spectre as cover for their encroachments? -- but their own good which motivates them not to cross others.

The de facto monopoly cannot exist for long, if ever. What is to keep others from entering the field of security?

What is to keep the individuals betrayed from forming a posse for self defense? What would stop them from doing so?

The big question is, would it be in the self-interest of the professionals to stay banded together and attempt to form a proto-government? I think the answer is clearly no, precisely because the answer to the above questions is "nothing".

Each individual's best interest is vested in doing what he does best so long as it has sufficient intersection with actual demand in the market for the good or service that individual can provide. By extension and, completely without intent, the closest thing to the ever-elusive greater good is served by the efficiencies of this division of labor.

 

[Lex Concord]

Clever answer, but could you please answer the question you know I was asking?

"Shoot twice and go home."

 

[jsgolfman]

It seems that there is some misconception that without the state, there are no laws.

 

[dross]

I'm basically libertarian. I use the small "l" on purpose. I can explain exactly why I subscribe to this political philosophy, and I can do it without links.

I sense a smirking superiority here, which reminds me of socialists (in attitude if not in philosophy) which smells a lot like the inability to defend an idea you're attracted to.

I'm asking honest questions. Please give me honest and straightforward answers so I can evaluate this philosophy.

 

[WabashMX5]

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....)

Guess I'll re-ask this part of my question — and rephrase it a bit. If "shoot twice and go home" is enough to stop private tyranny, why have so many public tyrants gotten long-term footholds over the years?

Not trying to be combative — just asking.

 

[Go Devil]

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

How did the tradesmen and farmers deal with British enforcement of rule before the formation of our Army and Navy in 1775?

Let me ask you an old question that may help you understand the Anarchist beginnings.

Who do you (Dross) talk to the most?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

This seems to be a great philosophical discussion. That said, it denies one of the undeniable truths of life. Like it or not, ours it a world governed by the use of force. There ARE states out there that ARE willing to use force to take what you have. And band together to get bigger and do more.

This is why I can't buy the whole anarchy bit. Zero is too ideal - and unworkable in reality. There's ALWAYS an outside force! Provision must be made for dealing with that outside force. Hence the libertarian allowance for the COMMON defense. There are things that the individual is not equipped to do - like stop nuclear weapons. Minimize the laws?? SURE. Minimize the intrusion into our lives? Abso-freaking-lutely! We can go a long way down that road from where we are today. ZERO ?? That's too utopian and denies basic reality IMHO...

 

[Fletch]

I'm basically libertarian. I use the small "l" on purpose. I can explain exactly why I subscribe to this political philosophy, and I can do it without links.

I can do it too, in one sentence, no less: I am a libertarian because I do not accept the idea that the State is an agent of sanctification.

It's no great trick, but it tends not to answer questions fully. Links and background material, especially in a thread discussing an article where a man describes his journey to libertarianism/anarchism, are entirely appropriate ways to convey information.

I sense a smirking superiority here

You're imagining things.

I'm asking honest questions. Please give me honest and straightforward answers so I can evaluate this philosophy.

That's what I/we've been trying to do. You don't like my/our answers, so you're complaining. I for one am not going to sit here and quote or paraphrase Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty or Nock's Our Enemy, The State when you can just go read them yourself. You're asking generalized questions, so I'm giving generalized answers. Ask me something personal, and I'll give you a personal answer.

It's also seeming from this end as though your questions are merely a list of your fears and insecurities about liberty, and I have little doubt that any one human mind can produce more than enough of those to keep a conversation like this going for far longer than I'm willing to engage it. The psychological need to have "somebody in charge" is a powerful compulsion, and is not easily laid down. I think it's endemic to the species. It took me well over 20 years to do get over my need for somebody to be in control, and I worked at it fairly continuously. But it doesn't make the journey any less worthwhile.

 

[CarmelHP]

Clever answer, but could you please answer the question you know I was asking?

dross, I think that's his way of saying, "I don't know."

 

[Fletch]

dross, I think that's his way of saying, "I don't know."

Or it could actually be my answer. I take ZAP and the continuum of force seriously, as a matter of philosophical, religious, and even practical consideration. There is a certain tactical and strategic disadvantage to giving up "first strike" capability, but I've found that retaining it is not compatible with my spiritual goals... see James 1:20.

 

[mrjarrell]

Wow, this has been busy since yesterday. Ran across an interesting piece on this very subject this morning that may answer a few questions for some folks.

via The Militant Libertarian

Anarchism isn't going to be explained here in convenient sound bites. Just like any other philosophy. It just isn't possible.

 

[CarmelHP]

Or it could actually be my answer. I take ZAP and the continuum of force seriously, as a matter of philosophical, religious, and even practical consideration. There is a certain tactical and strategic disadvantage to giving up "first strike" capability, but I've found that retaining it is not compatible with my spiritual goals... see James 1:20.

Non-answers or high-sounding empty rhetoric which ignores real, practical problems are a good way to discredit this philosophical position very quickly.

 

[CarmelHP]

Wow, this has been busy since yesterday. Ran across an interesting piece on this very subject this morning that may answer a few questions for some folks.

via The Militant Libertarian

Anarchism isn't going to be explained here in convenient sound bites. Just like any other philosophy. It just isn't possible.

As far as I can tell, at least from what is stated by its defenders, anarchism is a tautology.

 

[Fletch]

Non-answers or high-sounding empty rhetoric which ignores real, practical problems are a good way to discredit this philosophical position very quickly.

And I find it difficult to believe you are really this shallow. If you are truly unable to comprehend or appreciate the idea that someone might find deeper meaning in a political position than simply winning the next election, I've seriously overestimated you. For me, this is NOT about elections or who gets to be speaker of the house, or even who represents me in Congress.

This is about refusing to participate in a way that I see as self-destructive. I don't ask you to see it my way; I merely assert the right to see it however I see it. Paraphrasing Lewis, true evil is not found in genitalia, it's found in power over others and the desire for same. Whatever euphoria you experience from forcing your will on others, at gunpoint if necessary, is not your conscience telling you "good job", much as you might like to believe that. It's merely the drug telling the addict that life is good for a while. As a libertarian, I'm fine with allowing you to use your drug. As a former addict, I'm also sure I've found a better way to live.

 

[jsgolfman]

I agree, it is universally true.

I spent about 5 minutes writing a response to dross, and when I was done, found out the system had logged me out. I really don't feel like typing it all out again, but the gist was:
1. I can articulate why I believe the way I do without links as well (It advocates elimination of the state and elevation of the individual; free markets are an inherent element and trade is voluntary, personal responsiibility, etc.)
2. Let's select an aspect of poltical philosophy and compare/contrast against whatever yours happens to be.

The questions being asked, as mentioned before, are difficult to express in short bursts. Links were provided as a means to provide more detailed information rather than typing out the entire AC philosophy.

 

[CarmelHP]

And I find it difficult to believe you are really this shallow. If you are truly unable to comprehend or appreciate the idea that someone might find deeper meaning in a political position than simply winning the next election, I've seriously overestimated you. For me, this is NOT about elections or who gets to be speaker of the house, or even who represents me in Congress.

This is about refusing to participate in a way that I see as self-destructive. I don't ask you to see it my way; I merely assert the right to see it however I see it. Paraphrasing Lewis, true evil is not found in genitalia, it's found in power over others and the desire for same. Whatever euphoria you experience from forcing your will on others, at gunpoint if necessary, is not your conscience telling you "good job", much as you might like to believe that. It's merely the drug telling the addict that life is good for a while. As a libertarian, I'm fine with allowing you to use your drug. As a former addict, I'm also sure I've found a better way to live.

That's right, if you can win by logic, ATTACK! And I'm the shallow one? You can not even answer civilly a direct question that has extremely real world implications, i.e., how do you protect your Utopia from those nations not inclined to participate in its vision, and willing to use force on you. Whenever delusions are challenged, the deluded responds by attacking the challenger. Stop spouting nonsense and no one will question you, OK?

 

[CarmelHP]

The questions being asked, as mentioned before, are difficult to express in short bursts. Links were provided as a means to provide more detailed information rather than typing out the entire AC philosophy.

It's a tautology, "if you didn't have governments, you wouldn't need governments" is circular. It doesn't answer the question, it's just tedious rhetorical masturbation.

 

[Fletch]

That's right, if you can win by logic, ATTACK! And I'm the shallow one? You can not even answer civilly a direct question that has extremely real world implications, i.e., how do you protect your Utopia from those nations not inclined to participate in its vision, and willing to use force on you. Whenever delusions are challenged, the deluded responds by attacking the challenger. Stop spouting nonsense and no one will question you, OK?

If you think that was an attack... wow.

As for defending a libertarian/anarchist society, I imagine you'd defend it pretty much the same as any other society: by diplomacy if possible, by force if necessary. And yes, you may lose -- there are scores of small nations that face the same problem. That doesn't make it any less worthwhile to defend one's culture/society.

So what exactly is the point of the question? Just to read the obvious answer? Roller coasters are exciting, but also terribly predictable. Whee, isn't this ride fun...