The Reluctant Anarchist

[Fletch]

It's a tautology, "if you didn't have governments, you wouldn't need governments" is circular.

So is "you've got to have governments, because you've got to have governments".

 

[jsgolfman]

Just as in any political philosophy, there are multiple views on the military and law enforcement in general. One is more of a limited AC society, where the state remains soley for the purpose of providing law enforcement and military duties, though this may take the form of local "governement" control rather than national control.
Another view is that of a volunteer military/law enforcement presence. Still another is that of a contracted group providing the service. All groups are answerable to the local community or larger community as a whole.

 

[JNG]

I think the objection--and question--a few of us are stating is that anarchy relies on an unfounded presumption that bullies in some region won't eventually band together and tyrannize everyone else.

Once the bullies band together--once you have an organized monopoly agent in the game of physical force--you no longer have the freedom that is anarchy's goal.

I guess another way to put it is that Hobbes says that life without government is "nasty, brutish, and short." Anarchy says that Hobbes is wrong. History and common sense suggest that Hobbes has the better of the arguments.

If history has taught us anything, it's that human beings are essentially sinful. Anarchy, as presented here, appears to close its eyes to that fact by assuming that the strong will perpetually allow themselves to be bound by minor social/cultural taboos against using their stregnth to their own advantage.

 

[jsgolfman]

I know what the word means, I was hoping you were using it in the other context.
However, you argument that it is circular is absurd. The correct phrase would be "you don't need government, so you shouldn't have them" or more precisely, "you don't need the state, so you shouldn't have the state". Nowhere will you find the argument "if you didn't have governments, you wouldn't need governments". Either you haven't done your research or you are deliberaely ignoring it.

 

[Fletch]

I think the objection--and question--a few of us are stating is that anarchy relies on an unfounded presumption that bullies in some region won't eventually band together and tyrannize everyone else.

Once the bullies band together--once you have an organized monopoly agent in the game of physical force--you no longer have the freedom that is anarchy's goal.

And that's a fair criticism. I think cultural and social taboos are stronger than you think they are, and I think that the motivation to bully in the face of prosperity is weaker than you think it is. I believe this disparity of evaluation pretty much accounts for the difference of opinion.

 

[jsgolfman]

I think the objection--and question--a few of us are stating is that anarchy relies on an unfounded presumption that bullies in some region won't eventually band together and tyrannize everyone else.

Once the bullies band together--once you have an organized monopoly agent in the game of physical force--you no longer have the freedom that is anarchy's goal.

I guess another way to put it is that Hobbes says that life without government is "nasty, brutish, and short." Anarchy says that Hobbes is wrong. History and common sense suggest that Hobbes has the better of the arguments.

If history has taught us anything, it's that human beings are essentially sinful. Anarchy, as presented here, appears to close its eyes to that fact by assuming that the strong will perpetually allow themselves to be bound by minor social/cultural taboos against using their stregnth to their own advantage.

There is no presumption of that at all. It is well understood. The state is a prime example of your "organized monopoly agent in the game of physical force".
Again, its not advocating a lack of government, its an absence of the state. History will also show you many examples of where this philosophy works. It will also show you where the greatest mass murderers are the states, not individuals. There will still be laws, there will still be courts, there will still be law enforcement.

 

[JNG]

And that's a fair criticism. I think cultural and social taboos are stronger than you think they are, and I think that the motivation to bully in the face of prosperity is weaker than you think it is. I believe this disparity of evaluation pretty much accounts for the difference of opinion.

That's a fair reply. I think you hit the nail on the head--we disagree about certain aspects of human nature. With that, I'm happy to agree to disagree.

Good discussion.

 

[CarmelHP]

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

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. ....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.

And if you think it was not, then exactly what asylum are you living at? Or are you just from New York?

 

[CarmelHP]

And that's a fair criticism. I think cultural and social taboos are stronger than you think they are, and I think that the motivation to bully in the face of prosperity is weaker than you think it is. I believe this disparity of evaluation pretty much accounts for the difference of opinion.

And I think all of recorded history shows this to be a delusion.

 

[CarmelHP]

So is "you've got to have governments, because you've got to have governments".

And who said it but you? That's not my position, nor anyone elses' here, the question and problem is one in the nature of a prisoner's dilemma. Not that our present state is wonderful, but how do you reach Utopia, without ensuring a situation in which Utopia is doomed to be destroyed from without?

 

[Fletch]

And if you think it was not, then exactly what asylum are you living at? Or are you just from New York?

I don't know if you are a religious/spiritual person, but I assumed that you could at least understand such leanings. My bad.

 

[dross]

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?

The tradesmen and farmers in 1775 lived in a different time. They also had, in some cases, more sophisticated weaponry - the Kentucky rifle. Modern wars can't be won that way against a determined state run army, and besides, we couldn't have stood against the British had they dedicated fully to defeating us.

Your second question is irrelevant to MY issues with an anarchist society. I'll concede that amongst those with whom we are closest, we govern ourselves.

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. .

Neither do I accept the State as an agent of sanctification. Yet, this seems to me to be so simplistic as to provide no basis to solve the practical problems that people organize in order to solve in the first place.

You're imagining things..

It's a nice trick, to give a smartass answer, and then put it back on the guy who called you on it.

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. .

How do you deal with another nation who attacks you?

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.

Please don't analyze me. You don't know me or my psychological makeup. And you're wrong about your assumptions. Now, can you just address my non-personal issues with the philosophy?

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.

Spirituality doesn't enter into it for me, though morality does. I do not believe in the initiation of force, either. Yet we disagree on anarchist society. Let's hone in on the areas of disagreement. You asserted that I had psychological issues that keep me from understanding - I deny that. You can't prove your assertion, so let's move one. I agree with you about the State's sanctification, and about the initiation of force. Now we're left with how the structure works in the real world, which is what I've been asking you.

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.

Again, the question for me is, "How do you deal with those who aggress against you?" My implication is that you would be weaker than an agressive state with a professional army who intended to do you harm.

So is "you've got to have governments, because you've got to have governments".

How about, "You've got to have governments, because there are already governments."

Just as in any political philosophy, there are multiple views on the military and law enforcement in general. One is more of a limited AC society, where the state remains soley for the purpose of providing law enforcement and military duties, though this may take the form of local "governement" control rather than national control.
Another view is that of a volunteer military/law enforcement presence. Still another is that of a contracted group providing the service. All groups are answerable to the local community or larger community as a whole.

I find nothing in this paragraph to disagree with, though it's what I would call a libertarian or objectivist society. I also thing it's impossible to achieve in the world we live in, certainly in the political climate of today. And again, this little wonderful world would be vulnerable to less scrupulous people around it. Perhaps like many little utopias, it could survive under the protection of a benevolent State.

I think the objection--and question--a few of us are stating is that anarchy relies on an unfounded presumption that bullies in some region won't eventually band together and tyrannize everyone else.

Once the bullies band together--once you have an organized monopoly agent in the game of physical force--you no longer have the freedom that is anarchy's goal.

I guess another way to put it is that Hobbes says that life without government is "nasty, brutish, and short." Anarchy says that Hobbes is wrong. History and common sense suggest that Hobbes has the better of the arguments.

If history has taught us anything, it's that human beings are essentially sinful. Anarchy, as presented here, appears to close its eyes to that fact by assuming that the strong will perpetually allow themselves to be bound by minor social/cultural taboos against using their stregnth to their own advantage.

I agree with this, except the "sinful" part. I think human nature is basically good, however, I think that there will always be evil if you will, those who would use force to get what others have acquired through cooperation.

And that's a fair criticism. I think cultural and social taboos are stronger than you think they are, and I think that the motivation to bully in the face of prosperity is weaker than you think it is. I believe this disparity of evaluation pretty much accounts for the difference of opinion.

You think. I see no evidence of this as I study history. Even the Indians, before we came here, fought and warred and took from each other. Indian society seems to me to be a great example of anarchist society.

Every time I see a structure that assumes the best of people rather than accepting the inevitable bad of some, I see a structure that will fail. Socialism fails for this very reason. To this day, people fall for the foolish notion that a person will work as hard for the good of society as he will for himself and his family. Your structure seems to be based on the idea that if we set it up right the bullies and predators would disappear, or at least be non-factors. My understanding of history lead me to believe that bullies and predators flourish in such an environment.

There is no presumption of that at all. It is well understood. The state is a prime example of your "organized monopoly agent in the game of physical force".
Again, its not advocating a lack of government, its an absence of the state. History will also show you many examples of where this philosophy works. It will also show you where the greatest mass murderers are the states, not individuals. There will still be laws, there will still be courts, there will still be law enforcement.

Yes, true. The greatest murderers have been states. They are dangerous creatures, yet I think necessary, unless we can all stand down at once.

 

[Fletch]

To this day, people fall for the foolish notion that a person will work as hard for the good of society as he will for himself and his family.

Capitalism disposes with the notion that anyone should work for "the good of society", and presupposes that all will work for their own enrichment. Economics teaches that this produces good for society as a secondary by-product, so long as the general prohibition against the initiation of force and fraud is upheld. In other words, anarcho-capitalism uses self-interest as the core of its social structure, rather than requiring people to abandon it.

 

[CarmelHP]

I don't know if you are a religious/spiritual person, but I assumed that you could at least understand such leanings. My bad.

I'll simply assume that you have no rational argument to offer and invective is your only recourse. We'll leave it at that.

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

If the Brits had responded initially the way they would later respond in, say, India in the mid-19th century, there may have been no American Revolution and there would be Union Jacks flying everywhere. It was luck or providence that gave the colonists time to instigate a world war between Britain and France that distracted Britain and gave French protection to crucial military operation, such as the French fleet being the anvil that Washington hammered Cornwallis against at Yorktown. You can not presume luck or providence will always save you.

Yes, true. The greatest murderers have been states. They are dangerous creatures, yet I think necessary, unless we can all stand down at once.

True, that's the nub, isn't it?

 

[jsgolfman]

It would appear, by volume anyway, that the greatest discussion stems from the "military" question. I mentioned earlier that one branch of AC advocates for the existence of the state to handle protection of private individuals and their property, courts, law enforcement, legal codes and national defense. Other branches advocate all of the above being performed by companies or groups of companies.
If a company wishes to remain viable and increase its profits, does it not ensure that it provides the best product it can?

I don't assume the best in people (nor, obviously, do the laws/courts), nor do I believe people are, at heart, evil. However, that doesn't factor into the equation at all. Laws written to protect the individual and individual property operate regardless of the evil or lack thereof.

 

[Fletch]

I'll simply assume that you have no rational argument to offer and invective is your only recourse. We'll leave it at that.

I'm trying to apologize for assuming you understood what I was getting at. Sorry.

 

[CarmelHP]

Capitalism disposes with the notion that anyone should work for "the good of society", and presupposes that all will work for their own enrichment. Economics teaches that this produces good for society as a secondary by-product, so long as the general prohibition against the initiation of force and fraud is upheld. In other words, anarcho-capitalism uses self-interest as the core of its social structure, rather than requiring people to abandon it.

A platitudinal non-sequitor does not supply an answer to those whose motivations for enrichment compel them to kill or enslave. How do you get to the Utopian anarchist state when there are (what you admit to be gangster states) implacable adversaries willing to exploit your enclave for their own benefit? This is a fundamental problem.

 

[dross]

It would appear, by volume anyway, that the greatest discussion stems from the "military" question. I mentioned earlier that one branch of AC advocates for the existence of the state to handle protection of private individuals and their property, courts, law enforcement, legal codes and national defense. Other branches advocate all of the above being performed by companies or groups of companies.
If a company wishes to remain viable and increase its profits, does it not ensure that it provides the best product it can?

I don't assume the best in people (nor, obviously, do the laws/courts), nor do I believe people are, at heart, evil. However, that doesn't factor into the equation at all. Laws written to protect the individual and individual property operate regardless of the evil or lack thereof.

From what I can tell, you and I are not in serious disagreement, except perhaps in how likely such a structure will ever be implemented broadly. You call yourself an anarchist, I see little difference in your view than in liberatarianism or objectivism. Can you elaborate on any differences you have with these philosophical systems?

A platitudinal non-sequitor does not supply an answer to those whose motivations for enrichment compel them to kill or enslave. How do you get to the Utopian anarchist state when there are (what you admit to be gangster states) implacable adversaries willing to exploit your enclave for their own benefit? This is a fundamental problem.

This, and what seems to me the limited size of such structures are the central and insurmountable problems with this philosophy.

Again, I think something like this might work in a small community within the protection of an benevolent State (which is irony on wheels) and frankly, I'd be interested in living there.

 

[Fletch]

I agree with you about the State's sanctification, and about the initiation of force. Now we're left with how the structure works in the real world, which is what I've been asking you.

Again, the question for me is, "How do you deal with those who aggress against you?" My implication is that you would be weaker than an agressive state with a professional army who intended to do you harm.

You have me at a loss... I don't know what else you want from me/us that I/we haven't already said.

I've talked about diplomacy... though I neglected to mention that my favored means of diplomacy is trade. I've talked about force, and thought it obvious that I was referring to some form of militia. Attempting to be the strongest in the world is a fool's errand, so it seems that one would have to take it as read that someone will always be stronger. But that's the way life works... someone is always stronger. If the goal is to always be the strongest, what do you intend to do when you turn the corner on 40 or 50 or 60 years old and your body can no longer keep up?

But if we recognize that someone will always be stronger, doesn't that inform the way we interact with others, bringing it back to diplomacy? Folks in Alaska live around animals that can kill without even thinking about it. Yet they largely make it too inconvenient for those animals to kill them, even when eating humans would be considerably easier than starving through lean seasons. It seems to me that this is a form of diplomacy -- it's not necessary to be able to win a war outright; you only have to make it very expensive for your opponent, such that he'll either eventually get tired of it, not initiate it in the first place, or regret having done it. Sure, it sucks for you if the war is engaged, but I don't think I've ever heard of a war that didn't suck.

 

[Fletch]

This, and what seems to me the limited size of such structures are the central and insurmountable problems with this philosophy.

I don't understand why having a small but prosperous community is a "problem" that needs to be "surmounted".