The Reluctant Anarchist

[jsgolfman]

dross, I too think it's more a matter of implementation between us. I do think one difference is that with the state, there is no recourse and no competition on the use of force. What stops the military/law enforcement from acting as a "gansgter state" now, assuming they aren't?

 

[dross]

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.

You and I have come to an impasse. Diplomacy depends on either the good faith of others, or at least adherence to self interest. In the case of islamo-fascism, a nihilistic philosophy, we can count on neither.

I contend that your ideal is attractive but unworkable in reality. Not much more for me to say. I don't accept your premeses, you don't accept mine.

You work to bring about what I consider to be impossible, I'll work to try to drive the Republican party a little more towards libertarianism. I only have thirty or so years left on this planet. I'll be doing well if by the time I die my now three-year-old daughter is a libertarian instead of a socialist. (Right now, she has embraced the welfare state, and would like cradle-to-grave care. Also, if your little anarchist world had something she wanted and she could get away with taking it, you wouldn't have it anymore.)

 

[CarmelHP]

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

A fat little lamb surrounded by wolves IS a problem for the lamb. Forgive those who wish to not be the lamb.

 

[Fletch]

A fat little lamb surrounded by wolves IS a problem for the lamb. Forgive those who wish to not be the lamb.

It seems to work out all right for Switzerland. Granted, they are not anarchic or libertarian, but their army is essentially a militia, and their strict neutrality is a form of diplomacy.

 

[dross]

It seems to work out all right for Switzerland. Granted, they are not anarchic or libertarian, but their army is essentially a militia, and their strict neutrality is a form of diplomacy.

Switzerland is unique, and therefore a terrible example.

They don't have natural resources, they aren't on any major travel routes, their land is difficult to access with an army, and traditionally they've provided services to the rest of Europe, therefore they've been under the protectorate of this or that power. Also, in their history, they have been occupied.

Try another example.

 

[PatMcGroyne]

Suppose you are tapped on the shoulder by a grizzly-bear.

And you turn to him/her and state: "I know your intentions. You and I have come to an impasse. Diplomacy depends on either the good faith of another, or at least adherence to common self-interest. Bear, consider the case of islamo-fascism, a nihilistic philosophy; you nor I can count on neither. I thus contend that your ideas are attractive to you, but unworkable in my reality. Not much more for me to say, Bear. I don't accept your premeses, you don't accept mine." Most hungry Grizzlies don't even know how to SPELL "anarchy", but at the top of the food-chain, that seems unimportant to grizzlies. And also to me. Rant on. Stay armed. Pat

 

[dross]

dross, I too think it's more a matter of implementation between us. I do think one difference is that with the state, there is no recourse and no competition on the use of force. What stops the military/law enforcement from acting as a "gansgter state" now, assuming they aren't?

Well, as we've seen, they sure like to head in that direction. I don't have a good answer for you. Perhaps it's bound to keep happening. Perhaps someday an anarchist solution will work.

I have no good answer to your question. I share your concern.

 

[dross]

And you turn to him/her and state: "I know your intentions. You and I have come to an impasse. Diplomacy depends on either the good faith of another, or at least adherence to common self-interest. Bear, consider the case of islamo-fascism, a nihilistic philosophy; you nor I can count on neither. I thus contend that your ideas are attractive to you, but unworkable in my reality. Not much more for me to say, Bear. I don't accept your premeses, you don't accept mine." Most hungry Grizzlies don't even know how to SPELL "anarchy", but at the top of the food-chain, that seems unimportant to grizzlies. And also to me. Rant on. Stay armed. Pat

I think you and I are in general agreement. Was I wrong to detect a mocking tone? If not, I apologize. If so, please explain.