Anarchists, question for you...

[Neil Desmond]

uh huh.

I know; looks terrible doesn't it?

But, I did say I would ask questions for clarification.

I'm anticipating that at some point this thread will inflate itself and I won't be able to respond to everything.

 

[No Free Beer]

Because you cannot restrain the state. History has shown that even the best system of government man has devised has failed to restrain it. So if you advocate on behalf of the existence of the state, you implicitly advocate what it becomes.

You may not realize it. You may not wish it to be that way. But that is the net.

I have to disagree with you. Just because, historically speaking, government (in its broadest sense) has failed the people, doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. I would argue that the rule of law is a by-product of man, therefore, it is not the fault or flaw of the rule of law, rather, the flaw/fault of man. This puts us back at square one.

What you seem to suggest is that if one believes that the invention of the plane is good, they implicitly support the use of planes for military purposes, i.e. dropping bombs on people/drones.

That would be an unfair statement to make.

I understand your perspective, and there is a side of me that wants to agree with you, because I am skeptical of government. However, I am just as skeptical of individuals as I am of government. There has to be a consistency.

My overall point is that there is no absolute. Is the US Constitution perfect? No, but it's pretty damn close. As close as humans have ever come to creating a perfect set of laws in order to protect man and his Rights.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Saying that those who advocate statelessness make no such allowance makes for a contradiction. If there is no allowance then there is a ban; to have such a ban is to in essence have a state. If the ban is enforced, then there is allowance for what they band - contradiction. If it is not enforced, then there is allowance by virtue of the lack of enforcement - still a contradiction.

Advocates of statelessness do not argue on behalf of the existence of a coercive/violent entity in society. Others may wish to do so, but we anarchists (to be succinct) who are logically consistent do not.

I'm using something for the purpose of communication. For the purposes of distinguishing between who socialism and anarchism give priority to, I'm going to say "the collective" and "the indvidual," to identify these entities in my arguments (respectively).

Yes, but what you're trying to distinguish is between something which exists and something which does not exist.

The individual has will, substance, thought, emotion, etc. The rhetorical "collective" does not. Why would you advocate giving priority to something which does not exist in any meaningful sense? More to the point, why would you advocate against that which so clearly does exist, even if only marginally, in favor of something that does not?

I'm not going to argue with that, but my question still stands - how can anarchism be feasible (while society is still subject to scarcity)?

And I replied that anarchism is no more or less feasible than the state.

In the mean time, though, maybe the only recourse is to find solutions for getting and preserving that equilibrium.

You have to demonstrate that the state is more capable of providing this equilibrium than statelessness, again granting that there is any utility to an equilibrium between individuals, which exist, and the "collective', which does not. Now, protecting the rights of individuals from the encroachments of other individuals, which seems to be what you're seeking, is what the concern should be. And again, it has been shown that the state does not do that, and in fact CANNOT do that.

 

[amy31416]

Anarchy will only "work" if people are exceptionally moral.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I have to disagree with you. Just because, historically speaking, government (in its broadest sense) has failed the people, doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. I would argue that the rule of law is a by-product of man, therefore, it is not the fault or flaw of the rule of law, rather, the flaw/fault of man. This puts us back at square one.

What you seem to suggest is that if one believes that the invention of the plane is good, they implicitly support the use of planes for military purposes, i.e. dropping bombs on people/drones.

Not at all. The essence of an airplane is not warmaking. It's flight.

The state, however, IS a monopoly on physical and coercive violence within a particular geographic region. The state CANNOT exist without at least having the authority to violate the sovereignty of the individuals over which it claims dominion.

That has never really been in dispute, philosophically. Generally, the discussion hinges on whether there is a utilitarian argument for the state.

That would be an unfair statement to make.

I understand your perspective, and there is a side of me that wants to agree with you, because I am skeptical of government. However, I am just as skeptical of individuals as I am of government. There has to be a consistency.

Like the "collective", government does not exist. "Government" is just a group of individuals who've claimed special status within society to enact rules and penalties for violating those rules under threat of violence.

My overall point is that there is no absolute. Is the US Constitution perfect? No, but it's pretty damn close. As close as humans have ever come to creating a perfect set of laws in order to protect man and his Rights.

I agree, and yet here we are a scant 220 years later, with a "Code of Federal Regulations" which would fill a small community library, countless tax codes, permits, agencies, wars, laws, etc., that would make most open dictatorships blush.

The point is, the state is no more or less feasible than statelessness. What matters is the logical consistency of what we advocate.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Anarchy will only "work" if people are exceptionally moral.

Same goes for the state.

 

[otherone]

Anarchy will only "work" if people are exceptionally moral.

If the people wanted Anarchy there would be Anarchy. The people want a state. Morality is not the issue.

 

[TheTexan]

Anarchy will only "work" if people are exceptionally moral.

That is true for any political system though.

I would say that an anarchist system is more conducive to building a moral society. Morality is more easily fostered in a productive society, and people would be more willing to donate their money, because it wasnt stolen from them as "forced charity."

If morality of the people is the most important factor in deciding if a political system would "work" it makes sense to advocate a system that is itself morally sound

 

[amy31416]

Same goes for the state.

Yep. I realized long ago that no political structure or non-structure will work without morality.

If the people wanted Anarchy there would be Anarchy. The people want a state. Morality is not the issue.

That has nothing to do with what I said, even though it's true.

 

[amy31416]

Same goes for the state.

Yep. I realized long ago that no political structure or non-structure will work without morality.

If the people wanted Anarchy there would be Anarchy. The people want a state. Morality is not the issue.

That has nothing to do with what I said, even though it's true.

 

[No Free Beer]

Not at all. The essence of an airplane is not warmaking. It's flight.

The state, however, IS a monopoly on physical and coercive violence within a particular geographic region. The state CANNOT exist without at least having the authority to violate the sovereignty of the individuals over which it claims dominion.

Fair point. However, you are equating the state to automatic violence. I would suggest that man can create a state, which defends the Rights of the individuals/citizens without giving the government arbitrary power. Unfortunately, our Constitution wasn't specific enough, thus has failed.

Like the "collective", government does not exist. "Government" is just a group of individuals who've claimed special status within society to enact rules and penalties for violating those rules under threat of violence.

I think that this is too much of an absolute. As I stated above, I believe man can create a rule of law, where the Rights of the people are defended. This means that government is there to protect contract rights, property rights, individual rights, and even sovereign rights (I don't know whether I would call defending the homeland as a right), just as an individual protects his property from another individual---intruder. I mentioned earlier, government is a by-product of man; a creation from man, not the other way around.

[/QUOTE]I agree, and yet here we are a scant 220 years later, with a "Code of Federal Regulations" which would fill a small community library, countless tax codes, permits, agencies, wars, laws, etc., that would make most open dictatorships blush.

The point is, the state is no more or less feasible than statelessness. What matters is the logical consistency of what we advocate.[/QUOTE]

I cannot dispute this statement as a whole, but I would say that the regulations that have been created since our founding, have not been a failure of our rule of law as much as a failure of man. There is no power given in our constitution allowing for all these rules/regulations (EPA - Exc. Order - Nixon), so I would argue that it wasn't so much the laws fault, rather the individuals in power.

But, I get your point overall, though.

 

[Quark]

A few interesting quotes from Mr. Paine's Common Sense.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but Heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other: and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

Some convenient tree will afford them a State House, under the branches of which the whole Colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of Regulations and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man by natural right will have a seat.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

The question, in my opinion is flawed. As far as I can observe in my 61 years existence, THERE IS NO STATE. We have and always will live in anarchy. In anarchy, you have no "rules" you only have groups of people who band together to force the will of their "leader" on the masses. In anarchy, it's the "leader" of the largest group who directs his minions to attack any opposing group and tries to kill or incapacitate as many as he can so that his numbers are greater. In anarchy, you have your minions steal the productivity of the weaker members of the planet to increase your own wealth and power. In anarchy there is no LEGITIMATE power, only the force of arms.

Some of you will say "But we have rules!!". I say where? "The Constitution"?? "Civil Rules of Procedure"?? "Rules of Military Engagement"? "The Bible"? BULL !!! Those are simply the APPEARANCE of rules to keep the masses ignorant. The masses have to be kept in the dark. They need to THINK there are some rules backed by some "authority" so they will not rise up and rightfully take back their liberty. EVERY rule you can cite, I can find multiple examples of where the "gang of thugs in charge" have violated with impunity. NO ONE has the power to make them follow their own rules (because they don't apply to "them").

No, we already live in anarchy and the only way to live free is to LIVE FREE and ignore the thugs. If they attack, you are morally justified in defending yourself. If even 15% of the people would realize this simple truth, they would not have the numbers to overcome the NATURAL (and I would say God-granted) right to resist them. If the resistance is large enough, they vanish in a puff of smoke and the little man comes out from behind the curtain. We see him for who is is, just another man like us.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Advocates of statelessness do not argue on behalf of the existence of a coercive/violent entity in society.

Yes, they do argue on behalf of it (implicitly or by omission), necessarily; I proved in my rebuttal by virtue of of showing that the contrary is a contradiction.

Others may wish to do so, but we anarchists (to be succinct) who are logically consistent do not.

I have yet to see how a logically consistent anarchist can exist.

Yes, but what you're trying to distinguish is between something which exists and something which does not exist.

Do individuals exist? If they do, then so does the collective - by definition.

The individual has will, substance, thought, emotion, etc. The rhetorical "collective" does not.

The collective is made up of mutiple wills, substances, thoughts, emotions, etc. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, in other words the collective is greater than the sum of its individuals; hence, there is more will, substance, thought, emotion, etc. from the collective than there is for the individual, even if you divided it by the number of individuals in question.

Why would you advocate giving priority to something which does not exist in any meaningful sense? More to the point, why would you advocate against that which so clearly does exist, even if only marginally, in favor of something that does not?

You are asking me a question that consists of a premise with which I do not agree.

And I replied that anarchism is no more or less feasible than the state.

Well, that's false; otherwise, why is it that states exist everywhere and statelessness exists nowhere?

You have to demonstrate that the state is more capable of providing this equilibrium than statelessness, again granting that there is any utility to an equilibrium between individuals, which exist, and the "collective', which does not.

Why? How is that going to convince me that anarchism is feasible? I don't have a problem with the claim that anarchism is more capable of providing that equilibrium than the state, as long as anarchism is feasible. That's the issue to me, not whether or not the state is more capable of doing so.

Now, protecting the rights of individuals from the encroachments of other individuals, which seems to be what you're seeking, is what the concern should be.

It is what I'm seeking; it is my concern. What is an encroachment and what does it matter in a society of anarchism? In other words, how can rights exist without the existence of the state?

And again, it has been shown that the state does not do that, and in fact CANNOT do that.

What has been shown is that states can and do exist, and anarchy cannot seem to exist. What I seek still has yet to be provided to me - I have still not yet been enlightened as to how anarchism is feasible.

 

[Danan]

Yes, they do argue on behalf of it (implicitly or by omission), necessarily; I proved in my rebuttal by virtue of of showing that the contrary is a contradiction.

You basically claimed that advocating against the initiation of aggression is aggression in itself...

That wouldn't seem to me to be the logical conclusion. With the state, you've already granted that it is acceptable to organize a gang and impose physical and coercive violence upon society. Those who advocate statelessness make no such allowance.

Saying that those who advocate statelessness make no such allowance makes for a contradiction. If there is no allowance then there is a ban; to have such a ban is to in essence have a state. If the ban is enforced, then there is allowance for what they band - contradiction. If it is not enforced, then there is allowance by virtue of the lack of enforcement - still a contradiction.

A "ban" on physical and coercive violence against my property, is not to aggress against others. Punching someone who attacked me is not initiating coercion on the attacker.

Even if you are right and that ideal can't be enforced, it still wouldn't mean they "advocate by virtue of the lack of enforcement". That's like arguing that pacifists are advocating for war because they don't defend themselves. That's no contradiction, but a non-sensical argument.

That being said, anarcho-capitalists aren't pacifists, and don't deny anyone the right to defend themselves. They are against the initiation of violence against other's property, not against all forms of violence. A defense agency enforcing property rights would not be against anarchistic/libertarian principles at all, as long as it is funded voluntarily and doesn't initiate force against others.

Government is not defined by having the monopoly on force. Everybody is allowed to use force in defense situation, even under today's laws. It is rather defined as having the monopoly on the initiation of force. Every institution - and only every institution - that claims to have and executes this power, violates anarcho-capitalistic principles.

 

[Danan]

The collective is made up of mutiple wills, substances, thoughts, emotions, etc. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, in other words the collective is greater than the sum of its individuals; hence, there is more will, substance, thought, emotion, etc. from the collective than there is for the individual, even if you divided it by the number of individuals in question.

I'd like to see that math.

Why? How is that going to convince me that anarchism is feasible? I don't have a problem with the claim that anarchism is more capable of providing that equilibrium than the state, as long as anarchism is feasible. That's the issue to me, not whether or not the state is more capable of doing so.

"Abolishing slavery is not feasible. It might be morally consistent, but who would do all the work? Without slavery even the slaves would have nothing to eat. Every nation uses slaves." - some guy 2000 years ago

Just because there is no officially stateless territory today doesn't mean it can't exist. There is also no small government that doesn't consistently violate individual rights around the world, and there never has been for a longer period of time (there were better periods, like in the early US, and worse, but it was never ideal).

If you believe that the non-existence of a perfect (or at least good) anarcho-capitalist society proves that it's impossible, then why is the non-existence of good government not sufficient to throw that idea into the trash can? And even if anarchy wasn't sustainable, what's the worst outcome? A state emerges that doesn't respect individual rights? Well, historically the same thing happened to every limited government as well.

 

[erowe1]

What's to stop groups from rising up, imposing states on society (based predominantly on geographical parameters)?

IMHO, nothing.

Follow up question for the statists. Let's say what you described here happened. Would there be anything wrong with it? If your answer is yes, you might be an anarchist.

 

[Neil Desmond]

The question, in my opinion is flawed. As far as I can observe in my 61 years existence, THERE IS NO STATE. We have and always will live in anarchy. In anarchy, you have no "rules" you only have groups of people who band together to force the will of their "leader" on the masses. In anarchy, it's the "leader" of the largest group who directs his minions to attack any opposing group and tries to kill or incapacitate as many as he can so that his numbers are greater. In anarchy, you have your minions steal the productivity of the weaker members of the planet to increase your own wealth and power. In anarchy there is no LEGITIMATE power, only the force of arms.

Some of you will say "But we have rules!!". I say where? "The Constitution"?? "Civil Rules of Procedure"?? "Rules of Military Engagement"? "The Bible"? BULL !!! Those are simply the APPEARANCE of rules to keep the masses ignorant. The masses have to be kept in the dark. They need to THINK there are some rules backed by some "authority" so they will not rise up and rightfully take back their liberty. EVERY rule you can cite, I can find multiple examples of where the "gang of thugs in charge" have violated with impunity. NO ONE has the power to make them follow their own rules (because they don't apply to "them").

No, we already live in anarchy and the only way to live free is to LIVE FREE and ignore the thugs. If they attack, you are morally justified in defending yourself. If even 15% of the people would realize this simple truth, they would not have the numbers to overcome the NATURAL (and I would say God-granted) right to resist them. If the resistance is large enough, they vanish in a puff of smoke and the little man comes out from behind the curtain. We see him for who is is, just another man like us.

Now let's suppose all this happens; then what? What are tired, beat up, war-weary people supposed to do or think when new bands of "thugs" comes along, oppress them, eliminate what's left of those who still want to fight, impose heavy taxes, and tell them "no bill of rights this time around"?

I'm wondering how many people have thought this through?

 

[erowe1]

Now let's suppose all this happens; then what? What are tired, beat up, war-weary people supposed to do or think when new bands of "thugs" comes along, oppress them, eliminate what's left of those who still want to fight, impose heavy taxes, and tell them "no bill of rights this time around"?

I'm wondering how many people have thought this through?

Practically speaking, every state has to indulge its subjects in various ways to make them believe they're better off with it than without it. The Bill of Rights is part of what the regime in DC uses, or at least it used to be. If not for that, it would be something else. A state that fails to make its subjects content assures its own destruction. I think this is Machiavelli in a nutshell.

 

[tod evans]

Here's a link to a well written novel you might find thought provoking....

http://misc.weedwhacker.org/misc/lights_out.pdf