Anarchists, question for you...

[A Son of Liberty]

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.

That isn't sensical. To say, "the sky is blue", is not the same as to say, "the sky is blue and if you say it is green I will beat you to death". What you're saying doesn't make any sense.

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

All that requires is for the anarchist to not advocate for violence. I'm a logically consistent anarchist.

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

Again, not in the same sense that individuals exist. This is self-evident.

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.


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

You better check your premises.

The collective cannot "think", or "feel", nor can anyone claim to do so without destroying the individual.

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

Ubiquity is no proof of feasibility.

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.


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?

You're talking in circles. You don't preserve rights by destroying them.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

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?

The philosophy is very well thought out and has been defended thoroughly. Again, check out Rothbard.

 

[erowe1]

Ubiquity is no proof of feasibility.

How could something be ubiquitous if it isn't feasible?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

As Danan rightly pointed out, I should have defined and used "initiation of violence" each time I refer to the state's monopoly...

Very well said, Danan.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

How could something be ubiquitous if it isn't feasible?

I worded that poorly. I should have said that just because something isn't ubiquitous does not mean that it isn't feasible. I was referring to statelessness.

 

[belian78]

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?

How many times are people going to band together under another 'leader'? When will they finally say, 'you know what, I'm pretty much done with the pillaging. I'm going to set up shop and make a living for myself, have fun with storming your castles'? I'm of mind to say that once it's been shown that a free people will fight for their freedom, every time it is necessary, not only will tyrants not have the funding for their escapades but they will not have the human resources either.

 

[Neil Desmond]

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

No, I did not; this is a misrepresentation of what I stated.

A "ban" on physical and coercive violence against my property, is not to aggress against others.

A ban on physical and coercive violence is a ban on aggression as well as all other forms of physical and coercive violence; aggression is something specific.

What is property, by the way? Does such a thing exist without the existence of the state?

Punching someone who attacked me is not initiating coercion on the attacker.

I never said it was.

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".

Let's have a counterexample to prove this - show me one.

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.

No, that's semantics with a touch of spin. Actions (or inactions) speak louder than words. It makes no difference whether you're arguing that pacifists are arguing for war or not; the outcome is the same either way.

That being said, anarcho-capitalists aren't pacifists,

I don't see the difference (outcome-wise).

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.

Aside from the premise that rights exist in any form of anarchism, I understand that much. What I don't understand is, if they want anarchism to perpetuate, how are they going to see to it that everyone abides by the non-aggression principle. Do advocates of anarchism want a society of anarchism that's stable, sustainable, and perpetual? Or, do they just not care about that? Seems like they either don't care, or they don't intend on abiding by the non-aggression principle themselves.

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.

Rights do not exist with anarchism. It's possible that no one in society will want to voluntarily fund a defense agency, which puts feasibility into question. It's also possible that the individuals in charge or in control of the defense agency might decide they no longer feel like abiding by the non-aggression principle and become dictators; that's just another problem to contend with on top of the basic feasibility dilemma.

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.

I'm not looking for an explanation on what violates any form of anarchist principles, I'm just looking for enlightenment on how anarchism can be feasible; that's all.

 

[erowe1]

I'm not looking for an explanation on what violates any form of anarchist principles, I'm just looking for enlightenment on how anarchism can be feasible; that's all.

I don't think you answered Christian Anarchist's explanation, which was that anarchy is what already exists everywhere now. So it's not a question of feasibility.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

 

[Neil Desmond]

I'd like to see that math.

Ok, so what happens is that for instance if you have one person working in a factory, this individual will be able to achieve a rate of producing X widgets per hour. On the other hand, if you have say 20 people working in that same factory, it will be able to produce more than 20X widgets per hour, because of efficiency factors.

20X+1 is more than 20X. Let's say X = 10; 20X = 20(10) = 200, and 20X+1 = 201. 201 > 200. Q.E.D.

Just because there is no officially stateless territory today doesn't mean it can't exist.

That's fine; I just want to know how it would be feasible.

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.

I never claimed that any form of anarchism is impossible. I'm even qualifying my question by adding that I specifically want to know how anarchism is feasible given the existence of scarcity. In other words, I'm not challenging the feasibility of anarchism for a society with no scarcity.

 

[The Gold Standard]

What's to stop groups from rising up, imposing states on society (based predominantly on geographical parameters)? On top of that, what's to also prevent it from creating a form of a state that may be far worse than what we have here in the US (i.e., one without a Bill of Rights, etc.)?

So the real question is what is to stop others from violating your rights. And the answer is the same now as it would be in a stateless society. Defensive violence. Violent self defense does not violate the NAP. How is violent self defense provided now? By armed thugs serving their all powerful masters. Your property is of no consequence. How would it be provided without a state? By security companies serving their customers. Or by yourself if you wish. An omnipotent state is not the best provider of anything else, so why would it be best providing security?

 

[Neil Desmond]

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.

Well, I suppose that I'm a definition #2 "statist": http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statism?s=t

There certainly is something wrong with the advocacy of anarchism, because the implementation is bound to take a society from (phase 1) a state with fairly well-structured society and government, to (phase 2) a momentary phase of anarchism, to (phase 3) a monarchy, oligarchy, or authoritarian regimes. As someone opposed to phase 3, I'm opposed to anarchism.

 

[Neil Desmond]

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.

Perhaps; but I would imagine that a new and less savory system of government or governments would spawn right out of the rubble of such destruction.

 

[Neil Desmond]

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

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

Alright; thanks.

 

[erowe1]

There certainly is something wrong with the advocacy of anarchism

Please clarify this as it relates to my question. If the scenario you described, where a group of thugs imposed their rule on others, were to happen, would that be wrong?

 

[erowe1]

Perhaps; but I would imagine that a new and less savory system of government or governments would spawn right out of the rubble of such destruction.

If a state ends because of being too burdensome on its subjects, then it stands to reason that whatever other state takes its place and proves to be more successful, would be a less burdensome one.

More to the point, when you use the phrase "less savory," does that imply that you have some standard by which you measure different states to prove some are worse than others? If so, what would be the most savory situation possible? What level of taxation would it have, for example?

 

[Christian Liberty]

My problem with the whole "Limited government never lasts" statement is that anarchy never lasts either. But both theoretically could, if there were enough people vigilant enough to make them. An anarchist society could work if enough people were willing to force any wanna-be state out. A limited government society could work if enough people were willing to remove by force any government that crossed over those limited bounds (Whatever they may be, I'd include anything from absolute minarchism to strict constructionism in this category.)

Really what I'd be wondering is not so much "Can anarchism work". It certainly can with enough support. But is it either more desirable or easily attainable than limited government? If not, its not worth the time.

I see limited government, extremely limited government, as both more desirable and more easily attainable than no government.

 

[Czolgosz]

No system will ever work w/o a contingent of freedom fighters willing to periodically spill blood.

Disregard this factor and you're simply feng shui'ing the Titanic.

 

[Neil Desmond]

That isn't sensical. To say, "the sky is blue", is not the same as to say, "the sky is blue and if you say it is green I will beat you to death". What you're saying doesn't make any sense.



All that requires is for the anarchist to not advocate for violence. I'm a logically consistent anarchist.



Again, not in the same sense that individuals exist. This is self-evident.



You better check your premises.

The collective cannot "think", or "feel", nor can anyone claim to do so without destroying the individual.



Ubiquity is no proof of feasibility.



You're talking in circles. You don't preserve rights by destroying them.

Be "that" (i.e., all of this) as it may, I'm still not getting the "enlightenment" I seek. What is proof, evidence, explanation, (anything) that can help me see that anarchism could be feasible? That's all I really want to know.

 

[Neil Desmond]

The philosophy is very well thought out and has been defended thoroughly. Again, check out Rothbard.

Sure, I certainly do need to do that.