Anarchists, question for you...

[ZENemy]

Ism this, ism that, ist this and ist that.

Personal responsibility: teach this to our kids and government will dissolve in a few generations.

I need nothing, I do my own dental work, I am my own doctor, I know how to garden and feed myself, protect myself and I am proficient in trade like construction, IT and automotive. If there were more people aiming for the kind of personal responsibility my mom taught me, there would be very little room for ISM's or government (read: Govern-mental)

 

[Neil Desmond]

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.

As long as there's scarcity, I'm doubtful things will change.

 

[Neil Desmond]

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.

Well if we do have anarchy, then advocates of anarchism are done; they already have what they advocate. What does that say about it?

 

[erowe1]

Well if we do have anarchy, then advocates of anarchism are done; they already have what they advocate. What does that say about it?

I don't think that's where Christian Anarchist was coming from. From his point of view, anarchy isn't something to advocate or try to bring about. It simply is what is. Any convictions about what to advocate need to comport with this recognition there exist no people with the right to rule over other people (i.e. there exist no states).

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I don't think that's where Christian Anarchist was coming from. From his point of view, anarchy isn't something to advocate or try to bring about. It simply is what is. Any convictions about what to advocate need to comport with this recognition there exist no people with the right to rule over other people (i.e. there exist no states).

And CA is correct in that regard.

What should be challenged, as he indicated in his post, is the legitimacy of the state.

 

[Neil Desmond]

So the real question is what is to stop others from violating your rights.

No, it's more like what is there to prevent an anarchist society from being consumed by a less desirable form of the state than what we have now.

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?

I don't know about an "omnipotent state" & it's not like there's necessarily mutual exclusivity between an individual and the state when it comes to security accommodations. They can both co-exist; we have that and the right to it right now.

 

[PreDeadMan]

How can a small minority of people know what is best for everyone within a particular geographical area? Free people make their own decisions. The government is a decrepit old outdated idea like slavery. I'd rather deal with a free society with a few bad apples than the few bad apples in a government system having a monopoly of force over everyone with the ability to tax, brainwash the kids, start wars, put people into debt, etc.

 

[Neil Desmond]

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?

Oh, sorry if it wasn't clear that the answer was an emphatic "yes." The answer is YES, and emphatic one.

 

[The Gold Standard]

An anarchist society could work if enough people were willing to force any wanna-be state out.

This sounds like a good thing to say, but it doesn't really mean anything. In a stateless society, what is an up-and-coming state going to do? Send tax collectors to my door only to be met with a rifle in their face? How are they going to pay their mercenaries? Print their own money? Who would accept it? And could they come up with enough money in a true free market economy to compete with the security agencies and insurance companies that would defend my property to defend their bottom lines?

 

[erowe1]

Oh, sorry if it wasn't clear that the answer was an emphatic "yes." The answer is YES, and emphatic one.

Then I don't see how you can say you're not an anarchist.

 

[CCTelander]

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?

This short, concise essay by Bob Murphy answers many of your objections.

http://www.mises.org/daily/1855

 

[Neil Desmond]

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.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, but a new state is not statelessness.

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?

Yes, there are some forms of a state I find very unappealing and unacceptable, and there are some (a very small handful) of versions of state that I can bear (such as one with Ron Paul as the helm).

First, if there is a tax at all then the only fair tax is a flat tax. It should be low, such as 1% - at that rate it's simple to calculate, just move the decimal over 2 places & you're done (send it in). I also think that only states (as opposed to the federal govt.) ought to be collecting taxes from individuals or from sales tax. The states & territories ought to pay "dues" to the federal government, and it can also have tariffs.

 

[Neil Desmond]

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.

Me too.

 

[erowe1]

I also think that only states (as opposed to the federal govt.) ought to be collecting taxes from individuals or from sales tax.

But in post #68 you said that you believed this would be wrong.

 

[awake]

The answer to your question is this: What would you do if an individual came up to you, said I am going to hit you to the point of unconsciousness and take you to be thier slave? You would do as they wanted anytime, in every way for the remainder of your life. What would you do?

Would you violently defend yourself? Join with others to do the same? See, you are already an anarchist by your very nature. Otherwise you would let the next person who wants to hurt, steal or kidnap you to do so with out any claim to defense. State Police not withstanding.

If 5000 or 500 million want to live in a non state territory, then they have the right as individuals and as a group to violently throw out or throw off any violent aggressors from their properties.

The American revolution was one such example of just war. That action revealed a scientific discovery: The freer a society, the more wealthy and progressive it becomes. Peaceful human civilization and limitless wondrous experiences bound forward.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Then I don't see how you can say you're not an anarchist.

Well, I do & I showed why in the 1st response.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

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?

If 15% of "the People" KNOW the truth that the "goons" do not have authority, those 15% will continue to resist. It is my contention that that is all it will take to cause all attempts at "control" fail. Maybe it will take 20%. Wherever the tipping point is, once it's reached I don't think we will ever have to deal with a "ruling class" again because too many of the people will no longer stand by and allow themselves to be manipulated.

 

[Neil Desmond]

This short, concise essay by Bob Murphy answers many of your objections.

http://www.mises.org/daily/1855

I read about half; seems interesting. I'll re-read it and look for how it addresses certain concerns some other time (when I'm not under so much fatigue from responding on this thread). Thanks for the link.

 

[Neil Desmond]

But in post #68 you said that you believed this would be wrong.

No, they're 2 different questions.

 

[awake]

People also make the assumption that Anarchism in the capitalist sense would be a world with out violence. It would be far from it, the violence would be directed at aggressors to life and property only. Any politician claiming the right of "taxation" would be a potential thief to be dealt with by individual or agency.