Please Convince Me of the Practical Application of Anarchy!

[Xerographica]

1. How will we go from the oppressive State we have in America now, to Anarchy? (<---- No Hollywood/Fairy-Tale shit, be realistic)

So far I haven't noticed any anarchists on here...so I guess you're referring to the anarcho-capitalists. Anarcho-capitalists (ACs) believe that the private sector can provide all goods better than the public sector can. We can arrive at anarcho-capitalism simply by allowing tax payers to withhold funding from the government organizations that they believe to be redundant. Of course, it will be up to the ACs to ensure that there are private organizations that can out-compete every single government organization.

2. How long do you suppose it will take?

How long does survival of the fittest take? Like I mentioned, it will be up to the ACs. If they do not form a non-profit organization that offers legitimate and effective national defense then the Department of Defense will always be the fittest (aka only) organization to offer national defense. As soon as there is a non-profit organization that kicks terrorist butt or halts genocide in its tracks...then I would be happy to help fund its mission. If they ever abused their power in any way then I would be the first to withdraw my financial support.

3. If you are waiting for the State to be overthrown by the people ... what makes you think the gangs/mobs won't grab power? The National Guard?

Errrr...this is an argument against Anarchy. Don't be intellectually lazy and build up a strawman to attack. Go for a real target...anarcho-capitalism. Check out David Friedman's blog.

4. What's to stop the elite and bankers from buying people out?

Errr...what's to stop them from buying people out now? The more you consolidate the power the easier it is to buy people out. When you have a king you just have to turn to one person. When you have congress it's a little more difficult but obviously not impossible. When you have millions of tax payers that you're trying to buy out...well...it's exponentially better than our current situation.

I mean, it's fun to debate this stuff but why not just put it to the test? Pragmatarianism is a completely no risk approach that would allow us to finally decide who's been right all along.

 

[Wesker1982]

Anyhow, it's been discussed, AD NAUSEUM, in any one of the multiple threads that offends you so much. It's apparent that you're simply too fussed to bother reading them.

Yep ^^^^^

Help Me Understand Anarcho-Capitalism

State or Private Law Society? pt1

State or Private Law Society? pt2

State or Private Law Society? pt3

The answers to 3. and 4. are there. Also read here Anarchy,Law, and Security for more.

For 1., Anarchy needs to be defined. I don't want to reply to a strawman.

For 2., about as long as it will take to achieve Minarchy. Once a truly limited government is achieved (through education), Voluntaryism will soon follow.

I don't know what kind of future you are imagining where you guys are successful enough to educate people on the principles of a limited government, while these same people simultaneously have no respect for property rights (or a desire to make deeds public, etc.).

If you ever convince enough people to embrace minarchism, how are you going to make the claim that all of these people (who you have convinced that libertarianism at least on a minarchist scale is desirable) would not respect property rights, and would not produce a voluntary service to make land deeds public? This is bordering doublethink.

To say that a population is liberty oriented enough to achieve limited government but then claim that these very same people (once a state of limited government is achieved) are too evil or ignorant to produce a means to voluntarily recognize land deeds, does not follow.

If you can educate enough people to achieve minarchy, how can one conclude that this same population would be incapable of voluntary production of anything?

If we ever achieved a limited government, what will be the excuse? Most people are too evil and ignorant? But this could not be the case, proven by the fact that a limited government was achieved in the first place.

 

[WilliamC]

This is the only way I see it coming about.



Can't say when it will happen though.

 

[josh b]

Yep ^^^^^

Help Me Understand Anarcho-Capitalism

State or Private Law Society? pt1

State or Private Law Society? pt2

State or Private Law Society? pt3

Wow, there's even more old threads on this topic. Nobody on either side learned anything either. It just goes on and on and on...

Wesker gets rep for having the patience to respond to this so often and not losing his cool.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Osan:

Your reply is eloquent, rich, and in-depth.

I will summarize in my own words what I have gathered from your response:

Anarchy will not work.

You are an honest individual, and may you carry on discussing the philosophical side of Anarchy.

I just hope others can learn from your response, namely that while debating us who advocate the State, they will keep in mind that their "solution" is something to talk and think about, but not something that can ever actually happen.

Hanns-Hoppe was a thinker, but it is truly depressing that none of his ideals will ever come to fruition.

With that said, when the Anarchists (some of them) try to tell me how to live, I will take it with a dreamy grain of salt.

After following the anarchist-minarchist debates for several months, neither side has a long-term, practical solution, but the anarchists have better arguments.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Just like angry atheists who taunt the religious, I don't understand why any anarchist would ever respond to this. It is obvious that in a perfect world with only wonderful people, that anarchy is the only legitimate mode to exist, however, a perfect world does not exist and will never be.

Many people here think that anarchists are some sort of repulsive creatures who exist to derail a legitimate campaign and loot stores, but I have this weird hunch that many of them just keep to themselves, in accordance with their philosophy. Maybe they even support Ron Paul because he's a step in the right direction.

That argument can apply to either side of this seemingly endless debate, though.

 

[Wesker1982]

Wow, there's even more old threads on this topic. Nobody on either side learned anything either. It just goes on and on and on...

There was another good one, "I'm Thinking of Becoming an Anarchist", it was sent down the memory hole though. It was the thread that turned me from lurker/very infrequent poster, to someone who posts at least semi-frequently. Witnessing so many fallacies and misconceptions encouraged me to post.

Wesker gets rep for having the patience to respond to this so often and not losing his cool.

Thanks

If I was trying to convince some of the more close-minded individuals, I probably would go crazy lol. Engaging in conversation with them gives me valuable experience that helps prepare me to convince others. Spectators who might be interested also benefit as well.

 

[fisharmor]

I will answer, specifically because I've typed all this out before. Though not in abundance, so it's understandable if it was missed.

1. How will we go from the oppressive State we have in America now, to Anarchy?

Vacuum.

The most recent example I can find is Kowloon Walled City, which was several blocks of downtown Hong Kong.
There was some sort of paperwork snafu in the early 20th century, where Britain refused to take over management of Kowloon Walled Fortress.
Hong Kong also refused to accept management of it. So for the better part of a century, it was the closest thing to a stateless society that I've heard of.
It is not a complete example. For instance, Hong Kong still delivered mail there, and there were periodic sweeps of the place by law enforcement.
It is also indicative of much of what anti-anarchists would describe as the reasons not to do it. Prostitution, drugs, restaurants that specialized in dog meat.
It requires one to read between the lines. It was 14 stories tall, and had not a single enforced building code.
It was the most densely populated patch of Earth then and probably ever and in perpetuity, yet residents had only to walk 2-3 blocks in any direction to escape it - so conditions could not possibly have been that dire.

I do realize that the context is America. I submit that the answer is the same. Vacuum.
Where the state can not extend its power, anarcho-capitalism will fill the vacuum.
The state doesn't even have to disappear: it certainly didn't in Hong Kong (and came back later for vengeance, which is why KWC doesn't exist now).
All it has to do is lose the power to beat, rob, imprison, and murder its subjects, and the rest will take care of itself.

How will that manifest itself? I'm not sure. I will state that the reason I support RP and tell others about his ideas is because all of his ideas suck a little more air out of the state's lungs - they create a little more vacuum. I don't support him because I am a minarchist pushing minarchist ideas: I support him because I see this as part of the transition plan to a stateless society. If society can accept minarchism, in the face of a century of mandatory brainwashing and every element of their lives - including in a lot of cases their religion - exacerbating their Stockholm Syndrome to the state, if they can accept that, then we can move on to the end goal.

2. How long do you suppose it will take?

Barring catastrophe and astronomical luck, it will take a long time. I look at it the same way I look at getting RP elected. Four years ago, it was never going to happen. Today, it's not so crazy an idea. It all depends on how many of the people who would otherwise support this idea, but continually nay-say it, can get over the notion that they can only support what is possible. It's possible, very possible, if you all stop telling us how impossible it is.
It starts with you.

3. If you are waiting for the State to be overthrown by the people ... what makes you think the gangs/mobs won't grab power? The National Guard?

Was KWC a criminal hell-hole? Yes, initially. An AC society - one densely populated - likely would be as well, at least initially. It would take society time to overcome its Stockholm Syndrome - it would take time for us to realize that we are no longer captives, that we are the ones in danger, and that it is only we who can do something about overlords who do not enjoy state protection.

Every year we get at least one example of a society that overthrows its violent monopoly. This year we got lots of examples. Given that people are eventually willing to lose everything to rid themselves of a corrupt state, why is it so unreasonable to assume they would do this to a crime lord?
When a market develops for order, people will devise means to fill consumer demand.

The question you should be asking is this: will the new entity enjoy the same monopoly claim, the same inviolate nature as the state? If it's gangs and mobs (other than the state, that is) then the answer is no. All it takes is for people to voluntarily band together to do something about it.

Again, this is why I'm on board here. If we can convince society that even a "legitimate" state has no business saying what voluntary transactions can take place, then how likely is it that illegitimate authorities will enjoy that power?

4. What's to stop the elite and bankers from buying people out?

Explain how this isn't the case right here, right now, and I will entertain the question. People instinctively know that fractional reserve banking and intentional currency debasement are dirty pool. It takes money, talent, and time to convince them it isn't.

Bonus: Are you just here to troll around and debate Utopian ideals, yet have absolutely no idea how/if Anarchy will ever actually work???
Because I do NOT see any discussions on this shit actually working.

There are a lot of blanks to fill in, sure.
However, I submit to you that we A/C's around here know more about how historical anarchies have "worked" than most US citizens know about how their own supposedly legitimate governments work.
Yet they continue to have faith in their governments.
This puts us no worse off than the average citizen - I think it puts us one better, since we have to understand something about two systems - yet the average citizen isn't getting decried here every day, for some reason.

I would add, however, that your question gets asked on this forum, a lot, only with different variations.
How would the roads work if the state didn't run them?
How would people be sure they weren't getting ripped off at the store if the state didn't watch storeowners?
Wouldn't we all be brushing our teeth with poison toothpaste if not for the FDA?
How can we be safe from terrorism without invading a bunch of third parties?

The answer is always the same: the state isn't just not doing what it says it's doing, in most cases it's the entity that's fucking things up in the first place.
We've just made the leap to the end of that line of reasoning. If we can't find a single instance of it helping, and only instances where it's hurting, then let's try something else.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

For the purposes of this question, what does "anarchy" mean?

Is it the common definition? Let's look at the actually roots of the word. It clearly translates to "without government (to prevent people from breaking windows, looting, burning, beating and raping)". That must all be in there somewhere.

Please stop equating anarchy to self-government. The two ideas do not float in the same tub. Thanks,.

Language is such a hindrance to communication.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Great post, fa.

Every year we get at least one example of a society that overthrows its violent monopoly. This year we got lots of examples. Given that people are eventually willing to lose everything to rid themselves of a corrupt state, why is it so unreasonable to assume they would do this to a crime lord?
When a market develops for order, people will devise means to fill consumer demand.

There's the rub. Most people consider it "illegitimate" or even criminal to overthrow the present gang of criminal thugs we refer to as 'the state', therefore making revolution against tyrannical government less common than it should be - we're well past the "abuses" the founders enumerated before they went into open revolt, yet "we" believe that because every couple years we all get to vote, casting off the D.C. tyranny is "extremist". Without the veneer of legitimacy, a brutish private gang would be subject to constant opposition.

 

[osan]

There's the rub. Most people consider it "illegitimate" or even criminal to overthrow the present gang of criminal thugs we refer to as 'the state

It is criminal... unless you win.

...we're well past the "abuses" the founders enumerated before they went into open revolt, yet "we" believe that because every couple years we all get to vote, casting off the D.C. tyranny is "extremist". Without the veneer of legitimacy, a brutish private gang would be subject to constant opposition.

People tolerate a lot. It is both a great strength and a tremendous failing.

I believe in small communities of hideously well armed people who simply refuse to be tread upon. I think that is the only reasonable prospect for salvation that stands before us. Large populations take on a statistical character emphasizing most of the worst human qualities. I do not know why this is the case, but I have noticed that it bears an uncannily strong resemblance to entropy.

 

[ClayTrainor]

It is obvious that in a perfect world with only wonderful people, that anarchy is the only legitimate mode to exist, however, a perfect world does not exist and will never be.

Nature is in a constant state of Anarchy. There are no other modes of existence.

There are constant Natural Laws which emerge a Spontaneous Order, but there are no Central Ruler(s)/Intelligent Designer(s) who planned and created everything in existence.

i.e. Evolution of life, geology, stars, etc. occur through a spontaneous order, which emerge out of Natural Laws. There are no intelligent designers and central planners dictating all of these actions.

We can't get out of Anarchy. It's just reality.

With regards to society, we tend to form organizations of people that we call “governments”. It is commonly believed that where you establish a Government you don't have anarchy, but is this true? I recommend pondering that one that for a while.