Question for anarchists - How would you handle national defense?

[RiseAgainst]

So anarchy is immune from the corrupting influence of human nature?

I must have missed where I said that, or maybe I just didn't say it.

Look, NO ONE is claiming anarchy is a perfect utopia where we all hold hands and sing about buying each other a coke. The simple fact is that if you believe in an individuals right to self ownership, which is the very basis for all natural rights, then any system which is based on force by it's very nature violates that right. The only thing that is compatible with self ownership and natural rights is voluntary interaction based on the non agression principle.

 

[TheTexan]

I have no problem with paying taxes as long as it goes to having my fundamental rights protected.

I have no desire to fend off strays and attackers 24/7 in an anarchist system.

Minarchism really isn't that much different from anarchism. The only difference is, in a minarchism you're born into a contract, and with anarchism, you're not. These things you want to pay taxes for, you can still do that in a voluntary society.

 

[RiseAgainst]

I have no problem with paying taxes

Good for you. You are free to do so of your own accord, however do not presume this gives you the right to stick a gun in someone elses face and force them to pay into your scheme as well.

as long as it goes to having my fundamental rights protected.

Again, you are free to voluntarily do whatever you want, but this is a load of bull. That which by the very basis of it's existence violates your rights CANNOT protect your rights.

I have no desire to fend off strays and attackers 24/7 in an anarchist system.

And I have no desire to have force initiated on me by a government, nor have it initiate force on others 'on my behalf' in a statist system. I am willing to allow you to live in your system without forcing you to partake in mine. Are you willing to offer me the same in return?

 

[otherone]

What 'force'? Cops? I don't agree to that. Victimless crime? I don't agree to that. Income tax? I don't agree to that. The purpose of government is to protect my Rights. Is this possible? I believe so...just as you believe a stateless society can remain so.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Good for you. You are free to do so of your own accord, however do not presume this gives you the right to stick a gun in someone elses face and force them to pay into your scheme as well.


Again, you are free to voluntarily do whatever you want, but this is a load of bull. That which by the very basis of it's existence violates your rights CANNOT protect your rights.


And I have no desire to have force initiated on me by a government, nor have it initiate force on others 'on my behalf' in a statist system. I am willing to allow you to live in your system without forcing you to partake in mine. Are you willing to offer me the same in return?

Voluntary government doesn't work. So, when it comes down to it, I am somewhat of a statist.

I would "initiate force" on everybody so that fundamental rights could be protected, as opposed to no rights being protected but everyone gets to keep a few tax dollars.

Not that I like that option, but I prefer it to anarchy. Anarchy is not chaos, but it becomes chaos.

There is no perfect system, minarchism allows me much freedom without chaos.

BUT I will say this: In my ideal society you could own property and secede, but if you left that property you would be bound to the law of society, without your consent.

 

[TheTexan]

Voluntary government doesn't work. So, when it comes down to it, I am somewhat of a statist.

I would "initiate force" on everybody so that fundamental rights could be protected, as opposed to no rights being protected but everyone gets to keep a few tax dollars.

Not that I like that option, but I prefer it to anarchy. Anarchy is not chaos, but it becomes chaos.

There is no perfect system, minarchism allows me much freedom without chaos.

BUT I will say this: In my ideal society you could own property and secede, but if you left that property you would be bound to the law of society, without your consent.

That's really all we ever ask. What you just said basically make it a voluntary arrangement.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That's really all we ever ask. What you just said basically make it a voluntary arrangement.

+a bunch

 

[Wesker1982]

So anarchy is immune from the corrupting influence of human nature?

The chief difficulty with this criticism is that no libertarian—except possibly those under Tolstoyan influence—has ever made such an assumption.....

 

[Cabal]

So, when it comes down to it, I am somewhat of a statist.

There is no somewhat. There is statist or not. You are a statist.

I would "initiate force" on everybody so that fundamental rights could be protected, as opposed to no rights being protected but everyone gets to keep a few tax dollars.

By initiating force you've already thrown rights out the window.

Not that I like that option, but I prefer it to anarchy. Anarchy is not chaos, but it becomes chaos.

How would you know what you'd prefer to anarchy? How would you know chaos would emerge from anarchy? What kind of anarchy are we speaking of? The devil is in the details, and you don't seem to offer any--just blanket assertions with no context or basis.

There is no perfect system

Right, so stop trying to enforce a system at all.

 

[kuckfeynes]

So why doesn't it exist?

Your mistake is failing to recognize the difference between mutually voluntary actions and force.

When I said anarchy, I figure people here know I mean market anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, which allows for plenty of mutual voluntary action. In fact it depends on it.

It doesn't exist because most people are either easily manipulated or generally apathetic. They realize these things only in crisis. Doesn't mean it will always be that way. I'll give you our odds of changing something that seems to be human nature are not great... but I don't believe anyone on this site is here for the great odds.

 

[TheTexan]

There is no somewhat. There is statist or not. You are a statist.



By initiating force you've already thrown rights out the window.



How would you know what you'd prefer to anarchy? How would you know chaos would emerge from anarchy? What kind of anarchy are we speaking of? The devil is in the details, and you don't seem to offer any--just blanket assertions with no context or basis.



Right, so stop trying to enforce a system at all.

Woah, hold your horses there cowboy. He's on our side.

In my ideal society you could own property and secede

This actually makes him a voluntaryist, even though he may not be aware of that yet.

 

[Travlyr]

Anarchy is a nomadic philosophy. There is no nation and therefore no national defense.

 

[Madison320]

Historical Examples

Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government by Thomas Whiston
The Mild, Mild West by John Tierney
An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West by Terry L. Anderson and P.J. Hill
Ireland's Success with the Free Market and Anarchism from For a New Liberty, I think.
Property Rights In Celtic Irish Law by Joseph R. Peden
Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690 by Murray Rothbard
The Jurisprudence Of Polycentric Law by Tom W. Bell (includes Historical examples of polycentric legal systems)
Law Prior to the State (Polycentric Law) by Tom W. Bell
Customary Legal Systems with Voluntary Enforcement & The Rise of Authoritarian Law by Bruce L. Benson (from The Enterprise of Law)
Voluntaryism and Protective Agencies in Historical Perspective by Carl Watner
The English Experience With Private Protection by Roderick T. Long



Anarchy in Somalia by Bob P. Murphy
Somalia: Failed State, Economic Success? by Benjamin Powell
Somali “Anarchy” Is More Orderly than Somali Government by Benjamin Powell

Thank you for answering that,

The only modern day anarchy that I see listed above is Somalia.

I wouldn't call that a success even in comparison with its neighbors. Something is wrong with your theory.

 

[Madison320]

The good news is that I consider anarchists to be on my side (minarchist). I'm confident that they don't actually believe their own BS. What I mean by that is that anarchists will work together with minarchists to reduce the scope of government, But I'm confident they'd chicken out when it comes to dismantling the court system or police department in their town.

 

[No Free Beer]

You fail to see that there wouldn't be contracts or laws to protect your rights and your property.

You also fail to see that it would turn into mob rule, very very quickly.

Welcome to democracy.

All this anarchy stuff sounds so good philosophically, but in the real world...it would NEVER work.

For anyone to say that a representative government hasn't worked, please look again.

Just because people have abused power, doesn't mean that it's the idea of law and government that is the problem, it's the people.

All of this anarchy talk is so vague and so irrational.

 

[Madison320]

You fail to see that there wouldn't be contracts or laws to protect your rights and your property.


All of this anarchy talk is so vague and so irrational.

"Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government." ... Ayn Rand

 

[Wesker1982]

I wouldn't call that a success even in comparison with its neighbors. Something is wrong with your theory.

I am assuming you didn't actually read it then.

The standard statist put-down — "If you Rothbardians like anarchy so much, why don't you move to Somalia?" — misses the point. The Rothbardian doesn't claim that the absence of a state is a sufficient condition for bliss. Rather, the Rothbardian says that however prosperous and law-abiding a society is, adding an institution of organized violence and theft will only make things worse.

I suggest actually trying to understand the philosophy before trying to critique it.

But I'm confident they'd chicken out when it comes to dismantling the court system or police department in their town.

You must be new around here. If the police and courts are not violently monopolized, it does not follow that they would therefore not be provided. It does not follow that people would not want courts and police at all.

You fail to see that there wouldn't be contracts or laws to protect your rights and your property.

In order to make this argument, you would have to demonstrate that absent of violent monopolization, people in society A who are 99% non-violent and peaceful, would all of the sudden desire no means to organize society.

You also fail to see that it would turn into mob rule, very very quickly.

Not if the State is gradually abolished through education. If people understand that the State is not necessary for law and order, then they will turn to voluntary alternatives.

Just because people have abused power, doesn't mean that it's the idea of law and government that is the problem, it's the people.

Your problem is that you are assuming law and order is the same thing as government. All of us advocate law and order, the important part is that it is not coercively monopolized.

I will break it down into two groups.

Group 1 wants law and order to be violently monopolized. As in, they want it to be provided by a group of territorial monopolists who acquire their income by physical coercion (taxation) and violently destroy any potential competition in their territory.

Group 2 desires law and order. They desire police and courts. They do not want it to be violently monopolized.

All of this anarchy talk is so vague and so irrational.

If you are purposefully ignoring all work that specifically details the rationality behind it, I guess I can see how you come to that conclusion.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?296399-Anarcho-Capitalist-Reference-List
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_and_Market (available for free online)
https://mises.org/store/Product2.aspx?ProductId=297

 

[Wesker1982]

Also, I am posting a lot of links to videos and stuff because I have typed all this stuff out before.

You should check out:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...orsed-author&p=3425413&viewfull=1#post3425413
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...orsed-author&p=3430302&viewfull=1#post3430302
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...orsed-author&p=3431569&viewfull=1#post3431569

 

[Black Flag]

Ask the Native Americans how it worked out for them.

Yeah, the same way it worked out for the National Socialist too.

Any idiotic argument for or against National Defense fails if one merely points to the failure of a particular form of defense that fails.

Clue up - every darn form of defense has failed at some point.

There does not exist a perfect defense system - so making that requirement to replace another, overly expensive, and funded by theft is dumb.

 

[Black Flag]

Voluntary government doesn't work.

You're right.
There is no such thing a voluntary non-voluntary entity of human organization.
It is self-contradictory.

I would "initiate force" on everybody so that fundamental rights could be protected, as opposed to no rights being protected but everyone gets to keep a few tax dollars.

What fundamental right requires you to use violence on non-violent people?

Not that I like that option, but I prefer it to anarchy. Anarchy is not chaos, but it becomes chaos.

Government is not order, but disorder - called war.