So. I think I'm an anarchist

UnReconstructed said:
you statists do not understand anarchy.

it is simply the voluntary interaction between people.

EDIT: Government is not defense. It is force. What has government ever defended against? When has government ever defended anything?
Click to expand...

My question to you is:

From where did government spawn?

It would seem as though it spawned from a need for strength and a good defense against neighbors.

I have no problem with anarchy. I just don't see how it could truly preserve Liberty for very long.
 
FrankRep said:
How will you ensure that Anarchy will sustain?

The criminal gangs and neo-Barbarians will rule the streets and the guy with the biggest stick will be the leader.
Click to expand...

If there is a criminal gang roaming a street near your home, you may want to contact the road owner, who in turn can contact his private police agency of choice to remove these people.
 
powerofreason said:
Some people seem to think that in the absence of government we would all become cannibals and murder each other. Kind of like the proponents of the drug war say we would all be snorting coke while driving on our way to work if there weren't laws in place against it. I don't think its too hard to imagine different groups of the (disbanded) government military forming competing defense agencies to protect us in the case of foreign attack. If you want to try to convince me of the necessity of government, go for it. I keep an open mind.
Click to expand...

If the Chinese and Russian armies decide to invade the Anarchy States of America with tanks and machine guns, we'll be wiped off the map.
 
shemdogg said:
ANARCHY is the radical notion that
other people are not your property.
Click to expand...

Achieving total anarchy in this world would be like achieving world peace. Free will and human nature would not permit it.

As much as I like the idea I think limited government is the only realistic option.
 
powerofreason said:
If there is a criminal gang roaming a street near your home, you may want to contact the road owner, who in turn can contact his private police agency of choice to remove these people.
Click to expand...

This criminal gang would just form a government more centralized and powerful then your private police force. Then you would most likely want to do the same.

That's human nature.
 
FrankRep said:
If the Chinese and Russian armies decide to invade the Anarchy States of America with tanks and machine guns, we'll be wiped off the map.
Click to expand...

It will be a much harder fight for them than if we had a government army, for sure. Wheres the capital? Wheres the existing government apparatus to take over? They would need to conquer every single home and person in the country to truly take it over. They would be dealing with smart and nimble private defense forces. Why were the Soviets unable to conquer Afghanistan? Why did it take the English forever to conquer medievel Ireland? The answer is obvious.
 
powerofreason said:
Some people seem to think that in the absence of government we would all become cannibals and murder each other. Kind of like the proponents of the drug war say we would all be snorting coke while driving on our way to work if there weren't laws in place against it. I don't think its too hard to imagine different groups of the (disbanded) government military forming competing defense agencies to protect us in the case of foreign attack. If you want to try to convince me of the necessity of government, go for it. I keep an open mind.
Click to expand...

No, I think that in the absence of government, if we're smart, we'd form something like we started out with in 1776. I guess the distinction is, you'd like competition for everything, as opposed to one provider of national defense and law enforcement (I mean the good kind of course)? Is that it?

I mean, if you ask me, should the government force you to pay into it, I'd say no. And if you asked me if it should be outlawed for people to independently provide protection services I'd also say no -- does that make me an anarchist by your definition?

I'd also want any protection service I paid into to be run by representatives, so the people would have control, and have a strong constitution, so as to be less vulnerable to abuse. Does this make me not an anarchist?

As you can see, I'm having trouble seeing where the line is drawn.
 
Last edited:
powerofreason said:
It will be a much harder fight for them than if we had a government army, for sure. Wheres the capital? Wheres the existing government apparatus to take over? They would need to conquer every single home and person in the country to truly take it over. They would be dealing with smart and nimble private defense forces. Why were the Soviets unable to conquer Afghanistan? Why did it take the English forever to conquer medievel Ireland? The answer is obvious.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've got to agree with that. The swiss have something like this form of defense, I believe.
 
powerofreason said:
It will be a much harder fight for them than if we had a government army, for sure. Wheres the capital? Wheres the existing government apparatus to take over? They would need to conquer every single home and person in the country to truly take it over. They would be dealing with smart and nimble private defense forces. Why were the Soviets unable to conquer Afghanistan? Why did it take the English forever to conquer medievel Ireland? The answer is obvious.
Click to expand...

You are right about that. That's why it was so difficult for Britain to take back the colonial rebels. They had no capital to take over. They were so scattered.

But, if they were given the time and if it was just Britain and the colonies on the earth then the numbers and power of the empire would have eventually led to their victory. I think that's more obvious.
 
Sic Semper Tyrannis said:
This criminal gang would just form a government more centralized and powerful then your private police force. Then you would most likely want to do the same.

That's human nature.
Click to expand...

There would be a transitional period, I think, in which we would be especially vulnerable to the creation of a new government. Once the market is able to fully take over services normally provided by the state, I think it would be very difficult for a new state to take over. Thats a risk I'm willing to take, honestly. I would be perfectly fine with a limited government that stayed that way. But we tried that, and it didn't work. The American republic was established under the best possible circumstances but it still didn't work out in the end.
 
powerofreason said:
There would be a transitional period, I think, in which we would be especially vulnerable to the creation of a new government. Once the market is able to fully take over services normally provided by the state, I think it would be very difficult for a new state to take over. Thats a risk I'm willing to take, honestly. I would be perfectly fine with a limited government that stayed that way. But we tried that, and it didn't work. The American republic was established under the best possible circumstances but it still didn't work out in the end.
Click to expand...

Any system -- constitutional limited government, anarchy, anything can be abused. There is no system you can devise which will withstand a lazy and uneducated populace unwilling to protect their freedoms.
 
Can anyone name a country that has been able to sustain a long-term successful Anarchy state?
 
Sic Semper Tyrannis said:
I know colonial Iceland had a nice one I think, but it wasn't long term. (I don't think)
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Settlement_and_the_establishment_of_the_Commonwealth

The first people thought to have inhabited Iceland were Irish monks or hermits who came in the eighth century, but left with the arrival of Norsemen, who systematically settled Iceland in the period circa AD 870-930. The first known permanent Norse settler was Ingólfur Arnarson, who built his homestead in Reykjavík in 874. Ingólfur was followed by many other emigrant settlers, largely Norsemen and their Irish slaves. By 930, most arable land had been claimed and the Althing, a legislative and judiciary parliament, was founded as the political hub of the Icelandic Commonwealth. Christianity was adopted in 1000. The Commonwealth lasted until 1262, when the political system devised by the original settlers proved unable to cope with the increasing power of Icelandic chieftains.

The Icelandic chieftains took power.
 
Someone said if a powerful, militaristic nation rolled into the "Anarchy States of America," with an organized military invasion, we'd be "wiped off the map."

The fallacy, of course, is that there is no "Anarchy States of America" in a stateless society. So if the Chinese or Russians roll into, say, the eastern coast of the American continent, there's no specific building, i.e. the White House, that they can just lay seige to and claim the whole country. There's no governmental system that they can just hijack to take over everything. They'd have to put soldiers on the ground everywhere, a logistical impossibility.

Where natural resources are particularly high, defense business would also be high.
 
Look, "anarchists" are ftl... in the old school terminology (Europeon) they see the state as a capitalist structure, pretty retarded aye? Calling yourself an anarchist back in the day, usually meant you were a socialist.. (voluntary) socialist (possibly) ... And it still applies today..

Anarcho-capitalist FAQ

Have a good read... all of you. :)

Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty, go check it out.... mises.org, audiobook if needed. :D

The US was a grand experiment, currently the best in history - magna carta first step towards freedom & rights.... US Constitution, it progressed to the second... Further guarenteed those rights. What we see now, is what a Constitutionally limited government ended up as.... granted it was by design, but pure minds do not want to rule over men - paraphrasing Jefferson. George Washington didn't want to run, Ron Paul was reluctant... that's the nature of things. It is usually only when shit starts to hit the fan / bad things happen, that good people feel the innate urge to correct the injustices / defend liberty etc... With Ron Paul that was when Nixon implemented price controls in 1971..

Government is evil. Even if you contend it is a necessary one.. as we have seen... EVIL does NOT sleep. No Constitution has been able to limit the growth of government / state.... this is all blatantly obvious.

For sure it SLOWED down the progress of growth of the state... but it did not eliminate that growth.

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. – Frederic Bastiat

... It's like with roads, people can't comprehend private ownership, without even considering it - you've already got a 'road block' set up in your mind.. (pardon the pun).... Road Socialism you are thus for, if you don't think they should be privately owned. The trouble is government intervention has already happened... you'd need to sell off the assets fairly to avoid setting up a monopoly - as has happened in the Media Industry, nationalization of radio / tele back in the day.

Anyway, the point goes... many great thinkers just out right rejected the idea that there could be private roads, private courts etc... Harmony without the state... but there has been periods throughout history that have had society's that have had slices of ALL of them...

Rothbard addresses all that...

In For A New Liberty Rothbard applies abstract libertarian principles to solve current welfare-state problems. How would a stateless society provide for goods such as education, money, streets, police, courts, national defense, social security, environmental protection, etc.? Here are the answers.


Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

8 months ago I was a semi-socialist independant leaning democrat who was practically a chosmkite. Wrote him a letter, and he did reply.. I re-read the letter recently.. it sickens me.. :eek: Anyway, I woke up to Ron Paul - because I'd never actually been given the opportunity to hear such things as liberty etc..

I've logically progressed from; alex jones was a nut, you're all conspiracy nuts -> to seeing the blackout for myself... I used to believe in global warming and climate change.... but then I was offered the ulterior motive, power... I thought it was just oil companies self interests... but I was shown the UN, global carbon tax etc... the quest for one world government.. (all over about 6 months... slowly awakening as it all slotted into place)

I then went from free markets need regulation, you need the middle way.. half socialism, half capitalism... I had heard Ron Paul speak about foreign policy etc.. and I knew he was spot on (from Chomsky etc..) So I thought, well maybe he's right about everything else... I heard about Austrian economics... but had no idea what it was about.. I read about all their predictions, Brenton woods, going of gold standard etc etc....

I thought you needed a limited state, the smaller the better. But that's practically exactly what the US constitution was. A fine document of epic proportions that was probably needed for sure, to test out it's premise. But if the founders were here today; had the opportunity to see what America has become... because of the state... If they had the opportunity to read Mises, Rothbard etc... I think they'd definitely come to the same conclusion. Hamilton wouldn't that's for damn certain. Jefferson etc would imo though... :)

Anyway; anarcho-capitalism is a big ass pill for people to swallow. Which is why I sometimes refer to myself as a libertarian (which provides a big enough knee-jerk reaction to start with). Anyway, it's taken me roughly 8 months of slow progress. Eventually seeing what was self-evident. It's been a fun journey and I don't know where I will end up... If I some how become a marxist, someone shoot me... :D I think I've reached the logical conclusion though.. but we'll see, always got to keep an open mind...,
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

osan
Capitalism is a TOOL.
Replies
0
Views
99
osan
osan
PAF
What Is Fascism?
Replies
6
Views
3K
Voluntarist
Voluntarist
PAF
The Dark MAGA Gov-Corp Technate
Replies
5
Views
104
TheTexan
TheTexan
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Grifterism: The Economic Engine of Democrats
Replies
0
Views
83
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
PAF
Is America Turning Fascist?
Replies
0
Views
612
PAF
PAF
Back
Top