The anarchists are the realists, not the utopian dreamers.

Anarchy Still Cannot Prevail Against Political Orders

Palestine was a good example until the states entered the picture. I don't think it is fair to compare an anarchist society to a government society like that and expect them to compete, the United States was created on violence. Maybe the United States pre-1913, but even before then a large amount of their success was at the direct expense of the native Americans.

If that's your best example of anarchy working, then it seems to me that no anarchical society will do well against sovereign nations with some form of centralized government. If you want to label the pre-colonial Native Americans as anarchical (though I'd argue that they were tribal in governance), then history has shown that their "anarchical" society was no match against the technological/economic advances, military mobility and prestige, and religious fervor of nations which were afforded those blessings under an organized government.
 
Because the question isn`t about wether government works. Of course it works else it would fall apart on its own and we wouldn`t have any job to do.

The question is not wether coercive government works but wether it is desirable. And wether it is moral.
 
Appealing to my atheism, I see.

But the comparison is different, even as attractive as the idea might sound.

Totally unintentional. It is/was a general statement. YOU were NOT the target. ;)

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." ~ Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)
 
If that's your best example of anarchy working, then it seems to me that no anarchical society will do well against sovereign nations with some form of centralized government. If you want to label the pre-colonial Native Americans as anarchical (though I'd argue that they were tribal in governance), then history has shown that their "anarchical" society was no match against the technological/economic advances, military mobility and prestige, and religious fervor of nations which were afforded those blessings under an organized government.[

Don`t forget the moral depravity. Indians were no match for the sickening moral depravity of the government.



And actually government had nothing to do with technological and economic advances. :rolleyes: That was the market`s credit.
 
Lest I Be Mistaken

LOL. Thats rather hubristic defining greatness as something synonymous to the USA.

What did Jesus say about pride?

I was only speaking comparatively of the United States in relation to any anarchical society, not in a superlative sense. If there was any greatness in the USA, it was only by the blessings of God Almighty, anyway.

Yes, I agree that the USA has fallen much from her greatness and glory in times past, but we can get it all back by retracing our steps. On the other hand, anarchy leads us to a cliff, as we're walking covered by a blindfold.
 
Totally unintentional. It is/was a general statement. YOU were NOT the target. ;)

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." ~ Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)

I didn't say that I was a specific target. I did not mean to infer that YOU cared at all about targetting ME.

Saying "MY" atheism is simply a manner of speech, implying simultaneously that you were appealing to atheists and that I was an atheist.

Also, I like pie.
 
I didn't say that I was a specific target. I did not mean to infer that YOU cared at all about targetting ME.

Saying "MY" atheism is simply a manner of speech, implying simultaneously that you were appealing to atheists and that I was an atheist.

Also, I like pie.

Appealing to my atheism, I see.

But the comparison is different, even as attractive as the idea might sound.

:rolleyes:
 
Not Exactly

Don`t forget the moral depravity. Indians were no match for the sickening moral depravity of the government.



And actually government had nothing to do with technological and economic advances. :rolleyes: That was the market`s credit.

The Native Americans themselves were morally depraved, as they worshiped false spirits and nature itself. By the grace of God, many of them were converted to the light of the Gospel, such as Pocahontas.

Who do you think protected the firms, businesses, and households involved in the market? It was the civil magistrates, however imperfect they were.
 
In the beginning, there were three people. Two of them were friends. The other one got screwed. Since then...

I love the theory. I just don't get how it will work in practice.
 
Actually Theo, there has been prospering anarchical societies. The Wild West, which was not so wild is a great example; there was less crime, property rights were protected, and the economy was blooming.
 
Pop Quiz

Actually Theo, there has been prospering anarchical societies. The Wild West, which was not so wild is a great example; there was less crime, property rights were protected, and the economy was blooming.

Under what governmental authority did the "Wild West" occur in and was responsible to? :D

Hint: It's a nation.
 
In the beginning, there were three people. Two of them were friends. The other one got screwed. Since then...

I love the theory. I just don't get how it will work in practice.
How much "better" does it REALLY need to be? :D Laissez Faire!!!
 
The Native Americans themselves were morally depraved, as they worshiped false spirits and nature itself.

:eek: I didn`t see that coming.

But then nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! :eek:

Good that I am reminded who I am talking to. :eek:

A freaking moral relativist!
 
Back
Top