To Anarchists: How does anarchy work.

[Sam I am]

Says who? I've never read a sociologist, historian, etc. who would make such a far-out claim. States are designed to suppress spontaneous order.

Than maybe you should go and meet some sociologists and historians

 

[mczerone]

Oh noes! Another minarchist who has never read a single thing about anarchy has come along and single-handedly destroyed the entire theory! Whatever will we do?

Another? It seems like the same crew making the same accusations again and again and again.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Than maybe you should go and meat some sociologists and historians

Pervert.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Than maybe you should go and meat some sociologists and historians

I have.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I have.

Pervert!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Pervert!

lolz

 

[A Son of Liberty]

lolz

 

[Sam I am]

I'm going to read the third link on the big thread of Anarcho-Capitalist articles. http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

After reading the first couple sections, I get the feeling that unlike the first article in the thread, this article seems to be to persuade by information, rather than to persuade by smoke and mirrors

Section 1 is a definition of anarcho capitalism. not much information to argue about.

the following is from Section 2: Why should one consider Anarcho-Capitalism

moral autonomy as the philosophers call it. Is your life your own moral purpose? Do you owe anyone obedience regardless of consent? In natural rights language: Do you have rights - moral claims to freedom of action? If you answer yes to any of these questions, then logic leads you to the position of philosophical anarchism.

The defining mark of the state is authority, the right to rule. The primary obligation of man is autonomy, the refusal to be ruled. It would seem, then, that there can be no resolution of the conflict between the autonomy of the individual and the putative authority of the state. Insofar as a man fulfills his obligation to make himself the author of his decisions, he will resist the state's claim to have authority over him. That is to say, he will deny that he has a duty to obey the laws of this state simply because they are the laws. In that sense, it would seem that anarchism is the only political doctrine consistent with the virtue of autonomy." - Robert Paul Wolff, In Defense of Anarchism.

I'm not going to argue this point right now. Moral autonomy is a fine principle that everyone should respect. I will be revisiting this paragraph multiple times. For now, let's say according to this model, you have Total Freedom.

A second more utilitarian reason is the dismal record of States. Considering all the war, genocide, slavery, and repression perpetrated by States through history, might humanity do better without this barbaric institution? As the young Edmund Burke wrote in the world's first anarchist essay (before he went conservative):

These Evils are not accidental. Whoever will take the pains to consider the Nature of Society, will find they result directly from its Constitution. For as Subordination, or in other Words, the Reciprocation of Tyranny, and Slavery, is requisite to support these Societies, the Interest, the Ambition, the Malice, or the Revenge, nay even the Whim and Caprice of one ruling Man among them, is enough to arm all the rest, without any private Views of their own, to the worst and blackest Purposes; and what is at once lamentable and ridiculous, these Wretches engage under those Banners with a Fury greater than if they were animated by Revenge for their own proper Wrongs - Edmund Burke, A Vindication of Natural Society.

That was written in 1756, long before modern weapons of mass destruction and long before 170 million civilian people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century. That's just civilian deaths perpetrated by their own governments; it doesn't count the deaths due to enemy States, deaths of soldiers, dislocated refugees, and so on. To quote Rothbard, "If we look at the black record of mass murder, exploitation, and tyranny levied on society by governments over the ages, we need not be loath to abandon the Leviathan State and ... try freedom."

You don't need a State to cause war, slavery and genocide. Any group of thugs can cause those things to happen. Just look at the warring drug gangs in Mexico, who operate outside of the state.


Section 3 is a declaration of values about anarcho-capitalism. again, no new arguments are presented in this section.(I just don't want people to think I'm skipping parts for my own convenience)

No. Anarcho-capitalists believe that a stateless society would be much more peaceful, harmonious, and prosperous than society under statism. We see life under States as chaotic - the insanity of war and the arbitrariness of government regulation and plunder. Anarcho-capitalists agree with the "father of anarchism" Pierre Proudhon: "Liberty is not the daughter but the mother of order," and his contemporary Frederic Bastiat, who wrote of the "natural harmony" of the market, that "natural and wise order that operates without our knowledge." ("Economic Harmonies")

One can argue some of the points that come up in this section, but I have a feeling that they'll be covered in greater detail later in the article.

4. Isn't anarcho-capitalism utopian?
No. Anarcho-capitalists tend to be pragmatic, and argue that, no matter how good or bad man is, he is better off in liberty. If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power. Most anarcho-capitalists think that some men are okay and some aren't; and there will always be some crime. We are not expecting any major change in human nature in that regard. Since utopianism by definition requires a change in human nature, anarcho-capitalism is not utopian.

Even back in the days of kings and monarchs that argument would be moot at best, since without an existing state, a group of thugs would often conquer other people, and become a state themselves, but today there are many nations(United States included) that are not ruled by rulers, but are instead ruled by, neither good nor evil unthinking laws. Congress is subject to laws, the President is subject to laws, the supreme court is bound by laws. Rule of Man has been rendered completely obsolete by Rule of Law.



More to come

 

[Wesker1982]

Pizza hut is not a group of mercenaries.

But, in contrast to present-day society, there would be immediate checks and balances available; there would be other police forces who could use their weapons to band together to put down the aggressors against their clientele. If the Metropolitan Police Force should become gangsters and exact tribute, then the rest of society could flock to the Prudential, Equitable, etc., police forces who could band together to put them down. And this contrasts vividly with the State. If a group of gangsters should capture the State apparatus, with its monopoly of coercive weapons, there is nothing at present that can stop them — short of the immensely difficult process of revolution. In a libertarian society there would be no need for a massive revolution to stop the depredation of gangster-States; there would be a swift turning to the honest police forces to check and put down the force that had turned bandit.



http://box.com/services/web_documents/105/599931618/d6ec10/Outlaw_Protectors

Warring defense agencies objection in 3......2........1

You never responded to:

Since most people don't like initiating violence, they will only fund peaceful defensive services.

If people chose crooked and corrupt defense agencies, these same people would be even worse at picking the criminals in charge of the violent monopolies (governments).

This is only one but many fatal flaws of limited state socialism (what you might call limited government). If people are willing to fund bandit gangs, these same people would choose a bandit government. The difference being that government is a monopoly. So the poor choice of the society who chooses a bandit government would be amplified.

However prosperous and law-abiding a society is, adding an monopoly of legalized initiated violence will only make things worse.

Society 80% full of raging drunken lunatics? Yep, it will make it worse (since they would be in charge of the monopoly, lol DUH). Society composed of only 1% crazy? WTF do you need a government for? LOL. It only gives the 1% the means to tyrannize the mass of society.

 

[fisharmor]

There is one question that anarchists (no rulers) can't answer. Land ownership requires rulers. Either self-rule where each landowner is the ruler such as kingdom, dictatorship, oligarchy, or collective ruler where everybody gets together and makes laws of the land. No matter what, land ownership requires rules and rulers = government.

Anarchists will dance around that issue until the end of time.

You've put me in the uncomfortable position of believing one of these three options.
1) You suffer from a faulty memory.
2) You don't read anything that anarchists post in refutation of your claims.
3) You are a liar.

We've had this discussion before and I offered you concrete examples from history where land ownership existed and flourished in a stateless society.
If the search on this forum didn't suck walnuts through garden hoses, I'd offer it for you.

For those of you who aren't in one of those categories, here are two examples:
Kowloon walled city was a stateless society in Hong Kong in the 20th Century. It existed for over 75 years. It was ruled by gangs for the first half of its existence. In the latter half, after the gangs were eliminated, somehow the inhabitants built up 6 square blocks into a 14-story megacity where over 30,000 people lived. Individuals lived in individual apartments. There were factories. There were regular businesses like restaurants and dentists. There were temples.

If someone who is actually reading this can offer guesses as to how such a thing is possible in the most densely populated patch of earth ever, without property ownership, I'm all ears.

Ireland was a stateless society from ancient times until the 17th Century. In the middle ages there were actually two classes of people - those who owned land, and those who didn't. Their legal system (Yeah - legal system - as in system of laws, judges, courts, and all that other stuff that people are claiming aren't possible in a stateless society) apparently treated the "free" (landowners) differently from the "unfree" (those who didn't own land).
So they not only had a legal system, they not only had land ownership, but they also had legal incentive to own land.
And no state.
By the way, women, minorities, and all sorts of people were allowed to own land in Ireland at that time. Something we didn't clean up in the statist world until after Ireland was invaded by England and finally subjugated by the systematic murder of 4 in every 10 people.

Am I dancing? Are you dancing?

RiseAgainst, I was actually mad at you for your attitude in the beginning of this thread, but I apologize for that - you were simply ahead of the curve.

 

[Wesker1982]

I'm going to read the third link on the big thread of Anarcho-Capitalist articles. http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

It is great that you are checking stuff out, but I did not compile that thread to be read in order. My intent was to be able to wonder about a particular issue, and then be able to find material on it. A FAQ isn't really a bad place to be right now, but I would go with these next:

The Market For Security

But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?

Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime

Answering the Warring Defense Agencies Objection

Libertarian Society- What about corrupt or criminal voluntary courts?

Wouldn't a private defense agency become criminal, or turn into a dictatorship, etc?

 

[Sam I am]

5. Isn't laissez-faire capitalism exploitative?
No. Laissez-faire literally means "let us be!" It means absolutely no government intervention in the economy - a free market. Of course, this is an ideal. Certainly the statist quo is not laissez-faire capitalism. Even in so-called "capitalist" States (really mixed economies), the government engages in all sorts of intervention: taxation, regulation, protectionism, prohibitions, occupational licensure, monopolies on "command posts" of society.

The vital command posts invariably owned monopolistically by the State are: (1) police and military protection; (2) judicial protection; (3) monopoly of the mint (and monopoly of defining money); (4) rivers and coastal seas; (5) urban streets and highways, and land generally (unused land, in addition to the power of eminent domain); and (6) the post office. The defense function is the one reserved most jealously by the State. It is vital to the State's existence, for on its monopoly of force depends its ability to exact taxes from the citizens. If citizens were permitted privately owned courts and armies, then they would possess the means to defend themselves against invasive acts by the government as well as by private individuals. - Murray N. Rothbard, The Myth of Efficient Government Service

With the State - biggest, baddest exploiter of all time - out of the picture, exploitation, in terms of aggression, would all but vanish. It would be a voluntary society, an anarchy.

Some say that property and capitalism is automatically exploitative, because it allows profit and/or private property. We'll answer this claim in the section below called What are the myths of socialism?.

To summarize this section, the articles response was in essence 'Well, government is exploitative too.'. This is where the concept of Democracy and self rule comes in. In the US citizens are allowed to choose their representatives are, and they are allowed to petition for policy changes. If their representatives don't represent them, they will un-elect those representatives, sometimes before the official election cycle(like they did in California a few years back)

 

[Sam I am]

It is great that you are checking stuff out, but I did not compile that thread to be read in order. My intent was to be able to wonder about a particular issue, and then be able to find material on it. A FAQ isn't really a bad place to be right now, but I would go with these next:

The Market For Security

But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?

Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime

Answering the Warring Defense Agencies Objection

Libertarian Society- What about corrupt or criminal voluntary courts?

Wouldn't a private defense agency become criminal, or turn into a dictatorship, etc?

While you're being the librarian, let me try too

Why Anarchism Fails
Disillusions of Anarchy

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I know that the majority of this forum isn't Anarchist, but I also know that some people are. Let's say that all of a sudden, You live in an anarchist society. What happens, why are we better off? Why doesn't Government just happen again?

I want to get into a good discussion about this, but the reason why I'm not asking very many specifics right now, is because I personally don't understand anarchy. I don't understand the appeal of anarchy. I wouldn't know where to begin.

It didn't really take very long for this little charade to be exposed, did it? :lol:

Yet we'll be here to answer all your "questions", come what may.

 

[Sam I am]

But, in contrast to present-day society, there would be immediate checks and balances available; there would be other police forces who could use their weapons to band together to put down the aggressors against their clientele. If the Metropolitan Police Force should become gangsters and exact tribute, then the rest of society could flock to the Prudential, Equitable, etc., police forces who could band together to put them down. And this contrasts vividly with the State. If a group of gangsters should capture the State apparatus, with its monopoly of coercive weapons, there is nothing at present that can stop them — short of the immensely difficult process of revolution. In a libertarian society there would be no need for a massive revolution to stop the depredation of gangster-States; there would be a swift turning to the honest police forces to check and put down the force that had turned bandit.

Sounds a lot like war

http://box.com/services/web_documents/105/599931618/d6ec10/Outlaw_Protectors

Warring defense agencies objection in 3......2........1

You never responded to:



This is only one but many fatal flaws of limited state socialism (what you might call limited government). If people are willing to fund bandit gangs, these same people would choose a bandit government. The difference being that government is a monopoly. So the poor choice of the society who chooses a bandit government would be amplified.

However prosperous and law-abiding a society is, adding an monopoly of legalized initiated violence will only make things worse.

Society 80% full of raging drunken lunatics? Yep, it will make it worse (since they would be in charge of the monopoly, lol DUH). Society composed of only 1% crazy? WTF do you need a government for? LOL. It only gives the 1% the means to tyrannize the mass of society.

You're thinking about Rule of man, not Rule of law

 

[RiseAgainst]

While you're being the librarian, let me try too

Why Anarchism Fails
Disillusions of Anarchy

Thank you for the articles Sam, I don't have the moment to parse them at hand, but assure you that I will find the time later this afternoon.

If you care for any further exploration, there are also alternatives as well. I myself am not an anarcho-capitalist, but rather what may be described as a mutualist, left-libertarian or left leaning anarchist. If you check out the link below there are a plethora of resources available, I would recommend anything by Roderick T. Long, Gary Chartier, Kevin Carson and Sheldon Richman.

http://www.all-left.net/

 

[Sam I am]

It didn't really take very long for this little charade to be exposed, did it? :lol:

Yet we'll be here to answer all your "questions", come what may.

I never claimed to be neutral on the subject of anarchy. In-fact I clearly stated that I do not understand the appeal of anarchy, and how it would work. this can be rephrased as I cannot understand how anarchy can possibly work.

I don't think that anarchy can work. When I started this thread, I honestly thought that maybe someone would have some argument that I haven't heard before, but it's all been the same "Well, instead of government, we'll have something like government except we just won't call it that"

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I never claimed to be neutral on the subject of anarchy. In-fact I clearly stated that I do not understand the appeal of anarchy, and how it would work. this can be rephrased as I cannot understand how anarchy can possibly work.

I don't think that anarchy can work. When I started this thread, I honestly thought that maybe someone would have some argument that I haven't heard before, but it's all been the same "Well, instead of government, we'll have something like government except we just won't call it that"

The principle difference between what advocates of statelessness propose and the state is that interactions are voluntary, and based upon mutual consent. There will be war, there will be violence, there will be all things that exist in human society except there will not be one organization that demands that you belong to it, and demands that you pay it a tribute.

Your OP gave the impression that you were interested in an actual discussion. After your second or third post, it was clear that wasn't the case; but those of us who are agreeable to a stateless philosophy have been down that road before, and we're not discouraged by it.

 

[Revolution9]

Anarchists despised hierarchy hence they`ve used free assemblies, which were egalitarian. Those assemblies can enforce property rights for example by employing either voluntary or private police/army.

Ya see. That right there is government. People getting together and deciding what is right for the community and using force to rein in those violating community standards.

rev9

 

[Revolution9]

The principle difference between what advocates of statelessness propose and the state is that interactions are voluntary, and based upon mutual consent. There will be war, there will be violence, there will be all things that exist in human society except there will not be one organization that demands that you belong to it, and demands that you pay it a tribute.

Your OP gave the impression that you were interested in an actual discussion. After your second or third post, it was clear that wasn't the case; but those of us who are agreeable to a stateless philosophy have been down that road before, and we're not discouraged by it.

I pay no mind to the 'state'. I learned on the street when I was young and homeless and would walk by news stands that i never heard of these guys and their programs until I saw a newspaper or the TV was on. They had no effect on me unless I went to them and then they wanted all kinds of paperwork and crap and i didn't hand in homework. You think they are gonna make me?I pay as much mind to the state now as i do the bears and coyotes around here...meaning not much but i know if provoked they are dangerous. Local government and it's threat of violence does a fair job of keeping the local speed freaks out of my business though.

Rev9