Dear AnarchistsSubmitted by BmoreBrawler on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 19:20
by Tony Hollick
plz read this article k thx. I have written some commentary on the article below, but it wont make much sense unless you actually read the article, sorry.
Notice scarcity of land in Hollick's Island. Someone who disagrees with the status quo, who would be told to "move to join a community with which he agrees" by anarchists, cannot do so because there is nowhere to go. He must subject himself to decisions decided by the wealthy(who have more say in decisions of this matter) or the majority(anarcho-democracy?-Hollick) How is this any different than we minarchists telling you anarchists to move somewhere else if you don't like it, with you knowing full well that that things are not much better elsewhere(because you are so anal retentive and hard to please)?
Hollick makes a jump in reasoning by assuming a "dominant protective agency" would develop, and that this brings up all sorts of problems for anarchism. However, don't think that it is much of a leap. Any sort of patrol service, which has existed in just about every society I can think of, covers a spatial area. Suppose two neighbors get together and hire a patrolman. The Patrolman can't help but view a third, uncooperative neighbors house, deterring would be robbers. This shows a free rider problem, as the third guy gets something for nothing. Anarchists claim that the threat of "ostracism" by the two neighbors would be too great for the third to bear. First of all, what if it isn't? Some anarchists admit that a removal by force of the neighbor might be necessary(whoops, there goes the non-aggressive neighborhood) . Secondly, if it IS too great to bear, how is this not democracy in that the majority can starve uncooperative neighbors to DEATH if need be to get their own way? This situation is at BEST a TRADEOFF with a limited government, as we trade taxes forced out of us by the state with taxes forced out of us by society as a whole. Yes, you can make the argument that its more MORAL to be voluntarily starved to death by the majority than voluntarily jailed by the majority. I'm a utilitarian and am not convinced by such claims.