Are anarchists good for liberty?
Submitted by jruss133 on Sat, 09/05/2009 - 08:39
Do you feel like they are allies or enemies? Please elaborate.
»
| |
  
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
Nice to know that I might be good for something or some purpose.
:)
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
Sure...
I'll make this quick:
I imagine 90% of us who aren't anarchists agree with the anarchists we know 90% of the time.
The last 10% of the time is irrelevant for now. The way I see it, what I want is on the way to what they want and so they're excellent allies. Once we hit minarchism, we can debate the merits of going ALL the way.
And maybe if we're lucky, the time will be right, people will have the correct attitudes, and Anarchy will be feasible and we'll have a clear path to get there-- Personally I don't think that'll happen, but I'm a pessimist so that should not come as a surprise.
Yes
Anarchism is Liberty.
yup
Just as Nietzsche's nihilism can be used to counteract any religious movement, anarchism can be an effective counterbalance to the collectivist/socialist/fascist entity that big government poses.
I do not think that anarchy is an effective model on it's own, due to the fact that there will be a power vacuum without any rule of law, and the guys with the biggest guns/clubs will create their own laws thereby negating the anarchist utopia.
Now minarchism seems a little more attractive, but again, this is shades of grey when talking about the collectivism vs. anarchism.
If you've been following the
If you've been following the many "anarchism" threads here at DP you'd be fully aware the anarchism being advocdated here is not "without a rule of law". There are numerous sources that provide explanations as to how a legal services could be applied in a free market just as is any other good or service. Such sources have been pointed out many times on this site. The fact we anarchists can't provide you minarchists 100% certainty as to what form the free market legal system would take is because we are not central planners. Its ultimate structure will be the outcome of the millions of voluntarily entered social relations and the opportunities for buying and selling such services that arise from this social swirl.
I've yet to see how the minarchists will prevent a relapse into the behemoth state the the US has become. What are you counting on besides eternal vigilance? Didn't work too well in practice. And it never will as its fatal flaw is that any govenment will always be the arbiter of its own power. As Rothbard points out, "Any written limits that leave it to government to interpret its own powers are bound to be interpreted as sanctions for expanding and not binding those powers." The explosive growth of government power in the US confirms Rothbard's insight.
Likewise, the argument that the "guys with the biggest guns/clubs will create their own laws" does not stand up under scrutiny. Just a thumbnail response: there will multiple providers of police services. If one were to attempt to take over the other providers would band together to stop the aggressor. Also, the attempt to take over would be very costly in terms of resources that would have to be applied to subdue resisters. Until the aggressor police force obtained control it would have to raise funds for its operations. The attempt to take over would require it charge its customers more. They would have every incentive to leave it for a less expensive police provider (or dispute resolution organisation - whatever you wish to call it) causing it to lose the revenue required to dominate others. But realistically, and here is what I have not seen minarchists address, is that to even get to a free market in all goods and services would mean the liberty movements educational efforts won the day and the populace embraced freedom en masse. To believe such a freedom loving populace would then idly sit back and watch as a relatively small group - compared to the population at large - attempted to destroy their freedom as it sought to control their lives is ludicrous. And let us not forget, a free society will not have been disarmed by government. A well armed citizenry would be the ultimate obstacle to anyone with designs to take over an anarchist society by a rogue police force.
Sadly, I can pretty well count on someone in the next anarchism thread proclaiming the impossibility of anarchism because a powerful group will take over. This assertion is just that, an assertion. It is never backed up, just repeated with nausiating regularity.
marlow
marlow
I don't think you have to
I don't think you have to qualify your minarchist position by calling minarchism "grey". If anarchism is impossible, then discard it and shift the spectrum to where minarchism is the ultimate goal.
Ventura 2012
i understand your point,and i agree somewhat,
the only problem is that there needs to be the clear end of the spectrum which is anarchism. anything less than that is a compromise, even if it is to a small degree.
one man's minarchism may be another man's tyranny.
its a theoretical compromise
its a theoretical compromise because you still have taxation, but not a practical compromise. But to treat anarchism as if it even exists within the realm of possibility just dilutes how good minarchism really is.
Ventura 2012
or you could say...
That we(anarchist) agree minarchism is a pretty sweet setup, and that anarchists only exist to keep minarchists in line and to insure that "political drift" doesn't move you too far into the side of tyranny (hence the point originally made)...
Sorry, I will stay out of your discussion, now... I just couldn't help it. You're fun to debate because you stay reasonable and intelligent...
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
this is a friendly open conversation for anyone
i do love how much i have learned here at the DP. it is this site that has sparked my passion to learn more. i always learn more from a debate than a hotbutton scary story, but i do love those too.
I agree with the political drift theory. To an anarchist ANY laws that force compliance or face a penalty can cause the anarchist to view the minarchist system as enslavement and tyranny. I feel that minarchism works better than anarchism, but i understand the need for an absolute on the spectrum.
Thanks, I try :) You bring
Thanks, I try :)
You bring up a good point. I think that the LRC guys have done a great job calling out the beltway libertarians and paleo-cons when they drift too far. Unfortunately, it seems like the utilitarian mainstream libertarians were not anywhere near as enthusiastic about Dr. Paul as the Rothbardians. There is something to be said for their passion. Of course, a lot of that has to do with Dr. Paul's friendship with Lew. Thats a very cliquish bunch(see David Friedman/Peter Boetke bashing).
By the way, I don't think most anarchists are as reasonable as you about being contented with minarchism and holding your tongue around newbies. Just look at some of the anarchists here, bashing elections and such.
Ventura 2012
even when there's no
even when there's no government e.g. the United States of America, or the USSR.
there is _still_ government
there are tribes
there are families
there are villages
endless varieties of social units
and most all of them have leaders and a hierarchy.
Well at least this topic has got me thinking.
If I were to use labels correctly, I'll give it a try:
"anarchists" and "anti-statists" have much in common.
I would venture to lump myself under the "anti-statist" label.
Absolutely...
The primary difference is that in the social units you describe, they would be voluntary. (hence, the attempt by some to use the word voluntaryism... got it right that time... spell check still kills it though...lol).
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
What anarchy is
The etymology of term anarchy suggest its original (and in my view, best) definition: leaderless.
Without context, this concept is generic enough to encompass both the theory of society without central control and disorder of society for whatever reasons. The term by itself is too ambiguous.
The term anarcho-capitalist is a more specific way to refer to the theory of society without central control, which advocates free markets to set prices and allocate resources in consumption.
The term minarchist is somewhat more specific that anarchy. The idea here is that there must be some central authority at least in certain areas.
I am a minarchist and I believe Dr. Paul is too, although anarcho-capitalist Lew Rockwell would probably disagree with my characterization. The reason I think minarchy is inescapable, and that Dr. Paul supports it, is because of our Constitution. Immigration laws and anti-abortion laws are two areas where Dr. Paul has spoken in favor of enforcement.
So to answer the original question, yes, I think anarcho-capitalists and minarchists can and should be allies against the current semi-fascist and demi-socialist and peri-theocratic political elite currently in power.
Support our republic and the liberty it provides - Todd
Support our republic and the liberty it provides - Todd
define anarchy...
Anarchy is the Indefinite Perfectibility of Mankind.
It is the object goal of Jesus Christ according to Weishaupt (written by Jefferson).
It is the essence of William Godwin's Political Justice.
It is the foundation of the U.S. Constitution.
It was the personification of Jefferson's political theories.
People like to change the connotations of good words and make them bad.
Anarchy means Individualism. Anyone who doesn't see the beauty in anarchy needs to go read some real history books.
your definition of anarchy
your definition of anarchy _is_ beautiful.
but language is an imprecise tool, and it's a moving target.
the end goal is communication.
you can stand by your definition, unwavering ...but if the rest of the people interpret the word "anarchy" as meaning "chaos", your goal of communicating your ideals/ideas so that they may be enacted in reality, will not be reached.
when I talk to people, I use the word anarchy as "unpredictable", "chaos", "undisciplined" and "unorderly", and it could be applied at the individual, group or state level.
Someone who punched random family members in the face, motives never to be known, and was otherwise sane ...is bringing anarchy to his family unit.
he is an anarchist.
a person known to be intelligent, and sane, goes around his neighborhood and for reasons unknown, randomly destroys neighbors property, cuts communication and power lines....the person is bringing anarchy to the neighborhood.
he is an anarchist.
Most people do not understand anarchists to be people who disdain order as dictated by a government.
Most people believe anarchists to be people who disdain order, period.
I'm just trying to help you out. Perhaps more people would embrace far less government, if they knew what you were offering wasn't hoards of madmen instigating chaos.
p.s. I tend to think the problem here is you have an academic perspective. A very narrow and deep description system, a construct, of something that doesn't exist.
It's like a theoretical scientist who has constructed, on paper, a replacement for the carburetor, one that could never be built. He doesn't understand why everyone else doesn't appreciate it's beauty and grace. He scoffs at the expert mechanic that can't-even-read, despite the mechanic's thousands of hours of real life experience of installing, rebuilding, and tuning carburetors.
You might think twice before you utter that last line (of your post) to anyone.
It's precisely why I refrain from using the word Libertarian anymore, because the big L version has tainted the little L version. And that taint has to do with that a sizeable number of "Libertarians" who are an elitist bunch of pricks.
nail+head=bingo...
This is why we struggle. When you have to start by "defining" words, it doesn't usually bode well for further understanding through discussion of the topics at hand. It is also difficult for people to overcome prejudices (you did so remarkably fast, I was impressed with either your power to reason, or mine to describe(j/k on this part, I suck at it :) ) or both because it didn't take much for us to come to an understanding of what we were discussing).
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
To be a true 100% anarchist
To be a true 100% anarchist you would need to be GOD & contain ALL His completeness.. Research HIS Character. It is humanly impossible to reach that plato while we exist in the human physical body..Christ claimed to be alpa & omega..The Completness ...HE is the physical manifestation of this Character to the human race...Our physical bodies will be transformed to accomplish the complete finished product that G-d intended from the beginning. ..Christ came from G-d, is G-d, as only G-d could exhibit & has "bought" others with HIS payment in Blood & sacrifice beyond human comprehention...That is why the term REDEEM is used HE has our coupon...We "shall be" as he is...We shall have HIS Character...We NOW have a sampling of Spiritual abilities other humans do not have, only because they do not believe..He has given us power to overcome some of our sin nature, though we still struggle.. I don't know about the other attributes of Might in the, here-after..
Weishaupt, sounds Jewish I don't know , but Jews do not believe Christ was G-d & therefore are still looking for a "human" conceived, born & bred to come who will represent their idea of fullfilling their Torah ..It is impossible for a human concepted person to fullfill G-d's laws..Humans by blood have the sin Nature from Adam & Eve...Only G-d Himself can complete His law....There is the conflict...
The human version vs the Spiritual version,
Judaism vs Christianity They are similar but different
Israel too will be redeemed but not as they want it to be.
Good people do Good deeds,
and are no respecter of person
I'll give an equivocal no.
I'll give an equivocated no. While the lewrockwell crowd anarchists get on my nerves, they are/were tireless advocates and supporters of Ron Paul. For that I am grateful. However, their message can be very off-putting to new libertarians, as well as grounded constitutionalists like myself.
I do think that the average blind follower of anarcho-capitalism in the lewrockwell tradition is an enemy to the purpose of the Ron Paul movement, though often unintentionally.
Ventura 2012
I have a comment below...
That I would be grateful if you would read... The title is "Anarchism is the definition of Liberty...."
Anarchists founded the Libertarian Party. They have been the ceaseless torch bearers for the liberty movement for decades. It wouldn't exist without them. there would be no movement for you or even RP to be a part of if it wasn't for them.
We supported RP as the first electable candidate that supported most of our belief system. But his ideas, almost all of them, came from the great anarchist minds.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
Mises wasn't an anarchist,
Mises wasn't an anarchist, nor was Friedman(probably the most quoted yet disrespected economist on Mises.org).
Don't get me wrong, I greatly respect Rothbard because he is one of the most talented writers I've ever read. I read LRC every day, and I've read most of his file on there(believe it or not) and many of his books. That doesn't mean that his ideas don't push us further away from reaching people should a self absorbed anarchist espouse them. One example is Lew Rockwell's vulgar comments that the political method of taking back our country is a waste of time.No to mention the ignorant, attention seeking bashing of the founding fathers whenever the 4th of July rolls around on that site. It is CRUCIAL that we maintain some level of respect for the founding of the USA if we want to return this nation to it.
It is unfortunate that this movement is tied so closely with the Mises Institute anarchists(not everyone there is an anarchist), because they are the only people that have supported the Gold standard.
Ventura 2012
The good ideas by those...
such as Mises and Friedman were rooted in anarchism. They felt a need to draw the line at some point and make themselves effectively minarchists. But I don't hear the "lines in the sand" that they drew being yelled out as their positive contribution. It is the anarchist portion of their beliefs which is lauded as a good thing.
This can be said about all the minarchists that are quoted around here. Everyone repeats Jefferson's statements when they anarchistic (is that a word?). But no one espouses his minarchist beliefs in the same way.
I will admit Lew and others might be too critical for newcomers, but look at from their perspective. If the change must come about through a societal paradigm shift, then education and not politics is the goal. If we achieved our goals through politics, then it would soon degenerate and crumble back into what we have. But if they educate enough people, then and only then, might things truly be changed.
Because of this, he doesn't shy away from hard topics, constantly drawing people into a deeper understanding of the philosophy. (And no, I am not shilling for Lew... :) )
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
Mises, and to some extent
Mises, and to some extent Friedman, were utilitarian and value-free. Therefore their ideas were based on a scientific assessment of reality, not in ideology and politics. I share their worldview. You will see a huge divide between Mises Institute Rothbardian libertarians and anarchists versus mainstream libertarians. That divide is largely created by the emotionalism and moralism on the Rothbard side versus the utilitarianism on the mainstream side. There are strengths to both, but I am more utilitarian than anything else. I HIGHLY suggest you read Ron Paul's short book on Mises. It discusses his own ideological formation.
If we are going to "look at things" from Lew's damaging perspective, we might as well "look at things" from Obama's damaging perspective. We have already achieved more in politics than the anarchists EVER have.
Ventura 2012
One more note on things...
I know that a lot of people here at the DP, and over at RPForums think they did a lot of work in the support department...
But what all of you missed, and which no one who participated shared at the time (because it would have been bad), was that there was indeed a network of people, mostly anarchists (ratio of 90/10 anarchist/minarchist) who stayed hooked up via IRC in specific chat rooms and launched at a moments notice on polls, donations, articles/comments, etc...
We actually had specialized feeds setup to keep us informed. And those with the resources did in fact, on occasion, manipulate things further.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
I don't disagree with much of what you have said...
The only two points that I would argue is that it has nothing to do with emotionalism, in fact, quite the opposite.
The other point is "how much has been politically accomplished without the anarchists"....
Actually, all of the prep work that supported RP and created the funds etc was done by anarchists.
Most of RP's early support was indeed astroturfed by anarchists (I can admit this now since no one cares anymore, and now his support is quite legitimate). Most of his funds (for quite a while, early on) came from supporters left over from the libertarian run, and their subsequent converts, and other anarchists. The anarchists are who gave RP, and you, and the other minarchists their platform to speak. Not because we wanted to win, that was not possible, but because we wanted him, and you for that matter noticed and and listened to. We fought to give you a voice, not to win silly competitions over who has the right to use force on others. When I say we, I am speaking for myself, but assume others were participating for the same reason (assume - meaning I have talked to others who expressed that to me as well).
Because YOUR voice, RPs voice, are mainstream. We are not so blind as to see that doesn't have value. It would be appreciated though, if our voices weren't called harmful to the very movement that has existed forever, because of us.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
There is no question that
There is no question that the LRC crowd did a lot of good during the campaign. I would still give the Alex Jones crowd more credit, though. Regarding sound money and economics, the Mises institute has been invaluable, especially during the financial crisis.
The rest of your post goes on to show how helpful anarchists have been, and then conclude that the anarchist VOICE is somehow helpful because of it.
Alex Jones and the truthers did excellent work during the campaign. Does that mean that handing out 9/11 truth fliers and GOP events is helpful?
Ventura 2012
9/11 is not the basis for the views being expressed...
However, anarchism is the basis for the views you express. There is a significant difference.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
Nope. Anarcho-capitalism
Nope. Anarcho-capitalism came out of minarchist libertarianism. John Locke, the founding fathers, Mises, Friedman, and Ron Paul all came before anarcho-capitalism.
Regardless, the point is that the ideology is damaging if not discussed discretely.
Ventura 2012
Your edit must have went in a second before my comment.
I won't argue the last point. Yes, my comment was just to say, that I agree, for the uninitiated, pure anarchism is a scary concept.
Oh, but before there was minarchism, there was anarchism. But now, we are seriously just splitting hairs. Anarchism = pure idealogy, and Minarchism = compromised idealogy.
Both are infinitely superior to what we have today... :)
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
check out my response to
check out my response to your other post, it deals with that idea.
Ventura 2012