Anti-Anarchist Thread
Submitted by wolfe on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 14:42This is a request, a favor, that I am asking of the community.
There are a number of minarchists, constitutionalists, etc. here, most of which are thoughtful and respectful when this topic comes up. Some, less so. But, regardless of what camp you fall into, I would like to ask you a favor.
This is not an effort to push my own belief system, nor is it an effort to start an argument for argument's sake.
I am making this request sincerely, and because I am really quite interested. I will not be arguing with any posters in this thread.
If I ask questions, it is sincere curiosity and NOT an attempt to trap you into an unsustainable argument. I would ask that you keep this in mind, and understand I am NOT attempting to be argumentative.
My request is simple. Can you tell me why you support a minarchist form of government? Why you are opposed to anarchism? And what benefits you believe government provides, and at what levels it should be capped, etc?
These are sincere questions, and the inflammatory headline is merely to get your attention.
My request for the anarchists, please do not attempt to convince or explain our point of view, as generally most are already aware and have chosen not to listen for whatever reason, but please instead ask sincere questions of the minarchists if a point of curiosity develops for you.
Or if you would like to describe the most common arguments you encounter against anarchism, I would love to hear those as well, as long as you do not create a caricature of their argument.
I would like to thank you in advance for participating.
- Login to post comments
I am not going to personally debate in this thread.
If you want to open a thread for us to debate, I will do so. And have done so many times. And I have yet to lose the logic and morality arguments in regard to anarchism.
But, that was not my goal with this thread. If you read the OP, I am very clear as to what I was asking for. If others debate here, then that isn't within my control.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
You asked questions looking for answers.. I asked questions
looking for answers yet you say you don't' want to debate. Next time don't ask questions. Seems simple enough..
"And I have yet to lose the logic and morality arguments in regard to anarchism."
I don't know of many people who aren't self-diluting about something like that.
Moral maybe.. logic I would question.
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
Then.
Open a new debate thread, invite me, and find out for yourself.
I was asking a favor here. And so far, many have participated and provided me with an invaluable resource for understanding minarchists.
By refusing to debate, I am showing respect for those who participated under the understanding that I wasn't interested in debate.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
I'm techically not looking for a debate.. I'm looking for
answers, it just turns into stupid debates.. but on my way.
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
You have the cart before the
You have the cart before the horse first you must prove speeding is reckless and results in more harm then not speeding and even before that you you must decide at what speed is it considered speeding.
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
"speeding is reckless"
Tell me you only use those types of arguments to only pick up easily swayed college chicks who are attracted to latte drinking stargazing dreamers.
I'm happy you've lost some weight but I wonder if the lost fat content has been mostly in the cranial area.
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
Fairly simple quote that leads to the answer
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” James Madison
There will always be disputes because men and women are not perfect, so in that lack of perfection, how, besides people coming together where one party must be the "neutral" arbitrator, when men cannot settle their own disputes, should we get around giving power to settle such things?
It is as the Founding Fathers stated, a necessary evil. One that "We the People" must hover over ever vigilant. With this mindset and preparedness to act.
""God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson.
Towards this end.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Declaration of Independence.
A minutely sized government as long as the people are paying attention and they would be if they cared about their Liberty, would work fine. Nothing is going to be perfect because nothing man touches is perfect.
I rate all of the politicians on a scale of 100% and give NONE of them a perfect score on Liberty.. my point in saying that is, I don't expect perfection but they have to be damn close and it's not that hard.. you've been conditioned to expect less, it is not their fault.. It is your fault as in "We the People" ALL OF US.
Think of Liberty in a twisted Free Market sense.. They are providing you with their products.. You fail to check out the product before you buy and instead, read their product manuals and listen to their advertisements and because they are shiny and sound good, you purchase. You didn't bother to read the ratings of people who had purchased their product 4 years ago, nor did you bother to read the consumer groups that tried to warn you. They made a huge profit off of you and had no incentive to change the next years offering because their history tells them that you won't take the time to research.
So, you get the cheap knock offs year after year and because it's easier to just buy another one, you just bitch and complain that it broke way too early, but that's about it.
Cheap and easy is rarely good. Real value costs more but it's really worth it.
Sorry someone came it!
To end.. Government is what we've allowed it to be but it can work, the power is in our hands.
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
it's an answer, but the wrong one.
Men are not angels. Men are not perfect, so we must take a certain subset of those imperfect men and make them some kind of gods (with a monopoly on the use of force) to make judgements and help us get along. And of course that particular subset we must choose is the most imperfect, psychopathic subset of them---because they are the ones who want that power. We must turn over the problem of having imperfect men get along to the least perfect and most psychotic of them. No, that doesn't make any sense.
What doesn't make any sense is your reply in any real depth
Nobody has forced the majority of Americans to pick these worst of us.
Run for office? Lay out a better way in practical terms that the average conversationalist can convey? I don't do feel good statements and pretend they are enough for practical applications.
Strip the force abilities from these people and give them administration "powers? only? Make the numbers very limited? Make these small groups of people incapable of benefiting from corruption? Give them no wage? Strip donations from the mix? Make it impossible for any politician to benefit in any way and you'll get people who want to actually serve others.
Make it where people form events "townhall" styled get togethers to address issues in their localities? So that they have more control over their areas?
Make every service possible a pay as you need service?
I have lots of ideas.. What's some of yours?
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
About disputes
"There will always be disputes because men and women are not perfect, so in that lack of perfection, how, besides people coming together where one party must be the "neutral" arbitrator, when men cannot settle their own disputes, should we get around giving power to settle such things?"
What about when your arbitrator is one of the parties on the dispute?
Why is a monopoly unacceptable everywhere else in life, but it is the best we can come up with when it comes to the law?
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito
"What about when your arbitrator is one of the parties on the
dispute? Why is a monopoly unacceptable everywhere else in life, but it is the best we can come up with when it comes to the law?"
It's not acceptable, which is why we're fighting it in government as well. You don't plan on getting rid of corporations too do you?
These things exist.. Here's the thing.. I'm not opposed to forming governments for limited times to get something done.. Maybe you say. "No, we could do it ourselves!"
Well sure but practically how is that done? It's instinctive for humans to gravitate towards one another and form groups.. only some of us resists that urge. Thinking though that everyone is going to be as independent as you and I may be a mistake. That's where Anarchists fail I think.
They deny a social truth in that.
I'm somewhat of a loner, I don't need others to survive in the grand scheme of things but even I crave human contact sometimes.. even as I push against those urges and feel better if I keep them at bay to a degree I can stand, I can understand that others crave it to a much larger degree. In some, it's in their nature to be led by others, while others have the need to break away from control.
Can we change that to where there is no dependence on government? It would be nice but I doubt it so therefore, people will advocate for others to lead them.
Yada yada.. Maybe you get the picture?
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
Subject
"It's not acceptable, which is why we're fighting it in government as well"
You can't fight monopoly in government, because the government is by definition a monopoly. You can't say monopoly is unacceptable, but also accept a government. It's contradictory.
"You don't plan on getting rid of corporations too do you?"
Corporations aren't inherently monopolies in the way governments are, but corporations are creations of the state, and would not exist in a free market.
"Well sure but practically how is that done? It's instinctive for humans to gravitate towards one another and form groups.. only some of us resists that urge. Thinking though that everyone is going to be as independent as you and I may be a mistake."
People can (and do) cooperate to achieve goals without government coercion. In fact, I'd argue that the results are even better. Private charity is more efficient and more moral than government welfare. Charity has been crowded out by the state, but that could be changed. I don't think everyone is or will be as independent as you or I, but they don't need to be. The division of labor will still exist, and charity/safety nets will still exist. And not to mention, a lot of these dependent people were created by the government, and even in our current welfare state, many people still go cold and hungry.
A lot of the responses against anarchy I hear are: "but if we didnt have the government, x would happen!". But they ignore the fact that x is already happening all around us. Just because you can whip up some hypothetical of how some problem *might* arise under anarchism loses sight of the fact that it is already happening under statism. You are ignoring the vast violence and poverty created by our current system and are focusing on an obscure hypothetical. Tme for another one of my terrible metaphors: this is like if you were trapped in a burning house and refused to run outside because you thought there was a possibility you might stub your toe outside.
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito
Ron Paul is a
Ron Paul is a voluntaryist.... an anarchist.
Ron Paul the 30-year
Congressman?
You can't reason with these
You can't reason with these fanatics...
Ventura 2012
OK, here goes.
The fundamental problem with anarchist philosophy, as I understand it, is that it is doomed to be a minority philosophy and provides no means to either change its numerical inferiority in society nor provide for itself a practical defense against the majority.
This objection seems to be little considered. I have attempted a post
http://www.dailypaul.com/274304/constructive-anarchist-thread
which is an attempt to at least begin the construction of the latter---practical defense---and if successful maybe even the former (who knows?). But as it stands now, this seems to be a major shortcoming of the philosophy, and some alternative must be sought. Let me explain a little more...
Here's an excerpt from "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larkin Rose:
==============
To be blunt, the belief in "authority" serves as a mental crutch for people seeking to escape the responsibility involved with being a thinking human being. It is an attempt to pass off the responsibility for decision-making to someone else: those claiming to be "authority." But the attempt to avoid responsibility by "just following orders" is silly, because it requires the person to *choose* to do what he was told.
==============
Here's the thing: It's a bit too much responsibility for most people to make all their own decisions. They have figured out that they benefit from people telling them what to do (governing them) when those people know more about various things than they do. This is a reasonable admission of personal limitation, and it is (perhaps at least) a reasonable desire to have a helpful resource in governance. It is part of human society and the advantage of specialization. As we all know, however, there are more than enough psychopaths who are ready to take advantage of this majority tendency.
The question is how to deal with the psychopaths.
The standard anarchist answer is that personal responsibility for decision making is part of being human, or is universally required, or at least we're happy for the rest of the world to go down the toilet before we'll let the psychopaths get the best of us.
While I can sympathize with this point of view, it's simply not good enough. Just as there are extreme psychopaths, there must be extreme anarchists who take it upon themselves to provide for the world of dependent (psychopaths). Note well that they are dependent psychopaths because they are more than willing to have their desire/need for guidance provided by those who initiate violence against others and are therefore guilty of the same---as that idiot Obama says, I get that.
I think we have a chance if we can provide guidance which can be taken voluntarily to replace the perceived benefit of coercive government. Some things need to accompany our services. Above all, we need to provide good advice, or sources for good advice. We need a rating system which results in that outcome in a, most likely, topic specific fashion. It may be that the general public still perceives the replacement for government as coercive at some level. But I'm digressing to the constructive side of things.
My main point is that I think there can be a notion of government---a source in society which guides people---tells them what to do, if you like---but is voluntary. It will have to be provided by the tiny minority of people who are not psychopathic. Most anarchists do not accept the responsibility to shoulder the burden of providing guidance for everyone else. And I hate that that's the way it's got to be, but I'm afraid it is.
The Christian church (and I speak here of the common human construction with which we are all familiar---not the real church) had a great opportunity to fill this role. Note how willing people are to voluntarily give their resources to it and follow the advice from it. Unfortunately, it was taken over by psychopaths of a different sort very early on, and the resulting advice has been pretty much uniformly terrible ever since.
In any case, this is why anarchy won't work---or why it might, if we get ourselves in gear and take on the unreasonable responsibility of governing society.
Do be do be do be do be do be do. LOL.
Do be do be do be do be do be do. LOL.
I knew this thread would open a
can-nah, Costco-like warehouse- of nitpicking. :PJust thought I might drop something to lighten you guys up (or some of you, anyway)
Don't we know everything comes down to understanding economics and cultures mentalities, in the end? (I mean, before considering this or that model of society...)
So, for you all dear anarchists, minarchists, constitutionalists (I'm one, here), ... -you name yourself- friends, help yourself - FREE refresher, and shameless plug:
http://www.dailypaul.com/271610/cows-economics-throughout-th...
... for a smile. (Hopefully?)
:)
My name's pronounced like "see real". Its root is "Lord".
"The demand of a great people is always at the scale of its most serious misfortunes." --De Gaulle
http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty
This Anatomy of the State
is one of Murray Rothbard's masterpieces. If you haven't read it you are missing out.
https://mises.org/document/1011/Anatomy-of-the-State
audio version: https://mises.org/media/7640/Anatomy-of-the-State
Here, once more
anti-Anarchist-Libertarians share Rothbardian critique of a predatory tyrannical role of government. Anarchists simply failed their part to logically demonstrate how anarchism would work without relying on a "new man" of the future when the cost to collect criminal evidence and apprehend a suspect is too costly. Feeble attempts to paint insurance/rating schemas as a solution are absurd even to a moderate intellect.
Rothbard felt lonely to the point that he campaigned against Goldwater and promoted socialist "New Left" party instead:
"Actually, though I'm personally very fond of von Mises, and economically count myself a disciple of his and the Austrian tradition, the political differences between myself and the other Misesians are so enormous that relations are getting pretty strained all around." - M. Rothbard, 1964.
In 1950's, Rothbard sent a letter to a Scientific committee - I cannot deliver my lecture. I have a severe travel phobia. My personal phychoanalist, Nathaniel Branden [Ayn Rand partner], promised to cure me but that did not occur. [The Life of Murray N. Rothbard by Justin Raimondo.] Justin Raimondo: "the letter was painful to read."
Not sure what that all meant.
One question for you. Can I opt out? The State does not make humans more or less moral, so I am not waiting for the 'new man'. I would just like to opt out of your tyranny. I do not advocate aggression - not personally nor collectively. So can I opt out of your tyranny? Can I have my small plot of land free from your tyranny? If not, I rest my case.
Abolishing the state so that
Abolishing the state so that you could opt out absolutely does assume an anarchist "new man". You'll never get enough people to support such a thing.
Ventura 2012
There would most likely be
There would most likely be private law... private legislatures... private courts. If you are a free market economist nothing could be better. Obviously you are not. Anarchist doesnt always mean a man by himself... in fact I want a private security firm.
You're assuming that enough
You're assuming that enough people could ever agree to anarchism to make this work for a period of time long enough to achieve any stability. I say no, free market economics are too complicated for the ignorant horde. A government is in place to suppress the ignorant masses as much as anything.
Ventura 2012
Opting out has nothing to do with a consensus.
That is the whole point. Opting out just breaks the monopoly. Who needs to agree to it? I just would like permission to not be part of your consensus. I surely have never met you and will most likely never meet you so why do you care if I agree to the 38 million stupid laws that you abide by? If we meet we can sign a contract with penalties included that anticipate a default from my end. Why do we need monopoly on initiation force to even exist?
"A government is in place to suppress the ignorant masses as much as anything."
You sound very tyrannical. Do you really believe that the ignorant masses need someone to make decisions for them?
I've already dealt with the
I've already dealt with the opt out issue elsewhere, with you even. Its econ 101 and even an anarchist society would not allow it.
As far as tyranny, is the Bill of Rights tyranny? I guess you would say that it is...we need someone to force the horde to abide by these principles instead of the principle of the lynch mob.
Ventura 2012
Let's say you were born in
Let's say you were born in Seattle or Miami or San Diego. So your mom signs you up for a birth certificate and SS number. By the time you are twelve you start working and realize that life is not what you thought. You had been taught that you were free. You had the Bill of Rights (BoR). But if you were free why are they taking 30% from your paycheck? You start studying to find out wtf is going on. You realize the the BoR is bs. You were not born free. You are a slave. So why do you have to agree to follow the 38 million laws that are in place? You never signed up for that. And why does that hick from Kansas demand that you participate in his tyranny? What could you do? Move to Mexico? It's a bit freer. But what does a gigantic geographic area have to do with freedom anyway? What would be wrong with the Greek polis or city-state? Then you could find the EXACT type of place you wanted to live in. Local governments would be unable to plunder its citizens because there would be competition. But today we have no choice. I call that tyranny. I call it slavery.
So that's it. I absolutely do not understand how this centralized government tyranny concept could be agreed upon by 300,000,000 folks. Human are complete sheep. That is my conclusion. You can tell them ANYTHING and they will follow as long as everybody else is doing it. But it does not make it right. You are as slave. I am a slave.
yeah it sucks but there is no
yeah it sucks but there is no alternative to having some form of state. we need to be constantly vigilant to keep that state at a bare minimum.
Ventura 2012
yeah it sucks but there is no
yeah it sucks but there is no alternative to having some form of state. we need to be constantly vigilant to keep that state at a bare minimum.
Ventura 2012
Oh c'mon Bmore
Keep it at a bare minimum? The USGovt. is the biggest, most tyrannical government in the history of the world. A mere 200 years ago it was the smallest in the world. We have no ability to keep it any which way. We have no control. We have no choice. We are slaves. Even if the votes were counted, what are the chances of your vote breaking a tie?
If we do not have an alternative would you not define that as a tyranny??
I completely agree with you that it sucks though!!!
We agree! Let's just celebrate that and call it a truce.
: )
Has there every been a
Has there every been a revolution before in human history, including ideological and political? I forget :D
Seems like an anarchist revolution would be even less palatable and therefore less likely than a minarchist one, so what's the argument anyway?
Truce brother
Ventura 2012