27 votes

Would you be better off under anarchism?

The only reason to institute a government is to protect liberty. People create governments to protect themselves and their property. In doing so, the people assume that the government will be cheaper to operate than what would have otherwise been stolen from them by other sources of theft.

Seeing as how the US central government is looting the people for around 50 cents on the dollar, do you think it's worth the price? Or, do you think you would be better off under anarchism? Simply, do you think thieves would steal more from you (in the absence of government) than what the government currently takes?

Further, if you believe government is necessary, what are your suggestions for successfully limiting the powers of such an institution? We've seen that constitutions - at least in their most modern forms - don't really work that well over the long haul. Are constitutions perfectible? Can government power ever really be limited for the duration?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Then why does Ron Paul agree

Then why does Ron Paul agree with the Constitution? The Constitution is most enforceable at the federal government level.

Perhaps he swoar to uphold it?

I'm not sure RP agrees with the 16th Amendment!

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Anarchy vs. "Do what thou

Anarchy vs. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

Is anarchy and Aleister Crowley's philosophy one in the same?

How is it different?

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Thelema is not a political philosophy

What Crowley really meant by "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" roughly translates to find your true will/destiny and follow it. The law here refers more to moral law, rather than legal law. Not that I am a thelema expert or a fan of Crowley, but that has always been my interpretation.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

anarchy

is such a scary word. but i'll take wild west anarchy over 1984 any day of the week. As long as there's guns and ammo to protect my family and hunt, I'm game. evil would be rampid and unconfined however and each man would have to fend for himself like in the old days. It's a harder life but by God its freedom

Well then don't use that word!

Use "voluntaryism" ... watch this video to see how un-scary anarchy is:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMoPBDz5ycA&feature=youtube_gdata

I think anarchy is the most

I think anarchy is the most extreme form of individualism. Anarchy is complete self reliance without laws. The Founders were not anarchists, but they were about two or three steps away from it. They wanted government out of the American peoples lives, to be left alone. They would rather fend for themselves than be dependent upon a king.

They were bordering on being anarchic capitalists. They essentially told the English monarchy and the Vatican to go screw themselves, the colonists were sick and tired of being governed and ruled by a King, the Church, or both.

To govern oneself...what a novel idea.

As many here know, rugged individualism was the backbone of American society up until around 1933. That's when the collectivism of government really started to take over with FDR's raw deal.

Does government create war and chaos just to justify its own existence?

Government is a necessary evil that must be kept small, and in check by individual people at all times that desire their own personal freedom and liberty most.

Societies have a tendency to create rules, and laws..."social norms and customs." In order to enforce those rules and laws, people erect a thing called government...which in itself is fine, but when the people get lazy and take their watchful eyes off the government ball and rely upon the government to enforce the law (instead of themselves) that's when government goes bad.

We let it happen. It's our own fault because individuals were too preoccupied with...themselves. A bit ironic, isn't it?

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

I respectfully disagree...

"I think anarchy is the most extreme form of individualism."

COMMUNITY is a major REQUIREMENT of a completely anarchist society, which in and of itself is open for debate on what exactly an "anarchist society" even means. There are so many different degrees and angles and interpretations, and to apply one definition would sort of be oxymoronic. People know they can't make it on their own and that if we even want to attempt to build a free society, we have to have a large community of like-minded individuals who are willing to defend their rights. Simply defending ourselves would require a massive co-op and mutual agreement between all sorts of private defense service companies, contractors, factions, groups, tribes, neighborhoods, etc.

"Anarchy is complete self reliance without laws."

I've already stressed the importance of community in an anarchist society so I'll skip over self-reliance, but using the word "laws" is playing semantics in my opinion. There would still be rules and order, and perhaps certain groups may still call that "law" or common law, but the difference is that there would be competing "laws" or rules or standards or whatever you want to call them.

There wouldn't be a monopoly on the creation of "laws." There wouldn't be a monopoly on the enforcement of "laws" meaning that if a certain group of police were harrassing me or whatever, I could have my own police force step in to deal with the situation. I could choose which court system aka independent arbitration agency, instead of being forced into the gov't courts which are set up for me to lose. Plus, each town, neighborhood, group, etc. could create their own "laws".

Competition in law, courts, and in defense services would make those market services serve the people instead of serving the bureaucracy of government.

Lastly, the Founding Fathers believed it was the right of the people to abolish the government once it no longer protected the natural rights of its citizens. They believed in secession too. If you believe that states have the right to secede from the Union, then so should counties, cities, houses, and individuals.

In my opinion this implies that they believed government was truly voluntary, and individuals should have a right to opt out, and if need be, establish their own voluntary government.

Many would argue that is indeed anarchy.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

the founders of America...in

the founders of America...in terms of its politicians?--they were kings with different names and different hats. People fled to have true independence from them, not to flee and then have some other form of tyranny be imposed. Whether it is Democracy, Theocracy, Fascism, or a Constitutional republic--they all are a collective organization with a monopoly on the use of force. While their are always good intentions to introduce newer styles of government, it will always grow in power, and when they grow in power, they will grow in size and demand more from "it's people" under the guise of protecting them all along abusing our human rights and stealing from us through taxation.

Anarchy is only temporary. Only until there are no more men and women who desire power and control there will always be a government imposing their opinions on how the world should be run.

- Brennan

The #1 best example of successful anarchism...

THE INTERNET!

It is the largest society in human history with no border, no owner, is completely voluntary and it seems to be doing just fine where it isn't regulated.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

But once you bring physical

But once you bring physical human beings, property and Constitutional rights into the equation, it gets complicated fast.

The "real world" isn't the Internet.

Huh?

This isn't the "real world"?

I'm a human in the physical form. I own my computer and thoughts etc. And I'm certainly not waiving my natural rights by writing this. I would argue the internet is very much a REAL part of this physical world.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

If all computers went offline

If all computers went offline (admittedly a far-fetched scenario) the Internet would cease to exist. The Internet is the result of the connections between computers.

Yea, but you also cant go in

Yea, but you also cant go in and steal all of a person's food or shoot them to death either. The internet in almost no way deals with the physical aspect. Most heat of the moment arguements end up being defused/cooled off and rarely lead to physical encounters, where in the real world, you can imagine this not being the case.
I am saying that the internet isnt exactly a perfect example even though it may be a good one.
I suppose I am not really an anarchist though and think a basic framework is fine; though nothing draconian like we have today.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Your argument assumes that

Your argument assumes that what's keeping people from looting each other's homes or settling all disputes with violence is state authority.

In fact, you don't know that people wouldn't be more peaceful with less state authority. If you knew the guy you were threatening wasn't going to call the cops, but was just going to shoot you himself if things went too far, you might proceed with far more caution.

If a criminal knows that people in their homes aren't going to wait for cops, but are going to open fire themselves, he might proceed with far more caution.

Anarchy (which actually means organization through property rights and market functions) could be the most peaceful system imaginable.

You make a good point.

An armed society, is a peaceful society (if those with the arms are willing to use them).

A friend who was raised in Germany recently told me his childhood memories of seeing fights break out regularly in the bar downstairs from his apartment. Guys going at each other with knives and chains. It was brutal. He postulated that it would have been much more peaceful if the regular people had guns and not just the recognized enforcers.

Excellent point. Anarchism is

Excellent point.

Anarchism is the answer.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

Yes.

Yes.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

We would be worse off,

We would be worse off, similar to how society moved backwards from civilization (Roman Empire) to anarchy (Early Feudalism).

Ventura 2012

When in Rome . . .

notice that the Romans are people, not "Empire." Early Rome grew because people wanted protection from roving brigands and warlords. Late Rome fell apart under the weight of its own corruption, because the people it ruled hated and feared its oppressive and crazed rulers more than they feared the alternatives of the day.

Sort of like the USA, hm? You can make the same case that the US did better without British rule -- for awhile. And then it degenerated into something much worse. And TODAY we would be better off with NO government, instead of the one we have. Sure, we might be better off as the sort of constitutional republic that this country USED to be -- but in the final analysis, that one didn't work for long, and there's no going back. Government: an idea whose time has gone.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Yes, the anarchist strawman

Yes, the anarchist strawman that minarchists demand eternal life for ANY system. We do not because we are not utopians, you are. By your logic I could point to the failure of anarchy. Also, you missed my point but my guess is that was intentional.

Ventura 2012

I've never understood this

I've never understood this line of thinking.

Under the "Constitutional republic that this country used to be" you had FAR fewer rights than you had now.

Blacks, women, non-property owners couldn't vote. Extrajudicial executions were common-place. Domestic abuse was common. Violations of religious doctrine were punishable by legal/social force. Disease, poverty, hate, were rampant. People did not co-exist peacefully even in very small communities (with other communities).

I understand that the shattering of the more Republican, states-right form of government has had repercussions. Corruption in government is higher. There is less choice for government. Military power is concentrated. Universal taxation is permitted. Prosperous, populous states are beholden to the whims of poor, small states. It is easier for power to capture centralized power.

However, it is faulty to not recognize that a more centralized form of government has also brought many American many, many rights. To forget this is being intellectually dishonest.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

no views

I hate to post low in a thread, but...

Blacks, women, non-property owners couldn't vote.

Voting is irrelevant and worthless, so this is no gain.

Extrajudicial executions were common-place.

They still are, and add to that unjust judicial executions.

Domestic abuse was common.

It still is, and add to that public abuse by government.

Violations of religious doctrine were punishable by legal/social force.

They still are.

Disease, poverty, hate, were rampant.

"Rampant" is ambiguous. These still exist, and I'm not even sure that any of them are always bad. Maybe they are less "rampant," and maybe we need more of them.

People did not co-exist peacefully.

Some did. Now none do.

I think your charge of intellectual dishonesty is overblown.

I would love to hear your

I would love to hear your explanation of how feudalism is anarchism.

Do you even know what anarchism is? Please read moar Murray Rothbard.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

I've read far more Rothbard

I've read far more Rothbard than you ever will. Feudalism was a voluntary system by which serfs paid rent to their Lord in return for protection and could leave at any time.

Ventura 2012

THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE: WHY VIOLENCE HAS

DECLINED, by Dr. Steven Pinker.

If you are interested in advancing Anarchy, this book by Dr Pinker is your biggest challenge. You really must deal with it by reading it cover to cover and understanding the facts and reasoning put forth.

Meanwhile, this book may also be the biggest boost to the Minarchist/Classical Liberal position to come along in a long, long while.

Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Coercion is immoral. Statism

Coercion is immoral.
Statism requires coercion.
Statism is therefor immoral.
Does Pinker refute this?

The devil's advocate position

The devil's advocate position would say, parenting requires coercion... Is parenting considered immoral?

All forms of parenting which

All forms of parenting which employ coercion are immoral, but I am not convinced that all forms of parenting require coercion and cannot therefor conclude that all parenting is immoral.

You're certainly on to something though - most parents do employ coercion and rely on punishment to force their kids to do something or to not do something. That form of parenting absolutely is immoral.

parenting

Children have not fully homesteaded themselves, therefore some acts which would be considered coercion on adults are not coercion on children. Therefore, coercion is always evil and should never be supported. The state is evil.

Walter Block:

Children, in sharp contrast to both, may be controlled by parents, under a very different type of legal provision, not ownership, of course, but, rather, attainment and retention of guardianship rights.

How are these rights first established? In the good old fashioned way: through pregnancy and child birth of course. The parents in effect "homestead" not of course any ownership over their children which do not and cannot exist, but rather guardianship rights over them.

May they give up these rights? Yes. To the extent a person may not give up, or sell, or relinquish rights, it is to that extent he does not really fully own them. If the parents do not continue to feed, clothe and otherwise care for their children, or abandon them, they lose these guardianship rights.