-13 votes

A Final Retort to the Anarchist Set

O, my intrepid friends, brave pioneers and adventurers of uncharted political seas!

Allow me an observation, perhaps a little embarrassing.

You all choose, voluntarily, to continue to live under the protection of society and its laws, despite all the chest thumping and tough talk about your wish to dispense with all government and the tyranny of law by force.

Seems to me that all of you, despite your philosophical musings, continue by your free choice to live under the legal protection of a coercive society without much second thought. Or in your words, the political machinery of slavery.

So please, dispense with the histrionics. "Give up the act."


The market you worship and hold up as the essence of anarchy is a product of the law that protects property and makes economic activity possible.

The regularity and predictability of law, the recourse to the courts to uphold private agreements, the protection from antisocial elements and organized violence, this is what allows economic planning, activity and exchange to occur.

The selective process of competition has elevated societies with states and markets to the place they hold in the world today. It did not elevate societies with stateless arrangements to that place, because, if they ever existed at all for long, they failed.

You will claim "true anarchism was never tried" just like the communists lament "true communism was never tried." Without explaining why. Why isn't this most natural, true and just order of things pre-eminent? Why has it never been tried? Why has it not spread and succeeded?

You think that pointing to voluntary activity that occurs within the framework of coercive legal order is somehow an example of anarchy. That is as fallacious as socialists who point to economic activity within a system of capitalism, like the military or medicare, as the "success" of socialism.

The closest thing you will find to the anarchy you advocate, are communities and individuals who migrated outward from civilization into the wilderness, as settlers, and existed temporarily without written laws or courts. They did so on the basis of the civilized manners and habits of behavior they had learned and been trained in as scions of a civilization predicated on coercive legal order.

Much of the time they used violence to maintain the arrangements they made in these efforts -- they upheld voluntary contracts, indissoluble once signed, with free use of violence. Wagon trains headed westward, commercial ships bound into the lawless oceans. Individuals bound by voluntary contracts with violence as a last means of keeping them to their signatures.

Once settled in a stable society with property, with commerce, women, children, etc. -- and conflicts in need of adjudication -- they created a legal order and at least a minimal system of justice: written laws, courts, police, and some way of provisioning the costs thereof. In other words, a system that involved some level of coercion upon participants.

That doesn't mean they were prisoners, or couldn't up and leave. Anymore than any of you can't. Just that if they chose to stay they accepted the legal order and its protections, and did not free ride by violating its conditions or by refusing to fund its operations, while still remaining within its protection.

That does not mean every state act is just or should not be challenged. Just that laws are a legitimate expression of the interests of a community of people in defending themselves and the conditions that make their life possible.

All the private activities of life still exist, all the non-coercive institutions of civil society, both economic and non economic. But all exist within a framework and architecture that permits legal standards to be imposed on all with a final recourse to force on those who violate those standards.

All who participate in it or benefit from it also are expected to adhere to its terms and conditions, whether on the large or small scale. From a family unit, up through a community, to a national state, even if the state is limited strictly to a few functions like national defense.


But come on, we you already know this.

All of you live within society and enjoy the material advantages and physical protections it provides. You might talk about anarchy on the internet, but none of you have any practical interest in it. Its for you to talk about. Maybe you think its edgy and titillating. Maybe its the same impulse that inspired earlier generations of young intellectuals to want to remake the world in the image of socialism.

Ater all, there are plenty of empty spaces left on the planet. There are places with minimal or no government, open to the bold and adventurous.

In the words of Nietzche, is the sea not full of green isles?

What is your objection? That if you go it alone the state or some gang will stop you, steal your property, extort income from you?

Well no sh1t, that's the whole point.

Guess you'll need to bring your "protection agency" along with you.

Just hope that once you're outside the legal order of contracts and courts, your "protection agency" - body guard, mercenary - doesn't just make you its b1tch.

And why should it not? It is no longer within a market order, bound to any contracts by law. It is now outside the economic order enforced by the coercive legal structure of the state. There is no final arbiter of law.

The protection agency (gang) you hire is just a group of people with more power than you in a lawless environment, and has no reason not to make itself your master, rather than be your servant.

This is not exactly new. It has been tried before. It is called feudalism.

This is why men institute governments and laws. To avoid the law of the stronger. To establish their rights against the arbitrary power of larger groups.


Notice that no serious thinker from the Classical Greek and Roman civilization, to the Anglo and American heirs of two thousand years of political thought, up to our founding fathers, ever advocated anarchism. Because they were thoughtful, well educated people, participating in society and government, and close enough on a human level to real people and conditions of political behavior to know better.

They were not so isolated from social contact and reality, or so emotionally alienated from those around them, to adopt intellectual fantasies as outlets for their emotional disorders.

As serious thinkers, well adjusted to social life, they tried as much as possible to practice, or put into practice, what they believed and preached.

You guys preach things you would never adopt or live.

You sit in the comfort and safety of coercive legal society and pretend you want anarchy.

You're full of it.

In future I shall just nod and smile politely when this stuff comes up. You know even better than I do that you're full of it.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Statist's Advocate.

Sunday 14/10/19 13:15 EDT
.post #7

That does not mean every state act is just or should not be challenged. Just that laws are a legitimate expression of the interests of a community of people in defending themselves and the conditions that make their life possible.

Insofar as this has much meaning, it's not true. The few laws which might qualify as the "legitimate expression of the interests of a community of people in defending themselves and the conditions that make their life possible" are the proscriptions of theft, assault, fraud, and property violation.

The vast majority of laws are the "illegitimate expression of special interest groups who seek, via the state's legally-pointed guns, to protect themselves from competition and to privatize their profits while socializing their losses."

All the private activities of life still exist, all the non-coercive institutions of civil society, both economic and non economic. But all exist within a framework and architecture that permits legal standards to be imposed on all with a final recourse to force on those who violate those standards.

Except, of course, for the aforementioned myriad special interests and the state, who enjoy special privileges and exemptions from laws the rest of us must obey. So, once again, what you say is false.

You're full of it.

But you're the one making false statements.

What is your objection? That if you go it alone the state or some gang will stop you, steal your property, extort income from you?

Imagine if every person who ever suggested a better idea or criticized tyranny decided to "go it alone." What you imply here seems, prima facie, absurd; that's not the nature of ideological change. Ideological change involves promotion, not isolation.

The internet affords proponents of liberty an unprecedented opportunity to promote a better idea. That is what is being done, and the idea is spreading. Thank you for provoking yet another debunking of statist justificatory rhetoric.

Straw Man

Who places a name on their man of straw, and why do they do it?



"O, my intrepid friends, brave pioneers and adventurers of uncharted political seas!"

uncharted? what came first? government or individuals?

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.


Wow, what a way to conflate 'society' with 'government', and 'government' with 'governance'. People don't need government for society to function. In fact, government's only role is to prevent society from functioning as it would freely.

It boils down to one simple principle, that being the NAP. I know you're bright enough to either know what that is or to look it up. When you finally realize that YOU never have a right to violate the NAP and that others never have a right to violate the NAP by initiating violence upon you then you'll have accepted the truth. Until then, go ahead and keep being part of the problem and not the solution.

Another Rebuttal

If the rules in the McDonald's handbook do not apply to Wal-Mart employees, and

If the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not apply to non-military, and

If the Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to non-commercial transactions, and

If the Electric Code does not apply to plumbers, and

If the Plumbing Code does not apply to electricians, and

If Residential Building Codes does not apply to non-residential structures, and

If all of these codes apply to specific things or activities because that is the fundamental nature of codes then I do not want to live among a people who would feed me a bunch of bullshit about who the United States code applies to. You would claim I'm full of it? You sir, are full of it. You would claim I sit in the comfort and safety of a coercive legal society? No sir, I do not. I have had automobiles stolen by thugs for not obtaining permission to travel. I have been caged for stating judges are dishonest and addressing them by their given names, not their artificial titles. I have been beaten up by thugs. I have endured persecution like so many countless and nameless others in this unjust system. I derive no comfort from it. There is no safety to be had in it.

I will tell you what I do not appreciate. I do not appreciate being persecuted for lies and bullshit my entire life. If jurisdiction is allegedly constitutionally granted and statutorily allocated then I want to know where any constitution grants any jurisdiction to trespass against me if I have injured no one or damaged no property that can be statutorily allocated by legislators. If the resources of earth are for man to use for his subsistence by natural right, governments exercise a privilege to profit from the land, and all government power is derived from men ... then by what authority does government exclude or regulate any activity I perform which does not harm, injure, or profit from the land?

Family courts ... the people did not delegate any authority for government to regulate families so by what authority does any family court coerce?

Traffic courts ... the people did not delegate any authority for government to regulate travel so by what authority does any traffic court coerce?

I could go on with more examples but they don't have any authority, they simply presume it and the precise means by which the presumption is made is that you were acting in the capacity of a citizen or engaged in commerce. Men may have created government but government created citizens and any man acting as a citizen is subject to its statutes, codes, orders or decrees.

The substantial citations found in travel memorandums of law clearly illustrate the frauds of the present legal monopoly. Roads used to be private. One did not have to get a horse license unless they were operating carriages for hire in some cities and using the roads as a place of business. The automobile came along and the courts extended the same principles to determine if the automobile had the same rights to the road as the horse and buggy. Automobiles required pavement so the state was entrusted to maintain the public paved roadways with the public purse. It was intended that anyone could use the public highway and the authority of the state is limited to regulating people who use the highway to derive a gain, operate on it for hire, or use it as a place of business. It's the reason all Driver Licenses are occupational licenses and a Truck Driver License is merely a different class of occupational driver license. The state says driving is a privilege but what they don't say is what constitutes driving? The state does not disclose driving is an activity of using the public roadway for hire to derive a gain or benefit while unjustly seeking to convert your natural and fundamental right to travel into a driving privilege.

These are the long forgotten maxims of law in the so called republic. Distinctions between business activities for the love of money and non business activities was well understood. It was understood that if you are acting on the love of money you are engaged in commerce subject to regulation because you are ultimately deriving a gain from the land but if your activities are not based on a love of money the only rules are do not injure anyone or damage any property. Well I got news for you ... every action I perform does not derive from a love of money and I refuse to be regulated 24/7/365 in the name of commerce using dishonest presumptions a corrupt legal system refuses to disclose or acknowledge.

You say I am receiving protection? Prove it. I want to know the exact dollar amount of protection I have received or benefited from while being persecuted. This is the problem. People like you want to presume everyone is deriving a gain or benefit from Ceasar 24/7/365 when it is simply not true. Some people are not being protected. The protection was never for the people anyway, it was to preserve orderly commerce. The prohibitions were to insure that the business of government did not unjustly trespass against people.

I haven't even talked about currency which has led to the bankruptcy and largest wealth heist in human history because this entire objection so far has been about law but because the monopolies of justice and currency have been a total failure ... I demand nothing less than competition in justice and currency.

right here, bill.

lmao that was pretty funny

lmao that was pretty funny

I can understand

I can understand not getting anarchy. After all, it takes a decent amount of studying of economics, logic, reason...many people have not or are not interested into putting the kind of deep thought into thinking about things in a drastically different way. I once thought we *needed* government too, even though I didn't like it. It was seen as a "necessary evil."

What I cannot understand is the obsession that some such as the OP have with constantly bashing and demeaning those that don't believe in the "necessary evil" of the State, continually using the same tired arguments mostly consisting of straw men and ad homs.

So what is the obsession?

In what universe is our living under the State system "voluntary?" Is there a choice to opt out I don't know about? There are States that are worse than others, states that are freer, states that are more totalitarian. Despite the direction, living in the U.S. is still a better option on the freedom scale than many other places. This may be changing.

Regardless, we live freely in spite of the State, not voluntarily under its grasp. If I could opt out of the State's confiscation of my wealth, of its unjust laws, *without* the threat of violence perpetrated against myself, I certainly would.

Dispense with the histrionics? Pot. Kettle. Black.


"worship" is what one does in the face of logic, out of faith. This is how one should describe belief in the State. It is not based on logic nor reason. It is based purely on faith.

I agree, regularity and predictability of law is essential to a functioning market. But the market historically provides such stability, whereas the State distorts it, creates arbitrary laws and favors certain connected bodies.

Why are all your credit cards the same size? Is there a law that says they must be? The market has provided that.

"True anarchism" is tried and successful every single day, in many aspects of our lives. Whether it's driving through intersections without traffic lights or stop signs(yes, they exist)or interacting on the Daily Paul, anarchy does work...and it works splendidly. So well that it can often defy the illogical and destructive actions of the State.

History has shown time and time again, that in the absence or even in defiance of the State, the market will create its own legal frameworks.

I highly recommend the book The Enterprise of Law by Bruce Benson for many historical examples.


Newflash: The State has made you and the rest of us its bitch for a long time.

It is the State that provides arbitrary law and order. It is the State which allows police officers to murder, IRS agents to steal, soldiers to rape. Held *above the law*, without consequence.


Unlike you I will not sit back and claim you are "full of it." It seems clear that you believe what you believe, to the point where it has become a religious belief for you. Religion, faith - these things cannot be argued.

You may not share the same beliefs as those who do not have a mystical faith in government, but your need to rant and rave, create straw men, and condescend on people you likely agree with on 97% of everything continues to baffle me.

What a life it must be like, to obsess over such things!

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

hey buddy this is not an

hey buddy

this is not an argument.

watch me do it.

"I can understand not getting why anarchy is retarded. After all, it takes a decent amount of studying of economics, logic, reason to realize this...many people have not or are not interested into putting the kind of deep thought into thinking about things in a realistic, serious way...."

See, anyone can do that.

if someone really believes that they're living under an immoral system of slavery, they have a duty to leave, to stop paying taxes and supporting it.

yes, if you leave the protection of society, and set up your life somewhere outside of government, some gang of people might rob you, take your stuff, make your their slave. it might even be other states that do so.

that's the whole point. you stay here because you have MORE LIBERTY than if you went it alone, the anarchy route. that's the point, none of you leave the state and risk it alone, or together, outside the state.

your retort "the state will get us wherever we go, we can't leave, it will be even worse outside the state."

my reply is, exactly. duh. you prove my point.

you submit to the state because it protects your liberty better than you could.

you prove it every day by living under its rules and paying its taxes.

unless you got rid of EVERY OTHER STATE in the world through the "moral force" of your "arguments" - there's always gonna be a state that can just run over you... your liberty does not exist WITHOUT a state defending it.

if you really believed in the efficacy of protection agencies, you would hire one and have it protect you and go settle some place with a weak government. you don't do it. the world is cruel and violent. you are afraid. you live behind the protection of the government and b1tch online.

that is all.

b1tch online?

Is that not what you do here all day every day or am I missing something.

How exactly would you recommend when live outside of a State? How do I live behind the protection of government? Government has protected me from nothing.

I see your already posting other threads on this. so much for your "final retort."

The argument that there will 'always be a state' to rule you is not a logical argument for the State any more than 'there will always be slavery in the world, and slaves will always be slaves.'

What is your purpose here? It is certainly not intellectual debate.

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

this was my final retort..

this was my final retort.. that other post is just for laughs. ok now i'm done.

I'll believe it

When I see it!

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*


So let me get this straight. The OP and those who find his comments persuasive want "limited government." Limited by what? Something called "the rule of law." Now this "law," furthermore, not only derives from the government, but they want a government which maintains by force a monopoly on its legislation, adjudication, and enforcement.

One might point out the obvious at this point: What you get is legislation, adjudication, and enforcement leading to a situation in which psychopathic megalomaniacs claim absolute control over all property of those governed and determination of whether or not they live or die.

There is also an obvious example: The United States.

A message from Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and a host of other psychopathic megalomaniacs to BILL3: Thanks for your service. We couldn't have done it wouthout you.



Rothbard, from his 1991 Rothbard-Rockwell Report article, "The 'New Fusionism': A Movement For Our Time":

In a country, or a world, of totally private property, including streets, and private contractual neighborhoods consisting of property-owners, these owners can make any sort of neighborhood-contracts they wish. In practice, then, the country would be a truly "gorgeous mosaic," ... ranging from rowdy Greenwich Village-type contractual neighborhoods, to socially conservative homogeneous WASP neighborhoods. Remember that all deeds and covenants would once again be totally legal and enforceable, with no meddling government restrictions upon them. So that considering the drug question, if a proprietary neighborhood contracted that no one would use drugs, and Jones violated the contract and used them, he fellow community-contractors could simply enforce the contract and kick him out. Or, since no advance contract can allow for all conceivable circumstances, suppose that Smith became so personally obnoxious that his fellow neighborhood-owners wanted him ejected. They would then have to buy him out—probably on terms set contractually in advance in accordance with some "obnoxious" clause.

Elsewhere (in Nations By Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State, which you favorably cite elsewhere in Democracy), Rothbard similarly writes:

With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortion, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person's or community's land area.

Ventura 2012

now you are just being obtuse

When have the anarchists on this site ever stated that we are opposed to laws? Why do you keep confusing anarchy with lawlessness?

Also, the same two arguments you trounce up could be used to shut you up about minarchism.

1) If minarchism is so great, why don't you go find an island somewhere and start your own minarchist nation? (BTW, while there are uninhabited islands out there, there are no unclaimed islands out there. Each piece of land is claimed by some State.)

2) Notice that no serious thinker from the Classical Greek and Roman civilization, to the Anglo and American heirs of two thousand years of political thought, up to before our founding fathers, ever advocated minarchism. Does that somehow negate your argument? Our founding fathers were the first. They advanced the human race. Now we are advancing it further. I mean, what kind of argument is this anyway? Just because for 2,000 years, no one has made an airplane, airplanes are an invalid concept?

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Punctuation. That's an improvement

The rest is just a wall of text to, forlornly, attempt to bludgeon rational people with a wall of words.

The reason you have to write so much is because you can't answer concise questions. Again it's not like what Rothbard, et all are unclear in what they say.

The economic argument you are clearly incapable of grokking.

The moral one is simple: Where does the moral authority come form to steal, enslave, or kill another man?

Gee it's almost as if this was asked 200 years ago.

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. - Thomas Jefferson

History has answered.

Explain why history's answer is wrong.

PS: TYVM for making anarchists look awesome by being such a lousy proponent for statism.

this is one of the dumbest

this is one of the dumbest comments i've ever seen.

first of all you don't know the difference between punctuation and capitalization. all of my sentences are punctuated, i just choose not to apply case in comment threads.

your first sentence is meaningless and poorly constructed. you can't write for sh1t.

"the rest is just of wall of text to, forlornly, attempt to bludgeon.... with wall of words."

my post is a" wall of text" to hit people with a "wall of words," to... forlornly... you manage to say nothing, and do it in an ugly, graceless manner that mangles the english language.

then you say "its not as if its unclear what rothbard says."

you appear to believe that, if its not unclear what someone says, they are therefore right. or that no two people could read something and disagree. since your simpleton brain sets the standard for all others.

finally, your quote from TJ, justifying government by republican democracy, against monarchy. what kind of idiot would think arguing for a republic is an argument for no government.

please do everyone a favor a refrain from thinking.

Now it would just be bunny stomping.

You're really out of your league here. I don't know if you're capable of learning or not, but if you care to do so you need to stop writing and start reading.

Here's another quote you will probably not understand either but it describes your situation clearly.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion - John Stuart Mill

You don't understand what you are arguing against. This is why your critiques are incoherent. Even if we assume your poor grammar, punctuation, etc are just laziness, you still just plain don't know what you're arguing against. At this point we must assume this laziness runs to intellectual laziness as well. Or else you would take the time to figure out what the hell you are arguing against.

As such you are really hurting your cause, especially with the emotional emesis you spewed. I'm serious when I say I've met Maoists who make better cases for Statism. Hell I can make the Maoist case if I want to. I could certainly make an argument for statism better than you have been.

You're passionate. You're in a liberty forum. Maybe you're smart, but we won't be able to tell until you know what you're talking about, or arguing against.

So maybe you could be a fighter for the cause of good. And it would be almost impossible for you to make a poorer fighter in the cause for evil than you have been.

But whether you want to stay on the side of evil, or explore good, the first step is stop being lazy and learn.

And, you were complaining about personal attacks... Ha!


Yeah he's a mess. It makes me

Yeah he's a mess. It makes me wonder what it is he thinks he likes about freedom anyway? He makes me think of the Avengers movie.

Kneel before me. I said, KNEEL! (sheep kneel) Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel. - Loki

I think maybe he thinks he needs someone with horns to kneel to. Seems like he's on the right track.


excellent comment

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus



tasmlab's picture

What do you advocate for?

So I get anarchy isn't your cup of tea, despite having a lot to say about it.

What do you propose as the arrangement you would advocate? It might help clarify what you want and why you feel it is necessary to take the hooks to anarchy.

Is it just the ideas you don't like or is there some greater fear? Those Rothbard books are still largely unread, threatening nobody.

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Just let this thread die...

Just let this thread die... Obviously there is no discussion here. Just a garbage can for thoughts.

I would let it die but

I would let it die but seriously Bill3 makes a wonderful argument for our side by making such a lousy and confused case for statism:D

Haha! Very true.

Haha! Very true.

in for the lulz and strawmen.

in for the lulz and strawmen.


Without 'leaders', we would all just sit around in a stupor.

Is that your argument?


Is a state apologist, need I say more? I honestly couldn't make it through the first two paragraphs. The manner in which he talks down to his audience is unbearable. Bill3, our Founders REALLY set up great safeguards (not that I don't respect the hell out of them). Just look at where we are today!