-19 votes

Anarchists: "Duhhh, we can't leave the state, some other state will get us "

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.

How could you get rid of the state? The neighboring state would then roll over you.

Unless you got rid of EVERY OTHER STATE in the world through the "moral force" of your "arguments" - all at once - 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.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Even if I grant you that this

Even if I grant you that this is an "anarchistic" society, it would not define ALL anarchistic societies. Much like HTML is a subset of XML, this "anarcho-communist" society would be a subset of anarchistic societies, and not the inevitable outcome of such a society.

The anarchistic societies many of us argue for is nothing like this one. It is one where we are free to pursue our interests as long as we rely on voluntary interactions. It is an ideal, and likely one that none of us will ever see, but like all ideals it is something to strive for, not condemn as unachievable. Do the religious that "absence of sin" is unattainable, therefore we should all sin as much as possible?

The anarchism you strive for

The anarchism you strive for would likely look more nightmarish than you or Karl Marx envisioned. But we have real-world examples:

1.Ancient Ireland- tribal, conquered by neighboring English state

2.Ancient Israel- nomadic tent people scared into adopting government by local highly-advanced civilizations/empires

3.Feudal Europe- took Roman culture featuring scientific achievement, massive aqueducts and roads, universities and world trade and turned into into rotting filth, society devolved 500 years.

4.Bushmen of the Callihari- Anarcho-communist tribe that abhored private property, the family, and money, Lasted until the 1940's, very "stable".

We had better be pretty damn sure of what will come of the abolition of the state before we run around agitating for it, dont you think? This is why I make parallels between communism and ancaps because they act the same way.

Ventura 2012


We had better be pretty damn sure of what will come of the abolition of the state before we run around agitating for it, dont you think?

If the founders would have been pretty damn sure of what would come of the Constitution - ie where we are now - would they have advocated for it? How could they have known for "damn sure"?

I'll let you know what my next poo smells like before I take it - because that's totally possible.

In reality, however, the arguments against statism are pretty clear. Whether you like it or not, the world is tending towards anarchism. Considering the big picture, government is becoming less and less totalitarian over time - smaller and smaller. Of course, that isn't to say that governments can't get bigger and more oppressive over temporary periods, but that over the course of history the trend has been for them to become more limited. Not too many folks are asking for kings these days.

"Communism is

"Communism is inevitable"-Karl Marx.

The founders looked at the Roman, Swiss, Dutch, and Greek republics/democracies for guidance, AS WELL AS THEIR OWN COLONIAL STATE GOVERNMENTS. It wasnt that hard to figure out what would happen.

Ventura 2012

"Communism is

"Communism is inevitable"-Karl Marx.

Ventura 2012

+1 great point at the end.

great point at the end. another thing anarchos and ideologues in general hate is history.

Technology and communication

Technology and communication changes everything.

People from 100 BC would be fairly comfortable in 1800 AD, because technology largely hadn't changed. Communication methods still involved manually transporting some media from point A to B. Production of goods still involved manual labor. It is only recently that anarchism is viable because the means of communication are nearly instantaneous regardless of distance. This technology allows for communities to mount meaningful (and overwhelming) resistance to invaders. No rulers = everyone is free to defend themselves and their property. As these types of societies prosper, they would also grow in scope and it would become far more difficult to conquer them.

Conquerers rely on taking small pieces of society at a time. Technology today prohibits that from happening.

This is all theoretical, obviously, because no anarchistic societies exist today, but it makes sense to those not enthralled by the promises of the statists. Comparing these societies that roughly resemble anarchy to modern society is not viable.

Yeah, Thomas Jefferson was

Yeah, Thomas Jefferson was "enthralled by the promises of statism" lol.

Simply put, even the hypothetical anarcho-capitalist system, guided by the unenforceable NAP, would devolve into city-states with local constitutions that you must consent to before you visit, enforced by 1 court per jurisdiction. Basically a judgocracy like in Ancient Israel(or Judge Dredd lol).Some areas would undoubtedly prohibit people based on race/creed. Personally I find it not really preferable to a constitutional republic, and if it ever became stable enough to support industrial capitalism it would almost certainly look more and more like a government with all the infrastructure and trappings of one.

Ventura 2012

Minarchism is just the longer

Minarchism is just the longer road to totalitarianism.

Anarchism is the answer.

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


anarchy > feudalism >

anarchy > feudalism > monarchs competing with oligarchies > parliament, constitutions > material progress > constitutional monarchy / republic > democracy > fascist or socialist tyranny..... over extension and material collapse.... anarchy > feudalism.

anarchocapitalism gets no place cuz it never happens and never will.

its interesting to note that

its interesting to note that anarchocommunism has actually happened a few times.

Ventura 2012

yeah, perhaps... one day...

yeah, perhaps... one day... the armed camps lorded over by the protection agencies might achieve TRUE communism.. one day. ::holds back a tear::

haha well just think of what

haha well just think of what anarchist societies have produced:

1.Ancient Ireland- tribal, swiftly conquered by neighboring English state

2.Ancient Israel- nomadic tent people scared into adopting government by local highly-advanced civilizations/empires

3.Feudal Europe- took Roman culture featuring scientific achievement, massive aqueducts and roads, universities and world trade and turned into into rotting filth, society devolved 500 years.

4.Bushmen of the Callihari- Anarcho-communist tribe that abhored private property, the family, and money, Lasted until the 1940's, very "stable".

Ventura 2012


Please just stop. This one isn't even that good.

Bill, what is and what is not

Bill, what is and what is not one's duty is up to oneself. One does not obligate himself in any way by describing the benefits of a stateless society.

I think you mean to say that you don't have respect for anarchists who seem to leave words unmatched by actions. Fair enough. Consider, though, that ideas are action--the act of thought, as far as I understand it, is the most powerful act there is because it always precedes any physical manifestation or meaningful communication.

Nevertheless, leaving the country or refusing to support the system certainly crosses the minds of many who want liberty. You seem to forget, though, that this desire for a better life does not create the magical ability to escape from reality. Some have left the this country for a freer place and others have stopped participating in the system by refusing to pay taxes and by being uncoopertavie with illegitimate authority. Those who have been able to leave for a freer place had to go through a great expense and the uncooperative are in prison. The choices are not at all as you have described.

Tell me, please, how do I "set up my life somewhere outside of government"? I can't, as you have acknowledged. Strangely enough, you seem to argue that I have the most liberty in the place I am because I haven't gone to a place which doesn't exist.

No anarchist I know has said as you have claimed, that "it will be worse outside the state." There is no "outside the state"!

Yes, I submit to the state by following its rules and paying taxes, but not because it protects my liberty. I do so because I have been threatened and I am afraid of being caged to an even greater degree. You are arguing that those who threaten me protect my liberty. How absurd!

The stateless society is an idea, not a reality; but this is not to say that it can't come to be. The stateless society is a logical conclusion of those who desire peaceful human interaction; it's a utopia to strive towards, not a place that any of us will ever witness. By talking about it, by sharing ideas (bitching, as you call it), we help things along.


what side of liberty are you on?

"What light is to the eyes - what air is to the lungs - what love is to the heart, liberty is to the soul of man."
-Robert Green Ingersoll

also I dont

stay because Im scared.... I stay because Im poor lol

"What light is to the eyes - what air is to the lungs - what love is to the heart, liberty is to the soul of man."
-Robert Green Ingersoll

Strawmen arguments

Another case of someone who defines anarchism incorrectly. *yawn* Those who like to maintain myths are a waste of time, because if they wanted to use the wealth of knowledge in front of them, they would and actually engage in non-confrontational discussion. Whatever, live in denial.

Once you get out of the

Once you get out of the definitions circle jerk phase and into the concrete policy proposal phase(only Gil Guillory has done this) will you people be taken seriously. Like the Marxists, you claim no one can understand your magic word.

Ventura 2012

bump for Gil Guillory!

If anyone has a link to his "Advice to Young Anarchists" article, please post it. I can't find it anymore.

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

amazing how many parallels

amazing how many parallels can be found from the socialists then and the anarchos now.

amazing how many parallels

can be found from the statists then and the statists now.

This is just more of this

This is just more of this intellectual arm flexing I'm seeing a lot of. Wow, you are so smart. Great. Hope you feel better. You're so smart. You told them that's "how it is, folks". I hope your ego feels empowered.

the state

is ruthless dangerous and immoral its completely against the non aggression principle and takes taxes also known as theft and inflation so if anarchy is wrong then i don't know what to say about the state the state is just a horrible insittution to believe in personally its like a religion without the state who would build the roads? volunteers and markets are better then central planning without violence the state would fail...

Albert Camus — 'The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.'

Bill, you amazing ignoramus....

People are arguing for the general principles that government consistently fails and markets consistently work.

That's it.

When these ideas are understood and believed widely enough, a shift can begin, away from organization through idiot force, and toward the literally limitless possibilities markets offer.

Nobody can predict what forms market organization will take. Nobody 30 years ago could predict the iPod, or the Daily Paul, or craigslist....Nobody 200 years ago could predict Ford or Edison or Montgomery Ward....But someone who understands markets can predict that ingenious services and organizational schemes will result when individuals have free choice and sane incentives.

The so-called anarchy position just applies market logic to areas traditionally handled by psychos and thugs enjoying a monopoly on certain functions in society.

Thomas Paine said it well in Common Sense:

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

paine is saying more or less

paine is saying more or less what i was saying, that government restrains the behavior society deems bad. why do you guys always quote people who don't support your arguments?

The point is

the market is independent of government. The market is part of voluntary societal interaction whereas government is a means used for people to lord over each other. The two are separate. One can exist without the other. Government is not necessary for the market to operate.

And, don't try to give me the "contract" argument - that the market can't operate without contracts. Contracts are voluntary agreements entered into by two or more parties. They could & would exist in the absence of governments.

You may ask, "how would contracts be enforced?" Easily. Within the contract, a commercial arbitration/mediation firm would be agreed upon to decide contract disputes.

either party could still

either party could still reneg without recourse. unless this mediator corporation sent out armed parties to hunt down and enforce whatever terms the contract stipulated. which could be essentially anything. i could agree to my body as collateral to grab a lower interest rate, abscond with the funds,and your mediator would essentially be enforcing a modern fugitive slave law. and it wouldn't have jurisdiction outside its territory.

sounds like you're advocating op-in states in which the first generation opts in, and the next generation is born-in. if these born-in don't sign off, the whole contractual structure of the society crumbles and there's no law.

or, the locales just punish, lock up or expel people born in who don't sign off. like states do. essentially, a state.

Bill, Bill, Bill....

People can renege on contracts under a state, and do all the time, with no recourse. Most obviously politicians reneging on their promises regarding how to spend, or save, trillions in society's resources....No private entity could equal that level of cheating, so your case is lost at the outset.

But the reason a million contracts a day, from McDonald's work agreements to major manufacturing agreements, are adhered to without state interference, is because contracts exist in the first place to facilitate mutually beneficial arrangements. People enter into them, on both sides, to gain.

Reneging on contracts also destroys possibility for future business, with or without a state. In business, at all levels, reputation is everything....to cheat is to limit future success....Unless, of course, you can have a government shield you from the consequences of your actions.

Your whole approach to this topic is progressive left-style hand wringing about all the terrible things you fantasize could happen if people aren't controlled by "experts." At least remove your HLM references. You're badly misrepresenting the great man's attitude and thinking style.