-27 votes

If Not Anarchism, What? A Third Way

Anarchism is a crackpot ideology. Anarchist philosophy was born holding hands with socialism, its roots in a spiritual rebellion against capitalism and the state.

The capitalistic anarchism springs from even less healthy soil than socialist anarchism. At least the instincts that rebelled against the excesses of industrial capitalism were basically healthy and sound, even if they adopted crackpot ideas about practical politics and economy theory.

The capitalist-anarchism is even worse in its embrace of rule by financial power, seeing its power-brokers as heroes of liberty rather than inane criminals they are. They adopt just as impractical ideas about human nature, political interaction and economics, but in order to run toward unlimited economic power, not away from it.

The idea of multinational corporations as ideal, taking over the role of government, openly, not bashfully, buying out the courts and the military, the police, the jails, and keeping the show going in private hands... what instincts could consider that an ideal?

And what fools could imagine it a practical, stable order?

A voluntary, self-regulating constellation of firms, banks, independent commercial power centers, their power rooted in concentrated property, with theoretically subordinate armed forces, vying for wealth and control outside any public law; producing law in a two-way interchange, in the manner of treaties; without any recourse to binding, disinterested, public external justice.

To hold something so unnatural together would require an essentially religious devotion, imbued with a zeal as strong as early Islam or Christianity, in a belief in non-violence, in the sanctity of Rights and inviolable property, held ascetically by all engaged in economic and political power. Everyone in a position of power able to abuse the rights and property of others would have to voluntarily refrain from doing so and resign the desire.

Even that would fall apart and go to factions and subside into the general tide of human nature after a short period, even if it could get kicked off. And what a bizarre spiritual movement it would be, rooted in materialism, money and individualistic consumption!

Pure democracy might be the antithesis of property and economic liberty, and a horror worse than its opposite. But the opposite - unlimited economic power - with the elimination of any political redress against economic power, property, is almost as bad. Some would say worse, that really depends on your personal bias.

I would much prefer a mixture of the two holding each other in check, and more than that, would welcome a third center of power in the balance, like that provided historically by Church, or by a stable political class of 'statesmen' not engaged in democratic politics, but with some permanent status and influence.

Some third body not tied to political factions or to economic interests to carry on a tradition and teaching in virtue, a political ethic, a civic identity, a way of life.

Some body or institution devoted to principles higher than money or political power, commerce or career politics.

An institution to provide the balast and anchoring for a healthy education in character and morality and identity, not connected to either private economic interest or the state. A body that could actually carry on and seed moral principles, even if it were merely NAP or some basic liberty ethic.

With those competing sorts of institutions you can achieve a balance that permits actual liberty to exist for centuries. If you destroy all of those institutions but one, liberty disappears. An imperfect real liberty is better than a perfect pipedream.


The return of a third class into the balance between economic and political power would be most welcome and appropriate, and historically realistic. It is real, it is proven. Until modern times this third power always existed and countered excesses and abuse from either side, held off tyranny when possible.

It always stood outside and aloof from merely economic or secular political power considerations.

Unlimited political power in the hands of demagogues, disregarding individual property, is one extreme. Unlimited economic power, enforced with goons and a police state, disregarding the right of persons separate from property, is another extreme.

Balanced against each other, they are an unstable brew like what presently exists in America. They could tip into open conflict and violence, with one side gaining the concentrated power.

What is lacking, what is missing?

What were the Founding fathers? They were a type of a class, maybe not the most perfect example in history, separate from either pure economic interests or pure political demagogues.

A semi-stable, semi-permanent class, a body that was an anchor and source of stability to the political order of the time, and a source of a sound civic education to the people. A referee and rallying point for the people to draw strength when up against dangerous concentrations of private power.

Their ideas, their sense of civic virtue aligned with their identity, and their great stores of political wisdom and knowledge of history enabled them to provide center of gravity to economic and political power.

The Roman republican class was a similar institution. The Church in European history is another example.

An institution not rooted in purely private interests of class, power or property, and able to balance the other two impulses, and ameliorate the harm of excessive economic and political power.

That is the proper answer to the dangerous conditions developing now, the diminution of distributed economic and social resources, the growing wealth disparity and the ripening potential of economic conflict that could break out into violence at any time, and which could see one side or the other come to a complete tyranny.

A third way, a third power, a third institution. Way of the Future.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

The Founders Established The Perfect A System, if Obeyed

Nothing works if you do not follow the path of the Original Compact;

John Locke establishes this in his Treaties on Civil Government.

When government is allowed to change, it dissolves itself an the authority it was given.

Our Government"s" i.e. states were intended to be small, and not distant; Distant Legislatures where the first to be opposed and removed;

Read Samuel Adams - Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772; Distant legislatures having no real care of those they were suppose to represent and were only used as a means to BRIBE the people; today we see this form of bribery in the form of MANDATES.

The Federal government was never meant to be greater than the 10 miles square of Washington DC; Cannot prosecute more than 4 crimes; Cannot govern police outside the 10 miles square of Washington DC; and the federal legislature cannot use the ratifying and amendment process to arrogate ANY NEW POWER; NOR make ANY REGULATION THAT MAY AFFECT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNION AT LARGE.

A sample is the income tax; it cannot ever be "ratified" because it is an "arrogation of power" (prohibited) by changing the ENUMERATED CONSENSUAL tax intended into an UNENUMERATED UNCONSENSUAL FLAT PERCENTAGE TAX; Plus it creates a REGULATION that not only MAY AFFECT the citizens of the UNION AT LARGE, but also creates CRIMES that the Federal government has no authority to create, govern police or prosecute;

Two Documents clearly establish these facts:
Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788;
The Kentucky Resolutions 1798.

All four mentioned Documents can be read here: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/American_Patriot_Party.pdf

American Patriot Party.CC
Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

Follow on Daily Paul: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674

Other Reading:

Republics and Representation: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Privileges and Contracts: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

I think this is the greatest question of our lives

I think this is the greatest question of our lives and that our survival depends on the right answer.

What if a new third institution emerges from the arts that is determined to build a global model of worldwide peace and kick-start a new culture of world peace?

What if this grand project finds a common ground with virtually every political, religious, scientific, philosophical and monetary ideology since it embraces everyone, every nation and every institution that is not against the idea of worldwide peace?

What if this model of worldwide peace fosters not only a viable culture of peace for all peoples, but one that extends as a peace between humanity and all of Nature, too?

What if thirty artists from thirty nations and their supporters have already started this project?

What if a trustworthy leadership for this project is already in place?


and the transition can be guided by the book of the law to help us smooth the inevitable tumult of change where shortly afterwards we will emerge on the other side into the golden dawn! The rebirth of strength and peace out of chaos. :)

*fist bumps Horus then forms a triangle with his index fingers and thumbs around his eye*

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~





~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

tasmlab's picture

What is it to be called? Triarchism?

Since your alternative is going to brought up in all forthcoming anarchy DP discussions, what do we call this in short-hand?

How about Third-Institutionalism?

Triarchism? That sounds pretty good.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

While I like

tri anything, and tri archism scratches me right where I itch, I must object that it is a misnomer.

As in your comment below, your misunderstood the text, as did some commenter from back in February when the piece was posted.

It's not about a three way division of archy, or political power. How power is divided in the political center is another topic. That is the cost of hasty, thoughtless reading.

This is about a third center of social power, neither political, nor economic. The present order lacks that third support, with its stabilizing and triangulating effect.

So the deformed, two legged stool of economic and political power successively and collaboratively use and abuse the population without check from any institution, devoted in spirit to a higher goal than mere extraction.

There is nothing in the piece or the idea that suggests a third power center have any political force or tax funding. That's why it's not a political center of power.

There is always the risk of abuse, as in everything human. But the world would be better overall if there was an institution with moral authority and a purpose deeper than politics and economics. And three is better than two, and the division and tension that arises between three different types of power center is a better, more healthy and more stabilizing balance than that provided by the anarchist idea of 1000's of competing gangs.

tasmlab's picture

So is there a name?

Did you come up with a name for the concept?

I'll try to find the clarification you wrote for the other commentator.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

way of the future

third power center........ center of balance. triangulation baby.

While rather pointedly aimed

at the anarchists, this is an erudite contribution to the DP. It's reaching for a new vision of balance from precedent. As distasteful as the notion may be to some, my father holds that the church, not the institutions, a dizzying assortment of flavors and creeds, but the community of believers, who seek to live, love and contribute, not for power or financial gain, but higher purpose (however far astray that may sometimes be interpreted), and irregardless of civil law (render to Caeser what is Caesar's), is the foundation that makes operable markets and good government possible, because volunterism, caring for the sick, the elderly, the young, helping out the neighbor in his new business because one cares about the neighbor, not return on investment, creates a medium of stability, trust and good will.

What's interesting to me is the notion that the intent of individuals, behaving from an ethical foundation, creates the conditions for an ecosystem of economy, polity and culture.

All of the elements the OP is rearranging from historic example, are present in the current circumstances.

Like natural ecosystems (and literally dependent on them), healthy markets, governments (maybe someday their absence), and culture, require balanced conditions.

What's the source of the current imbalance?

If von Hayek correctly identifies the womb of individual Liberty in the wealth created by European merchants to effectively challenge royalty, it was a natural growth of activity and thought arising from a set of fertile conditions.

It's not necessary to redesign the structures of political systems from ground zero. They're organic. They rise from conditions.

The DP community understands the conditions that are choking our moment in the ecosystem succession of Liberty that started in the European commercial womb, as a grassland turns to savanna turns to mature forest, is burned down, and starts over.

The central bank is the dioxin in the rain forest. Ron Paul has identified, and we have understood, what is necessary to re-balance the conditions.

It may be that our best energies would be most productively spent concentrating on ways to end the central bank, and return the oligarchs to more humble circumstances.

Can anyone argue that that would not be the most productive step toward realizing whatever political philosophy you hold?

Wow, great comment


you get more flies with honey.

After all these years and still no tactfulness or grace?

"You're stupid, a crackpot..." more name calling, etc... "now, this is why (i *think* so)."

LOL...I love ya bill, but you get more flies with honey.

that aside... "A third way, a third power, a third institution. Way of the Future." ... what are you getting at? let me guess... a Third Reich? o man... all that for a Nazi joke... :P

"The return of a third class into the balance between economic and political power would be most welcome and appropriate, and historically realistic."

really though, a third class.. like we need to divide people further? that is the answer? more division?

"I would much prefer a mixture of the two holding each other in check"
like we have today? checks and balances... to me, from what i've seen, there is really no such thing. nothing holds a person in check when it comes to political gain. all it does it give opportunity to collude and conspire. example? for many years we were "at ease" "knowing" that these entities were "in check", therefore we slept, soundly. which is pretty much our entire problem today, we believed there were such things as "checks and balances" in the political realm. we were fools to believe that. men don't balance or check each others morality, no... they balance and check their own purses. they wont "naturally balance", because they are both figments of imagination by groups of people. cult-like people who stop at nothing to force people into believing their way is "the only way" instead of letting people live their lives and decide for themselves..

"The Way" is...

"don't encroach on other people's property and uphold all contracts."

... K.I.S.S. There are only 2 principles that need be followed to provide "social order". it's impossible to arbitrate that? i think not. it's overly easy and almost anyone could be the arbitrator. who's property is it? how was it violated? what contract was broken, and how? all "law" stems from ownership of property. if the law on a piece of property is not set by the property owner then it is a mandate from a dictator, mafia, cartel, bully, etc... no person(s) has any authority what-so-ever to regulate separate person's property or contracts\obligations. Only the property owner has authority to make laws pertaining to *their* property.

example, can you make a law pertaining to your neighbors property and force them to follow it? if not, why? if so, how did you gain that authority?

to summarize, *we don't need institutions or classes*. *we*, the people, need to follow 2 basic principles and hold every single person accountable to them.
we aren't going to "force people to be free" or "force people" to do anything for that matter. law does not "educate" people. we have to change their hearts and minds, show them how simple it really is. just clean the political crap off their windows... nobody can see through muddy glass.

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

I like you, j.b.

But I know better than o try to reason with you.

tasmlab's picture

Well, thanks for finally proposing something positive

Your criticism has been epic in its scope, verbosity and ferocity. I believe this is the first time you've proposed a vision for what you want, not just what you don't want.

If two sets of rulers isn't doing well for us rabble, three should make it better?

Let's try it out. Let's put them on payroll and give them some office space and some staff.

Should we recruit them from the priesthood? Or University professors? Moral philosophers? Newscasters? Are they elected? Appointed? Selected by divinity?

Can they be a separate class and be not rooted in purely private interest of class?

Or could we staff the government with people with civic virtue and sound civic education prowess?

Just trying the ideas on for size. How it plays out hasn't crystalized yet in my mind, even with the examples of the Roman republic or pre-elightenment Europe.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

This is

from february.

tasmlab's picture

Surprised I missed it

As I check in more than daily. I'm surprised that the post hasn't garnered more attention. Only seven pages of comments. I probably already replied on page 6 :-\

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

The coercion of the state.

I want you to know that I agree with you about the market and economic interests providing security in a meaningful and just way is a fantasy. What I haven't heard you discuss is why the institution that you advocate to serve the role as glue to hold society together must be a enterprise funded by threat of violence.

The government that would spring up in an an-cap society is exactly the way that all nation states have developed historically.

What need is a rule of law that applies to everyone equally. One that lives in the hearts and minds of every citizen. One that provides us with a reliable mechanism for dispute resolution. A set of rules that everyone can adhere to and rely on to be adhered to.

My problem with statism is that it is extremely(and willfully) ignorant to pretend that its history is rooted in an attempt to try and achieve this. Voluntary government always predates the subjugation of peoples to the state.

Our disagreement is in the nature of the state. I believe that the nature of the state is in conquest. I cite Oppenheimer, Hume, Pascal, and most of my understanding of history. As a matter of fact, I would challenge you to give me an example of a state that does not have its origins in conquest and zero-sum political domination.

I imagine that you believe in the social contract theory of Locke. If I am wrong then I apologize. Regardless, it is my view of history which you have not adequately addressed, that causes me to reject the necessity of predation to fund the institution of law that we require as a society.

The bottom line is that as individuals, it does not matter what form of government we wish to see, because any and all forms of government(voluntary or that of domination) are arrangements of society which regardless of whether or not predation is involved is a completely circumstantial in terms of the type of access that certain individuals have to resources of domination whether it be economic or political.

We as individuals can theorize all day about what would be optimum, but at the end of the day we can only move on a continuum towards justice and humanism.

What frustrates me about your peevish whimpering is that your refusal to listen. You have made point after point for months about the subject and you have refused to address refutation and rebuttal. Whether you are right or not is inconsequential in this regard. That's because you have not actually cared what the argument is being brought against you. You have already established in your head that you are right and everybody who argues against you is wrong.

The burden of proof is on you my friend. Why do you think it just to steal my money and my property so that you might have security? You must convince me. If you try, I will as I have, point to countless cases of ways societies have organized without the monopoly of coercive power born out of conquest you call "Government" and I call The State. Examples of real self rule. Government without the institution of the state, and the violence that comes with it.

I have asked you before:

Do you believe that the law should be applied equally to everyone in a society?

Do you believe I should have the right of self defense against infractions of the law?

Do you believe I have the right to contract for that defense, or organize voluntarily to ensure it?

Do you believe that the state and all of its bureaucrats should be accountable to the law, and subject to punishment and that retribution for their crimes should be demanded of them?

Do you believe that the state should have the authority to demand from me, that which I have a property right in under threat of force?

Do you believe that acting on behalf of the state, absolves the individual from consequences of breaking the law?

My own personal answers to these questions are my terms for an arrangement of society that I find just. It is not what I am subject to now and I accept that.

What I will not accept is that anything short of this is just and optimum, nor that I should not believe that this is an achievable arrangement.


you're equivocating with the word state

I agree with Oppenheimer (and nietzsche, btw) about the predatory origin of many historical states.

There have been lots of opponents of the a predatory, extractive state, like Mises, who were not against involuntary government.

Pretending the word state applies to all involuntary government is what confuses the issue.

If you're aware of any historical examples of 100% voluntary societies, I am all ears.

And no, I have no use for locke or social conracts.

I am glad you didnt go to the trouble of re-answering

The questions. I had written this before my last post.

The state is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory.

It seems as though, you don't see a difference in crimes against society, and crimes against the state. Thus, an attempt to eliminate the state, is an attempt to eliminate the law. There will always be criminals. 100% voluntary will never exist. There have been examples in history however, where the law existed without the state.

You should look up the origin of criminality (infraction of the law,punishable by the state) and its history versus civil despites(infraction of civil law, focused on retribution).


You're still equivocating

and its sort of annoying at this level of depth in a discussion to have to deal with equivocation.

You guys call the colonial American government a state, even though it was not the systematization of a predatory process. Now you want a new definition of a state.

It gets tiresome arguing with shape shifting definitions which warp the entire discussion by changing the meaning and implications of earlier premises that were based on different definitions.

Waste of time.

I am having a

difficult time discerning if the OP is Alexander Hamilton reincarnated or the Pope. It is like reading a science fiction story set in some monarchic dystopia where the antagonists are filthy, greedy, materialistic, capitalist evil doers selling bread in order to concentrate financial power so they can unleash their ultimate evil plans of distributing bread everywhere in the world.

Thanks for the favorable

Thanks for the favorable comparison to Hamilton and the Pope. Honorable men both, no doubt.


dystopia where the antagonists are greedy evil doers selling bread in order to concentrate financial power so they can unleash their ultimate evil plans

Aside from the bread, isn't this exactly what anarchists claim has happened? They idealize America's period of laizes faire, but claim that the magnates and industry leaders colluded and conspired to convert their massive honestly gained wealth into political power, turning the small federal government into a large protection agency and populous-management apparatus to create privileges for their organizations.

So, clearly, the situation they idealized had no safeguard built in to prevent wealth concentration from transforming into political control. It was the private sector that created the state in America to serve its interests, from a condition of almost no federal state.

I do complain

a reason corporations were originally charted for limited purposes versus the concepts of corporations today and limited liability exist because business interests lobbied for them. The same way public roads exist because originally cyclists petitioned government and lobbied for "good roads."

In making this complaint I do not discount a statist environment. Limited liability corporations or public roads may never have come about if a majority of people did not go along with it. The whole point of public relations is to sell an idea that benefits a certain group to a majority audience as a benefit to them. People went along with the New Deal because they felt it was in their best interests.

If there was no statist environment and instead an environment where people demanded a free market things might be different. A market with zero cost to enter because people value opportunity for competition to be in their best interests in order to keep economic concentrations of power under perpetual threat. However, that is not the environment we have or have historically had. The environment which exists is using government to force everyone else to go along with your ideas and the way to do that is convince them government implementing your ideas is in their best interests.

The real danger is not concentration of power. Concentrations will always occur. They only become a real problem when concentrations of power have no real threat of competitors because people believe government monopolies or a list of government approved choices are in their best interests.

We do not have a limited government because people do not generally believe a government constrained to delegated powers is in their best interests. Nor do we have a free market because people do not generally believe competition and zero cost to enter the market is in their best interests.

I think you exaggerate idolizing. It is true libertarians suggest the Articles of Confederation were better than the Constitution because a system of voluntary requisition is more ethical than a system of compulsion. It is not like libertarians are suggesting the AoC ought to be revived. It is time to move beyond monopolies in defense and justice and let these services compete in a free market just like any other service.

There is only 1 way.

Real non-conflicting law.

That's the only answer. It does not matter what body upholds the law or how many bodies upholds the law.

The only way is to uphold the protections of real non-conflicting law. By seeking to systematically eliminate every conflict in every process of law we will inherently climb the asymptote to maximum liberty with maximum security.

There is no other answer.

Sorry to sound so arrogant but it is truly is the final answer. I've already been through the political thoughts and strategy a while back. When I removed all bs the only thing left is to find out how to apply law properly without breaking the law to uphold the law and never accepting a law that violates another law. It becomes a logic puzzle that can remove ego and enable the people to begin to consciously shape the process of law instead of having it usurped by criminals for their own wrongful pecuniary advantage that is our injury.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

I read ...

The first 5 words and down voted.

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

Facts help expose the fiction

First American Anarchist (so called):

"Responsibility must be Individual, or there is no responsibility at all."

Crackpots are responsible for their individual foot in mouth disease.


You're either a statist or

You're either a statist or you are not.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

The way has existed for a long time, you will never believe it


Christianity IS a form of Anarchy in the real sense of the word. While I am not an Anarchist, I know there is no difference, government or no government, it is morality that ultimately defines a people.

I'm not talking about what people today THINK Christianity is. I'm talking about the REAL Christianity that is hated and scorned by even those who claim to be Christian.

Christianity IS Freedom, it IS individual rights. Every single notable person from the Bible, that is presented in a good light by the Bible, is a rebellious troublemaker compared to the eyes of the state and by the preaching of todays Pastors. All who will tell you the stories but never tell you the meaning behind them.

Christ Himself goes against everything the religious of His day stood for, both the Pharisees(Conservatives) and that Sadducees(Liberals) both founded by and followed the Jewish religion and law, with different interpretations, and Christ condemned them both.

I hear all the time on here people saying the Bible is bad because nations go to war over it or was written to impose a states will over the lives of men and control them. I'm not sure these people have ever even read the Bible just by them making such an assumption. Everything the Bible teaches goes against statehood. The whole book is based around how to remain free.

It covers:
How to wake up, work and live/get along with others.
How to vote politically.
How to remain free in life and as a whole people.
What the basic rules to freedom and what constitutes a violation.(Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness)
The Right of Speech, Defense, and Property.
What to do when someone violates your freedom.
Which laws to follow, which to disobey.
The order laws are followed in.
What is sin and isn't sin.(Far different than you might think)
The difference between a sin of flesh(Murder), and a sin of/against a spirit.(Fornication)
How to get along with those who don't believe in freedom as you do.
and MORE.

Why would someone trying to enslave the minds of men so they can use them in war, or use them for their own personal gain, place this inside: "No man can serve two masters." "If you are born freeman remain free" "If you are born a servant remain a servant, but if you have a chance to be free, take it." Isn't this what the founders did?

On becoming a Christian you owe nothing to anyone except God. All God asks in return is for you to give credit to Him for you being made free. We are not perfect, but we strive to do what is right. If we were perfect, we would have no need for God, and Christ Himself said that.

John the Baptist in Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
(Haven't we warned everyone in this nation? How many times?)

Matthew 3:9
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
(God's people will rise up to do his work, from the stones, the lifeless, the unbelievers if necessary, if none of these people who claim to follow God will do God's work.)

It's okay that people do not understand what I'm talking about, I know many will never understand. I pray each day all of us who are awake can see what I can see. God wants us a free people, and you who fight this fight ARE the people God has chosen for this work, whether you want to believe it or not.


I hate to post straight from Wiki, but there is an alternative:


Maybe time to start working on a fourth way?

Considering this third way isn't going over so well.

But wait - what is it you propose as this vaunted "third way?"

The Diamond Dog is a real cool cat. | Reporting on the world from an altitude of 420.