-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.

Men are not angels so we need government

is something I used to think too.But when you really think about it men in power in government are just as easily corruptable and alot more dangerous and alot more permanent.Like Reagan said a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.So I really think the solution is the same solution in as in economics.Free markets and competition.What would happen if the post office had competition?Out of business.What would happen to the FDA if other companies could be in charge of certifying food and drugs for their quality and safety?Bye bye FDA,that's what.Even the court system could be run much better,faster,smoother,cheaper if there were other legal systems or dispute moderation systems.
And even the military could be voluntary like Switzerlands.
How crazy is that?
So basically my thoughts are there is a better way to have rules without rulers,and that's free markets and free people voting with their prefered means of exchange.Call it what you want.I just call it freedom.

Its not just men are not

Its not just men are not angels. Its men are not SMART enough to defend their own freedom.

Ventura 2012

in solidarity with them we appeal to you

As far as any function you want to convey and inspiration to know are free . You , however , promise to read the new things that can be inconsistent with the objects . No! Free information detailed feasibility study is currently being developed healthy root system . Field a force of nature , can not , or do not have the internal energy . Time and experience is everything , there are a myriad of bias , because. However, people do not know what sick , canned yams, under the thumb of the hardware , the victim - a friend and all the soldiers ( oddly the same ignorance and fear) . Big thing - to travel to the new man will open a new - as it sounds , this is the first time in forever , and use of buildings , destruction of jobs , the people said , but regulations because it violated my aunt . Finally , the film , where the rebels - as well as cool clothes , and used to watch those who want to see those who humble genesis obviously we do not . These people , sour freedom and rebellion associated with tobacco all countries have their own militia

The U.S. needs to be a loose

The U.S. needs to be a loose Confederation of States (almost sovereign nations) that it was once intended to at the founding of this country, before the State slowly encroached on it. The Statists need to be banned from public office. That has been a problem since the beginning with the Federalist Party.

Cyril's picture

Just demand to reinstate a just, respectable, Constitution.

Just demand to reinstate a just, respectable, Constitution.

Fight to repeal the amendments from the 14th (included) and up, and everything, if not perfect, will turn out much better for this country.

I'm sure.

You will have had the experience of Her falling and hurting once.

She'll be all the stronger because of that.

Please give Her a second chance.

She deserves it.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

No Treason The Constitution

No Treason

The Constitution of No Authority

by Lysander Spooner

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now.


Not complicated

Effective investments in defense of the innocent are free market services that have been offered throughout human history if anyone cares to look.

Such as:

Icelandic Commonwealth

Trial by Jury employed before and sometime after Magna Carte

The Declaration of Independence time-frame, including Trial by Jury adapted by "runaway slaves" who ran away from England, which included effective defense against the largest criminal military aggression at that time (financed by the Central Bankers of The Bank of England); effective defense managed while the defenders were consenting to The Articles of Federation forming a voluntary defensive union of constitutionally limited republics.

4. That voluntary defensive union in America between 1776 and 1787 was copied from the examples provided by Holland and Switzerland.

If the problem is accurately identified, then a solution to the problem can be realized. Miss-identification of the problem is not a problem for those who willfully cause miss-identification.


In a way...

You've got a point.

We do need an "institution" of people who can give *good advice* in society which commends itself by its quality and can be voluntarily taken. We need a free market in advisory council if you will. I was thinking last night about RESET:

People for The


RESponsible Elimination of Taxation

There are lots of possibilities for such institutions. I'm not sure how far off the rails you're going when you start talking about a "center of power." Well, actually, I do know you're pretty far off the rails, but let's stick to the positives here.

I think you give too much credit to the "Church" in European history, but the church in American culture has had an opportunity to fill this role. The only problem is that the advice it has offered has been so uniformly bad. On the other hand, people voluntarily flock to it (and support it handsomely) for its value to them as a social outlet.

You never did answer my question, by the way. What do you think of the guideline for a social contract, that if I explicitly agree to give up a certain freedom (the freedom to steal from others, for example), then everybody else should give up that freedom too?

"you give too much credit to the "Church" in European history"

Decentralization of power is the key to liberty, and the Roman Catholic Church played a crucial role in keeping political power in Europe decentralized for a long time. This wasn't so much about the content of Church teachings as about the fact that the Church was a source of authority separate from the state.

See: The European Miracle

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Thank you for your fair,

Thank you for your fair, measured comment! You're the only one who actually addressed any points, everyone else just gave their pre-packaged opinion or got on the rag.



+1 for moral support.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

How about none of the

above or below.

I don't know the answer but from the beginning of time there are those who like to build and achieve and there are those who latch on, control and destroy what others have accomplished through the sweat of their brow.

What we need is good pest control.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

Been there, done that.

It was called the US Constitution. And before that the Articles of Confederation. And before that the Magna Charta. Etc.

What's truly crackpot is repeating the same idiocy over and over and expecting a different result.

The reason we can't have states is because there are evil men. If we were all angels it might be safe to have centralized power. Though one might wonder why would angels suggest such a thing.

That said I'd be happy to somehow regain the Constitution. I don't see how it can be achieved but if it could, that would be swell. The cycles of empire are long enough. But it would be just passing the buck.

Lastly individualist anarchy has been around for centuries but anarcho-capitalism arose much later from economic understanding.

Which you prodigiously lack.

We study economics to find the thing that monopolies (ie government) can do well, only to find there are none. Assertions to the contrary are special pleading for the monopolies.

It is absurd to believe government can do anything efficiently. Though to be sure you have been taught otherwise by government schools, media, and institutions.

Government must never improve anything or else it will be seen to need no more resources. It must certainly never solve a problem. Mostly it creates problems that it then blames on something else (the 'unregulated' 'free market' is a perennial unicorn to blame) that it then claims more resources to solve.

And one thing we certainly do not need government for is to create corporations. Corporations are fully owned subsidiaries of the state. No government, no corporations. Full stop. There will be firms but their size will be determined by economic reality and thus limited. They will certainly not be the legally shielded whales they are today.

A government by any other name -

You can not replace "Civic Government" with "Corporate Government" and call it anarchy. Anarchy means without rulers. The moment someone imposes their will on another, through force or otherwise, it stops being anarchy.

The arguments most people end up making against anarchy - corporate take over of government functions, overloards carving out their fifedoms, etc... - are in fact arguments for anarchy. These arguments all represent some form of ruler.

The proponents of anarchy simply see all imposers - rulers, governments, corporate rulers, overlords, etc... - as being equal. And equally immoral. Hence the desire for a world without rulers... or Anarchy.

It doesn't mean you and I can not agree to act in certain ways with each other, to create contracts that contain rules. Anarchy can absolutely contain rules. It just can not contain rulers.

HOW do you maintain

a world with out war lords, they have been present throughout history.

How does a little old lady fend off a group who are intent on stealing or taking what she worked her whole life to build?

Neighbors to the rescue maybe or maybe not the classic "It's none of my business or it's not my problem" leaves the defenseless as prey.

Old lady uses a gun whoop be doo so she takes out one or two, answer this with a reasonable solution that makes sense, then you may have a supporter.

By the way I don't think government is the answer either, they are the biggest War Lords.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

Good thoughts -

Have you seen the security company in Detroit, Threat Management Center I think? They contract with citizens, business owners, visitors in their coverage area for those very things. They are making enough of a profit offering this service they they have been able to expand coverage to people that can not afford their service. I know they get used as an example often, but we do not have many examples to choose from where we can actually see what happens when government falls apart in a modern area. Detroit makes a good microcosm for this.

That, or something better than that (thumbs up for competition) will handle much of the "old lady" issue you worry about. If there is a demand for a service, and no rulers saying "you are not allowed to offer those services" (this is easily as important as there being demand) then the odds of someone wanting to capture that opportunity in most areas are pretty high.

As for the "World without" issue - First I would say an anarchist would lump every government in with the war lord. With that in mind, is it your understanding of history that no government has ever fallen? No government or war lord has ever been brought down by the very people they rule or lord over?

Anarchy, just like liberty, is risky. Instead of punting to some ruler to handle your problems you have to be an active participant in problem solving. But I would rather take the risk of a possible, could potentially happen some day than taking the risk of absolutely knowing the impositions and the certainty of seeing rulers expand their power and us loose our liberties under the system we have now. The argument - we can not get rid of rulers because then someone may come along and tax us - just does not have any weight for me.

Thank you for responding.

From my reading over the years the answer to your question about overthrowing wars lords by the people is yes, it happens by design.

War lords of other countries or corporations pay actors to go into areas they want to control and get dissatisfied citizens worked up to over throw their government and replace it only in the end to be ruled by outside War lords.

So, the question remains who's behind the uprising, who are the new masters?

Sorry, I am cynical but I been there done that and am tired of being deceived and manipulated. Nothing changes even revolutions maybe different dates and times but same secret organizations. This is building up to be one big genocide to usher in the new order who by the way were the old order too. IMO

Also, the Detroit solution would be called paid mercenaries and the government and corporations use them also, they go with the highest bidder and not an ideal solution for protection especially if you don't have enough money.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

looks like BILL3 had a hankering for some arguing

And we all know he loves to argue. Those positive posts are nice, but people just compliment you and add to the positivity. A nice, dividing post attacking anarcho-capitalism, now there's something exciting! Let's start off strong, calling them crackpots. That will surely get them all hot and bothered, and they will respond.

Anyways, I am not sure what to make of the actual argument. Are you calling for the Altar to balance out the Throne? Historically, the Altar has been the great enabler of the Throne. I appreciate the sentiment that more power centers may distribute out the power and set up checks and balances, but, alas, history has shown us that is not the case. I would argue that it's not the more power centers the better. I would argue that there should be no power centers and we should set up an infrastructure that works against concentration of power. The naysayers always say that such attempts will fail. Well, if they fail, we end up where we started, with a government. But is it guaranteed? That's the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is that we end up where we started. That is no argument against starting and trying to go for something better.

"All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." - Khalil Gibran
"The Perfect Man has no self; the Holy Man has no merit; the Sage has no fame." - Chuang Tzu

Just tellin the truth, bud.

Just tellin the truth, bud. Someone gotta.

you are telling us your opinion

I would be careful about equating that with truth.

"All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." - Khalil Gibran
"The Perfect Man has no self; the Holy Man has no merit; the Sage has no fame." - Chuang Tzu

I think there's a lot of

I think there's a lot of overlap.

That's what all the crackpots say,

but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Not sure what you're getting

Not sure what you're getting at.

Anarchy is the most beautiful faith...

Because anarchy takes into consideration and brings to primacy the belief in the overall good intentions of man. Just as virtually no community in the United States or the world lives amongst one another in order to bring about chaos or discomfort the anarchist regards the intentions of his fellow man as honorable in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. If politics were to die off tomorrow the anarchist says "let it and it will be good." Those of a different persuasion would argue that chaos would follow. But that is not true nor is it even apparent.

The fact is that people live life in pursuit of happiness. Almost no one derives happiness off of the suffering of others but rather takes joy in the success of others. But the people in my community are not avoiding violence and mayhem because some fucking bureaucrat said that we cannot. We avoid it because of its unpleasantness. People who think that we should be ruled think that we all have intentions of harming one another. People who think that we need no rule have the highest faith in their own species, as I do. Anarchy is the ONLY way to proceed in this life. All other systems of centralized control will follow the same trend that its predecessors have followed; ultimately leading to tyranny. Welcome to present day America.

If that is true then Anarchy will be the way of heaven, but

not earth. The idea that " anarchy takes into consideration and brings to primacy the belief in the overall good intentions of man." puts it at odds with the classical western and Christian view of man that he is born with a sin nature.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Also at odds with basic

Also at odds with basic experience, history, and even the antipode of classical religions, modern biology and evolutionary psychology. All agree on Man's imperfection, and imperfectibility.

Little to do with perfection

But what it does do is allow people to take personal responsibility for taking care of themselves and solving their own problems without government intervention. After all police do not often prevent crimes but rather mop them up and document them. But again most areas are not proliferated with criminals except Washington D.C. and the capital of every state. But those criminals are sanctioned by the monopoly on force so what they do, criminal or not, sticks. Right or wrong. On the other hand our local communities are not torn apart over disputes or animosity but rather loosely connected via each member's disposition towards a peaceful existence. Governments empower criminals and tyrants. Anarchy gets out of the way. But to take the extreme utopia assessment is irresponsible. No one is touting utopian ideals here.

On the other hand, how can governments be viewed as anything other than the most extreme cultures of any society? They murder the most people, torture the most people, incarcerate the most people, steal from the most people, restrict the most people, mislead and misdirect the most people, tell the most lies and none of that will ever, ever change lest we dispel governments entirely and take the community interaction and personal protection route. Anarchies did not murder 290 Million people in the last century, governments did.

You have completely misrepresented

Anarcho-Capitalism, either intentionally or due to your ignorance of the concept. Either way, you should not be commenting on subjects of which you are so ignorant.

I'll start with the most important fallacy, from which the rest of your anti-AnCap argument expands. AnCaps do NOT desire or support corporations, at least not in their current form. A corporation is an entity that exists solely by decree of the State, which benefits the State through increased control, and the corporation with tax/accounting benefits. At it's core, corporations cannot exist without the State. Beyond that, AnCaps recognize that the advantages that the State grants a corporation over other forms of businesses are what makes them capable of existing on the scale they currently do. As with any large organization, administration costs consume a larger portion of revenue as the organization grows. They also become less effective at converting revenue to profit. Yes, economies of scale can reduce costs, but larger companies become less effective at serving their regional customer base, and struggle to adapt to an ever changing market.

Second, innovation drives the market. In a market where individuals can compete, or at least aren't at a disadvantage out of the gate, the individual innovators will take market share from the bloated corporations. Those mega-corporations can't print money, so they will be forced to reduce their size to remain profitable.

Third, the State only functions because it maintains a self-imposed monopoly of force. Corporations do not have that claimed right. The people would not be forced to buy their products, and unethical corporations' products would quickly fall out of favor in the market.

Oh, and FYI, more State is never the solution for the State.

To your first point, I'll

To your first point, I'll just play the anarcho-capitalist and make the following assertion: The modern corporation is obviously the most successful economic entity in history. Therefore, the free market would provide and replace all that the state offers in limited liability and protections in the form of private insurance. Waaalaaa, I've just proven the market will provide the function of the state, as all anarcho-caps do in their standard form of argumentation. "Anything the state can do the market can do better." If the most powerful political units (States) have corporations, it is reasonable to impute that the free market would replace those functions the state afford to corporations, but from a private slush fund set up by the corps. At least this is sound in terms of standard anarchocap reasoning.

To your third point, that corporations don't claim any right to force... Well yeah, because the government has a monopoly on force and corporations are a creature of the legal environment of public law. Take away that environment and the economic power centers have every reason and incentive to adopt the violence abandoned by the state. This is obvious. At that point, you're back to square one, where violence evolves step-wise into its most efficient form, the state. The State didn't create the state. The market for violent political bodies selected for it. Getting rid of it doesn't change those selective dynamics that brought it about in the first place.

So not only can you not get rid of the state, but if you did, you couldn't stay rid of it. Not without an educated population, as Nystrom posted somewhere recently. You need to have an independent, educational institution above, beyond, outside the state, protected by its prestige from private or public violence, able to establish and transmit moral and behavioral norms and principles from which all public and private discourse will grow.

First paragraph is classic strawman

You define no requirement with which to gauge success. You LITERALLY state that you will express the opposing opinion. I'll argue the AnCap side, thanks.

No, a corporation is NOT the most successful entity to an AnCap. There is no such thing, because truly free markets are organic and fluid. A business must be capable to anticipate changes and adjust rapidly in order to stay relevant.

There are three major benefits of incorporating. One is limiting liability. Yes, insurance can provide the same protection, but at a cost, where this protection is given freely by the State. Second is reducing the tax burden. Taxes would not exist in a free market, so this is moot. Third is the ability to use accounting techniques that fudge the numbers so companies appear more solvent and profitable than they actually are. It essentially functions as a short term ponzi scheme. Companies are short on cash, numbers are manipulated, investment capital comes in, outlays are covered until increased revenue is actualized. To prove my point, consider that in a corporation, debt is considered an asset instead of a liability. It is a lie, and dishonest companies would soon lose investors and the ponzi scheme would come tumbling down.

Here is the problem with your logic - You are presuming that these benefits come at no cost to the corporation. In a State controlled system, this is true, as tax dollars are used to create these protections. BUT, in a free market, the cost would be on the corporation itself, and would therefore either not be economically viable, or it would reduce profitability. Either way, it wouldn't happen.

Now, on to the argument of force. A corporation cannot obtain a monopoly of force, because there is no money in it. Again, corporations cannot just print money, so even if they forced labor from the people, they would still need to sell their product to somebody. The government creates revenue buy stealing labor, which yes, a corporation could do, but where governments REALLY make money is in selling currency that declines in value. Corporations don't have this option, so the monopoly will never exist.

At the core of your argument is one major issue. You are stating that in order to control the powerful, out of control State, we must create an equally powerful entity that is separate from the State, but it will function in pretty much the same manner. Funding will come from taxpayers, and refusal to comply will result in aggression. Who will control this entity? Who will watch the Watchers?