-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.

2.

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.

Bill3

Comment viewing options

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

Can you give an example of a

Can you give an example of a "truly free market" in history? If not, how do you describe this unicorn as "organic and fluid." What do you imagine you're talking about?

The cost of limited liability isn't given freely by the State. You guys are always crowing about how corporations pay all of the taxes! Now you wan to say they don't. Well, who does? Does the state pay the taxes of the state? No. The corps can easily afford, and do pay for, the cost of whatever coverage the government provides them.

Debt is not considered an asset in corporate accounting, unless you're talking about ownership of a loan or claim on another. If the electric company has a receivable (a bill) from you, that is an asset, even though its your debt. Clearly you don't have a preliminary understanding of basic accounting and balance sheets.

Or, perhaps want to take on double entry bookkeeping along with government in your crusade against human social order, waged from your laptop and with the flaming sword of ignorance. I say go for it, we all need entertainment.

This is great

Have you ever argued a position from fixed goalposts?

The closest example I can give that you will be able to understand is 19th century America. Beyond that, the Black Market, which operates 100% outside of governmental controls. I am not going to get into the specifics, because you don't care, but if you want to understand free markets, that is where you should start your research. I also want to remind you that all economic theory is just that, THEORY. You can either choose to observe and establish conclusions, or you can attempt to manipulate, and watch what happens. Either way, anyone paying attention would recognize that markets are going to go where they want to.

Who complains that corporations pay all of the taxes? I know I don't. I complain that they pay taxes at all (as I do for any entity), but definitely not that they pay the majority. This I will break down for you. Go to the link here - http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Payroll-Taxes.cfm and you will see that in 2012, individuals paid in 80.8% of federal revenue. Corporations paid in 9.9%, but in reality, those taxes were collected from consumers, so that 9.9% came from individuals as well. Corporations don't actually pay taxes, they just collect them for the State. Yes, disbursement of profits are spent and taxed, and eventually end up back in the hands of the State, but it is no more direct than any other consumer.

You ever heard of bonds? They are debt, and in any rational world would be a marker for insolvency. Instead, they are purchased under the idea that an insolvent company will change it's ways and produce more profit down the line. Debt as an asset. But that was merely a small example. What I was really getting at was Fair Value Accounting, which is what Enron used to bilk millions of people out of billions of dollars. Strange, that the State (SEC) was in place to make sure they didn't lie, but they did. It is also pretty much the norm in major corporations today, because the State protects them. I'm glad you are confident in your "preliminary understanding of basic accounting", but you might want to consider branching out into actual economics.

This is really too easy. With your initial diatribe, I had hoped you wouldn't end up being a half wit, yet here we are.

The 19th century is the very

The 19th century is the very political and economic order which produced the vast concentrations of wealth which very shortly employed/empowered the state to do its bidding!

Your link is to payroll taxes! they fund social security and medicare accounting books, they don't pay for federal budget!

I can hardly bother responding further, the ignorance here is palpable.

It is palpable, but it is clearly yours

If you need someone to wipe your arse, then you won't understand the chart regardless. Yes, the page is about payroll taxes, but if you weren't mentally deficient, you would have noticed that the pie chart shows ALL sources of federal revenue. I don't know how I can make it any clearer for you. C'mon man, at least try to appear to be half way intelligent.

The 19th Century, pre-civil war, saw some of the greatest economic growth that this nation has ever seen. Infrastructure was funded and established with private capital. Innovation was rampant. Yes, some people got wealthy in the process, which non-socialists don't mind. It's funny that I am arguing against the State, and that it allows, even welcomes, collusion to benefit private interests, and yet here you are making my point for me! Even better, that statement about the State being used to do the bidding of the elites is the first true thing you have typed in this whole thing.

You are painting yourself as a sophomore, in the classical sense.

Payroll taxes don't fund the

Payroll taxes don't fund the federal budget, simple as that. Wealthy people through personal and corporate taxes pay the lions share, so your argument that there is no cost to them for the services provided by a state is false. In a market setting, the same expenses and services could be handled privately... but that would still be government, and force, just without any redress to those without property.

The point about the 19th century is that it was this period of economic concentration of power that enabled a powerful state to be created out of a weak state, by private economic power. All the more in an anarchocap setting, economic power would be an impetus toward forming a strong state, since there would be zero political power outside of economic power standing in the way.

Are you being intentionally obtuse

or do you really not understand a simple pie chart? In 2012, payroll taxes were 34.5% of federal revenue. Individual income tax was 46.2%. Besides, I thought you wanted corporations to "pay their fair share", or at least that they could afford to? Did you change your mind?

Private enterprise is NOT government. If a manufacturer wants to sell his product in India, he must either own or contract the ships to move the goods, insurance to protect the shipment from loss, and security to protect from theft. In this scenario, government provides the protection. In an AnCap world, private industry would. How is that "government"? I am beginning to think you are the poster boy for the Inigo Montoya meme.

Your logic is completely ridiculous. You are arguing that an AnCap society would create a more powerful State, because there would be no political restriction on economic power, but you are ignoring one simple thing - THERE IS NO STATE. DO you get it? It is the COLLUSION between the State and elite that makes private tyranny possible.

Look, go read some info on what AnCap really is. Not what you read on DKOS or whatever quasi-socialist site you come from. You CANNOT fix a broken State with more State. Period. Write it on a piece of paper, and eat it, because osmosis may be your only hope for understanding this one simple truth.

Has anyone ever been

Has anyone ever been intentionally obtuse?

Why did you think I wanted corporations to pay their 'fair share'? Did I say that somewhere? Its the lazy mind that wants to attribute views to others which he is comfortable arguing against, whether or not the opponent every expressed those views.

I said that whatever services the modern state provides corporations, enabling them to have such massive power and privlege as they do have, could also be organized by corporations on a market basis. They could certainly afford it, since they already pay most taxes as corporations and wealthy shareholders. They could employ private agencies to use force to maintain that order. How is that different from government?

You haven't established why these corporations would be benevolent and refrain from force, corruption, or collectively pooling resources to provide state functions.

In fact, that is precisely what they did do, from your vaunted free market 19th century... they created the modern super state out of whole cloth... with their concentrated economic power, with servile political parties, with propaganda media, newspapers, etc.

Just because "there is no state" at X moment, does not mean that there would be no state at X moment plus 1 month, one year, or ten years. If the conditions that existed at X moment included the potentiality of economic power creating violent institutions, then they would form a state. That's what happened already.

You haven't said why or how the moment, X, when there is no state, would continue in existence without a state. You have simply assumed the conclusion. You have posited an invisible, undefined Deus ex anarcha to perpetuate the state-less condition indefinately, as if this did not require any explanation!

Obtuse? Priceless!

Lazy? So says the guy

that wanted to argue the other side in order to attribute opinions not held by the other side. You inferred that corporations do not pay enough taxes when you were exasperated by "us" claiming corporations pay too much. Maybe I misunderstood, but at worst I used a different nomenclature than you would like.

Let's try this again - Corporations pay about 10% of federal revenue. The top 10% of income earners (anyone making over $140,000 per year) do pay around 70% of taxes, but you don't hit the top 1% of earnings until around $400,000. I don't know about you, but I consider folks earning $140,000 a year to be upper middle class, not "wealthy". Hell, I don't even consider $400,000 wealthy. Rich, maybe, but they aren't exactly flying in private jets. SO, a select few benefit from the taxation of the many, and if those expenses were privatized, the direct cost to the the executives in a corporation would be considerably higher. Use of force - We'll cover this again. Yes, a corporation could hire a company to provide protection. Yes, they could even have a private army, but you keep ignoring one tiny little detail. They would NOT have a monopoly of force, and that is the game changer. A corporation would have no recourse if a civilian coalition decided to rise up against their tyranny. They could fight them, but why would you go to war with your customer? Does that make sense to you?

They won't be benevolent, they will do what the marketplace tells them to do. Think about Walmart (the grocery section) and Whole Foods. Walmart provides the cheapest product, and those looking for that will shop there, but there are millions of people who WON'T shop there because of various issues they have with the company. Whole Foods on the other hand, provides a significantly more expensive product, and there are many more millions of people who won't shop there, because they don't see the value. Walmart will NEVER take customers from Whole Foods, and the association of the two entities would mean a loss of sales for Whole Foods as their clientele would be upset about it.

It seems to me like you are imagining a corporation grabbing people off the street and forcing them to buy their product. Do you really think that is possible? In the end, I don't have to prove jack. YOU are the one stating that corporations would become evil quasi-states. Prove it. Show me an example of a corporation coming to anything close to that level of power, without colluding with the State to do so. You can't.

Corporations didn't create the "modern super State". The State did. When it decided that centralized power was in it's best self interest, and it waged war against itself in order to do so. Corporations simply saw an opportunity and jumped on board.

You logic is circular man. The State can't NOT exist, because no State would soon become a State. Really? Here. I'll show you. Corporations can't exist without a State. Without a State, corporations would become all powerful and form a State. And then the State would collude with the corporations. That don't exist, because THERE WAS NO STATE TO FORM THEM. Not intentionally, but you are definitely obtuse.

You statists can never see past your own eyebrow, so I guess I am wasting my time here. You will argue until you are horse that we MUST maintain the system. Sure, you want to "change" it, but you really just want a new master.

Oh, and Bill, don't think for a second that folks here don't see right through your "third" way. No matter how you wrap it, fascism will always be what it is.

P.S. - I'm glad you were finally able to put together a relatively coherent argument, and I particularly enjoyed your made up term. It's cute. Too bad your logic is flawed at the core, and you continue to ignore evidence that points it out when you are unable to deflect. Give it up. Your lies have no place here. We are not looking for new masters. We are only trying to get rid of the ones currently breaking our backs.

Don't you realize that those

Don't you realize that those top income earners are execs at the corporations largely? lol.

Does typing the word Facepalm

give the same effect as actually performing one? You got my point, but you don't GET it. CEO's are in the top .01% of earnings. Their contributions are probably less than 1% of taxes paid in, yet they receive benefits that others do not. 14,000 people benefiting from a system that steals from 300,000,000+ people.

But you are forcing me to argue a moot point. Nobody should be paying taxes. Corporations should be rising/falling on their own accord. Wealth should be in a natural flux. You will never understand, because you enjoy the yoke on your neck. I'm fine with that, just quit trying to put one on my neck as well.

You might not like it, but

You might not like it, but they do. The government is not funded by the small contributions of the dwindling middle class, it's paid for by corporations and top income earners who are tied to corporations and other aspects of the establishment like media, law, etc.

They don't fund the government by stealing from the poor, working class. The government we have was created gradually by the concentrated economic power that developed in relative freedom. People went along to get the benefits like social security, medicare, and subsidized education, etc.

This is the system that came out of economic freedom, not violently but legally and constitutionally.

Demanding the state "disappear" like some magic trick, without realizing the power that fills the vacuum would just resume the function of the state, probably more tyrannically, is just not very well thought out.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about

And you contradict your own arguments. I have presented concrete numbers,with links,to that show you are wrong.You present speculation. The top 1% pay in, combined with all corporate taxes, about 45% of total revenue, BUT that only equates to about 30% of what the government actually spends. The rest is from the poor and middle class, through taxation and inflation. Under the oversight of the State.

You admit that the State became what it is because corporations influenced them, but you somehow think the solution is more State? Can you explain that?

Why did you sneak in the "1%"

Why did you sneak in the "1%" figure? Your above statement says there is "the 1%" and "the poor and middle class" - what about everyone else, lol?

This will be my last response

Because you aren't even able to follow the conversation and recognize the context of the discussion. You have no clue what you are taking about, and you are incapable of expressing your opinions. I had hoped that you would actually be able to argue the statist point of view, but it turns out you don't even know what that is. You are a fool, and I'm done wasting my time with you.

everyone forfeits eventually!

everyone forfeits eventually!

Laws are irrelevent

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
- Thomas Jefferson

Sounds like anarchy to me. Are you drinking alcohol already, BILL3? You don't seem to be able to put 2 and 2 together.

I hope you watched the Rules video... you seem to comment on your own post just to hide the truth. Here's another video for you to bump down, on what anarchy isn't... please sober up and watch the whole thing, and try and wake yourself up:

Whether I'm drinking alcohol

Whether I'm drinking alcohol or not hardly has any bearing on my ability to reason and write circles around you, sweety pie.

Ha ha so says the drunkard

So says the drunkard spouting insults... insults are reason? "Anarchism is a crackpot ideology" is reason? Every drunk person thinks they thinking clearly and even better than when sober... so enjoy your drunken stupor.

Whether jingled, or sober, I

Whether jingled, or sober, I am now a happygirl fan. Cheers!

I watched about

three minutes of this. I liked the part of the voluntary produce sellers but couldn't help but think how long it would be before a gang came along and would force protection insurance on the merchants (warlords) have been in every society and they start out small and eventually become government. I don't know the answer but so far I not heard of one that makes sense.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Gangs?

The only reason gangs would come along is because most people are infants and not taught to defend themselves... they have only been in every society because every society has had governments. At least you are honest in saying "you couldn't help but think"... yes, that is what indoctrination from childbirth onward does to people... they can't figure out the simplest things, like defending yourself. You should watch the whole thing and watch it many times.

Oh, you guys,

What I like most about you is how you're smarter than Cicero, Montaigne, Jefferson, in coming up with this anarchy thing. That was capital.

Curious, once you've triumphed over the hearts and minds of man with the sheer beauty of your non aggression principle, distilled as it is from pure reason, not subject to the petty constraints of human nature, the old fashioned dictate of God or the crass pull of self interest, how will you keep these ideas fresh in the spirit of foolish man, and keep him from backsliding into his earlier ways?

Without a body to spread the idea and set fresh fire to the NAP gospel, the flame will perish. The violent hands of old Man and his political or economic power will be laid on you. What you really need is an institution to teach the people and keep the NAP alive, untouchable by elites because cherished by the people, sacred even. What other hope do you have in this world of change, turmoil, power and propaganda?

The same heirarchy magic bonobos or other species employ

to preserve their culture. Heirarchy magic seems to be working just fine preserving statism ...

that's a weak argument

Don't you believe in progress of ideas? Are we to reject all new ideas because Cicero, Montaigne, and Jefferson didn't think of them?

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

No, I certainly don't believe

No, I certainly don't believe in the progress of ideas. Thank you for affording me the opportunity to make that very clear.

Then why bother writing?

If there is no possibility of progress?

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

Not sure.

Not sure.

I'm not as certain as you

I'm not as certain as you that the dividing line is that great. Jefferson was pretty close to accepting NAP.

Jefferson believed that laws and even the Constitution should be re-ratified by each generation, (abiding by the concept that no past generation can bind a future one), and while that's not strictly NAP (which would hold that no individual can bind another), it's pretty close.

Of course Jefferson never came up with a practical way that this could be accomplished, but that doesn't mean he wasn't morally correct.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

As usual you have it all wrong

Clearly BILL3 you don't understand anarchy at all, or much of anything based on your previous posts. You don't trust people to behave, so you are going to have a ruling authority MADE OUT OF PEOPLE...wow, so make a third party to rule... out of what.. people... those untrustworthy savages that would all rip each other apart if not for rules...

Eveyone knows we all need rules and ruling class otherwise we'd all be savages... here Larken explains why we must have rules:

Hi, happy!! nice to talk to

Hi, happy!! nice to talk to you again.

As a matter of general principle I exclude all cumbersome videos in my exchanges with people, even ones by the great Larken Rose. If we just go back and forth with long, boring videos, we'd be in a real fix pretty quick, have no time for work, or play!

If you can maybe summarize or repeat what Ms. Rose says, I'd be happy to refute it for you! Thanks.