14 votes

Is Anarchy Impossible?

Minarchists say in order to preserve a limited government it requires an enlightened people. Yet these same people claim anarchy is impossible if it requires an enlightened people. Minarchy cars require enlightened gas to run but anarchy cars are impossible because they require enlightened gas. :/

Minarchists say separation of power will keep power in check. Setting aside history which has shown this theory to be entirely false, consider the math of the proposition. (Power / X = Some power) > Power of any people, especially any with no tanks, nukes, etc. How in the hell is that a balanced equation?

Minarchists say limited government can only be sustained with eternal vigilance. Again, setting aside history which has shown this theory also to be entirely false, let us instead turn to reason. Who is going to do all of the educating so people know what dangers to watch for? Who is going to do it forever in perpetual? Who is going to compel people to listen to their advice when history also demonstrates there has never been any shortage of individuals sounding alarms against power?

Nowadays minarchists have come up with a new expression ... a tireless minority. Setting aside common sense as we all know this proposition to be impossible because all men and women get tired, let us suppose for a moment that were not the case. Ok, a tireless minority of people is going to do what exactly? Set brush fires of liberty in the minds and hearts of men and women. Has it been mentioned minarchists assert anarchy is impossible if it requires any enlightened people whose minds or hearts are ablaze with liberty?

I might be able to stomach some hypocritical minarchist critique of anarchy if they could come up with one single comment that does not equally apply to minarchy. Just one ... that is all I am asking for.

There is one notable thing minarchists do not comment on and that is competition ... in justice for instance. Despite that competition has a proven track record of separating wheat from chaff the typical minarchist would claim competition in justice can't work. Despite that there are 50 competing state justice systems and many local political subdivisions within a state having unique ordinances they say it can't work. Despite that there are hundreds of international competing justice systems they say it can't work. They claim the only way justice can work is if one entity in any given geographic territory has a monopoly on this service. They claim people voting with their wallets will not provide any incentive for justice because justice would not be the same if everyone wasn't forced to pay for the same crappy injustice system. At least they get one point right, it wouldn't be the same ol crappy injustice system if everyone wasn't compelled to pay for or use it.

A few additions ...

Despite that anyone can walk out their front door and plainly see most people are not using violence against other people minarchists repeatedly claim there is good reason to live in fear of gangs. What they mean is that they do not want any personal responsibilities or obligations of freedom. What they mean is that as long as someone else is going to deal with these rogue gangs that is fine but it is not fine if they have to do it themselves.

Concepts like freedom and liberty only work if one is willing to trust other people. They are all or nothing proposals. Either all may enjoy freedom and liberty or it shall be enjoyed by none. By their own admissions minarchists claim they are unwilling to trust other people because some of them will form gangs. As long as they are not willing to trust in their fellow man ... they deserve neither freedom or liberty and there is no shame in pointing it out.




Comment viewing options

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

As always you nailed it

"What they mean is that they do not want any personal responsibilities or obligations of freedom. What they mean is that as long as someone else is going to deal with these rogue gangs that is fine but it is not fine if they have to do it themselves."

That's exactly what is at the heart of the whole nightmare we face. The ninnies. They will not take liability for their own existence whether it be their knowledge of the law, their ability to uphold the law, their willingness to uphold the law. They are so utterly confused in their own irresponsibility that they think legislative code is applicable law for the people. This single ongoing failure of responsibility by statists and minarchist demonstrates that they cannot be trusted to uphold the protections of law. If they can't be trusted for upholding the law then it is absolutely less than useless to vote and downright dangerous to continue to pay to continue to feed the single biggest threat to everyone's peace and prosperity.

If people can't take responsibility for understanding what a real threat to peace is and understand the requirement not to feed or arm that threat with resources then the people are not only irresponsible but their confusion born of irresponsibility has also become a danger to our security and tranquility by literally funding violent criminals that claim to be government but who use color of law as a weapon of tyranny upon law abiding people. This is a danger to security and has no protections whatsoever.

Remember Ron Paul in Iowa saying "Freedom means you are responsible for yourself". I don't most took that to mean exactly what it means. Look at the world bare and find your own way. Know how to survive, to thrive and protect yourself, your family and work with other responsible people to protect one another when needed.

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...

Society Without A State

Rothbard:

"...mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad."

"...no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection."

"The anarchist view holds that, given the "nature of man," given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public."

Best debate on this subject I have seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvo-yEymNuQ

Live in Liberty
Tom Rankin

Anarchy

"Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy won’t work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians." Stephan Kinsella

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html

Hope this helps.

Can Anarchy be realized without Minarchy as a Step towards it?

I didn't know what a Minarchist was till a few months ago. I tied it in with Anarchists, Anarcho-Capitalists, and all the Right of Limited Gov't ideologies. My mistake.

One of my career specialties is Implementing new systems in large and complex organizations (SAP) and a lack of Organized Change Management is, from my experience, the area that leads to more failures and setbacks than any other discipline. OCM is the proactive planning for resistance, parallel and sequential phases, and knowledge that timing is everything.

While we debate whether Anarchy or Minarchy is better/possible, I think it is worth asking the question if Minarchy is a required step before Anarchy can be reached.

We're talking about changing the Belief systems of millions of people. If Minarchy, which is really just another name for Subsidiarity where the most local (least centralized) level of government is the Household, is not possible, then it is going to be a stretch to convince enough people that Anarchy will work. Courts, ability to defend against Foreign Central Planners (Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't),

Perhaps the Anarchists believe that one must skip Minarchy and go straight to Anarchy to achieve good results? If so, then some sort of transition plan needs to be spelled out. Can such a transition plan come from Spontaneous Order? Possibly, but one must first get a critical mass of people to agree on the Vision of Minarchy/Anarchy in order for people to strive for it independently.

What keeps us from re-instating slavery?

Do you think that it is A LAW that keeps each one of us from wanting to own slaves. Is it the threat of fine or imprisonment if caught that keeps people from trying to own slaves?

Or is it WE ARE ENLIGHTENED on the principle of self ownership?

Once we learn that "ruling authority" is principally wrong in the way that "ownership of another person" is wrong, the world will operate differently.

An Objective understanding of Rights and MAD

An Objective understanding of Rights and MAD must be common. Natural Law must be a commonly held belief system. Rights cannot exist without Free Will. Free Will cannot exist without Ownership of Self. Ownership of Self cannot exist whilst being Dependent upon others.

Mutually Assured Destruction must also be a common phenomenon. If the Risk of abridging the Rights of others is low, then one can assume that Rights will be abridged by the Rent Seeker types.

in the real world

It's probably because machines are more productive and less bothersome to maintain.

So you don't think it would be "taboo...?"

So don't you think it would be taboo if you were to keep a "household servant" that you on;y gave room and board to? And she cooked, cleaned, did yardwork, gardened, nannied... But no pay?

Do they already machines that are that versatile? I haven't seen that machine yet.

Are you really proposing that TECHNOLOGY WAS THE REASON for an abolition movement?

I totally disagree.

----

Machinery is what came about IN THE ABSENCE OF slaves. But machinery did not "come to the rescue" of slaves.

personally?

I wouldn't want to do it.
However, some people would and many people do, and they couldn't care less about our opinions of what is taboo. Slavery and human trafficking exists in many forms and countries today, even within the United States for various reasons.
Slaves are expensive and are low producers, obviously they have no incentive; they must be fed, clothed, housed, kept reasonably healthy, and so on.
So, yes, technology and the accompanying economic considerations were major contributors to the decline and subsequent abolition of slavery in every modern country, controlled by Whites; just as automated burger builders will replace minimum wage workers, when cost/benefit ratios make it them more profitable.
I'm not saying that technology came to the rescue of slaves, although some who saw the invention of the cotton gin may disagree. I don't think the inventors and developers of technology cared so much. They just did what was profitable and slavery was not profitable.

"Pre-Civil War Slavery was NOT PROFITABLE..."

I will not even come with documentation. Even at a gut level, I think this statement is severely incorrect.

The MORAL SUBSTANCE of the action of owning another human came into question AND THAT WAS LIGHTS OUT eventually for OWNING PEOPLE.

I totally disregard your "slaves were largely inefficient and that is why we don't hold slaves."

I cannot join you on that at all. Not even for a second.

I argue from first principles, from a position of moral actions and ethical actions. And slavery is one of the main analogies that I AM ABLE TO PRESENT as a "moral argument" eventually winning.

I'm not sure what you are reading.

What you have in quotes is not what I wrote. It is a well-known fact that slaves do not have any incentive to perform above minimally productive levels. There is simply no reward in it for them.
I get the impression that you somehow believe that slavery only existed in the United States, prior to the Civil War. Are you even aware that over one million Europeans (there are estimates as high as 1.5 million) were enslaved in North Africa during the period from 1500 to 1800? Slavery and serfdom existed in most, if not all, European countries, as well. Lincoln and MLK didn't free those slaves at Gettysburg.
Many people, who on moral grounds opposed slavery, often found owning them necessary and ethical in order to be competitive in the slave-trade driven economies. As technological advances increasingly made slavery obsolete, those who opposed the practice morally were increasingly able to also oppose it ethically, applying pressure toward abolition. Around the world, slavery was on it's way out the door, before our Civil War was fought, and would have been abolished worldwide without that war.

Majesty, you've hit the nail

Majesty, you've hit the nail on the head. Neither one is possible in perpetuity. History goes in cycles, liberty and tyranny and anarchy are different points in the cycle. History shows long periods of liberty sustained by the limited government that exists when people want to be free. History shows no examples of stable anarchy. Maybe it can exist, maybe not. But if history is the guide, limited government lasts longer in stability than anarchy.

You nailed what I was going

You nailed what I was going to say. Things do run in a cycle, anarchy grows to minarchy, minarchy to totalitarianism, totalitarianism to anarchy.

There can be anarchy, but it won't last. The only constant is change.

The first rule established in any anarchistic society...

'Hey! You can't shit there!'

I saw the best minds of my generation, destroyed by pandas starving hysterical naked

-Allen Ginsberg

Anarchy impossible???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAm3T9llot4&feature=em-uploa... here is how to build the roads without the Government is possible...

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

Minarchists say in order to

Minarchists say in order to preserve a limited government it requires an enlightened people. Yet these same people claim anarchy is impossible if it requires an enlightened people. Minarchy cars require enlightened gas to run but anarchy cars are impossible because they require enlightened gas. :/

Strawman. Minarchists believe that a "small, tireless minority" can achieve limited government. In fact that is the only way to preserve liberty, is to create a government that can preserve it.

Minarchists say separation of power will keep power in check. Setting aside history which has shown this theory to be entirely false, consider the math of the proposition. (Power / X = Some power) > Power of any people, especially any with no tanks, nukes, etc. How in the hell is that a balanced equation?

Modern minarchists probably can admit that the founders failed to properly separate power. But why do you then claim that "separation of powers" via competition in traditionally government services somehow does work? There needs to be a balance.

Minarchists say limited government can only be sustained with eternal vigilance. Again, setting aside history which has shown this theory also to be entirely false, let us instead turn to reason. Who is going to do all of the educating so people know what dangers to watch for? Who is going to do it forever in perpetual? Who is going to compel people to listen to their advice when history also demonstrates there has never been any shortage of individuals sounding alarms against power?

History shows that anarchist societies adopt government when they do not maintain vigilince. Same with minarchy. How does history show this to be false? Show me a vigilant population in a minarchy that internally devolved into tyrrany?

Nowadays minarchists have come up with a new expression ... a tireless minority. Setting aside common sense as we all know this proposition to be impossible because all men and women get tired, let us suppose for a moment that were not the case. Ok, a tireless minority of people is going to do what exactly? Set brush fires of liberty in the minds and hearts of men and women. Has it been mentioned minarchists assert anarchy is impossible if it requires any enlightened people whose minds or hearts are ablaze with liberty?

Are you unaware of how political movements work? How do you think revolutions happen? Ridiculous. Minarchy requires less people to secure liberty because it has government. One need only secure the government to secure liberty. One need not secure a majority of the whole people.

Despite that competition has a proven track record of separating wheat from chaff the typical minarchist would claim competition in justice can't work.

All within the law and order of the state.

Ventura 2012

The closest thing I want to a

The closest thing I want to a government is multiple court systems that must turn a profit to survive in any given area. Free market competition for the win.

Is it possible to have a free market capitalist society without a government? Currently? No.

Why? Too many people believe 100% and without need of reason in the illusion of arbitrary authority. Its bred into our children by our schools and churches, our television, books and movies.

The only way we reach true liberty is by raising our children to question "everything" and to resist arbitrary authority. Teach them to govern themselves and understand that they own themselves. I have 2 daughters who will know these things. If you guys are doing your job and raising your children to be capitalists who desire freedom, we may achieve this in the future.

What people always need to remember is that words confuse things. Strip away all titles and BS and ask yourself; what is a government? What is a company?

Both are groups of people who get together to accomplish a goal. The company must please its customers to achieve its goals as all interactions are voluntary, and happy customers are life and death.

The government on the other hand, needs not please anyone, they deal in force and coersion, and those who do not wish to use them any longer are brought into compliance with the barrel of a gun. You can't vote "no" with your wallet, and you're an idiot if you think you can vote no with a peace of paper.

Its time to stop giving certain "groups of people" a monopoly on force, and special rights. Its time to treat all groups of people equally. No one has the right to use force against others save for in self defense. Humans have to deal with each other through voluntary action or they are criminals. No exceptions for people with badages and fancy hats.

I like your response...

well said. And well humored. I laughed.

I would like to add a nuance to your last praragraph, "Its time to stop giving certain "groups of people" a monopoly on force..."

It is commonly said that the state has a monopoly on the use of force but that is not so. The state has a monopoly on anything the state wishes to have a monopoly on and it uses force to enforce its claim.

Government claims that it the power to harm with legal impunity.
This is the essence of governmental power and is the one attribute that separates it from any individual/company found in society.

That's a great point, but I

That's a great point, but I think as you hinted, saying "monopoly on force" is the same as saying "monopoly on everything. All rights and all tyranny arises from the barrel of a gun. He who controls force, controls anything they damn well please. You only have those rights you can defend by force or threat of force.

The idea of government in any form, even the cherished "minarchist" government that our founders gave us, is evil by its own nature. Depriving anyone of their rights against their will is crime. Period. Until a government can exist on the voluntary contribution of people rather than taxation via threat of force, then there can be no lawful government. This BS notion I hear about "social contract" is irrational. I didn't enter any "contract" and ill be damned if "im" going to be the one who leaves if I don't feel like succumbing to extortion.

yes

"He who controls force, controls anything they damn well please."
Yes. And the legislatures have the superior violence making machine at their disposal.

"Until a government can exist on the voluntary contribution of people..."
Then it won't be a government. Because what you speak of won't have the governmental power to harm with legal impunity. It'll be some kind of non-profit management company. Empowered with ability to run some kind of service but not with the ability to run the private affairs of individuals.

I dream of the day. :)

exactly. Though im certain a

exactly. Though im certain a libertarian golden age in the far-flung future will dream up of some court of arbitration and defense contractor services in competition with one another that will fullfill the old role of governments by voluntary exchange rather than coersion. I hope some distant relation of mine will only know the word "government" from history books.

To me, the next great step forward to humanity will be when the free markets make governments obsolete and remove that stain from humanity. But alas, governments will only die with collectivism, and collectivism will only die when we stop indoctrinating our children with collectivist myths, both of the spiritual variety, and the state variety. Ayn Rand called them the Mystics of the Mind and Mystics of the Body. She knew her stuff, but I always wonder why she never took the final leap and realized that governments would always be an obstacle for her philosphy. It was the one area where she seemed to not apply her full reason.

"Government claims it

"Government claims it the power to harm with impunity."

Very observant of you, AR.

And, hey, I'm waiting for your reply here, you know, lol. :P

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

Thanks:)

Again, the only one on the page that noticed.

Autarchy

Although I'd agree minarchists make less use of factual information it's equally disappointing to see Anarchists not justify their reasoning with all the relevant information that is available.

On your last point for competing justice agencies I'm looking forward to reading Bruce L. Bensons book "To Protect And Serve."

I also think John Hasnas work on the subject helps alleviate some common misconceptions that are all too prevelant even on this site about Anarchy.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.msb....

Excellent post by the way!