17 votes

Sincere questions for Anarchists.

I was commenting on another post and asking practical questions about Anarchism, and I thought it deserved its own post. I think I recall posts before on the subject but I have specific questions about Anarchism in a practical sense.

I can get behind the benevolent reasons for not wanting anyone to rule over and exploit myself or others, but I question whether or not Anarchy could function in reality. I am not operating from a position of believing centralized authority is the solution for mankind, please do not pigeon hole me into a group.

Calling me a Statist won't sell me on the practical application of Anarchy. You could probably call me a minarchist, so I am halfway to your position, please convince me why I should go further. I don't need to hear about the corruption of authority, as that does not explain anarchy as a functioning alternative, it only explains why the current system is undesirable.

So assuming peaceful anarchy can be achieved (no authority structures) here are some questions.

1. What do you do with the nuclear arsenal? Assuming the rest of the world is not going to give up their arsenal, would you destroy ours? If not who would be in charge of it?

2. There will be people that organize themselves into gangs, because there are people with low morals that will have no problem using violence to steal. How do you oppose this inevitable violence? You are being willfully naive if you question whether or not gangs will form. It is 100% guaranteed. That's right, I guarantee it, so it must be true.

3. If talking to gang members about the virtues of getting along should happen to not succeed for one reason or another. Would you need to organize a posse of virtuous fighters to destroy them with violence? Assuming you and your posse win the shoot out at the OK corral, would your posse then become a government? Would everyone be turning down that temptation? Would the people that will not fight (most people) then be calling for someone to relax their fears by promising to bring security?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Well thinking practically can

Well thinking practically can be dangerous. What is the best way to do something? The market decides the best or most efficient solution. When you have an imaginary entity like the state in control of something prohibiting the free market from bettering or expanding something such as a nuclear arsenal, you don't have competition to decide what is best.

the blueprint

the ultimate goal is a peaceful voluntaryist anarcho-capitalist society based on the NAP. as others have pointed out it's not gonna happen overnight and the people aren't ready yet. the people need to be woken up on a mass scale before a free society can emerge. in order for that awaking to happen you need a mainstream debate on these libertarian issues. the fastest way to do that is to get rand in the race for 2016 and start that debate (it's happening) and hopefully win and start to implement some of these libertarian reforms.
after that in 2024 you could have a kokesh type that dramatically accelerates things and starts to totally dismantle the fed gov and turn the powers over to the states in an orderly fashion.

Privately Owned Nuclear Weapons!?!?

There are no nukes in the libertarian utopia

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

You want Anarchy? You have it...

Anarchy is, was, and will always be the true natural state of the world.

Anarchies immediately break down into natural hierarchies, automatically.

Look at the African Serengeti...

The lion is higher on the food-chain (the hierarchy) than the wildebeest. Often, the lion eats the wildebeest. But sometimes, sometimes the wildebeest kills the lion.

Because there are no absolutes. As a wise man once said...

"Nothing is true. Everything is permitted."

That quote is not the end of understanding, but rather a place to begin understanding. It does not mean there is no truth. It means nothing is absolute. Afterall, if nothing is true, then neither is that quote. I'm off on a tangent though...

Point is, we can turn this country, and this world around. We can stop the NWO.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

How do we know that PEACEFUL GANGS would not form?

So some small gangs of thugs form. The town gets really frustrated with this. They have a town meeting and form a "gang" if you will of their own. Like the "neighborhood watch" program.

They get so sick of these thugs that everyone loves this neighborhood watch idea. And everyone starts talking to their neighbors about it.

Everyone starts asking their neighbor, "Isn't this neighborhood watch thing fantastic? It really increases our chances of being safe from those thugs."

And one of your neighbors says "Nah, I don't like that neighborhood watch thing... Me and my buddies are really into wearing bandannas and tattooing our necks. Please don't bring your neighborhood watch talk around here anymore."

At that point the neighborhood watch group has located the gang and will probably formulate a plan to do something with them. Perhaps it will be violent. Perhaps it will be ostracism. Perhaps the owner of the water company is a member of the neighborhood watch and refuses to serve them water. Perhaps the grocery store owner, utility company...........

Ostracism is not violent. But it is potent and effective.

Why are you looking for Anarchists at the Daily Paul?

This is predominantly a Libertarian website.

I guess Ron Paul identifies as an...


Yes but the anarchists have

Yes but the anarchists have possession of all the downvotes.

deacon's picture

Anarchists wouldn't downvote

that might be a form of gov,and they wouldn't stand for that.
so,it has to be another reason

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence


did that happen?

Because governememt officials never fail to fail.

No matter how much lipstick they smear on that pig the consensus is that it's time to make bacon.

Free includes debt-free!

A Faustian bargain with the

A Faustian bargain with the Devil. That explains their possession of all the down votes, and their inability to ever achieve anarchism.

First of all, your premise is

First of all, your premise is off. Peaceful anarchy cannot be achieved. However, we don't have peaceful statism now. There's never been a peaceful anything. Humans are naturally tied to violence and conflict, and we always will be until our humanity is forcibly stripped away from us. I don't want to live in a peaceful (boring, robotic) world.

1. You're not actually understanding anarchy here. You're asking about choices that no one would have the ability to make without an extreme level of authority: "would you destroy ours? If not who would be in charge of it?"

You must understand that anarchy will never come politically. The controllers have the technology to prevent it, and the majority (brainwashed masses) will never accept responsibility for themselves unless forced into it. If widespread anarchy comes to humanity, it will be delivered by catastrophic natural disaster (our only hope).

At least for the foreseeable future, no matter what happens, the nukes are here to stay. We just have to accept it. But remember, nuclear weapons are children of the state. The longer the state exists, the more horrors it will birth.

2. And? There are people organized into gangs right now. The biggest gang has at least one gang member "with low morals that will have no problem using violence to steal" in a white and blue car sitting on every highway in this country as I type.

This is one of the biggest myths about anarchy that I encounter. "Oh no, if there is no government or police to protect us, bad people will take over, killing and stealing from innocent people!"

Take a look around you. That is now. Governments and police are the most prolific killers and thieves in the world. In fact, they only serve to shield and protect other killers and thieves by harboring them in the prison industrial complex so that they may be better trained before being unleashed upon us again. Without government, the world would be a very volatile place for anyone looking to hurt others. The general populace would no longer feel safe without the police to "protect" them. With those delusions broken, self defense would become a standard curriculum. These "gang members" you're worried about wouldn't stand a chance when there's a gun on every belt. You see, people who kill, rape, and steal are lazy and weak-minded. It's a symptom of the lifestyle. A good person with a desire to live and protect others is like a superhero in comparison, and that's most of us, believe it or not. Just need to cut the strings of dependency.

3. Many people will always desire protection, and there isn't anything wrong with that. It's part of our blood. We're tribal. It works on the small scale. Everyone knows everyone else, and when a leadership decision is made, it is probably for the best. Then, if your leaders screw up, it's relatively easy to take them out of power (which isn't much to begin with). However, a tribal system doesn't work on a national level, for obvious reasons. One man, or even a group of them, cannot expect to simultaneously work for the interests of hundreds of millions of people with vastly diverging philosophies and goals.

-- The main point I want to make to you is that anarchy isn't pretty. It isn't peaceful. It isn't perfect. It's just as dysfunctional as any state of human existence. This universe is dangerous and temporary. If we don't kill ourselves, the universe WILL do it for us. The question is, how do you want to spend the time you've got here. As a slave or free?


your first question is one that is pretty hard to answer, but i do think the idea of using them to destroy asteroids or something along that line. the power of the market is almost completely unused in today's world. the bigger problem here is the idea of how to decide who gets to use them for whatever purpose the market bears out. one solution here, although perhaps not a good one, is since if the gov didnt exist, to have bidders post a bond to acquire the nukes, that is only returned once they are properly disposed of in someway that doesnt hurt earth or environments.

The second and third questions are much easier from my point of view. your worried about the essential breakdown of society. first, this is already very much in full swing in portions of large cities here in the ussr, so really what you are asking about is the spread out to where you live. the easy answer is: its gonna happen. the areas that have a high percentage of armed people who will not put up with it or knuckle under to gangs are the ones that will have the least problems. but this is going to happen, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. the analogy that i often use is of the kids that go off to college, finally free of their parents, a lot go completely off the rails for a year or two, some work really hard, and some never get back on the rails. you never know how a sudden burst of freedom is going to affect someone, especially when whole new aspects of how to survive are thrown in. this does not even take into account the security firms that will spring up to protect people and property.

i think the bigger question here is since many here expect the collapse of what we currently have, do you go replace it with something that you can be pretty much assured will follow in this governments footsteps, or do you opt for new and uncomfortable with much higher rewards in the future? that is often the hardest part to bridge.

voluntarily agorist

Your definition of anarchy is incorrect...

"So assuming peaceful anarchy can be achieved (no authority structures) ..."

That is a ridiculous notion and not the definition of anarchy.

Your premise is wrong therefore you are confused.

Try again and your questions will be answered.

authority in anarchy

Beyond my petty temptation to bicker over seth's use of the word "achieved", you've inspired me to comment about "authority structures". Ruler, monarch, dictator, president, leader, director, executive, producer, executive, chairman, father, teacher, mentor... all of these terms imply context. "Anarchy" certainly implies the situation void of my first term listed, but the principle of anarchy may be aimed toward lessening the import of any such terms. Structures of authority to some degree are perfectly organic. It's ultimately a matter of jurisdiction. Tradition, custom, rule... breaking tradition, breaking custom, breaking rules... we attempt conscious distinction between subtle [and sometimes bold] variations in color of these terms, we juggle them, all the while as they simultaneously fade subconsciously into their common hue.

At my mother's house the rules include removal of shoes at the door and lowering the toilet seat cover upon flushing. No rules as such at my house. At church and my place of hired work I remove my hat. When my kids were young I was a totalitarian dictator of a dad. "We're going to the park!" "Eat this!" "Go to bed!" Family things are a bit more democratic these days, but even democracy bears structures of authority.

Self-rule is a continual ideal that at best moderates all my situations and keeps my liberties from getting out of hand. By "out of hand" I mean the double entendre of one, abusing my own liberties, and two, essentially losing them altogether. Self-rule inspires volunteerism and free association [implying that I will at times associate], and these principles are what keep me on a path of moral progress. I often choose to embrace the authority of others in many situations as I have already described. Sometimes I even embrace the absurd ideal of total absence of rules until I expeience the dire urge to eat, poop, or sleep.

I guess what I'm saying is that anarchy is unconcerned with eradicating authority, and unconcerned with eradicating most "authority structures". More specifically it is concerned with not allowing the structures [that will always naturally exist] to become to pervassive or invassive, centralized or homogenized. Jurisdiction... anarchy is not the state of affairs at my mom's house, mom rules! and I'm okay with that, her carpet is really nice, I love to lay around on it. We certainly don't need a central authority enacting laws for all across the land to remove their shoes at all doors. A few years back I would remove my shoes in my own house when my mother came for a visit. I no longer do this. One day she just ceased removing her shoes, she was apparently okay with that. Well, I eventually realized that she was more than just okay with that. She was happy to not remove her shoes as she had become arthritic. It pained her to put them back on. I eventually got a girlfriend who tried talking me into making my house a shoe-free zone. It is not unrelated that my mother, upon getting to know her, secretly nicknamed her "the little dictator". :D

OK, so what is your

OK, so what is your definition of Anarchy? If totalitarianism is total control by a centralized force, is anarchy no control by a centralized force?

Anarchy = without hierarchy

That's all it means...

Kind of the point to not have a stricter definition.

Anarchy does NOT necessarily mean chaos. You can have quite peaceful anarchy. In fact, all modern political systems are ideally designed to bring humanity to a state of peaceful anarchy.

However, these system are usually corrupted well before that ever has a chance to happen, and often the ideal is flawed because human nature is not compatible with the 'process' (communism, for example).

As Al Pacino said in the 'Devil's Advocate', and as I'm sure the communist ideologues must loathe....

"Free Will... It IS a bitch."

The other theory of where these political ideologies will and/or should take us, is to that of the ant colony, or the Bee Hive as the Masonic Mormons put it, where there is absolute collectivism under the control of a 'Queen Bee', or 'Dear Leader', like North Korea.

I don't want to be an ant or a bee with no free will of my own.

America had the best set-up for as-close-peaceful-anarchy as possible. Not anymore unfortunately, but the concept is still sound.
Maximum freedom for each individual. That is the fastest way to everyone just getting along.

Forcing people to just get along, as in socialism/communism can work, though it does not create happiness or a sense of fulfillness, which causes the 'process' to fail, and start anew. And it has been long since discovered (i.e.- Monarchal systems) that forced 'collectivism' does not create peaceful anarchy but rather a Dictatorship, or Monarchy.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I see that at least 2 communist ideologues have down-voted

this post.


Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

And that's not the definition of totalitarianism either.

Do you even want me to weigh in...and if so, I'm not sure you'll you keep an open mind as to what these terms mean.

About your confusion, beginning with an errant premise is a sure way to produce errant results. (try doing calculus using the premise that 1+1=3.)

Please provide the definition as you understand it...

...of 'Totalitarianism'...

Total control over a population/nation by a centralized or unitary state or individual is a fitting definition for totalitarianism in my mind.

If it is not please expand...

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

There are no real answers to your questions.

Just opinions because the problems/scenarios you mention are real and anarchism is fantasy. Like you said anarchism is a nice sounding ideology but it will not work in the real world. WHY?

Because people have different values and different perceptions of right and wrong. Therefore there will always be strife and there will always be oppression by one group over another.

1. The nuclear arsenal is going nowhere. Under anarchism the nuclear arsenal would go to the richest and most influential people who will then use that power to control people. Hey! That's what we have now.

2. Yes gangs would spring up and they will seek to control the weak and/or secluded since they will not have the power to resist. By the time any group of individual anarchists see what is going on it will be too late to form any real resistance. In the end those gangs will be submissive to those who control the subject of question number one.

3. "Some" anarchists espouse the "non aggression" principle so as long as those gangs are not directly threatening them then they will not initiate aggression. Therefore a "government" will arise around them and eventually subject them. And don't forget that everyone will be subject to those who own the subject of question number one.

If anarchism worked and was so great then we would not be where we are today. This is a FACT that cannot be denied. So we can espouse the virtues of anarchism but implementation is a short lived fantasy at best.

Begging the Question

Ms. Julia Tourianski put together a great video on flipping the script,

Plus she will be on the show this week. :)

Nice video, but you missed the point completely.

I was asking some specific question, this video does nothing to address problem solving, it only beats a dead horse. The inefficiency of the state doesn't prove the efficiency of anarchism.

If I asked a salesman at a Toyota dealership to tell me about the positives of owning a Toyota, and he started talking about why a Chevrolet is a bad car, he isn't telling me about the Toyota.

If there is an axis with one side being totalitarianism, and the other side being anarchism, what is the optimal point on that line? It is a subjective question for each person. People are going to pick a point that they think works best for them. People that pick a different point are going to think that first person is wrong.

All the way to the anarchism side seems unrealistic, because people are going to organize into groups no matter what. Call them government gangs or private corporation gangs, but if the net effect is that they exploit you, then neither is a good thing. As long as highly intelligent psycho/sociopaths exist, they will organize into groups that steal. If you are smart, and evil, stealing the production of others is way easier than working yourself. It just is.

Yes, States are indebted to creditors.

Creditors who demand a return on investment.

I think a one 'beep' would leave people free to insert their own expletive.

Plus, it would be PG-13, if it wasn't for all the state's violence, vandalism and looting.

Free includes debt-free!

First off the principal of

First off the principal of non-aggression would have to be accepted by a majority of the people and they would have to learn to be self reliant again. This is not something that will happen overnight but I think with the help of the internet it could speed up the process.

I would imagine there were lots of BILL3's around during the time when slavery was accepted as normal making the argument, "but who will pick the cotton?" The point isn't the pragmatic application of a given system, it's whether it's moral or not. Does it adhere to the principal of self ownership and non-aggression?

As for #1, you can't uninvent guns or nuclear weapons, they're here to stay. Since we don't really need enough of them to destroy the world a hundred times over (I think we have around 5,500 of them) most of them could be dismantled and maybe a company that's purpose would be to destroy asteroids could use them. Just a thought.

As an aside, I thought of a good use for drones. Since the so called leaders are responsible for wars use a drone to take them out to end the war.

Non Aggression in the Practical Sense Requires MAD

Did not downvote.

Non Aggression in the Practical Sense requires a certain level of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to exist. If there is little Risk in abridging the Rights of others and medium to high Returns, then one can expect a good bit of aggression/abridging.

If the Risk is High and the Returns Marginal, then one can expect less Aggression. The ability to be aggressive, show it, and defend against it is necessary for non aggression to be common.

Predators usually have good eyes and protect them at all costs. If the prey has a chance at damaging the eyes (which are necessary for survival), a predator will hold back. Again, it comes down to MAD.

Sadly this makes me think of the NSA. I think they believe their Eyes and Ears are safe so they feel quite comfortable doing as they please.

I think for America to get past the BS we've been enduring, the people who occupy/control the Gov't must have some fear of MAD.

This does not necessarily mean that we have to fight each other to prove MAD as it could be shown that without the consent of the people, they (people who control/occupy our Gov't) are not safe from the Other Central Planners on the Planet (China, Putin, etc, etc). If we fight each other, we are both more vulnerable to outside attack.

Honestly a stateless society

Honestly a stateless society probably wouldn't look terribly differant on small scale, from the outside, though there would be some significant "larger scale" differances. You'd still have entites which fight crime, convict criminals, engage in defense, etc etc.

The main differance would be that instead of one monolithic government handling these things VERY poorly and filled with corruption, you'd have hundreds of them in competition with one another who all have to turn a profit in order to survive. Turning a profit means pleasing customers. Companies who survive on "insurance" would probably replace the majority of government functions.

But first, a realistic compairison in the differance between a "government" and a "company":

Government: A group of humans who band together for a purpose. They take the money they need by force or via printing press from other humans. They need only please their "subjects" just enough to keep them from revolting. You cannot get rid of them as votes are rigged, and your money is taken by force from you.

Company or Contractor: A group of humans who band together for a purpose. They only get money by providing a valuable service that other humans willingly pay for. They must continue to please their customers by remaining competitive with the best product. If they fail to do so, you can get rid of them by choosing to spend your money on their competitor instead.

So as an example; Defense & Military: Is given money taken by force from individuals. Must over-spend in order to recieve "more" money the next year. Losses nothing by loosing assets, as the products of its industry are paid for with tax money and it has no "customer" to please. Therefore the more useless armaments it builds and then destroys, the richer it becomes by extorting more money from individuals.

Defense contracter in stateless society: Is one of many local companies who must find a way to win the business of large groups of individuals in order to stay in business. In order to remain competitive, must offer the best product for the best price. Builds its own armaments FROM its own savings, and is therefore extremely cautious about wasting its weapons. A successful defense contractor is one who will have to expend its assets the least, there is no incentives for waging pointless conflict. They are far better served by maintaining peace as a company. If one defense contractor decides to use its armaments to take people's lives and property by force, there are dozens of ambitious defense contractors who, wanting to win a larger market share would jump at the chance to stop the rogue company and restore the peace.

Department of Justice: One monolithic organization who "is" the source of law, and thus can break any law it pleases without fear of an authority above them to stop their corruption. Eric Canter anyone?

Stateless system of arbitors and justice: Again, competition. Who is going to pay into a system that is known for favoring the rich dispite clear law, or who makes unfair decisions on behalf of investors/private prisons? Corrupt arbitors will be trampled by those with an excellent reputation for distributing fair and just rulings in all disputes.

The basic answer to your quary is: Competition in a free market makes "Everything" better. Competition leads to lower prices, and better service, every time. Monopoly "always" leads to higher prices and poorer service. Without a state to pick winners and loosers, there are no monopolies.

As for nukes, its hard to say, save that when we no longer have massive gangs (governments) fighting over turf and resources; when you no longer have "this" nation and "that" nation, but instead just have private property and people trading with one another an enjoying the massive fruits and prosperity of an unbridled free market, what's the point in using a weapon like a nuke to attack.... who? Those people over there who have no identifiable feature that makes them differant than these people over here? Since most companies will have profitable ventures all over the place, why would they want to engage in destroying customers which would cut into their profits?

Also, in a free market without government lies, we'll stop pretending that platonium is dangerous to humans and realize that spent uranium is a near infinite source of clean and safe energy for everyone. The truth is finally getting out, thanks to the internet that radiation isn't nearly as deadly as we have been told by our monopolizing, cartel-running pack of thieves in government. You could go for a swim in a nuclear cooling pool or drink water out of it with no ill effects. After 3 years in a cooling pool, peaces of uranium can be used to power tiny power plants that could, for example, power a neighborhood.

The "value" of platonium for this purpose would almost certainly lead to a world wide dismantling of nukes as savy investors quickly realized they make a hell of a lot more money converting weaponized uranium and depleating it, then selling it across the world as an energy source than they ever could be stockpiling useless weapons which no longer serve a purpose in a world without "nationalistic" boarders.

Is true anarchy the ability

Is true anarchy the ability to govern oneself from within?

Is that what anarchy is all about?

"I shall govern thyself, nobody else shall govern thee."

If so, the essence of anarchy is rooted in Independence.

The Founding Fathers of America were against the idea of being ruled by a King or Queen. They desired to govern themselves without a central authority, so they wrote a Declaration...of Independence.

In a way, America was built on anarchy because people being able to govern themselves is the exact opposite of a monarchy.

But as we all know, no single person on earth is able to live completely independent lives.

We depended upon our parents to take care of us and feed us.

We depended upon our brothers and sisters and friends for support.

We depended on a good doctor to help deliver us into this amazing, beautiful, wondrous world.

We depend on each other for many things.

Love is not independent. Love is not an anarchist.

Anarchy is a single, vibrant tree in the middle of nowhere...looking for a companion or two to call friends because being all by yourself sometimes really sucks.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Anarchy doesn't mean independence.......face palm

Anarchism is not the opposite of cooperation nor is it even the opposite of collectivism.

Anarchism is simple. Doesn't mean don't trade, cooperate or do business with people. Doesn't mean don't be neighbourly. Doesn't mean go live in the woods in seclusion. Doesn't mean throw fire bombs at protests.

Anarchism is simple. You don't need rulers....adhere to the none aggression principals, (for you christians that simply means abiding by the golden rule) and taking those principals of peace and non intervention and applying those to ALL aspects of life. If you are consistent across the board and honest with yourself there is only one conclusion and that is anarchism..... In true anarchy, a free person can choose to be a hermit or they can even choose to live in a resource based community where everyone shares everything (one that doesn't force cooperation etc..).

Anarchy is about being truly free.

Amazing how many statists and their big L siblings that can't seem to get it there are. True Anarchists would only take issue with either "cooperation" or "collectivising" if they were forced upon people, thus failing at the non aggression people.

(L)ibertarians and their beltway subconsciousness they pretend to not have........