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?

Comment viewing options

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

"You don't need

"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."

This comment doesn't sound any different than the idealism of a marxist, in the sense that it, like marixism, doesn't deal with the realities of human nature.

There will always be people that do not abide by the golden rule. With that, don't you need a group of people to either kill, arrest, or banish those people? Are those policing powers going to be granted to a police force by an agreement in the community? Now you have an organization that has put together a group of armed men to enforce what is good for the community. Someone or a some small group will be directing that armed force in their actions. Should a person oppose that person or small group, will they not use that force to serve their own purposes?

Anarchy will just be a reset until consolidation of power happens again. The U.S. went from no government, to representatives holding a congress, to the behemoth we see today. The natural progression of power consolidation is for a one world government. By the looks of it anyways.

statist indoctrination is quite strong

Even in some DPers is seems......

How does government of ANY size deal with the negative realities of human nature? It enhances it for sociopaths. Isn't that the same damn argument minarchists use on 100% statist? You think just because there are less people in control, that will mean more freedom? C'mon.....

I'd rather deal with the occasional Sociopath with a small private army then deal with constant tyranny all day long everyday from the most powerful gang organization in the world.

And how many times does this have to be brought up. ANARCHY DOES NOT MEAN NO RULE OF LAW. NO RULERS DOES NOT MEAN NO RULES.

You can still have your peace officers. You can still have your 3rd party arbitrators, judges. You can still have a standing army. Only difference is that you are not sending your monetary votes to sociopath politicians.

......minarchists. I love you guys, but sometimes the hypocrisy and inconsistencies are like nails on a chalk board.

I guess 20% statist is better then 100% statist?

OK, I'll bite.

I don't believe true Anarchism could exist today? Not enough space on this planet and there will always be someone that wants to be King. But that does not mean we should not strive for it?

1.) NUKES: Please refer to the 2nd Amendment. The only thing stopping you or me from owning a nuclear power plant is money. Private research reactors exist worldwide. So in a system without government nuclear ownership will be similar to today. The people that band together to own one will have a disproportionate control of power and authority.

2.) GANGS: Gangs or Tribes of people loyal to each other is unavoidable no matter what government system you choose. The choice here is will they be our leaders (like today) or just another plague that comes and goes. The solution under anarchy is no different then today. The people take a stand and stop it?

(Ie... 6years ago gangs took over a group of section 8 housing near my home. Drive by's and robberies were quickly becoming the norm. The Police were useless in controlling this group. So my neighbors and myself took it upon ourselves to make an impression. We organised and brought out the guns and patrolled the apartments 24-7 for 2 months. Years later our neighborhood is still safer then it's ever been)

3.) Their will always be those that want to abuse others. Just because their is no Federal Government does not mean there is no leadership or accountability. And there will always be someone ready to kill or lock those people up even if it's a Lynch Mob.

I think you give more power to the government then it deserves. Governments only provide a framework to protect the wealth of a nation. They are useless at protecting the individual over the long run.

Answers

I'll take a hack, sure.

First, I should say I've attempted to address many of the main objections regarding police, courts and law in a series of posts at my site.

1. This is more of a practical question of "how to get here from there" than actually questioning the theories of anarcho-capitalism. I won't pretend it's an easy one either. Ideally, as societies become freer and the world becomes less interested in mass murder, citizens would eventually implore their governments to eliminate these weapons, which have no purpose outside of mass death. I imagine private organizations could spring up to monitor different governments storing and elimination of these weapons over time. In an ancap society, it's difficult to imagine a private individual or company - which needs to get money from its consumers - that would find a market need to have these extremely expensive and destructive weapons, and their use would certainly quialify as a crime.

2.We already have an organized gang in the US government, and many other smaller organized gangs in the form of local police - the LAPD certainly acts like one. The problem is giving *certain* gangs legal monopoly over others. In a free society, people could form whatever groups they may wish, and hire whatever groups they may wish to protect them from aggressive "gangs".

3. It doesn't need to be like the "old west", but yes, markets would certainly organize groups and companies would certainly cater to the customers who are very interested in being protected by such organizations. Call them police, call them protection agencies, call them people simply forming local groups for common defense. The key difference here, is the formation of these groups is *voluntary* , as opposed to giving one group the legal right to plunder the rest to form one, monopolized "protection gang"

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

The Old West

The Old West was less chaotic than many historians make it out to be. Oddly enough MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was pretty common in the Old West and that kept mass chaos at a minimum. Gunfights were simply the Dual of the Day and people who were wronged had an avenue outside of the Courts for Justice.

What I keep hearing from the Anarchy Advocates is that Protection, Justice, and the like are an all or nothing case, but I think that a Minarchist Gov't can be the 1st option and where it fails, Private Contract must be an option.

Henry Clay Dean said that those above or outside the Law are subject to Judgement outside of the Courts. The biggest reason we have a Chaotic environment today is that most people have no understanding that Gov't only comes from our Consent and they have no clue that what they commonly know as Consent is actually Coercion. People have the Power and this idea that Vigilantes are bad is a misconception in that POWER originates from the Person, not the Compacts. While Compacts do have power, it can quickly dissolved.

Human Beings are the most capable and dangerous predators the Earth has ever witnessed. When they are disarmed or prevented from ever becoming a force to be reckoned with, they become prey. They loose an aspect of being Human.

Sheeple (Homo Ovis), or Domesticated Humans without the ability to cause those who would harm them life threatening harm in return, are the problem. Wolves will gather where Sheep are known to hang out. Sheep will flock to a Shepherd when Wolves show up. When the Sheep are plenty it is beneficial for the Wolves and Shepherds to cooperate. The Wolves and Shepherds suffer when they can't tell the difference between Homo Sapiens and Homo Ovis so they collude to Domesticate all Humans who are not Wolves or Shepherds.

Of course you can take analogies too far, but the above is true in concept. Whether it be Anarchy or Minarchy, both require Human Beings (Wise Man) to be greater in number than Homo Ovis (Domesticated Man).

Good point

And shame on me for using that analogy, because I myself often use the old west as an example of how societies can form legal and law enforcement institutions absent a formal , central government.

The work done by Terry Anderson and PJ Hill is excellent.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Not-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543

The "Not So Wild, Wild West"

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

"The Wild West Wasn't Even the Wild West"

Can;t remember who said that, but I agree!

To Minarchists all you need to know is LEAVE ME ALONE

Here are my answers to your questions and comments on your prologue.

Logically building on your premise: peaceful anarchy has been achieved (no authority structures).

All answers are based on a moral or ethical stance not on any utilitarian reasons.

1. Dismantle all nuclear weapons for the useful elements in the fissile material. There would be no need for these weapons as there would be no 'state' to defend. These weapons are not a moral defense anyway because they are not able to be used in a targeted manner. No one would be in charge of it as it would cease to exist. Power plant operators should buy the resulting diluted fuel. The purchase used to defray the cost of dismantling.

2. and 3. Your assertion is debatable not a surety. But positing a gang forms, I posit that a militia or posse of the good people will be formed to eliminate the gang. I would say the absolute right to defend yourself will come into play, with any arms as needed for a proportional response, with as many people as needed in the posse to defeat any criminal gangs.
The posse would not form a government as it would immediately disband so everyone can go back to their own productive pursuits. The posse is selected from the people that are only interested in defending themselves, there would not be any power hungry psychopaths in the posse.
I do not believe that you can make the assertion that most people would not fight. For the people that are not skilled in weapons use or physically unable or for any reason do not want to fight you could pay some to fight for you. You are delegating use of defensive force for a limited purpose, scope and time.

Who would these non-fighters call upon to fight for them? Remember you have posited no rulers or state.

Anyone promising security would need to receive a voluntary compensation for the defense or security.

You need to remember that we are talking about people who the majority are not psychopaths or sociopaths and are not interested in looting or hurting others. They have decided that states are all about plunder and power over others. In addition I would posit that they would recognize that to maximize their self interest they need the division of labor of a cooperative society.

As an anarchist I do not need to convince you of anything AS LONG AS YOU LEAVE ME ALONE.

You can have your own minarchist club as long as it has no power over me, In other words it is not total anarchy but panarchy with self selecting of people subscribing to any voluntary arrangement they want, and they do not claim territory but only subscribers to your minimal 'state'.

The coercion implicit in the arguments of many minarchists needs to be exposed and made explicit. If for example if you argue that 'we' must all submit to a night watchman 'state' then you are really saying I WILL BE FORCED TO COMPLY. Thereby making the believers in some minimal 'state' criminals ethically and they become just another gang.

thank you for your questions

I always appreciate honest questions such as these.

As for the nuclear arsenal, I suppose it would be unwise to get rid of it while other countries hold on to theirs. I don't know. It could be put into some kind of trust that manages the arsenal while we work towards disarmament.

Yes, there would still be gangs and they may control some turf. But they would be kept out of decent neighborhoods with security measures.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

It's a good thing private

It's a good thing private trusts never go bankrupt and sell their assets.

Fortunately Detroit isn't the

Fortunately Detroit isn't the federal government (yet), but sure I agree. Eventually the USG will close shop if it continues current policies. Some regional breakaway banana republic will get the nukes. Hopefully a non banana republic will at that point be on the world stage and can step in and make sure USG arsenal aren't auctioned off by tin pot dictators or sold to some Blackwater. China seems a promising candidate when DC has reached Detroit levels.

A country that's so poor that it will auction off its nukes can probably be persuaded to turn them over in return for generous foreign aide. South Africa is a good example. Before turning over to the ANC the government dismantled irs nukes. When the writing is on the wall that America is going the way of South Africa, hopefully cooler heads will dismantle or turn over weapons to responsible hands.

Good questions

1. Your first question may be assuming that we would be moving from our current form of government(s), immediately to an anarchical 'system'. I do not support a move such as this. An immediate shift would undoubtedly mean an enormous upheaval, and perhaps the deaths of many who now rely on governments (supposed) protections, funding and 'stability'. I would imagine in a real-life situation, that a transition period would take place. Perhaps power would first be distributed to the States, then to more local areas, before complete dissolution of centralised systems. One might imagine there may be various solutions to this problem, some 'good' and some 'bad'. However, consider the power we now place in Government's hands to control the entire nuclear arsenal. Would you be more comfortable having the entire USA engage in a nuclear war with Russia/China or just a state or two? Which would cause more damage? These are questions that belong to the people themselves, in their own areas, rather than accepting the one-size-fits-all solution we now endure.

2. Gangs form now. This is the status quo. Would there be gangs under anarchy? Of course. Would there be gangs under Socialism/Communism? Of course (although one could argue that then the entire government is one large gang). Gangs will exist under any system. Again, if we consider an immediate change from our current system(s) to a full-scale state of anarchy, then, yes, it is true, the problem would be amplified. But most well-read/thought anarchists I meet accept that a transition period is necessary. In my opinion, it is crazy to assume that we could just 'convert' everyone instantly to anarchy and that won't have drastic side-effects. One of the main problems with the anarchist message is that, by it's very nature, it depends on the market, at the time, and in the place, what solutions will come to the forefront to solve these problems. Consider reading 'Chaos Theory' by Robert Murphy to explore this line of thought. Ultimately, we do not know what the market will choose, in order to solve these problems, but we know it is more just that market solve these problems, than having 500 or so people decide for us what the solution will be.

(For argument's sake, in the absence of a government monopoly on the use of force that we see in society today, we might see a form of private security develop where you can opt in to employ their services, and they would form a counter-balance to the tyranny of armed gangs. Competition would make it more likely that these security forces would not then become a government themselves, as you could simply stop paying them. Of course, all of this requires that the population en-masse are educated and aware of their rights as sentient beings, and that they exercise them if they are breached by armed groups.)

3. Again, your supposition focuses more on the transition period than anarchy itself. (Unless of course you take anarchy to mean 'no rules' instead of 'no government'. Those are two fundamentally different ideas)
Also, anarchy does not mean pacifism (although I'm sure some variants do, but not my particular anarcho-capitalist bent). We aren't going to try to 'convince' the gangs to be kind and sweet. With respect, the notion is absurd. Clearly, as in today's society, there needs to be a 'cost' to your actions against other people, and an 'incentive' to voluntarily cooperate and trade with others for the benefit of all. I understand the worry and so-called conundrum you present, but only if you consider the problem in view of todays society and situation. People today are 'softer' because they have not had to be responsible for their actions or their own security, as government has filled the gap. (Not all of us) So again, during the transition phase, as people adjust to the new environment, these issues would indeed be of concern.

One final point that I would like to mention, is that, by the very nature of anarchy, there is nothing to stop voluntary minarchist mini-societies from existing alongside purely anarchical ones. The same goes for communism, socialism and any other social system, as long as the inhabitants/members voluntarily chose to live that way. (If they didn't, Libertarian may choose to use force on behalf of the victims of such a system, provided the victims believed their rights were being transgressed upon). So the most successful model would rise, and the miserable systems would cause an exodus to the more successful societies. My money's on (modern) anarchy over the others.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

We're Not Ready Yet

1) Fully disarm the nuclear arsenal.
2) Some type of privatized law enforcement would form, but this problem of violence is one reason I don't think human kind is ready for anarchism/voluntaryism yet. In much the same way that it took hundreds of years for the ideals of private property and democracy to take hold, a fully voluntary society will take time.
3) See #2.

So, what do we do, how should we live right now? Since government, at its foundation, is based on force and violence against my fellow man, my choice is to live as a voluntaryist to the greatest extent possible. My family makes minimal use of government services, or of the giant corporations that cozy up to the government trough. We don't have health care. We don't use the public schools. We don't use major banks. We don't own government bonds. We don't vote. We buy food locally. We live in peace with those around us. We encourage everyone else to do the same.

Once everyone else lives like we do, we will have arrived. Join us!

What is and what ought to be

Those are very practical and interesting questions. I enjoyed PHREEDOM's response.

What is and what ought to be seems like too much to figure out on such a large scale, perhaps it is more productive to use such introspection in our personal, local lives. This is coming from someone who has always been vastly concerned with human social organization. Daniel Quinn, Howard Zinn and Terence Mckenna books abound.

Although anarchism makes philosophical and logical sense, minarchism (my ipad suggested I was trying to type monarchism- make of that what you will) seems to be a more practical approach, especially since the original govt was supposed to be one, like phreedom (ipad suggested 'predominately') mentioned.

I think that under anarchism, tribalism (aka localism) would inevitably develop. Tribes would voluntarily form and set up their own systems, similar to how native peoples had organized for a few hundred thousand years before civilization, except this time we have technology, communication, and permaculture (and cannabis... anyone? MykeTheVet?). This is actually happening all over the place right now- mostly referred to as intentional communities, but large farms (Baker Creek) and music fan bases (Phish anyone?) are mirroring the sentiment (Free State Project as well).

Yes some tribes (or gang of looters who only steal what they need) may be violent, but would it be more dangerous than what is going on today? Does having power centralized make us more safe than not? I mean, they stage their own public mass murders then use corporate media to brainwash everyone, it is just horrifying. I'd rather tool up with my local tribes and deal with the problem rather than be forced to witness what is happening today.

Would all the other tribes think "well that tribe has the authority to kidnap, steal and kill so its okay"? Probably not. I think because of technology and communication, humans have the ability to function without the oppresive institutions that have plagued the history of civilization. What we lack is a collective purpose to do so. Maybe someday we'll get one. What Tyler Durden (the DP fight club thread was awesome) tried to do was create such a purpose.

Pre-civilization tribalism was a neccessary social structure. Post-govt tribalsim might be the only way we don't collapse into a corporate technocratic oppressive police state gmo food social media addicted waste land. Hopefully it could run on free market principles, but I think it would be less scary and depressing than what is going on now with centralized authority. Smarter people will make more enlightening comments I'm sure. Can't wait to read them.

It feels silly discussing human social organization when it appears we have little control over it. I think it is all dictated by the sun's cosmic rays or something. It is stimulating nonetheless.

When I talk about gangs, I am

When I talk about gangs, I am thinking like always in human history, small gangs grow into governments themselves. I hate to overuse the Nazi example, but those guys started as a small group, willing to engage in violence.

Mexico right now is one example with the drug cartels. In some areas the cartels are in control, not the Mexican government. Those cartels are a result of massive wealth being able to be gained, so long as the gang has no problem deploying unspeakable barbarism.

I get what you are saying but...

To what extent does the state subsidize the super cartels and to what extent is crime exacerbated by the prohibition there of?

You are certainly right that

You are certainly right that prohibition and subsidies create a profitability, however it is not the situation that creates the evil, it is the evil that creates the situation for capitalization.

I dont think small gangs

I dont think small gangs would grow into huge govts that could rule everyone if people didnt think they had the authority to do so. The entire nature of a govt is that it has convinced everyone that it has some existential reason and authority for existing.

The cartels are indeed very violent and destructive. I think the only reason they exist is because of drug laws. If the laws did not exist the cartels would not have such power and money ("first you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women"). Perhaps they would be gaining power through some other means, like running for office!

Another idea is that without these silly laws and prohibitions (this doesn't include common law, as phreedom describes), economies would be better, and there would not be such severe economic problems that create the kinds of people that are in gangs in the first place. An example would be prostitution. If there was no prohibition of it, it would be regular business and the violent nature of "pimps and hoes" (in the parlance of our times) would not need to exist.

This is probably one the more interesting topics discussed at DailyPaul. The seemingly 50/50 split between anarchism and minarchism is entertaining, I really enjoy reading people's different perspectives.

"The entire nature of a govt

"The entire nature of a govt is that it has convinced everyone that it has some existential reason and authority for existing."

There is legitimate reasons that fledgling governments exist. If you lived in a small farming community and there was problems with outsiders stealing, murdering, and other things, a need would exist to form a group of armed men.

Those groups start as legitimate organizations. The problem is those organizations grow in corruption as a natural course.

There is a legitimate need for security, but then the strong start thinking they deserve to take more. Since they are the strong, it is hard to oppose them. I guess we need Kevin Costner to for a group of "untouchables". Men that are strong, and above the temptation of money, women, and mind altering substances. How many out of 100 men are like that?

The reason people grant

The reason people grant legitimacy to governments, sometimes even love them, is because in a state of genuine danger and disorder, people want security far more than any abstract ideal of liberty. In a state of total disorder and violence, no one has any liberty. It isn't the state they're worried about, it's everyone. There is zero trust, zero law, zero stability of markets, property, etc. So in that kind of conditions, a group that rides in and establishes order will be celebrated, even if they're a violent gang themselves. As long as they place limits on their violence, make it predictable and 'just,' people will happily pay them some kind of tax. Once people have complete sense of security and law they may begin to fantasize about some abstract liberty in the absence of government.

Don't get me wrong, the state can become as awful or worse as this scenario, and even when its not worse, it can and is awful in its abuses, corruption, violence, oppression, etc. People have to find remedies for that and ways of avoiding totalitarianism, socialism, and so on.

But it should be no wonder why people would accept a state during conditions of anarchy (in the traditional sense of the term).

You make a good point

and I agree. I don't actually think what ought to happen is what is going to happen. I'm more concerned with how what I think effects my own life so I can enjoy it.

The idea that total disorder and violence would not happen or be necessary in the absence of such authority might just be wishful thinking. Todays men and women are dependent on such systems. Food comes from corporations, water comes municipal govt, and shelter comes from banks in the form of loans. I am interested in those who do not need such systems because they are building their own, like the intentional communities and permaculture tribes I mentioned before. These people interest me so that's who I seek out. Those who I would refer to as "keeping it real" in a more colloquial situation.

Ever seen the movie "Wanderlust"? I highly recommend.

It stars Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd. City folks wind up in an intentional community, and they all preach about how there is no one in charge, but there is obviously a power structure.

One character has his actions called into question and says that he thought there was no rules, that he is free.

The response is that there are no rules, but "we" as a community prefer that you don't do that.

Power is a seductive temptation to everyone in this world. Good luck finding a group of people that cooperate, and don't enjoy ruling over another for their ego's sake. It is an illness of the human condition.

"Power is a seductive

"Power is a seductive temptation to everyone in this world. Good luck finding a group of people that cooperate, and don't enjoy ruling over another for their ego's sake. It is an illness of the human condition."

I dont need luck, just love. Give it and it will be returned. I don't know who you've been hanging out with but I know so many kind souls who do not behave this way you describe. Many of them are attracted to the sub cultures I mentioned, myself included. Take a gardening or yoga class, go to a bluegrass festival or a farmers market, love a woman and earn her love: humanity is good and just wants to enjoy itself, not rule over one another. The psychos are the minority. Don't let them get you down.

I am of the opinion that you are describing a symptom, not the actual illness. I submit that the illness is living out of balance with nature and spirit- that is our condition, we are "captives of a civilization that more or less compels [us] to go on destroying the world in order to live. … [We] are captives—and [we] have made a captive of the world itself," as Daniel Quinn puts it. The symptoms are social structures that benefit power instead of people and poor behavioral practices- ecologically, spiritually, and socially. I think permaculture and solar panels can reverse this.

"Private" Government

You state it as "gangs". Perhaps you are right. I think it will be more like mafia with "turf" that they "protect" for a "fee".

Perhaps it would develop from gangs into mafia.

"Government" but privatized. And the kind of government you NEVER break a contract with! :)

Tom Woods recommended Anatomy of the State

http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

Before I answer, this seems a good place to start.

Free includes debt-free!

Is the State insane?

The greatest danger to the State is independent intellectual criticism; there is no better way to stifle that criticism than to attack any isolated voice, any raiser of new doubts, as a profane violator of the wisdom of his ancestors.

Another potent ideological force is to deprecate the individual and exalt the collectivity of society.

Free includes debt-free!

I was just thinking of these issues myself

First of all, my position is that if our current 'government' actually followed the law then we would have a lawful anarchy. That is because there is no defined rulers within our form of Constitutional Government and the only authority is the People over those in government obliged themselves to the people's authority. The Constitution does not grant the authority of government to make applicable law to the people. The government's only scope of applicable legislation is limited to regulating commerce and itself. The proper process of common law is within our government is for agents to only operate on consent of the governed which means that lawful agency can only be obtained via a liable principal of the governed. Without lawful agency to a liable principal ANY action of government is unlawful, period.

So I presume you mean to completely tear down the government as it stands which I fully support because it is not government at this point; it is a criminal gang of insane criminal lunatics who for some reason think they are the law.

To answer your questions with my humble opinions:

1. Nuclear weapons- We should dismantle all nuclear weapons in an orderly way regardless of whether we tear down the government. The government is 100% guaranteed to fall no matter what. It is a guaranteed fact from observation of history and especially seeing what the insane lunatics are doing now and the very fact the nuclear weapons exist means we are in danger from them being utilized on us with or without the government.

2. Yes there will be criminal gangs who use violence to attempt to steal from and enslave others. That is a guaranteed fact. Guess who these people will be. They will be the same criminal gangs and mercenaries in the government now. When their paychecks stop coming in they will simply turn into roaming barbarians who openly rape and pillage as they do now only they will have some other scam they claim instead of it being that they are the "government". The answer to this is already in history in the application of common law in the wild west. Common law appearance in court was totally voluntarily even for defendants in criminal cases accused of crimes. When someone did not voluntarily appear before a jury to argue the facts of the case the only presumption was that the accused had voluntarily chosen to give up the protections of law; they had voluntarily become an outlaw. There were varying degrees of outlaws from minor non-violent thieves to murderers and everything in between. Typically, once the jury ruled the man/woman an outlaw there information was posted and published in order to demonstrate to the rest of the community that they had a bad reputation and could not be trusted to operate in a lawful manner. In some cases the outlaw would be told to leave and don't come back but for really violent criminals a community would form a posse and grown ass men who would go hunt down and kill the outlaw and would typically offer one last chance for being brought to a jury for trial. Another way criminal outlaws were dealt with would be for another grown ass man to offer a verbal contract, with witnesses, to a duel to death. Once a man had voluntarily given up the protections of law it was of no issue to law or the jury to kill an outlaw because the outlaw was the one who voluntarily gave up protections of law. The wild west faced gangs of natives, roaming bandits, traveling snake oil salesmen committing fraud and gangs of corporate mercenaries who sought to control a whole region. Force was dealt with force. Strong honest men became paid defense forces and would deputize other competent men when needed because the peace and success of the community depended on having a strong defense. Honest people worked together and were willing to kill any outlaw criminal who would not live within law and threaten the peace of a community. If you compare this to what we have now, we have gang of violent criminals calling themselves "law enforcement" who no-one will stand up to and are protected by vast military might so that they may commit their criminal injury upon people with impunity. Which is more threatening, a rogue gang of criminals or an entire vast military force ready to kill anyone and everyone at a moments notice who challenge the criminals claiming to be law enforcement?

3. Of course you will have the helpless slaves who demand slavery be there at the first wiff of some extreme shit go down. Just as we have those who demand slavery now and the friggin ninnies out there who need a "law" for everything they don't like to be bothered with.

All of this is why knowing and understanding real law is key to the success of any free people whether with or without a government. If people don't understand what real law actually is then they are doomed to lose all freedom no matter what they do. The only way to have peace is to understand what real law actually is.

What is real law? No law can violate any other law. Just like scientific law legal law is discovered not written. All law is an application of logic that starts with one law:
Do no harm (also constructed as 'do not trespass another')
This breaks down into 2 categories of breaches:
Breach of Peace
Breach of Duty

Breach of Peace - breaks out into all non-conflicting strict constructions of types of breach of peace: theft, assault, trespassing property, extortion, fraud, murder, etc.

Breach of Duty - is violations of contractual obligations one voluntarily bound themselves to. Do what you say you say you are going to do.

All forums for remedy and fundamental non-conflicting truths are laid out as maxims of law as to find what is the fundamental non-conflicting nature of the application of law.

The key to success of any free people is knowing and upholding the protections of law and to never allow someone to claim that a violation of law is lawful. Legal law just like scientific law can never be conflicting in its application or scope. What is the point of calling something "law" if it is filled with conflicts? That doesn't make any sense and is exactly why we are having this discussion. If the people now claiming to be "government" were not complete criminal scumbags and total brain dead idiots who can't think for themselves then they would only be seeking to maintain consistent (never conflicting) equal application of APPLICABLE law. What is applicable law? Duty is an example. The Constitution has no application to the People because it was never the people who took an oath to abide by that contract. The contract is applicable to those contracted for the application of that law which is those who work for government under that oath. Voluntary contracting of law is where law begins to get detailed in who and how it is applicable to whom. Do no harm is natural common law applicable all the time because it is the whole point we ever sought the concept of justice in the first place.

So there is my 2 cents.

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...

Excellent reply, if I ever

Excellent reply, if I ever need a lawyer I may contact you. Someone on another reply was talking about private law enforcement. Between them and your talking about the wild west, I kept thinking of the famous Pinkerton mercenaries. The Blackwater of their day.

I also enjoy the use of the term "grown ass man".

You got me thinking now about the constitution and how that was a contract that I was not a party to, or signer of. One thing I did not put in the original post was that I was considering that the much romanticized founding fathers were into forming governmental structures on a national level, which would seem to conflict with the desires of an anarchist.

Reasonable

questions. IMO

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