-9 votes

Further Thoughts on Anarchism

Modern anarchism is the theory that in the absence of government, people will generally do the right thing in all their social and commercial interactions. That isn't the normal definition given, but it follows from the arguments offered for anarchism.

In market anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, there is no special jurisdiction for justice: arrest, holding a trial or giving a verdict and sentence. There's no chain of appeals to finalize a decision.

Whether or not someone has committed a crime is the decision of a private court, either attached to or commissioned by some force-agent or agency.

Unlike under a government, there is no final arbiter or appeals process, going to higher courts, all of which follow the same law in relation to each other.

Today, if you commit theft, you go to a specific court, have certain rights like the right to an attorney, bail, jury trial, etc. If convicted you can appeal up to a certain point.

It is all very clear in terms of who has jurisdiction and what rights the accused has, even if it doesn't always work out that way in practice. The law is in the letter, the spirit is free to roam. If people lack vigilance about their rights, they are gone regardless of the paper.

There are problems with rights-literacy and there are problems with plea bargains and risk-reward of demanding trial, and these problems are deliberately imposed by the corrupt criminal justice system in order to prevent defendants from accessing their rights.

Too many laws and too many bureaucratic mouths to feed from the Crim Just trough create the incentive to avoid prolonged trial by jury with high standards of evidence. It costs too much to the beast, over what it takes in. This corruption needs to be remedied, and the only answer to that is vigilance and willingness to demand justice, as with any political goal.

Under anarchism, anyone can claim jurisdiction over anyone else. There is no magic number of jurors, and no single legitimate force agency sanctioned by the public or a majority in a territory.

There's nothing that requires a security agency or an arbitration agency to apply one code of law over another, and no requirement that all recognize a common appeal process or final arbiter.

Does someone have a right of appeal after conviction? Appeal to who, and how many times?

If a separate court deems the person innocent, and there is no tie breaker or final arbiter, then both sides could fight for the accused on the grounds that the other side is acting aggressively, and there is no tie breaker or final say. Neither side is in the wrong in terms of non-aggression, because both are convinced of their rightness and the aggression of the other. For any case where both sides aren't budging, there is no final arbiter.

Anarchists can only respond to these problems with their claim that people wouldn't do any of this, that everyone would agree to a harmonic legal system that would function smoothly, and rarely or never violate anarchist principles or the non-aggression principle.

For the anarchist, the real enforcement mechanism for NAP and anarchism is not in any institution, but the free market, allowing the true wishes of the people for anarchism to be expressed. Anarchists believe that everyone is an anarchist at heart, and that no matter how uncertain or dangerous an environment, most people will adhere to the non aggression principle and the golden rule on inherent moral grounds.

Anarchism is largely a theory of human nature, and that's why it ties in closely with economics. Someone like David Friedman will argue that people generally always act in what he considers their rational economic interest. He isn't worried about violence under anarchism because it is expensive in the present legal and market order. He thinks the rules and thought processes that prevail for the manager of a McDonald's are the same that would prevail for the leader of a force-agency, or an average Joe, in a world where no agreement is certain, no justice is guaranteed, and the devil take the hindmost.

This also applies to left wing anarchism. Its less sanguine theory of economics gives a different flavor of anarchism, one which is largely about preventing concentration of economic power, capital, market control, etc., and treating firms a a kind of government. The left anarchist sees predatory power lust in private as well as government organizations.

Suffice it to say that aside from all the problems of a functional justice system or of national defense conforming to NAP, and aside from other concerns, the deeper issue is the fundamentally flawed understanding of human nature as a merely economic nature.

Because of this wrong conception of human nature, anarchists are forced to concoct a villain. A collective called "government" or "the state" is designated scapegoat for all human political and social ills. Rather than saying "Humans behave violently, and the consequence is the State" they think, "Because of the State, there is violence among humans. If not for the State, people would not behave violently." They credit a nebulous, dehumanized collective with the crime of force, and anyone who engages in force is said to be "acting like a State." The reverse is true: People form States because humans use force; the State is acting humanly.

The need to resort to a villain is always the corollary and shadow of a faulty concept of human nature. A correct understanding of human nature, good and bad, will inoculate one from anarchism.

Comment viewing options

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

First rule established in any anarchic society:

Hey! You can't shit there!

Why pandas? Why now?

Modern anarchism is the

Modern anarchism is the theory that in the absence of government, people will generally do the right thing in all their social and commercial interactions

Modern anarchy is recognition of the fact that some people want to do bad things and history shows that if you make power to do those things available, they end up with that power.

In market anarchism or anarcho-capitalism,there is no special jurisdiction for justice: arrest, holding a trial or giving a verdict and sentence. There's no chain of appeals to finalize a decision.

In capitalism there is no special jurisdiction to have final say on which schools, ladders, cell phones, taxi services or cancer therapy should be available. This is clearly dangerous.

Oh wait, there is a final arbiter. The customer. How did I miss that?

Today, if you commit theft, you go to a specific court, have certain rights like the right to an attorney, bail, jury trial, etc.

No if they say you committed a crime, and they say anything is a crime they want to, they are a monopoly and as a monopoly have every incentive to create more excuses to shake you down.

It's socialism and it can only claim more resources by creating more problems only it is legally allowed to solve. Whatever else, it must never solve a problem. When real crime falls secularly there is panic in the monopoly.

Just as when real poverty was in secular decline they invented the war on poverty, which will certainly never end so long as profit is to be made.

in a world where no agreement is certain, no justice is guaranteed, and the devil take the hindmost.

A joke? This is the statist utopia you live in now. We don't have a case where justice is not guaranteed. We have a system where injustice is certain. We have literally millions of innocent people in cages. We have killed millions of innocent people in needless, illegal, and unConstitutional wars. The government regularly violates people's property in takings, regulation, and only exists by violating property rights.

Corporations live and die by having a CEO connected to the correct political power structure, and agreements are sacrosanct until someone else is in office.

Devil take the hindmost indeed.

anarchists are forced to concoct a villain.

Anarchists 'concocted' the most lethal institution in all of history? Can we unconcoct it then please?

A correct understanding of human nature, good and bad, will inoculate one from anarchism.

A correct understanding of human nature, not to mention all of history, makes it abundantly clear humans are not to be trusted with the state.

Certainly many humans have lust to prey on their fellow humans. If they did not, states would not be dangerous, but then nor would they be of use.

If enough people simply understand what the state is, it will cease and predators will have no lever to amplify their evil.

It may be that the evil outnumber the good in which case states and the societies they prey on will tend to become more evil. But any idea states will check evil, is delusional.

The U.S. is a clear arc starting from a more virtuous society with a limited government which has society becoming increasingly immoral as the state grows. The state has to encourage immorality. Immorality is how it grows.

What do you do if you want to be a political predator but a society that doesn't like theft, doesn't like murder, and wants to be left alone and doesn't want to meddle in other peoples' lives?

Public schools.

Give them something 'free' and 'for the children'. Teach the children that 'virtue' is killing in the name of a flag, and advocating for stealing from their neighbor to promote 'progressive causes'. Teach them obedience.

what is

'make power.'

speak clearly.

You make some excellent points. However,

anarchism will not solve the problem. Evil men will always do what evil men will do. They will gain power and wield it over an unwitting populace.

Government or no government will never make men good. Jesus came to set men free with truth and love. Men will never live together in peace until his kingdom comes.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Well when Jesus comes back he

Well when Jesus comes back he can solve everything, until then there are only men and reality and not magical fairy tale solutions.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Nothing will solve the problem

But giving the evil men power over other men makes it vastly worse.

If all men are evil, which I do not believe, giving evil men power is a bad idea.

If some are good and some are evil, which is what I think, giving evil men power is a bad idea.

If all men are good, which I certainly do not believe, giving evil men power is a bad idea.

And in all these cases when I see 'bad idea' I mean insane, immoral, and deeply and profoundly stupid. Stupid so deep it is effectively evil because evil is all that results.

It should be beyond clear by now that power cannot be given to good men. They don't want it, they won't do what evil men will do to get it, and if they get it anyway, they are corrupted by it and become evil.

There will always be Ted Bundy's and Jeffrey Dahmer's.

But we actively create the Bush's and Mussolinis's and Obama's and Stalin's and Lincoln's and Mao's and Wilson's and Che's.

Those evil are entirely of human invention and needless. The evil done by the Bundy's and Dahmer's is minuscule in comparison, and certainly cannot be stopped. The evil done by politicians is vast and needn't be.

So no anarchy won't solve all the problems, but it will vastly diminish them, and it may allow humanity to possibly reach it's next potential as less people are given over to hate by being victimized themselves.

Rothbard

What you said reminds me of Rothbard's article Society Without A State:

...in a profound sense, 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.

Thank you BILL3.

This was wonderful! From what I've seen posted in the past, most of the downvoters do not have a clear understanding of scripture and/or love their sin.

I don't know your heart, but I know that no matter what anyone here says, I am no "lover of the state". I just know that what is, is. Governments always will be, because men are created to be part of a kingdom. When men throw off God, they will always descend to some form of government or another.

Anarchists (if they really even exist) don't like the idea of crime and punishment. They believe in behavior modification by means of the market or ostracizing. But, they don't believe in justice for crimes.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

: )

Thanks 1contro, you're always a sensible voice in the mix. Comments like yours keep me from despairing about the dailypaul's descent, not into sin, but sheer stupidity.

You are a statist because,

You are a statist because, just like Bill3, you ignore logic and reason for fairy tales.

Since you obviously believe in God, won't he make sure there is true justice? How can men serve justice upon one another when the only ones who can judge, according to Jesus, are those without sin and since according to the bible all men are tainted by original sin there aren't any such men?

LOL, religion, what a crock.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

I would say an "anarchist utopia" is definitely a fairy tale.

Just like communism-it has never worked.

And I agree that religion (system devised by men to try to reach God and/or to control others) is a crock.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Hey cc

I really exist.

I also haven't downvoted Bill3. I don't vote---though this silly voting on the Daily Paul wouldn't quite qualify as an act of aggression. ;)

When you say "crime and punishment" I wonder if you mean "punishment for crime" or just "crime" and "punishment" in sort of an unconnected chaotic way. You're right that anarchists don't like the latter thing, which is what the idea of "government" is for: That is, the special people representing "government" can commit crimes without suffering any punishment, and then they can inflict punishment on the regular people who have done no crime (which is also part of their free crime spree thing). That's what you like? I can see how that would be controversial.

I much prefer the anarchistic view of "punishment for crime." Of course, if we anarchists started to retaliate and punish all the criminals, we would be quickly stopped by the psychos who you seem to like. As Joel Salatin says: "Everything I want to do is illegal."

So anyway, I believe in justice for crimes. At this very moment, however, there are so very few people like me, that we don't have much ability to provide justice for the victims of criminals. I hope you can figure out where to place proper blame for that.

I think you knew that I meant punishment for crime.

I never said I like government being able to commit crimes and get away with them and regular people being punished for non criminal activity. Why would you accuse me of such?

If you anarchists (your words) were to start punishing criminals, where would you start...and stop? Bloody revolutions have started with good intentions, and before long, innocent people were being slaughtered. It happens because men are wicked.

Each individual is to be blamed for his own crimes.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

What ?

"Under anarchism, anyone can claim jurisdiction over anyone else."

Please expand on this ... I need to understand your thought processes before I make further comment.

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

Sure

If you believe someone is acting aggressively or has committed aggression, you are justified in stopping them or arresting them. This is what anarchists have told me in debate.

If this is wrong, then inevitably the question is, who would stop you or punish you?

"a security agency"

one who's authority? who told them to?

someone who hired them to do it.

where did he get the authority to send a hit man / kidnapper after me?

the authority is either with every individual to judge aggression, or else its with a group/majority.

anarchists say individual, therefore every individual can claim jurisdiction over every other.

otherwise, no one could rightly hire an agency to do what he himself has no right to do.

think it thru, foo.

strawman

He's setting up a strawman. That statement is not true. Try not to feed the troll.

I Disagree

Light is important in the formation of economy is more efficient. It only son David Friedman, financial systems, as well as other work is very important. Moreover, according to the law, in other words, we should be careful with the increase of fraud. Justice and Development, World Health Organization and the concept of power management or regulator McDonald's, but the laws, above all, think if you use the devil.

Cyril's picture

Perplexity

My point is just

- because I strive to stay pragmatic (YMMV) -

I'm still waiting to find in the CIA World Fact Book a listed country with a society (proudly) self-described as "anarcho-capitalist" and...

... anyone on earth complaining about it, and who'd be organizing protests, involving NGOs, and loud marches with peace Nobel Prizes in defense of human rights, marching onto the U.N. offices, with a bunch of celebrities, and all the usual shebang...

While we have - should I remind? - this quite spectacular serie of "experiments" in the exact opposite direction, presumably :

http://www.dailypaul.com/253314/democide-death-by-government

Bear with me, but this leaves me perplexical with all this kind of talk/fuss.

But, okay, maybe that's just me.

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

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

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

perception of getting something for nothing

Why do people gamble? It's a little bit similar.

They have the perception that if the ideas of self government spread, it will cut off the well-spring of "free" benefits redestributed to them from their benevolent overlords. The really crazy part is that there really is no free lunch, and they are really hurting themselves, at least in the long run. (Their response---in unison with Keynes---in the long run, we are all dead.)

Cyril's picture

I remark that ever since

I remark that ever since famous self-proclaimed anarchists like Emma Goldman, many turned out to be collectivists in disguise.

While the others, surprise, surprise, ended up being persecuted by the former.

Apparently, she was seduced by both conceptions in different life periods, yet she learned the hard way that the collectivist kind could breed only a monster, brute state (quite defeating the purpose of what she had in mind with "anarchy", I guess).

I am not especially interested in any ideology at all, but nonetheless, I fail to see the minority of anarchists who decry the most virulently the dangers of an overreaching state, as being also the most current and biggest threat against the law of the land.

It is still unclear to me if a people at a scale of a nation can or will ever be interested in their oft-called "anarcho-capitalist" thesis, but I can see easily how much time is wasted in focusing on debasing them in the abstract, and not denouncing, instead, the true rapist of America :

the ever growing collectivist state - a socialist one, technically - precisely.

'HTH,

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

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

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

Cyril's picture

What makes people itch, btw?

Or would that be, in "anarcho-capitalist", it's the "capitalist" part that brings some the most unpleasant itching?

Who knows.

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

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

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

MarcMadness and nolongerperplexed

Since this seems to be winding down, I'll mention that I posted responses to MarcMadness

http://www.dailypaul.com/321118/from-farmer-to-marcmadness-f...

and to nolongerperplexed

http://www.dailypaul.com/321120/farmer-to-nolongerperplexed-...

concerning exchanges that are far far down in this thread. There is no indication that either of you saw my responses, so I'll mention them here too.

I don't agree...

people are special...every last one of them...remember hope is in part a remembrance of memory.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

I have just checked out, Bill

Your incessant yammering on about how anarchists assume that people will always do the right thing, what's in their economic interest, or adhere only to the NAP is an ugly straw man, ignores reality, and undermines your credibility.

You have an addiction to the state, and it protects itself the way alcoholism protects itself from sobriety. By not letting you see the arguments made by an-caps or left libertarians in any other way than that which you have already defeated.

The truth is you are not wrong about the arguments you are making. You are wrong about the arguments being made by the anarchists. That's why you are so quick to dismiss them. Because you are making them up in your head. If I was making up the arguments that I was supposed to defeat, I would also make up ones that have no merit.

If you ever want to actually grow your intellect by challenging yourself in ways that actually make you think, in ways that cause you to stop and say "maybe I am wrong about the state" drop me a line, or read those books I recommended to you. I enjoy you alot, and I have found up until this point someone who is integral, philosophically consistent, and very witty. Now that I read this, I realize that you could never understand the arguments for anarchism. In order to understand them, you have to be willing to accept that there is more to them then what you assume. If you don't allow for them to have merit, how could you understand them? If you don't understand them, how can you discredit them?

You are worse than those who won't allow left anarchism to be valid long enough to understand its merit, and then want to debate it. In short, you might as well be a sheep. It is the same attitude that you present as 70 year old men who watch fox news. "I am not gonna change no matter what, and I am just fine with it."

Save me the "I have read mises.org" crap. It ain't reading it if you only read it as if you wrote it. You have to assume that the author see's things different than you and understands things in ways you dont if you wish to get anything out of it.

Good luck Bill. I hope you live a long and healthy life before this disease of statism kills you.

Séamusín

Your claim is like a religion:

If you don't put your blind fate in it, how could you actually believe in it? Good job Bill3, keep up the good work questioning anarchism. So far there have come out so many valid points from you and other heretics out here that these 'beautiful' pure breeds haven't even thought about until now.

Ron Paul Revolution is spreading around the world: Freedom and Prosperity TV: libertarian network of alternative media in Western Balkans

Thank you

I love your comments on these threads, no one messes with the yadranko.

You'll notice that Seamus above didn't provide any specifics or examples, just general hand-wringing and complaining. That's why I didn't bother replying. Besides which, Seamus' version of anarchism would be called communism by the libertarian ancaps because diametrically opposed definitions of property rights which wouldn't even permit capital accumulation and investment.

No idea why he defends anarcho-cap, which would just produce a neo-feudalism of sovereign corporations and dependent serfs, signing contracts to become serfs any time they felt economic insecurity. Unless a government universally bans the enforcement of a serfdom contract, there would inevitably be millions of such people. It could only do so of course by preventing voluntary interactions with force.

Must suck to be an anarchist, engulfed in an intellectual fantasy but with no legs to stand on.

Bill

You are lying.

I believe that capital accumulation is just. My definition of property rights is extremely similar to an-caps. It is in the concept of land property that I differ.

You are a liar and a deceiver. Worst is you lie to yourself. I am very sad for you.

Séamusín

Fake and ghey

this is nice, we are getting down to the youtube level of discourse.

anyways, we had this discussion a month or so ago. you made it clear, and i can find the link if need be, that any property not in use is no longer just. squatters could come in and take over a mine/factory etc. if it is not in active use during a period on of non utilization demanded by the market. no one's investments are safe on your view.

lacking any understanding of economics, since your political views are based on people from before marginal utility/subjectivism, you are a ship without a rudder and utterly at odds with ancaps, deriving their views from rothbard's twist on mises.

alas.

You believe what you want to believe

Ignore what doesn't fit your narrative.

"I recognize that we live in a world of scare resources, I take absolutely no issue with the accumulation and consolidation of capital."

"When resources are harvested, they become property outright. The axe is yours. The structure is yours. The land that it is on is not. Now, in order for someone to use the land that the structure was built on, he would have to destroy your property, which would violate your rights."

"If you build a house, well than you own the house, and if you grow crops then you own the crops. But to say that that one owns a surface area of the globe is a fundamental flaw in our modern notion of land property." -Seamusin(during our last round)

"your political views are based on people from before marginal utility/subjectivism" -bill3

more fabrication. Lies. Nonsense. How do I argue this except to say that this just isn't true. Am I aware of left libertarian political views and the origins of anarchy? Yes. Of course I am, anyone who cares enough to understand will study as much as he can. D o the original anarchist philosophers shape my views. No that is absurd. I came to free market anarchy and voluntary government by myself, and then studied mises and rothbard after the 2012 campaign and felt validated.

Since then there are a few things I have to reconcile. Land property is one of them.

I called you a liar and a deceiver. I did so because the things that you are saying are untrue and dishonest.

Why did you call me fake?

Why did you call me ghey?"

Séamusín

whatever

i don't like the tone of this exchange you've initiated. paece.