-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.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

If that helps..

But its no different than anywhere else in history. If you break group rules, the group is going to gang up on you and expel you or punish you. Anarchism will work if you just don't want to live or deal with any other people. An attractive option sometimes.

More fail: "Under anarchism, anyone can claim jurisdiction..."

Under law, everyone is equal, thus anyone can claim jurisdiction but the only real test of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists under law is are all elements of a valid cause of action present in the accusers accusations. These elements have already been discovered in law but the 'State' (actually corrupted arrogant men) chose to change the elements like there is some new understanding that they are the deciders of jurisdiction regardless of law.

Anyone can 'claim' jurisdiction now but that doesn't mean jurisdiction exists in law.

As a matter of fact the whole reason we are all talking about all of this is because jurisdictional bounds are currently not limited to the elements required for lawful processes due to usurpations by criminal men who claim to be immune from prosecution and only subject to the BAR's authority. The psychos invented strict liability to confuse everyone into being their own accusers thus granting the 'system' jurisdiction under fraudulent practices and therefore removing the inherent protections that have already been discovered (and forgotten by incompetent men) in law.

"...apply one code of law over another, and no requirement that all recognize a common appeal process or final arbiter."

LAW IS DISCOVERED. Law is not something subject to the whims of the destroyers of law; ninnies, gimmies, and slimies. Law is discovered as a process of logical analysis the same way that root logical gates (and,or,not,xor) were discovered. Law is simply the non-conflicting path through the entire logical procedures of upholding the law without breaking the law but the ninnies can't handle freedom so they want to destroy law with their whimsical bs code enforcement, the gimmies want a job so they makes fines payable to them and slimies want power over others so they give the ninnies what they want (exactly why some people are fined 1000's of dollars for growing food in their front yard the friggin ninnies).

Bill3 maybe you should learn what law is before all the bs.

Oh and by the way, many corporations choose their jurisdiction as private jurisdiction explicitly carving out state jurisdictions in lieu of private arbiters. It happens all the time in corporate contracts and is probably the majority amongst most shareholders. Private jurisdiction works much better than the state which is why so many businesses operate this way.

Bill3, anarchy is not new, you are just ignorant of the facts.

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...

Arbitrators today are within

Arbitrators today are within an environment of government court, which can overturn arbitration decisions. Often, arbitration is simply a trial run to predict the outcome in a court of law.

So no, mentioning arbitration does not free oneself of the jurisdictional issues minarchists bring up.

Edit: all you need to know about anarchists is the three downvotes I got to this inescapable post.

Ventura 2012

If the parties agree to private arbitration and

they explicitly contractually severed 'State' jurisdiction and one of the parties went to the state for jurisdiction, the 'State' psychopaths may rule jurisdiction (or maybe not) to hear the case at this point but that is no issue to real law. In real law the party who breached their end of the agreement would lose their reputation over such lawless actions.

The only way such a reputation can maintain in good standing in such a scenario is if people understand the law to be something other than exactly what it is, which would be to their own detriment generally because they would lose the protections of law. Again, this is exactly why we are all having this discussion, people have ignored the law and lost the protections of law. If the people understand the law and uphold it we would not be flailing around with our only 'answer' being to put our faith into what a politician believes, we would understand what true lawful re-presentation is and exactly how lawful agency and capacity is maintained at all times. If we uphold these facts at all times then 'government' or corporate arbitrators are lawfully constrained at all times to the point where singular authority is completely irrelevant and the hyperdimensional nature of law can ensure the maximum protections.

The entire discussion of Anarchy or government is irrelevant without a thorough understanding of law and how the scales of justice logically remain balanced through true impartiality and are only imbalanced by the weight of true facts of an accuser and accused with valid cause to be in the forum of justice.

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...

If youve ever been to a civil

If youve ever been to a civil court of law, you know that parties are more than willing to deny jurisdiction of court and validity of contract, without repercussion of reputation. So unfortunately there must be enforcement via force by a court of last resort.

Ventura 2012

The parties are at the forum

for some form of injuries. If both parties deny the existence of the contract and no one is alleging actual injury then there is no case for a court to hear.

If parties violate contractual agreements then other parties will discover the facts through due diligence down the line and competent people will naturally have concerns arise. The organic reputation is what I am referring to here and reputation only matters when intersecting with others for cooperative efforts.

Of course most of the relevancy of organic reputation has been removed artificially due to incompetent people living in a world of easy fiat currency. As this abomination of law collapses the weight of real law and reputation will rise in its logical weight of importance to people's operation. There just needs to be enough failure in security for the realization of error in current operation to stimulate the weight of lawful operation to return to its proper importance. We are currently well on our way to this destination which is why we are having this discussion; because of the current operational errors we generally have not identified at this time.

This issue is not about opinion, it is about logically consistent facts of how nature operates. A logic error is an ERROR it is not just another opinion, perspective or philosophical idea. The error can be revealed in a myriad of ways to the point of natural embarrassment of a human being for its utter and blatant failure in maintaining logical consistency. All one needs to do is to know where the conflicts exists and steer the facts directly through the conflicts so that others conflict themselves and reveal their confusion to themselves and everyone else in the situation. This is much easier in law because that situation has people who have studied and learned overlapping informational traits i.e. they have similarly patterned neural nets within their natural existence.

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...

Ok,wo fiat currency explains

Ok, so fiat currency explains why your theory about reputation does not hold true in the real world.

Ventura 2012

If you do anything worth anything then your reputation matters

Its still valid for those who actually do any sizable cooperative efforts.

Its the mindless zombies that reputation is meaningless because they are already slaves to others and their reputation is nearly worthless because their works are nearly worthless.

My business requires a good reputation and getting sued for something of the company's fault would be devastating for business due to the reputation. A good reputation has lead to being able to thrive even when everything has been crumbling economically.

Reputation is already becoming more and more important by the day due to the internet of things. Reputation will soon be something people wish they spent more time on building because it will mean the difference between success or failure of an individual moving forward. New tools emerging in this area are already much more broad than most people currently realize. Reputation is not theory it is how people do big things that others can't who have no reputation.

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...

Interesting, maybe at some

Interesting, maybe at some point.

Ventura 2012

I really think this sums up a

I really think this sums up a great problem with "anarchism". As i have always maintained, Anarchy is a philosophy and not a governing system. Unfortunately anarchism agressivley attacks institutions of government for being immoral while simultaneously claiming that without one when people rally together to achieve some end they will do it for the right reasons. And if for the wrong reasons, people will resist. In life and society anything goes. People come up with the craziest ideas about the way the world ought to be and you see the consequences in radical abusive cultures., it wouldnt be any different without government in my opinion. The only thing that prevents these issues are education and taking an active role in creating a better more peaceful world. In or out of any institution including government..

I do not believe that governments are a monopoly on force(but it can take that), or that it is inherently evil(wtf?). Government is defined by the people who occupy it and can take many forms, much of which haave most certainly never been tried.

more fail...

"Government is defined by the people who occupy it ..."

Wrong. Government is a legal fictional capacity defined by contractual bounds. Any MAN in the capacity of the legal fiction can only maintain that legal capacity by staying within the contractually defined bounds of the CONTRACTUALLY DEFINED CAPACITY.

Contract law is common law and thus can be violated by men unlike the laws of nature which are inviolate. Since man is natural and REAL but the capacity is a fiction only the man can have the integrity to maintain those contractual bounds. If the man does not constrain himself to the contractual bounds the man voluntarily agreed to be bound by then the man is in breach of duty and thus the fictional legal veil is pierced and the man stands liable for his own acts under color of law thus not a part of the government when in breach (part of the whole reason cops must be bonded, the bond is the insurance for breaches the man is liable for).

More confusion of law here that is destroying the law through baseless opinions that are not congruent with law.

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...

Basically what i see here is

Basically what i see here is a legal metaphor of the idea that someone else expects you to contribute to society and not go against its interests. the law there is an establishment of acceptable norms from my perspective, in a region of an established community. You're only worried about all of this stuff if you feel threatened, and that's something expectable. The problem with government is not that it exists at all, it is what the people in the government think the impact of the government or the role of it. It should not be a business like it is today.

But the problem is business and government do not go together usually because the mixture of money and power is pretty darn corrupting. So this is what I propose... Government is just a collective ownership where everyone mutually agrees to share everyones stuff. Then we can all sing whistle and laugh as we are teleported to the final utopia.

Thanks Luna

You hit the nail on the head... people are capable of all kinds of good or evil. If everyone was good, there'd never be the need to do anything morally questionable (like arrest someone you aren't SURE is evil). If everyone is bad, it doesn't matter whether or not there's government. If people acted with courage and stuck their necks out to promote good, and didn't back down, neither criminals nor criminal governments could get very far. Like some old conservative said, the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

A people...

...which are so bad that they can't live peaceably in a voluntary society are also the kind of people who will fail to have the eternal, all-encompassing vigilance needed to keep a government limited.

If you have a people which are by and large steeped in the virtues conducive to limiting their government, they are also the kind of people who would thrive even more in a voluntary society, without the immoral authoritarianism of the state.

Again, without obeying the highest natural law of Love, all of this will decay into strife and chaos, regardless of what political ideology you attempt to uphold.

I think a lot of the confusion in these debates is

in terms of the necessary progression.

I don't think people would ever had develop concepts of 'virtuousness' absent the long history of training in law that governments imposed on savages, including respect for promises, contracts, property, etc.

Now that these things exist, it is possible for some people in some places to live with little or no violence, as long as they have adequate defenses from external attack.

Inevitably there will be situations that come up and have to be dealt with in a way that is not fully voluntary, even in the most virtuous populations. Virtue is a thin skin overlaying a deeper human reality, that will emerge in emergencies, in war, in deep conflicts over property, money, honor, pride, past conflicts, etc.

In some cases, the "public" has to put its foot down and make a decision that violates the rights of some innocents.

I have given so many examples already it makes no sense to keep going with them.

At the end of the day, there are two possible worlds. There's the naturalistic view, where ultimately all morals are subjective and survival is its own justification. If someone has to break normal rules to survive, it is moral.

Then there's the world where objective morality exists, and people are 'out of order' with each other and with God if they violate moral duties, and in this world, the truth about morality is something I just couldn't comment on, because I'm not in touch with the creator.

I'm done for now, peace and love

You are missing alot

There has been a whole battle between common law and civil law throughout history but well documented in England. The two concepts are very different and the US and English rejected civil law for a long time only to finally succumb to the usurpations of control freaks who sought to exert power over others without liability for their own actions (tyrants) which civil law enables while common law does not. Common law holds each liable for their own actions where law is discovered and upheld. Civil law is written and enforced. The two concepts are very different and it has nothing to do with a 'thin skin' but deep wisdom as to how to operate within the golden rule while not accepting ANY exceptions ever. Civil law is the law of the zombies who do not know how to operate without an authority telling them what to do where common law is the law for real men who understand how to govern themselves within the protections of law knowing that the liability required for action leads to the maximum freedom to operate without arbitrary obstructions by mindless zombie bureaucrats.

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...

That's not the topic

Anarchism is the topic, and anarchism doesn't permit any law. All law rests on the jurisdiction of the group to judge the individual. Anarchism rejects this and only permits individual or pack self defense. To judge someone requires his self ownership be violated by the group. This principle serves to establish the legitimacy of all the rest of group demands on the individual. From tithe to tax to draft to torture, all can be justified by claiming the group decides the rights of the individual. If your principle is that rights exist regardless of the group, than the individual has a right not to be subjected to the judgements of third parties. You're stuck with just self and pack defense and no system of justice.

Dropping the false claims of ethical oughts and natural rights allows you to move forward to a consequential or utilitarian argument about what system is the best. But if you try to ground it in the ethical absolutes, you will end up with a system incapable of resolving disputes at all.

Real law is Anarchy because each is equally sovereign

through their own liability in accusations against another. The only path to Anarchy is through the law, there is no other way. When one is completely liable for their own actions (and inactions) then one accepts the liability for knowing and upholding the law. Upholding the law will ensure its protections are maintained.

"This principle serves to establish the legitimacy of all the rest of group demands on the individual."

Real law has absolutely nothing to do with "principles" and everything to do with Principals. Principals are required for the invocation of lawful agency. Principal(s) is the logic bit of liability that ensures the chain of liability is known and maintained at all times. The process of law is so logical in its purest form that a computer program can be developed to carry the functions of lawful justice due to the discrete nature of elements that have already been discovered in non-conflicting Common Law.

Principles are for the intellectually bankrupt, where Principals are the domain of men who have accepted full liability for their own existence.

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...

liable how?

what if you have no money? debtors prison, become their butler?

I know this is a really complicated one for you

So let me take it slow:

Each individual is liable for their own actions.

I know this is a really difficult concept to grasp but it is true. It is not about money (although it could be) it is about liability for one's accusations against another. If those accusations are false then the accuser could be found liable for their false accusations.

Americans have done legal gymnastics to the day's end trying to avoid this truth but failing to recognize this fact means that we can't have impartiality of courts and the protections of law are removed because no one is liable for proceedings in law and everyone is getting paid except for the defendant. This is exactly why we have tyranny right now. It is real simple not complicated. Although those who are not willing to accept liability have a hard time with this concept because they are not willing to do the work necessary to find what real impartial justice and equality (equal liability) actually means.

Anarchy simply means without rulers. No where in North American Law are any rulers defined. That is exactly why I keep talking about law when talking about anarchy. We have a legally and lawfully established anarchy. That is exactly what America is when the law is upheld because the consent of the governed is the Principal invoking the agency of peace/court/arbiter officers to perform on their behalf. This is how the proper application of law operates and results in understanding that everyone is equally sovereign in their own full liability operational state. True non-conflicting application of America's organic understanding of common law means everyone is equal thus there are no rulers meaning America is a lawfully established Anarchy and has been the whole time, the rest is criminal usurpations by corrupted men.

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...



Peace, Bill...

Have a great weekend. :)

Has anyone here at the DP

Has anyone here at the DP ever actually experienced what it's like to live in total anarchy?

"I really like this car, it's amazing. Everyone should buy it."

Have you ever driven the car?



Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

False assumtions lead to good things?

"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."

There is only one NO in anarchism.

No one volunteers to "volunteer" victims.

In other words anarchism is individual nullification of the interest in perpetrating crimes upon innocent people.

In other words anarchism is the individual recognition of criminals as criminals when criminals claim that their crimes are going to prevent crimes.

"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."

Is that an effort to falsify the accurate record? Why is the word "special" chosen?

Note also:

"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."

Note the word choice "all" as in "...do the right thing in all..."

How many people get away with absolute statements concerning things that are demonstrably not absolute?

Note also the word "normal" in "...normal definitions given...," as if one individual offering a definition is not worthy of quotes, not worthy of note, and instead of one definition offered the writer writing about so called anarchism offers something better than the "normal" definitions because that individual writer claims to have the authority to speak about "normal" anarchism and a definition of his individual construction that "follows from the arguments offered for anarchism..."?

The First American Anarchist, so called, is named Josiah Warren.

Here is a quote from a so called anarchist, actually the so called First American anarchist:


"Responsibility must be Individual, or there is no responsibility at all."

Anarchists in America, starting with Josiah Warren, began to recognized, comment on, and utilize specific concepts such as the meaning of responsibility, the facts concerning individuality, and from that work was a new term created to label this type of change in thinking from the norm of the time period.

Individualist anarchist

How many of the modern day so called anarchists call back to the roots of individualist anarchism?


What was the normal viewpoint before the obvious move form that norm to the modern day ideas of individual responsibility?

How about this:

"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."

That is quoted from my hard copy of the book The Prince.

Here is another version of normal thinking:

The construction of I.G. Auschwitz has assured I.G. a unique place in business history. By adopting the theory and practice of Nazi morality, it was able to depart from the conventional economics of slavery in which slaves are traditionally treated as capital equipment to be maintained and serviced for optimum use and depreciated over a normal life span. Instead, I.G. reduced slave labor to a consumable raw material, a human ore from which the mineral of life was systematically extracted. When no usable energy remained, the living dross was shipped to the gassing chambers and cremation furnaces of the extermination center at Birkenau, where the S.S. recycled it into the German war economy – gold teeth for the Reichsbank, hair for mattresses, and fat for soap. Even the moans of the doomed became a work incentive, exhorting the remaining inmates to greater effort.

Conditions were such that sickness was a pervasive fact of life among the inhabitants of Monowitz. The hospital wards built by I.G. were so inadequate that even the S.S. suggested additional wards be built. I.G. refused because of the cost.

Normal for who?

Here is another normal:

"Under the Saxon laws, fines, payable to the injured party, seem to have been the common punishments for all offences. Even murder was punishable by a fine payable to the relatives of the deceased. The murder of the king even was punishable by fine. When a criminal was unable to pay his One, his relatives often paid it for him. But if it were not paid, he was put out of the protection of the law, and the injured parties, (or, in the case of murder, the kindred of the deceased,)were allowed to inflict such punishment as they pleased. And if the relatives of the criminal protected him, it was lawful to take vengeance on them also. Afterwards the custom grew up of exacting fines also to the king as a punishment for offences."

Another normal:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The normal spoken of by the Topic writer generously offers all that is normal for everyone?

"There's no chain of appeals to finalize a decision."

How about this:
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

How about this:

"A federal jury in Memphis has acquitted a FedEx pilot on six counts of tax evasion after she testified that she wrote letters asking the Internal Revenue Service what law required her to pay taxes but never received a response."

Juries are just people, not a State, and each one in the jury, according to normal jury procedures dating back thousands of years, can nullify any attempt by anyone who tries to injure someone criminally especially the so called state people.

The so called state people (criminal extortionists) say things like this:

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

The people in an individual jury trial included at least one who said no to that above, in so many individual words, causing a force of voluntary law to be effectively defending the innocent victim, the individual innocent victim, from the lies told by the individual liars and their minions who all share the loot they steal.


I don't see...

...this so much as a debate over the reality of fallen human nature as a debate over whether such human nature is better trusted when power is concentrated in the hands of the few, over everyone else, or such power is distributed widely among individual people living in Liberty.

Above that question lies the even greater question of how Love is being cultivated and championed in a community -- without that, both minarchism and anarchism are doomed to fail.

Anarchy may be possible, but is it Practical?

Talking with most Anarchists I've come across lately reminds me of a neighbor of mine who will tell you all day how you're doing it wrong and vaguely how he'd do it, but won't lift a finger to help.

He doesn't do it to me much anymore, because I always ask him to show me how he'd do it, not just tell me. It reminds me of the differences between Mathematicians and Engineers. Mathematicians can make anything, absolutely anything, work on paper, but getting it to work in reality is a much more difficult task. Time Travel IS possible, and it is also impossible. Big question is 'Is it practical?' What must be expended to achieve it?

Primary Issues with Anarchy as I see it.

They have failed to create the Marketplace that is supposed to replace the State. They can talk all day about what it looks like and how it works, but ask them details or to see a working example and the double talk begins. If you want to steal Market share, then create a Market.

Achieving mass change requires a great deal of Central Planning and Organized Change Management. Or it requires a great deal of people with the exact same goal who can cooperate. Try getting that out of a bunch of Anarchists.

I don't doubt that Anarchy is POSSIBLE, I doubt that it can be shown to be PRACTICAL enough for people to consider adopting it as a replacement for the State.

Where Possible and Impossible are the two extremes, I think Practical is the Golden Mean.

Are you really looking for instructions on how to 'do' anarchy?

Do you choose what to wear in the morning? Do you choose where to work and who to associate with in your social life? Congratulations. You did all of that without a coercive hierarchy. You 'did' anarchy.

We don't have to come up with what you should be doing in order to point out that an evil institution is evil and should be done away with.


So Anarchists are not interested in supplanting Central Planning with Anarcho-Capitalism, you are simply pointing out that Central Planning is evil and you hope those that are participating in it will recognize that it should 'go away'?

This is the second time I've gotten a similar answer. @FaithKills just wants to educate people about anarchy just in case the current system falls and everyone sees the light.

Anarchists should be prepared to be chronically disappointed.

A very good quote on the subject:

'Anarchy is a system like baldness is a hairstyle'

We're abolitionists. You wouldn't require an answer to all the possible problems in agriculture before agreeing with them that slavery should be done away with.

If you attack someone with a garden trowel I'm going tell that your action is evil and you should stop. I really don't care what else you do with it. It really doesn't matter, as long as you stop doing evil.

Be prepared to be chronically disappointed

Anarchy is a system like baldness is a hairstyle

Not so good. Anarcho Capitalism is a system, it is just a poorly developed system because so little thought has been put into it. The thought that has been put into it is severely strained by Group Think. When someone points out a flaw, you all seem to take it as some personal insult and in lieu of seriously considering it, you throw out little sound bites that seem clever to the Group Thinkers, but in reality just shows a laziness or disinterest in getting others to adopt your line of thinking.

Getting large and diverse groups to adopt great change is no small feat. Getting people to adopt new ideas that cannot be clearly described is a fools errand. Anarchy is far from being clear and when people ask questions trying to clarify it, what we get are what you all think are clever sound bites, but what we hear is "Since I can't give you a sensible answer, I'll give you a clever simile while high five'ing those who can't answer questions either."

Mankind is disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable. Coming up with somewhat clever similes to let people know that Anarchy is not the State will get your movement nowhere. They will pick a more sufferable State than some system that that promotes Chaos. I say this because I see Anarcho Capitalism as similar, but extreme version of Minarchy. We're allies of sorts. Few Anarchists see it this way as they are too caught up in being All or Nothing ignoring the great wisdom in the Golden Mean.

Lastly, you're not abolitionists. You're talkers and sadly Occupy Wall Street has a more clear message. Your interest in ending the State is casual at best and likely a fad for many. There is a big difference between an Invention (New Tool/Concept) and an Innovation. An Innovation is the widespread Adoption of an Invention. Anarchists seem to be the only ones who understand Anarchy and damn all those who don't. That's not a good way to innovate.

I think Anarcho Capitalism is a possibility, but only after Minarchy has shown to be successful on an international scale.