Comment: Anarchy..

(See in situ)


Simply means "without rulers." It does not imply chaos or lawlessness. There can be common rules and regulation in a free society, simply those enforcing those rules do not necessarily have the monopoly of violence to enforce them without question and due process. Governments put certain individuals, or groups, on a pedestal over their fellow man by giving them certain extra rights and privileges that others do not have. They then claim authority over their fellow man through a justification of hereditary succession, majority consensus, divine right, etc.

What I will absolutely agree with OP on is that 99% of humanity desires some form of external protection, and this is provided by the state. It will take a paradigm shift for most humans to think of themselves as individuals as being capable of providing for themselves. Until this point, human achievement is truly limited.

That being said, just because I may be in the .001% of humanity that wishes to opt out of state provided security/protection does not mean I should just give up and settle. If a truly free society is the goal, and a truly limited and restrained government is the stepping stone, fine, but I still know where the promise land of "no rulers" is, and have to keep pushing on.

All the great aspects and institutions of society need not disappear in anarchy, but it is true only sustainable and effective institutions will remain. The difference is choice and competition and a society built on non aggression as opposed to a society built on force, violence and coercion.

Your criticism of private defense firms can be directly applied to the state: police are supposed to protect and serve but most often cause violence and steal! That status quo is what OP endorses, at least I can choose my private defense contractors, fire them, set terms or choose to protect myself (my personal choice).

All in all, your argument essentially claims that without the benovelence and safety of the state, society would not exist, which I absolutely disagree. Society exists and man created a government to control it. You might as well say"you didn't build those roads! The government did, be thankful!"

I appreciate your absolute statist argument, definitely got me thinking, however I think you give far too much credit to governments of the past and present. If you feel you need protection,safety, health care, retirement planning, safety nets, go live in your socialist community, but please let me live in a free society somewhere else. Currently that is too big of threat for the type of world you would choose to live in. And like we have a choice of where we live or were born? As if trying to make life better in the situation we were born into is a fools errand? What if I don't want to be exiled to an island to live freely? What's wrong is advocating for an ideal society here, among my friends, neighbors and family?

To me, the worst case scenario if we ever get "anarchy" is that a big gang of people will get together and call themselves a government and buy you off with safety, food and healthcare.