Comment: No...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Early US was not anarchism, (see in situ)

wolfe's picture

No...

Anarchism means no-rulers, and during the formation of this country, the federal government was so weak as to be non-existent. It could not lay claim randomly to things without being shot at, and so generally didn't try...

And most importantly, everyone had an opt out option (several in fact). That is an anarchism, as much or more than "feudalism".

Lincoln was the one that generally changed this, but before that time, absolutely it was. And even after Lincoln, the power Lincoln built was not used to it's full extent generally and many opt outs continued to exist.

You cannot claim one was without the other. In fact, feudalism as a word itself has such broad and different meanings that it could be applied to the US during it's early rise. It's basically a negative word that means anything you dis-approve in the context you are using it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

We do not need to see absolute fascism to know the negative effects get worse as is trends toward being absolute. And by the same token, we do not need absolute anarchism to know the trending creates prosperity. But I would argue, that the US was pretty damn close to absolute anarchism.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/