Why Everyone Should Be an Anarchist

[Orange_Crush]

But they can't go after the perpetrators, because the perpetrators are government and they lost their damn minds.

Did I mention they bashed in an innocent truck driver's head? Blame that on government all you want. That was human nature on full display. That was their own perceived self interest on full display.

 

[FLVOL69]

How would we know? All we've ever known is government.

People willfully moved to the old west, which was basically anarchy. That's the closest thing to anarchy we've had in the US.

Deadwood was a good show , it seemed like a reasonable portrayal of the old west.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Deadwood was a good show , it seemed like a reasonable portrayal of the old west.

I think he believes the Three Amigos is more realistic. Dusty and the rest of the morally upright hired guns ran El Guapo's gang into the desert.

 

[Godfatha]

Parts of Mexico are in a state of anarchy. Not exactly what I want.

The old West had abuses by railroad barons and people like George Hurst. You might say they used the backing of the government to get what they wanted, but if no government was in place it would have been easy enough for them to hire mercenary guns to enforce their will.

 

[therealUT]

Though there are countless reasons, IMO, most people just shut off and look at you glossy eyed when you explain how anarchy is preferable. I learned to just tell people that without government there may be less order (debatable), but there is no way this happens:

This Is the Number of Innocent People Murdered by Governments. Are You Anti-State Yet? - Reason.com

As much I as I rail against the vast majority of government structures and the deference of many to government, I cannot accept this as much of an argument.

Sure, government officials and forces have been responsible for 262,000,000 deaths (mostly civilian) in the past century. However, we cannot say how many persons would been killed without governments; further, we cannot say how many lives governments have been largely responsible for preserving and saving. Moreover, we cannot say what degree of responsibility governments have for the fact that larger populations (exponentially larger, in fact) across the globe have been capable of being sustained over the past two to five centuries. And, since it is only with the sustainment of such large populations that 262,000,000 persons (mostly civilians) could have been killed in the first place, then we are at a loss to condemn government, in the generic, and support anarchy.

If you want to argue for anarchy, you must move away from the contingencies of bad governments, and simply make an argument that government is necessarily worse than anarchy. That is a really tough argument to make. And, I think that to make the argument, one must ultimately confront the following question:

If you could commit an action you know to be unjust which would provide you with a true benefit (basically, the juice would always be worth the squeeze) and you would never be found out (neither by any humans or any divinities), would you commit the action?

My intuition is that everyone would commit the unjust action. Thus, we require societal structures which serve to either eliminate the prospect of never being found out or to eliminate the prospect of true benefit. Insofar as we are doing this, we are instituting at least a minimal form of government and moving away from anarchy.

 

[McDad]

What was the truck driver's name that got his head bashed in during the LA riots?

Reginald Denny. Didn't even use the Googler for that one.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Isn't it? It's amazing that people can spot/understand the realism flaws of communism (great in theory) but not the realism flaws of anarchy (great in theory as well).

Doesn't it seem strange to say that communism is great even in theory? I mean we hear the word communism and images of Stalin and horror automatically pop into your head.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

As much I as I rail against the vast majority of government structures and the deference of many to government, I cannot accept this as much of an argument.

Sure, government officials and forces have been responsible for 262,000,000 deaths (mostly civilian) in the past century. However, we cannot say how many persons would been killed without governments; further, we cannot say how many lives governments have been largely responsible for preserving and saving. Moreover, we cannot say what degree of responsibility governments have for the fact that larger populations (exponentially larger, in fact) across the globe have been capable of being sustained over the past two to five centuries. And, since it is only with the sustainment of such large populations that 262,000,000 persons (mostly civilians) could have been killed in the first place, then we are at a loss to condemn government, in the generic, and support anarchy.

If you want to argue for anarchy, you must move away from the contingencies of bad governments, and simply make an argument that government is necessarily worse than anarchy. That is a really tough argument to make. And, I think that to make the argument, one must ultimately confront the following question:

If you could commit an action you know to be unjust which would provide you with a true benefit (basically, the juice would always be worth the squeeze) and you would never be found out (neither by any humans or any divinities), would you commit the action?

My intuition is that everyone would commit the unjust action. Thus, we require societal structures which serve to either eliminate the prospect of never being found out or to eliminate the prospect of true benefit. Insofar as we are doing this, we are instituting at least a minimal form of government and moving away from anarchy.

Very well put.

 

[Orange_Crush]

As much I as I rail against the vast majority of government structures and the deference of many to government, I cannot accept this as much of an argument.

Sure, government officials and forces have been responsible for 262,000,000 deaths (mostly civilian) in the past century. However, we cannot say how many persons would been killed without governments; further, we cannot say how many lives governments have been largely responsible for preserving and saving. Moreover, we cannot say what degree of responsibility governments have for the fact that larger populations (exponentially larger, in fact) across the globe have been capable of being sustained over the past two to five centuries. And, since it is only with the sustainment of such large populations that 262,000,000 persons (mostly civilians) could have been killed in the first place, then we are at a loss to condemn government, in the generic, and support anarchy.

If you want to argue for anarchy, you must move away from the contingencies of bad governments, and simply make an argument that government is necessarily worse than anarchy. That is a really tough argument to make. And, I think that to make the argument, one must ultimately confront the following question:

If you could commit an action you know to be unjust which would provide you with a true benefit (basically, the juice would always be worth the squeeze) and you would never be found out (neither by any humans or any divinities), would you commit the action?

My intuition is that everyone would commit the unjust action. Thus, we require societal structures which serve to either eliminate the prospect of never being found out or to eliminate the prospect of true benefit. Insofar as we are doing this, we are instituting at least a minimal form of government and moving away from anarchy.

Very well put.

Yes. Very. Kudos TRUT.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Government is great in theory....but we have literally thousands of years of recorded history where all governments (even today) are oppressive and despotic.

It's amazing that people still believe government is the answer.

Government isn't great in theory.

It's reality.

 

[PKT_VOL]

If you could commit an action you know to be unjust which would provide you with a true benefit (basically, the juice would always be worth the squeeze) and you would never be found out (neither by any humans or any divinities), would you commit the action?

My intuition is that everyone would commit the unjust action. Thus, we require societal structures which serve to either eliminate the prospect of never being found out or to eliminate the prospect of true benefit. Insofar as we are doing this, we are instituting at least a minimal form of government and moving away from anarchy.

I don't think anarchy hinges on the Ring of Gyges. People are egotistical, that's widely known and accepted.

I think for anarchy to be successful over a long period of time, before a power vacuum is created and filled, there must be the right combination of plentiful resources and individuals who with tapered egoism, altruism, and temperance.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Doesn't it seem strange to say that communism is great even in theory? I mean we hear the word communism and images of Stalin and horror automatically pop into your head.

That was communism put in practice on a large scale (where it breaks down). Same thing happens with anarchy.

 

[n_huffhines]

Yes. They did. That's the human nature you're expecting to reconcile with no government oversight. But, if you prefer not to use that example, we could turn to this one...

FYP

Look, I am not arguing that the world would be perfect without government. No matter how many examples you come up with of civilians behaving badly, they pale in comparison to what government does.

Government forcefully takes money from me to build sophisticated drones and bombs and then they use them on the other side of the world where they kill little kids. I'm an accomplice against my will. I simply cannot think of anything more immoral, and ours is a "good" government.

 

[n_huffhines]

Deadwood was a good show , it seemed like a reasonable portrayal of the old west.

Yeah, but you can't look at it from today's perspective. Dueling was still legal up until the end of the 19th century. It was a different world whether you were in Deadwood or Boston.

 

[n_huffhines]

Parts of Mexico are in a state of anarchy. Not exactly what I want.

No offense, but this is fallacious thinking. You don't want to live in most parts of Mexico WITH government.

 

[n_huffhines]

If you could commit an action you know to be unjust which would provide you with a true benefit (basically, the juice would always be worth the squeeze) and you would never be found out (neither by any humans or any divinities), would you commit the action?

My intuition is that everyone would commit the unjust action. Thus, we require societal structures which serve to either eliminate the prospect of never being found out or to eliminate the prospect of true benefit. Insofar as we are doing this, we are instituting at least a minimal form of government and moving away from anarchy.

The societal structure does not have to be government, though. That's where statists exhibit flawed thinking. They cannot see outside the world they perceive, but we have societal structures in place, despite the fact that government is there to protect us. In the absence of government, these "organic" societal structures would be even stronger.

We can get away with the unjust action in the face of government. Government is just one of many safeguards against this behavior. The question is whether or not we are better off without government.

Government is unjust in and of itself. Because government restricts our freedom and I believe that we should default to freedom, I think the onus is on statists to prove we are better off with government. None of you can demonstrate this, just like I can't prove my position.

 

[n_huffhines]

Coincidentally, this was published 2 days ago and perfectly relates to our discussion here. It's pretty short:

Of course, no sensible anarchist expects that the abolition of the state will create heaven on earth. Such an anarchist understands full well that even the best feasible form of human social organization will be vulnerable to any number of crimes and other wrongs — after all, we’re dealing with real flesh-and-blood human beings here....

It’s tiresome to be told again and again that anarchy is utopian, as if the belief that government can be limited is NOT utopian. I don’t expect anarchy to be embraced, ever, by more than a handful of people; so I don’t expect it to become established anywhere long enough to matter. Therefore I try to avoid being sucked into barroom debates about exactly how we can establish anarchy or exactly how it would work once established. Such topics are essentially irrelevant in a practical sense, given that this type of social arrangement is simply not in the cards.

...anarchy is utopian only in the same way that condemning robbery, extortion, assault and battery, and murder and believing that they ought to be stamped out are utopian. Yes, it is not feasible to stamp them out entirely, but it is altogether praiseworthy that some of us support ceaseless efforts to condemn such crimes and to reduce them as far as possible within the constraint that expected benefits exceed expected costs — and to do so regardless of whether the perpetrators be state officials or ordinary men and women.

Resigning oneself to government as we know it is tantamount to shrugging one’s shoulders while being dominated and plundered by mega-criminals. Even if we cannot change this type of exploitation and brutality, we certainly need not go out of our way to say kind words about it and to ridicule those who consider it outrageous and morally vile.

‘What are states but warlord organizations?’ :: The Mises Economics Blog: The Circle Bastiat

 

[Orange_Crush]

Coincidentally, this was published 2 days ago and perfectly relates to our discussion here. It's pretty short:



‘What are states but warlord organizations?’ :: The Mises Economics Blog: The Circle Bastiat

Translation:

"My theory always seems to break down when put under the light of even drunk people's logic, so I decided not to debate it much anymore. Instead, I just tirelessly repeat my ideals as an emotional ploy that 'murder is bad', which pretty much everyone will agree with."

I agree though. It's a wasted discussion, and you are welcome to your ideals.

:hi:

 

[n_huffhines]

You don't even understand how the theory is supposed to work, nor do you try to understand. How can we get anywhere?

And before you answer "I do understand", tell me how anarcho capitalism would safeguard against pollution, child sex enslavement, etc. I'm not saying you have to accept the safeguards as plausible. I just want to verify that you know what they are. If you don't then you do not understand anarcho capitalism.

 

[therealUT]

The societal structure does not have to be government, though. That's where statists exhibit flawed thinking. They cannot see outside the world they perceive, but we have societal structures in place, despite the fact that government is there to protect us. In the absence of government, these "organic" societal structures would be even stronger.

We can get away with the unjust action in the face of government. Government is just one of many safeguards against this behavior. The question is whether or not we are better off without government.

Government is unjust in and of itself. Because government restricts our freedom and I believe that we should default to freedom, I think the onus is on statists to prove we are better off with government. None of you can demonstrate this, just like I can't prove my position.

It is still government in that society acts in a way to govern and influence actions of individuals. It's minimal, and it need not be coercive, but it is, by definition, governing. Society must create itself or be created in a way in which the juice of injustice is not worth the squeeze. This will undoubtedly include societal sanctions for unjust acts and societal education. Again, the state can accomplish this and still be minimal, and I would argue the problem with governments, not government per se, is they don't focus on what is minimally effective.

Anarchy will inevitably have to include private enforcement and not all who are subject to the enforcement will agree with the enforcement. The more resources at one's disposal, the greater enforcement they will have of their view of morality. The powerful will most likely tend to enforce what serves their interests at the expense of the less powerful. In this vein, anarchy is no different or better than many governments.

I do believe that reflective self-interest serves, in large part, to make government superfluous. However, that is due to my belief that contingent societal relationships and structures serve, for the reflective individual, to render the juice not worth the squeeze, re: injustice. But, reflective self-interest is not a given; it is a time, resource, and external individual intensive process. To be a reflective and understanding individual requires the aid and education from one's society. That aid and education must be adequately organized and distributed. Thus, the aid and education must be governed by society. Hence, again, the call for government.

 

[therealUT]

I don't think anarchy hinges on the Ring of Gyges. People are egotistical, that's widely known and accepted.

I think for anarchy to be successful over a long period of time, before a power vacuum is created and filled, there must be the right combination of plentiful resources and individuals who with tapered egoism, altruism, and temperance.

I think all this comes out of an understanding of the question at the heart of the Gyges myth. We don't need to get rid of self-interest, we need it to be proper self-interest, as that is all that is necessary in this world we are given.

 

[Godfatha]

The closest thing to anarchy that's ever worked was Athenian democracy, but even then that was a government. Give me one instance in recorded history where anarchy has worked outside of some hippie commune in northern Cal.

Anarchy will always evolve into some form of government, most likely a dictatorship rule by the strongest, even if it isn't "government" in name. Believing otherwise ignores human greed, egotism, and thirst for power. That and the underestimation of human laziness are the very reasons that socialism and communism are flawed ideologies.

 

[n_huffhines]

The closest thing to anarchy that's ever worked was Athenian democracy, but even then that was a government. Give me one instance in recorded history where anarchy has worked outside of some hippie commune in northern Cal.

Anarchy will always evolve into some form of government, most likely a dictatorship rule by the strongest, even if it isn't "government" in name. Believing otherwise ignores human greed, egotism, and thirst for power. That and the underestimation of human laziness are the very reasons that socialism and communism are flawed ideologies.

3 problems with your demand:

(1) anarchy has very rarely been attempted
(2) anarchy has never been tried in a society like modern America
(3) government has been tried all over throughout history and there is no instance of government "working"

 

[PKT_VOL]

It is still government in that society acts in a way to govern and influence actions of individuals. It's minimal, and it need not be coercive, but it is, by definition, governing. Society must create itself or be created in a way in which the juice of injustice is not worth the squeeze. This will undoubtedly include societal sanctions for unjust acts and societal education. Again, the state can accomplish this and still be minimal, and I would argue the problem with governments, not government per se, is they don't focus on what is minimally effective.

Anarchy will inevitably have to include private enforcement and not all who are subject to the enforcement will agree with the enforcement. The more resources at one's disposal, the greater enforcement they will have of their view of morality. The powerful will most likely tend to enforce what serves their interests at the expense of the less powerful. In this vein, anarchy is no different or better than many governments.

I do believe that reflective self-interest serves, in large part, to make government superfluous. However, that is due to my belief that contingent societal relationships and structures serve, for the reflective individual, to render the juice not worth the squeeze, re: injustice. But, reflective self-interest is not a given; it is a time, resource, and external individual intensive process. To be a reflective and understanding individual requires the aid and education from one's society. That aid and education must be adequately organized and distributed. Thus, the aid and education must be governed by society. Hence, again, the call for government.

You could just shorten this by saying there will inevitably be societal structure that has the same telos (end function) as historic government. Whether you want to call these other forms of governance "government" is irrelevant.

 

[therealUT]

Government is unjust in and of itself. Because government restricts our freedom and I believe that we should default to freedom, I think the onus is on statists to prove we are better off with government. None of you can demonstrate this, just like I can't prove my position.

I disagree. Restricting choices is not necessarily restricting freedom. Restricting the choices of the autonomous person is restricting freedom. But, we certainly do not see restricting the choices of children and teenagers as unjust. Thus, either restricting freedom is not unjust or restricting choice is not necessarily unjust.

I think we accept that restricting choice for the youth is not unjust because we believe they are incapable of making and understanding real choices. That is, we believe they are not autonomous. Further, insofar as we believe this, we believe, in my opinion, that allowing them certain choices actually reduces their freedom.

Now, I know you, Huff, and I know you don't think anything magical occurs the day someone turns eighteen. You also think consent laws based on such arbitrary factors are absurd. The factor you desire to be assessed is ability to consent. But, this is nothing more than autonomy, and I'm willing to wager that you believe some sixteen year olds are autonomous while some who are twenty-six, or even forty-six, are not. Thus, you must believe autonomy is not a given, and, as such, one cannot just will their own autonomy, but it must be developed through the efforts of others: viz., society. And, in order to have a society in which the effort is put in for all, this effort must be governed.