Real examples of anarchism in history are problematic
72Anarchism is a loose term, let us settle on a definition.
Before I get into anarchist societies, let me first clarify exactly what I mean by anarchism.
Words being words, they hold the meaning that the reader believes they hold. When most people in the several united states hear the word anarchism, they immediately perceive what I would call Chaos, which is something very different.
What I speak of as anarchism in this hub is "People who are not ruled by others." To me, actual anarchists are people who want to be free to do whatever they would like, limited only by Natural Law...the idea that one mans rights end where anothers begin. Respect for other people and their property is part of anarchism. For if the anarchist claims the right to destroy other people, then he is in fact not an anarchist, but a statist.
When I speak if statism, I refer to people who believe that they have the right to force other people to do what they want and to abstain from doing what they do not want them to. As such, they do not believe in freedom, but instead believe in coercion. They somehow believe that so long as they use the political power of society to coerce others rather than their own power that there is nothing wrong with what they do. For these people, killing their fellow man is unthinkable, but having the state kill their fellow man is business as usual.
Finally, there is the chaoticist, one who believes in the individualistic version of statism. They feel that might makes right individually and that there is nothing wrong with taking another of the peoples lives directly. These people are the ones typically proclaimed by the media to be anarchists.
So, in summary:
- Anarchy: Violence, coercion, and killing are bad and should never be done except in self defense...and then only as much force as necessary aught to be used to defend oneself. No one has the right to rule over others, collectively or individually.
- Chaos: Violence, coercion, and killing are just fine for everyone. Might makes right and you have the perfect right to do whatever you can get away with. Individuals have the right to rule over anyone they can.
- Statism: Violence, coercion, and killing are bad when done individually. However, they are fine and dandy when done by majority vote. The majority has the right to rule over the minority.
The several united states of america
As near as I can tell, the united States of America is one of the best examples of an anarchist nation that has ever been, though it did not last terribly long before the public servants hired to govern subverted the peoples sovereignty and replaced the dejure united states with a corporation.
From Bouviers Law Dictionary 6th edition:
SOVEREIGN.
- A chief ruler with supreme power; one possessing sovereignty. (q. v.) It is also applied to a king or other magistrate with limited powers.
- In the United States the sovereignty resides in the body of the people. Vide Rutherf. Inst. 282.
SOVEREIGN STATE.
- One which governs itself independently of any foreign power.
SOVEREIGNTY.
- The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. Story on the Const. §207.
- Abstractedly, sovereignty resides in the body of the nation and belongs to the people. But these powers are generally exercised by delegation.
- When analysed, sovereignty is naturally divided into three great powers; namely, the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary; the first is the power to make new laws, and to correct and repeal the old; the second is the power to execute the laws both at home and abroad; and the last is the power to apply the laws to particular facts; to judge the disputes which arise among the citizens, and to punish crimes.
- Strictly speaking, in our republican forms of government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; (q. v.) and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is in the people of the state. (q. v.) 2 Dall. 471; and vide, generally, 2 Dall. 433, 455; 3 Dall. 93; 1 Story, Const. §208; 1 Toull. n. 20 Merl. Reper. h. t.
Was the original, dejure union of states an anarchist society?
Looking over the definitions provided under Sovereign(2) and Sovereignty(4), I would say that yes, the original union of states was indeed an anarchist nation. The people were sovereign, collectively with no man able to rule over other men.
Certain limited powers were given to those who opted to be public servants, but government was not the ruler of the people, it was incorporated to serve the people.
They created states ( voluntary societies ) and then created a union of states to help ensure that one society did not harm another society as well as to establish that each society would help each other society defend itself.
Yes, this is not something taught in our government controlled schools, but if one looks at the history behind this country it seems rather obvious that, if we agree that anarchists are people who do not submit to the rule of other people, then the original united states was an anarchist experiment in freedom.
You may say that they were not anarchists because they obeyed the natural law ( ignorance of the law is no excuse...which is true when the law amounts to harm no others ), but I believe that to the extent that they followed the natural law and refused to obey arbitrary law they were indeed anarchists.
It is those who prefer chaos who obey no law at all as they refuse to comprehend that by establishing the right to harm others they are establishing the right for others to harm them.
So, as far as I am concerned our dejure union ( which is mostly gone as few even know it is there, falsely believing that the United States Corporation is the dejure union ) was a viable anarchist society. Unfortunately the people foolishly set up formal governments and became too embroiled in minding their own business...and were taken over by the very people they had initially setup to be servants.
Think you don't live in a corporation?
Pertaining to a minority group
While it is true that the dejure united states had slavery and indentured servitude and was not so great to minorities, it was also true that minority groups could get by without being horribly oppressed.
Typically, it has always been statist societies that have murdered minorities, typically in the name of the greater good. So long as the majority of people think that their leaders, by default, are good, they can be made to believe that minorities are out to get them.
Just look at this country and the fearmongering concerning the mexican takeover. Then look up the idea of Problem, Reaction, Solution. The aristocracy manipulates us all the time. We are conditioned to equate ourselves to "the united states" and "the united states" to our leaders...and so we give them the benefit of the doubt at every turn even when it is as outlandish as the idea that a handful of people from halfway across the world have nothing better to do then sneak into our country to kill us.
Don't get me wrong, there are some real problems coming from mexico...but your average mexican citizen that comes up here looking for work is no threat to us whatsoever.
I am not sure asking for an anarchist society that didn't revolve around killing minorities is any different than asking for a statist society that didn't revolve around killing minorities.
There have been very few anarchist societies that have lasted for long. There are multitudes of statist societies and they generally have little regard for minorities.
Say it ain't so. Go ahead. It's your right.Loading...
Most people I come across here in the states equate anarchy to chaos. Our media does a good job of tying them together.
And I agree concerning government, so long as that government is a government of the people in a voluntary society where all natural rights are respected.
However, the moment you create power structures and give some people control over others, the inevitable result is that bad people rise to the top and tyranny ensues. This is especially true in corporate government, which all governments are at this late stage of the game.
*agree* :)
I don't see any mechanism in the anarchy model to prevent the same sadly, in fact it seems more likely to invite it than what we have now. People that complain about the government without offering more than utopian fantasies sadly come off as one or two sorts, those who are naive enough to pave the way for a new totalitarian order or those who use it as a distraction while gathering power to be the new dictator...Castro.
I think this as much as anything sets off red flags in peoples minds when any activist outreaches to them. I can’t help asking myself is this person really that adolescent or do they have some sinister enigmatic agenda wrapped in the utopian farce. All the complaining people do an all the paranoia serves to make everyone just that much more paranoid and tired of rhetoric as well. Just seems a better approach than complaining would be to simply set up a working model, teach and show by example. There is nothing preventing this, and if proven to work in reality it should attract more following than simply standing on a soap box and complaining, or blowing up buildings. Building a living functional model would require effort that apparently no anarchist or other utopian theorist is willing to do, which further confounds their reputation as malcontents. It also leads many of us to think they don’t actually practice their theories because they know they don’t work or their medication ran out. Hardly a very good endorsement and all of the utopian experiments I have ever heard of ended in total failure. I seriously doubt there is a perfect system, the only way to enforce the concept of anarchy by its own definition would be to murder all the choaticist and all the Statist. That implies an evil far worse than even Statist engage and in fact sounds to me like mental or ideological cleansing, something even harder to do than racial cleansing.
My point is not to call anarchist naïve however; my point is that if you know you cannot possibly force the majority to abide by anarchy without such purging, why in heavens name would you continue to embrace it, if not for a comfortable identity from which to complain from? I mean you would have to literally kill me to make me follow such a system, and many other people to. If you can guarantee that religious laws will not simply sweep over in the place of Statist laws and we all know how much more tolerant fanatics are then by all means lets all be anarchist. The fact is you cannot make such a claim and turning the United States into “New Iran” would be a death sentence for myself and almost every minority or religious minority, I am afraid I cannot support that.
Thank you again, this is very stimulating topics, I have 5 pages that I already wrote in response but have not posted them yet because I am wondering if that is too long, also I am taking extra time to attempt to remove more of the “you” statements so as to not incite a personal conflict. I have the bad habit of saying “you” meaning the plural “you” of the reader to whom it applies, not the author, or any specific person per se. I have nothing but love in my heart, what else I pee the other stuff out J
Ok perhaps I should post the 5 pages as a new hub? Maybe we could link them or something? Well till later take care and *hugs*
Sibli
Well, I take almost nothing personally, especially when discussing such topics.
For me, I see no reason why a variety of societies could not function casually together, provided all of them followed Natural law.
For me, anarchism is simply people dealing with other people without using coercion, force, etc. I live anarchism every day. Each time I have a voluntary conversation, voluntarily help someone, or simply smile and wave at another, I am practicing anarchism.
If societies (whether called states, nations, or people) could stick to natural law and not force their ideas upon those who are members of other societies, there would be no need to force anyone to become part of any society.
I have no troubles with people who like various forms of statism...so long as they do not attempt to force me to do or not do what I want. As long as I am not harming another or their property, it is my sincere opinion that others aught to leave me be. If they don't like something I am doing, they can surely approach me and voice their complaint...but sending a man with a gun and a badge to try to force me to do what they want me to is hardly civil.
In a very real sense, the government is the religion in the united states these days. Any group, whether it calls itself a government, a religion, or something else, that forces people to do things or destroys them for doing things that harm no one else, is tyrannical and unworthy of support in my eyes.
Any anarchist that advocates bombs or forces laws that step beyond natural law down other peoples throats is no anarchist. The former is a chaoticist, the latter is an authoritarian. Both are tyrannies, if only of different forms.
I embrace it because most of us practice real anarchism every day without realizing it. If more people could comprehend that we do not advance society by letting the majority steal from, cage, or kill minorities who disagree with them, but instead by treating each other as equals without regard to our belief systems and allowing them to do thing their way while we do things our own way.
Perhaps the word is ruined beyond normal use due to the smearing it gets from the system we live in, but if I used the word "voluntary society" rather than "anarchism", would you still see it as bad? To me they are one and the same...and that is true for almost every honest anarchist I know.
Thanks, I still haven’t decided what to do with the other 5 pages I wrote in response.
I am not sure you can take credit for people volunteering things however, generosity is owned by all humanity every individual practices it to some degree.
In fact it’s rather insulting to everyone else if you claim generosity as anarchies own while implicating that Statist and Christians don't. I am not saying that is what you meant but it is just "seems" like the same type of mud slinging you accuse Statist and others for even though they are not the media.
Just as real is the prospect of an anarchist opting to walk away from a car crash, so how does that make them better or even different?
Each time I wave at someone I am not practicing any form of government or lack of government. I do not owe anarchist for being alive quite the contrary; an anarchist could just as easily have abandoned me to starve.
I think it is a big mistake to claim personal acts as having anything to do with government or lack thereof. I am also aware that regardless of my personal political views; I would not be sitting here having this discourse where I in a country that was other than it is now. It is in fact the very existence of such a powerful Statist government in the world today that has provided a check on more radically violent and controlling doctrines. Statist are no less generous than anarchist in fact as a group you could easily make the opposite case.
European Recovery Program after WWII one of the most generous policies ever created in history is credit to the strong Statist from the perspective of other countries struggling to survive in the face of murderous communist and fascist. This policy would never have been dreamed of by an anarchist.
As for natural law, that law is flawed if it is warped by the idealism of what “should be” whether it is an anarchist or a Statist. Natural law if anything conforms closest to “chaoticist” theory it doesn’t even concern itself with government or the lack of government, government is entirely irrelevant. But declaring oneself an anarchist free to chose and bowing to no law and no government as that would by definition require is not the same thing as having no consideration for any order whatsoever.
Natural law also is more apt to promote that in the absence of a thing something else will evolve to exist, thrive and dominate that niche. So following natural law would require some form of government or social order to in fact dominate and gobble up the less aggressive social groups or weak individuals. Clinging to natural law then for an anarchist is akin to swimming with sharks after a vigorous rub-down of chum. And if you look at the real world this is exactly what after millions of years has resulted, governments to unfit to protect their citizens are consumed by the more successful species.
But as long as the current Statist run this country you have no fear from Nihilist (Please stop insulting me by blaming chaoticist in general you are in fact guilty of the very same perjuries the Statist allegedly due to anarchist). The domination of the natural law by Statist in effect only slows down evolution. From my perspective anarchist are just mackerel fish, Statist are killer whales, and choaticist are like plankton. There a lot of other tuna fish out there just waiting to gobble up a school of anarchists. And if you want to say one form of choaticist is dangerous then call the Nihilist the “red tide” algae.
Well I suppose I will have to decide what to do with the other 5 pages…
Thanks again for the stimulating thoughts
Sincerely
Sib
No political view is tied to generosity.
However, it is entirely provable that various political views are tied to force, coercion, and threat.
My issue with people who support states, corporations, or anything else over the individual man or woman is that without an individual there is nothing. Only people produce things. Only people destroy things.
Rather than hide behind mental abstractions, I believe people should be left free to do as they well and held accountable for harming others. The only thing I can see which could make that happen is allowing all people to voluntarily choose their society.
Taking another mans labor, keeping a portion of it, and then returning what is left is not generosity. Nor is forcing another to do something they do not want to or preventing them from doing something they wish to do which does no harm to others.
This country is in the middle of collapsing because it has a central power structure which was taken control of long ago. It is not the greatest country in the world unless one equates having military stations in other countries as great. Check the cia factbook online to see where we rate compared to other countries.
Statism = rule of some people calling themselves the state over everyone else.
Chaos = every man for themselves, might makes right
Anarchism = no rulers
Those are the definitions I am using. The first two are very similiar. Only one of the three respects the rights of all individuals.
Offending you is not my intention, but words have meanings. If you would like to submit the definitions you use for each of the three, perhaps it would make discussion a bit more meaningful.
I agree with much of your thinking LibertyUnchained.
Semantics can be an obstacle to communication at times. I rather enjoy the clinical manner in which you approach this.
I’ve always found the caricature anarchist, crouching, trench coat, hat pulled down over the brow, little bomb with a smoldering fuse in hand, completely ridiculous. Chaos and anarchy are most definitely not interchangeable.
I agree completely that it is not the intent of people who choose to establish governments to be ruled by them. There is a world of difference between ruling and leading, semantics again.
I’m always given pause by the minutia of almost any social structure.
Is anarchy actually a form of society?
How far does one take the concept of independence?
Is this nothing more than a variation of libertarianism?
If one takes advantage of some benefits of a given society, how far are they then obligated to adhere to the mores of that society?
It seems to me, as in all human interaction, a successful outcome depends in large upon all parties being essentially benevolent or at least not predatory.
How Utopian of me.
Then again, I suppose it depends upon how you choose to define success.
An enjoyable, well-written essay.
Good Hub, Liberty Unchained.
I must admit that I am slowly subscribing to the belief that humanity has not evolved social skills - we still have too much of the hunter-gatherer instinct for the huge populations that we have nowadays.
My local village is pretty much 'socialist' - everybody looks out for each other, and resources are communal. It is a good place to live.
I have heard of some communities in the US that are libertarian/anarchist and, again, they seem to be nice places.
A society might elect a strong leader but maintain the right to remove them. These societies were usually happy societies.
I am sure that communism, democratically elected councils etc are just as good.
The problem is when these systems are scaled up, they fall down. Humanity seems to have an inbuilt desire to find somebody else, exploit them and steal all of their stuff. It is why I think that the question is a little unfair (although very interesting!), because you could say the same about any political system. We just have to try and cobble together the best system we can and hope that it works. The Greeks discussed this two thousand years ago and could not agree, so nothing has changed.
Good Article.
Thank you both.
The charicature described is the one most people I know seem to picture when they hear "anarchy" or "anarchism".
Is believe that anarchism is a valid society so long as one keeps in mind that a society is a voluntary coming together of people, free to be part of society or not as they so choose. And of course, so long as anarchism is confined to taking personal responsibility for ones actions and harming no others.
For me, independence is the idea that all people have the right to control the fruits of their labor as well as the responsibility to not do harm to others...and make restitution to those injured when they do so.
I believe that anarchism, as I speak of it, is the logical conclusion of libertarianism, properly arrived at by asking why there should be any ruler at all. A society of anarchists might have leaders that are willingly followed, but could not have rulers that have the power to control them.
I would say that one who receives a benefit aught to pay their share of the life energy and/or effort required to provide the advantage. Real advantage comes from working together peacefully. And there really is little or not cost to doing so.
I must agree on what makes a beneficial outcome. In my book, the primary thing that would bring revolutionary change would be the abolition of corporations and other legal fictions. When every individual must take responsibility for their own actions, we will find ourselves in a much more prosperous world.
I used to not get into semantics so much, but I came to realize over time that the words thrown about in political jargon are slippery and mean too many different things to different people.
When I say capitalism, I am visualizing people using their own capital (time, effort) to make their lives better without use of artificial structures such as corporations which allow them to evade responsibility.
When many people say it, they speak of the state corporatism we have today where corporations latch on to the levers of government to suck energy from the "human capital" for the benefit of their owners. A bad thing indeed.
The same concerns most other political words. Voluntary socialism is a very different beast than state socialism. One being a peaceful group of people sharing resources and the other being a ruling class sharing in the labor of a working class, taking what they want off of the top, and then redistributing what is left back among the lower classes.
Yup
Off to bed now, so will read that properly in the morning, but agree about the importance of semantics. Many Americans and Europeans have a completely different definition of the words socialist and liberal. Makes for some interesting miscommunications!
Indeed it does =)
The sad part is finding out that you are in complete agreement after holding an extremely long discussion and only slowly getting around to semantics.
If long discussions are required to reach understanding then so be it. It is better than being content with misunderstanding which often leads to disagreement and conflict. Seems one of our biggest problems in the world is a lack of discussions, long or otherwise.
You will get no disagreement from me on that account. I was primarily just noted that a lot less time is wasted talking past each other on such things when common definitions for slippery words are defined up front.
Is it not possible to support the positive actions of a state and the efforts of individuals in the anarchist world? How sad and limited. Personally I wouldn’t choose to be limited by either Statist or anarchist.
Why the country is or is not collapsing is entirely speculative, and pointing fingers at a burning house doesn’t fix or put it out. Another example of how anarchist chose to do nothing but complain?
Humanity is made up of individuals, and no two individuals will ever have the same outlooks, perceptions, beliefs or ideals over time, it is inevitably and impossibility. And over time those percepts always play into the formations of new ideas among all people in all political systems. We are also creatures dependent and infused with chemistry that is boundless in its own diversity, chemistry that occasionally changes the mindset of our neighbors and may even make us paranoid of them, i.e. anarchist conspiracy theorists, nihilist conspiracy theorist and others. I know myself for a fact that occasionally my brother a very generous and caring individual gets a bit “Kooky” thinking people are out to get him, ALL people.
Every so many years when he is on such a tear I am called in by the rest of “them” the family to slap some sense into him. Yes there are greedy and dangerous people in every group and yes some might even be trying to get you but as long as you can remember that bit of compassion and human kindness in yourself you have a tiny spark of proof that you are not alone and that everyone is not in fact out to get you.
I also know that my own perceptions go a little awry like everyone’s do one time or another. For me it’s entirely different I get impatient with inefficiency, lazy bums riding the rest of us, which Statist make possible. Some may be truly disabled but I have met more than my share of fakers and they are in every political group you can think of. Well when I get my ire up it is a good thing this isn’t anarchy, I would compensate myself from their hoardings and I know I am not alone. Sometimes I wish this was an anarchy cause then the rest of us non anarchist could really get away with some serious stuff. Also anytime I ran into someone who was intolerant and bigoted and committing a hate crime I would take care of the issue efficiently, finally and tax free. And I know I am not alone in this either.
Socialism is a relative thing also, most people during the cold war or earlier freaked at the idea we were socialist at all but by definition we are a voluntary socialist state, we do not have true capitalism, we are a blend of things. Now I think people realize that being socialist at all does not mean a slip slide into communism. Anything can happen if you let it but that doesn’t mean it will. In general as long as we prioritize educating people with all available info, standardized definitions and facts about failed utopian systems like anarchy, totalitarian states and communism then communication can be faster and problems resolved more quickly and peace fully. Providing all the information is kept in the light of day and people are not sent like a herd of cattle in a stampede over a cliff or off to war over stupid stuff.
Really because we are so different each from each other any type of system without room for change and protection will inevitably snuff out the life of many people. Saying we can all live as anarchist is a pipe dream, one that I would support but only for the reason above of sticking it to lazy bums? Shortly after I would decide to seize power and become Empress. Not because I really am an alien, it’s just how I roll. If elected I promise Doritoes on every table, and if not elected, well I guess well just see how much a running ninja with a knife really can do at night. J hugsJ
Sib
Sorry Sib, but I think that you are contraining yourself with the chains of how things are today.
True voluntaryism requires only a couple of things, none of which harm anyone.
1. Each of the peoples rights end where anothers begin.
All people have the perfect right to do what they wish, so long as they are not harming others or their property. Property is a soft word with different meanings to different people, but I tend to use it in the nature of used property.
2. Only people can have rights or standing to bring claims against others.
Put together a corporate type structure if you want. But if you hurt someone with it, you pay the price just as anyone else would. None of this pay a fine and continue on stuff we have today.
3. (the hard part) People willing to stand up for other peoples rights, whether or not the other people are known to them.
Leaders are fine. Dictators, so long as their "subjects" are free to declare themselves no longer a subject is fine.
Somehow I get the feeling that you miss the point entirely. A system without room for change and protection IS what we exists everywhere. Sure, politicians chant "change" if they think it will do them good, but there will be no real change. It is business as usual...and if you resist too strongly, that protection you think is yours will be used to kick your door down and drag you away.
If you wish to continue this discussion here, please explain to me exactly how it is that you believe coercion is either good or necessary. Go look the word up if need be. I'll be more than happy to poke holes in any argument for coercion being good or, if it can be shown to be good, admit that I am wrong in any particular instance. So far, I have _never_ seen a good argument for coercion.
Harm is a relative term to, doing nothing can be a way to do harm. Causing un-rational dissent can do harm. I agree that company and corporate owners need to be fully responsible for the consequences of their actions or inactions. The same law should be applied to everyone equally. Dictators pretty much do not tolerate dissent; they shoot people on the spot as examples. They depend on fear to maintain control.
To allow anarchist to preach rubbish unchecked is doing wrong. To waylay me with this silly tripe when I could be chewing a hole in a “real” issue, like say the plight of the homeless or the transgender is doing harm. The simple fact that the Jerry Springer show as so successful is evidence that hulu needs to get busy slurping up some rotting cranial melons.
So you think having an African American in the White House is not a change? Personally I believe your wrong the simple fact he is there inspires more people to do more, that things are possible, even if he accomplishes nothing else in his term do to the expected congressional resistance the very fact he is there is evidence that change is possible, just as the very fact anarchist can shoot their mouths off about evil corporations and not be made to “disappear” pretty well undermines your point.
Heck the fact I can debate this with you as a promoter of Chaoticist and transgender people is evidence that this society is far freer than an anarchist would like to admit. So they ask anarchist to pay a few taxes for highways and educational institutions and entire industrial infrastructures they don’t deserve the right to use they get to be protected by police they don’t respect and rescued by fire and medical personal they never asked for. Yes I think in a perfect world the anarchist should be allowed to just die off like most other obsolete thinking. Unfortunately Statist Uncle Sam actually cares about anarchists and their rights to complain, one thing is for sure this country has a collection of free thinkers and always has, that is a strength, as long as we can pull together when we need to and get things done, anarchist are free to rant all they like.
I can’t support your interest in coercion, you are preaching to the choir there, but coercion comes in many cunning forms and the anarchists are not innocent by a long shot. They make the perfect counter-dissidents and have destabilized countless governments in history, some of which were relatively benign allowing horrific dictators to seize power while the anarchist held the countries intellectual elite frozen in chit chat and idle debate. That is the real reason there is no love for anarchist, it’s not that anarchist are guilty of doing anything directly of course not. They are guilty of the simply yet another type of bureaucracy that chokes stability, and stability is what allows real progress. Cause in the end when the more active fascist or communists got done seizing power, guess what they do next always…
Round up the intellectuals they can’t use, the opposition parties and the anarchists and shoot them all. They often use anarchists since their desperate naivety makes them excellent cannon fodder and human shields. People should feel sorry for anarchists I agree. United we stand divided they lose.
I say I win and you, well you do whatever you like, that’s the anarchists way is it not… “that’s how you roll”.
So for now peace and god bless you, sounds like you need it.
Have no fear, chaos doesn’t even follow anarchies rules, so I am sure we will bend antennae again sometime or maybe not.
*hugs*
Sib
Looks like we agree to disagree.
If you find this to be tripe which wastes your time, I must note that you choose to waste your time. I certainly do not force you to.
Discussion and consideration opens doors, not coercion. So long as people are not trying to force others to do what they want them to, I have no problem with them...even if their ideas are not ones that I can adhere to myself.
Unfortunately, we get tied up in labels and somehow lose the simple facts. If people can come to see that nothing good comes of force, then they can come to agree to do their own thing and let others be. It is a simple concept, though one lost once people start to believe that they have a "duty" to protect others from themselves.
As a wise man once said, there are two types of people in this world: Those that want to be left alone and those that will not leave them alone.
In my opinion, anarchy is quite silly in a way. When there's a king or monarch or leader, everybody wants to be him and kills them and is generally quite violent for power.
I like your definitions, Liberty. It sits well with me. But I'm not sure I can hop on the bandwagon just yet. For a while now I've considered myself a minarchist because I'm not fully convinced that a total removal of the state is the best method. But I do think that it should be minimized to just a small fraction of what it is today.
There's got to be some protections from natural and unnatural monopolies. There's got to be some organized and centralized form of national defense. We can't have 51 armies. That would be absurd.
But another reason why I'm having trouble seeing your way is because you say you just want to be left alone. Can a situation not present itself in such a fashion that by doing nothing, you're essentially hurting others? Can inaction on an individual level cause destruction or violate the rights of others? What if you're indirectly hurting others?
Without the threat violence (be that, monetary threats, or other forms of social and economic punishment), who is going to conform to the ideas of "natural law" so that your inaction doesn't hurt others? What is preventing someone from breaking the natural laws? Are we going to have ourselves a hangin'?
Also, who's going to enforce your natural rights, (intellectual?) property rights, etc?
I'm almost with you. But I just don't fully understand how this could really work. And if it could, don't you think it would have been tried by now?
Like LibertyUnchained I too am a follower of voluntaryism. Voluntaryism is essentially a synonym for anarcho-capitalism. Like LibertyUnchained has mentioned multiple times, anarchy is not chaos and doesn't mean "without rules", it means without rulers. Voluntaryists and anarcho-capitalists believe that you can replace the state services with those provided by a free market. Market efficiencies would eliminate the absurdities of "51 armies" unless that's what the market could bare. Seeing as there would be no nation state to protect in a voluntary society they would probably look a lot more like a private defense agency than an army.
There are certain situations in which doing nothing does in fact harm another person. A person can be starving and you might have food that you're unwilling to share with them. However using political force to collectively take property from one person to give to another is not the answer. A voluntary society in which people can create wealth by applying their labor is the answer to keep people from starving in the first place. Most examples of starvation in the last century have been due to political involvement, a great example is China's "great leap forward" in which forty million people died. There are many other examples including those in the Soviet Union and in Africa.
There are multiple ways of getting people to conform to natural law principles without pointing a gun at them. There is arbitration, a form of customary law known as xeer, credit agencies that can severely limit people based on their actions in the market, and even expulsion from society to name a few. All of these rights will be enforced by the people in society by rejecting those who will not respect the property rights and right of self ownership of others. A person's reputation in the marketplace and in a voluntary society is extremely important if they wish to flourish.
amasing f tof
Sibli Luaxessna 3 years ago
If your assuming I think anarchy is choas that would be a negative.
It is not really fair to say any form of government is directly evil, its just not true.
The problem lies in who takes the reins and how naive people are.
Much more comming, but I just wanted to say thanks in advance, excellent A for effort! great HUB very stimulating!
Sincerely
*hugs*
Sib