It is interesting to me that I have never met an anarchist or a libertarian who is basically an anarchist that has actually been to a failed state. Talking about anarchy from a dorm room or college party house or a nice quiet farm out in the middle of nowhere is very different from actually seeing it. I am not saying there isn’t a person like that out there it is just that I haven’t interacted with one yet.
First of all anarchy is a very relative term. It is sort of like socialism in that it never truly happens, and when it does it is only for a short period of time. There is going to be some form of government clinging at the greased string of power until the last possible moment. Either that or some sort of a thug stepping up to try and carve out his own little princely state, most likely a lot of thugs trying to carve out their own princely states. You can have bad government or ineffective government or illegitimate government but some sort of system will at least be trying to keep or take power.
Secondly it is really not something you want to be involved in. Between crime, general lawlessness and assorted thugs and former government entities vying for power there is often a lot of fighting. Basic rights such as property and relative (there is always some crime) safety which we take for granted would be gone overnight. Now granted there hasn’t been a civil war or riot or massive disaster of Katrina proportions in Idaho or Minnesota but ever indicator we have is that these events bring about the worst in people. Sure there are a few neighbors helping each other out and some good Samaritan will save somebody’s grandma but those are few and far between. My observation is that folks will typically do about whatever they think they can get away with in these situations. Also these situations are more likely to lead to another, even worse government, not a better government or a long term lack of government.
Look at how the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan. After the Soviets left the Afghan commies fought on for a few years (till the money dried out with the fall of the Soviet Union if I recall) and then a transitional type government was set up for about a week followed by the big players like Heychmar and Massoud and other smaller regional guys fighting it out for power. The Taliban came to power because they could do a few things. They made roads safe to travel (a relative term in tribal central Asia). They had a court system that, while very harsh, was quick to deal with problems and most people found it to be fair. In short they offered the basic securities of rule of law.
The honest truth is that a pretty bad government is, by any functional measure, better than this sort of situation or the government which stems from it. It is not nice to say and goes against a lot of American ideals but if you look at history it is true. Our revolution is probably the only time in history that a revolution led to citizen’s lives getting better in the long run.
I file Anarchy under a “be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.”
Thoughts?
Posts
17 comments:
Your big mistake is conflating Libertarianism (having a small, decentralized, constitutionally limited government) with Anarchy (having no government). Clearly, the massive bankrupt mega-government welfare-state police-states of the 21st century are far more likely to turn into Somalia or Mad Max than the smaller government favored by Libertarians.
The only thing that will save the United States from horrific anarchy is for the United States government to shrink down to a sustainable size.
"An Anarchist is anyone who believes in less government than you do."
That seems to be what you're saying. I concur with Verdical Driver.
Additionally, "It is sort of like socialism in that it never truly happens" WTF?!! Europe, Venezuela, USSR, AMERICA since 1913!! Socialism happens, and if you ask me a hundred years is plenty long enough. Socialist Security IS socialism, delivered at gunpoint. Don't believe me? Try to opt out of paying SS tax...
No, no, no, no, no.
Anarchy is not the chaos that ensues after a failed government. Philosophical anarchists do not think "anarchy" is what comes out of collapsed States.
I'm surprised you haven't read more about the subject. Anarchy, philosophically understood, is the state wherein men interact in voluntary, free-willed, mutually beneficial behavior. In other words, it's society where people do not believe in the morality of the idea of an artificial and violent monopoly on violence, comprised of men who supposedly have some supra-human moral right to use violence: acts that would rightfully get any other purveyor of such violence thrown into a cage.
You see anarchy every day, despite the existence of the State. Anarchy is the State of society, essentially. absence of the State. What is the State? Any and all government? No! Is it an absence of law? No! Anarchy isn't a top-down system, nor will it miraculously pop up green shoots when a State collapses. Anarchy is the idea that you don't have the right to take money from your neighbor at gunpoint.
Do any of us think that we'll see a mostly anarchic society in our lifetimes? Hardly! Nor do we expect to see the majority of society living according to the Golden Rule. The fact remains, however, that living according to anarchic principles and the Golden Rule is the only acceptable way to live.
Thomas Paine was nearly right when he wrote, in "The Rights of Man,"
"Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government.[The State] It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. [The State.] In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government."
This is a very good beginning to understanding anarchy: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html
Anarchy is not a failed State
And, it is not lawlessness...
It is community and the Golden Rule. You have never seen it because it has never been tried on a large scale. Puritans were a good example - people came together in town meetings to decide on shared codes of conduct - no laws and no identifiable "government."
Ryan noted that he was speaking of Libertarians with anarchist leanings, not Libertarians in general.
That having been knocked out of the way, I agree 100% with Ryan on this. Before you tell me how wonderful an anarchist society would be, you better go spend some time in one, or you're talking out your ass.
Vertical Driver note that I said "a libertarian who is basically an anarchist" not a liberterian. Significant difference. I am talking about a specific nitche of the liberterian party, not the whole thing.
-TOR
I'm not sure why you equate Anarchist with Libertarian...I've been a Police Officer for over 30 years at this point a Libertarian almost as long and a pagan even longer. I have never been an Anarchist. As to failed states... yeah, thanks to 20+ years as an Air Force Cop.. does Somalia count? How 'bout East Germany? Did a couple "go save the Belgians and French" in Central Africa and similar silliness in the former Yugoslavia... NOW there was ANARCHY. Veridical Driver is right.. not much that will actually stop out slide to third world status at this point. I don't hope for anarchy... I'm just trying to survive it when it comes.
Beynd that I can say one thing with utter certainty, you will never see the kind of idiocy after Katrina in rural Idaho or Minnesota... gangs of bad guys only took over towns in the movies. My home town is in New Mexico. When a gang of bank robbers/cattle rustlers tried to have their way with things they ran into a populace who all hunted, served in the civil war, women who defended their homes while hubby was serving in the civil war, etc, etc. Guess who won? I believe you have a valid point IN THE CITIES. Carving out a "princedom" in Wyoming or Montana will get them hung in short order. And it won't be a gang of thugs attacking individual ranches or farms. That will only work once or twice... after that, well folks out west tend to look after each other... we still have posse's when we need them... and by the way, take a long look at how us country bumkins react to severe weather events. We don't riot and wait for Big Brother to come rescue us. Oh we'll take the help when it gets there, but whether it ever comes or not, we help each other. Libertarian means - stay out of my house, out of my check book, out of my bedroom, out of my business and off my property. Like our founding fathers, I was taught to be a moral citizen. Most folks where I'm from were... and are. Sorry folks in the big city ain't anymore.
Craig, I am talking about the pure perfect socialism that idiot talks about, not what actually happens.
Again note that I am talking about the psuedo anarchist liberterians not the general group ideology.
1:32, I think the rural West or at least the part that wouldn't face a potential Reconquista could fair better than most places.
-TOR
Mountain Guerrilla,
The chaotic aftermath of a failed State, comprised of a bunch of little warlords, bandits and other individuals violating each other's rights is not what any serious anarchist considers "an anarchist society," in case that's what you thought. An anarchist society is a society in which people associate without using coercion, particularly coercion to fund the policies they'd like to see in place.
Although, it might be worthy to note that the straw-man trump card, Somalia, which I would certainly not consider an "anarchist society," has better nutrition, schooling, etc., than any of its centralized-State neighbors, according to the U.N.
Brass, Are you on drugs? I don't mean a bit of pot but like hard drugs.
-TOR
Ryan,
I've never used any type of illicit drug.
Skip the insults, and discuss some topics, if you'd like.
Did you not understand the terminology of philosophical anarchism? Let's start there, if you'd like.
Brass, It was a genuine question. Admittedly anarchy as you discuss it is a nice idea but it doesn't actually work. Sort of like communism in that regard.
The reason we are going round and round is that Mountain Guerilla and I are talking about actual concrete reality and you are talking about philosophy.
I would like to see some studies that show Somalia beating anybody at anything. Please send links to any LEGITIMATE info on that.
-TOR
Ryan,
"Anarchy doesn't work." This statement shows you still don't understand what "anarchy" is. It's as though you said, "The Golden Rule doesn't work." Does the Golden Rule work or doesn't it? Does the fact that the vast majority of a society has not lived according to the Golden Rule mean that the Golden Rule doesn't "work?"
I am sure that you will agree, Ryan, that what made America great was not its government. It was the principles by which American people, by and large, believed in and lived out. For example, there is a reason that if you visit any South American country, you will see, around the houses, high walls topped with broken bottles set into mortar. The idea of respect for the property rights of other people is not respected nearly so much as it is here. I'm pretty sure the government there enforces laws against theft.
Americans once believed in certain ideals; one deserves the fruits of one's own labors, "mind your own business," and yes, the teachings of Christ also figured very prevalently in American culture
Neither the Golden Rule nor anarchy is a "system." Each is a philosophy by which one lives, or else one rejects.
Anarchy, or voluntarism, as some call it, in a nutshell, is the personal affirmation of the radical, nutjob idea that no one has the right to initiate (start) aggression against his neighbor. There's no "system" to that belief, but a large majority of people living that belief to its rational, full conclusions, does have a tremendous systemic impact.
Some of the implications of the believing in the idea of voluntarism: you don't have the right to force anyone to not drink alcohol. Or to worship your God. Or to not inhale the smoke of any particular vegetative matter. It means that you don't force anyone else to pay for the education of your children. It means that you don't force anyone to send their kids to a school that teaches something they might not want their kids to learn. It means that you don't throw your neighbor in a cage over having a shotgun with a 1/2'' too little steel on its barrel, or for peaceably carrying a firearm without an official permission slip from some third party. It means you don't force your neighbor to provide subsidized housing/food for welfare dependents. It means that you don't think you have the right to force your neighbor to foot the bill for bailing out CEOs of failed business models. It means that you don't force religious hospitals to perform abortions. It means that you don't participate in or support punishing anyone for violating any statute, the violate on which does not in itself violate the life, liberty or property of other human beings. Do you think you can get behind any of those ideas, Ryan? Or do you think they are merely the product of a speedball? Because if you believe in the idea of the State, you might as well not bother believing in those ideas, because there's no such thing as a State that does not have or soon enough take the power to do all those things and much, much more. The belief in voluntaryism, by its nature, cannot itself lead to those behaviors.
As for Somalia (which I did explicitly condemned as an example of an "anarchic" society,) this paper offers cited proof that its situation has improved since the collapse of its central state. http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_off_Stateless.pdf
I might ask you, Ryan: when's the last time you saw a sustained, small, controllable centralized State that did nothing but uphold a short, enumerated list of objectives, namely, protecting the right to life, liberty and property? Yeah. In the span of a few generations, the United State (singular) has become infinitely more wasteful, inflationary and corrupt than the Roman Empire at its peak. Does that mean the State "works?" I think the State always works perfectly according to its foundational idea. (That you, as an individual, whether on your own or through giving your consent to a third party, have the right to force your neighbor to do something against his will.)
Ryan, watch this video if you really want to get a better grasp of what voluntaryism is. It's pretty short and simple. Don't let it simplicity fool you. Only an ignorant man would think something has to be complex to be true. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Another excellent video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE
Another excellent video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs&feature=watch_response
They're so short, you really have no excuse to not watch them all, unless, of course, you'd simply prefer to continue to accuse me of drug use.
Amen Brass!
Brass, Why don't you take a family vacation to Somalia and do some man on the ground reporting.
-TOR
"Brass, Why don't you take a family vacation to Somalia and do some man on the ground reporting.
-TOR"
TOR, now you are regressing to the libtard mindset. No valid argument, so go to denigrating. Very disappointing, I thought better of you. Perhaps the military brainwashing has gotten the better of you. In my Navy time, I noticed it is more pronounced the higher up in rank...
Post a Comment