Yes, people really are anarchists, and it works!

I don't understand your last sentence, but love your picture of Murray Rothbard. To me that a true icon.

 

The 'golden rule' as a method tells you next to nothing. To a Nazi, the golden rule might say "If I was a Jew, I would want to be gassed". Almost anything can be justified by reference to a procedure void of content. Think 'democracy'.

 

People like Bakunin, Proudhon, and Emma Goldman made some great contributions to political thought, but as products of their time, when serfdom was still rampant, they couldn't seem to make up their minds if they were statists or anti-statists. Add to that the fact that today in the popular press people who throw stones through store windows at Group of Eight meetings, and so on, are often referred to as "anarchists." So actually, to avoid confusion, perhaps the OP should have used the term "individualism" instead of "anarchism." But that's up to him.

I love the quote below from Proudhon:

“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.”

 

The right to exclusive use entails retaliatory force when some deprives you of this exclusive use.

Anything position other than "anything goes, the powerful win" involves some sort of exclusive use. Left anarchism merely places this exclusive use with all. In their society, if an upstart capitalist applies his labor to the land, makes fields of wheat, then refrains from giving this to the collective (or worse yet, trades it to another) - then the Collectivists will invoke an exclusive use right and try to take it back.

Don't get me wrong, right anarchism does the same thing - we ascribe exclusive use rights. The only real difference is the left places them with the community, while the right places them with the person who brings them into use.

 

Forget the Golden Rule. Does the Non-aggression Principle also tell you nothing? If it's meaning is clearer it's perfectly acceptable to me.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Capitalism does no such thing. Capitalism prefers no government at all. Capitalism is nothing more than an observation of market forces at work when left alone by outside forces such as government.

I'm not saying anything about anarchy... but capitalism doesn't want or need government.

 

O.K. What if a strong individual starts to behave immorally and inflicts their will upon the weaker in the community? Might the weaker people (behaving in their own self-interest) band together to overcome the strong "tyrant"? What if he bands together with other people himself to counter their move? Is this not the beginning of governance as like-minded individuals start to band together to overcome others coercion? What do anarchists do to people who "willingly" call for governance? Do they force their will upon them and destroy the will of the others?

I agree that people can accomplish MUCH more tyranny collectively, just as they can accomplish MUCH more freedom collectively.

If it is so attainable, why has it never been sustained? Why has it never been chosen as a form of governance and worked? The very nature of anarchy leads to its destruction. Either the people will demand governance, or better organized country's will bring it to them. My proof of this is 2,500 years of human history, what is your proof to the contrary?

This may be easy to understand on an abstract level, but reality is rarely so black and white. How does anarchy resolve the Isreal-Palestine conflict? Climate Change? Religion?

I disagree. People acting collectively can accomplish much more. When people work collectively they need established rules of interactions to cover all the grey areas of life. Government fills this role, sometimes effectively, sometimes not.

How exactly would an anarchic society protect itself from an outside military force without forming some form of government? If a large centralized government was surrounded by multiple anarchic societies who only defended themselves, couldn't they just be picked off one at a time? If they all agreed to help defend each other (collectively) for the greater good, how would they be able to effectively maneuver their military without some sort of hierarchy?

Again, you would need to collectively decide this and organize yourselves around this ideal. Anarchies have always been (and will always be) doomed to 1 of 2 fates: 1.) Military conquest by other peoples with more organized governance 2.) Peoples fear of this will cause them to demand governance (hence ending anarchy)

My proof? Look around the world, where do you see these anarchic regions? They don't exist for the above mentioned reasons. They have all been
conquered or converted. 100%. This is beyond pure chance.

 

This is very, very, true. If we all became anarchic it would lead to EXTREME capitalism. Those with money would have ALL the power instead of just most of it.

 

This is hard to swallow.

I postulate that Anarchies will always (and have always) folded in on themselves due to 1.) Being conquered or 2.) Ditching Anarchy for fear of being conquered.

Let's take this step by step and see where we disagree.

1.) People have co-habitated with each other for centuries. Agree?

2.) Some areas co-habitated in ways that had very little centralized power, some in ways with more centralized power. Agree?

3.) These areas of people have been warring/trading/allying/etc. for centuries. Agree?

4.) After centuries of warring ALL groups of people left have either 1.) Formed a government or 2.) Been destroyed. Agree?

How can you look at this outcome of survival of the fittest and come to the conclusion that this isn't a STRONG argument against Anarchy being sustainable or viable? If this doesn't disprove anarchy, what would? I've come up with a pretty strong argument for Military Conquest by more centralized powers being the reason for which Anarchy is not viable, what exactly is your counter-argument to this? Specifically, how do you think a society built around Anarchy could ever overcome this Military Conquest without forming a government itself? If it has no historical standard, from what logic do you build from? Blind Faith?

You seem to think its never been tried, but it has. People have lived in small settlements without government. In ALL cases, this anarchic situation evolved into either governance or being conquered. You seem to think because these people were conquered and thus don't exist anymore that it proves it possible, how so?

 

While true that capitalism and anarchy are at odds idelogically, that still doesn't change the fact that if government dissolved there would be no "check" to capitalism or the power of those with wealth. Yet another reason that Anarchy would fold in on itself.

 

Well, if anarchists amassed and overthrew a capitalist government to replace it with a socialist one, how would this be Anarchy reigning?

If you do count it as Anarchy reigning, what would you call people who wanted to abolish that form of government? Would they not be Anarchists? How can Anarchists win a revolution to establish a socialist government that other Anarchists want to overthrow? Who is the true anarchist? Might it be more accurate to say that anarchists merely want less centralized power in their government, and as this power decentralizes fewer and fewer people would call themselves anarchists? If this is true, by nature, anarchies would always lose steam because the more they succeed the less people support them.

 

Your clarification of terminology doesn't detract from Bluespade's point. At whatever level of Anarchism one adheres to, unless there were UNANIMOUS agreement forever, they would have to force it upon others for it to continue, which is counter to what anarchists preach.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, once we as a race have attained this point of enlightenment, it wouldn't how much or little government we had since we would all be functioning at this higher level by default.

 

Since "anarchist" and "anarchism" are such muddy words, meaning different things to different people, mostly negative things at that; and since the term "libertarian" has been besmirched by the LP's failure to speak out early against the "shock and awe" on Iraq, and the term "libertarian" has largely been co-opted by the right; and since the word "voluntaryist" is unwieldly at best, what do you think about resurrecting the old label, "individualist?" What are the pros and cons?

(Not to mention the word "capitalist," which has come to mean disciples of Dick Cheney.)

 

How does anarchism deal with the problem of the commons, the free-rider problem, negative and positive externalities, and other market failures in the absence of a government?

 

Professor David Friedman, Milton and Rose Friedman's son, deals with exactly those problems in his book, The Machinery of Freedom: A Guide to Radical Capitalism.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Machinery-Freedom-Radical-Capitalism/dp/0812690699
Not sure if your question was directed to me, but again, I have no use for the word "capitalism" and think that the words "anarchism" and "libertarianism" are much too confused to describe anything in a useful, accurate way, and instead prefer the old term "individualism" which upholds the primacy of the individual, and is the opposite of statism, state worship.

 

These are just clown theories from people who have a robust and organized infrastructure that allows them the security to ramble on about not wanting any law and order. It's just uneducated thought processes from people who are completely disconnected from reality.

 

Anarchy really works? Where?

 

Pretty much only in their heads, lol. There's definitely no real example in the past 10,000 years that shows anarchy works, haha.

 

I would say prohibition ended from a bit of Anarchy, when enough people demand a product it is crazy to forbid it, legislate actions while under the influence, not the drinking itself...ect...

 

What do you mean by "works"?

In the context used, the term implies that anarchism fails to achieve some normative goal, presumably prosperity, public health, etc.

Anarchism is axiomatic - it is its own normative goal. Trace any political philosophy back through its means and you'll eventually find an axiomatic normative position. For example, the ACA is a means to ensure the public has health insurance, which is a means to ensure that the public can afford sufficient healthcare, which is a means to the end of public health. In this case your axiom would be "do whatever ensures public health".

It would be silly for me to point out that public health as an axiom can violate the non-aggression principle, because that's not their end. Similarly, it is, in my view, a little shortsighted of you lads to point out that the NAP doesn't lead to public health or whatever other end you have in mind.

Criticize away, I'm all for criticism, but it makes little sense to point out that an end doesn't fulfill your own: ambitions are subjective. Focus instead on the virtue of that axiom. Don't like right anarchism because you're more attracted to collective ownership of resources? Fine, that's a very apt criticism indeed. Not one that I'd agree with, but to each their own.

[hr][/hr]

Oh, and I feel it necessary to point out that my position only endorses anarchism indirectly. There's nothing special about the state in my worldview. Since I reject the social contract and all other consent justifications I've come across for the state, I see the state as just a method of coercion like all others: theft, murder, etc.

 

So basically what you are saying is it's impossible to show anarchism doesn't work because there is no quantifiable measurement to prove the success of anarchism. So it's impossible to say, hey... unemployment under this anarchist society is 50% but that does not mean it has failed, it just means 50% of people aren't good enough to find jobs.

This is why people think anarchists and people like them are crazy, they are completely detached from reality and live in a dream world where we would surely be taken over by a sophisticated and organized country with a strong government.

 

I'm saying that it's a logical truth that you cannot derive a normative ought from the descriptive world around us. Such statements are just the expression of subjective human will.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hume's_law

[hr][/hr]

Follow your position back and you'll come to an axiomatic statement also. Anarchism is not unique in this.

 

That wasn't anarchy. I want to see an area that has NO government. Anarchy is not "some people ignoring certain laws while still benefiting from a bunch of social programs and socially funded infrastructure."

Ask the OP what he means by "works." I'm asking for an example of where it "works," and I haven't seen any examples.

 

I don't deal with this philosophical drivel. I'm a purely objective person that needs to see results. Like how many people have food to eat, how many people have shelter, jobs, cars, computers, income, etc, etc.

The rest of these made up laws that you guys live by are completely meaningless. Just some crap someone thought up in their head to pass off their ridiculous ideology.

 

Those results that you hold in such high esteem would then be your end, but whatever, to each his own. I gave my opinion, you gave yours - seems like a good exchange of ideas to me.