I've ascribed my life as an 'anarcho-capitalist' or a 'rational anarchist'. In my discussions with a friend of mine, he always points back towards the inevitability of government. That man has a natural tendency towards community, socializing, and hierarchy. He points to history as his example.
How do you guys argue with this?
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Government is like cancer. If you live long enough you will get it. Anything is inevitable over long periods of time.
If you do not fight it, it will spread. You should fight it. Case closed
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
There is nothing inevitable about government.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: There is nothing inevitable about government.
Care to elaborate?
what is used to substantiate its inevitability?
I think you're debating theoretically.
This guy's friend is just looking at history... The theoretical arguments probably won't fly.
Snowflake: I think you're debating theoretically. This guy's friend is just looking at history... The theoretical arguments probably won't fly.
Yessir, this is correct.
"And on the question of why we don’t see any industrialized country that has anarchy – of course, we also don’t see any industrialized county that has monarchy. But then industrialized countries haven’t been around all that long. There was a time when people said every civilized country (or just about every civilized country) is a monarchy. You find people in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saying: look, all the civilized countries are monarchies; democracy would never work. And by saying democracy would never work, they meant not just that it would have these various bad results in the long run; they just thought it would completely fall apart into chaos in a matter of months. Whatever you may think of democracy, it was more viable than they predicted. It could last longer, at any rate, than they predicted. So, things are in flux. There was a time when it was all monarchies. Now it’s all semi-oligarchical democracies. The night is young." - Long
LibertarianAnarchy.com - Government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn't work!
I would agree that it is inevitable, but not that its current form is inevitable.
As a matter of fact, the world's governments are in anarchy vis-à-vis each other, and so it can also be argued that anarchy is inevitable.
It is inevitable that today's governments will collapse. If the process of collapse-renewal becomes a market for security, then government is both inevitable and not.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Stranger:is both inevitable and not.
Stranger, perhaps inevitable isn't then the best word to communicate your ideas.....
Excellent quote. Long Rod strikes again. He's such a good historian.
nirgrahamUK: Stranger:is both inevitable and not. Stranger, perhaps inevitable isn't then the best word to communicate your ideas.....
Perhaps, but the subject of inevitability is muddled to begin with. We might as well be debating whether or not death is inevitable, or life inevitable.
Stranger:subject of inevitability is muddled to begin with.
I totally agree in general. The OP quotes its use in a particular narrow context imho, therefore its fair to address it in this context.
we are not condemned to the state and the project of libertarianism is not foolish since it has the hope of being realised.
Lawsome: I've ascribed my life as an 'anarcho-capitalist' or a 'rational anarchist'. In my discussions with a friend of mine, he always points back towards the inevitability of government. That man has a natural tendency towards community, socializing, and hierarchy. He points to history as his example. How do you guys argue with this?
Man does indeed have a natural tendency towards community, socializing and hierarchy; none of these things are incompatible with freedom. Many, if not most people, have a mental block which keeps them from thinking of these things in anything but statist terms. If one can step outside of the propaganda they've been fed all their lives, it's fairly easy to see that organization and pro-social behavior doesn't require the violence inherent in a state.
Perhaps the first step is to separate the term "government" from "state". Governance doesn't necessarily require coercion, and it's totally possible to conceive of voluntary assent to a governing body. In fact, many U.S. "Old West" communities banded together for security on a completely voluntary basis.
Indeed, the existence of government is practically inevitable. But is the existence of monopoly government practically inevitable?
Ask him to argumentatively prove it maybe?
To darkness I condemn you...
He is correct that man is a social animanl, but man can socialize in other ways than through the state. In fact, the state is fundamentally antisocial because it operates through coercion. It's not a voluntary organization. No one would point to the mafia as a good example of a healthy way for people to socialize.
Also, government rests in part on consent of the people. If the people did not consent, there would be no government. Given that political opinions can change, government is not inevitable, just likely (in the current enviornment; e.g. widespread state worship).
His argument is bullshit. Call him on it.
"Constitution worship is our most extended public political ritual, frequently supervised as often by mountebanks as by the sincere"-James J Martin
Lawsome:In my discussions with a friend of mine, he always points back towards the inevitability of government.
I'd say it's inevitable that some people or groups would want to seize power and rule over others. That doesn't mean that anarchy is impossible since you can find historical examples of such communities.
Lawsome:That man has a natural tendency towards community, socializing, and hierarchy.
Again, you don't need a government to do all that, they only make things worse.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Until people realize that the necessities of life can and should be taken care of on their own, we are always going to get some sort of governance over our lives.
That's my thought on the issue.
Lawsome: In my discussions with a friend of mine, he always points back towards the inevitability of government. That man has a natural tendency towards community, socializing, and hierarchy. He points to history as his example. How do you guys argue with this?
In my discussions with a friend of mine, he always points back towards the inevitability of government. That man has a natural tendency towards community, socializing, and hierarchy. He points to history as his example.
Historically, it's clear that government has been wellnigh de facto "inevitable" (to stretch the meaning of that word). I propose that there are economic, religious, educational, and technological factors that have made government such a likely outcome.
Long argues in terms of evolving toward anarchy as we become more advanced. I wanted to flesh that kind of argument out more, which led to my off-the-cuff sketch of what the major factors at play might be, and how they could change:
Interconnectedness of individuals and institutions (economic relationships, contractual agreements, etc.)Decentralization of power (the very essence of anarchy)Education and enlightenment of the people (especially in the study of political economy)Advancement of economic prosperity and technology (in a word, civilization)
More on this here.
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap