Could anarchy work in human society?

Zeddicus writes "Yes, people do have a right to us force against criminals. There is no problem with forcing someone who have harmed me to be put on trial in the court i choose." It seems to me that there are several problems here. First, if we posit a right to use force against criminals, it isn't clear how, in an anarchist order, that translates to the right to use force against accused criminals. Next, if a person can be forced to use a particular court, without any previous committment, that seems to open the door to abuses far worse than what we see in states. What we'd have would be what we have now in defense contracting and private prisons - private companies, driven by profit motive, but without the usual market restraints. Just how will you incentivize fair and impartial courts if only the accuser gets to choose the court? Why won't the courts compete regarding how often they can get a guilty verdict, and how harsh the sentences are?

maxpot46:

In my experience, I have been quite persuasive and am responsible for several converts.  Of course, I'm no Ron Paul...  yet.  But there seems to be more support for a limited state than for anarchy.

Right and it's my belief that it is easier to get to anarchy from a limited state mentality, than it is from a totalitarian state mentality.  Either way, I like that Ron Paul uses his office to spread libertarian, free market and sound money ideals.  He's the heretic preaching in the temple.

 

 

liberty student:

maxpot46:

In my experience, I have been quite persuasive and am responsible for several converts.  Of course, I'm no Ron Paul...  yet.  But there seems to be more support for a limited state than for anarchy.

Right and it's my belief that it is easier to get to anarchy from a limited state mentality, than it is from a totalitarian state mentality.

QFT. That was certainly the route I followed.

--Len

maxpot46:

No, I hold anarchy to be impossible because it's far too frightening for most personality types.  Personally I think like, and share the values of, an anarchist, but as a political strategist I think minarchy is the best we can hope for.  I mean, is anyone else profoundly unimpressed by the lack of progress Agorism has made over the last 30 years?

The level of Statism that USAians live in today would have been impossible 100 years ago - it would have been horrifying for most personality types.  The current popular understanding of economics, freedom, statism, and anarchy may make anarchy unreachable at present, but that does not, in itself, make anarchy impossible or unworkable.

I first heard of the libertarian movement back in the late '70s, and only heard about Agorism very recently, but I share your disappointment in the progress that they've both failed to make.  From what I've seen on the libertarian end of things, it's largely because of the energy spent on debates within the movement, that could have been more productively spent in convincing the population at large.  Far too many are unwilling to work towards any transitory-but-promising step, because it's not "pure", a compromise of their goals.  They want to go from standing on the beach to swimming in the deep end without wading at knee depth.

Expecting that you'll be able to swim when you get there is important when you're wading in ankle-deep, and avoiding the unintended consequences that turned Marxism into the USSR is clearly essential - so modeling the end result with careful attention to loopholes, methods of dealing with those who would seek power over their neighbors, and contingency plans for dealing with Bruce the Shark if he shows up are clearly important. 

How will we cope when the waves get high?  Will our faces being wet prevent us from breathing effectively?  Will Danno let go of the metaphor? When we have workable answers to every question we can think of, or questions arise that we cannot answer, then we'll know whether anarchy could work or not.

Keynes was wrong; what happens in the long run does matter, and governments can't write bad checks indefinitely.  The financial policies of most countries will lead to collapse, just as surely as they led to the collapse of the USSR.  Preventing that by switching to a workable system would be lovely, and switching to a workable system after such a collapse would be essential - but neither of these is possible if there is no workable system on the drawing board.

Thus, my question: can anarchy be made to work in a human society?  My jury's still out, but the roads monopoly and the certainty that some would refuse to cooperate do look to be unsurmountable problems - if they can't be solved, it's time to look at other systems, to see if they can be made to work.  Personally, I'd prefer to work toward a system that would maximize freedom, and avoid a system with the unforseen consequences of the one they tried with an eye toward maximizing "fairness".

Danno

maxpot46:

No, I hold anarchy to be impossible because it's far too frightening for most personality types.  Personally I think like, and share the values of, an anarchist, but as a political strategist I think minarchy is the best we can hope for.

Personally I think minarchy is what is impossible. It can never work, in order to limit government so much it won't just expand again you need to limit it so much it will dissapear shortly after. I have a sked a lot of minarchist to give me a model of a limited government that have any chance of keeping doing what it's supposed to and nothing else, I havn't gotten a decent answer yet. Minarchy is utopian and it has other problems as well. You are actually legitimising the current system by saying "yeah, the state is good and all we just need less of it."

Minarchist are damaging the case for liberty impensly. If people had been saying we don't need to abolish slavery, we just need a few laws restricts abuse of slaves and everything will be fine. Then we would probably still have had slavery today...

Molyneux explains part of this problem here http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/molyneux/molyneux3.html

 

 

 

 

 

JAlanKatz:

What we'd have would be what we have now in defense contracting and private prisons - private companies, driven by profit motive, but without the usual market restraints. Just how will you incentivize fair and impartial courts if only the accuser gets to choose the court? Why won't the courts compete regarding how often they can get a guilty verdict, and how harsh the sentences are?

I only said you have the right to use force against someone you know have stolen from you. What courts or anyone else have to say about it is completley irrelevant. This is a very basic part of your right to life, liberty and property. This gives you the right to force a criminal into any court you choose. I didn't say that this is the likley way in which things will happen.

If you are dealing with organised criminals you will be at war with them and it will happen this way. Most people who didn't plan a life of crime however will have some insurance that offer them the support of loads of guys with guns until there guilt is proven. These guys with guns have however no interest in protecting a criminal so they will work thogheter with my guys with guns to figure out if this person have commited the crime i am accusing him of or not. There is no reason why these shouldn't be able to agree on a court in which this is determined.
At this point they booth want the same thing which is the truth, so agreeing shouldn't be that difficult. If this guy actually is a criminal he will cause more proplems for his company down the line too so they want to know it also.

If it is decided he is guilty his contract with his defence agency or what not will most likley be rendered void (he will become an outlaw) and be turned over to the mercy of my agency which will take what they think is approriate compensation for me from him and send him on his way. It is unlikley that he will ever be able to get a contract with any agency except some ex-con charity groups or such ever again. There may however still be some limited protection from his old agency as well as various charity groups against him being subjected to exessive force.

Also it is more problemetic if the crime in question isn't considered substantial enough by his agency to render his contract void. This is pretty unlikley though because it will be very expensive to protect people against stuff that are viewed as crimes by the rest of society.

And yes this possibility of creating outlaws is a problem in anarchy, however there is no way to solve it that doesn't lead to worse things. It's also a problem limited by the markets demand for harsh penalties as well as various groups that might take an interest in various types of criminals and protect them from exessive force. It is not unlikley that there will be charity groups for young criminals and people whos criminal behaviour is a result of them being in some form of desperate situation. Almost no-one will take an interest in murderers, rapists and child molesters ofcourse. But I don't see a problem with them becomming complete outlaws after guilt is decided....

Zeddicus:

Personally I think minarchy is what is impossible. It can never work, in order to limit government so much it won't just expand again you need to limit it so much it will dissapear shortly after. I have a sked a lot of minarchist to give me a model of a limited government that have any chance of keeping doing what it's supposed to and nothing else, I havn't gotten a decent answer yet.

And anarchy is going to keep doing what it is supposed to do?  Only by being educated, vigilant and defending your rights.  Both systems can exist with enough resolve, however anarchism is a form of perfection (the complete absence of government).  I haven't had much luck finding perfection in this world.

Zeddicus:

You are actually legitimising the current system by saying "yeah, the state is good and all we just need less of it."

Nonsense.  This is a strawman and I think it's a false proposition as well.  The argument is not that the state is good, the argument is still anti-state, however there is a recognition that you cannot close the state in one day, with one act, in one moment.  That in order to keep a majority from pushing a state on a minority, attitudes have to shift, and the state needs to be defeated in hearts and minds, before it can be dismantled or collapse physically.

 

Zeddicus:

Minarchist are damaging the case for liberty impensly. If people had been saying we don't need to abolish slavery, we just need a few laws restricts abuse of slaves and everything will be fine. Then we would probably still have had slavery today...

Slavery still exists today.  It wasn't abolished.  We have tax slavery.  We have the potential of conscription.  We don't own our own property.  Your argument is bizarre.  You're anti-state, and yet you are making the case that the state abolished slavery throgh state processes.  If anything, that's an argument for minarchism in my opinion.

 

liberty student:

And anarchy is going to keep doing what it is supposed to do?  Only by being educated, vigilant and defending your rights.  Both systems can exist with enough resolve, however anarchism is a form of perfection (the complete absence of government).  I haven't had much luck finding perfection in this world.

Well, isn't minarchy in the eyes of minarchists?

As to the question of whether anarchy "will keep doing what it is supposed to do," there is no guarantee with any political system. However, I do think that anarchy lacks the strong structural incentives that even a minarchist state has that lead to the state's inevitable growth into Leviathan.

liberty student:

And anarchy is going to keep doing what it is supposed to do?  Only by being educated, vigilant and defending your rights.  Both systems can exist with enough resolve, however anarchism is a form of perfection (the complete absence of government).  I haven't had much luck finding perfection in this world.

There will still be crime and there will still be government wannabies. There will be poverty, sucides, prositiution, drugs. It's not a recepie for a perfect world in any way. Such a thing is impossible.

liberty student:

That in order to keep a majority from pushing a state on a minority, attitudes have to shift, and the state needs to be defeated in hearts and minds, before it can be dismantled or collapse physically.

And you do that by defending the state and claiming it could be good if it was just smaller? It won't start to go away until people realise it's bad and unecessary.

liberty student:

Slavery still exists today.  It wasn't abolished.  We have tax slavery.  We have the potential of conscription.  We don't own our own property.  Your argument is bizarre.  You're anti-state, and yet you are making the case that the state abolished slavery throgh state processes.  If anything, that's an argument for minarchism in my opinion.

Ehm, most laws we have seen this far are written by states. What does that have to do with anything? Maybe if it had been abolished by internal preassure inside the state alone, but I still don't see the relevance. It's not about that it's, about how people would have responded to a situation where there had been very few aboloshinishts and most of them instead had just been preaching on about a little less slavery then there was. It wouldn't have been very effective at all in creating any preassure to either abolish or reduce slavery, cause they would have been saying that there really isn't that much wrong with it. The system just needs to be tweaked a bit and everything will be fine...

Basically you are giving people a false choice, that let's them avoid necessary change. Really statists can't find better allies then a few minarchist in there mists to legitimise the state's existence with there precense and throwing people of the real issue.

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

As to the question of whether anarchy "will keep doing what it is supposed to do," there is no guarantee with any political system. However, I do think that anarchy lacks the strong structural incentives that even a minarchist state has that lead to the state's inevitable growth into Leviathan.

Is human nature a structural incentive?

 

 

 

liberty student:

Is human nature a structural incentive?

No. Structural incentives operate at the level of political and market institutions, organization structure, market processes, etc. See Robert Higgs's book Crisis and Leviathan, for example. Chris Matthew Sciabarra's Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism is good for getting you to think about social phenomena on multiple levels of analysis: personal (psycho-epistemological, ethical), cultural (linguistic, aesthetic, etc.), structural (politics, economics, law)

Zeddicus:

liberty student:

That in order to keep a majority from pushing a state on a minority, attitudes have to shift, and the state needs to be defeated in hearts and minds, before it can be dismantled or collapse physically.

And you do that by defending the state and claiming it could be good if it was just smaller? It won't start to go away until people realise it's bad and unecessary.

Who is defending the state?  It's a matter of attacking it strategically, breaking it up, chunk by chunk.  It won't go away until we actually make progress.  Until then, it's all theory and high ideals.

Zeddicus:

Ehm, most laws we have seen this far are written by states. What does that have to do with anything? Maybe if it had been abolished by internal preassure inside the state alone, but I still don't see the relevance. It's not about that it's, about how people would have responded to a situation where there had been very few aboloshinishts and most of them instead had just been preaching on about a little less slavery then there was. It wouldn't have been very effective at all in creating any preassure to either abolish or reduce slavery, cause they would have been saying that there really isn't that much wrong with it. The system just needs to be tweaked a bit and everything will be fine...

The assumption here is that minarchists see minarchy as an endpoint, not as a waypoint.  I don't believe that is true.  I believe anarchists are the true radicals, who see only complete anarchy as a measure of progress.  Basically, all or nothing.

The system does need to be tweaked.  Tweaked and tweaked and tweaked until it is declawed, defanged and almost complete powerless.  Death by a thousand cuts.

Zeddicus:

Basically you are giving people a false choice, that let's them avoid necessary change. Really statists can't find better allies then a few minarchist in there mists to legitimise the state's existence with there precense and throwing people of the real issue.

Avoid necessary change?  Not at all.  I'm proposing that instead of debating if mutualist socialists syndicalists left anarcho-capitalist libertarian objectivists are really left or right, we should start pursuing change, even if it is in small steps.

Or we can keep alienating the minarchists because we don't think our arguments for anarchy are persuasive enough.  That's the problem here.  It's Anarchy or Statism, with nothing inbetween.  It's success or failure, with nothing in between.  Extremism.  Opinions and self-growth don't transition through a lifetime like that.  It's unnatural.

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

No. Structural incentives operate at the level of political and market institutions, organization structure, market processes, etc. See Robert Higgs's book Crisis and Leviathan, for example. Chris Matthew Sciabarra's Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism is also good for getting you to think about social phenomena on multiple levels of analysis: personal (psycho-epistemological, ethical), cultural (linguistic, aesthetic, etc.), structural (politics, economics, law)

Thanks, but I was being facetious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

liberty student:

Who is defending the state?

Everyone that sais if we just had less government everything would be fine...

liberty student:

The assumption here is that minarchists see minarchy as an endpoint, not as a waypoint.

Not any minarchist I have meet. Then thend to belive anarchy is impossible and will de-rail into chaos or at least a higher degree of offensive force then under a limited government. (The latter might actually be true, unless limited government had been impossible.)

liberty student:

I believe anarchists are the true radicals, who see only complete anarchy as a measure of progress.  Basically, all or nothing.

Who would that be? Every piece of the government that is sliced of is a victory which I think most anarchist agree on. Even if it tends to grow back someplace else. The problem is when a person who just thinks something is wrong with the government in general. The first person he sees who thinks something remotley the same is Ron Paul. So he goes and votes for Ron Paul.

This is not only a completley futuile guesture to create more liberty it also legitimises the system since Ron Paul is part of it. If instead of finding Ron Paul had just shouted out that the government is crap and should go and die, and enough people had done this it might actually scare politicans enough to roll back the state a bit so these upset people don't see as much of it and hopefully (from the politicans viewpoint) go away. By then these people might have been sucked up by anarchist movements and don't go away so the state needs to retreat further and further.

Now you get a cycle where every once in a while someone that does a lot of tweaking but not nearly enough is voted into power. It doesn't solve anything so people loose interest, they go away and the state grown back.

Zeddicus:

liberty student:

Who is defending the state?

Everyone that sais if we just had less government everything would be fine...

I haven't seen anyone here say that.  I've not seen anyone here refute the idea that less government would be better than existing conditions, either.

liberty student:

The assumption here is that minarchists see minarchy as an endpoint, not as a waypoint.

Not any minarchist I have meet. Then thend to belive anarchy is impossible and will de-rail into chaos or at least a higher degree of offensive force t