Could anarchy work in human society?

maxpot46:

What do leading theorists have to do with it?  I'm talking about anarchists, like the one I responded to and the ones I've been hearing here.  But as long as you're implying that there are leading theorists who touch on this, help a brother out and point me in the right direction, please?

What do leading theorists have to do with it? Well, they're the ones doing the theorizing about anarchy. Are Brainpolice and I among the anarchists here that you are talkinga bout? And you would base such a claim on just one thread here. Have you read any of our essays or more developed blogposts?

As for the leading theorists of anarchy. They've been linked to quite a few times in this forum. Quite a few of them have been listed in the reading list posted at the top of the political theory forum, but others have been linked to in various threads on anarchy and the law. Some searching should bring them up.

maxpot46:

Not overlooked here.  I'm not too happy about it, but "will tend to be" seems like an easier thing to deal with than whatever you want to call anarchy, IMO.

I was putting it mildly. The growth of the state into Leviathan is pretty much inevitable. I'd much rather fight my battles for liberty against demagogues and petty tyrants in the more even playing field of an anarchic society than have the vast and concentrated power of a relative handful of states as in the current system.

maxpot46:

They seem to think that all they have to do is win one time, and it's over...  anarchy reigns, the statists are vanquished.  What about the next generation?  It'll probably have some natural born leaders in it, charismatic and smart, people obeying them since they day they were born.  You don't think they're going to try to coerce others?  You don't think people will flock to them?  You don't think they'll sell and market the state, probably as a counter to some whipped-up fear, and actually find lots and lots of people who eat it up?  

That is possible to do in a democratic elaction, or when there is a government to overthrow. But how eactly will these people raise guerillas to overthrow a buch of security firms? Why would anyone want to join them? What propaganda will they use to make people want risk there lives figting a bunch of companies that leaves them alone anyhow?

There is no stability problem with anarchy (unless the market is very small).

Companies don't grow there market shares forever. Disadvantages of scale come into play.
Having complete market domination without a monopoly or some form of government subsidy is a very rare thing that only happens in new industries which create very cool, very expensive stuff that no-one can actually buy yet. It will not happen in production of security. Unless there is some extreme economic advantage in having territorial monoply in production of security, but iI don't see why there would be.

liberty student:

I think that is a strawman.

I think I may be exagerating to make the point more clear. Your post is however packed with strawmen....

I am simply saying we would have a much better chance at getting rid of the government if everyone who called themselfs a libertarian was an anarchist. A strong anti-state movement would be effective, while an equally strong small-state movement is pretty much wasted. You need to get a whole lot of people involved in the latter before it starts being any use at all except for the state's survival.

A minarchist movement is however still much better a few stray anarchists or no movement at all. That is should have refuted this seems to be the basis of most of your post so I won't go into it further.

I would however like to point out that working within the system is completley useless. When a party becomes big enough to do any difference it will become like any other party.

Also it's unnessary since the government will abolish itself all on it's own if no-one tolerates it's precense.
Because doing this would be the only way for the politicans within it to stay in power as long as possible. Regardless of who is in charge the state will bend to public opinion.
Well either that or try to establish totalitarian control, but that isn't easy in a rich democratic state lacking any major social or economic problems.

It is also possible to make the governemt go away by enough people simply ignoring it. Just break the currency monopoly first and it should be fine even if a few [Ha! I got cencored. So insert another word for german style socialist] are the only ones left voting.

This also means that the system have to appear legitimate in the eyes of the people, it is vital to the existence of the state.
I think a guard in Auswich wase a criminal and legitimised the system wheter he beat jews or protested everytime his buddies was about to.
The only way anyone in that system could be without blame is they where there as a spy or sabotour. I am afriad that just voting against every tax raise doesn't qualify as sabotage. Government employes that steal money from the system, take a job at the IRS just to go into private tax consulting a few year later or voting yes on some crackpot propsal that will cause havoc when it's to be implemented are however all fine.

I am simply saying we would have a much better chance at getting rid of the government if everyone who called themselfs a libertarian was an anarchist. A strong anti-state movement would be effective, while an equally strong small-state movement is pretty much wasted. You need to get a whole lot of people involved in the latter before it starts being any use at all except for the state's survival.

I don't pretend to know whether you're right, but there's something to be said for your viewpoint. Working "within the system" is painfully slow, most of all because libertarians themselves will constantly work at cross purposes because they disagree what goes and what stays, or what goes first. The electoral system is designed to prevent big changes in government unless overwhelming masses of people cooperate over a period of time.

On the other hand, helping the state collapse of its own weight is as simple as counter-economic activity, or non-cooperation, or even hyper-cooperation. The US government is stabler than the USSR's, but the same problems plague it, and eventually will bring it down. Meanwhile, a healthy counter-economy means that there are existing institutions when it falls.

--Len

liberty student:

. . .

Meanwhile, agorism is some snails pace counter-culture approach that never has to answer for it's relative ineffectiveness or gradualism.

 

No it is not. Counter-economics is a means to achieve a little bit of liberty now at the expense of the state, and it works. There are already people who don't pay taxes, existing entirely through counter-economic means. And they don't live as hermits, either.

Agorist strategy is about making counter-economic goods and services more easily available than they already are in the counter-economy which already exists.

It's not an incremental approach by any means. It is a means to grasp hold of what liberty is available now while working to expand liberty in general, realizing that every time you exchange with someone and nobody gets taxed or regulated or inflated in the process, you starve the beast just a little more.

Zeddicus:

I think I may be exagerating to make the point more clear. Your post is however packed with strawmen....

On the contrary, I went back and read my post.  I don't think it is packed with strawmen.

Zeddicus:

I am simply saying we would have a much better chance at getting rid of the government if everyone who called themselfs a libertarian was an anarchist. A strong anti-state movement would be effective, while an equally strong small-state movement is pretty much wasted. You need to get a whole lot of people involved in the latter before it starts being any use at all except for the state's survival.

I think you would have a stronger chance if all of the statists became anarchists....

The reality is, people aren't interested in anarchy.  Not as a mass movement.  Maybe one day, when slome of the ideals of liberty have been won back and institutionalized in the cultural identity, but not from today as a starting point.  I've mentioned numerous times, that anarchy doesn't jive up with working class family folk, who just want to raise their children and enjoy life.  It might be convenient for transient young radicals, who have less self-imposed responsibilities,

Zeddicus:

I would however like to point out that working within the system is completley useless. When a party becomes big enough to do any difference it will become like any other party.

I don't necessarily believe this.  Just because you use a car to go from A to B, doesn't mean you have drive in that same car for the rest of your life.

Zeddicus:

Also it's unnessary since the government will abolish itself all on it's own if no-one tolerates it's precense.
Because doing this would be the only way for the politicans within it to stay in power as long as possible. Regardless of who is in charge the state will bend to public opinion.
Well either that or try to establish totalitarian control, but that isn't easy in a rich democratic state lacking any major social or economic problems.

It is also possible to make the governemt go away by enough people simply ignoring it. Just break the currency monopoly first and it should be fine even if a few [Ha! I got cencored. So insert another word for german style socialist] are the only ones left voting.

Now this reads like wishful thinking to me.  A state will not collapse in the absence of major social or economic problems.  The state won't allow it's citizens to out-evolve it.  Not when it controls industry, health care, education etc.

If my loved one has cancer, and I have to go to the state for treatment, because the equipment, drugs and doctors are not available in the agora, then I will.  And so will most other rational creatures.  We will compromise.  That's how torture works.  That's how coercion works.

I'd like some anecdotal evidence of a government collapsing and anarchy emerging.  Has it ever happened before?  Or was the power vacuum filled by another regime, another state?

MacFall:

No it is not. Counter-economics is a means to achieve a little bit of liberty now at the expense of the state, and it works. There are already people who don't pay taxes, existing entirely through counter-economic means. And they don't live as hermits, either.

Good for them.  Honestly.  If they can make it work, great.  We just need to find 20 million non-hermits in  Canada and 200 million non-hermits in the USA, and we can probably swing the tide.

MacFall:

Agorist strategy is about making counter-economic goods and services more easily available than they already are in the counter-economy which already exists.

Right, so let the secret out. 

MacFall:

It's not an incremental approach by any means. It is a means to grasp hold of what liberty is available now while working to expand liberty in general, realizing that every time you exchange with someone and nobody gets taxed or regulated or inflated in the process, you starve the beast just a little more.

Do economies collapse from people starving them?

 

liberty student:

Good for them.  Honestly.  If they can make it work, great.  We just need to find 20 million non-hermits in  Canada and 200 million non-hermits in the USA, and we can probably swing the tide.

Yeah, that is the goal. And it is going to be a lot easier to convince 220 million people to become counter-economists in their own interest than it is to convince just 30 million people to vote for a particular semi-libertarian candidate.

Right, so let the secret out. 

That's what we're doing.

Do economies collapse from people starving them?

Look at it this way - no government has EVER lasted forever, and there's no reason to believe that the modern state will, either. The state is a parasite that will outgrow its host. And that will happen soon. Maybe not next year, or this decade, but SOON. That is an economic certainty. The state weakens itself through the use of that which is assumed to be its advantage - its ability to create money.

If say, 25% of people start trading food for car repair service, that takes a HUGE chunk out of the state's revenue. Or what if the 40 million or so libertarians started bartering for 25% of everything they consumed? Or if half of them bartered for 50%?

That would simultaneously strengthen the counter-economy, and weaken the state to that extent. And that would make the counter-economy even MORE appealing to those who are not conscious participants. Which will bring some of them over. Which will make it even stronger, and weaken the state even more. Which will bring more over, which will strenthen the counter-economy and weaken the state... and so on until the state launches its counter-revolution, at which point we find out just how strong free-market security can be. Which, as I consider it to be a case of the market vs. the state, will result in the beginning of the end of the state.

Agorism is a viable theory because it shows people that liberty works - no academic proof needed.

Zeddicus:

maxpot46:

They seem to think that all they have to do is win one time, and it's over...  anarchy reigns, the statists are vanquished.  What about the next generation?  It'll probably have some natural born leaders in it, charismatic and smart, people obeying them since they day they were born.  You don't think they're going to try to coerce others?  You don't think people will flock to them?  You don't think they'll sell and market the state, probably as a counter to some whipped-up fear, and actually find lots and lots of people who eat it up?  

That is possible to do in a democratic elaction, or when there is a government to overthrow. But how eactly will these people raise guerillas to overthrow a buch of security firms? Why would anyone want to join them? What propaganda will they use to make people want risk there lives figting a bunch of companies that leaves them alone anyhow?

Oh, it would be frighteningly easy.  Who needs guerillas?

Friends, we're overlooking the economies of scale - if we band together to buy in quantity, negotiate as a bloc, and quit duplicating each other's efforts, we'll have pie in the sky, a chicken in every pot, and a glorious future.  Join The Movement today, and ensure a sunny future for yourselves, your children, and your grandchildren.

Comrades - we're facing a crisis here - The Movement, which has been here for you from the start, is now asking you for your help.  The Movement has supported you, done much for you, and asked for nothing in return - and I wish it could stay that way.  But Acme has come in, taking unfair advantage of the widget, and is threatening The Movement.  Can we count on you to back us up, this one time?

Citizens, there's a problem.  These old-fashioned, selfish people around us - they're sapping our strength, preventing us from becoming as prosperous as we could be.  It's unfair, selfish, and old-fashioned of them.  The Movement had hoped to coexist peacefully with them, but they refuse to allow it, so we must defend ourselves, our families, and our way of life.  Once we're rid of these few enemies of Truth, Motherhood, and Freedom, we'll be able to step into a glorious future, brimming with freedom and justice for all.

Brothers - that group over the hill has tricked us, lied to us, stolen from us.  The unspeakable heathens have used every underhanded means they could to rob us of our birthright.  Once we eradicate them, we can reclaim our birthright, and enjoy the prosperity they've stolen from us.  They're disgusting perverts who sacrifice the newborn babies they steal from us in the full moon, and they've got all of the loot that rightfully belongs to us. Let's reclaim what's ours, and show everyone for once and for all that nobody can mistreat The Movement - nobody!  To arms, brothers!

Like that wouldn't work - people are too smart to fall for such lines.  Feh.

There is no stability problem with anarchy (unless the market is very small).

The only anarchy that wouldn't have to work hard to prevent that would be a very small market.  The larger the market, the better such things work.

Danno, who has successfully depressed himself.

Danno:

Danno, who has successfully depressed himself.

I want to create a Mises blog where all I do is keep track of Danno's 3rd person sign-offs.

 

 

MacFall:

Yeah, that is the goal. And it is going to be a lot easier to convince 220 million people to become counter-economists in their own interest than it is to convince just 30 million people to vote for a particular semi-libertarian candidate.

You guys just refuse to "get it".  Ron Paul was not really running to win.  He was running to use the state electoral process as an educational opportunity.  This is a man who said (paraphrased), "if I win, I should take a paycut, because I will not be doing very much in office".  Serious candidates don't say crap like that.

MacFall:

Right, so let the secret out.  Smile

That's what we're doing.

If I have to ask again!  grrrrrrr

MacFall:

If say, 25% of people start trading food for car repair service, that takes a HUGE chunk out of the state's revenue. Or what if the 40 million or so libertarians started bartering for 25% of everything they consumed? Or if half of them bartered for 50%?

That would simultaneously strengthen the counter-economy, and weaken the state to that extent. And that would make the counter-economy even MORE appealing to those who are not conscious participants. Which will bring some of them over. Which will make it even stronger, and weaken the state even more. Which will bring more over, which will strenthen the counter-economy and weaken the state... and so on until the state launches its counter-revolution, at which point we find out just how strong free-market security can be. Which, as I consider it to be a case of the market vs. the state, will result in the beginning of the end of the state.

Agorism is a viable theory because it shows people that liberty works - no academic proof needed.

Right.  So the only stumbling blocks I see are...

The counter-revolution.  Blockading ports, attacking civilians, rounding people up in prisons, using bio-weapons etc.

Oh, and the international response to the revolution.  Where the UN decides to take over North America and impose martial law.

Don't get me wrong, I think agorism makes sense, mostly.  I don't think it' being marketed well, at least on this forum, and I don't think that the government will wait until it is weakest to wage a counter-revolution.  On the contrary, I'd be really surprised if this didn't get nipped in the bud around 5% participation.

You guys just refuse to "get it".  Ron Paul was not really running to win.  He was running to use the state electoral process as an educational opportunity.  This is a man who said (paraphrased), "if I win, I should take a paycut, because I will not be doing very much in office".  Serious candidates don't say crap like that.

It got him my vote. And about $300, which is the first penny I've ever given to anything remotely political.

--Len

liberty student:

You guys just refuse to "get it".  Ron Paul was not really running to win.  He was running to use the state electoral process as an educational opportunity.  This is a man who said (paraphrased), "if I win, I should take a paycut, because I will not be doing very much in office".  Serious candidates don't say crap like that.

Note that I didn't say "Ron Paul" anywhere in that post. I was comparing market-based strategy to political strategy.

If I have to ask again!  grrrrrrr

What?

Right.  So the only stumbling blocks I see are...

The counter-revolution.  Blockading ports, attacking civilians, rounding people up in prisons, using bio-weapons etc.

That isn't going to occur until the state percieves the counter-economy is a real threat, at which time the counter-economy will be a real threat to the state...

Oh, and the international response to the revolution.  Where the UN decides to take over North America and impose martial law.

I'd just LOVE to see the smerfs try that, with 60 million armed Americans, nearly all of whom are libertarians or conservatives who despise the UN.

I don't think it' being marketed well, at least on this forum

I agree 100%. That is being worked on. The movement is still new - only about 30 years. But it is expanding geometrically, and among its new members are people with the skills needed to make it work. It's not just an intellectual exercise anymore.

and I don't think that the government will wait until it is weakest to wage a counter-revolution.  On the contrary, I'd be really surprised if this didn't get nipped in the bud around 5% participation.

I also doubt until it will wait until it is at its weakest, but it is already beyond 5% participation. The IRS's own data shows that "underground" transactions constitute about 8% of economic movement.

Also, I think you underestimate the state's actual ability to control people. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the state to keep track of everything its people do. The idea that the government can possibly know about even a fraction of all the unreported activity that goes on within its borders is logistically absurd. Even the USSR, for all its horrible accomplishments, couldn't squelch the black market. It saturated the bureaucracy, because it was in the interest of the bureaucrats to join it. That's how it will happen here, as well. The state won't be able to maintain its enforcement apparatus if it can't pay its members.

And even if the state does start to crack down while its money (and hence, its control mechanism) is still strong - how does that guarantee its victory? State abuse makes the state less popular, even if it does scare the majority of its subjects. Did the arrest of the Browns stop people from resisting taxes? No; there were less income tax returns this year than in many years past, and more people starting to openly defy the IRS. Did the raid of the Liberty Dollar stop people from buying barter money? No; even more new companies popped up. And look at the smoking bans of late. They didn't stop smoking; they created "smoke-easies". And the attempts to clso those and fine transgressors have been almost ENTIRELY fruitless.

Finally, so what? Even if that is not an indication of the state's ineptitude, I don't see why that should matter. We don't oppose the state because dissent is fun, or easy. We oppose the state because it is our enemy. And if they start shooting, they will find that at least some Americans remember why they are American and not British. And then we might lose. But I don't think we will.

I suspect that you are objecting to market-based strategy because it requires one largely to abandon political strategies. Is that correct? Because if so, I would point out that I support the saturation of local political structures with libertarians. But I maintain that it is impossible for the state to be changed from within, through top-down reform measures. Remember, the state doesn't follow its own rules.

Even ignoring for now that a libertarian in posession of political power cannot act libertarian - a libertarian congress would effect an executive that ignores the powers of congress. A libertarian executive would effect a legislature that marginalizes the executive. A libertarian executive AND congress - that's a pipe dream. Libertarians can't even make change happen in state governments.

And the reason for that is simple - the vast majority of people prefer their comfortable prison to the personal responsibility and risk involved with liberty. That is why revolutions are NEVER won by majorities. They are always won by dedicated minorities - who cannot, as a matter of mathematical fact, win elections.