This is a response to this post.
Bardock42: I am ultimately anarchist, though for strategic purposes I do tend to argue on minarchist terms with outsiders of the cause. I do see problems with anarchy in our current society...meaning if the government was suddenly abandoned at this moment people would not be able to deal with it and chaos would ensue, likely followed by the creation of another government (probably worse). To me the way to true, enlightened anarchy can only lead through minarchist channels. So, lets achieve the small government first, then we can take the last, little step.
I am ultimately anarchist, though for strategic purposes I do tend to argue on minarchist terms with outsiders of the cause. I do see problems with anarchy in our current society...meaning if the government was suddenly abandoned at this moment people would not be able to deal with it and chaos would ensue, likely followed by the creation of another government (probably worse). To me the way to true, enlightened anarchy can only lead through minarchist channels. So, lets achieve the small government first, then we can take the last, little step.
Anarchy is not the end of history where all problems of social relations are settled. It is, like democracy, a process for establishing law. Where in a democracy a majority group or their representative(s) can will the law over a territory, in anarchy the law is made through reciprocal exchanges. What this implies is that the transition from democracy to anarchy is nothing more than the abolition of the democratic process of law-production and substitution with an anarchic process of law-production, and not necessarily the abolition of any of the organizations or institutions that were created under democracy. These institutions, such as the different police departments, pension fund administrations and intelligence agencies, certainly lose an enormous amount of power by the fact that their rule can no longer be imposed on recalcitrant people, but they are not abolished and the elimination of their power will take place over a long period of time as the process of law-production unwinds. They can reform or liquidate themselves into productive members of society, and those people who fear switching to the other side can continue to enjoy their protection in that process.
The revolution targets one thing and one thing only: power. Once power has been abolished, the old organizations can continue, so long as they play by the new rules. Anarchy in that sense is reformism.
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
A sudden abolition of government will never happen; I don't see that as a realistic possibility. So of course it will be gradual. I don't necessarily see it happening through clear steps like 1) less government through elected representatives, 2)Jeffersonian state, 3) everyone getting together and saying "this minimal government thing is good; lets try no government at all." What I'm driving at is that I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "minarchist channels," but I think there is probably not any set path to get there, and perhaps many of the ways to do so would be more properly called "anarchist channels."
I've always thought that it must come about by first educating the people. This is by far the most important step towards establishing an anarchist world. The people of this country far and away believe more and more in socialism and it is our job to retrain them as best we can. Second, we would have to successfully reduce the size of the state to bare minimal levels. We would then have to eliminate all of the state run monopolies such as the post office, defense, etc. allowing private enterprise to take over. Once you do that you can get rid of taxation and "funded" the state with voluntary donations. Of course there will be no reason for people to donate any money to the state since everything is being delivered by private companies and the state simply dies and sad lonely death. Just my opinion though.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
Of course those institutions that existed under statism (like the state itself and the central banks) are rendered absolete in an anarchic society. The very defining features that make them what they are is gone. I don't see how states and central banks would continue to exist at all once they are stripped of the very power that makes them states and central banks in the first place. Once there are other voluntary institutions that outcompete them, they are effectively abolished. Anarchy is for the abolition of such institutions. The notion that it isn't is just soft-pedaling.
Once society has been transformed into an anarchic one, it does not logically follow that everything more or less remains exactly the same as before. An anarchic society is not a photo copy of currently existing society minus power. The elimination of such power has implications that radicially alter the nature of a society. Anarchism is not what we have now minus the government. The implications are much more meaningful than that, for what we have now in terms of social and economic organization is in large part a result of the influence of the government's interferance.
Anarchy is abolitionist and always has been. Don't let the parlor revolutionaries fool you.
What would be so different?
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Brainpolice:Of course those institutions that existed under statism (like the state itself and the central banks) are rendered absolete in an anarchic society. The very defining features that make them what they are is gone. I don't see how states and central banks would continue to exist at all once they are stripped of the very power that makes them states and central banks in the first place. Once there are other voluntary institutions that outcompete them, they are effectively abolished. Anarchy is for the abolition of such institutions. The notion that it isn't is just soft-pedaling.
The point is that they are not abolished all at once. Revolutions take time, and the institutional changes that a shift in the political system create happen over a much longer time-frame than the political reformation itself. If the state were to be abolished, the problem of the production of security would still exist, and the previous governments would still have the most organized system of production. Competing producers of security would not arise overnight throughout the country, they would have to start small and expand gradually. In the meantime, most people would still have to rely on the former administration to service their security.
kingmonkey:'ve always thought that it must come about by first educating the people. This is by far the most important step towards establishing an anarchist world. The people of this country far and away believe more and more in socialism and it is our job to retrain them as best we can.
People do not believe in socialism, they believe in getting something at other people's expense. So long as the means to do that are available, they will support socialism.
Second, we would have to successfully reduce the size of the state to bare minimal levels. We would then have to eliminate all of the state run monopolies such as the post office, defense, etc. allowing private enterprise to take over. Once you do that you can get rid of taxation and "funded" the state with voluntary donations.
We are not going to do that unless we can seize control of these institutions, which is not a realistic objective for us to have.
Stranger: People do not believe in socialism, they believe in getting something at other people's expense. So long as the means to do that are available, they will support socialism.
I guess that would be a better way of putting it.
Stranger: We are not going to do that unless we can seize control of these institutions, which is not a realistic objective for us to have.
From where I sit that it is the only objective we can realistically reach. I know this is a dead horse but the Ron Paul campaign woke a lot of people up to the idea of libertarianism, even if they don't fully understand it yet. Like I said, it is our main goal to educate people as best we can. The more people that understand our position the better. I know a lot of people don't like the "political" means of doing things but unfortunately the "political" means allows you to reach a much larger group of people. Nothing is more public than a campaign for public office. A political campaign gives you the opportunity to reach thousands of people who wouldn't have normally heard the message before. But that's just my opinion. Honestly, I think anything anyone is doing to move in that direction is the right move. I've never been concerned with the differences between agorist, minarchist, anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-socialist, big "L" Libertarians, etc. As long as the end result is a smaller, and hopefully, non-existant state.
I, for one, think that, if anarchism is to succeed, we need a strong and organized group, probably with at least a few people with sufficient stores of precious metals to issue a currency, who wait for the opportune moment to bring government down, perhaps as well helping to bring that about that opportune moment. What do I mean by bring it down? I mean, wait until its power is at its most strained, when it has failed in most of its promises, when the public is at its most dissillusioned... then, offer an alternative. This group would, of course have to be armed to resist the inevitable backlash from whatever petty local bureaucrats fancy themselves tyrants, and this may require some fairly swift recruitment of converts, but it could work. After that, all we need to do is have the conviction and commitment to NOT make a new government, just a bank and a protection agency.
kingmonkey:From where I sit that it is the only objective we can realistically reach. I know this is a dead horse but the Ron Paul campaign woke a lot of people up to the idea of libertarianism, even if they don't fully understand it yet. Like I said, it is our main goal to educate people as best we can. The more people that understand our position the better. I know a lot of people don't like the "political" means of doing things but unfortunately the "political" means allows you to reach a much larger group of people. Nothing is more public than a campaign for public office. A political campaign gives you the opportunity to reach thousands of people who wouldn't have normally heard the message before. But that's just my opinion. Honestly, I think anything anyone is doing to move in that direction is the right move. I've never been concerned with the differences between agorist, minarchist, anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-socialist, big "L" Libertarians, etc. As long as the end result is a smaller, and hopefully, non-existant state.
I hope that you can see the difference between a political campaign and a victorious electoral campaign. What you need to do for the latter is never going to meet the standards of liberty.
Stranger:I hope that you can see the difference between a political campaign and a victorious electoral campaign. What you need to do for the latter is never going to meet the standards of liberty.
I think most of us see the difference between the latter and the former, however everyone assumes that most of the people posting here with minarchist tendencies would be averse to anarchism, or that the consensus is to stop short of anarchism.
I don't believe that to be true. But then, name calling like "parlour revolutionaries" encourages that sort of division and collectivism.
I would make a great bureaucrat. Wanna see? Click here. It's fun.
Stranger:We are not going to do that unless we can seize control of these institutions, which is not a realistic objective for us to have.
I disagree. I think successful older businessmen looking for a way to help their communities (as is not unusual at a certain age and a certain level of success) can be encouraged to enter politics for a limited period to accomplish specific things. Winning elections are merely popularity contests -- it's not at all impossible to break it down and create a strategy that can succeed.
I know where you're coming from, though. Usually people who understand economics despise the government and refuse to enter, letting the worst get on top. This is a failure of will and can be changed by exceptional individuals, not an apodictic law that must manifest under all conditions.
But I understand your skepticism. One thing I've learned in my life is that people will always doubt, until you show them.
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
The corruption is in the political process, not the election. Begging for money beholdens one to your benefactors, but someone from outside the political process, spending his own fortune (e.g. Ross Perot) could do the job.
maxpot46: The corruption is in the political process, not the election. Begging for money beholdens one to your benefactors, but someone from outside the political process, spending his own fortune (e.g. Ross Perot) could do the job.
No one will vote for him unless he promises them privileges at the expense of the losers. This is what inevitably follows from democracy. Even perfect politicians of pure morality could not get elected unless they did this.
But this is not the subject of this thread, the subject of this thread is the substitution of the democratic process of law-making with the anarchic process of law-making and the transformation of society that results from it. While under democratic law-making the law is used to create privileges for one class at the expense of another, resulting in an ever-increasing accumulation of privileges and counter-privileges, under anarchic law-making these privileges are nullified one after another as the minority refuses to recognize one law after another, and there is no organization capable of using sufficient force to subject that minority to these laws.