After a long time of being a minarchist I am now convinced of the merits, philosophically at least, of anarcho-capitalism. My question is this: Would most people really allow for a system with no state? It is my general opinion that most people are insecure and full of fear and this is the reason that we have such a big government now. Most anarchist types like to point out how minarchy never lasts because government refuses to stay small. What about anarchy? Would the majority of the public really be content with no state or would they ban together to form at least some form of government?
Andrews Environmental Management
People tend to want what they're used to and comfortable with. There's a certain amount of inertia involved. Some people welcome dramatic change, but I suspect that they are in the minority. Notice that you, yourself took a long time to go from minarchist to anarchist. I, too, did not become an AC'er overnight.
Thus, the value of education and influencing culture. The more people are aware of the idea of a world without government, in a good way, the more likely they are to embrace it, first as a possibility, and eventually as a probability.
Good question. You probably stumped the Philosopher Kings.
What is needed, is anarchy, a constant reminder of why anarchy is needed, and the means to resist any state that would choose to exercise jurisdiction over anarchists. If there are people who want to be enslaved to a state, that is their prerogative. They have no claim over me.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
A different approach is to challenge people's perception of democracy. Normally this is viewed as something inherently 'good' and is never questioned because of the perception that 'the people' can change things.
Destroy this concept however and people become more receptive to alternative ideas of social arrangement.
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
Of course not. That would mean chaos.
FreedomIsYellow: A different approach is to challenge people's perception of democracy. Normally this is viewed as something inherently 'good' and is never questioned because of the perception that 'the people' can change things. Destroy this concept however and people become more receptive to alternative ideas of social arrangement.
I agree that changing people's minds about political philosophy would lead to a stable an-cap society. But isn't this exceedingly diffucult with the state running the school system?
Damian: After a long time of being a minarchist I am now convinced of the merits, philosophically at least, of anarcho-capitalism. My question is this: Would most people really allow for a system with no state? It is my general opinion that most people are insecure and full of fear and this is the reason that we have such a big government now. Most anarchist types like to point out how minarchy never lasts because government refuses to stay small. What about anarchy? Would the majority of the public really be content with no state or would they ban together to form at least some form of government?
People fear what they don't understand. People are afraid of the idea of a stateless society because all they have ever known is the state. People use to fear eating tomatoes because they were considered poisonous but after a while that all changed and now people could live in a world without tomatoes. The same is true of anarchy. Once you get a little taste of something good you are going to want more. Freedom taste good. Why has it been so hard for the socialist and the communist to take over the government in the USA? Because people have a built in fear of socialism and communism and view them as repressive philosophies. Admitedly the socialist/communist have repackaged it rather well and sold it to a good number of people but there is still that fear there. No one really wants a Peoples Republic of America, do they? The same would be true if we had a stateless society. Why go back to a tyrannical state when I can do whatever I want as long as I don't violate another persons rights, keep all of the money I earn and live a better, freer and more prosperous life than I could ever live under a tyrannical state?
If we can dispel the myths about anarchy and show to the people that it can exist and that they'd be much better off without the state and ease the fear and apprehension people have towards anarchy we can move forward with creating a free world.
"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.
Damian:I agree that changing people's minds about political philosophy would lead to a stable an-cap society. But isn't this exceedingly diffucult with the state running the school system?
Many ancap's don't like the idea of participating in the political structure we have today but I think that if we could get some ancaps elected to office we could start making some headway. If, by some miracle, the (fictional) Anarchist Party happened to take control of the state government and abolished public education as we know it wouldn't that be a good thing? Or if they legalized gold and silver as currency in the market place, wouldn't that be a good thing?
But there are other things we can do that would probably be more effective. 90% of your learning is done outside of school anyway so we need to set up education programs for people. Maybe some low cost private schools that taught Austrian economics and anarchist political philosophy would be a good option. At least then you could be churning out a number of kids every year who are sufficiently exposed to those ideas. The controversial 9/11 Truth Movement was able to grow as big as it was because of activist getting out there and handing out free DVD's to anyone who would take them. If we could get a short documentary that explained anarchism in simple terms that anyone could grasp and had people get out there and distributed them to people free of charge we might see some big changes. Hey, Michael Moore made a lot of converts with his Sicko and Bowling for Columbine documentaries. There is no reason why we couldn't do the same thing. We can forget the public schools. We are going to have to educate people house to house and person to person if we are going to actually start moving in the right direction.
Damian: It is my general opinion that most people are insecure and full of fear and this is the reason that we have such a big government now.
Kind of ironic, no?
First and absolutely foremost, Anarchism and capitalism are two completely divergent terms. Anarchism = free-market. Capitalism = state backed capital. If capitalism requires a state, it can obviously not be reconciled with Anarchism.
But that is for another thread.
Second, if a majority wanted a state, they would be free to form one, as long as they didn't push it on others. It seems unlikely, however, that states ever arise from the bottom up, but rather come from a hierarchical system already established. The idea that people want government or ever establish governments seems silly to me. I think they more or less just tolerate it and support it over what is presented to them as even worse alternatives.
This all reminds me of a quote from one of the greatest Italians to ever live, Errico Malatesta,
“We anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves.”
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Here is the crucial point: people are going to get anarchy, whether they want it or not.
You beat me to it.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Proof of same:
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1250256620080812
Niccolò: First and absolutely foremost, Anarchism and capitalism are two completely divergent terms. Anarchism = free-market. Capitalism = state backed capital. If capitalism requires a state, it can obviously not be reconciled with Anarchism.
I'm new to Austrian economics but I'm pretty sure that capitalism can exist without any kind of help from the state
I think it should be like this, FREE MARKET = CAPITALISM
Peter Griffin:I'm new to Austrian economics but I'm pretty sure that capitalism can exist without any kind of help from the state I think it should be like this, FREE MARKET = CAPITALISM
You are correct.
Feel free to ignore the mutualists and their self-defeating redefinition games.
You can't convince people to choose nothing over something. However, people will always choose to have the choice instead of not having it. If you can create an organization that will provide what the state provides, protection, and exists concurrently with the state, then people will have the choice. And you can be sure that they will defend that choice.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Stranger:You can't convince people to choose nothing over something.
You can't convince people to choose not being killed to benig killed?
banned: Stranger:You can't convince people to choose nothing over something. You can't convince people to choose not being killed to benig killed?
If the state is not protecting them, they will be at the mercy of any killer up the road.
He's not a mutualist though.
And he has etymology, history, and social convention on his side. It is the heterodox minority (e.g. Austrians, Randians, and the like) that uses the term "capitalism" in a sense meaning free market.
This might be helpful: http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/07/pitch-first-draft.html
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
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