Anarchy is, at least to my mind, a truly noble ideal. True and full liberty is a beautiful notion. However, I fear that a majority of people will be ever determined to subject the world to states. This is because of dual currents in what are at least human traditions, and maybe even human nature. These are collectivism, and a desire to control.
Many of us anarchists are almost obsessively individualistic. For myself, I can honestly say that, as much as I've wanted to at times, trying to fit myself into some group has always been very uncomfortable. It appears, however, that many if not most people not only identify themselves with group(s), but that this is, in fact, their primary identity in their own minds. The nation, race, religion, business, club, family, political group, whatever, for most people is a big part of how they define themselves. Thus, an attack on one of these groups is taken as an attack on themselves. For those who identify as Americans, the idea that the American state, its defining Constitution, and all that should be discarded, is asking them to give up not just government services, but a part of their very selves. There is a pride in being a part of something greater, and we want to take that from them. Even if they realize, to some degree, that they have thrown in with a devil, he is their devil.
Of course, groups can and will form even in an anarchy. However, there is also a desire, inherent to humanity, for control. They not only want to control others, to keep themselves safe and in pleasant environments and such things, but even, I think, want to be controlled themselves. A desire for control is born out of fear, because the world is a big and scary place, and it is very easy to feel that the winds of chance could turn against you at any time. Choices, always made with incomplete information, can turn on the chooser. And if a person makes choices for themselves, who else can they blame? How can they count on a safety net? When the world is well-controlled and unfair, people have legitimacy for their claims that others are responsible for their failures, even if they probably would have failed without such interference.
Under a state, the world is more predictable. I believe that any study you might do on the matter will reveal that most people will prefer regular, predictable abuse to occasional, unpredictable problems. Rather like a recent article referenced on Lew Rockwell indicates, people who have an intersection with no lights and signs are safer there, but feel less safe. People would rather feel safe than be safe, and always prefer the devil they know.
Whence do you derive your hope for a liberated future? I don't think arguments that there will be greater prosperity without the state will hold if what people truly value is embodied by the state. And understand, they will not feel safe until everyone is controlled with them. This idea that "they can have government, so long as they don't impose it on me" is silly. It is the nature, the essence, of government, that it imposes itself, and most strongly when you try to defy it.
I have no hope. It will get darker for a long time.
Personally, I believe that if anarcho-capitalism is going to ever exist, the most likely way it would come about is via secession. Perhaps it never will be achieved, but as long as there are people effectively expounding it as an ideal, and the movement grows, perhaps someday we will have many smaller governments, which would certainly be an improvement and a step in the right direction.
If the educational movement goes far enough, rapid decentralization may occur through growing secessionist movement, creating smaller and smaller governement units.
Would anarcho-capitalism ever be achieved this way? Maybe, maybe not--perhaps it would only ever be approximated, but the State would be severely weakened, and so long as market-anarchism is held as the ideal and the educational movement continues to grow, things would only get better in the long run.
I know it seems bleak to impossible to some, but I share Rothbard's long-term optimism.
JCFolsom:Under a state, the world is more predictable. I believe that any study you might do on the matter will reveal that most people will prefer regular, predictable abuse to occasional, unpredictable problems. Rather like a recent article referenced on Lew Rockwell indicates, people who have an intersection with no lights and signs are safer there, but feel less safe. People would rather feel safe than be safe, and always prefer the devil they know.
Wow. F---ing beautiful. And so well put.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Thanks!
I don't think arguments that there will be greater prosperity without the state will hold if what people truly value is embodied by the state.
And understand, they will not feel safe until everyone is controlled with them.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Rather like a recent article referenced on Lew Rockwell indicates, people who have an intersection with no lights and signs are safer there, but feel less safe.
I think JC was talking about the irrationality of man. Lets face it, what's rational may be correct, but not every human is goverend by 100% rational behaviour. Yes it is irrational to see safety in a group by compromising your liberties, but for most people, they are hard wired to believe the clan/country/family provides safety in numbers.
Byzantine addresses this often and people accuse him of being a bigot or racist which is out of line. As discussed in the coercion thread, libertarian anarchists cling to numbers and group identity provided by the state, even when they know it is irrational and immoral.
Juan:If people want to be controlled why are there so many jails, guns, cops ?
I believe that question answers itself.
Juan:It won't work anyway. The state can't really make things safer.
I believe the statement, "people would rather feel safe than be safe", deals with that.
liberty student:I think JC was talking about the irrationality of man. Lets face it, what's rational may be correct, but not every human is goverend by 100% rational behaviour.
I daresay! Indeed, I would think it would be closer to the truth to say a majority of humans are governed by nearly 100% irrationality. But, then, I'm a bit cynical.
JCFolsom: Juan: If people want to be controlled why are there so many jails, guns, cops ? I believe that question answers itself.
Juan: If people want to be controlled why are there so many jails, guns, cops ?
LibertyStudent:I think JC was talking about the irrationality of man. Lets face it, what's rational may be correct, but not every human is goverend by 100% rational behaviour.
First of all, what the 'majority' wants does NOT have to dictate how you or I live. If the 'majority' are immature, fear based humans, then they won't be listening to you or I who are not stuck in their fears. About the only 'fear' I retain regrading majority is its lemming like reactions. That is a real and ever present threat to anyone the mob preceives as different from themselves.
I still favor Panarchy over anarchy because it does not require that every human must bow to and follow the exact same pattern or way to behave (aka laws/rules). Well short of univerally accepted behavoir - no killing or stealing. Besides, Panarchy allows anarchy (as a choice) so why not offer the most broad range of decisions? And yes I am aware of how others tend to panic when they find that everyone doesn't think (?!?) like they do or are so happy to be 'protected' by coersive force. But hey, its about time they start getting that put right back on them - time to follow 'our' rules - be self responsible for your own life and honor other's their choices.
Jain
Liberty in our time is unlikely but possible. Trying to convince the majority that liberty is a good idea is not going to happen anytime soon. If we want liberty we are going to have to leave much like Europeans left Europe for America. But maybe after a centruy of observing what liberty looks like the rest of the world will change. After all, the example of America changed the rest of the world. Maybe the example of Liberty City can change the rest of the world in a similar way.
P.S. I was talking about secession or seasteading if it wasn't clear.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
I think another valid question is as to whether the goal of liberty is actually appropriate for the nature of mankind. If so many perceive themselves primarily in collective ways, can we really say that their perception is wrong while ours is right? Might those with a strong sense of individuality actually be more dysfunctional freaks, or at best, intended leaders of collectives, rather than the example all should follow? I'm not advocating this position... but I am having my doubts. So much of Austrian theory is based on certain assertions about human nature; if those assertions are incorrect, the conclusions based on them may well be too.
So much of Austrian theory is based on certain assertions about human nature;
JCFolsom: I think another valid question is as to whether the goal of liberty is actually appropriate for the nature of mankind. If so many perceive themselves primarily in collective ways, can we really say that their perception is wrong while ours is right. Might those with a strong sense of individuality actually be more dysfunctional freaks, or at best, intended leaders of collectives, rather than the example all should follow? I'm not advocating this position... but I am having my doubts. So much of Austrian theory is based on certain assertions about human nature; if those assertions are incorrect, the conclusions based on them may well be too.
I think another valid question is as to whether the goal of liberty is actually appropriate for the nature of mankind. If so many perceive themselves primarily in collective ways, can we really say that their perception is wrong while ours is right. Might those with a strong sense of individuality actually be more dysfunctional freaks, or at best, intended leaders of collectives, rather than the example all should follow? I'm not advocating this position... but I am having my doubts. So much of Austrian theory is based on certain assertions about human nature; if those assertions are incorrect, the conclusions based on them may well be too.
I identify myself with others too. I am for liberty because I want to choose the group I am a part of, not have a group or geography choose me by force. People should be free to live with others voluntarily. Do we really need to be slaves in order to live together? If people really want to live in the groups they are in, why do we need to use force? I will be getting married soon and will become a member of a small voluntary group of two people, but I don't need to use force to maintain that identity. In fact, if force was necessary it would imply that the group really does not want to remain a group.
I don't see the main battle as between collectivism and individualism, but between force and freedom (war and peace).
Solid_Choke:I identify myself with others too. I am for liberty because I want to choose the group I am a part of, not have a group or geography choose me by force. People should be free to live with others voluntarily. Do we really need to be slaves in order to live together? If people really want to live in the groups they are in, why do we need to use force? I will be getting married soon and will become a member of a small voluntary group of two people, but I don't need to use force to maintain that identity. In fact, if force was necessary it would imply that the group really does not want to remain a group. I don't see the main battle as between collectivism and individualism, but between force and freedom (war and peace).
A good point. A question remains as to whether any group's cohesion or conformity can be retained in the long term without force. Well, beyond maybe extremely small groups such as marriage (although, even permanent marriages are rather the minority, these days).
Not all libertarians, but some view it as a parent's responsibility to discipline and control the actions of their children until such time as they can make rational decisions for themselves. What if most people never actually develop the ability to make rational decisions for themselves? What if they need to be corrected and disciplined all their lives and they really will be better off if they are so corrected; at least in a general, collective sense? And, if humans are actually collective entitities, by and large, anything what's good for the many is good by definition.
If the majority is not fit for anarchism, then it can be left behind to rot, to let statism kill it off slowly. I have no problem with such an outcome, so long as anarchists can figure out how to evade the state. It, and its primitive minions, can die for all I care.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Jon Irenicus:If the majority is not fit for anarchism, then it can be left behind to rot, to let statism kill it off slowly. I have no problem with such an outcome, so long as anarchists can figure out how to evade the state. It, and its primitive minions, can die for all I care.
Well, then, my question becomes even more critical, if we decide to go with your viewpoint. If there is hope for the majority, then it might be worthwhile to continue the frustrating business of PR and education. However, if not, then the focus of anarchists should be on coming up with ways of evading the state.
Yes. I am not yet convinced the majority is hopelessly stupid. I think the State's propaganda machine keeps it that way, as well as its outlawry of any competitors to its vital industries (which makes it harder for people to visualize alternatives to it.) But if it were the case that the masses suffered from some sort of incurable Stockholm syndrome, then I'd say to hell with them.
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