Would a majority ever allow anarchy?

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.

 

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.

But do all people want the state ? Do all people want to be controlled ? If people want to be controlled why are there so many jails, guns, cops ?

And understand, they will not feel safe until everyone is controlled with them.

It won't work anyway. The state can't really make things safer.

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.

A traffic light is not, I believe, a good analogy for the state. Also, a free society will 'objectively' be a safer place than a statist society. The idea that people can regard a free society as less safe than a coercive one is not a definite problem, because such idea is mistaken so it can eventually be discarded.

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.

I don't think so. Also I said "Do all people want to be controlled ? ". The fact is, some people are more authoritarian than others, and they run the government. The rest of the people don't submit voluntarily - that's why government needs guns and jails.

That force or threat of it is used proves that some people want to control their neighbors. Now, if all people wanted to be controlled force wouldn't be necessary - the masses would blindly follow orders. But they don't.

I believe the statement, "people would rather feel safe than be safe", deals with that.

But that's a wrong perception, so it can be corrected.

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.

Agreed. I do realize that's part of the problem. I'm only objecting to the less-than-hopeful and conservative worldview which implies we're somehow doomed.

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 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;

Well, man is either 'naturally' collectivistic or not. If man is naturally collectivistic, then it's a bit strange that communism always ends in disaster no ?

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 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

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.

-Jon

JCFolsom:

 

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.

 

I've thought about that.  I personally identity myself as an American (my avatar probably tipped you off to that).  I don't think we need an American government to make us Americans.  In fact, given our historical fascination with freedom, individualism, and rebellion, I think getting rid of the government would make us even more "American".

People choose amongst the choices available to them. If you tell them to go vote between democrats and republicans, they will vote between democrats and republicans and make the choice that is best for themselves. Of course the real power here is not the voters but the people who are setting up the rules of the election - they are determining what the choices are going to be.

If you offer people a new choice, the choice to give up on the state and join some different organization for their protection, then most of them will make this choice if it is in their best interest to do so.

So you're saying you're irrational about mankind's irrationality?  This is a virtue?

A

Jon Irenicus:

as well as its outlawry of any competitors to its vital industries (which makes it harder for people to visualize alternatives to it.)

Roads are the best example of this, government has almost always taken care of the roads (albeit badly), so people are very sceptical about privately owned roads when in fact it should be rather easy.

But as Block says 40,000 people die on American roads every year, how much worse can it get.

GilesStratton:

Roads are the best example of this, government has almost always taken care of the roads (albeit badly), so people are very sceptical about privately owned roads when in fact it should be rather easy.

???

 

liberty student:

GilesStratton:

Roads are the best example of this, government has almost always taken care of the roads (albeit badly), so people are very sceptical about privately owned roads when in fact it should be rather easy.

???

 

What's there to be confused about? Apart from a few examples I've seen mentioned by DiLorenzo and Block government has always provided roads, hence people are unable to conceptualize privately owned roads.

 

I don't believe you are correct.  The government has not almost always taken care of roads.  Merchants and private citizens have.

In the modern American experience, perhaps you can make the case.

liberty student:

I don't believe you are correct.  The government has not almost always taken care of roads.  Merchants and private citizens have.

In the modern American experience, perhaps you can make the case.

Government has been interventing in roads longer than any other industry, and in America and most other countries its by far one of the most socialised.

As Hoppe pointed out, governments needed to take care of making the roads because they needed them to extract taxes from people.

GilesStratton:

Jon Irenicus:

as well as its outlawry of any competitors to its vital industries (which makes it harder for people to visualize alternatives to it.)

Roads are the best example of this, government has almost always taken care of the roads (albeit badly), so people are very sceptical about privately owned roads when in fact it should be rather easy.

But as Block says 40,000 people die on American roads every year, how much worse can it get.

Does your almost always extend back only 200 years? Because for most of history landlords made roads, not governments.

 

Stranger:

GilesStratton:

Jon Irenicus:

as well as its outlawry of any competitors to its vital industries (which makes it harder for people to visualize alternatives to it.)

Roads are the best example of this, government has almost always taken care of the roads (albeit badly), so people are very sceptical about privately owned roads when in fact it should be rather easy.

But as Block says 40,000 people die on American roads every year, how much worse can it get.

Does your almost always extend back only 200 years? Because for most of history landlords made roads, not governments.

 

To my knowledge there's nobody living who is over 200 years old, so it might as well be always.

My point is though is that not only are roads far more socialised now, but they have been for longer than most other industries.

I think what you are hinting at is the nature of man. Either a) the majority of mankind is good or b) the majority of mankind is bad. If a) is true then no form of social orginzation be it democracy, monarchy, anarchy, etc can save us. It is a scary thought to think of being brought down with an evil majority. I don't think a) is true though. Even if it is, it still doesn't imply you should go quietly. I think there is some evidence supporting b) as well because if the majority of mankind was the ruler type, in other words complete frauds, then modern day government couldn't even last 100 years. You have to have a large productive class to fleece for a government to stay afloat so I think there is reason to be hopeful.

Very well said JC. I believe people all want freedom but it is not easy. There are benefits to forming groups and humans naturally form them. If people have a choice they always choose the most liberated society possible that provides a safe environment. We in the freedom movement if we really want change have to provide an alternative. We can not expect the masses to create the change, it never works that way. This is why the education route is doomed to failure.  

Perhaps an education only approach.  But I would say it is very important that education continue, or people like you and I would not be here...

Imo, no one approach should be embraced. 

Agorism should be utilized for it's counter-economic activity backed by an ideology that encourages the re-use of black& grey market activity, rather than using those markets to bolster the pink market (i.e. the mafia) & the fact that it is a relatively new tactic historically speaking (no, I'm not going to debate on it's merits since I am not saying it's superior to any other approach). 

Secession should be utilized for obvious reasons, especially since newer technologies will make self-sustaining lifestyles easier to operate (thus making the possibility of a sustainable, alternate society possible, as well as the challenge of territorial monopoly more viable). 

The operation within the current system, however limited that may be (political reformism, various business, organizational & educational ventures, etc.), direct action, alternative uses of currencies such as local silver currencies (NH is doing this, I believe), use of labour notes, bartering & gift economy, etc.

PDA's & other ideas for security against The State are a given, & would probably start out small on the local level via grassroot beginnings & eventually achieve viral growth for increasingly bigger roles & bigger uses.   If minarchism managed to do anything concerning free association, allowing alternative currencies,  eliminating the FEd etc. , that would certainly help somewhat.

Despite the merit of the argument of not wasting the movement's resources, I counter that the movement (and those within it) may burn itself out if it's focus is too narrow.   The State retains it's monopoly on the services of everyday life on more fronts than political, more fronts than local, more fronts than financial, etc. 

Besides, so many already disagree with approaches; it appears the real waste of resources if bickering over which approach is correct or wrong, & proxy, whether those who advocate such an approach, are correct or wrong (resulting in the maligned personal feuds that drive many discussions into the Forest of Punditry & the Valley of Semantics)

I think the question is more so, "Would a majority ever voluntarily participate in anarchism, whether they know it as anarchism or not.".  It would be contradictory to speak of forcing anarchistic activity upon those who are ignorant of it.

I think if alternative services, currencies, organizations etc. proved profitable / worthwhile, those who hear good things through the grapevine would participate in it regardless if they are for anarchism or not.  That is, if the incentive (saying, during a possibly nasty depression in the future) is strong enough for them to consider it.  

Imo, for some, if it works, they will look closer as to why; for others, they just want it to work & get on with their lives.  If The State is further perceived as not working (as well as inefficient & illegitimate by proxy), I think this would help to get more of a majority at least interested.

A recent example, I think, would be the RNC debacle over the over-zealous & excessive police shown to counter protesters (many being charged or billed as domestic terrorists, or at least a few words short of).  

Maxliberty:

Very well said JC. I believe people all want freedom but it is not easy. There are benefits to forming groups and humans naturally form them. If people have a choice they always choose the most liberated society possible that provides a safe environment. We in the freedom movement if we really want change have to provide an alternative. We can not expect the masses to create the change, it never works that way. This is why the education route is doomed to failure.  

What's the alternative?

Forcing freedom upon them?

 

Although I'm an exponent of the Education strategy, I think Maxliberty's point is that concrete examples of liberty are much more likely to succede that attempts at education. You might convence some of the population, but it won't lead to anything constructive in his view. 

I view Education and broad agorism (that is participation in state-undermining activity via alternative ((not nessesarily all black)) channels). However, I can sympathize with the Gault's Glutch types. 

Goodness that post was terribly written.

I think a good number of people would simply go along to get along.  What I would really like to see is people themselves actively--but only voluntarily--setting up and participating in the type of system or framework they believe in.  That would mean every person has to be informed, but of course that's never going to happen.

Jon Irenicus:

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.

-Jon

For that reason, I think I'd favor a strategy of us anarchists trying to exist outside the influence of the state to whatever extent possible, while hoping more of the deluded would be swayed by our example, even if they lacked the intellectual fortitude to be persuaded by our arguments.  Sometimes seeing results will penetrate a dense cranium much more effectively than the most eloquent words.  Meanwhile, at least we wouldn't be just idly waiting and hoping futilely for things to change.

 

liberty student:

Perhaps an education only approach.  But I would say it is very important that education continue, or people like you and I would not be here...

If you define the goal of educating people to be to spread the word enough so that some people will become aware AND will take action on the knowledge then I would agree. If you define the goal of education this way then the obvious question becomes what action do you advocate upon receiving the education? Education for education sake has no purpose.