If one day, humanity arrives at the point that it decides that anarchy is the way to go, how would we ensure that governments would not be formed in the future?
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
By not forming one.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
By not ever consenting to be governed by one. In the long run, any form of government (or non-government) requires the consent of the governed. Therefore, if a group of people wanted to form a government there is not a whole lot you could do to stop them.
If enough people have a strong antipathy to coercion of any kind they'll never form something that enslaves them.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
PMix:By not ever consenting to be governed by one. In the long run, any form of government (or non-government) requires the consent of the governed.
No one really gives a consent but rather accepts it as a "necessary evil".
PMix:Therefore, if a group of people wanted to form a government there is not a whole lot you could do to stop them.
Why not? As soon as they try to force something on those who don't agree to be governed I can use any means necessary to defend my rights.
Spideynw: If one day, humanity arrives at the point that it decides that anarchy is the way to go, how would we ensure that governments would not be formed in the future?
I think it would boil down to social norms like resisting coercion, but I'm not entirely sure that anarchy can overcome the national defense problem.
"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 the answer is that it couldn't ensure that governments would not be formed. The ideal of libertarian anarchism is rooted in the idea that respecting people means giving them the freedom to live their lives according to their own plans and ideals. If anarchist communities were therefore unaware of a large proto-state preparing for local conquest, and thereby came to be subjugated, then that's just what would happen. One can talk all day about how people living in anarchy would be this or that kind of people, or how they would have this or that plan of action, but the reality is that people living in anarchy would be free to live however they wanted to, and that might end up making them vulnerable, or it could end up making them more vigilant and ready to defend their ways of life. We can't know.
You might be interested in reading about the history of Somalia since the dissolution of the government there in 1991; it's a real-world example of how a stateless society can repel attempted takeover. Of course, it would be a mistake to take the Somali example as "proof" of anything. But anarchy is an inherently unpredictable and dynamic system of social organization, so it's unclear what kind of proof one could possibly provide.
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
Natalie:No one really gives a consent but rather accepts it as a "necessary evil".
I would argue that in this case accepting is the same thing as consenting.
Natalie:Why not? As soon as they try to force something on those who don't agree to be governed I can use any means necessary to defend my rights.
I guess this question really comes down to how you define government. If you believe that a government that does not use any form of coercion can exist, then there is nothing that could be done to "enforce" anarchy. You can't stop people from individually agreeing to have their property governed by a certain constitution or paying "taxes" to other individuals in return for services. If everyone has the absolute right to secede from the government then it is functionally the same thing as setting your own rules for your property and paying someone for the services they perform for you. If you believe that a government only comes in to existence when it begins to force people to be governed, then Natalie is exactly right. Any means necessary could be used to defend yourself against being governed against you will.
On the relationship between the state and territory, you might be interested in John Simmons' essay, "On the Territorial Rights of States."
Of course, it would be a mistake to take the Somali example as "proof" of anything. But anarchy is an inherently unpredictable and dynamic system of social organization, so it's unclear what kind of proof one could possibly provide.
Not necessarily related, but I just found this funny:
The corporate apologists who actually approve of the modern cesspit the Reds call "Capitalism." You know the ones. The contrarian brats who consider Somalia a utopia. The ones that fit the Reds' stereotypes so hardcore that all intelligence is immediately sucked into an event horizon of "poor people obviously deserve to starve to death, screw 'em" and "yeah, well after The Revolution we'll put your family in death camps and expropriate all your stuff."
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
hah, you know that there are plenty of socialists who think that all advocates of the free market are like that.
Yeah, I am sometimes myself, when I really want to piss them off.
I don't believe it can be enforced; it can only be defended. I would suppose anarchists would resist the institutionalization of force, coercion, violence, hierarchy etc. Mass civil disobience? Constant defense/war? Who knows... the world is an ugly place.
Don't think of the government as any different than other criminal activity. Once you accept that the government is just an organized criminal group then it wouldn't be treated any different than any other criminal group. Criminals will always exist, to the extent they are resisted and defeated will be the level of freedom you enjoy.
I agree Danny. Because humans have free will, there's nothing to guarantee that governments will stay dead or will rise again. We have to look at what is likely to happen, i.e. the incentive structures.
As Roderick Long writes:
"I think that a lot of people – one reason that they’re scared of anarchy is they think that under government it’s as though there’s some kind of guarantee that’s taken away under anarchy. That somehow there’s this firm background we can always fall back on that under anarchy is just gone. But the firm background is just the product of people interacting with the incentives that they have. Likewise, when anarchists say people under anarchy would probably have the incentive to do this or that, and people say, "Well, that’s not good enough! I don’t just want it to be likely that they’ll have the incentive to do this. I want the government to absolutely guarantee that they’ll do it!" But the government is just people. And depending on what the constitutional structure of that government is, it’s likely that they’ll do this or that. You can’t design a constitution that will guarantee that the people in the government will behave in any particular way. You can structure it in such a way so that they’re more likely to do this or less likely to do this. And you can see anarchy as just an extension of checks-and-balances to a broader level."
Also cf. Roderick's terrific article, "Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism".
Danny, do you have that Simmons article? I've been wanting to read his stuff on political obligation.
LibertarianAnarchy.com - Government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn't work!
Maxliberty:Don't think of the government as any different than other criminal activity. Once you accept that the government is just an organized criminal group then it wouldn't be treated any different than any other criminal group. Criminals will always exist, to the extent they are resisted and defeated will be the level of freedom you enjoy.
They're the same, but they're perceived as being different. That's the source of the government's power. Many people do in fact want it and consent to it. But when they finally figure out what's going on, that power base will be gone and government will be looked at then like slavery is now. It will be very difficult to install a new government among such a population (but not impossible). The most vulnerable time will be in the transitionary stage where some of the world is stateless but governments still exist with great power.
But there will always be criminals. Maybe the scarier question is what angle will they come up with next? Will it be something more subtle but just as destructive? Will some of us fall for it just like people do now with government?
Stranger: By not forming one.
LOL, you bastard, you made me bust out laughing in the friggin' library.
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