Hi everyone,I am trying to educate myself in the principles and ideas of anarchy. I believe in the system, but when I engage in debate (accidently) I am faced with questions which I cannot answer. I'm sure these are common questions and are easily defeated, but I couldn't answer think of answers tonight and I was hoping for some help.Basically, my friend's hang up with an anarchist system has to do with protecting minority rights. He argues that if group A (say racists/homophobes) outnumber group B (blacks/homosexuals) then group A can hire a superior protection agency and can use their superior protection and armory to oppress or exterminate the minority group B. In this hypothetical I guess that group A values the extinction of B over any monetary expense required for the extermination.Another concern that was expressed was the issue of a protection agency turning into a government (I know I've heard of this one, but I can't remember where it was refuted). You hire an agency for protection at an agreed upon rate, then the agency turns their guns on you and forces you to pay higher prices. You can't leave for a different agency because they are using the threat of violence to keep you as a "customer" (though you are more of a prisoner now). I would argue that other agencies would not take kindly to this particular agencies coercion, and would fight (or something) to protect free competition. But what if the coercive agency was much stronger then all other agencies and could vanquish competitors?It was also mentioned that a free society couldn't protect itself from invasion, as they are not coordinated enough to counter a state's military. But the armed neutrality of Switzerland is a good counter-point here.In both of these examples force overrides any judicial system becasue the criminals are just too strong to control. I guess when people think of an anarchist society their minds automatically resort to constant tribal warfare.Is the only counter-argument the fact that these scenarios are highly unlikely, or is there something I'm missing?Thanks for any help you can offer. I am trying to educate myself so that I can handle these types of questions, but I can only read so many books at a time.
Xemit, part of the battle is about delegitimising the state. For eg. no highway robber claims that his theft of your money is for the greater good etc. So at least when the state is delegitimised, it is one less channel for violence to be 'acceptable' in people's minds.
Also, the existence of the state can enable some people to go and enforce their views on other smaller states. So you could even argue that a govt doesn't even help here.
I think you'll find that the main thing about anarchism is the idea that people who don't want to be ruled over, are not. The reason the state exists now is mainly due to the attitude that it is 'necessary'/good. If this did not exist, the state would not exist. So bringing anarchism about will probably require a change in the mindset of the people, that they are individuals with self ownership who deserve better than to be ruled over by other people.
In debates like these I think it's important to stress that anarchy is not a utopia and it's not a cure-all. It's just better than the state. There will be problems, but those problems will be fewer, less severe, and you'll have more options to deal with them. You can remind your friend that some of his worst fears about anarchy are already a reality in the state. Keep things in perspective.
With racism and minority oppression, for example, I'd ask your friend if he thinks states have done a good job protecting minorities. The state's historical record is atrocious, so why not explore an alternative? I'd also ask him how well a democracy protects not just explicit minority groups, but minorities in opinion. There's no guarantee that minorities would be protected in anarchy. If everyone in the world wanted a very small group of people dead "just because" then those people would be dead, but that's also true of the world today. There's no system that will protect against that. The difference with anarchy is that if you want something you have to pay for it or do it yourself, which changes things a bit. With things like job discrimination, market dynamics take much better care of it than state law. When a company discriminates, they reject the most qualified applicants. How does a company with inferior employees relative to the rest of the market stay in business? And you also have the option to boycott.
I've always thought the statist's concern about a protection agency turning into a government was pretty funny. If government is good, then why would that be a problem? Anyway, to answer the question, we'd be living in a different world. It's kind of like watching a major league baseball game and worrying about someone not knowing how to swing a bat. The fact that he's in the major leagues says something about him. The same is true about anarchy. If we're living under market anarchy, then it means that enough people stopped believing in the state and were willing to do something about it. They won't have any tolerance for it just like there's no tolerance for slavery now. This is not to say it's impossible for a rogue company to come about, but it's unlikely to be successful.
The idea that the criminals will be stronger than everyone else is unrealistic. Why do we have government today? Because most people believe that government protects life and liberty. The fact that people cling to government so tightly is evidence that they have a strong demand for safety and justice. That demand will still be there in anarchy, and where there's demand there'll be people who provide for it.
hmm, you mention that a defense company might turn on its customers and force them to pay higher prices
A good answer would be, "what if government decided to turn its military on the people?"
At least with these defense groups there would most likely be numerous of them to keep balance, but yes i would say a monopoly in any force could always prove to be a threat
The best solution is let everyone bear arms, so that no force could easily control them
As for your invasion question, i would say that during times of peace this society would be very loose, but as a threat comes upon them they would link together
So it would be very dificult to organize an offence, no drafts, but very easy to recruit a defense
As we can see in many places, "guerilla warfare" with a small group of freedom fighters can easily match an invasion force
if people have freedom, they will fight to defend it
Also, there wouldnt really be a capital or anything, so what targets would an invasion go for? everyone is a civilian
last note, this free "nation" would be open to trade with all, so it would not be beneficial to attack 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