Political Theory

Re: Would a majority ever allow anarchy?

ladyattis — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:59:27 GMT

I think a panarchy will more likely happen than a 'pure' anarchy. But I do believe that North America may become the birthplace of the soon-to-be Agoras for many reasons, but mostly because the attitude of enough North Americans is slanted toward individualism over collectivism. And it's that slant that will define the future more so than the current paradigm of the "Nanny State" by comparison as this paradigm is showing itself a fool yet again (as it had in the previous century). But for it to be 'learned' as true, it must fail to such a severity that people may die from it, which those that survive will probably have two possible opinions: the State wasn't big enough or the State is a failed construct.

Re: Would a majority ever allow anarchy?

Maxliberty — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:44:58 GMT

GilesStratton:

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?

The alternative is creating a freer society that is just as safe if not safer.

Re: Would a majority ever allow anarchy?

Maxliberty — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:43:45 GMT

Nitroadict:
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.

Action is everything. Your point is well taken that there does not have to be simply one answer. If there is to be change though it will require action and most of the criticisms of one course of action over another come from the people doing nothing criticizing the people doing something. We should applaud all action that trends toward the general direction we want society to move. This would include Ron Paul and a whole host of others that might not be intellectually perfect to some but are moving in the direction of freedom.

Re: Would a majority ever allow anarchy?

Maxliberty — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:37:15 GMT

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.

Re: Would a majority ever allow anarchy?

waywardwayfarer — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 06:34:27 GMT

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.

Re: Would a majority ever allow anarchy?

Wren — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 06:19:47 GMT

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.

Re: Would a majority ever allow anarchy?

Mlee — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 05:42:00 GMT

Goodness that post was terribly written.

Re: Would a majority ever allow anarchy?

Mlee — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 05:40:51 GMT

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.

Re: Would a majority ever allow anarchy?

hayekianxyz — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:48:05 GMT

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?

Re: Would a majority ever allow anarchy?

Nitroadict — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:30:19 GMT

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).

Re: Would a majority ever allow anarchy?

liberty student — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:45:53 GMT

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...

Re: Would a majority ever allow anarchy?

Maxliberty — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:40:36 GMT

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.

Re: Would a majority ever allow anarchy?

twistedbydsign99 — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:02:32 GMT

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.

Re: Would a majority ever allow anarchy?

hayekianxyz — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:29:20 GMT

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.

Re: Would a majority ever allow anarchy?

Stranger — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:10:52 GMT

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.