Anarchists are fuxored in the head.  If Anarchy ever prevailed for a short time it would be a case of "careful what you wish for" as the proponents of that system were exterminated by a bigger gang of thugs.. Oh I mean competing "mentors".  

Yes I agree Steve.

One need look no further than the turf wars of the major South American and Mexican Drug Cartels as a model for what one would have as a result except on a much larger scale.

Anarchists in all forms should all be relegated to the psycho-ward.  Permanently.

Freaking lunatics.

Vera,

I'm not fully agreed on your definition of the goals of anarchy (free-for-all murder rape robbery), but if your solution is minarchy and you require a government to enforce those minarchist rules you're just as 'fuxxored in the head', as you'll be hard pressed to find such a 'utopian government' that would actually enforce only minarchist rules

I didn't say that was the "goal" of anarchy.  People can have anarchy as a goal, but anarchy itself doesn't have a goal because it is the absence of a purposeful human structure in this area.  

Minarchy is by definition a government where the only laws enforced are those that protect individual rights. How can you object to that? Who would object to enforcing the rule that you can't commit rape or murder or robbery?

I know that you'd agree that there should be a minimal level of civility between people - voluntarily reached, of course.  But should that desire be abandoned because "you'll be hard pressed to find such a utopian" condition as perfect civility?  That is a false either-or condition.

All of this talk of "utopia" is a kind of straw man. What I'm talking about is the kind of government we should be moving towards. It is a goal. The further we go in that direction the better and if we only go a tiny ways in the next decade, that is massively better than going any amount in the opposite direction. There is no either-or here such that we either have the perfect "utopian" minarchy or we give up the whole concept as if it is flawed. Government is a man-made structure that is created and maintained to suit a purpose. We, society, need to have a clearer understanding of the proper purpose of a government and do a better job in our construction and our maintenance. The better we do, the more the political environment favors liberty.

--------------

...minarchy [is] just as much wishful thinking as anarchy

Minarchy, as a description of a kind of government, is the goal to move towards and acts as a standard to measure progress. That isn't wishful thinking, it is having a goal and a set of standards. It isn't as if life can only begin once some kind of perfection is reached. We don't throw up our hands and give up on medicine because we can't cure every single disease... we keep progressing towards that as a goal.

Anarchy isn't something that should be rationally wished for. It would be wishing for an absence of law. And we need law.  It helps us define the particulars of property so that good people will be able to respect the boundary between what is theirs and what is not.  It helps business people plan so that they can invest capital knowing that voluntary agreements made today can be enforced in the future.  It helps good people resolve conflicts, including those made with good intentions, but differing understandings down the road - and without which only force would be available to settle the differences.  There are many, many other reasons that a society needs and benefits from a stable, single set of laws for a given jurisdiction.

Even if there were no thugs at all, and no thieves, and no aggressor nations or terrorist that might violate individual rights for political gain, we would still need laws.

Just as we need words to represent concepts and sentences to represent complete thoughts, we need laws to represent our moral rights, and government to enforce those laws.

Our questions will always be how to make the most moral government, and how best to migrate society towards that government, and never about geting rid of government altogether.  Force is the only way to violate choice and that is why force has to be purposefully regulated so that serves the maximizing of choice instead of reducing it.  That is the purpose of government and all the rest is about implementation.

Individual rights are moral principles that apply to what a person can do without having to ask someone else's permission. Good laws are objective descriptions of those actions, or objective descriptions of those actions that violate an individual right. Without those laws honest disagreements can only be resolved with the law of the jungle.  Good government is just making explicit the protection of our ability to choose.

Lots of luck convincing zealot Islamic fundamentalists not to use a club.

I suppose you could erect signs that say "No suicide bombing beyond this point..."

That aught to do it!

We may already have a culture of "reality, reason, and freedom" but just not know it. The labels "age of reason" and "enlightenment" were not calls to action in the 17th and 18th centuries. In the midst of the culture, it was not easy to see it.  

The question is not whether religious extremism exists, but whether it dominates thinking. Ayn Rand's broad analysis put all forms of mysticism and collectivism together. We have no shortage of them, apparently, religious, political, and even scientific.   But culture is deep and broad and even harder to analyze while experiencing it.  We watched the original M*A*S*H last night. Major Burns was kneeling, saying the Lord's Prayer and Hawkeye and Duke agreed that they had not seen that from anyone over eight years of age.  We have come a long way in 50 years.  Fifty years ago, it was not that "everyone" really went to church every week, but that no one wanted to say that they did not.  Today, fully 20% of Americans admit to being non-religious.  We Objectivists honor the Greek golden age, but Alexander the Great held symposia at which philosophers discussed his divinity.  In fact, historical parallels being arguable, we are very much like that Hellenistic Age with science and superstition side by side.  

On that note, the debate on Global Warming is a debate; no one debated Rachel Carson. We easily disparage the lack of scientific knowledge in the general population.  However, American adults score higher than their peers in other industrialized nations. Rather than being shocked that 26% of Americans think that the sun goes around the Earth, we should be happy that 74% are closer to the truth (National Science Foundation survey).  

The JSTOR search that returned over 30 citations for "anarcho-capitalism" provided many more hits.  The label is used by post modernists who decry the global capitalist corporations that seem so much more powerful than national governments. Post-communist Eastern Europe was described as "anarcho-capitalism" because the fallen governments had no mechanisms in place to regulate businesses that now were legal.  

Legitimate anarcho-capitalists of the American libertarian movement raised cogent questions about the role of government.  The questions were cogent; but the answers were lacking.  You could name the "begats" from Albert J. Nock through Jarret B. Wollstein, Murray N. Rothbard, Linda & Morris Tannehill, and the Mises Society at Auburn and not find a single person who actually worked in private security or private arbitration or insurance.  (For a summary see "Samuel Edward Konkin's History" here.) Their tracts were loaded with modal auxiliaries, delivering a plethora of forensic fallacies, gliding too easily from "can" to "could" to "would" to "should." But it was not wasted.

Such debate moves the "Overton Window" on public policy.  Now we can discuss privatizing government services. We can examine the Constitution from basic principles.  It is possible to question the Bill of Rights.  (The Seventh Amendment promises a jury trial in all civil suits involving $20 or more.)  But such thinking is dangerous.  Now, some of the liberals and progressives want to have a Constitutional Convention, causing a "No Con Con" backlash among conservatives.  It is unlikely that we will have a constitutional convention.  However, the discussions about it are important.  Americans have not seriously questioned the role of government since the New Deal. 

What would the ideal "minarchist" constitutional republic look like?  The national government might be only a part-time biennial legislature which meets only to fund the federal courts, federal marshals, and military.   At the local levels, the courts might be the primary engines of law, with no need for city councils and state legislatures and county commissions.  It could be that in operating "police forces" the government has no (or very few) forces of its own, but acts as a licensing agency, to validate and approve qualified private firms and individuals. Ultimately, the government would hold that final monopoly on retaliatory force, but the daily operations would not be by government employees. We have seen this trend already for over a generation with lesser police services contracted out.

(Some people complain about an "active judiciary" but that is the English Common Law tradition: benchmade law. If you read John Locke's "Second Treatise on Government" you will see that the Courts were not a branch of government. His three were the legislature, the administrator, and the diplomatic corps. For Locke, the courts were community institutions that protected against the government: the king's men had to come to a court of competent jurisdiction for a warrant; and then they were accompanied by an officer of the court who saw that they followed the writ.)

For a culture of reality, reason, and freedom to be global, it is not necessary that everyone be an Objectivist.  It is only necessary that trade replace war, at the macro and micro scale.  But it starts small.  Vera Doerr is correct is worry that until and unless everyone around her act reasonably, she is only being asked to trade one risk (local and global anarchy) for another (local and global tyranny).  Usually, you have more control closer to home.  

Closing: I used the word "tyranny" and I want to put it in the Overton Window.  In 550 BCE tyranny was a new form of goverment: a self-made man on the rise was given control of the town. It was a departure from hereditary kingships. (In one lifetime or two generations, tyranny quickly evolved to oligarchy and then to democracy.)  It happened at a time when coins replaced cows as wealth because trade replaced agriculture as the engine of wealth.  Philosophy replaced religion. ... but religion is still with us... as are cows and kings. Rand and Peikoff excoriate Protagoras for saying "Man is the measure of all things."  They call that subjectivism.  But no one had said that before because no one placed man at the center of the universe.  To me, Protagoras's maxim exemplifies the Hellenic culture of reason.  It remained true that Anaxagoras, Aspasia, Democritos, Socrates (of course), but even Aristotle had to fear and flee from the democratic mob which was angry because their gods and traditions were questioned.  But they were questioned.  That was a benchmark.  

So, we have these forever bubbling individual conflicts over the use of force, and as well. the appropriate use of state force.    Then, on a thin 2D spherical shell with some geographic and some geopolitical impediments to free migration, combined with the inculcation and instruction we locally receive from birth, we imperfectly sort ourselves out into nations and tribes and treaty organizations and pacts.

But then, having imperfectly formed our two hundred or so nations on this thin 2D spherical shell, most of which is water, those conflicts persist as conflicts between the resulting nation states and treaty organizations and pacts.  And those conflicts are exacerbated by the inability to flee; to simply forego conflict, pack up, and move elsewhere to live in peace.

And as our C^5  (command, control, communication, computing, commerce) now more than overwhelms the surface of the planet, the opportunities for conflict and crossed purposes grows as well.

It doesn't matter how many individuals or nations embrace free association; realistically this will never be all of us.    There will always be advocates of forced association, driven by whatever drives those that embrace that.  (In my mind, existential terror fueled by dominance of atavistic herd mentality genes.  That might sound funny, or me making a joke, but its not.   I think that is part of the explanation.)

Without the ability to flee oppression(flee forced association)the remaining choices are clear:   surrender, appease/negotiate or defend/enter conflict.

It is possible to unilaterally surrender.

It is possible to appease/negotiate but with no guarantee of outcome.

It is possible to defend/enter conflict but with no guarantee of outcome.    And look, be clear; the urge to make the purveyors of forced association pay so dearly for that aggression that they would never consider it is itself a decision to enter a religious war-- to assert the One True Religion.   Yes, we can self-stamp the righteousness of our cause and claim we have every right to defend against aggression, but moot, in that the aggressors are just as Holy inspired to believe their aggression is just.   So we are fuxored.

With the introduction of gradient-- of frontier -- there is another option.   Relocate.   Flee.   Remove oneself from the conflict.    Tradeoff the hardships of the frontier with the impossibility of dealing with all our fellow crazy stark raving motherfuckers.   Set up a new Tribe in the frontier, unimpeded by anything other than the harsh but always fair rules of this Universe as opposed to the looney ravings of a fellow wetbit randomizer, one of the bits of self aware heavy elements whose function is to randomly meander and create 'surprise' in this Universe..

Because we can unilaterally deal with hardships.  In fact, we love that shit.

Its just when we are packed on top of each other, stewing in each other's stupidity, with no ability to deal with that incessent boundary condition, that wars and conflict break out-- including, wars of conflict as the inability to flee others insanity is visited on indigenous others who were sailing along thinking the only tribal mess they had to deal with was their own local mess.

Humans have often shown a willingness to deal with hardships as the price of their freedom ... from each other.

There is four times the surface area on the Moon as the USA.   It is accessible, with great difficulty and hardship.   And beyond that, across wider gulfs, more sparse frontiers.   Endless gradient.  Endless freedom

And gradient drives everything.  

We worried about indigenous Moon people?

That issue might well come up in some far off future.   And if it does, for all we know, we will be the indigenous earth folks.  So screw it, waiting around will not change the outcome in our favor.     Not waiting around might.

That's the only chance this Universe offers.

A $100B in bored capital was thrown at the Facebook IPO recently to employ 3500 folks.     Seriously.  Facebook.

Imagine throwing $100B at a SpaceX and ask them to begin pondering the question, 'What would it take to see the lights of the first city on the Moon?"

Then, imagine the questions that get asked and answered on that journey.

Or, we can invest $100B to play Farmville and go nowhere.

We've already answered the question of what we will today do... as a culture.    But there is some hope, because we were once a culture that did otherwise.

Vera:

SpaceX will not get me to the moon before I turn 80

True enough.    But I think it is as much about the reach as it is the arrival, and the reach is immediate.

It is impetus; the beginning of gradient is also gradient, and the beginning of gradient is also a move towards freedom.   I'd rather live in a tribe moving towards than one moving nowhere; I've noticed that the more we seek stasis, the nastier we get towards each other.   Stasis is death in this universe, and the smell of it is in the cultural air.   A nation targeting stasis really is a One Pie World; The Last Pie.

Plus...I have kids.   I'd love it if one day they were looking up .... I could stop right there ... at the new lights on the Moon.    I'd love for them to live in that world.     I can't imagine what their kids will do when they look up and realize "That is what humans do, and I'm a human."

regards,

Fred

Think of the consequences of 'no means to flee; no place of freedom to flee to.'   As those opportunities dwindle and become ever more fringe, one consequence is an empowerment of the politcs of forced association; because in fact, we are increasingly forced to associate.

A consequence is the opportunity for huckster's logic:  "We are all crammed onto this thin spherical shell, and therefore we must cooperate and therefore(here comes the huckster's jump of logic)it is necessary for you to give up your life and let me and my huckster emperor wannabe friends run it for you."

Not so fast there, sparky.   Because that is -exacty- the source of all conflict; that is exactly what makes the crowded thin spherical shell so violently noisy.   Because there is an alternative conclusion to be reached:  "We are all crammed onto this thin spherical shell, and therefore we must cooperate and therefore(here comes the alternative to the huckster's jump of logic)it is necessary for us to be diligent in inhibiting all forms of aggression, especially your political desire for me to give up my life and let you and your huckster emperor wannabe friends run it for me."

regards,

Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 6/29, 6:58am)

Michael:

See, now you're talkin'.

Geopolitics on a sparse 2D surface on a thin spherical shell:   domain grows sparsely as technological range squared, border grows as technological range.   Natural gradient exists between the center of domain and the border on a thin spherical shell.  Domain grows in fits and starts on a sparse surface field.

Geopolitics in a sparse 3D volume centered on earth:   domain grows as technological range cubed, border grows as technological range squared.  Natural gradient exists between the center of domain and the border in an expanding sphere.   Domain grows in fits and starts in a sparse spherical field.  A whole new dynamic.  And 'sparse' may not be an issue at all, given your comments.

What is technological range?  For now(this will certainly change over time, as in, adding letters) is it C^5: Command, control, communication, computing, commerce

Our current C^5 has all but dominated the surface of the planet; this has consumed the concept of geopolitical frontier and is rapidly eliminating gradient in our thin 2D spherical shell.

Is it necessary to travel to the boundary of the frontier to benefit from this natural gradient?   No.   Today we are in the infancy of a shared experience network that fills our current domain in our constrained 2D shell: the internet.     We can move intellectual content and experience at some fraction of the speed of the light around our domain(and at the intellectual frontier, are working on technologies that might not be limited by the speed of light, such as wierd quantum coupling).    We are also in the Kitty Hawk stages of direct manipulation of matter, meaning, in the future, UPS will be a local delivery service only.   Imagine the leading edge of a new development wave in a sperical volume.   Within that expanding volume, new technologies are developed at a later time.    Where?  Somewhere within that expanding volume.  But experience is shared within that volume-- the intellectual content necessary to implement the new technology is transferrable within the volume.   It doesn't matter if the technology or new knowledge is developed on earth or on the leading edge of the expanding boundary or ... anywhere in the graident of opportunities in between.

So we can -see- on the near horizon the technologies that will make the shared experience of a civilization expanding into a 3D volume accessible, and with some imagination, we can picture how that new dynamic -- that new source of boundless gradient -- would benefit our species and take it literally to the stars.  The benefit being, not the destinations, plural, but the immediate effort to reach.  To look up.  To run up hills.  To strive.  To imagine.  To be alive.  To live.

Our 'problems right down here on earth' -- especially our economic problems -- are intimately tied to a lack of gradient.  (We've all but consumed the 2D surface growth opportunities, all current frontiers are purely intellectual, resulting in narrow, not broad opportunites.)  So restore gradient.   Put intellectual frontier development back into the business of creating an actual frontier.

Stasis is death.  Targeting stasis is insane.    The Universe is clear about its rules; standing still is losing ground.

regards,

Fred