My Views on Anarchy

You see, anarchists sincerely believe that they are merely advocating "competition" in the protection of rights. In fact, what their position would necessitate is "competition" in defining what "rights" are.

What anarchists omit from their basic premises is a simple fact: conflicting philosophies will lead to conflicting interpretations of the meaning of such basic terms as "aggression," "self- defense," "property," "rights," "justice," and "liberty." Deducing away, syllogism after syllogism, from these mere words does not mean that the people employing them agree on their meaning, justification or implementation.

Anarchy would not work in a perfect society either, because we'd be unable to function because we still need objective laws. Anarchy can no longer be looked at as a political concept.

Well, if it was ever conceivable, why would we need any agency -- governmental or private? Why wouldn't six-billion people naturally cooperate on this planet without any legal or institutional framework to resolve disputes?

The problem, of course, is everyone disagrees about what his rational self-interest is.

Post 1

Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 6:38pm

We already have "anarchy" in the international sense. Each country is sovereign - able to make its own laws and enforce them as it sees fit (based on its own sense of what is right and wrong). Some of these countries are very small - city-states in fact. And yet, we don't speak of the world, as a whole, as being an example of anarchy.

The word anarchy means "absence of government". So, in the global context, anarchy means absence of world government. We already live in global anarchy.

If the world can work without world government - then a physical space (called a country at present) can also work without 'country' government.

Does that mean those against anarchy are for world government? Perhaps.

Certainly, there are a lot of people who are working towards, and supporting the idea of world government - based on the premise that government knows (and works) best.

Those arguing against anarchy often say that competing city-states would be unworkable. However I cannot see why not - as they already exist now.

As for how would people cooperate and interact without government - that's simple, by voluntary contract, private arbitration and private enforcement. A private city-state could easily have its own rules (like those of a body corporate), based on its own moral "foundations" and values, and those wanting to live there would be expected to sign up to them.

The essence of such anarchic city-states would be voluntarism - residents would have freely signed up to the body corporate rules.

If you didn't like living in a "vegan" city - where killing animals is prohibited, or "hedonist" city, where social drugs are readily available - then you'd obviously go and live somewhere else. :-)

At its root, anarchy just means living one's life without external authority (no government, no king). And that means all relationships between anarchic individuals would be governed by voluntarily entered-into contracts and agreements. Self-government.

Any anarchic community based on irrationional ideas would fail - and those based on rational ideas would prosper.

Galt's Gulch was anarchic.

Post 2

Monday, July 21, 2003 - 2:25pm

Well said.

I thought that this would be relatable. Freedom is whatever you allow to oppose you. We put rules on ourselves everyday. But your willingness to set restrictions are actually not even restrictions at all.

If someone proclaims to be a slave, i.e. to the computer or something similar, one must ask if they are truly a slave, or a willing slave, which makes them not a slave at all.

Though somewhat irrelevant, I thought I'd add that.

Post 3

Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 11:32pm

A government's key role should be, exclusively, dealing with criminals and their victims. The government's only moral role is in the application of law.

A government applies these laws by maintaining a police force to apprehend criminals and investigate crimes. Government should also maintain a strong, technologically superior military to combat external aggression, as well as an intelligence wing to combat espionage and...Evil Plots. :)

If the military and police arms of a government are restrained by solid, objective laws that guarantee the sovereignty of the individual and the sanctity of his rights, then I see no problem with maintaining a government. I don't think there is a need for anarchy.

J

Post 4

Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 5:13pm

Trouble is - power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Post 5

Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 12:16am

I don't think that's a valid excuse to disregard the important roles a government can play.

If a government is ~defined~ by its unassailable and objective laws, it becomes a servant of its citizens. As long as a government remains objectively defined by those laws, and not by the men who enforce them, it can be a useful tool for combating injustice, one untouchable by bribe or favor. "A government of Laws, not men."

You are ~absolutely~ correct that law can be corrupted--but only by the men who corrupt it. Because the law has been manipulated by bribe or favor or whim does not negate the value of law--only the value of the men who corrupt it. The morality of an objective government is not tarnished by immoral men.

The closest thing to anarchy I could ever advocate is the practice of private law enforcement, where private firms handle investigation of crimes, trials by court, and incarceration--while still being restrained by unassailable laws set forth in the Constitution.

However, this does bring about the problem of oversight--how does a nation ensure that the private firms are handling things correctly? Well, the nation would require a government for that, since private citizens would be far too busy with their own lives, and rightly so. And since a government (albeit a lean and inexpensive one) is required for this task, it cannot be defined as anarchy--the nonexistence of government. Anarchy is too inconstant for my tastes. A nation ~must~ have constant law.

J

Post 6

Friday, August 1, 2003 - 4:39pm

How can one have "constant" law in a democracy?

The USA is a prime example of a country founded on good principles - which has gone rotten. Why? Because a constitution is only as good as the people it is supposed to protect. If most the individuals in a particular country don't morally support the existing constitution - then it is simply "redefined" into oblivion.

It would also be impossible to create or ratify such a constitution by democratic means - even more impossible that maintaining it.

The idea that we can be protected by a government - which is limited by a constitution - is a myth. It simply doesn't work in reality. History provides ample evidence.

There can be no future for any social system in which the individual is not utterly and completely sovereign over his own life.

Post 7

Saturday, August 2, 2003 - 9:18am

Obviously it wasn't impossible to ratify a Constitution that upheld the sovereignty of individual rights, since I live under that Constitution right now.

David: "The idea that we can be protected by a government - which is limited by a constitution - is a myth. It simply doesn't work in reality. History provides ample evidence."

I would say that history provides ample evidence for the opposite. How many millions of Americans (and non-Americans) have been protected by the United States government, under laws set forth in the Constitution? While there have been terrible compromises to the essence of the Constitution, ones that are unforgivable, that doesn't destroy the value of the Constitution--only the value of those men who would destroy it (like I said before).

A system and land of laws is the best place for freedom-wanting individuals to live--otherwise any fool or thug with a gun could take what you own and ~never be forced to answer for his crimes.~ Of course, in a land without laws stealing, looting, and killing wouldn't be crimes--just sad misunderstandings.

The spirit of the Constitution was lost in America when the Welfare State became popular. As social programs (and taxes) increased in number, strength, and enforcement, the proper way to live one's life was lost. No longer was it a man's sole responsibility to build his own castle--it became the government's role.

But that doesn't negate the value of the Constitution. We agree, the means to creating and maintaining a free society must come from, and be sustained by, the people within that society: "Why? Because a constitution is only as good as the people it is supposed to protect."

This statement is true in one light: A constitution only has power if it's adhered to. But that's true of any governmental charter.

But a constitution's objective laws are good no matter the irrationality of its people--those laws exist, and are correct, ~independent~ of the immorality of the people.

And saying that humans are too inherently evil to adopt such a system is something Jesus might say. I know you wouldn't say something like that, David, would you? :) lol...

J

Post 8

Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 8:31pm

Nice to hear some discussion about anarchism. I never thought about Galt's Gulch being anarchistic! Correct me if I'm wrong about anarchism, but here is what I understood anarchism to be.

I think you guys are kinda skimming over a central part of anarchism. Anarchy the political system is a derivative of anarchy the philosophy - much like laissez faire capitalism is the derivative of Objectivism.

Thus it usually has a little more to it than simple lack of government. Objectivists see force coming only from bad government, criminals or other countries. Anarchists also think of hierarchy as inherently repressive, see the division of labor as anti-freedom, take a strong environmentalist stance, want some kind of democratic control of capital, etc.
I don't think an anarchist simply wants a removal of government; they essentially want socialism with government removed in the process of the revolution.
Of course there are exceptions � anarcho-capitalists are really a different kettle of fish....

ps. i think Gult would have to be punking out, Dagny braless and the lot of them smoking $ labeled joints to really call gults gulch anarchistic. he he :)

Post 9

Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 3:47pm

Anarchism is as broad a doctrine as "liberalism" or "conservatism". One can believe in the organisation of societies in any number of ways and still call oneself an anarchist. The only requirement is the absence of the state.

Post 10

Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 6:31pm

'the absence of the state' may be the case in a strict dictionary definition, but anarchism the political system is USUALLY tied up so deeply in those points I mentioned above that it has so many more connotations. In fact, I recommend doing a web search, or a look at what the most popular anarchist literature is.

Anarchism may be as broad as 'liberalism' or 'conservatism', but I think there is a clear, normal position that most anarchists adhere to.

I think it is illustrative that anarcho-capitalists call themselves this to distinguish from the usual position.

Please point me to different sources if I�m wrong :) The truth is I�ve only touched anarchism, and haven't had a good feel around to see what's out there.

By the way, anybody here ever listen to www.democracynow.org? It�s often biased as hell but also reports some stuff the mainstream media doesn�t. What do people listen or read for news?

merry christmas

Post 11

Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 5:36am

Hello,
I've been having a solid, issue debate for some time at libertarian-nation@yahoogroups.com on anarchy vs minimal government.
The group is focussed on building a new society, which is a great opportunity to bring innovation into government.
As I am the only objectivist in a group of libertarians, if any of you would like to join me, I'd appreciate the intellectual support.
Personally, I think it better that objectivists jump into the battle of rational discussion with libertarians, rather than ostracize their group and isolate ourselves.
K. Alexander

Post 12

Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 9:18am

Anarchy? Hmm....the problem is that no 'anarchists" actually want that. "the absense of a state" sounds all nice, UNTIL you get to the actual implimentation. Then you get things like what David said about "competing city-states". So do you want an "absence of the State", or do you merely want to revert to SMALLER States?
That's a valid question.

Moreover, the whole "world government" controversy is silly, patently idiotic, as a matter of fact. The problem is NOT the size of the State, but WHAT the state is -- and what it does.
In other words (and anarchists would be the first to admit this...hopefully): a small city-state which imprisoned it's citizens arbitrarily, murdered it's citizens for a multitude of non-sensical "crimes" like smoking marijuana or women going un-veiled in public, etc....would be morally reprehensible, right?
But a State which was STRICTLY delimited in what it could do -- what it was PERMITTED to do -- say, by a Constitution which SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED it from doing ANYTHING except what was specifically permitted (and an ARMED citizenry, who were willing to DESTROY said State, should it violate said Constition)....then it would make no practical difference if the State was a "small city"-sized institution, or a planetary organization.

This is why the "anti-globalist" mentality is idiotic: the assumption is usually that "smaller states" will do better than larger ones, as if the territorial extent of a political entity is commensurate with it's ability to repress.
Y'know what denies that fundamentally? Iran, Iraq, India, North Korea, and Singapore are VERY different in size from China, but they are all equally repressive (in certain respects.)

Anarchists need to actually DO something against the current system, more than just sit around debating the "merits of the State".
If Anarchy is a practical goal, then the first step to getting there is essentially to HAMSTRING governmental power (IE, so-called "minarchy" such as Objectivists advocate). Then, discussion can more easily proceed, as to whether to keep the LIMITED governments which remain.

Further, the USA did NOT start out as a "democracy". Democracy is essentially a bad idea, in that it fundamentally undercuts the idea of "limited government" at the root. How can you 'strictly prohibit" Governmental actions of a given type, when the citizens can "vote" on it? It doesn't make sense. Democracy is nothing more than the lowest common denomenator, and the road to serfdom. "Democratic" regimes routinely vote themselves an oppressive governmetnal structure. Remember Hitler?

There are, it appears to me, only two viable paths to change anymore:
1. Political activism (consisting basically, of VOTING 'government expansion" DOWN, and explaining WHY.)

Or, 2: violent revolution.

Until and unless persons are willing to undertake option 2, then Option 1 is the viable alternative.
Clear?

Post 13

Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 9:09pm

Henry : I agree with you. However, the problem is that a republic is inherently unstable. Any minute way to get resources for illegitimate purposes will be exploited more and more until the principles explode. Just as happened in the United States. If you analyze the dynamics involved, it is an inevitable process.

Post 14

Friday, December 26, 2003 - 10:49am

But, Franc, republics aren't the problem. DEMOCRACY is the problem. If "the people" are empowered to (for example) "vot for" censorship, 'gun control', or anything such as that, then they WILL.
People have a disturbing tendency to think that oppressions THEY AGREE WITH are just fine. Certain basic fundamentals (such as the structure, and functions, of the government), must NOT be in the hands of "the people". Otherwise, the very things which make the republic desireable in the first place are going to be the first things toileted.

Perhaps, if it IS an inevitable process, then the only viable solution is semi-perpetual revolutions. If a certain element of concerned populace remain ready AND WILLING to blast the government back to it's legitimate size, then maybe we can get somewhere.

I dunno...thorny question.

Post 15

Friday, December 26, 2003 - 11:07am

Additionally:
The common anarchist premises of:
"Pro-environment"
"Democratic division of capital"
And "division of labor as anti-freedom"

ALL neccesitate coercive force implimented on individuals who dissent.

For example: if I (in an anarchic setting) wanted to invent something, or build a building -- clearing land etc. --- I could not do so, because it would be "altering the natural environment". Even if I could, it would be unethical, because to hire some people to work for me would be "division of labor" -- which is "anti-freedom".
AND, if I DID managed to build or invent or create something, even as simple as a hovel for myself and my wife, and a plot of farm-land, well....because of 'democratic division of capital", any loafing anti-effort buttwad could "vote" himself an allotment of my food, or shelter at my house, uninvited.

"Common ownership" is a disastrous mistake. The internal contradictions of standard "leftists" anarchism (Emma Goldman, etc.), would lead to a squalid, very ANTI-freedom hellhole existence, far as I can see.

Post 16

Friday, December 26, 2003 - 12:55pm

You can't say anything is illegal in an anarchy, since there is no state to enforce the law.
At maximum you can say that other people will try to pay you off or kill you.

And yes, democracy is nasty with a capital E. Republics are inherently unstable and degenerate into democracies. Anarchy is nasty AND inherently unstable.
So are monarchies, but monarchies are better than democracies and much more stable.

I'm either becoming an anarcho-capitalist or a monarchist. Does not look good for my libertarian membership card. ROTFL

Post 17

Friday, December 26, 2003 - 1:01pm

Damn! A Monarcho-Capitalist, perhaps? hehe :)

Post 18

Friday, December 26, 2003 - 4:33pm

Now there's an idea. I could be the philosopher-king, just like in Plato. And I would rule mercifully, with the best interest and freedom of my subjects and encourage scientific research.

First order of business : get all the drug offenders out of jail and make drugs legal again.

Post 19

Friday, December 26, 2003 - 4:54pm