Anarcho-capitalism in the Real World

Tom-

*laugh* I can bear the finding a restaurant analogy when we all know we don't like sushi, spicy food gives us indigestion, that Waffle House and Krystal are out, etc.

Post 121

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 9:17pm

Aaron,

I can compromise on the issue of sushi, I agree that spicy food gives us indigestion (but I like it nonetheless), and we don't have Krystal in my neck of the woods anyway.

On the issue of Waffle House, however, no compromise is possible. I have it on good authority that the diner Hugh Akston worked in in Atlas Shrugged was a Waffle House. Therefore, I cannot give sanction to, and regard myself as compelled to morally repudiate, anyone who doesn't take his hash browns scattered, smothered, covered and chunked. Begone -- into The Outder Darkness!

;-)

Tom Knapp

Post 122

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 2:34am

>Minarchists believe that the state is necessary and acceptable.
>
>Anarchists believe that the state is unnecessary and unacceptable.

Makes em sound diamectrically opposed, huh? There are often great philosophical differences between minarchists and anarchocapitalists, I agree. However, not always. And there are a great many other schisms we could get worked up about as well. Some, deservedly so.

Joseph Rowlands gave a big list of potential disagreements. He seems to be under the impression that for each of his questions, minis would neccessarily answer one way, and ancaps another. Not so! For instance, what, pray tell, is the ancap position on "Should there be a death penalty?". And how do all minarchists feel about "Can/should we form alliances?" And "What should be considered an act of war?"...where are you going to find an objective standard for that?

The point is, you're going to find people on both sides of many issues from both camps. Are you going to find minis who think Tim McVeigh was right on and it's about time more of us bombed some gov't buildings? You bet; probably more minis than ancaps, actually ... actually probably even more Constitutional types who aren't even so *philosophically* radical as to be minis, but are radical/militant in terms of *action*. Are you going to find ancaps who think all the illegal immigrants should be sent home? Yeah, you will. You'll find people claiming to be minis, yet saying the gov't needs to provide the roads, and people claiming to be ancaps, who vote in every election. Some of these positions are actually perfectly consistent; some are not. Sometimes the espousers of the most radical principles are in real life the wimpiest and whiniest. Objectivists are especially common in the ranks of do-nothing intellectuals who will preach about the Rights of Man, yet do not even own a gun.

So, on th An/Min debate, I will give you my position (as if anyone cares); my bridge of brotherly peace between the factions, to settle this ONCE AND FOR ALL (ha ha):

I believe in not violating other peoples' rights. If that means a purely voluntary minarchy funded by bake sales and telethons, Ayn Rand style, I would be all for it. So too, I think, would most ancaps. In principal. They may not think it highly probable, but if it were to come about, you'd hear no gripes from them. They just don't want coercion.

I believe in not violating other peoples' rights. If that means no state and I've got to shop around for a court, so be it, as long as libertarian principles are being respected in those courts. I've never been one much for litigation, so it won't really affect me none anyway. I'm sure none of the minis would really mind living in such a place, and I, for one, would love it! They may think it's a [insert adjective here; impossible, and contradictory are common] bunch of hogwash, but if a stable, rights-respecting, state-less place were to ever come about, the minis wouldn't complain. They just don't want coercion.

You see, IF you're coming from a point of view of sovereign individuals with rights to respect, the two schools, Miniaturizors and Cap-Heads, are really quite similar. I for one just don't want people to be trying to invade and agress against my liberty, at least not on a massive, institutionalized level. (Common criminals, well, they're good defense practice, so no use complaining about them.) If there's some group of people that want to call themselves "the government" and wear funny hats, well, bully for them, as long as they don't invade my right to live peacably and non-invasively, however I choose. Why should I care what they call themselves? Now, on the other hand, if having the special title of "the government" is supposed to endow these folks with magic fairy powers such that they somehow have the right to invade people's rights, in that scenario I will have to lodge an objection. As will the other ancaps. And, I think, any truly consistent minarchist will have to object as well.

Well, sorry this was rambling, but there you have it.

Post 123

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 5:44am

num++

... the prudence of seeking alliances.

What a great way to diplomatically phrase a major problem.

There is one contradiction though. How do non-state believers make an alliance with anyone? Prudently or recklessly?

The moment they do they're history. With essential issues it's either-or.

You can't be just a teensy bit pregnant. And you can't have your state and eat it too.

Michael

Post 124

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 7:04am

Quoth Michael:

"There is one contradiction though. How do non-state believers make an alliance with anyone? Prudently or recklessly?

"The moment they do they're history. With essential issues it's either-or."

What makes you think that rejection of the state precludes alliances? Limited alliances happen all the time -- Catholics and Protestants co-own businesses, rival baseball teams have pizza together, etc. The alliances just have to be limited to areas which are not a) essential and b) antithetical.

Tom Knapp

Post 125

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 8:20am

Thomas, you wrote

What makes you think that rejection of the state precludes alliances? Limited alliances happen all the time -- Catholics and Protestants co-own businesses, rival baseball teams have pizza together, etc. The alliances just have to be limited to areas which are not a) essential and b) antithetical.

The problem as I see it is that in wishing to abolish all statehood, you will naturally eventually want to abolish the group that will enforce statehood. That means that you go into an alliance stating in essence, (1) We shall work together on this issue, but our fundamental concern is in getting rid of you (which I guess you can call a "not essential" and "not antithetical" alliance, but I don't see it as a very attractive alliance for a party who is also a target), or (2) We shall work together on this issue because your viewpoint is just as valid as ours.

In the second case, you have automatically defeated yourself. That is what I was talking about.

Michael

Post 126

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 10:33am

Michael,

You wrote:

"The problem as I see it is that in wishing to abolish all statehood, you will naturally eventually want to abolish the group that will enforce statehood. That means that you go into an alliance stating in essence, (1) We shall work together on this issue, but our fundamental concern is in getting rid of you (which I guess you can call a 'not essential' and 'not antithetical' alliance, but I don't see it as a very attractive alliance for a party who is also a target), or (2) We shall work together on this issue because your viewpoint is just as valid as ours.

"In the second case, you have automatically defeated yourself. That is what I was talking about."

Okay. I see where you're going ... but I think you're missing the bigger picture.

The fact that anarchists and minarchists are not aligned with respect to their primary goals does not mean that they are not, at some times, aligned with respect to subsidiary or prerequisite goals. They may be so aligned (or they may be opposed to each other).

Ultimately, there's an irreconciliable, essential difference:

If the size, scope and power of the state was diminished over time to a level which minarchists could sanction, then anarchists would fight to reduce it still further -- to nothing -- and minarchists would be among those whom we were fighting.

If some cataclysmic event wiped the state out entirely, or crippled it to such an extent that it was completely non-functional though present, then minarchists and anarchists would once again find themselves on opposite sides of the barricades -- minarchists to restore or rescuscitate the state, anarchists to prevent it from being restored or rescuscitated.

And, between here and there, there are certainly waypoints at which one turn might be the anarchist tactical choice and another the minarchist tactical choice, with conflict inevitable as a result.

There are essential differences.

They will inevitably produce conflict.

They are irreconciliable.

On this, I believe, we agree.

However ...

When and where the interests and tactical goals of anarchists and minarchists are aligned, and where each side regards a given outcome as beneficial to its overall strategic position, there's no particular reason why an alliance of convenience cannot exist.

As I've previously alluded to, the US, UK and USSR managed to work together to defeat a common foe even though their ultimate goals were irreconciliable. Other examples of alliances of convenience exist, but that's the one which looms largest in recent history. Right now, however, I'd say that the US alliance with the remnants of the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, the Pakistani dictatorship, the MEK in Iran (which, after all, is the group which took the American embassy hostages only 26 years ago), etc., are also examples of temporary alliances between groups with irreconciliable ultimate goals.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 127

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 11:17am

I've long been an advocate of two kinds of organizational structures which tend to by-pass many of the problems that arise in ideological movements.

1. Forums. Established for educational purposes, these can be limited by topic, philosophy, geography, whatever. But they are open platforms for the discussion of views. There is no "official" doctrine to which individuals must subscribe, no loyalty oaths, no assumption that anyone speaks (writes) for anyone else. This SOLO discussion forum is an excellent example, and it works precisely because the independence of all is preserved. Magazines and events, such as panel discussions, also lend themselves to being forums.

2. Ad hoc projects. Established in order to rally support around some activist program, these activities are limited by a narrow, pre-existing agenda. For example, a project opposing some specific law, tax increase, regulation, etc., could rally broad support from a wide spectrum of people who might otherwise disagree on a host of issues: liberals, conservatives, anarchists, minarchists, whatever.

The instability of most activist groups--and the reason for most of their internal schisms and factionalism--is due to the fact that they are "defined" in terms of broad abstract principles, not specific concrete projects. Therefore their identity and agenda constantly shift and expand: they are never fixed in any participant's mind, but become political footballs, constantly up for grabs. But by keeping the group's focus very narrow on some specific project, and by fixing the project agenda and rationale at the outset, then all participants know exactly what they are signing on to in advance, and also know that it won't change. Once the agenda is accomplished, the ad hoc coalition can simply fade away. There is no "bait and switch"--i. e., joining some broadly labeled "ism" or activist group, then suddenly finding that, when translating the "ism" into concrete positions, the group starts to take unexpected new stands that one cannot support.

Simply organizing around those two structures would prevent probably 90% of the factional strife we witness within ideological movements. Including this one.

For elaboration, see my old Freeman article of December 1986, "Should We Organize For Liberty?"

Post 128

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 9:04pm

MSK:
There is one contradiction though. How do non-state believers make an alliance with anyone?

Anarchist political movements can seek alliances*, but when speaking of states, it is an obvious oxymoron.

Thomas K. argues the "aligned up until such and such a point is reached" angle. The huge problem here is that anyone possessing a smidgeon of foresight will jettison an anarchist alliance the moment things get moving. Why deal with a roadblock up the road when it can be avoided by an earlier detour? Marx did away with Bakunin (First International Hague Congress) in 1872. A fractious group is like an albatross around the neck of any political movement.

The moment they do they're history.

And history bears this out. Probably the most successful anarchist movement in the 20th century is the left-leaning Federaci�n Anarquista Iberica (FAI), formed by Spanish anarchist militants in 1927. Flourishing in the political vacuum of civil war Spain, four of them even managed to get positions in Prime Minister Francisco Largo Caballero's Cabinet! Infighting soon broke out between the anarchists and the hardline communists. Demoralized by this and other compromises in the civil war, the fascist Francisco Franco soon cleaned up house.

Another problem for mobilizing international anarchist support in the US is a 1903 law that bars foreign anarchists from treading on American soil, and requires the immediate deportation of those already in. This law was partly a response to the 1901 assassination of President McKinley by the Polish anarchist Leon Czolgosz. I don't know the current status of this law

Reading the history of anarchist movements is like reading a manual on how to be crushed like a bug by the thug next door.

____________________________

*Though even here, there's already a contradiction, but let the anarchists deal with that themselves.

Post 129

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 12:17am

Quoth "num++"

"Thomas K. argues the 'aligned up until such and such a point is reached' angle."

I argue no such thing. I argue the "aligned at particular times for particular purposes" angle.

"The huge problem here is that anyone possessing a smidgeon of foresight will jettison an anarchist alliance the moment things get moving. Why deal with a roadblock up the road when it can be avoided by an earlier detour?"

Prehaps because one may stall where one is and never even reach the roadblock if one takes the detour?

Tom Knapp

Post 130

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 7:20pm

So now, instead of alignment in time, we have alignment is space? The same problem of infighting will arise when people see the chances of success go up. The "alliance of convenience" between Marx and Bakunin offer samples of both.

P[er]haps because one may stall where one is and never even reach the roadblock if one takes the detour?

This reeks of too much self-importance. The historical record bears out that the anarchist movements always get kicked out. Are the current near-minarchy states aligned with anarchists? I don't think so.

Post 131

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 12:19am

Quoth num++

"So now, instead of alignment in time, we have alignment is space? The same problem of infighting will arise when people see the chances of success go up. The 'alliance of convenience' between Marx and Bakunin offer samples of both."

Um, yeah. So? The problem of infighting arises when the chance of success goes up ("I don't need you anymore"). It also arises when the chance of success goes down ("this is all your fault"). That's why alliances between groups with different/conflicting ultimate goals are temporary, ad hoc things.

Someone -- it may have even been you -- mentioned the uneasy alliance between the anarchists and Stalinists (and Trotskyites) in the Spanish Civil War). There was no way that alliance could hold together as a Republic. There were just too many essential incompatibilities. It did, however, occasionally hold together in order to achieve a specific goal (like, say, throwing back the fascist forces in their initial attempt to take Madrid -- "no pasaran!").

[Quoting me] "P[er]haps because one may stall where one is and never even reach the roadblock if one takes the detour?

"This reeks of too much self-importance. The historical record bears out that the anarchist movements always get kicked out."

It's not a matter of self-importance. It's a matter of the fact that sometimes a group may not have sufficient resources, of whatever kind, to accomplish a particular goal alone.

"The anarchists always get kicked out." Maybe so. And sometimes "the people who kicked out the anarchists fail." And sometimes the reason for the latter may have something to do with the former.

"Are the current near-minarchy states aligned with anarchists? I don't think so."

Given that there's no such thing as a "current near-minarchy state," I agree.

Tom Knapp

Post 132

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 3:12pm

On near-minarchies...

I would define a near-minarchy state as those that are classified as tax-havens and rate high on political freedom/human rights indices (like those of the Freedom House, Fraser Institute, etc.). A few countries that pass...

Andorra
Bahamas
Liechtenstein

On the alliance issue...

In a political context, I see 3 ways from a preexisting statist state to a less statist state: (if you have more, feel free to add)

1) Take up arms and attempt seccession
2) Organize an alternative political party
3) Influence libertarian elements in a dominant party

If we take the current US situation as a context, where will an alliance of minarchists with anarchists help?

#1 is out of the question.

#2 is the Libertarian Party. Seeing that there are already significant anarchist elements in that party, and its current level of "success", I wouldn't say the alliance with anarchists has helped.

On #3, the Republican Party has some libertarian-leaning elements; there are many Republicans, though not minarchist, that would like to see a smaller government. Would the chances of their becoming more minarchist be improved or not by seeing minarchist groups allied with anarchist groups? Not probable but still possible...

...didn't Pat Buchanan have an 'alignment' with ancaps some years ago? I don't see it has done much good for him.

If alignment were to mean only common educational materials, that would be fine. Rand and Rothbard are pretty much the same arguing for a laissez faire environment; minarchists and anarchists are better off learning from both. On the political front I don't see a plausible real world scenario where the anarchists are more help than burden.

Post 133

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 6:07pm

num++,

You wrote:

"On the alliance issue...

"In a political context, I see 3 ways from a preexisting statist state to a less statist state: (if you have more, feel free to add)

"1) Take up arms and attempt seccession
2) Organize an alternative political party
3) Influence libertarian elements in a dominant party"

I can think of others, but I have a different opinion of the possibilities where alliances are concerned. The point of the kinds of alliances where minarchists and anarchists can genuinely cooperate is not some previously agreed upon general end of "a less statist state," but on specific, narrow issues (see Mr. Bidinotto's article).

For example, anarchists and minarchists might work together on an initiative to fight the imposition of a new tax, or to eliminate an existing tax.

Or anarchists and minarchists might work together on an initiative to fight the imposition of a new drug law, or to eliminate an existing drug law.

On some issues, some anarchists and some minarchists can get along within a narrow timeframe and for the purpose of achieving specific goals.

Not all anarchists and not all minarchists. Not on all issues, and not at all times. A lot of minarchists disagree with other minarchists on tactical approaches. A lot of anarchists disagree with other anarchists on tactical approaches. All of them working together productively on the "big picture?" Ain't gonna happen. As you note, we've seen how well that works with the Libertarian Party.

I've concluded -- after long holding, and working for, the opposite -- that no general, ongoing alliance between anarchists and minarchists is possible. There's just too much disagreement -- between and within -- the two factions for anything more cordial than detente to occur. And usually not even detente.

I'm personally capable of working with minarchists (and even medium-archists) across a fairly wide range of issues because I'm not convinced that anarchy is achievable in my lifetime anyway, and therefore don't attempt to impose an anarchist agenda on everything I do.

However, I'm something of an exception to the rule, at least based on the discussions I've had with other anarchists. How many anarchists do you know who have been appointed to office by President Bush, or who have managed successful campaigns for election to public office? Among anarchists (hell, among minarchists), I'm often slammed as a sell-out. I don't see it that way, of course. I sought and accepted appointment to office not because I approved of the office (draft board), but because I was scared enough of the office that I didn't trust anyone else in it. I've managed and worked on Libertarian and non-partisan campaigns for office not because I approved of the offices, but because I wanted the least damaging people in those offices.

Some other anarchists see it very differently tactically, and in a way that would never, ever allow them to work with minarchists at all: They think things have to get bad enough to provoke the revolution, and therefore on a tactical level, they cheer and support the growth of the state toward that end. That's obviously incompatible with minarchist aspirations even at a tactical level.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 134

Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 3:05am