I've not made a study of anarchy, but can't see how it would work in anything other than a utopia. I prefer being a NAP Libertarian as the least of all evils, and I view governments as necessary evils.
I've not made a study of anarchy, but can't see how it would work in anything other than a utopia. I prefer being a NAP Libertarian as the least of all evils, and I view governments as necessary evils.
Minarchism is Utopian. Any level of government is antithetical to the NAP. A territorial monopoly in violence is never necessary for anything, even if you pretend you can keep it small. Public choice economics and the psychological effects of power guarantee corruption and abuse and growth of the State. What do you imagine the government needs to provide that cannot be better provided and funded voluntarily?
What do you imagine the government needs to provide that cannot be better provided and funded voluntarily?
I need the government to protect you from me and vice versa. In a word, courts. I pull here from a Jefferson quote:
Any level of government is antithetical to the NAP.
This is a little more difficult to rebut because the government's foundation is coercion. However, the government should solely have one job: to protect the rights of the individual when the individual cannot protect herself. Here I pull from Kant:
Human nature dictates the use of force. History has yet to disprove me (unfortunately). Therefore, I choose a republic, which history again supports as the least of the four evils.
I also don't really believe anarchy possible because according to anarchy's Wikipedia page:
And hierarchy is a fundamental tenet of humanity (beginning with families. Imagine if children were equal to parents).
In my mind, anarchy results in chaos, and as the wise Jordan Peterson says, the ideal space to inhabit is exactly between order and chaos.
Imposed order produces chaos. Government is responsible for wars, economic turmoil, arbitrary police states, and more all in the name of "order." Even immediately after the Constitution's alleged triumph, we saw Washington and Madison using the power they centralized to create chaos in the name of order, and violate the very rights they claimed to uphold. The most glaring examples are the whiskey tax and the alien and sedition laws. Government cannot protect rights because the premise of government is always violation of rights before it can do anything else.
I wrote a longer post on the topic a couple weeks ago.
As for hierarchy, I do not oppose the principle when it is just. There are rightful hierarchies. However, this does not mean all claims to authority ate automatically legitimate. There are anatchists who disagree, but they are not very coherent.
Government isn’t responsible for wars, economic turmoil, and the police state. Those are just tenets of human nature. No, more and bigger government isn’t the answer; but neither is no government. Government will always be imperfect, but that’s because it’s made up of imperfect people. An anarchic state would have the void filled immediately by a tyrant.
On the other hand, I’d be very interested to see an experimental anarchic city, perhaps somewhere in Texas. The results would be interesting.
Wars are the result of government figures using the mythology of the State to persuade others to kill in their name. This is obvious from history. Disputes happen, yes, but only through government do disputes result in wholesale slaughter, carpet bombing, and nuclear weapons.
Economic turmoil can be brought about by famines and disease, but only government creates the boom-bust business cycle through central banking or protects cronies from competition to maintain artificially-high profits.
The police state is literally only possible through a monopoly police system operated by the government.
You fear anarchy because you do not understand it. Every time you engage in any voluntary association, you are acting as an anarchist already.
I don’t fear anarchy, per se. I fear human nature, which is in part curtailed by a just government (which admittedly are hard to produce). For me, it’s a fine line between a nanny state and anarchy, the first of which is too much order and the second too much chaos.
Ideally, we’d be living in a Jeffersonian republic.
Authoritarian Sociopathy that goes into great depth on the nature of power and its effect on human psychology.If you fear human nature, you must fear government, because it rewards the worst in human nature while offering incentives to twist even the best intentions toward evil. @badquakerdotcom serialized a book called
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
A Jeffersonian Republic is no more sustainable than Marxist Communism. Look where it got the US in barely over 200 years.
Sounds in line with some of what Milton Friedman said, "We need government to protect one man from being hit over the head by another man."
Is that accurate, would you see yourself as a minarchist? I was also interested in his begrudgingly acceptance that the state should also require companies to pay for environmental damage, but obviously he rejects most other forms of tax. So in other words, the free market incurs a "market failure" regarding say pollution. In my latest post I referenced an article which was a rejection of not only the state, but Civlization itself, from a Native American ecological perspective which ultimately said we need less people.
I also have been interested by Johnathan Haidt recently who said this (regarding your idea that anarchism is too much chaos):
This was prefaced by him citing a study that found that the more "bound in" to society you were, the less likely you were to commit suicide. So I think, probably unfairly, he is suggesting that libertarian or anarchist world would be so chaotic for some people that they would kill themselves.
Which, to tie it back around, is probably what the environment needs 😅 Okay, bad joke, but the point is that anarchism is probably too radical for most, but I wonder if we can have some of it.
How would you summarize this "Jeffersonian republic"?
Governments are not responsible for wars?
Oxford Dictionary defines the noun War as: a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state
The example they give: "Japan declared war on Germany"
Are nations or states not by definition defined by the fact that they have a government?
Either I mistook the words you were using for the English language or you just
made an ass of yourself for saying that?I'm sorry I don't mean to be rude with the made an ass of yourself statement...
What I did mean is that you are using those words the wrong way or you don't know what they mean...
Even within the other part of the definition ''or different groups within a nation or state''.
That definition obviously includes the idea that those different aforementioned groups are warring for control of the State
Otherwise it's just a Brawl, not a ''War''
The only other context I've ever seen the word ''War'' used that's not in relation to the state is with relation to ''Gang-wars'' or ''Mafia-wars'', but again, those small organization are vying for control of a monopoly of violence over a certain area...
They may not have the legitimacy of the state, but they do emulate the behavior of the state on a microcosmic level, and that's not by accident or coincidence... They are quasi-states (Mexican drug cartels) or proto-states (ISIS)... They can extract ''taxes'' by racketeering and other forms of offering protection..
These gangs or crime syndicates are merely in competition with the State... they defy the very notion of the state holding a true monopoly of violence, as exemplified by their acts of it...
Anybody who's really looked into this, and most anarchists have to some extent, knows that the Government is just the legitimate de-facto mafia in power.