The Anarchic vacuum

[juliusaugustus]

While I myself don't advocate anarchy I will concede that it can indeed produce good results. A problem I see is that the opportunity for power would be too great. Being as the state is now gone people who have large sums of money would simply hire an army and establish a state because federal reserve notes would still be valuable and people would still use them or they keep large sums of gold in a valt. Another problem I see with the Anarchic vacuum is that some states might still be around and prey upon the decentralized nature of anarchism and extend territory into the formally anarchic areas. Historically anarchic societies have been destroyed by military force. What are your thoughts?

[CaptUSA]

What are your thoughts?Initially, I thought why is this in GP when we have a political philosophy sub-forum. And then I thought about how the alternative to what you describe is actually doing what you describe. I'm not an anarchist - I think government has a limited purpose - but I'd rather live under anarchy than despotism, like we have now.

[green73]

But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?

http://mises.org/daily/1855

[Vessol]

The key to reaching a successful voluntaryist anarchist society is through a cultural revolution. Changing how society see's violence and pointing out the violence that is inherent in the state. If we make the transition from a State to a Stateless society peacefully, it won't foreseeably go back because of that cultural shift..

"Anarchy" out of violence collapse of a State is not positive and is just a power vacuum for another State-like entity taking control.

[TheGrinch]

But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?

http://mises.org/daily/1855

Will read the rest later, but most of the anarchist arguments seem to hinge on the problems of the state as we know it now, not necessarily the merits of anarchism.

I do agree that without a sufficient portion of the population subscribing to the NAP, then any system is bound to fail and be corrupted.

But I'd take that further that as long as there are corrupt power-hungry interests willing to kill, defraud and manipulate the public into meeting their ends, then you have not sufficiently combatted the root of the problem.

Interesting read though, will bookmark to finish.

[Vessol]

Will read the rest later, but most of the anarchist arguments seem to hinge on the problems of the state as we know it now, not necessarily the merits of anarchism.

I do agree that without a sufficient portion of the population subscribing to the NAP, then any system is bound to fail and be corrupted.

But I'd take that further that as long as there are corrupt power-hungry interests willing to kill, defraud and manipulate the public into meeting their ends, then you have not sufficiently combatted the root of the problem.

Interesting read though, will bookmark to finish.

I'm not expert in the subject, but I think if we reach the point of critical mass where the majority of people recognize the NAP that those type of people will not be able to flourish as they do nowadays. They will be shunned and looked down upon.

[July]

I'm not expert in the subject, but I think if we reach the point of critical mass where the majority of people recognize the NAP that those type of people will not be able to flourish as they do nowadays. They will be shunned and looked down upon.

Looking at it that way, then anarchism is a state of mind, a way of looking at the world and your place in it. Despotism requires the passive approval and acceptance of the majority. The "warlords" and such of today have been able to achieve power and centralize their control because they have been successfully able to convince the masses to accept it, that they are beneficial, or at least a necessary evil, etc. That is why, when a government collapses somewhere, people scramble to create a new one in its place, or fall into chaos, because its what they know and expect. The paradigm hasn't changed.

[fisharmor]

When you consider that half of eligible voters don't show up at the polls, and eligible voters doesn't include the entire population, and that actual crimes (as opposed to crimes against the state) would have to make up that difference, then you realize we're already at the point where a majority of the population follows NAP.

It's why FOSS works.

[EBounding]

Does anarchism assume people desire freedom?

[Occam's Banana]

A problem I see is that the opportunity for power would be too great.

As opposed to what? The *lack* of opportunity for power under the State? Under Anarchy, there would not be a ready-made apparatus for monopolizing the legitimate use of force, as there is under the State.


Being as the state is now gone people who have large sums of money would simply hire an army and establish a state [...]

I don't think that would be nearly as easy as you seem to suggest it would be. Under a State, the extremely rich have a quick and direct avenue to total power (see my remark above).

Ultimately, though, the whole Statism vs. Anarchy thing doesn't matter if the members of a society aren't willing to throw off the chains of obedience and end their subservience to illegitimate claimants.

Until enough people understand that Liberty is the absolutely necessary foundation of any civil society, we are doomed to be ruled by lawless masters, regardless of whether any formal State exists or not.

It is only under such a civil society that the Statism vs. Anarchy debate will become something more than just an academic exercise in philosophical jousting.

We are none of us - Statists or Anarchists - anywhere near that blessed condition.

[Wesker1982]

These will all help answer your question:

Libertarian Society- What about corrupt or criminal market courts? Won't the rich take over? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqo7XMkbtEk)
Answering the Warring Defense Providers Objection | Murray Rothbard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spVl493wZUU)
Wouldn't a market defense agency become criminal or form another State, etc? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdMBzKrDVEY)
Libertarian Society: Won't The Rich Or Gangs Take Over, or Battle? | Walter Block (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpCy0gmWMCM)
The article linked earlier But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? Is highly recommended as well.

For the best introduction to this subject, I recommend:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw

If you want to know my take on all of this, see Law Without Taxation (http://wesker1982.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/law-without-taxation/)