To Anarchists: How does anarchy work.

[Sam I am]

I know that the majority of this forum isn't Anarchist, but I also know that some people are. Let's say that all of a sudden, You live in an anarchist society. What happens, why are we better off? Why doesn't Government just happen again?

I want to get into a good discussion about this, but the reason why I'm not asking very many specifics right now, is because I personally don't understand anarchy. I don't understand the appeal of anarchy. I wouldn't know where to begin.

[RiseAgainst]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Reference-List

[tttppp]

I think there should be some minimal government. But if the option is what we have or anarchy, I'd take anarchy.

In anarchy, I would assume its basically capitalism without the government involvement. There would be some chaos, but the market would eventually fill the role of most of the government functions. That is as long as some group doesn't take over the country and force their government on us.

[Xerographica]

Here's my argument why there's no point to argue for anarcho-capitalism. Let's say that taxpayers were allowed to choose which government organizations received their own, individual, hard earned taxes. If taxpayers were truly satisfied with the private provision of A,B,C then why would they voluntarily allocate any of their own, individual, hard earned taxes to the public provision of A,B,C?

[Sola_Fide]

Here's my argument why there's no point to argue for anarcho-capitalism. Let's say that taxpayers were allowed to choose which government organizations received their own, individual, hard earned taxes. If taxpayers were truly satisfied with the private provision of A,B,C then why would they voluntarily allocate any of their own, individual, hard earned taxes to the public provision of A,B,C?

? Dude, you are twisted.

[thehighwaymanq]

I also have questions regarding this.

How would we come to a anarchy society? Ron Paul is elected and people begin seeing limited government working, then more and more libertarians are elected, government is reduced and to a point we set a day, say January 1, that we get rid of all government and have anarchy?

I just don't see how this could happen unless we all moved somewhere to create this society. I don't see the above working ever.

[Xerographica]

? Dude, you are twisted.

That's true. Errr...but why do you think I'm twisted? I almost made this a multiple choice question but then thought better of it.

[tttppp]

I also have questions regarding this.

How would we come to a anarchy society? Ron Paul is elected and people begin seeing limited government working, then more and more libertarians are elected, government is reduced and to a point we set a day, say January 1, that we get rid of all government and have anarchy?

I just don't see how this could happen unless we all moved somewhere to create this society. I don't see the above working ever.

There is no harm in having a little government. So I don't think we would phase out government to nothing. The only way I could see anarchy happening is if we overthrew the government.

[Sola_Fide]

That's true. Errr...but why do you think I'm twisted? I almost made this a multiple choice question but then thought better of it.

I've avoided responding to your posts because your underlying motive, pragmatism, commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

[Xerographica]

I've avoided responding to your posts because your underlying motive, pragmatism, commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Let's try a more concrete example. Would WWII still have occurred if German taxpayers had been allowed to directly allocate their taxes?

[Wesker1982]

I know that the majority of this forum isn't Anarchist, but I also know that some people are.

The word alone causes a lot of confusion. I would say the best way to describe them is that they support a non-monopolistic voluntarily funded legal order.

The basic idea is that however prosperous and law-abiding a society is, adding an monopoly of legalized initiated violence will only make things worse. Everything the State "provides" has and should be produced through voluntary associations.

What happens, why are we better off?

Violent monopolies are naturally bad from the point of view of the consumer. They are corrupt and inefficient.

Governments as we know them initiate or threaten the use of violence on peaceful individuals in order to exist. This is inherently immoral.

Why doesn't Government just happen again?

They would no longer have the popular support required if the State were abolished through persuasion and education. Questions such as these are answered in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Reference-List

The question here was asked by an anarcho-communist, but the responses answer a lot of what you are asking: http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capi...to_broaden_my/

To get a good intro, I would start with these specifically:

The Market For Security

But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?

Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime

Answering the Warring Defense Agencies Objection

Libertarian Society- What about corrupt or criminal voluntary courts?

Wouldn't a private defense agency become criminal, or turn into a dictatorship, etc?

If you still have questions or doubts after looking the material above, I will be happy to help you.

[RiseAgainst]

There is no harm in having a little government. So I don't think we would phase out government to nothing. The only way I could see anarchy happening is if we overthrew the government.

"There's no harm in having 'a little rape'."

Government, or the state, is an institution that is built on the initiation of violent force on innocent individuals.

[Xerographica]

Personally, I have the advantage of having lived in probably the closest thing to an anarcho-capitalist society. Here's my take...Anarcho-capitalism vs Civilization.

[Xerographica]

"There's no harm in having 'a little rape'."

Government, or the state, is an institution that is built on the initiation of violent force on innocent individuals.

If taxpayers could choose which government organizations received their taxes...would they boycott the government organizations responsible for "rape"?

Isn't that the central basis for the libertarian creed? The notion that educated free adults can be trusted with matches... not to mention their bank accounts and votes? If the masses are intrinsically stupid -- sheep -- then the paternalists are right and no future society of maximized freedom will ever be possible. - David Brin, Essences, Orcs and Civilization: The Case for a Cheerful Libertarianism

If you struggle accepting the idea that people are not sheep then please read this article by Paul Bonneau...The Problem With the 'People Are Idiots' Meme.

[RiseAgainst]

If taxpayers could choose which government organizations received their taxes...would they boycott the government organizations responsible for "rape"?



If you struggle accepting the idea that people are not sheep then please read this article by Paul Bonneau...The Problem With the 'People Are Idiots' Meme.

Every single government organization is responsible for the 'rape' Xero. Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat...either the sound of your own voice indeed does soothe you, or you've taken the Goebbels' school of debate.

[Xerographica]

Every single government organization is responsible for the 'rape' Xero. Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat...either the sound of your own voice indeed does soothe you, or you've taken the Goebbels' school of debate.

Really...you've been 'raped' by every single government organization?

[Sam I am]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Reference-List

Since you would rather strong-arm your way by with intimidating lists of links, and suggesting that I debate by reading your thousand plus page library of literature, I'll go to your page, and pick the first link that appears, and address the first issue that said link addresses.

http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap18a.asp

I'm not going to read the entire thing, just the Introduction and the section after. If something important comes up later in this article, I'm sure you can easily draw my attention to the important parts, since you obviously know the whole thing by heart.


The Article I read was very superficial. Instead of making arguments in favor of the free market with logic based on facts, it attempts to overwhelm the reader with obscure and purposefully hard to understand language.

It proceeds to construct a straw man who can only say "people don't actually know what they need, so we need a government to tell them what they need." This straw man is weak. This straw man is wrong. This straw man is easy to vanquish, and the article unsurprisingly vanquishes it well.

The article's straw man believes that government is a divine and benevolent force. One can argue whether or not most non-anarchist people see the government in such a light, but to actually make a compelling case, you would have to actually take a rather large survey of real people. So I will just speak for myself.

I don't see the U.S. government as a diving and benevolent force. I don't even see the U.S. government as an outsider. Any citizen of the United States can participate in their government. Anyone can petition for congress to create a law. Anyone born in the United States can run for any elected position.

The article assumes that there is no such thing as fraud. It assumes that all suppliers are selling what they claim to be selling. Let's say that you pay good money for a car. The seller tells you that the car runs great and has less than 100 miles on it. You buy the car, and you see that it has no engine, and realize that the seller replaced the odometer. Are you screwed? or do you think that there ought to be some law that prevents the seller from defrauding you?


Edit: I've been ninja'd like 14 times in the time it took me to write this.

[JuicyG]

Personally, I have the advantage of having lived in probably the closest thing to an anarcho-capitalist society. Here's my take...Anarcho-capitalism vs Civilization.

But isn`t/wasn`t Afghanistan ruled by bloody ruthless warlords?

@Wesker1982

I`m flirting with anarchist ideas though I have some doubts. One worry I have is that an anarchist type society might have problems defending itself from outside statist organizations. Throughout history anarchist movements were defeated by outside forces eg Anarchist free territory in Ukraine, Anarchist Spanish revolution and similar asian experiments.

[RiseAgainst]

Really...you've been 'raped' by every single government organization?

Yes. So long as an organization uses force to fund itself, or to gain compliance, it is part of the 'rape'. You can spray your perfume on before you rape people, but you still advocate their rape.

[RiseAgainst]

Sam I Am,

Are you a two year old? You show up here and demand that your hand be held and you be walked through every aspect of something you admit you know nothing about?

Use your mind and educate yourself.

[Xerographica]

Yes. So long as an organization uses force to fund itself, or to gain compliance, it is part of the 'rape'. You can spray your perfume on before you rape people, but you still advocate their rape.

So the EPA and the DMV and the FDA and the DoD and the IRS are all equally guilty of 'raping' you?

[Xerographica]

But isn`t/wasn`t Afghanistan ruled by bloody ruthless warlords?

Well...one person's "warlord" is another person's "protection agency". The point is...no single organization has a monopoly on the use of force.

[RiseAgainst]

So the EPA and the DMV and the FDA and the DoD and the IRS are all equally guilty of 'raping' you?

/sigh

I understand not how the most basic of concepts escapes your ability to comprehend. I am sorry that I cannot use a crayon to draw this out for you, but perhaps if I speak very slowly you will understand.

Group A sticks a gun in my face and demands that my property be handed over to them upon the threat of violent force.

Group A then goes and distributes this property to Groups B, C, D, E, F and G.

or;

Group A then asks me which of Groups B, C, D, E, F or G I would like my stolen property to go to.


In neither scenario does the violence of Group As initial act become magically altered to be anything other than the violence it is. I care not for your justifications for such a system of institutional violence.

[Sam I am]

The word alone causes a lot of confusion. I would say the best way to describe them is that they support a non-monopolistic voluntarily funded legal order.

The basic idea is that however prosperous and law-abiding a society is, adding an monopoly of legalized initiated violence will only make things worse. Everything the State "provides" has and should be produced through voluntary associations.


Violent monopolies are naturally bad from the point of view of the consumer. They are corrupt and inefficient.

Governments as we know them initiate or threaten the use of violence on peaceful individuals in order to exist. This is inherently immoral.

Let's say someone breaks the law, and they do it habitually so you know that they will continue breaking the law. Maybe this is a serious law that they break. Maybe this person is mugging people for money.

how do you intend to prevent this? do you calmly sit down with the mugger and explain to him that what he's doing is wrong? Do you train in a martial art for 20 years to be able to stop this person without harming him?

No, these voluntary associations you speak of will probably have to resort to violence.

They would no longer have the popular support required if the State were abolished through persuasion and education. Questions such as these are answered in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Reference-List

So in your previous example, you have a community of people who band together to protect themselves from hostile outside forces. or maybe they hire mercenaries or something. who knows.

There's a word for such groups of people. you might have heard it before. that word is "government"

[JuicyG]

Well...one person's "warlord" is another person's "protection agency". The point is...no single organization has a monopoly on the use of force.

Maybe so, but problem is that those warlords are effectively replacing state and become just another centralized power with their own lackeys underneath them, so it`s basically a throwback to pyramid power of centralized system which in time could materialize to an ever more complex and advanced centralized state.

[RiseAgainst]

Oh noes! Another minarchist who has never read a single thing about anarchy has come along and single-handedly destroyed the entire theory! Whatever will we do?

[Sam I am]

Sam I Am,

Are you a two year old? You show up here and demand that your hand be held and you be walked through every aspect of something you admit you know nothing about?

Use your mind and educate yourself.

RiseAgainst,

Are you a year or two old? You show up here and expect other people to make your arguments for you regarding something you haven't proven that you know anything about.

Use your mind and do something for yourself for once.

[Xerographica]

RiseAgainst, initially my question to you was..."If taxpayers could choose which government organizations received their taxes...would they boycott the government organizations responsible for "rape"?"

Let me try my question again...If taxpayers could choose which government organizations received their taxes...would they boycott the government organization that sticks a gun in their face and robs them?

Isn't that the central basis for the libertarian creed? The notion that educated free adults can be trusted with matches... not to mention their bank accounts and votes? If the masses are intrinsically stupid -- sheep -- then the paternalists are right and no future society of maximized freedom will ever be possible. - David Brin, Essences, Orcs and Civilization: The Case for a Cheerful Libertarianism

If you struggle accepting the idea that people are not sheep then please read this article by Paul Bonneau...The Problem With the 'People Are Idiots' Meme.

[tttppp]

"There's no harm in having 'a little rape'."

Government, or the state, is an institution that is built on the initiation of violent force on innocent individuals.

Government is only like that because of the people running it. If you had competent people in charge, government wouldn't be like that.

[Xerographica]

Maybe so, but problem is that those warlords are effectively replacing state and become just another centralized power with their own lackeys underneath them, so it`s basically a throwback to pyramid power of centralized system which in time could materialize to an ever more complex and advanced centralized state.

I'm skeptical...but open minded when it comes to anarcho-capitalism. As a pragmatarian the only thing I advocate is that taxpayers be allowed to directly allocate their taxes. If taxpayers decide to boycott government organizations one by one out of existence then so be it.