Joseph Sobran: "the Reluctant Anarchist"

[Lounge Daddy]

Joseph Sobran is a libertarian, Christian, a journalist and writer, formerly with National Review. So you may have read some of his stuff if you read NR. He's also from Michigan. (woo-hoo!)

But I just saw this article. [url="http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml"]He's now an anarchist[/url]. I thought this was interesting, so I thought I would share it here.

For my part, I am technically an anarchist. I think Government as we know it today is unnecessary. But I don't normally call myself an anarchist. So I tell most people I am libertarian. Or I say I am an agorist, and I am ...but then I usually have to explain it -- and I don't always have the patience.

Like me, he went from being very small government to realising that we don't really need government any more at all.

The article is wordy; but only because he already feels that he must explain himself. But its a great article nonetheless. [url="http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml"]Here's a taste (full article here)[/url]:
[indent]Still, the last thing I expected to become was an anarchist. For many years I didn’t even know that serious philosophical anarchists existed. I’d never heard of Lysander Spooner or Murray Rothbard. How could society survive at all without a state?

Now I began to be critical of the U.S. Government, though not very. I saw that the welfare state, chiefly the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, violated the principles of limited government and would eventually have to go. But I agreed with other conservatives that in the meantime the urgent global threat of Communism had to be stopped. Since I viewed “defense” as one of the proper tasks of government, I thought of the Cold War as a necessity, the overhead, so to speak, of freedom. If the Soviet threat ever ceased (the prospect seemed remote), we could afford to slash the military budget and get back to the job of dismantling the welfare state.

Somewhere, at the rainbow’s end, America would return to her founding principles. The Federal Government would be shrunk, laws would be few, taxes minimal. That was what I thought. Hoped, anyway. [/indent]

Edited March 14, 2009 by Lounge Daddy

[Winchester]

If you return to basically agrarian societies, you can reduce government.

Good luck.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1806877' date='Mar 14 2009, 02:10 AM']If you return to basically agrarian societies, you can reduce government.

Good luck.[/quote]
I never did like paved roads and basic healthcare that much anyway.

[Galloglasses' Alt]

Have a good time trying to contain human nature in such a society.

I hear thats fun.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1806920' date='Mar 14 2009, 08:13 AM']Have a good time trying to contain human nature in such a society.

I hear thats fun.[/quote]

First, keep in mind three things:
#1 Government is force. That's all it is. George Washington knew this. Marx also knew this.
#2 Government doesn't produce anything. It only takes, and uses force to accomplish its ends.
#3 Freedom and order are inherent in nature. They cannot be imposed -- they must be allowed to happen.

And two observations.

1) I suggest Government today has outlived its usefulness. Like the Monarchies of long ago, Government today had served its purpose, but is now obsolete. When things have become obsolete, they become only problematic -- they are not useful at all, but only a liability.

At one time we needed Government to settle long-distance trade issues and deliver the mail and rally an army, because it wasn't practical for the average person to, busy with farm and family, to negotiate the logistics and do these things.

But today, I don't need to go through an elected representative to deal with trade issues if I have a problem -- I can easily fly across the country if I need to ([url="http://loungedaddy.us/?p=117"]provided Government doesn't interfere[/url]), or make a phone call, or use a video-link, or whatever. I don't need the USPS; I can use e-mail or FedEx, or some other alternative. We don't need Government to contact troops to rally for defence; because again we have other means of communication.

2) The assumption is that if Government doesn't care for roads, no one will. If Government doesn't defend us, no one will. And aren't there more bad people than good people?

The answer to the last question is; no. If Government were to shut down today, tomorrow people would check on their elderly neighbours; because people like you and I and others do in fact care. And we are by far in the majority. More charities would open; because many Government codes and laws inhibit more than businesses, they handicap non-profit charities as well.

And Healthcare would be affordable for absolutely everyone, because it is Government that makes it expensive.

The roads would be fine; and would actually be smooth for once, and taken care of. There are companies that deliver mail, there are companies that do defence and policing and detective services. People already use private arbitration. In my neighbourhood, we get together and clear the streets of snow, because we don't want to wait for the city.

Government has outlived its usefulness. Agora!

[ardillacid]

I kinda figured Joe died when he stopped writing for the Wanderer. Good chap.

[Galloglasses' Alt]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1806934' date='Mar 14 2009, 10:19 AM']First, keep in mind three things:
#1 Government is force. That's all it is. George Washington knew this. Marx also knew this.
#2 Government doesn't produce anything. It only takes, and uses force to accomplish its ends.
#3 Freedom and order are inherent in nature. They cannot be imposed -- they must be allowed to happen.

And two observations.

1) I suggest Government today has outlived its usefulness. Like the Monarchies of long ago, Government today had served its purpose, but is now obsolete. When things have become obsolete, they become only problematic -- they are not useful at all, but only a liability.

At one time we needed Government to settle long-distance trade issues and deliver the mail and rally an army, because it wasn't practical for the average person to, busy with farm and family, to negotiate the logistics and do these things.

But today, I don't need to go through an elected representative to deal with trade issues if I have a problem -- I can easily fly across the country if I need to ([url="http://loungedaddy.us/?p=117"]provided Government doesn't interfere[/url]), or make a phone call, or use a video-link, or whatever. I don't need the USPS; I can use e-mail or FedEx, or some other alternative. We don't need Government to contact troops to rally for defence; because again we have other means of communication.

2) The assumption is that if Government doesn't care for roads, no one will. If Government doesn't defend us, no one will. And aren't there more bad people than good people?

The answer to the last question is; no. If Government were to shut down today, tomorrow people would check on their elderly neighbours; because people like you and I and others do in fact care. And we are by far in the majority. More charities would open; because many Government codes and laws inhibit more than businesses, they handicap non-profit charities as well.

And Healthcare would be affordable for absolutely everyone, because it is Government that makes it expensive.

The roads would be fine; and would actually be smooth for once, and taken care of. There are companies that deliver mail, there are companies that do defence and policing and detective services. People already use private arbitration. In my neighbourhood, we get together and clear the streets of snow, because we don't want to wait for the city.

Government has outlived its usefulness. Agora![/quote]

You cannot be truely serious.

Humanity has not reach anywhere near such a stage where we can live without any sort of governance.

It is a force, it is a [i]constraint on humanity as a whole[/i]. a constraint we [i]need[/i]. I quote Burke when I say' Good order is the foundation of all good things' We need governance because we cannot be trusted to live in peace with eachother, one man's ambitions and pursueing of his rights will enevitably bring him into conflict with other men. Without an arbiter, this conflict will continue and reciprocate far and wide.

You say freedom and order are inherent in nature? I agree with you but to a point. Nature abhors vacum, you take away governments, there is a collossal power vacum and i[i]t must be filled with something[/i]. This is why revolutions cause further and further violence and often totalitarianism, the French Revolution sought to create a clean slate, by destroying everything of the odl order, good and bad alike, they lacked constraints and what ensued was totalitarianism and what became known as 'The terror'. Vindicating Burke's objections to the revolution. It is only through good order and, yes, common sense that men can have liberty and at once live in peasce with one another, for each man's liberty is limited in order not to impinge upon another's.

If as you say it is better for there to be no government at all, then let society develope to such a point that it happens. If its inevitable, society will evolve to such a point, if you propose revolution, you are only inviting violence, and sufferring, for an idea that is untried, and in a theoretical sense, unsound.

Whatever you may think of me for this, I again bring up human nature; we are inheriently selfish.

I am by no means proposing all power to the government, I am not as relatively foolish as are an unfortuneate number of people my age, (a great deal of which are socialist/marxist), nor am I stating that the people can't look after themselves, I am saying quite the opposite! People not only can look after themselves, but more likely they will pursue their own interests to the detriment of others. Everyone must have constraints, social, moral, political, not just the Government. Which is why I admire the founder fathers of America and the writers of the constituion, whose wisdom for restricting the tyranny of the One, the few and the many. I am saying that in reality, if humanity could exist without governance of one sort or another, in whatever guise or order. Quite frankly, it would have.

Edited March 14, 2009 by Galloglasses' Alt

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1806961' date='Mar 14 2009, 11:59 AM']You cannot be truely serious.

Humanity has not reach anywhere near such a stage where we can live without any sort of governance.

It is a force, it is a [i]constraint on humanity as a whole[/i]. a constraint we [i]need[/i].
...[/quote]

I cannot be truly serious? Well... sometimes I can be. Lol And on this topic I am absolutely serious. You have to believe in Liberty, and trust people.

“It is a force, it is a constraint on humanity as a whole. a constraint we need.” Well, that what Hobbes believed; as well as Marx and Stalin. They believed that the vast majority of people are inherently evil and violent. I disagree.

Liberty cannot be imposed. It needs to be allowed to happen. Order cannot be predicted. That applies to everything. Every time order is planned and forced into place, chaos is the result.

Nature abhors vacuum, you take away governments, there is a colossal power vacuum and it must be filled with something. Indeed. You take away the force that is the State—you will have freedom.

Take away the State, and Liberty will replace license. Government rewards failure and punishes success. Without the State, success will be rewarded with further success, and mistakes will become learning tools.

I repeat: without the State, liberty will replace license. Right now, Government allows licentiousness and even recommends it. Government allows people to pick and choose actions, as well as consequences. Of course, this isn't freedom—it's slavery to the State. That will not be the case after Government is gone.

Its inevitable, and society will evolve to such a point. And of course I am not inviting violence, and suffering—we ave that right now, thanks to Government. It's interesting when I hear a politician paint anarchists as people who throw bombs. The libertarian writer, and Agorist, Sam Konkin made the very good point, “perhaps .01% of those calling themselves anarchists have ever used a bomb; 100% of all Statists bomb, shell, and machine-gun regularly as a matter of course.”

You pointed out that: “I am saying that in reality, if humanity could exist without governance of one sort or another, in whatever guise or order. Quite frankly, it would have.” The same same thing might have been said by someone who was told that they should do without Monarchy.

People can and should be trusted to make good choices—not that people always make good choices. We make mistakes. The problem with Government is that people are shielded from mistakes, and license is in fact encouraged. This wouldn't happen in the absence of State.

People should be educated in morality. This is why we have the Church. But people cannot be made to be moral, which is what you seem to be implying.

[XIX]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1807063' date='Mar 14 2009, 04:53 PM']I cannot be truly serious? Well... sometimes I can be. Lol And on this topic I am absolutely serious. You have to believe in Liberty, and trust people.[/quote]
What exactly have people done--American people to be specific--to earn any level of trust?

[quote]“It is a force, it is a constraint on humanity as a whole. a constraint we need.” Well, that what Hobbes believed; as well as Marx and Stalin. They believed that the vast majority of people are inherently evil and violent. I disagree.[/quote]
I don't think people are inherently violent and evil, but I do think we need need government on some level. People hardly need to be evil to need a government.

Just because somebody is known as a figurehead for evil historically, does not mean that they are never correct about anything. Heck, maybe I agree with Hitler's stance
[quote]Liberty cannot be imposed. It needs to be allowed to happen. Order cannot be predicted. That applies to everything. Every time order is planned and forced into place, chaos is the result.[/quote]

[quote]You pointed out that: “I am saying that in reality, if humanity could exist without governance of one sort or another, in whatever guise or order. Quite frankly, it would have.” The same same thing might have been said by someone who was told that they should do without Monarchy.[/quote]
Humanity isn't doing a good job of proving that it can survive in a democracy. I'm not being negative, just realistic.
[quote]People can and should be trusted to make good choices—not that people always make good choices. We make mistakes. The problem with Government is that people are shielded from mistakes, and license is in fact encouraged. This wouldn't happen in the absence of State.[/quote]
Again what has humanity done to be trusted to make good choices?

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='XIX' post='1807071' date='Mar 14 2009, 05:18 PM']What exactly have people done--American people to be specific--to earn any level of trust?
...
Humanity isn't doing a good job of proving that it can survive in a democracy.
...
Again what has humanity done to be trusted to make good choices?[/quote]

Yes, you exactly right! I agree with your observation. Look around America and you see the worst coming out of people. War. Abortion. Carelessness. Dishonesty. Licentiousness. Theft.
You see all this because Government brings out the worst in people. You see this because the State brings license and not liberty; and it's a system based on theft, and dishonesty, and coercion.

Liberty is being free to do what you believe is right, and accept the consequences of your actions.
Government promises licentiousness. You can buy a home and not pay for it. You can not work and watch all the tv you want, the State will use other people's money to pay for it. You can choose to have sex AND you don't have to have the baby at all.

You can steal from other people, and the State will make sure they cannot defend their property nor their lives. In fact, the State is also stealing property, and killing people as well.

The people you are using as an example for why people cannot be trusted to be without Government are acting as they do precisely [i]because of[/i] Government.

[Galloglasses' Alt]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1807133' date='Mar 14 2009, 07:53 PM']Yes, you exactly right! I agree with your observation. Look around America and you see the worst coming out of people. War. Abortion. Carelessness. Dishonesty. Licentiousness. Theft.
You see all this because Government brings out the worst in people. You see this because the State brings license and not liberty; and it's a system based on theft, and dishonesty, and coercion.

Liberty is being free to do what you believe is right, and accept the consequences of your actions.
Government promises licentiousness. You can buy a home and not pay for it. You can not work and watch all the tv you want, the State will use other people's money to pay for it. You can choose to have sex AND you don't have to have the baby at all.

You can steal from other people, and the State will make sure they cannot defend their property nor their lives. In fact, the State is also stealing property, and killing people as well.

The people you are using as an example for why people cannot be trusted to be without Government are acting as they do precisely [i]because of[/i] Government.[/quote]
You're speaking Nonsense.

The state does not promote licentiousness, its specifically designed to curb the excess of man. You are failing, [i]failing[/i], to make the distinction between a State and a [i]failing[/i] state.

The American State was working very well till post Ronald Reagan. When ideology began to seep in deeply and change people's opinions towards what we can call now, lunacy, or whats better known as liberalism. in fact it probably began earlier then that.

The state is failing the people because the people have convinced the Government, at least those persons in charge of said government, think that, thats what they want. Either this, or its the fallacy of Ideaologies that has corrupted the system, [i]and people[/i], to such a state. Governments and people should not fear eachother, in fact, neither should really hold all responsibility, [b]both[/b] should fear the law.

Do not get me wrong, Ideals are wonderful, I myself long for nationalist ideals in my own country, but I don't let the romanticism of it blind me to the fact that some things are not possible right now, or even at all. The anarchistic vision is a utopian one, and as such, an impossible one by man's ability alone.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Galloglasses' Alt

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1807178' date='Mar 14 2009, 08:25 PM']The American State was working very well till post Ronald Reagan.[/quote]

As for the US Government... US Government went to "war on drugs. US Government caused gas prices to spike in the 1970s. US Government went to war in Vietnam. US Government went to war in Korea.

US Government caused the Great Depression -- which lead to starvation and broken homes and destruction of business and loss of personal property.
Before the stock market crash, one of the chief architects of the New Deal actually wrote "why should the Russians have all the fun?" He, and other Progressives, had been waiting for an excuse to use the power of Government (force and coercion) to experiment with the economy. At that time, Stalin had already announced some of his program in Russia.

US Government forced the use of fiat currency; and whoever directly controls the resources controls those dependent on the resources.

US Government created Government schools in the early 1900s that are little more than indoctrination centers, and the people who created the Government schools specifically stated that they didn't want people getting too smart -- they only want people to be intelligent enough to be employable.

Healthcare was affordable for absolutely everyone when the healthcare market was a free market. Healthcare for the poor was in the form of doctors and other medical professionals making deals through fraternal organizations. The doctors were payed far below the industry standard, but the trade-off was job security. This was called "lodge practice." American families loved this, and so did many medical professionals. But not everyone was happy.
Around 1950 the Government proclaimed that there was a "healthcare crises." The problem then was that prices were too low, and being set by the consumer too easily. Government "fixed" that problem, didn't they. They created a system where Government increases the price of healthcare, and then offers more Government as a fix.

"Progressives," which are nothing more than Statists eager to criminalize other people's personal behavior, banned alcohol and the result was the creation of an underground economy and everyday non-violent behavior becoming criminal behavior.

In the 1800s some states wanted to leave the Union. The result was war, and death. The Civil War was billed as an end to slavery. Yet, the UK ended slavery peacefully, and the fact is there were many Americans who wanted succession as well as an end to slavery.

Do I need to go on?

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1807178' date='Mar 14 2009, 08:25 PM']The anarchistic vision is a utopian one, and as such, an impossible one by man's ability alone.[/quote]

I reject that mankind needs any so-called "necessary evil" to survive.

Government creates disorder. Additionally Government never shrinks, it only grows bigger. Since the early 1900s we have seen that massive Government creates massive disorder.

At this time, what you are wrongly imagining with anarchy is chaos -- but chaos is what Government brings. As an Agorist I realize that in the absence of the State, there is only the markets. There would be order and Liberty, because order and Liberty would be entirely allowed to happen.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1807178' date='Mar 14 2009, 08:25 PM']You're speaking Nonsense.

The state does not promote licentiousness, its specifically designed to curb the excess of man. You are failing, [i]failing[/i], to make the distinction between a State and a [i]failing[/i] state.[/quote]

The state is deseigned to curb the exceses of man?

And what exactly is "the state"?

[quote]The American State was working very well till post Ronald Reagan.[/quote]

If you exclude quite a few atrocities sure.


[quote]When ideology began to seep in deeply and change people's opinions towards what we can call now, lunacy, or whats better known as liberalism. in fact it probably began earlier then that.[/quote]

.America's liberal climax occured before Reagan ever took office and we may now just be ending the conservative era which came about around his rise.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1807133' date='Mar 14 2009, 06:53 PM']Yes, you exactly right! I agree with your observation. Look around America and you see the worst coming out of people. War. Abortion. Carelessness. Dishonesty. Licentiousness. Theft.
You see all this because Government brings out the worst in people. You see this because the State brings license and not liberty; and it's a system based on theft, and dishonesty, and coercion.[/quote]


You can't see unrestrained capatalism bringing out the same tendencies?

[Galloglasses' Alt]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1807224' date='Mar 14 2009, 08:54 PM']The state is deseigned to curb the exceses of man?

And what exactly is "the state"?[/quote]
In the modern sense, the 'State' refers to the Government, peoples and laws of a geographical location, and has a clear governmental structure.


[quote]If you exclude quite a few atrocities sure.[/quote]
I was speaking in terms of managing itself.



[quote]America's liberal climax occured before Reagan ever took office and we may now just be ending the conservative era which came about around his rise.[/quote]
Hence why I was saying "maybe before" Reagans presidency. I think we're heading into an even more liberal era then the previous one at the moment. Provided Obama or someone of the same thinking wins 2012.