Joseph Sobran: "the Reluctant Anarchist"

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1808334' date='Mar 16 2009, 02:06 AM']Your model neglects the fact that the world is marred by sin--ignores the decline in philosophy and human thought--ignores history.
…
You really see people going from government to holding hands and buying each other Cokes while singing, don't you?[/quote]

Maybe you agree with Galloglasses, who said earlier that the anarchistic vision is a Utopian one:

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

Anarchism isn't pacifism, and you're confusing the two. Anarchists simply believe that we are better off existing in Liberty.
Anarchists don't believe that everyone hugs and plants flowers after the State is gone. Arachists do believe that we are able to live better lives today without the State.

[quote name='Winchester' post='1808334' date='Mar 16 2009, 02:06 AM']Drug lords, gang leaders, foreign governments, will fill the vaccuum. Or corporate militaries, which would likely be a step.[/quote]

As a “market-anarchist” I believe market forces, which are already in place, would fill the vacuum. So yes, there would be military operating as private businesses. There already are. Also police and detective agencies. Private arbiters are already available too.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1808554' date='Mar 16 2009, 09:45 AM']This actually sounds like the marx theory that People have been conditioned to be selfish because of Capitalist society.[/quote]

When Marx was writing, free market and “capitalism” were not the same thing. Capitalism was a derogatory term for businessmen who were in league with the State to gain leverage over the competition. That's basically what we mean by “corporatism” today.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1808362' date='Mar 16 2009, 02:29 AM']I don't deney that anarchism might work on a small schale amongst willing participants. I think Orwell's writtings of the Spanish Civil War and experiments in Israel show this. I think thise is largel correct, however. In the cases where anarchism has worked you have individuals seeking a peaceful enviorment of mutual cooperation. On the global scale this breaks down.

Longe Daddy. Many anarchists I read postulate that human vices are the result of their social context and in an anarchistic world the context that breads these vices is abolished. So you agree with this?[/quote]

I have to say, this has become an intriguing thread. Great conversation.

Are human vices the result of social context? Hmmm... I think there is a good case to be made for that.

I think so, because the State criminalizes a lot of otherwise harmless behavior. Laws are largely arbitrary. Government passes law, not to defend life or property (which are the primary reasons given for Government) but to gather revenue and exercise ownership over "We The People." Any member of the Political Class that says otherwise is trying to get your vote.

And the bigger the State gets, the more the Statists seek to micromanage your personal behavior.

On the other hand, in an anarchistic world, the only vice is one that directly harms the individual -- murder, or theft of property.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1808709' date='Mar 16 2009, 01:38 PM']As a “market-anarchist” I believe market forces, which are already in place, would fill the vacuum. So yes, there would be military operating as private businesses. There already are. Also police and detective agencies. Private arbiters are already available too.[/quote]
Defense would be limited to those who could pay. When fire departments were private entities not employed by the state, they purchased the burning home from the people and then put it out. Collecting from individuals will result in lack of protection for those who can't afford it.

The companies will become governments. Government will be replaced by tribalism and clans. Man will organize. You can skip calling it government, but you're playing semantics. Badly.

[Galloglasses' Alt]

You'd actually be substituting government we have now with a mixed up one, taking elements from tribal society and modern day life.

Also, the existence of Nuclear weaposn and the knowledge of how to create them, invalidate the possibility of an Anarchistic society.

Who has the nukes controls the country.

[Nihil Obstat]

I think organization in some type of government structure is inevitable.
Throughout history it's happened, whether it's tribes and clans, or enormous monstrosities of governments that we have in the developed world now.
...but I think if those monstrosities were simply dismantled, the resulting organization would be... what is the quote? "Nasty, brutish, and short."

[Galloglasses' Alt]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1809956' date='Mar 17 2009, 02:54 PM']I think organization in some type of government structure is inevitable.
Throughout history it's happened, whether it's tribes and clans, or enormous monstrosities of governments that we have in the developed world now.
...but I think if those monstrosities were simply dismantled, the resulting organization would be... what is the quote? "Nasty, brutish, and short."[/quote]
The stone age all over again

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1808870' date='Mar 16 2009, 04:09 PM']You'd actually be substituting government we have now with a mixed up one, taking elements from tribal society and modern day life.[/quote]

Not at all. The elements are already there. The underground markets would simply become the markets. The private security firms, the arbiters, the Catholic schools and hospitals -- they are already hear. There's nothing to cobble together from any "tribal society." There is only "modern life."

It's the State that gets so large and bloated that it carries society back to "the stone age," as you put it.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1809956' date='Mar 17 2009, 03:54 PM']I think organization in some type of government structure is inevitable.
Throughout history it's happened, whether it's tribes and clans, or enormous monstrosities of governments that we have in the developed world now.
...but I think if those monstrosities were simply dismantled, the resulting organization would be... what is the quote? "Nasty, brutish, and short."[/quote]

I just do not think so at all. The only thing that would make Statelessness "nasty brutish and short" would be interference from an outside State.

First and foremost, because heaven forbid a anarchist society prove how obsolete, and unnecessary Government is. And secondly, because entities like the UN and of course the US simply cannot leave things alone.

All the more reason for a large Agorist society. As large as possible.

[Lounge Daddy]

Here's [url="http://www.fee.org/Audio/YSC/FINAL%20YSC%20-%20Benjamin%20Powell%20-%20African%20Development%20-%20Case%20Study%20of%20Somalia.mp3"]a great talk about Statlessness in Somalia[/url]. It's a short talk given by Benjamin Powell, Professor of Economics at Suffolk University and a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute.

After a quick history of how Somalia became "independent," he looks at the time period of Somalia that we don't hear about. After the US and UN left, an odd thing happened: Somalia enjoyed a time of relative peace, the warring stopped, and the free economy was free. And there was no State.

The economy boomed, even to the point of drawing investors from around the world. Keep in mind, this is after surviving a devastating civil war -- this is amazing.

No one had control of the State, and none of the factions wanted it. The violence was shrinking to the point that the warlords only really predominated around some of the southern coastal cities

What happened next was the US and other countries could abide by a Stateless society. After some time, our CIA began paying some of the violent factions and giving them weapons. The "nasty, brutish, and short" comes from our own Government.

Again-- all the more reason for a large Agorist society. As large as possible.

[Winchester]

"Statelessness."

Ah, small groups are not considered government. You must have structure, you must have a hierarchy, and someone must be in charge. You cannot avoid government, no matter how small and inexpensive it may be. True anarchy means everyone is in control only of himself. If you band together to defeat an enemy, you will need a leader, you will need governance.

Anarchy does not and cannot exist. Call a private corporation running a military that you pay whatever you want, but in the end it will have power over you and will be, essentially, a government.

[dairygirl4u2c]

wo the gov, things would become might makes right. people would take the law in their own hands, what was formerly done by courts andor police.
people would die, because we have no environmental standards, or food standards, drugs etc.

we could form, privately, entities taht sell good food, do what courts and police do. but what'sthe difference?
we have chaos unless the mob rule of an area wants to hire private entites to do this stuff?
we have trial and error dying whie we figure out which new medicines are beneficial or dangerous?
i get the sense people take the government for granted, and haven't thought thorugh their ideas, how they'd play out in the real world.

this whole thread and anyone's idea about taking anarchy seriously, is a joke, and cannot be taken seriously.
not that libertarianism is necessarily bad.... it's anarchism that's the joke

[Galloglasses' Alt]

Hierarchy is inherent in Nature.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1812330' date='Mar 20 2009, 01:38 PM']"Statelessness."

Ah, small groups are not considered government.[/quote]

By "the State" I mean an apparatus set aside to manage society. That apparatus would be, for us, the Political Class. Judges. The organized Federal Military. Etc. At one time, in some areas of the world, that also included the Catholic Church.

The State is a monopoly on power over society. But a local group of people is just that -- local people voluntarily managing their own lives.

[quote name='Winchester' post='1812330' date='Mar 20 2009, 01:38 PM']Call a private corporation running a military that you pay whatever you want, but in the end it will have power over you and will be, essentially, a government.[/quote]

No, private contracts are between two parties acting freely. The private security firms only act with those contracting with them. This is totally unlike Government, where they assume power over you just because you exist. And even when you die, they still assume power over you (via taxes and other means).

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1812378' date='Mar 20 2009, 02:41 PM']Hierarchy is inherent in Nature.[/quote]

I agree.