Yes, people really are anarchists, and it works!

So my end might include living longer because I have a doctor, or I have money for food, water, education, etc, etc. My problem with anarchists, is the only reason they can have this ideology is if they have all the security and infrastructure that an organized well governed society contains. I think of 3rd world countries as real "anarchist" societies. There you don't have time to come up with crazy philosophical arguments. You just have to try to find food and not die.

 

Pretty much. The question is why are these things desirable? Either you're not quite at your end yet (perhaps pleasure or wellbeing could be a common factor to all), or the answer is simply because you value them.

Just calling my argument crazy doesn't make it so. I'm not even directly arguing in favor of anarchism at the moment - the line of inquiry we've gone down is to do with the source of normative claims generally, of which the NAP is a subset.

 

Well most people value being healthy and living long and prosperous lives. Your basically saying there is no point to the lives of others... only yourself.

No, it's crazy. Actually really crazy.

 

That's the point! Why should you advocate the ACA? Because you value public health. If you didn't value public health, it would probably not be all that wise to advocate for the ACA.

I am and I'm not.

I am because ambitions are individual in nature. People might share the same ambitions, but they don't share the same subjective experience. If one person's ambitions change, the group doesn't respond in kind. Our experience is ours and ours alone. In this sense I guess you could say that the ambitions of others have no consequence on your own, but that would be a pretty shallow view, because...

I am not because of the way human will typically operates. The source of ambition is subjective, but the ambitions themselves need not be. Many, many people have utilitarianism as their end, wherein the moral action is the one which promotes the greatest net utility among all humans equally. In fact, this was the view of Hume himself, as well as John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell, Peter Singer, Karl Popper, etc. Ambitions are altruistic all the time.

I get the sense that you're not quite grasping exactly what I'm saying. None of this is overly contentious. I'd suggest that you have a read of Hume's thoughts on Hume's Law in A Treatise of Human Nature. Hume was the guy who came up with the problem of induction and bundle theory, as well as a myriad of other ideas that have earned him a position as one of the most important British thinkers of all time - right up there with Newton and Faraday.

None of this is intended as an argument from authority, just to show that this isn't anywhere near as crazy as you seem to think. In fact, it's quite conventional stuff.

 

Forget that word "anarchy" for a moment. Do you think that individualism might work better than communism or nazism?

Would you agree with me if I said "Well, at least being an individualist is not as bad as being a Nazi?"

 

Okay, we become anarchistic. The next day a large group of very rough thugs come into town. After a pitched battle with the better armed citizens they win, as the first thing they had done was to bribe the Army most of which they are members of anyway and loot an armory. Now they set up a command post and begin to dictate terms. Chief among them is that any resistance whatsoever, or even suspicion of same, will result in the death by torture of the resister, his or her family, and all their known friends. Their second dictum is that you must surrender any females over 9 and under 30 you have in 24 hours with little expectation you'll see them ever again and their third is that access to the food store will be to get your alloted rations only and allowed only if you have completed your work quota. If you haven't, it won't matter, as you will be shot. They set up pikes on which the heads of those who've been uncooperative, (and some who haven't, but they just didn't like anyway), are prominently displayed.

Paradise, ain't it?

Your OP said that Anarchism works. Besides Switzerland, which is something of a special case and more of a loose republic, can you name one country where Individualist Anarchism is working today, producing a life that is at least livable for its inhabitants?

 

Can you give a short synopsis of the argument?

 

No, I really can't, except to say that it's the proposition that freedom can work. Both Professor Friedman and Prof. Butler Shaffer try to answer some of the hard questions of externalities like air and water pollution, and crime and punishment. They attempt to make cases for the possibility of spontaneous order without the need for coercive government.

Would you be kind enough to answer the question I posed earlier? Do you think that individualism is as bad as communism, fascism (crony capitalism), or nazism?

 

No of course I don't. I'm a libertarian myself.

I asked my question because under the kind of libertarianism that I ascribe to, the government exists to do two things: protect people rights (through courts, police, the military, etc.) and regulate market failures (which by definition the market can't or won't deal with on its own).

Anarchists reject the state entirely so I wonder how they would deal with something like the Edwards Aquifer.

 

David Friedman or Butler Shaffer probably have some ideas on aquifers, but that kind of thing is way beyond me. However, when it comes to mitigating market failures, Murray Rothbard and others have offered convincing evidence that the alleged attempt to regulate the business cycle by the Fed, and other actions by various governments over the centuries, have led to much worse problems than bumps in a business cycle. Note that the Fed was established in 1913, supposedly in part to iron out the business cycle, and that the Great Depression began in 1929

Thanks for answering my question. I'd really like to know if Akphidelt2007 thinks that individualism is worse than communism or nazism. He hasn't said.

 

Government really works? Where?

 

It is a difficult situation. Language does that kind of stuff. I like "Individualist" or "Free-Market Anarchist". Lysander Spooner is my favorite historical figure and he is known as an "Individualist Anarchist". Words like Capitalist, Anarchist, and Liberal all get bad reps even though they, in reality, mean basically the same thing. Now it's "Classical Liberalism" as if guys like Jefferson need to change their label. It's pathetic. Anyways, I'm ranting. Lets go with "Individualist". I'll try to use it more.

 

There is no real example of government working in the past 10,000 years that shows it works. They've all imploded, had revolutions, got conquered so on and so forth.

 

Market failure does not refer to the business cycle. It refers to situations in which the market itself fails to yield optimal efficient results. The classic examples of market failures are positive and negative externalities, monopolies, and public goods.

 

And in the process managed to exterminate a whole helluvalotta people and continue to do so, right now in the Mid-East.

 

Anarchist have screwed up every revolution they've ever been a part of; they are largely responsible for Fascist victory in the Spanish Civil War. Anarchists are historically the true friends of totalitarianism.

 

I am glad you put this post. I have seen Anarchist argue against all forms of hierachies like church and businesses. And Anarchist argue for total freedom. Freedom from institutions.

My question for you and all anarchist, if a group of people decide to create a corporation to make things. What will you do. Stop them? Kill them? Doesn't that bring back tyranny if you try to impose your will on another?

 

Anarchism has worked for thousands of years in America. They are called Indian tribes. They had no private property, no money. It was all for one and one for all. Working for the collective good. Just like an Anarchist wants.

Do I want to live that way? No. But it least worked. It worked a lot longer than Communism.

 

I question the value of protecting rights through rights violations (taxes, involuntary law, etc).

 

Right. Anarchists don't have a good track record with winning control of governments, bless their hearts, and don't do well in popularity polls, either, but how do you feel about the label "individualist" and the concept of individual liberty?

 

Individualist and individual liberty are meaningless abstractions that are often used to either liberate or to oppress with equal facility.

 

I find your post a very strange
Coming from someone who actively participates in a political forum

not a Criticism but a observation

 

Yes and sometimes groups can use terms in different ways, and both ways are equally legitimate. This is not one of those instances. Anarchism was always strongly anti-capitalist. Only in the 70s when people like Rothbard came along, was the term absurdly coopted by capitalists. This doesn't make sense for multiple reasons. almost all of them stemming from the fact that any people who are believers in a small government capitalist system, completely misunderstand capitalist.

Anarchism seeks to undermine and destroy hierarchical systems where possible. Capitalism creates a vast hierarchical systems. Anarchism seeks to eliminate the state either entirely or create a set of democratic and local voluntary institutions which would perform some of the tasks and provide some of the services the state performed before. Alternatively, whenever there are capitalists, they will use their wealth to accrue not only economic power, but also political power. Capitalists have always and will always use their influence to protect their capital and to use the state to promote their further accumulation of capital. Capitalism ensures interventionist government. So calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist is simply silly. It is almost an oxymoron. Capitalism represents everything anarchist oppose.

 

Personally I don't have any allegiance to flags or to the bureaucracies for which they stand, but is there any meaning in the phrase "liberty and justice for all," or is the word "justice" as incomprehensible as the word "liberty?" Might you also have a problem with what the meaning of the word "is" is?

 

I agree with much of what you are saying. I have a theoretical connection to anarchism or left-libertarian thinking. My problem stems from the fact that I see how stupid, mean, selfish, and worthless the vast majority of the population of this country is. When I see them, even someone who is strongly opposed to most of what the modern state does, I often find myself cheering the state on. Just read a story recently about a man who put a craigs list ad out to find some one willing to rape and beat his 11 year old daughter while he watched. I thought, god I am glad that guy is off the street. I see polls which show that like 1/4 of all Republicans believe Obama is the antichrist, and I think, God people are so stupid, how would it be good if they had total control over their lives?


However, there is another way to look at things. I believe this too. The stupidity, violence, selfishness, etc is a result of the system we live in. The stupidity is a direct result of state led propaganda, starting with public education. It is supposed to be a system which enlightens and educates children. Trains them to be critical thinkers. What it actually does is teaches kids to sit in one place quietly for long periods of time, complete tasks in a timely fashion, and respect authority. It is teaching kids to be good cogs in the capitalist machine. It is also teaching them to pledge allegiance to a flag, an absurdly nationalist form of historical propaganda, and is therefore teaching them to be docile citizens.

If all kids were taught in a way which truly did seek to enlighten them. Where critical critical thinking and thoughtful analysis were promoted, would things be different than they are now? I think they would.


On top of that, but we also have the violence and potential violence of the state lingering over us on a constant basis. People live their entire life with the fear of state repercussion in the very back of their mind. If the most violent entity in human history, the modern nation state, ceased to exist, would things be different? Considering the state is founded upon a particular epistemological foundation. One that is rooted in violence. If the state was brought down and that violent way of thinking and being was no longer perpetuated, would things be different?

My answer is I don't know. It is sort of like the chicken or the egg question. Does the state create the violent and ignorant tendencies so it can exploit them, or do they simply exploit tendencies which already exist? I don't know. So I kind of waver back and forth between left-libertarianism (when I am convinced the state is the main culprit) and a support for some sort of benevolent elite who manages things, but does it for the betterment of everyone, as opposed to the way it is now, where things are done almost solely for the betterment of elite capitalists...