Rothbardian, perhaps I am not making my point clear.

Government is not necessarilly the state. When I say that man must be governed, I mean that man needs some form of organization and structure. When you have anarchy, people will begin to follow one person because they admire that person. The leader does not need to take power through force, he/she merely needs to be someone that others admire.

In a system with no government, the people will chose a leader whether they intend to or not. They may not even be conscous of the decision when they make it. That leader will not have an official title, or any true powers, but will be able to influence the actions of the people because they are admired.

That is what I mean. No society works without leaders. Even anarcho-capitalism has leaders, because someone needs to lead the businesses.

There will also be people that trick others into following them, much as how cults work today, where people get brainwashed into unconditionally following their leader.

There are many different ways people become leaders. Sometimes it is voluntary, sometimes it is trickery, sometimes it is force.

You are right. Cutting back the size of government is never permanent. So why do you think anarchy will work? Just as reduced government will again yield larger government, so will anarchy yield government. You will notice that all throughout history, when leadership has been removed, the people replace it with their own. History is against you, too.

Only when the people are content to let the tyrants stay in office.
"...accordingly,experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
- Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
My point is that people of the united states have the power to fix our government, but they are uninclined to do so. We could vote in people that really could help the nation, if we didn't have to pick between two parties of people that are so arrogant as to put themselves up for public office. if that didn't work, we could always shoot them all and replace them. There are several ways to fix the problem, but Americans seem to be content with the way they have ruined this country.

__________________
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." – Thomas Jefferson

"Some can be happy under socialism, but under socialism, none can prosper." - Me


Take the World's smallest Political Quiz!

Libertarianism - freedom and liberty for rich people, tough luck for everyone else.

__________________
'A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward'. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

http://i38.tinypic.com/716ahj.gif

Stop trying to distance yourself from what you said earlier, you explicitely stated that anarchism is infeasible because individuals have a need to be lead, of course, you are correctly pointing out here that force isn't necessary in establishing this and that once society is left determine its own course free from governmental decrees backed by coercion, natural hierarchies will arise. But this is exactly what I've been saying, the only difference in a free market society is that these "leaders" (one can barely give them that title) will be unable to force others to comply with their demands, and there will be freedom of secession right down to the level of the individuals.

But this isn't what you've been saying, admit it and stop with the intellectual dishonesty, you've been claiming that anarchism wouldn't work because without state imposed violence society would fall apart, or something along those lines.

Now tell me once again why you are so opposed to anarchism?

Keep in mind that history is not prescriptive but descriptive. History can inform you what has happened but it cannot tell you what will happen.

Obviously if the vast majority of people wish to form a government and subjugate those who oppose it, the result will be government, this applies whether there is a minimal state or a lack of any state whatsoever. The reserve is also true, is people living under any government wish to get rid of it, the government will be unable to maintain itself for much longer.

To this extent you're right, just because a stateless society has been established it doesn't mean it's permanent.

However, you're wrong if you think this constitutes an argument against what I advocate, it clearly doesn't. To start with the only possible alternative is the introduction of the state, doing so violates the ends you seek to acheive. In any case it is for more likely that a minimal state should grow in size, when the means for it to do so are already in place than it is for a state to grow out of nowhere.

As for your comment about history, that's not really fair, in the past we've never really seen truly anarchic societies, what we've regularly seen which I can only assume you imply to be anarchy, in one set of rulers overthrowing the other for possession of the state apparatus.

In light of what you've just conceeded I fail to see how you can regard fixing the government to be desirable, much less possible. The government is by its very nature a parasite, replacing the voluntary actions of society with orders imposed by coercion and violence.

As for the possibility of fixing government, it merely isn't possible. The game is rigged too heavily against liberty. One need only look at the LP, a party which at one time had principles, it has been corrupted by conservatives who have effectively hijacked the party causing a schism in the movement. It is only now that the party has lost its principles and has become far less radical that it gets any attention whatsoever, if the party ever poses a challenge to the other two it will be because it will be libertarian only in name and resemble the other two parties far more in its nature.

Perhaps once we've progressed past the childish ad hominems and appeal to emotions we can proceed with logical debate? Just a thought.

And whilst I don't believe I'm answering such a post, I'd like to point out the free market has a higher degree of social mobility than any other system and is the system under which the poor are best of. Not to mention, inequality is natural in human society and is exacerbated not eradicated as a result of the state.

It depends on the leader and the followers. Some leaders may be able to influence their followers to the point where they can get them to attack other groups. Thus creating a state of tyranny and coercion.

I never said that. I said that man needs governance. I never said what form that governance or leadership needed to be in. We also need a way to keep people from hurting each other. That may very well mean arming every person with a gun, but, of course, doing so may cause conflict, and eventually lead to more government as the power-hungry seek to force others to follow them. There will always be people who seek to control others and will do anything to achieve their goals.


No. My point is that an anarchic society has never existed because man has always been a creature that travels (and lives) in groups, and as such, there has always been a leader for every group. Not necessarily a King, but at least a tribal chief of sorts.

Unfortunately, you are right that radical parties never gain prominence. That is why we adapted. We will need to be more moderate to achieve our radical ends. We will start off slow and then slowly pick up speed as we reduce government even more.

It will work. We just need to get our message out there and get people to follow us. I find your lack of faith disapointing.

__________________
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." – Thomas Jefferson

"Some can be happy under socialism, but under socialism, none can prosper." - Me


Take the World's smallest Political Quiz!

Of course, you fail to mension what you advocate is essentially giving this group a head start so to speak. I'm not saying that a free market society is utopia, the point I make is that it is better than any of the alternatives from both a philosophical and economic perspective.

If people want government that is exactly what they'll have, of course even in today's world is people all over any given country wake up and desire to abolish that parasitical organisation than it will disappear rather quickly. You're essentially right, if one group manages to to convince enough people to follow them into coercion the rest the result would be another government. However, you're wrong in that this is likely, it isn't. Individuals would have the incentive to arm themselves and would have every means available to stop such an attack.

So yes, whilst such an outcome is possible it is in no way a refutation of anarchism.

Man needs governance? How silly, man is a rational being and as such is more than capable of using reason to determine his own actions, he does not need them dictated to him by an allegedly "higher" force.

What exactly does governance entail for you? You're being purposeful vague, what it actually means is that you assume, wrongly, that man needs to be coerced in some ways for his own good. Of course, implicit in this claim is that the governing body knows what is best for each individual in society, a claim that is at best laughable, and at worst dangerous.

You then proceed to contradict yourself by asserting that in fact, we need to prevent the individuals in society from harming one another. Now, I do agree with this, so would the vast majority of people that aren't sadistic. Of course, government by it's very nature coerces individuals. What exactly do you mean, arming every individual with a gun? This is a rather absurd statement from a libertarian, now it may just be semantics but it implies forcing every individual to own a gun to prevent them from being aggressed upon. A far more coherent statement would be, allowing every individual to arm themselves, which in a free society there would be every incentive to do so.

Now, you then go onto claim that this would cause conflict and that government would ensue, this is just silly. An armed populace would be the vest best means available to prevent government from arising, now you pointed out that there will be individuals who wish to control others. Whether or not this is true is irrelivant, what is relevant is that without government they would be incentivised not to, and would find it hard to do so.

Stop with the straw men, nobody has asserted that man does not live in group, as Aristotle said man is a "social animal". Of course, I agree with you, heirarchy within society is natural, coercion is not. The state is not a natural organism, it is a parasitical organisation that has developed as a result of conquest. However, it proceeds to surround itself with intellectuals who claim otherwise. Unfortuantely, so called "libertarians" such as yourself buy into this. You have an incorrect conception of the state, as do liberals and conservatives, you rightly criticize them for this and then proceed to commit the same fallacy.

As Lloyd Garrison pointed out, theoretical gradualism is perpetuity in practise.

You did not adapt, you compromised, and in doing so you damaged the movement for liberty, perhaps the silver lining is that in doing do you clearly demonstrated the insufficiency and danger of the political process in acheiving libertarian goals.

You do not have radical ends, you bought into the democratic process believing you could change the system, in the end big L libertarians bought into the system they claim to hate and betrayed their own principles. The LP will only gain more political ground by coming more and more into line with the other two parties to the point where there is no difference and it will be only libertarian in name. Don't kid yourself, the party has started down a path and it will never come back.

I had to think about this a little bit. Finally I came to realize where we are missing each other. You see government as control through coercion, and I see government as control through influence. As long as you have a hierarchy, which we both agree will always exist, you will have people that can influence other people and their actions. This is my reasoning for the case that government will arise from anarchy.

So also where we have missed each other is the definition of anarchy. I always considered it to be a word for pure chaos, but now I see that is not necessarily what it means. You can still have order in anarchy.


You have introduced me to an interesting idea that I am willing to consider prescribing to.

Thank you.

__________________
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." – Thomas Jefferson

"Some can be happy under socialism, but under socialism, none can prosper." - Me


Take the World's smallest Political Quiz!

I am inclined to disagree with you on your conception of government. I have no issues with a government that exercises "control" through influence, although, ultimately that ceases to be a government in any accepted sense of the word. If the government were forced to receive funding and support through persuasion and voluntary agreements it would cease to be a government and would essentially be a market entity. Government is, by definition, a territorial monopoly on force, and as such it is evil. However, if we no longer grant government this monopoly, other entities will step in to provide competition in the area of defense and arbitration.

In one sense though you're correct, no matter the strength of the state, if the people wish to rid themselves of it this will happen. This does not mean that the state requires emphatic support on behalf of its subject to exist, it merely means that the people are willing to subject themselves to its rule and give up 40% of their earning every year amongst other things, without too much of a fuss. As, I've said, it does this through the intellectuals. They have a symbiotic relationship, there exists no great demand for intellectuals in a free market and the government needs these individuals to create a defence for its action. Don't interpret this as me saying that government is voluntary, it is not, government still outlaws its competitors through force and acquires funding through force, in one way or another.

I'm not denying that government can arise from anarchy, it clearly can. My main argument against this is, so what? This does not refute anarchism as any alternative merely involves giving the government that may or may not arise from anarchism a head start.

I fail to see how our agreement on heirarchy and the ability of some to influence others, logically leads to the state forming from anarchism. Of course, some will be able to influence others, to the extent that they will be willing to take up arms against the rest to coerce them to follow this new government? That is the part I don't buy.

You're not alone here, the state has done a good job in indoctrinating the people with a fear of anarchy, conflating it with chaos. Making anarchy synonomous with chaos implies that the state holds society apart and social relations without the state are impossible. One only need to go the supermarket to see this isn't so. Personally, I equated the two until not long ago.

I'm glad, honestly, the fight against the state is a battle of ideas. If you'd be interested in reading concerning the subject, I'd be happy to tell you where to start or places to look.