Against Anarchism

[sjw]

Yeah, we anarchists are so damned critical of governments. I guess we need a serious attitude adjustment. Then we can join in singing the praises of government that are heard so often on OL. That's what I hate about this list; all we hear, day after day, is how wonderful governments are.

Yeah, I'm such a government worshiper.

Shayne

-Spin, spin, spin George!!! Faster, faster, faster! Wheeeeeeee!

[Xray]

Anarchists are like test eaters in a restaurant finding fault with the food but without the obligation to do a better cooking job on their part.

Anarchists would have yet to prove whether their visions conform to reality, for there exists no such thing as an anarchistic society.

Rejecting the idea of anarchism as unrealistic does not mean one has to "worship" government instead.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Xray

[bmacwilliam]

Personally, I'd really appreciate it if I could get a couple quick references to try to understand the basic tenets of anarcho-capitalism and related variations.

I'm really stuck getting off the ground with this. I can't seem to agree with the basics, but I'd like to learn more.

For me I'm stuck, more or less, with this view:

Life and society are very complex, sure, but in the macro-view is essentially a rational and of course sometimes emotional struggle for scarce resources (money, love, time, accomplishments, assets etc.). In at least a somewhat realistic sense, a game metaphor is appropriate. Any game needs rules, and in most cases, needs referees with the authority to punish including physical removal from the game. Sure, we can play friendly games of street hockey without referees, but certainly couldn't have the Stanley Cup final without them. Very quickly the game would degrade into a cheating frenzy no?

But the referees, like democratic political leaders do not have a monopoly though do they? If they were really bad, then they'd get replaced (maybe with votes from the players). Isn't this essentially our democracy (perhaps with smaller government)? Is it the voluntary agreement with the rules that makes the difference?

Bob

Edited March 25, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

Or perhaps to put it a different way: Wealth maximization should be the primary goal of any "collective" authority. With wealth comes everything else, more leisure, better medicine, better everything. Wealth is the fundamental driver of progress (I think).

Theft, cheating, fraud (and government) are generally destroyers of wealth, but a government is necessary to minimize the other problems. Therefore, there's a sweet-spot somewhere where the government is powerful enough to discourage cheating effectively, but small enough not to destroy a large amount of wealth.

Bob

[sjw]

Or perhaps to put it a different way: Wealth maximization should be the primary goal of any "collective" authority. With wealth comes everything else, more leisure, better medicine, better everything. Wealth is the fundamental driver of progress (I think).

Theft, cheating, fraud (and government) are generally destroyers of wealth, but a government is necessary to minimize the other problems. Therefore, there's a sweet-spot somewhere where the government is powerful enough to discourage cheating effectively, but small enough not to destroy a large amount of wealth.

Bob

I think that is a fascist definition of the purpose of government. The proper definition is that government exists in order to defend individual liberty against criminal interference. This leads to maximizing wealth and other good things as a consequence, but wealth maximization as such is not the proper purpose of government.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Or perhaps to put it a different way: Wealth maximization should be the primary goal of any "collective" authority. With wealth comes everything else, more leisure, better medicine, better everything. Wealth is the fundamental driver of progress (I think).

Theft, cheating, fraud (and government) are generally destroyers of wealth, but a government is necessary to minimize the other problems. Therefore, there's a sweet-spot somewhere where the government is powerful enough to discourage cheating effectively, but small enough not to destroy a large amount of wealth.

Bob

I think that is a fascist definition of the purpose of government. The proper definition is that government exists in order to defend individual liberty against criminal interference. This leads to maximizing wealth and other good things as a consequence, but wealth maximization as such is not the proper purpose of government.

Shayne

Human freedom is "the fundamental driver of progress."

--Brant

[Peter]

Bob_Mac wrote:

Personally, I'd really appreciate it if I could get a couple quick references to try to understand the basic tenets of anarcho-capitalism and related variations.

end quote

One, two, three, four. Well no anarchist experts have shown up, so I will take a stab at it, from a disparaging point of view.

I suggest we first agree that there are Philosophical Anarchists and Free Range Anarchists. The Philosophical Anarchists are deliberately advocating no government while the Free Range Anarchists are accidentally that way.

Philosophical Anarchists are usually better educated and espouse their views from within the protection of a relatively free society, with leisure and surpluses. They reject any restrictions on their actions. The think a non-system of social interaction is better than any government, where each individual can do as they please until another Anarchist or group of Anarchists persuades or forces them to stop.

They say they are sure they can sustain individual rights and ensure justice because they and the people they will associate with, are capable of it. They point to themselves as proof and say, “I am rational enough, to freely and respectfully, interact with other individuals. Ayn Rand and many Objectivists hold these people to be contemptible and unworthy of association.

Free Range Anarchy, in contrast, is my way of describing an interim lack of government after migration, or for uncivilized people living under a family and clan system. They don’t deliberately choose Anarchy as a way of life, except in the sense that they may have been escaping something worse, such as savages or despotism. They are unable to articulate or establish a system that truly protects individual rights. These people are unsophisticated but not worthy of contempt. They deserve better and through cultural osmosis or interaction with civilizations they can become more civilized.

I would not consider Anarchy, under a free range system, the jungle. Generally all people have a sense of self worth and sovereignty, and this manifests itself in mutually acceptable social behaviors. If this sociable sense did not exist, anthropologists insist, we would be extinct and not here today. Toddlers learn this from each other and mentors. Civility becomes the norm. I think those commercials showing Vikings bashing everyone are meant to be comical, and not as a true representation of free range anarchists.

Philosophical Anarchists also have a sense of self worth and sovereignty, and this can also manifest itself in mutually acceptable social behaviors. The problem is they have rejected a system that better guarantees multi-generational contracts and stability. There is no Capitalism in Anarchism. There are legitimate disagreements among reasonable people, and a justice system founded on a government has always better guaranteed justice. Always. They cannot point to a successful *society* founded on, "What will be, will be." But of course, in the interim, no government is better than despotism.

A free trade, world market does exist, but even then, the participants have recourse to conflict resolution through contractually agreed arbitration, their governments, or the World Court. This is Capitalism, not an Anarchist Society.

Philosophical Anarchists may claim that their espousal of Anarchism is a way to fight runaway Government by supplying citizens with the intellectual ammunition to fight power creep. Or, they may be trying to start some commune where they will profit, or get you to buy into some get - rich - quick scheme, or they may simply wish for *niche notoriety* and followers.

Philosophical Anarchists are viewed by Rand as “Prudent Predators.” They know a successful Anarchist Society is laughably unlikely. But they are trying to scam others with a scheme that has no “referent in reality.” It is a flim - flam to bilk the gullible in some fashion, for some monetary or personal gain, for the Prudent Predator.

They may be selling a book or a commodity, or looking for followers, but I would suggest, “Buyer Beware!”

I am not speaking about any people who currently agree with the essentials of Objectivism, especially those called Tolerationists by some, when I say, Rand despised people who seemed to understand her philosophy but misrepresented it. They claim she was really an anarchist at heart. She was not. She hated people who cashed in on her fame, while misrepresenting her philosophy, and then preying on her adherents. And like Howard Roark I think she rarely thought about these Elsworth Tooey’s after denouncing them.

Peter Taylor

[bmacwilliam]

Or perhaps to put it a different way: Wealth maximization should be the primary goal of any "collective" authority. With wealth comes everything else, more leisure, better medicine, better everything. Wealth is the fundamental driver of progress (I think).

Theft, cheating, fraud (and government) are generally destroyers of wealth, but a government is necessary to minimize the other problems. Therefore, there's a sweet-spot somewhere where the government is powerful enough to discourage cheating effectively, but small enough not to destroy a large amount of wealth.

Bob

I think that is a fascist definition of the purpose of government. The proper definition is that government exists in order to defend individual liberty against criminal interference. This leads to maximizing wealth and other good things as a consequence, but wealth maximization as such is not the proper purpose of government.

Shayne

Interesting, but doesn't 'capitalist' describe it better than 'fascist'? But its more or less the same idea - protection against criminal interference. The more wealthy I get, the more liberty I enjoy. In fact, for me, the entire reason I pursue wealth is this exact reason - wealth=freedom.

Freedom (in a practical sense, if not philosophical) means little without wealth. Does it mean much to me that I'm free to travel the world or my country or whatever if I don't have the means?

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

One, two, three, four. Well no anarchist experts have shown up, so I will take a stab at it, from a disparaging point of view.

Well, thank you for that - sincerely. However, it doesn't help me much as far as trying to understand some of the supporting arguments ;-)

Bob

[Peter]

I just wrote:

And like Howard Roark I think (Ayn) rarely thought about these Elsworth Tooey’s (Anarchists) after denouncing them.

I give George H. Smith a necessary pass on this. He is more of a Howard Roark than a phooey Tooey. George is honorable and valuable. Not so oddly, I think he will soon reevaluate “Rational Anarchy” and advocate a limited Objectivist Government. Some day.

George quoted Jefferson as agreeing with Paine when TJ wrote:

“Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness . . . .”

end quote

George H. Smith illuminated this quote by responding:

Again -- and read my words very carefully so I don't have to go through this again -- the Founding Fathers rejected the notion that one generation can bind future generations. This does not mean that they framed constitutions only for their own generation. They had another explanation for how the political obligations generated by constitutions can apply to future generations. For now, I will leave it to you to figure out what that explanation was.

end quote

Is it time, George? Is the following quote about how the political obligations generated by the original US Constitution apply to future generations? Is it time for this generation to fight back tyranny?

In Robert Tracinski “An Interview with Jamie Radtke, Part 2, he asks the Senatorial Tea Party and Republican candidate from Virginia about the Repeal Amendment and Jamie replied:

The Repeal Amendment is a proposed amendment to the US Constitution designed to restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments that our Founders originally envisioned. The amendment states that any law, rule, regulation, or tax passed by Congress can be repealed upon a vote of two-thirds of state legislatures. This does not give absolute power to the states—but with repeal power, the states could check the current absolute power of the federal government and force Congress to take a second look at unwise legislation.

Over the years, regardless of the political party in power, states have surrendered their sovereign prerogatives in return for federal handouts. This has given the federal government the ability to intrude in areas that the Constitution has reserved to the states.

This concentration of federal power has had many negative and unconstitutional consequences, from loss of personal freedom to unnecessary burdens on the free market, to the transfer of the people’s money to federal bureaucrats, to the imposition of unfunded mandates and other financial burdens on the states and their people.

Unless states stop yielding power to Washington, their complaints about federal intrusiveness will ring hollow. We must empower states with a constitutionally legitimate tool to check the powers of the federal government. The Repeal Amendment is that tool. The Repeal Amendment will empower states to regain their veto power to stop the irresponsible concentration of power in the federal government.

end quote

Interesting. A two-thirds majority of the state’s legislatures can repeal any law, rule, regulation, or tax passed by Congress. But a “con-con” or constitutional convention must first be called, to enact The Repeal Amendment.

Does anyone have any thoughts about the advisability of passing this amendment? The Government is once again, about to run out of money and ten elected, Republican / Tea Party Senator’s are tired of it. I like The Repeal Amendment better than calling more than one constitutional convention in the coming years or Anarchy or politics as usual.

Peter Taylor

[bmacwilliam]

Or perhaps to put it a different way: Wealth maximization should be the primary goal of any "collective" authority. With wealth comes everything else, more leisure, better medicine, better everything. Wealth is the fundamental driver of progress (I think).

Theft, cheating, fraud (and government) are generally destroyers of wealth, but a government is necessary to minimize the other problems. Therefore, there's a sweet-spot somewhere where the government is powerful enough to discourage cheating effectively, but small enough not to destroy a large amount of wealth.

Bob

I think that is a fascist definition of the purpose of government. The proper definition is that government exists in order to defend individual liberty against criminal interference. This leads to maximizing wealth and other good things as a consequence, but wealth maximization as such is not the proper purpose of government.

Shayne

Human freedom is "the fundamental driver of progress."

--Brant

I can't really disagree, because my concept of wealth, more or less, includes freedom by necessity, but is more than just base freedom. My freedom is freedom in the pursuit of self-improvement.

We can imagine a society/country where people are more or less completely free but are poor - perhaps even by choice. They couldn't afford a developed arts culture, space exploration, medicine, philosophy, travel, and a whole host of intellectual pursuits because they are barely subsisting. Fine, great, but is this "progress"?

Compare that to a prosperous society that can afford all kinds of "advancements" and is also free (or mostly) but values wealth more. Which is more "progressed"?

Freedom is necessary, but not sufficient for "progress" as I would define it - and admitedly that's a personal bias. But wealth in a very real sense implies a more sophisticated/complete (if I may call it that) concept of freedom. Wealth also implies/includes freedom because you couldn't say you were wealthy if you didn't have the freedom to own and control your resources. So the concepts are related.

But freedom without the wealth connection as I describe it has little to no practical value as far as I can see.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

Or perhaps to put it a different way: Wealth maximization should be the primary goal of any "collective" authority. With wealth comes everything else, more leisure, better medicine, better everything. Wealth is the fundamental driver of progress (I think).

Theft, cheating, fraud (and government) are generally destroyers of wealth, but a government is necessary to minimize the other problems. Therefore, there's a sweet-spot somewhere where the government is powerful enough to discourage cheating effectively, but small enough not to destroy a large amount of wealth.

Bob

I think that is a fascist definition of the purpose of government. The proper definition is that government exists in order to defend individual liberty against criminal interference. This leads to maximizing wealth and other good things as a consequence, but wealth maximization as such is not the proper purpose of government.

Shayne

Human freedom is "the fundamental driver of progress."

--Brant

I can't really disagree, because my concept of wealth, more or less, includes freedom by necessity, but is more than just base freedom. My freedom is freedom in the pursuit of self-improvement.

We can imagine a society/country where people are more or less completely free but are poor - perhaps even by choice. They couldn't afford a developed arts culture, space exploration, medicine, philosophy, travel, and a whole host of intellectual pursuits because they are barely subsisting. Fine, great, but is this "progress"?

Compare that to a prosperous society that can afford all kinds of "advancements" and is also free (or mostly) but values wealth more. Which is more "progressed"?

Freedom is necessary, but not sufficient for "progress" as I would define it - and admitedly that's a personal bias. But wealth in a very real sense implies a more sophisticated/complete (if I may call it that) concept of freedom. Wealth also implies/includes freedom because you couldn't say you were wealthy if you didn't have the freedom to own and control your resources. So the concepts are related.

But freedom without the wealth connection as I describe it has little to no practical value as far as I can see.

Bob

Okay, freedom isn't enough. You also need food and clothes and a roof over your head, to say nothing of rationality and like-minded neighbors.

--Brant

[sjw]

Bob, wealth has little meaning without liberty to go along with it. Putting liberty at the base doesn't prohibit wealth and other forms of prosperity being part of the whole package, the idea is to underscore what the fundamental is that leads to everything else.

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

Bob, wealth has little meaning without liberty to go along with it. Putting liberty at the base doesn't prohibit wealth and other forms of prosperity being part of the whole package, the idea is to underscore what the fundamental is that leads to everything else.

Shayne

Ok, but what I was getting at was that wealth is a superset of liberty. But I'm not sure it's meaningful to break it down further. What I mean is that base-liberty is not good enough. Or, in other words, "everything else" that is of any real use at all (in terms of progress that is) is wealth-focused liberty and not simple freedom.

The implication too is that there may be some freedom that might be defendable in the vacuum, but needs to be curtailed to maximize the useful form of liberty.

and as Brant says:

"Okay, freedom isn't enough. You also need food and clothes and a roof over your head, to say nothing of rationality and like-minded neighbors. "

So, while it may be a logical error in base-liberty thinking it seems to me that once you start to value wealth less than choice at a fundamental level, you get the supposed "right" of others to confiscate and redistribute your wealth in unproductive ways, which in a real but ironic way, destroys aggregrate freedom AND wealth.

See what I'm getting at?

Edit: And to add, a certain amount of wealth confiscation can actually serve to enhance aggregate and individual wealth and is indeed justified by protecting one against the cheaters (and possibly for infrastructure maybe too).

Edited March 25, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

But I guess also what I'm saying is that anarchy (although I admit I need to learn more) doesn't make sense. Even if anarchy is indeed the natural extension and development of liberty theory/natural rights etc., it fails because wealth could not prosper in this environment and any argument wrt freedom is rendered meaningless. Free and dirt poor is not free (for me at least).

If wealth could be maximized with anarchy, I'd like to understand how.

Bob

[Peter]

Bob_Mac wrote:

The implication too is that there may be some freedom that might be defendable in the vacuum, but needs to be curtailed to maximize the useful form of liberty.

end quote

Your wording seems a bit obscure to me. So let me muddy the waters a bit more.

I do agree with you, and Rush, and all others that America is a rich and powerful country because of its freedom. Our two hundred years of freedom has *enabled* the wealth we have to be produced through rational self interest, not natural resources or location, or dumb luck.

Then consider Saudi Arabia. The state owns the oil wells and collects the revenues. Money is doled out and public works are financed with that wealth, but other than the “rock star royalty” no one is free in that country. That country is an anomaly, where natural resources are the reason for its wealth.

Ah, I see you edited your last post before I could print this. Good for you.

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

Bob,

Anarchy vs. government is a political manifestation of an underlying ethical theory, that theory being a subset of ethics in general: natural rights theory. Your thought that wealth is the foundation sounds like you substitute wealth for natural rights, and that just isn't right, and leads and is leading to fascism. The best American Founding Fathers were not capitalists, they were primarily defenders of Man's Rights. The Declaration of Independence doesn't refer to wealth or capitalism, it refers to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

But the best answer I can give is to read my book: http://www.amazon.com/Individual-Rights-Treatise-Human-Relations/dp/0984587004/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301087220&sr=8-1

The subject we're talking about here is discussed in a section on Economism/Fascism.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Anarchists are like test eaters in a restaurant finding fault with the food but without the obligation to do a better cooking job on their part.

Anarchists would have yet to prove whether their visions conform to reality, for there exists no such thing as an anarchistic society.

Rejecting the idea of anarchism as unrealistic does not mean one has to "worship" government instead.

I am not aware of any government that has existed with purely voluntary financing, yet this is the O'ist ideal.

You are not an O'ist, so you probably believe in the moral legitimacy of coercive taxation. But the anarchist/minarchist debate is a battle between two ideals, and one of those is the O'ist ideal of a government that lacks the power to tax. I daresay this is more problematic than the anarchist ideal of agencies that support themselves via market competition, instead of lotteries (as Rand suggested for her limited government). We at least know that market competition has worked extremely well in the production of the vast majority of goods and services, but I don't think the same can be said of lotteries.

Ghs

[sjw]

One example of why some people are skeptical of the idea of combining the profit motive with government:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359154/Cash-kids-judge-took-1m-kickback-private-jail-builder-lock-children-up.html

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

The proper definition is that government exists in order to defend individual liberty against criminal interference.

Oh, really? Have fascistic governments existed "in order to defend individual liberty against criminal interference"? Does your definition fit communistic governments? How about fundamentalist Islamic governments?

You gotta love people who define "government" with no reference to the real world. Perhaps we could define other institutions with your method. Let's see...How shall I define the institutions known as "churches?"

Well, it would be nice if churches existed in order to foster rational thinking, (just as it would be nice if governments defended individual liberty), so I will define "church" as a place where people go, often on Sundays, to engage in rational thinking.

This wishful thinking works for me! I think I will define "bank" next, since I have often fantasized about a bank that will give me all the money I want.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Then consider Saudi Arabia. The state owns the oil wells and collects the revenues. Money is doled out and public works are financed with that wealth, but other than the "rock star royalty" no one is free in that country. That country is an anomaly, where natural resources are the reason for its wealth.

That's not Saudi wealth save in the sense they expropriated it. That wealth was created in the West and shipped to them in exchange for a commodity pumped out of the ground at less than ten bucks a barrel cost.

--Brant

[sjw]

The proper definition is that government exists in order to defend individual liberty against criminal interference.

Oh, really?

Yep. That's the definition of the proper purpose of government.

Stop being so thick-headed.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

The proper definition is that government exists in order to defend individual liberty against criminal interference.

Oh, really? Have fascistic governments existed "in order to defend individual liberty against criminal interference"? Does your definition fit communistic governments? How about fundamentalist Islamic governments?

You gotta love people who define "government" with no reference to the real world. Perhaps we could define other institutions with your method. Let's see...How shall I define the institutions known as "churches?"

Well, it would be nice if churches existed in order to foster rational thinking, (just as it would be nice if governments defended individual liberty), so I will define "church" as a place where people go, often on Sundays, to engage in rational thinking.

This wishful thinking works for me! I think I will define "bank" next, since I have often fantasized about a bank that will give me all the money I want.

Ghs

He simply should have put what kind of government down. He obviously means some kind of "right" government.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

The proper definition is that government exists in order to defend individual liberty against criminal interference.

Oh, really?

Yep. That's the definition of the proper purpose of government.

Stop being so thick-headed.

Shayne

You have attempted to define a proper (i.e., morally legitimate) government. You have not defined "the proper purpose" of a such a government. The purpose of protecting rights is part of your definition of a proper government.

I am just trying to keep you on track before the entire train of your reasoning crashes and burns.

Btw, roughly how many real governments in history have been proper governments, in your judgment? More than ten? More than fifty?

Careful, I may be luring you into a trap. Maybe you should get me to sign some kind of agreement before you answer. But there is no reason to resort to more name calling. That is childish, you know.

Ghs

[Selene]

One example of why some people are skeptical of the idea of combining the profit motive with government:

http://www.dailymail...hildren-up.html

Shayne

Shayne:

I am intimately familiar with this case in the Pennsylvania Family Court system in that county. In point of fact, I was in communication with several public defenders who were involved in that case and some Judges in the Philadelphia family courts just last week.

Pennsylvania is one of the states wherein the right to counsel, or appointment of a law guardian, or guardian ad litem is discretionary in family court contested custody matters, as well as some of the areas in the cases involved in the article.

This is a good example of the fact that family courts should not be a function of the state. This was a flat out abuse of power by a criminal judge and a lot of "good German" elements of a corrupted county government.

In the California prison system, cell phones were, and are, being smuggled in by union prison guards to be sold for $1,000 per cell phone to a convicted murderer who was allegedly tormenting his victim's family, and several drug dealers and gang leaders who continued to run their enterprises from their cells.

One guard made $150,000 last year by smuggling in the phones. He was, when he was discovered, merely fired. No criminal prosecution because the union is one of the strongest in California.

It is government that is to be feared.

Adam

Edited March 26, 2011 by Selene