I’m sorry, but anarchism is patently untenable and ridiculous.
Discussion
Anarchy would require that everyone have the utmost personal responsibility and respect for the rights of others. We don't live in that world. Like communism, it falls short of understanding human nature.
What definition? Seems the current techno fascist tyranny is pretty untenable and ridiculous too
I think that if small groups (eg city states) could reliably defend themselves against any sized nation state with some kind of asymmetric defense technology then anarchy could be a workable system. Opt in grass roots governance and open economies built on sound money. If tech keeps progressing it may be viable in a decade or two. It’s just not possible given current constrains.
There are always going to be problems in any human system but I think that the issues within liberal democracy super-nations are ultimately worse than they would be within opt-in anarchist city states. But it’s hypotheticals only until technology gives smaller groups asymmetric advantages.
I am certainly not proposing or supporting a system of governance, but tell me, how does anarchy work in any community larger than the individual?
Opt in organization. It would be a system where markets were the primary governing force and economic cooperation maximized.
Insurance companies to cover myriad risks, private police / military to enforce property rights in instances where needed, private infrastructure, private education. There are examples of these things working.
Imagine an economy that was substantially more robust bc there was no government interference. No taxes, no red tape, no regulation creating massive imbalances and destroying incentives.
Then imagine keeping 100% of your increased earnings and putting that toward the things you need / want. It would be a major economic feedback loop and it would much more efficient for the individual.
Currently in the west, if you include inflation, people are losing >50% of their earnings to Government. Those taxes are completely misused by Government and are essentially a total loss - meaning we get very little if anything personally from our tax “contributions”.
Imagine a world where we all had at least 2x more capital and we could choose where / how to best spend it. You can allocate your capital better than anyone else can, especially governments. They waste the money they take from everyone bc its just flows in automatically and there is no recourse for their misallocations.
Municipalities should have more power for its people than feds. Feds don't represent anyone properly.
The sheriff actually does have ultimate jurisdiction in the US.
Fully agree. I am really hoping to see the US federal government fail and dissolve in my lifetime. They add nothing but take a lot. They also hurt a lot of people. I hope to see many large nation states fail in my lifetime not just picking on the US.
If this is to happen, we (humanity) won’t be able to just watch.
This sounds agorist in nature, but can we agree that it is far from anarchy?
Yeah Agorism is how I would choose to define it.
How do you define anarchy in this conversation? It’s a word that’s been co-opted and the meaning distorted. Similarly to socialism and communism, just according to their original definitions.
Rothbard and others refer to themselves as anarchists or anarcho-capitalists and have written extensively about these types of economic philosophies. Opt in, market / economic driven societies. I thought this is what you were referring to. Maybe we’re just not defining the word in question the same to start.
I tend to define anarchy as the absence of adherence to the rule of law or social and cultural norms. I see it as a state of animalism where self gratification is the only tenet attended to. As such, humanity would devolve to a lone wolf mentality, with survival at all costs ascending to the top priority, followed by unconcerned procreation. If it sounds familiar, maybe you saw it on Animal Planet. 😒
Sounds like San Francisco 😂😂
Yeah we were speaking on different definitions. Anarcho-capitalism or Agorism imo can work and work better for the individual than the nation state model. But like I said before tech has to improve still for smaller Agorist societies to flourish. It’s happening though! We’re here watching and participating in some big changes.
It absolutely is, very dumb ideology. It works as a tactic in some instances but would never work as a system.
If anarchy involves voluntarism, and voluntarism allows free association, it seems to me that free association leads to at least small jurisdictions due to competitive benefits. Minarchism therefore seems as a more likely goal to move toward.
1. Individuals form families
2. Individuals form communities
3. Individuals congregate into towns or cities
The anarchist term 'statist' simply denounces the voluntary congregation of individuals into a jurisdiction.
Personally I believe in small, competing jurisdictions, between the size of a town, upward to the size of a municipality or county.
We can never solve deep divides such as the matter of abortions. The only possible outcome that I see is having competing jurisdictions either allowing or disallowing abortion, while adults vote with their feet.
In terms of practical matters of defense, that's a more complex dimension since it involves future uncertainty, which will differ from geographical regions.
I think it is largely a matter of definition and distinction. Most people I meet who identify as anarchists are actually agorists. I think there is a place and time for anarchy, but it is not a method of governance in much the same way that democracy is not a suitable method of governance. As with so many things, the answer is not a dichotomy, but a gradient.
Agreed. Yet I often hear people throw around the term 'statist', but it doesn't form an argument by itself.
I don't have a problem with individuals voluntarily forming a state. If I respect their voluntary statehood, then that would be enough to make me a 'statist'. I.e. respect for voluntarism becomes statism.
Being practical, I think the idea of complete anarchy is interesting and deserving to be tested, but I can't assume that it will work before the code is run and evaluated, so to speak.
If we have a plethora of small jurisdictions competing for capital, entrepreneurs, skills and workers, that would be a perfectly fine voluntarist solution, even though it qualifies as 'statist'.
Yep, another way to describe this, I believe is autocratic communities. I believe that diverse community is the key. Peaceful cooperation through respect, even if that respect is brokered through mutually assured destruction.
I’m sorry, but statism is patently untenable and ridiculous.