Les,
"Anarchism" means the absence of the state, not the absence of rules.
Libertarian anarchism consists of a voluntary society choosing to adhere to
libertarian law based on the NAP.
I see no reason why anarcho-libertarianism (AL) is "inherently unworkable."
Warm regards, Michael
I think you are deluding yourself if you think a complex modern society can
exist without a state. Even a small society like the condo association has the
equivalent of a state, that is, the Board of Directors. This is unfortunate as
political power always corrupts. But I think it is a reality none the less.
If anarcho-libertarianism is workable, why has it never evolved in any modern
society? Why does the state never wither away?
Les
Les,
Yes, a condo association and a state have some commonalities. What is your
point?
Although anarchist communities exist, e.g., Amish societies, they don't
exist on a large scale because of the strangle hold the state holds on the
people's hearts, minds, and property. Libertarians are chipping away at the
notion we need the state to run our lives.
Even if anarchy has not evolved in modern society, this simply means it
hasn't worked yet, not that it's not workable. In 1800 before slavery was
abolished world-wide, you could have asked, "if a slave-free society is
workable, why has it never evolved in any modern society?" It had not worked
yet, but as we know it's workable.
Warm regards, Michael
We will probably never agree on the workability of anarchism. Every philosophy
begins with unproven and unprovable assumptions. Anarchism could work ONLY if
every individual agreed to respect the rights of every other individual. Then
there would be no reason for a state to defend my rights against others who
would violate them.
The Amish deliberately keep their communities small and simple because they know
that anarchism does not work in large complex societies. I might add that the
Amish do enforce a degree of conformity and obediance on their members which
most liberterians would find intolerable. Amish societies may be anarchic, but
they are hardly libertarian paradises. Amish societies are small enough that the
entire community can enforce the rules and restrictions so that there is no need
for a government. No one is free to be a Starchild in an Amish society.
Les
The Golden rule is a good place to start, the NAP is another and there are many more. There are many quotes suggesting liberty and morality are inseparable. You are right that rules are important. But diversity in rules rooted in property is the key. There is a place for Amish rules and Starchild rules. They may not be the same but they can exist respectfully separate. The problem isn’t with a “large complex” society. It’s sameness and uniformity that should be questioned. Let diversity flourish into many micro societies with a multitude of rules for us to pick from as societal and rule consumers. They all will have to survive economically as the Amish have. One of the enemies of freedom is the sameness and uniformity that are preferred by the state.
Mike
Here’s a good step in the right direction….we have to break down the size of the state for sure. Then the sovereign states can be broken down more into sovereign counties and further until the citizens’ demands are largely satisfied.
http://www.thedailybell.com/3273/Ron-Holland-State-Sovereignty-Americas-Final-Solution-to-Tyranny
Mike
History is not on the side of sovereign states, unfortunately, as the South, Native Americans, Malcom X, painfully discovered.
Marcy
That doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea….maybe the internet will be the catalyst that makes it the wave of the future.
Mike
Les,
You wrote: "Anarchism could work ONLY if every individual agreed to respect
the rights of every other individual."
You are right.
Everybody (99%) does respect the rights every other individual. Except for
politicians, who are inherently violators of individual rights.
Since libertarian anarchy has few politicians, it could work.
Warm regards, Michael
Everybody (99%) does respect the rights of others, except for politicians??? I
have no idea what you are talking about. Are there no robbers, rapists and
murderers around! Individuals often do violate the rights of others. Although
government may be the principal violator of rights, it is hardly the only one.
That is the one principal business of government is to protect individuals
against violations of their rights by other individuals. Some libertarians seem
to have a fantasy that government is the only violator of rights.
Les
No one said the government is the ONLY violator or rights. It just happens to BY FAR the BIGGEST violator or rights. So if the antidote to anarchism, in the minds of some is government, then it appears there a need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Mike
Well, excuse me, but Dr Edelstein DID say that 99% of everyone respected
everyone else's rights. So he did come close to saying that except for
government there is almost no violation of rights.
Les
To be clear….the antidote to the violation of rights is not strong central government. The antidote is diverse voluntary forms of societal structure and discipline based on ideas such as the Non-Aggression Principle, religion, the Golden Rule and many more. There’s probably even room for a sub-society based on rights violations if that’s what some people want in a masochistic kind of way. And if that’s what people want, and they can live among themselves and not disturb others, then they should have it.
Sorry if offending anyone with the “wake up and smell the coffee” comment.
Mike
Sorry Les…to be honest I believe Dr. Edelstein is right. The true non-governmental criminal is a VERY small percent of the population….easily handled by society. It is the governmental criminal (but I repeat myself) that has the power to do REALLY evil things.
Mike
Mike,
Excellent comments about questioning sameness and uniformity, and moving to decentralize government power. I think governments tend to tolerate groups like the Amish having more de facto independence than most groups in society because their anachronism and social conservatism limit the threat they pose to the statist quo. Groups that are more likely to welcome nonconformity, non-traditional modes of being and expression, and are more open to change, are more likely to be suppressed (e.g. the Occupy movement, or any group that would have me as a member!).
I don't care for the terms "state sovereignty" or "state rights" because I believe only individuals legitimately have rights and are sovereign over themselves, but I certainly favor attempts to bring control back more to the local level. Just as the smallest minority is the individual (a point made by Ayn Rand), you also can't get any more "local" than the individual**.
I liked this paragraph from the original article:
"[Todd] Gitlin describes contemporary anarchism accurately (if generally) as 'a theory of self-organization,' one opposed to a plutocracy of elites who have 'artfully arranged a mutual back-scratching society to enrich themselves.' For my life, I can’t think of a better way to describe the way that the state and capital work together against the common man and genuine free markets."
It seems to me that "self-organization" is basically another term for "self-government", and that "self-government" is basically another term for "libertarianism" (e.g. the Advocates for Self-Government, the long-time libertarian non-profit and purveyor of the Nolan Chart quiz). While Occupy is unquestionably far more statist in its aggregate ideology than members of the Libertarian Party are in ours, I believe it is also far more libertarian than the LP when it comes to actually attempting to self-organize outside of the control of the State!
Maybe part of the reason people are unaware of the successes of both anarchy and limited government is that history does tend to be "writ large" -- in other words, it notices the highly visible things taking place on a large scale, but often fails to notice the many less-visible things taking place on a smaller scale, or to properly acknowledge them as autonomous expressions of self-organization by small numbers of people working together cooperatively. The common assumption seems to be that such small-scale self-organization and cooperation are viable only within a larger framework of government actively working to keep "real" anarchy at bay.
I actually disagree that anarchy depends on "every individual respecting every other individual". This seems as untrue to me as the notion that tyranny depends upon *every* law being enforced. I think sustainable anarchy simply depends upon individuals, and more importantly institutions, being generally restricted and effectively prevented from taking on the attributes of governments -- which is of course something much easier said than achieved! Theoretically such restraints could be generated by economic forces working in a large society, as David Friedman and others have explored in their writings, but I have never been fully convinced that this would be the most likely outcome to result from all the institutions identified as governments simply being eliminated.
It occurs to me however that most of my concerns about the potential unsustainability of anarchism are based upon trying to envision anarchy functioning on a large scale, which raises a question: What if it turns out that *group size* is a more important determinant of whether statism develops in a particular society, than is the presence or absence of some type of formal governance existing within the group?
Of course tyranny *can* happen in small groups -- typically they are called "cults" or "small towns" (lol!). But small groups usually do have a kind of built-in restraint on government-type abuses happening within the group which it seems to me is fairly effective in most cases. In larger groups, people today are willing to have institutions do things to "strangers" (e.g. force them at gunpoint to pay taxes) which they would usually be unwilling to do personally or see done to people they know. In small groups, such things can't really happen on an "institutional" or community basis without community members feeling uncomfortably close to the aggression and therefore being less willing to tolerate it.
I've seen the number 150 cited as the maximum approximate human population in which the phenomenon we might describe as the "small community non-aggression vibe" can be maintained. Perhaps libertarians should be seeking a world in which political jurisdictions are limited to this size?
I think the key to preventing small groups from becoming like the Amish in terms of being generally intolerable to people who value freedom, is for them to avoid becoming too insular or isolated from the rest of the world. There is a probably a delicate balance between a group having enough insularity to give it a sense of community and cohesion and to maintain political independence, while retaining enough external contacts to keep it cosmopolitan and open-minded. With the growing ubiquity of the Internet, this should be less of a problem than it has been in the past.
Libertarians who argue that anarchy is "unworkable" in much larger groups should perhaps consider the possibility that government of a type which would be acceptable to most self-identified libertarians may be similarly "unworkable" in such a context! Do we have any more historical examples of libertarian government taking place on a significant scale than we do of anarchy taking place on such a scale? If not, what greater reason do we have to think it *could* sustainably work on a large scale, than we do for thinking anarchy could work on such a scale?
With these thoughts in mind, it seems to me that every libertarian should be a fervent champion of decentralization and secession!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
**At our present levels of technology/evolution/understanding.
Amen…very well said Starchild.
Mike
Hey Les,
You asked: "Are there no robbers, rapists and murderers around!"
Yes there are. The U.S population is 300 million. How many do you think
committed violent crimes in 2010 (excluding politicians)?
You wrote: "the one principal business of government is to protect
individuals against violations of their rights by other individuals."
The first thing the state does to protect individual rights is to violate
individual rights. Do you see a logical contradiction here?
Warm regards, Michael
Leslie,
I offer the following answer to your questions: "If anarcho-libertarianism is workable, why has it never evolved in any modern society? Why does the state never wither away?"
I think fear, a sense of hopelessness and shame are factors that partially explain why anarcho-libertarianism and other alternate forms of societal organization have not formed deep roots in the America of our lifetime. Public education is also a factor.
For example, when the Branch Davidians of Mt. Carmel, Texas established their alternate form of societal organization, they co-existed peacefully within the dominate, mainstream local culture and, at the same time, lived voluntarily under their own set of moral principles. In one documentary about the Branch Davidians, local townspeople and the local sheriff, people who were not Davidians, tearfully described the deceased Branch Davidians and David Koresh, their leader, as good people who bothered no one.
The Davidians' problem was that they took their religion seriously and worshipped G-d, not government. This was too much for the fragile egos of the ruling elites (Republican: G.H.W. Bush and Democrats: Clinton & Reno) to bear. With the help of the mainstream media, the ruling elites defiled the Davidians good local reputation with the intent of conditioning all of America for what was to follow. By describing the Davidians as a death cult, 1st-amendment gun nuts, home-schoolers who deprive their children of proper education, pedophiles and other trumped-up charges that were never proven in a court of law, the government and mainstream media got away with slander, torture, arson and mass murder.
I believe many people, if not a majority, think the Davidians were nuts (an opinion promoted by mainstream media) who got what they deserved and, like other groups of people who sought alternate forms of societal organization, became the butt of cruel, undeserved jokes. If you watch the congressional testimony that followed the killing of the Branch Davidians (available on YouTube), you'll see Senators John Conyers and Chuck Schumer openly and repeatedly mock and taunt the few Davidians who survived the massacre and testified before congress. 19 years later, Conyers and Schumer have yet to lose their congressional seats.
Bernard von NotHaus, of Liberty Dollar fame, is another peaceful, productive person who was made an example of by his/our government. His "crime" was selling gold and silver. He was slandered as a counterfeiter and is, now, serving what will probably be life imprisonment.
http://sovereignthink.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/life-in-prison-for-federal-competition-silver-death-sentencing/
Though the Amish have fared well compared to other groups, they, too, are having problems with government slander and jack-booted government attacks. As the raw-food movement gains popularity, look for more FDA raids and trumped-up charges against Amish farmers who sell raw, un-pasteurized milk.
My point is this: Though our government, its public educators and mainstream media promote the myths of free-market capitalism and personal freedom, anarcho-libertarianism is not sanctioned by government. To attempt to live a lifestyle or in a societal arrangement that does not have authoritative approval is a dangerous proposition that has often ended in death from one's own government, thus an ever-expanding bureaucracy and the lack of a flourishing anarcho-libertarian society..
All the best,
Don
LPSF,
On December 1st, 2011, KGO 810am and KSFO 560am, two San Francisco talk radio stations, were sold to Cumulus Media.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-12-02/news/30470582_1_kgo-paul-hosley-cumulus-media
Cumulus fired many of the stations' popular, local, non-syndicated hosts. John Rothman, Ray Taliaferro, Gene Burns and Dr. Bill Wattenberg are among those who were fired (Rothman, Taliaferro and Wattenberg were my favorites KGO hosts). Though Rabbi Daniel Lapin was not fired from KSFO, his popular Sunday 1pm - 4pm show was moved to Sunday 5am- 8am (Because of the odd hour, I'll have to listen to the archived version of this show). If anyone knows of Rothman, Taliaferro, Wattenberg and other fired KGO hosts being picked up by other stations or broadcasting independently via the internet, please let me know where I can find their broadcasts.
I believe Cumulus Media, probably under pressure from the FCC, fired these local hosts because they offered unique, non-syndicated opinions, sometimes allowed lengthy discussion that could not be suitably homogenized or pasteurized for syndicated radio and were often at odds with what was promoted by the major syndicated hosts who, in my opinion, are government apparatchiks.
All the best,
Don
Dear Don,
So that's what happened! I tuned to hear Rabbi Daniel, and I got the babe in the bunker interviewing some guy who referred to Ron Paul as irrelevant and an egomaniac. You can imagine my distress! Wow, very, very interesting the ones who got cut. The most interesting is Bill Wattenberg, and his basically science show; but Dr. Wattenberg is an independent thinker (as are of course the others), and that, apparently, will not do with the new owners. Thank you for the information, Don.
Marcy