[Soixante-Retard]

When I say I'm not an anarchist, I mean I do not advocate anarchy which is defined as:

anarchy
noun

1. a state of society without government or law

I accept anarchy to be "a state of society without government" since I suppose law in a Hayekian sense vis-à-vis legislation and thus can conceive anarchy (albeit a temporary state) with law.

So why do I not advocate "a state of society without government"? Mainly because I think it is unfeasible, regardless of whether it is desirable (on balance, I don't think it is desirable). But why do I think it is unfeasible? I think it is unfeasible because I've come to believe that government, a body of governance, to be an emergent phenomenon - that is, some level of government is unavoidable even if we started in a state of anarchy. That is to say, government would emerge from nobody's intention - an invisible hand - it doesn't need inventing.

But I do believe it is possible to at least minimize the power of the State. That is why I am a minarchist, a libertarian, and not an anarchist.

I would love to hear some opinions from anarchists on my piece and why it is that they are anarchists.

[Daktoria]

SR's a statist after all! =O

Anyway, I agree. Newborns are entitled to a social contract to prevent abuse, and a social contract needs a jurisdiction.

Otherwise, there's no difference between civilization and a state of nature. Reality doesn't need society to exist.

[SecretSquirrel]

Anyway, I agree. Newborns are entitled to a social contract to prevent abuse,

No

You see the problem but you beg the question rather than answer it.

The true fact is that people are not entitled to create newborns.

[Nunt]

I think it is unfeasible because I've come to believe that government, a body of governance, to be an emergent phenomenon - that is, some level of government is unavoidable even if we started in a state of anarchy. That is to say, government would emerge from nobody's intention - an invisible hand - it doesn't need inventing.

Can you explain more why you think it is infeasible? I don't think a government will automatically be created.

To create a government you need:
-an individual or a group of individuals to willingly violate the non-aggression principle
-that the majority of the community views this violation as legitimate

Now while that initial group has plenty of incentives to form a government (power, money, shape community to their own views, etc.,) and that they will try to use various excuses to legitimize their behavior (devine right, helping the poor, etc.,), there is no reason why this should be logical necessity. Why would people view government actions as legitimate? Maybe they will, maybe they won't. As long has people have the possibility to judge on their own whether or not they believe a government is legitimate, there is always the possibility that a group of people will never believe a government to be legitimate thus preventing a government from forming.

Second, assuming you are right and the creation of a government is unavoidable, should we give up striving for a world without a state? Even if you 100% believe that one day a government will form in an anarchic community, we do not know how long it will take until this inevitable emergence takes place. Maybe it'll take 100 years or maybe just 5 years. But these 5 years may be desirable. Should we give up because we know anarchy won't last forever? Or should we try to make anarchy last as long as possible? Maybe 5 years of anarchy is the best we can achieve, but at least we'll still have that.

Third, your emergent phenomenon arguement cuts both was. If minarchy is an emergent phenomenon from anarchy, maybe a large welfare state is an emergent phenomenon from a minarchy. Would you then be in favor of a welfare state simply because minarchy seems to be infeasible?

Fourth, one must not confuse governance with governement. Government always violates the non agression principle because it uses taxes and unilateral regulations. But governance is much braoder. Governance is about the policies that people use to manage or maintain certain resources. If those resources are legitimatly owned, then there is no problem with people governing those resources.

Imo believing that anarchy is infeasible is a very weak arguement not to be in favor of it. Whether or not anarchy will last is not something we can know in advance. Will it last forever? What on earth does last forever? Will it last for a sufficiently long time? What time is sufficiently long? There can be no theoritical arguement to prove this. We cannot prove that anarchy will not last a sufficiently long time. I would understand that you are against anarchy if you don't believe that it will have desirable effects (say war of all against all) or that it is amoral (because it limits the legitimate authority of the devine king). But if you only think it is infeasible? Thats not a reason not to try to reach it.

[Soixante-Retard]

To create a government you need:
-an individual or a group of individuals to willingly violate the non-aggression principle
-that the majority of the community views this violation as legitimate

I don't think this is hard to do.

Now while that initial group has plenty of incentives to form a government (power, money, shape community to their own views, etc.,) and that they will try to use various excuses to legitimize their behavior (devine right, helping the poor, etc.,), there is no reason why this should be logical necessity.

Rationalizing is commonplace.

Second, assuming you are right and the creation of a government is unavoidable, should we give up striving for a world without a state?

No. That is the direction I think we should be heading, step by step, but we shouldn't be disappointed if we don't succeed since I believe some level of government is inevitable - the question is how much?

Third, your emergent phenomenon arguement cuts both was. If minarchy is an emergent phenomenon from anarchy, maybe a large welfare state is an emergent phenomenon from a minarchy. Would you then be in favor of a welfare state simply because minarchy seems to be infeasible?

It is not peculiar to welfare per se. I think you are asking whether totalitarian government is inevitable from minimal government. History and current governments show this is not necessarily the case.

Fourth, one must not confuse governance with governement. Government always violates the non agression principle because it uses taxes and unilateral regulations. But governance is much braoder. Governance is about the policies that people use to manage or maintain certain resources. If those resources are legitimatly owned, then there is no problem with people governing those resources.

Yes, we can self-govern. But imagine there were only two people in the world, the has a gun the other doesn't. Who will find themselves being the governed and the governor? The only leverage I see is that the governors are fewer than the governed.


I suppose I am arriving at a Lockean/Nozickian state-of-nature theory.

[Nunt]

I don't think this is hard to do.

Rationalizing is commonplace.

Theres a difference between government is unavoidable and government is very likely. Imo you arguements here only argue that government may be likely. Nobody will deny this. But its still a big step from going to very likely to unavoidable.

No. That is the direction I think we should be heading, step by step, but we shouldn't be disappointed if we don't succeed since I believe some level of government is inevitable - the question is how much?

Strive for 0 government and never give up?

It is not peculiar to welfare per se. I think you are asking whether totalitarian government is inevitable from minimal government. History and current governments show this is not necessarily the case.

That wasn't my question. What I was pointing to that history shows that all minimal governments have grown to become much more.

Yes, we can self-govern. But imagine there were only two people in the world, the has a gun the other doesn't. Who will find themselves being the governed and the governor? The only leverage I see is that the governors are fewer than the governed.

In this example, there wouldn't be a governemnt. As government is legitimated by the people who are governed. In this case, the guy with the gun will be the boss. But not because the other guy believes that the guy with the gun has a legitimate claim over his life. Without the legitimacy, the guy is just a simple street mugger. This legitimacy is very import for a government to be able to survice in a society. Without legitimacy, the government will find itself strangled in its sleep.

[Daktoria]

No

You see the problem but you beg the question rather than answer it.

The true fact is that people are not entitled to create newborns.

OK, but how do we determine appropriate parents?

A social contract is necessary to conduct a philosophical test to separate good apples from the bad.

[Eran]

Soixante-Retard,
I have come to the conclusion that stable forms of governance (thus including both government and ordered anarchy) depend on the political culture within society.

Living in 1750, one could just as easily argue that monarchy (not just government) as well as slavery are emergent phenomena. After all, up to that time, every society has seen both.

What changed was that American society had widespread belief in self-governance as a fundamental principle. That belief was (and still is) strong enough to make sure that never in American history (and in sharp difference from many other societies) had there been a military coup.


A stable anarchy requires its own political culture. Specifically, people need to believe, like you and I both do, that private property (justly acquired) forms the basis of legitimate action. Because people can legitimately (even if not always morally) do whatever they want with their property (justly acquired) as long as they don't physically invade other people's property.

Once that belief replaces democratic legitimacy as the founding principle, a stable anarchy is no less likely than a stable democracy.


Another argument deals with the scope of governments. Obviously, we don't have a world government. So even if government is an emergent phenomenon, large governments (i.e. governments ruling over large geographic areas) are clearly not unavoidable. A world with a large number of very small governments is not that different from an anarchy.


Daktoria,
I seem to recall that SecretSquirrel feels it is immoral to bring children to the world. Period. For any parents.

As for your "Social Contract", why does it require government?

[Soixante-Retard]

Eran, you make a good point regarding historical perspective. That said, I see "anarchy" as asymptotic. Like massive particles can never reach the speed of light, I feel we can never reach "anarchy" - but that doesn't mean we should give up, we should at least pursue it. But realize to get there it takes small continuous steps not full blown changes akin to purging and since it could be asymptotic we should not be disappointed if we never get "there" - pursuing objectionable means to unattainable ends (thinking here of the marxist "in order to free the masses, they have first to be enslaved").

[Eran]

The question of steps is tactical. Reasonable people can disagree, and I don't have a strong view, as long as we agree on the end-state.

Sure, you can treat anarchy as asymptotic. Same as a crime-free society. We may never have a crime-free society, but that doesn't mean we cannot both imagine and strive for one by fighting crime.

We may never have a perfectly-just society, but we can both imagine and strive for one. A proper understanding of the state (from which you are not far) shows that it can never be part of a just society.

We are so far from my ideal an-cap society that it is very easy to imagine drastic steps in the right direction that still fall short.

But you didn't just express doubt as to the stability of anarchy. You also wrote "on balance, I don't think it is desirable". Could you explain your thinking?

[Soixante-Retard]

Sure, you can treat anarchy as asymptotic. Same as a crime-free society. We may never have a crime-free society, but that doesn't mean we cannot both imagine and strive for one by fighting crime.

Sure but we should be aware of the costs involved and not have blinkers on. Carrying on with the speed of light analogy, it takes greater and greater energy to get a massive particle to the speed of light and when striving towards anarchy we should be aware of the costs especially to human life. I was watching a Thomas Sowell video on YouTube and he gave an example of his aphorism "there are no solutions only trade-offs" when he was mentioning that some people want to stamp out the last vestige of evil and he asks "at what cost?".Of course it doesn't mean that we should not pursue it - everything has a cost - we just need to be aware that we want to get there via the least damage. Similar to negative utilitarianism - seek the least suffering.

My basic worry is that people will blindly follow the goal with no regard to individuals (like the horrors of 20th century communism).

But you didn't just express doubt as to the stability of anarchy. You also wrote "on balance, I don't think it is desirable". Could you explain your thinking?

Okay, so I see some level of government (i.e. monopoly of force) inevitable through the invisible hand mechanism. I'm not sure whether I can articulate why I feel anarchy, or the absence of a monopoly of force, is undesirable. I think I will have to "search my feelings".

[SecretSquirrel]

Daktoria,
I seem to recall that SecretSquirrel feels it is immoral to bring children to the world. Period. For any parents.

My position is that conceiving a child, like any other action done to a person which he is physically powerless to prevent, requires his permission ex ante or it is not ethically permissible


If through some way it was possible to ask unconceived humans if they wanted it before doing it, that would certainly be permissible.

Alas, it seems that we so far cannot do so. And the inability to ask for permission for an act requiring permission does not waive the requirement (see living wills)

You will say, "but then the human race is to go extinct," to which I direct you to the second formulation of the categorical imperative

[Nunt]

My position is that conceiving a child, like any other action done to a person which he is physically powerless to prevent, requires his permission ex ante or it is not ethically permissible

Conception is not an action done to a person. It is two persons combining cells to which they are the legitimate owner of. Parents are the owners of the reproductive cells. They alone have the right to decide what to do with those cells. At the moment of conception, they have created a combined cell. But that cell is not yet a human. It is no more human than both cells seperatly would be. If a child later evolves, it is because parents have legitimatly used their own cells.

[SecretSquirrel]

right, you chose to decide that a fetus is not human, that outlook is expedient for you

why don't I decide that you aren't human by some criteria, and kill you? I could take your stuff then, and that would suit me just fine

Furthermore your argument requires willful ignorance on the part of the parents to believe that they are not causing the conception of the child. If someone is truly ignorant, like an animal or a paleolithic tribesman, they can be excused

[Nunt]

right, you choose to decide that a fetus is not human

why don't I decide that you aren't human by some criteria, and kill you?

Furthermore your argument requires willful ignorance on the part of the parents to believe that they are not causing the conception of the child. If someone is truly ignorant, like an animal or a paleolithic tribesman, they can be excused

The relevant question is: who is the legitimate owner of the a person's reproductive cells? In my opinion, a person owns his own reproductive cells. Therefore, he is free to combine these cells with any other cells he wishes to. At the time of conception, there are just two cells comming from two individuals. There is no child yet.

[SecretSquirrel]

if you are a strict materialist, why do you even concern yourself with ethical questions? There is no room or need for ethics in that tiny box.

[Eran]

My basic worry is that people will blindly follow the goal with no regard to individuals (like the horrors of 20th century communism).

You should know better. Anarcho-capitalism goes further than any other ideology to safeguard the well-being of individuals (as opposed to collectives). I know of no anarcho-capitalist who in any way advocates harming innocent individuals as means of achieving the an-cap goal.

As for the cost, I don't see the issue here. We are not talking about the cost of fighting ordinary crime. Rather, we are talking about a win-win choice, with security services provided both more efficiently and more justly once the last remnants of the state are eliminating.

What cost (other than to government cronies) are you concerned about?


Again, nobody is talking about imposing anarcho-capitalism on current society. That is an unrealistic and unsustainable move. Rather, we are advocating changing societal attitudes. Once those attitudes have changed, shedding the last vestiges of government would be a welcome relief.

In the 19th century debate over slavery, nobody made the claim that eliminating all slavery represents too much of a cost, and that we should therefore contend ourselves with improving the lot of slaves and releasing 50% of them.

[norishman]

A stable anarchy requires its own political culture. Specifically, people need to believe, like you and I both do, that private property (justly acquired) forms the basis of legitimate action. Because people can legitimately (even if not always morally) do whatever they want with their property (justly acquired) as long as they don't physically invade other people's property.

Once that belief replaces democratic legitimacy as the founding principle, a stable anarchy is no less likely than a stable democracy.

Again, nobody is talking about imposing anarcho-capitalism on current society. That is an unrealistic and unsustainable move. Rather, we are advocating changing societal attitudes. Once those attitudes have changed, shedding the last vestiges of government would be a welcome relief.

I find these insights rather intriguing toward the original purpose of this thread (can anarchy be achieved)... Are you saying that in order to get your desired result (a stable anarchy), you are going to change the culture of an entire nation to accept the Libertarian ideology? The second quote seems to uphold this idea...

...But how exactly will this impressive feat be accomplished?

The floor is open for others to pitch in too.

[Eran]

Are you saying that in order to get your desired result (a stable anarchy), you are going to change the culture of an entire nation to accept the Libertarian ideology?

Indeed. At least the bulk of the nation (as opposed to every last person in it). This shouldn't be viewed as shocking. The very same statement can be made about democracy.

In order to get a stable democracy, one first has to change the culture of an entire nation to accept the Democratic ideology. We see all the time what happens when democracy is forced on nations that have not accepted the Democratic ideology - it immediately deteriorates to dictatorship.

But how exactly will this impressive feat be accomplished?

I have no idea. I am doing my best here on these forums. I am not holding my breath - it is highly unlikely to take place in my lifetime. In fact, it is more likely that a technological revolution will make the issues we debate here moot than that anarchy (or even libertarianism) will emerge.

The best-case scenario I can think of will combine obvious governmental failure (as in bankruptcy of the US government, or dollar hyper-inflation) together with successful experiments with libertarianism in some smaller nations. Perhaps seasteading. Who knows.

[norishman]

Indeed. At least the bulk of the nation (as opposed to every last person in it). This shouldn't be viewed as shocking. The very same statement can be made about democracy.

In order to get a stable democracy, one first has to change the culture of an entire nation to accept the Democratic ideology. We see all the time what happens when democracy is forced on nations that have not accepted the Democratic ideology - it immediately deteriorates to dictatorship.

Ok, a majority is definitely a better route to take - but now you run into how to make a majority... So how about that?

I'm not as much shocked about this as much as I am amused. I've been talking to many Libertarians over the last year or so - and many of them echo the same kind of sentiments; I just find it kinda funny because of the raw amount of unbridled idealism!

I do like your allusion to the 'modern day' approach to the spread of democracy - but let's not forget that all the stable democracies in the world arose through the use of force - by the people of the nation against its own, current regime or government. When a country (such as the US) tries to set up a democracy in another land, the people are merely being introduced to a foreign concept - rather than the idea manifesting itself inside the nation like all the other sustaining democracies did (thus changing the culture). It's true that if the US were to try to force this idea onto the public, or even manually try to set up a democratic government - no good can come of it. BUT if the US instead empowered the people to do it for themselves - that's a different story...

In this sense, the democratic ideology is forced on the nation by its own people - since it's MUCH easier for people of the same culture and region to influence each other (or spread an ideology) than it is for a non-indigenous group to do so (the US could use soft power to help the growing movement - though it is advised that military personnel stay out of the nation entirely). For a shift to democracy to truly be successful the people need to share a feeling that they are creating the new government with their own hands so that they have a sense of obligation to it's success - and to each other to avoid another another abusive state. Because it's a personal matter it ultimately gives them the will to work toward this goal and will get them to work consistently together in a democratic manner. In other words - the individual people need to have a purposeful stake in the process (this is why I agree with Libertarians that free will is a fantastically important thing) - as well as the shared value of the goal. This is the change in culture.

The trick to a stable democracy is that you have to turn the people of a nation against their abusive government (not too hard to manage since it is both rationally and ethically justifiable) - and have them spread the ideology amongst themselves like a festering wound until the governments can't cure it any longer.

So that's how a democracy changes culture - but what is the trick for Libertarianism?

My next question is less obvious but even more important: how can a national movement (the Libertarian movement for example) function without some sort of coercive properties?

With Libertarianism you can't use coercion at all since it is against its basic principles. You want to work within the means of the system provided - yet still ultimately get rid of the system (a COMPLETE contradiction if you don't mind me saying). Even if you gained a majority - wouldn't the democratic vote of closing the government against the will of the minority be coercive to them by forcing them to give up government? And what will happen to these dissenters once the government is dissolved? What about should they attempt to reinstate one? I have WAY too many questions on this topic...

I guarantee you that people won't just start to accept this ideology one-by-one until it is a majority... My reasoning for saying this is that this subject is extremely complicated (much to many Libertarian's delight as they brag about how 'perfect' the theory is) - but when push comes to shove, a complicated theory will only weight you down; there are few Philosophers in this world because the large majority of people don't have the brain built for that level of rational thought... This is why ethics is commonly used instead. If you want this movement to take off, you have to have some ethical arguments to get people into it; you won't be able to do it through rationality alone - and there are plenty of risks to go about either route...

So what are you going to do to simplify it?

I have no idea. I am doing my best here on these forums. I am not holding my breath - it is highly unlikely to take place in my lifetime. In fact, it is more likely that a technological revolution will make the issues we debate here moot than that anarchy (or even libertarianism) will emerge.

The best-case scenario I can think of will combine obvious governmental failure (as in bankruptcy of the US government, or dollar hyper-inflation) together with successful experiments with libertarianism in some smaller nations. Perhaps seasteading. Who knows.

Well, at least you're honest!

Another problem I see with establishing a stable anarchy in a democratic nation is that you'll NEVER be working with a "best-case scenario"...

A government is built to fix the problems it creates in one way or another - even if they aren't the most likeable solutions (thus your reasoning for wanting to get rid of it). Bankruptcy will never happen since they can just raise the debt ceiling; basically harmless unless other countries all try to collect their dues at the same time (especially China)...which they won't if they know what's best for them (I don't advocate for this particular course of action much the same as you; spending could be lowered by a heft margin too)! Or maybe the deficit will one day be resolved (btw, it would definitely be a good idea to pay this off before shutting down the tax system - otherwise you're going to make a LOT of foreign enemies since you don't have a credible source of national income - and they'll all want the money we owe them!). Inflation will be solved much the same way since politicians aren't necessarily stupid as much as they are uncompromising... What I'm saying is that you'll need a catastrophic failure of the highest degree to get people to lose faith in the government enough to want to relinquish it; and I mean like 'everything just suddenly stops working and just goes horribly wrong all over' kinda failure.

Small scale examples seem like the best place to start - instead of focusing your energy on the democratic giants of the world (as much of a victory it would be for Libertarianism). It just seems too unrealistic since you even said yourself that you don't know how to get there...

I have a feeling that baby steps - not leaping bounds - will be the only movement in the anarchical libertarian movement since you are strictly against any and all types of coercive tendencies. It's justifiable and ethically correct - but again, when push comes to shove, it's not moving forward at all.

Seasteading has some strange costs vs benefits - although it would definitely make it easier for the rest of us who aren't too keen on giving up on government!

I look forward to any developments you make - and I will happily discuss any of them or give an insight as to what I see (as someone who sits on the other side of the fence ideologically [I'm a Philosophical communitarian and a SUPER moderate - with a few liberal tendencies]). I am very curious as to whether or not this will work (highly doubtful - but would still like to see an honest attempt) - but bear in mind that I will vigorously oppose this approach as a credible solution to big government. It's not un-salvageable yet!

Oh, and be careful what you wish for.