What Is Your Problem With Anarchy?

Nicodemus,

Now I tend to believe that the aptitude differences between people and attempts to form mutually beneficial groups will negate most of the hierarchy we see under current and past systems, but I do agree that there is a natural hierarchy. In my eyes, people are born morally equal but physically different, and I don't think anyone will challenge that.

What about those who show a natural prediliction for psychopathic or sociopathic behaviour? Whilst nuture clearly has a large, if not paramount, part to play in the development of people's values some neurologists do point to natural factors as determining such behaviours - so moral differences could certainly be determined by the time someone is born.

This is one reason why I think any project of egalitarianism is niave and impossible. People have different wants and desires, feel about things with differing degrees of passion, look to authority for different things, have varying degrees of respect for laws and traditions, view different freedoms with different degrees of regard.

What makes me happy and secure does not make you happy and secure - some mediation between people is therefore necessary if we aren't to devolve into a state of nature - the law of might makes right.

Thus we have the state to offer a form of compromise - a kind of enforced shared value system. Whilst some may feel irked by the yoke of the state's laws - the majority are offered a degree of security and liberty provided they don't exhibit values too obviously at odds with those of the gestalt.

Historically where states have failed a period of utopian communal cooperation has not been the result.

I'm not sure as I don't quite get what you stand for, politically, despite having read the thread. There does seem to be quite a bit of flip-flopping going on ("In my eyes, people are born morally equal but physically different, and I don't think anyone will challenge that." - "I hold true to the NAP and think that any behavior that so violates this principle is to be stopped or punished, no matter what the mental state of the individual at fault."). So it's hard for me to see what exactly is being proposed or argued in favour of.

Whilst you maintain that we did without governments for most of human history you do seem to remark that our 'state of nature' is something to hark back to. It strikes me we probably abandoned our state of nature so that more of us could enjoy greater (as opposed to lesser) freedoms. In the social groups of those apes we have the most in common with the law of might means right is a near be all and end all - those members of a chimp troupe who do not occupy a station of influence are denied rights that relativley powerless humans enjoy (breeding rights, the right to join or leave a community, etc...).

Historical precedent seems to favour tyranny over anarchy - and periods of anarchy seem to breed tyranny rather than freedom. Is there a historical precedent for the system you advocate (bearing in mind that I can't as yet understand why our prehistoric way of life is something I would see as attractive).

But I am perhaps not very appreciative of the ideals of liberty and freedom to view anarchy as anything other than niave. One man's freedom is another's tyranny. You mentioned your freedom of association earlier on - what if I were to find this wrongful discrimination that encroaches on my freedom? It's OK you might say - we can keep to our own communities that can be tailored to our predilictions - but that's not something I want to be a part of - creating monocultures and tribes.

I am actually far happier as part of a varied and pluralistic society and I fail to see how it can be administered without some sort of authority who tend to operate (in my experience) along lines more or less acceptable to the gestalt. The price I pay for that is willing ceasing any behaviour that others might reasonably find obnoxious.

That does help make things clearer - thank you.

I do, to a degree, regard keeping the results of one's labour to oneself as obnoxious as it would seem to seek to escape social contract. Whilst I would like, in the short term, to spend money I pay on taxes on things for me and mine I also accept that I get certain things for free that I wouldn't receive were it not for state spending.

So I am currently having to spend a longer time saving up for certain luxuries I would want - but at the same time I'm glad I'm not having to pay to consult my doctor about some trifling medical matter, or that I can talk to citizen's advice for free about trouble with my neighbour.

I don't really see myself as a slave of the state - I see myself as a willing participant in a social contract. The state may be getting the better of the deal (it has played this game for a lot longer than I have) but I'm generally pleased with my portion. Sometimes the state does something that I don't feel is really in my name - at other times it delights me with some surprising innovation - c'est la vie!

I accept that people tend to accept their silly arbitrary biases up until it becomes inconvenient - but it's tolerating other's arbitrary biases that seems to spark problems. This would bring me back to my earlier point that one person's freedom is another's tyranny. I'm peculiarly interested in living life how I want to - but I realise my neighbour probably feels likewise. It's not beyond reason that outside arbitration might be called for at some point (unless might = right in which case huzzah!! - my neighbour is a scrawny girl and therefore has to put up with my late-night mandolin practice).

Whether this mediation comes from a village elder or a high court judge doesn't really matter to me. In fact the legal systems has certain advantages in that it has a set precedent and is publicly accountable - it is also a lot less likely to rule against me because I didn't send it a basket of apples last autumn.

Where the rule of might = right applies (as it no doubt currently does in places like Basra and Kabul) I think you do tend to see monocultures develop. The tastes and mores of the mightiest (and their lickspittles) become either en vogue or de rigueur. Large and pluralistic societies offer more in terms of cosmopolitan variety and, problems in regard to integration notwithstanding, opportunities for those within to benefit from or enjoy the epicurean delights on offer.

So common authority strikes me as attractive because it is less strikingly arbitrary or given to corruption (that's not to say it is immune by any means - but the degree to whish it is accountable to press and public is far greater), that it sets a standard of values and communicates them and their vicissitudes and that (in the case of places like the UK and US, I like to hope) it goes to some length to ensure security for minorities and eccentrics who might be regarded as scapegoats or worse in a might = right society.

Of course, the difference between economic democracy of the Mises sort and political democracy is: well, yeah, they get whatever they want, but they're going to have to pay for it. Now, it's perfectly true that if you have people who are fanatical enough about wanting to impose some wretched thing on other people, if you've got a large enough group of people who are fanatical enough about this, then anarchy might not lead to libertarian results.
If you live in California, you've got enough people who are absolutely fanatical about banning smoking, or maybe if you're in Alabama, and it's homosexuality instead of smoking they want to ban (neither one would ban the other, I think) - in that case, it might happen that they're so fanatical about it that they would ban it. But remember that they are going to have to be paying for this. So when you get your monthly premium, you see: well, here's your basic service - protecting you against aggression; oh, and then here's also your extended service, and the extra fee for that - peering in your neighbors' windows to make sure that they're not - either the tobacco or the homosexuality or whatever it is you're worried about. Now the really fanatical people will say, "Yes, I'm going to shell out the extra money for this." (Of course, if they're that fanatical, they're probably going to be trouble under minarchy, too.) But if they're not that fanatical, they'll say, "Well, if all I have to do is go into a voting booth and vote for these laws restricting other people's freedom, well, heck, I'd go in, it's pretty easy to go in and vote for it." But if they actually have to pay for it - "Gee, I don't know. Maybe I can reconcile myself to this."

i am talking about established justice, and while you may see this as the most inhumane stricture of all, it is the one that keeps us from tearing at each other's throats like wolves

all well and good for you, but not everyone holds to your same morality, not only that, but they hold the same view of morality that you hold of establishment, if a business owner as a competition that will outdo him and no qualms about killing, the only thing that will stop him from slaughtering a fellow sentient being is the aforementioned establishment. your individualized system of law is a path to chaos

My point, however, is that this "establishment" (which I, at least, do not consider myself a part of, and thus to me, does not exist) is not what keeps me from tearing at my brothers' throats. What keeps me from doing so is my own ethics, morality, and conscience.

Before our white brothers came to civilize us we had no jails. Therefore we had no criminals. You can't have criminals without a jail. We had no locks or keys, and so we had no thieves. If a person was so poor that he had no horse, tipi or blanket, someone gave him these things. We were too uncivilized to set much value on personal belongings. We wanted to have things only in order to give away. We had no money, and therefore a man's worth could not be measured by it. We had no written law, no attorneys or politicians, therefore we couldn't cheat.