@hue-man,
hue-man;65699 wrote:Anarchism fails to minimize coercion because it favors liberty's theoretical inviolability over its practical protection.
Anarchism fails to:
- Prevent coercion by strong persons and aggressive foreign states
- Prevent aggressive use or pollution of unowned resources
- Prevent unfair treatment of creditors by bankrupt debtors
- Regulate natural monopolies
- Prevent anti-competitive artificial monopolies
- Prevent torture and extinction of organisms
I welcome any agreements or disagreements from critical thinkers.
Ok, one thing to note is that modern anarchists generally espouse a cultural revolution that predates the political revolution. In other words, the anarchist preaches a society that realizes the state is unnecessary and appropriately whithers away as the people lose their respect and fear for it.
In that sense, you are kinda comparing apples and oranges, where the anarchist's society and the libertarian's society can be radically different, even if their basis of non-aggression is the same.
Anarchists take humans to be naturally inclined to the sort of social cooperation necessary, whether it be through the communistic society of Kropotkin, Bakunin, or Stirner, or the exchange society of Proudhon, Tucker, and modern mutualists and ancaps.
As for your list, the first two and last bullets I would call out as being outright false, as there are anarchistic methods for preventing such abuses, and there is little checks provided by states in committing the abuses themselves. As with most of these types of scenarios, the key is in the vigilance of society, and not in the governmental structure. If anything, the ideological hegemony of government as guarantor and protector opens the door to far more abuse in the name of some false good.
The third I see as a minimal problem as arbiters and insurance companies will quickly reach some sort of equilibrium in dealing with the best way to handle defaulted debt. In the most likely case, mutual banking will simply lead to all members of a community who deal in a likewise currency being well aware of the individuals debt to the bank and act accordingly until said position is rectified.
As for natural monopolies, not only have they not been shown to actually carry out as said, but they rest on the idea that one company can offer their product more efficiently and less costly than can any one, two, or multiple competitors. Is this a bad thing?
Lastly, for artificial monopolies, I challenge you to defend that position, as all anarchists, and the majority of libertarians take monopoly to be the product of government intervention.
---------- Post added 07-13-2009 at 08:54 PM ----------
Krumple;65748 wrote:I agree with ya Hue,
In a lot of ways anarchist neglect to see that people are horrible with governing themselves. You might be able to get small groups to play nicely with each for a little while but it never is that simple especially with more demand on resources. The lazy always return to the easiest amount of labor to obtain the most amount of return. Usually in the form of stealing or killing then taking.
"Anarchy only lasts until the candy runs out".
I am a little confused as to who is to govern people if not people.
---------- Post added 07-13-2009 at 09:01 PM ----------
Poseidon;66446 wrote:Anarchy is devoid of concept unless qualified by another term like "Christian Anarchy". ( a real historical group )
You are exactly wrong. It is the qualification of anarchy, the projection of values upon anarchy that negates the concept.
Anarchy is constant rebellion, it is constant upheaval and recognition of values. Any attempt to project what anarchy should look like, other than all individuals acting upon their own values, is a invalidation of the idea itself.
---------- Post added 07-13-2009 at 09:05 PM ----------
Zetetic11235;77084 wrote:Let me pose a situation that seems pretty reasonable;
Situation: I'm the main grain farmer in a community. If I have all the grain, and give it to enough big guys, I can keep the grain away from everyone else. My big guys and I can have all the grain we want, and we will kill you if you try to get it. Everyone else will die without it, so I say that if they submit to me and my big guys, they can have some grain. I set it up so that I get just enough people on my side to overpower anyone left. I create a social hierarchy to keep the Big Guys on my side. They have power over those who submit to me. The people who submit stay because they get grain and protection (from outsiders, the big guys are kept in line to some degree by manipulation).
Solution: ?
Your community dies as everyone else takes their talents and abilities and other wealth generating commodities to the next community.
Now you are giving away grain to get people to come back.
