From Limited Government to Anarchy in Ten Easy Steps

[Laughing Man]

I have seen that there are some limited government advocates on the forums so I thought I would put up some material on how anarchism is not only a pragmatically a better system but also morally a better system then limited government. There are ten papers / lectures which could be considered some of the most effective arguments against minarchism [ limited government ]. Of course there are more but these papers are good for the laymen and are not too technical in theory. 1. Lysander Spooner - No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority 2. Roderick Long - Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism 3. Roderick Long - Libertarian Anarchism: Ten Objections 4. Murray N Rothbard - The Public System III: Police, Law and Courts 5. David Friedman - Police, Courts and Laws on the Market 6. Hans-Hoppe - Private Production of Defense 7. Gustave De Molinari - Production of Security 8. Robert Murphy - Chaos Theory 9. Hans-Hoppe - Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security 10. Alfred Cuzan - Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy? There is much more material on the subject, though if one were to read these articles I feel they would have a good amount of their questions or complaints about how anarchism would work answered. If there are questions concerning more detail or something that is not covered in this list, then please feel free to ask me. There are several works that deal with the whole workings of anarchist society and I would be happy to provide full text books on the subject for those who are interest. Happy reading.

[Techno]

I've thought of anarchy to be just as oversimplistic a concept as communism. Organized groups with authority are prone to greater survival for the majority of their members, and that's why they tend to last longer and are far more common. It's just a matter of finding the ideal balance between the risks of freedom and the limitations security for a given society if you want to see a long-lasting and peaceful existence.

[Alric]

Well I think the important thing is to shrink the size of government. Right now it is just so massive. I am all up for debating on how far we should go with removing government but clearly we need to make the first steps of shrinking it. Even people who support a strong government, has to be disgusted with what we have today. It is just way over done and they are in everything.

[Laughing Man]

I've thought of anarchy to be just as oversimplistic a concept as communism. Organized groups with authority are prone to greater survival for the majority of their members, and that's why they tend to last longer and are far more common. It's just a matter of finding the ideal balance between the risks of freedom and the limitations security for a given society if you want to see a long-lasting and peaceful existence. Well Communism is an economic order, not necessarily a political theory. That is why there is: Anarcho-Socialism / Anarcho-Communism Anarcho-Primitivism Anarcho-Syndicalism Anarcho-Capitalism Anarchy is the system of political philosophy while Communism is an economic order. Hence A political order [ Anarcho ] - A Economic Order [ Capitalism / Socialism / etc ] Also anarchists are not against order. Anarchist are against involuntary coercive order. As an anarchist, you can trade with anyone you wish, consort with any one you wish and do anything you wish as long as you don't violate the non-aggression principle

[Laughing Man]

Well I think the important thing is to shrink the size of government. Right now it is just so massive. I am all up for debating on how far we should go with removing government but clearly we need to make the first steps of shrinking it. Even people who support a strong government, has to be disgusted with what we have today. It is just way over done and they are in everything. That is a good point. I'm not trying to have the perfect be the enemy of the good. Merely saying that there is an inconsistency in minarchism [ limited government ]

[Black_Eagle]

Also anarchists are not against order. Anarchist are against involuntary coercive order. As an anarchist, you can trade with anyone you wish, consort with any one you wish and do anything you wish as long as you don't violate the non-aggression principle And who's going to stop me if I do?

[Laughing Man]

And who's going me if I do? Who's going me? Do you mean who is going to protect you?

[Black_Eagle]

Who's going me? Do you mean who is going to protect you? Read again.

[Laughing Man]

And who's going to stop me if I do? Who is going to stop you from committing a crime? Well the person who you are coercing could, a person could cry out help and a good samaritan could help. There can also be private police enforcement. This is all covered in one of the papers I gave. Murray Rothbard's Public Sector III: Police, Laws and Court systems.

[Universal Mind]

The #1 problem with anarchy is that it can't possibly exist for very long. The vacuum gets filled almost immediately. If the U.S. government announced at sunrise that they are quitting all operations permanently, there would be a thousand gangs fighting to control the country before lunch. World history is full of stories of gangs fighting to become governments. One of them always pulls it off. Remember that there were humans before there were governments, and anarchy never could last. If you think private police are the answer, imagine hundreds of those departments at war with each other. There has to be a central government. It needs to be very limited, but it has to be there.

[Black_Eagle]

They could, but they are not obligated to. But it doesn't matter, because I like killing people in the dead of night. Afterword, I just move on to the next town and continue killing. Who comes after me? Investigators? But I thought this was anarchy. If there is private law enforcement, then that's not really anarchy. Because anarchy is a state without any authoritative entity. If there was private law enforcement, it would be more like the feudal system. Anarchy describes a state without authority. Thing is, having no authority is impossible in the case of humans. In anarchy, whoever decides to take authority over another, has authority over another unless the person decides to fight back. It's like this: Imagine our government as a large living tent. This tent covers many other smaller living tents. All of the tents can grow, but when a smaller tent displeases the large tent, the large tent kills the small tent. With anarchy, you're just taking away the large tent that is the government, leaving all the other small tents to grow. Eventually, one of the small tents will grow as big as the large tent. And who's going to stop it? The smaller tents could unite and kill the large tent, but that would just start the whole race all over again. You simply cannot remove all the tents. Human nature forbids it. EDIT: The #1 problem with anarchy is that it can't possibly exist for very long. The vacuum gets filled almost immediately. If the U.S. government announced at sunrise that they are quitting all operations permanently, there would be a thousand gangs fighting to control the country before lunch. World history is full of stories of gangs fighting to become governments. One of them always pulls it off. Remember that there were humans before there were governments, and anarchy never could last. If you think private police are the answer, imagine hundreds of those departments at war with each other. There has to be a central government. It needs to be very limited, but it has to be there. Exactly. Here's a nice video for laughing man: http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/ Arguably every form of government currently existing is only a temporary form since the world doesn't stagnate, but anarchy is logically by far the quickest. EDIT 2: Heh, this reminds me of the Armored Core games where the plot is based around corporations fighting for resources, landmass, and manpower. You play a mercenary who is hired by these corporations. Everybody's lives are shitty, but apparently the world is better than it was before the corporations came.

[Hercuflea]

Who is going to stop you from committing a crime? Well the person who you are coercing could, a person could cry out help and a good samaritan could help. There can also be private police enforcement. This is all covered in one of the papers I gave. Murray Rothbard's Public Sector III: Police, Laws and Court systems. There is no such thing as "private" "law enforcement" in a supposedly anarchist system. The very fact that you used the word "law enforcement" to describe anarchy is contradictory. By the way, if there is an entity running around and making people obey the laws, then that by definition IS the government. So, therefore, private law enforcement cannot exist in anarchy.

[Laughing Man]

The #1 problem with anarchy is that it can't possibly exist for very long. The vacuum gets filled almost immediately. If the U.S. government announced at sunrise that they are quitting all operations permanently, there would be a thousand gangs fighting to control the country before lunch. World history is full of stories of gangs fighting to become governments. One of them always pulls it off. Remember that there were humans before there were governments, and anarchy never could last. If you think private police are the answer, imagine hundreds of those departments at war with each other. There has to be a central government. It needs to be very limited, but it has to be there. So we need a centralized government of thieves and gangsters in order to protect us from gangsters and thieves?

[Descensus]

There is no such thing as "private" "law enforcement" in a supposedly anarchist system. The very fact that you used the word "law enforcement" to describe anarchy is contradictory. By the way, if there is an entity running around and making people obey the laws, then that by definition IS the government. So, therefore, private law enforcement cannot exist in anarchy. You misunderstand. He does not mean law enforcement as in making people obey laws, he means private police. They would work similar to how they do now, protecting people, handling rights violations, etc. There would also be competition between the various police companies, so there will be no one entity.

[Laughing Man]

'If there is private law enforcement, then that's not really anarchy. Because anarchy is a state without any authoritative entity. If there was private law enforcement, it would be more like the feudal system.' Anarchy means no rulers. Not no laws or no rights. 'Here's a nice video for laughing man: http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/' I'll listen to your video, would you listen to mine? On the Impossibility of Limited Government

[Laughing Man]

There is no such thing as "private" "law enforcement" in a supposedly anarchist system. The very fact that you used the word "law enforcement" to describe anarchy is contradictory. By the way, if there is an entity running around and making people obey the laws, then that by definition IS the government. So, therefore, private law enforcement cannot exist in anarchy. The definition of a government is an institutional monopoly on legal services and adjudication of disputes in a territorial region. Now if the 'government' doesn't have a monopoly on that then it is just another protection service industry, just another corporation handing out services. I would like to ask where you get the impression that anarchism can't have a system of law. Where do you find this information?

[DrunkenArse]

My general take on it is that the people should democratically elect committees to take care of stuff. There should be a law enforcement structure, but it should exist with democratic oversight. If there is deemed to be a need for garbage removal, various proposals for it should be put together and the people should vote on them. I see no reason for the same organization to handle law enforcement and garbage collection. Not everybody needs to vote on everything. If you don't know about something, you shouldn't vote on it. I do think that there does need to be a global organization to fight stuff like sex trafficking, slavery, serious pollution and empire building but that too should be under democratic control. I think that humans are geared towards that form of government from evolution. Granted, there was the chief but the chief depended on the support of the people for the role. What fucked us up was that everything that we know about how to treat a "human" can go out the window when the notion of "other" is introduced. I think that other can be burnt off on football and shit like that and we can all get along. The only three things that are really in the way are religion, racism and nationalism.By nationalism, I of course mean what you feel for your country. Patriotism is why I feel for my country and that's fine.

[Universal Mind]

So we need a centralized government of thieves and gangsters in order to protect us from gangsters and thieves? Yes, we need gangsters and thieves who are threatened with the possibility of losing elections if they screw things up. Without that set up, we just have a bunch of gangsters and thieves threatened by nothing except not being bad ass enough to stay powerful. Elections have a way of taming thugs to a significant extent. What do you think of what I said about the inevitability of government? Isn't somebody going to take charge sooner or later?

[Laughing Man]

My general take on it is that the people should democratically elect committees to take care of stuff. There should be a law enforcement structure, but it should exist with democratic oversight. If there is deemed to be a need for garbage removal, various proposals for it should be put together and the people should vote on them. I see no reason for the same organization to handle law enforcement and garbage collection. Not everybody needs to vote on everything. If you don't know about something, you shouldn't vote on it. I do think that there does need to be a global organization to fight stuff like sex trafficking, slavery, serious pollution and empire building but that too should be under democratic control. I think that humans are geared towards that form of government from evolution. Granted, there was the chief but the chief depended on the support of the people for the role. What fucked us up was that everything that we know about how to treat a "human" can go out the window when the notion of "other" is introduced. I think that other can be burnt off on football and shit like that and we can all get along. The only three things that are really in the way are religion, racism and nationalism.By nationalism, I of course mean what you feel for your country. Patriotism is why I feel for my country and that's fine. So you would consider yourself a social democrat?

[Laughing Man]

Yes, we need gangsters and thieves who are threatened with the possibility of losing elections if they screw things up. Without that set up, we just have a bunch of gangsters and thieves threatened by nothing except not being bad ass enough to stay powerful. Elections have a way of taming thugs to a significant extent. What do you think of what I said about the inevitability of government? Isn't somebody going to take charge sooner or later? Well what happened to your propounding of liberty and freedom? You are now saying that we need people in power who have the ability to coerce and steal from us simply because you think that political parties can always inevitably be different. How are you going to limit the power of an institution in which you honestly declare that they are criminals? Concerning the inevitability of government, I think that is a myth. I think order is inevitability due to its positive consequences but government is not order. Government in essence is civil war, with each class or interest group fighting one another to achieve the political power necessary to institute their agenda.

[Laughing Man]

Concerning the 'American form of government' video, the author of this video seems to be making the same mistake as you do. Anarchy is not a system lacking order and law. It is a system lacking coercive governmental rule. Unless you conflate government with order, which is bizzare for limited government advocates because you would then need to explain how limiting government would not create more 'disorder'. I think I have previously stated this before, but the opposite of government providing everything is not that everyone has to provide for themselves. If you can buy dentist services, call girl services, psychological services, self-help services etc. on the free market, then the only thing barring police services [ going beyond private detectives ], fire fighting services, or road services is the fact that the government has a monopoly on these. It is illegal and impossible to compete against the government for these things. Why is a monopoly on governmental services acceptable yet private monopolies bad? I'd really like to hear an answer to this especially from someone who is an Austrian. 'The proper amount of government makes people freer' This makes it sound like the government is a voluntary institution that doesn't coerce people to buy its services [ which it does through taxation ]. If this video proclaims that individuals who have a system of legal order thereby become free, then why must it be government? This video portrays Fidel Castro...as an anarchist? Pray tell where is Castro's anarchist writings? I'd very much like to see this since I am a revisionist historian. It would be interesting to show the defunked Castro in a new light. Oh wait, now Lenin is an anarchist. Lenin actually insulted anarcho-socialists. He called them infantile. Lenin was a Marxist, and Marx himself was devoutely against Anarcho-Communism [ see his work "After the Revolution" which was an attack against Bakunin who was an Anarcho-Communist. Marx called him a "School boy" ]. And now Hitler came to power because of anarchy..? Pray tell, there was no German government experiencing hyperinflation during the 1930's?? I'm sorry but this is amateurish scholarship that completely strawmans what anarchism is and I refuse to continue to listen to it.

[Universal Mind]

Well what happened to your propounding of liberty and freedom? You are now saying that we need people in power who have the ability to coerce and steal from us simply because you think that political parties can always inevitably be different. How are you going to limit the power of an institution in which you honestly declare that they are criminals? You know what kinds of shit politicians get into when they are caught being criminals. That is a deterrent that works to a significant extent. What do you suggest (that is realistic) would work better? Concerning the inevitability of government, I think that is a myth. I think order is inevitability due to its positive consequences but government is not order. Government in essence is civil war, with each class or interest group fighting one another to achieve the political power necessary to institute their agenda. Name one situation of anarchy that has lasted. When has there ever been an absence of government that was not soon filled by a power structure that fought for and gained control? We can either have democracy or some form of totalitarianism. Democracy seems to be the better of the two. Anarchy is not a possibility.

[Laughing Man]

You know what kinds of shit politicians get into when they are caught being criminals. That is a deterrent that works to a significant extent. What do you suggest (that is realistic) would work better? Well I have already told you what system would be better. You haven't really responded to the points though. Name one situation of anarchy that has lasted. When has there ever been an absence of government that was not soon filled by a power structure that fought for and gained control? We can either have democracy or some form of totalitarianism. Democracy seems to be the better of the two. Anarchy is not a possibility. From 930 AD to 1262 AD the Icelandic communities were essentially anarchistic, that is over 300 years of stable anarchy. Rhode Island from 1636 to 1648, was an anarchist community. Pennsylvania from 1681 to 1690. Right now there is a anarchist community in Denmark called Christiania which is still functioning. This myth that anarchism is a 'transitory' system of power has been squashed.

[Black_Eagle]

Well I have already told you what system would be better. You haven't really responded to the points though. From 930 AD to 1262 AD the Icelandic communities were essentially anarchistic, that is over 300 years of stable anarchy. Rhode Island from 1636 to 1648, was an anarchist community. Pennsylvania from 1681 to 1690. Right now there is a anarchist community in Denmark called Christiania which is still functioning. This myth that anarchism is a 'transitory' system of power has been squashed. What you have described, and what your audio track has described (or at least the first half did since it was too long and boring to continue) have been very small communities. Of course an anarchist community could work on a small scale. Anything could work on a small scale. When you try to apply this to billions of people there are bound to be some differences. So I ask: prove how an anarchist form of society would be able to efficiently regulate the lives of 7 billion people. Personally, I don't think it would work. Sometimes decisions need to be made. We live in a world where people don't just agree with each other. Sometimes decisions need to be made. Unfortunately, you can't always leave it to the group to decide.

[Laughing Man]

What you have described, and what your audio track has described (or at least the first half did since it was too long and boring to continue) have been very small communities. Of course an anarchist community could work on a small scale. Anything could work on a small scale. When you try to apply this to billions of people there are bound to be some differences. So I ask: prove how an anarchist form of society would be able to efficiently regulate the lives of 7 billion people. We're talking about the viability of such communities. Its an anarchist community, the point is that there is no overarching authority. Personally, I don't think it would work. Sometimes decisions need to be made. We live in a world where people don't just agree with each other. Sometimes decisions need to be made. Unfortunately, you can't always leave it to the group to decide. What decides to be made is the market.