Justin, I sincerely ask that you please do not insult me or anyone else here with over the top hyperbole. Why do I get the distinct feeling you are trying to construct some sort of word trap. remember your phrase Justin.... weasel words????

I sdincerely do not want to play "gotcha". Forget about criteria that pleases you. Just please show all of us a modern successful society in which anarchy is the guiding principle instead of government. I am not looking for perfection or utopia.

The issue is that both you and Matt are engaging in all this theory and abstract talk about why people can live in an anarchic society. fine. Prove it by using history as the evidence.

And I fear no libertarian or anarchist boogeyman because you folks have not the slightest plan, idea, program, blueprint or even wet dream to suggest how you are going to pull this off. Its like I have said before on this site : anarcho-libertariansim is one ugly monster... but when you get up close and examine it, it proves only to be a fright mask on a helpless infant who is not in any position to harm you at all.

All I am trying to do is to get you or Matt to put up or shut up about this great anarcho-libertarian success story.

as if that was humanly possible.

Originally Posted by Odin

the sociopaths and other amoral types would band together and terrorize the rest.

Yeah, they typically do this by forming a government.

Theoretically a government is useful for having a mechanism to keep thugs from running the show. Unfortunately, those same thugs will always attempt to control the government and run the show anyway. The premise of anarchism is to take the Jeffersonian principle of consent of the governed and have very loose, very participatory social structures. That way, when the thugs try to seize control of those social institutions you can pull the rug out from under them by withdrawing consent and socially isolating them.

This description of anarchism certainly raises the possibility that what anarchists really want is a more evolved form of government. (I.e. anarchy is to democracy as democracy is to monarchy.) If what I've described above sounds a lot like Popper's open society, then it seems the anarchists aren't really nuts, just semantically impaired.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Yeah, they typically do this by forming a government.

Theoretically a government is useful for having a mechanism to keep thugs from running the show. Unfortunately, those same thugs will always attempt to control the government and run the show anyway. The premise of anarchism is to take the Jeffersonian principle of consent of the governed and have very loose, very participatory social structures. That way, when the thugs try to seize control of those social institutions you can pull the rug out from under them by withdrawing consent and socially isolating them.

This description of anarchism certainly raises the possibility that what anarchists really want is a more evolved form of government. (I.e. anarchy is to democracy as democracy is to monarchy.) If what I've described above sounds a lot like Popper's open society, then it seems the anarchists aren't really nuts, just semantically impaired.

IMO the citizenry need to be engaged so the sociopaths don't take power, as I said before, if everyone thinks that all politicians are scoundrels then only scoundrels will become politicians. You will also need institutions that keep the sociopaths from creating that shadow thug-state and that will inevitably be a state because stopping the sociopaths requires coercion since sociopaths are by definition amoral.

That is what I'm trying to get at, you can't have a functioning society without at least some form of coercion.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

No problem. I, myself, eleven years ago still lacked the mad writing skillz I display now. Practice, practice as they say.

Of course, if we both see the fundamental situation in the same way, it becomes even more interesting to see how you end up concluding from it that humans must be ruled (by humans, natch) or else everything civilized will collapse. I mean, that's pretty counter-historical and counter-evidential...

Whoa I never said people need to be ruled. Not sure where that one came from. I merely believe that there has to be some set of rules that the people agree upon to follow, in order to make the system run smoothly. I apparently was just having trouble putting it succinctly.

I think the split in communication came in our definition of government. When I think of anarchy, I think of some post-apocalyptic world where there is no social order and every man must fend for himself for basic needs.

When I think of government, I think of an institution that promotes the social order. Whether its officially known as "the state" or its a loosely bound group of people, I see it as a type of government. This is why I agreed with your assertion that people are fundamentally social. Even a small tribe is a form of government for the people within that tribe. And that in the absence of large governments people will simply revert to smaller groups for protection, because as you said people are hardwired to create order and civilization.

I think this whole thing was simply a big misunderstanding.



Kurt seems to have put it much more simply than I have

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Yeah, they typically do this by forming a government.

Theoretically a government is useful for having a mechanism to keep thugs from running the show. Unfortunately, those same thugs will always attempt to control the government and run the show anyway. The premise of anarchism is to take the Jeffersonian principle of consent of the governed and have very loose, very participatory social structures. That way, when the thugs try to seize control of those social institutions you can pull the rug out from under them by withdrawing consent and socially isolating them.

This description of anarchism certainly raises the possibility that what anarchists really want is a more evolved form of government. (I.e. anarchy is to democracy as democracy is to monarchy.) If what I've described above sounds a lot like Popper's open society, then it seems the anarchists aren't really nuts, just semantically impaired.

This makes a lot of sense for me.

Originally Posted by Odin

IMO the citizenry need to be engaged so the sociopaths don't take power, as I said before, if everyone thinks that all politicians are scoundrels then only scoundrels will become politicians. You will also need institutions that keep the sociopaths from creating that shadow thug-state and that will inevitably be a state because stopping the sociopaths requires coercion since sociopaths are by definition amoral.

That is what I'm trying to get at, you can't have a functioning society without at least some form of coercion.

I agree with this as well

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Justin, I sincerely ask that you please do not insult me or anyone else here with over the top hyperbole. Why do I get the distinct feeling you are trying to construct some sort of word trap. remember your phrase Justin.... weasel words????

You and I haven't gotten to the point of trading insults yet on this exchange, and I'd like to keep it that way, too. However, since our conversations lately have all devolved after a distressingly few volleys to your scrambling back to the "justin manipulates definitions to suit himself..." line, it is absolutely incumbent on us to establish our definitions up-front (and then stick to them, but that can only come once we have them).

Just please show all of us a modern successful society in which anarchy is the guiding principle instead of government.

As I indicated in my very first response to your request -- doing so should pose very little challenge. However, in the interest of making sure we are talking about the same things, I asked you to clear up the fuzzy weasel-words in your question a bit. That is:

• What do you mean by 'modern'? What time period am I allowed to pull from, and/or what conditions would you impose on a society today that would make it be 'modern' or 'not modern'?
• What do you mean by 'successful'? That is, what qualities must the societies I list demonstrate (and for how long must they be sustained) for you to agree that they are 'successful'?

To this, you seem to have added "has anarchy as the guiding principle". It's not at all clear what that means. Do you mean, simply, "that are stateless"? Or do you insist that the societies I list off are somehow 'guided by' anarchism? If the latter, what the hell does that mean? I honestly cannot get it to make sense.

Your "as just and peaceful as the USA post-WWII" was not a bad clarification along those lines. In fact, since no one is arguing that a stateless model would be perfection itself, the technique of comparing them to statist societies to see merely whether they are as good or better seems really an excellent one. I doubt, however, that you would really want to set the bar so low as you did, so pointed out where it seemed to me inadequate and offered you the possibility of clarifying or amending as you saw fit.

The examples I could give are numerous. But there's no point in my just shotgunning a batch of them at you, hoping that one will meet your [still-unstated] criteria. Tell me what you want, in sentences that mean something, and I'll get right back to you with answers.

Originally Posted by Jordan '88

I merely believe that there has to be some set of rules that the people agree upon to follow, in order to make the system run smoothly.

Do you also see that those rules are the ones that each society comes up with? And that both individuals and their societies are best served when they are able to select with which societies they will associate themselves? Then welcome to anarchism, buddy! Beer's in the fridge.

I think the split in communication came in our definition of government. When I think of anarchy, I think of some post-apocalyptic world where there is no social order and every man must fend for himself for basic needs.

Then you're thinking of something absolutely opposed to what every anarchist is talking about. And you're not actually arguing against anarchism at all.
A good thing, too, if you're going to be drinking my beer.

When I think of government, I think of an institution that promotes the social order.

Government and order aren't in any way synonymous. In fact, governments have proven, over the past five-thousand-odd years, to be great forces for dis-order. If you want to see order, take a look at the above black markings on off-white background. Somehow, thanks to these bizarrely-shaped scribbles, you and I and everyone else is able to share ideas... even with people we never meet. All that -- the great structure that is our 'language' and 'writing' -- came about not thanks to a ruling class or even an overarching Set of Rules. It (same with many of the other greatest examples of social order) arose quasi-spontaneously from the simple interactions of people in society.

Your Mad Max world is one of the more ludicrous anti-anarchism fallacies.

Whether its officially known as "the state" or its a loosely bound group of people, I see it as a type of government.

The crucial difference being the concept of monopoly. When government truly is by consent -- which is to say, the right inheres in each element of society to withdraw its consent from a particular governing body or model -- then it is functionally indistinguishable from anarchism. If a government cannot enforce itself (as government) on the unwilling, I think you would have a hard time making the case that it is a government. The case might be made, and I'd be willing to hear it out and consider it... I just think it would be really tough.

It is possible that Kurt nailed it right on the head, though the semantic impairment wouldn't be unique to anarchists. If 'government' doesn't necessarily mean 'monopoly government', then that word has been used wrong a whole lot by everyone.

Originally Posted by Odin

IMO the citizenry need to be engaged so the sociopaths don't take power, as I said before, if everyone thinks that all politicians are scoundrels then only scoundrels will become politicians.

Magical Thinking doesn't help anyone.

...or...

Just because people think that not all seekers-of-power are scoundrels doesn't mean that they won't be.

...or...

Human nature. Dialectics and positive thought can't change it.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Theoretically a government is useful for having a mechanism to keep thugs from running the show. Unfortunately, those same thugs will always attempt to control the government and run the show anyway. The premise of anarchism is to take the Jeffersonian principle of consent of the governed and have very loose, very participatory social structures. That way, when the thugs try to seize control of those social institutions you can pull the rug out from under them by withdrawing consent and socially isolating them.

OK. I don't know that either Obama or Bush 43 should properly be called 'thugs,' but an awful lot of people have disliked them very intensely. No matter how much they might be disliked in different circles, do you really think isolating them socially would modify their behavior? How much more social disapproval might be shown? Any reason the thugs would not continue to ignore social isolation?

Right now, elections, impeachments and violent revolution would be the usual way of withdrawing consent. The first two really seem to imply the existence of a state. What other methods might be proposed?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

This description of anarchism certainly raises the possibility that what anarchists really want is a more evolved form of government. (I.e. anarchy is to democracy as democracy is to monarchy.) If what I've described above sounds a lot like Popper's open society, then it seems the anarchists aren't really nuts, just semantically impaired.

They are certainly semantically creative... perhaps even semantically challenged. However, the above still seems absurdly vague. What methods of withdrawing consent and social isolation do you think would truly discourage a thug?

Tell me what you want, in sentences that mean something, and I'll get right back to you with answers.

I do not need multiple or complicated sentences. One simple one will do.



Please Justin... just show us all any functioning country at all which removes the factor of government and replaces it with anarchy.

The last century would be nice.

Can you do that?

more abstract ideology from Justin

Human nature. Dialectics and positive thought can't change it.

"blah, blah, blah" would have been much the same thing. You can do as much with it as with what you wrote.

Still waiting for nuts and bolts reality to show up here.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

I do not need multiple or complicated sentences. One simple one will do.

Um. If you want to, you know, communicate, you'll need to do a lot more than just:

just show us all any functioning country at all which removes the factor of government and replaces it with anarchy.

'Functioning' and 'factor' being your new weasel-words. You seem to be bobbing and weaving really hard to avoid giving anyone any possible chance to actually answer your questions.

After all, if someone elected to just simply guess what you are asking for, you will simply be able to answer, "that's not what [insert weasel-word here] means". Then when the other person responded in any way, you would get to sling out your old 'now xxx is trying to manipulate definitions' dodge. And we go nowhere.

The last century would be nice.

Now we're getting somewhere. You will only consider valid submissions dealing with societies since the beginning of the 20th century (I hope it's okay to flex your criteria to get that extra decade). You also only want a society that lasted under one particular governing paradigm for 60 years, minimum. These are very good, concrete conditions. Just take care of nailing down the other ones (noted above), and we can get to talking.

Until then... well, you can noisily wait as long as you want. If you haven't asked for something, odds are you're not going to get it. It's not very mature to sit and bitch about not getting something if you refuse to come right out and communicate what you want.

Justin - this is getting to be funny.... cross that out ... absurd is more like it.

You are the puffed up blowhard who keeps telling the pitcher that he is going to hit one out of the park but every time he comes up he produces nothing... zilch... nada ... a big fat gooseegg.

All of us here live in 21st century places like the USA, Canada, England, Sweden... places like that. Use places like that. Come on now, just tell us one functioning nation where government for folks like us has been replaced with anarchy and things are working out at least as well.

YOU CANNOT DO IT.

The dilemma for the anarchist is that he would have to FORCE the VAST majority, against their will, to accept his approach.

Kinda defeats his whole objective.

Playwrite - I think they would just attempt to talk them into submission with lots of theory and abstract posturing until the poor folks throw up their hands and say "okay already... just please be quiet and we will do anything you want".

And lots of parsing and narrowing and rephrasing and defining of terms and conditions and so on and so on and so on. yup... thats a strategy that will best many.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Government and order aren't in any way synonymous. In fact, governments have proven, over the past five-thousand-odd years, to be great forces for dis-order.

Your Mad Max world is one of the more ludicrous anti-anarchism fallacies.

The crucial difference being the concept of monopoly. When government truly is by consent -- which is to say, the right inheres in each element of society to withdraw its consent from a particular governing body or model -- then it is functionally indistinguishable from anarchism. If a government cannot enforce itself (as government) on the unwilling, I think you would have a hard time making the case that it is a government. The case might be made, and I'd be willing to hear it out and consider it... I just think it would be really tough.

It is possible that Kurt nailed it right on the head, though the semantic impairment wouldn't be unique to anarchists. If 'government' doesn't necessarily mean 'monopoly government', then that word has been used wrong a whole lot by everyone.

I know that government can cause disorder. I know government isn't perfect. That is why it is our job to tweak it until we get something we are satisfied with. We aren't there yet and we may never get there, but we keep trying nonetheless.

I guess my question is what do you think about our constitutional republic? Was it not established in such a way that we would be able to withdraw our consent, either by voting the wrong people out of office or by forceful revolution? Was the constitution not written in such a way that it could be flexible as times and circumstances change?

Government is a very complex thing. I feel that it does have to have the ability to enforce some things on the unwilling, but at the same time the people need to have some control over just what that gov't is enforcing. It's a tough balance to find, but I think we have to keep trying to find it.

You could well be on to something, I don't know. I have yet to be able to envision a scenario in which anarchism could work. If you could explain it or perhaps give a specific example from the modern era (say post-renaissance) in which anarchism has worked on a large scale then I am more than willing to listen.

from Jordan 88

If you could explain it or perhaps give a specific example from the modern era (say post-renaissance) in which anarchism has worked on a large scale then I am more than willing to listen.

That is the key question that they have been avoiding answering all day now. There is no such example.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

from Jordan 88



That is the key question that they have been avoiding answering all day now. There is no such example.

I mean I guess it would be ok if there isn't an example, I don't recall too many examples of a constitutional republic before the US did it either. I'd just like an explanation for how it would work, logistically.

For example, these institutions that will be running society, how will they be funded? Law enforcement, roads, schools, military, post office (basically anything that relies upon taxes today); how would they continue to work? Would they have to become true for-profit businesses? Because people will not fork over cash voluntarily for this stuff, we already have a hard enough time forcing people to do it. And how will we prevent corruption within these businesses? Completely 100% unregulated capitalism doesn't work. And don't tell me about institutions that will regulate and enforce these things, because that is a form of government.

I don't know, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

That is the key question that they have been avoiding answering all day now. There is no such example.

I am starting to be reminded of the baseball poem, Casey at the Bat... notably the part where the great Casey sneers and postures as the umpire calls out the strikes.

Of course, a true anarchist baseball game wouldn't have rules or umpires...

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'll suggest that many political systems might have utopian goals. FDR wanted his four freedoms, everywhere in the world. Marx wanted to get rid of the capitalist class. Many anarchists here seem to want worlds free of coercion, taxes and / or laws.

(Quibble: no anarchist opposes law, they oppose the means by which the rules are generated.)

That aside, this comment demonstrates my point. All political viewpoints involve a vision of what a good future would look like, an assessment of the primary ways in which the present deviates from that ideal and from that follows individual issue stances and policy recommendations. Anarchism is not special in this regard.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

FDR proclaimed his abstract utopian rights, and followed up proposing legislation to implement said rights. From FDR to LBJ, freedom from want was not just a utopian pie in the sky ideal. Solid practical (though not perfect) steps were taken to implements said rights.

Technically, it could be argued that there was very little progress toward "freedom from want" between the 40s when FDR used this phrase and the LBJ administration. Certainly not any such progress driven by legislation.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Thus, the anarchist who really believes in a stateless society might have to shun solutions involving the state.

There are some anarchists who advocate total disengagement from established political systems. To the extent this is possible, this is a good idea. But, since it's pretty much impossible to avoid all interaction with the state, you might as well use any leverage you have.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

My concern is with this crisis. If we don't match resources to people, we get angry young unemployed men and failed states.

Yes, but surely you don't think the endemic maldistribution of wealth in the world is some sort of accident? FDR promised freedom from want but that primarily involved his own class giving up some token amount of that which they have historically stolen. The welfare state is just the industrial version of noblesse oblige.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

One argument I'm getting is that any idea that is implementable is incremental, that incremental solutions are not acceptable, that revolution is necessary, but revolution won't happen for the foreseeable future. Thus, one should spout high ideals while doing nothing to solve the problems before us.

I have never at any point said that incremental solutions are unacceptable. Perhaps I am atypical among libertarians in this regard, but I think that net progress toward a truly free society is always preferable to none at all.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Technically, it could be argued that there was very little progress toward "freedom from want" between the 40s when FDR used this phrase and the LBJ administration. Certainly not any such progress driven by legislation.

This to me seems very very dishonest, completely disengaging the discussion from reality. You are familiar with the boom bust economies of the Gilded Age, the working hours common at the time, the unsafe working conditions, the Dust Bowl?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Yes, but surely you don't think the endemic maldistribution of wealth in the world is some sort of accident? FDR promised freedom from want but that primarily involved his own class giving up some token amount of that which they have historically stolen. The welfare state is just the industrial version of noblesse oblige.

No accident. Not a token amount of wealth.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I have never at any point said that incremental solutions are unacceptable. Perhaps I am atypical among libertarians in this regard, but I think that net progress toward a truly free society is always preferable to none at all.

The rejection of incremental solutions seems very much more anarchist than libertarian.

Life does not arise under conditions of absolute order, nor under conditions where order is lacking entirely. It arises at an interface between the two conditions called "The Edge of Chaos." I am going to be that human society functions best at the edge of chaos - note, edge, somewhere in fractalville, not in the foaming anarchy itself - somewhere around halfway between Mad Max and the Borg Collective. And now I take my leave of this thread - ta, ta!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It is possible that Kurt nailed it right on the head, though the semantic impairment wouldn't be unique to anarchists. If 'government' doesn't necessarily mean 'monopoly government', then that word has been used wrong a whole lot by everyone.

It never has meant that as far as I'm concerned. But you and Matt seem to be so hung up on the "statists" and the "ruling class" stuff that you're missing where a whole lot of us agree with you in principle.

Including Jordan '88. (Welcome, Jordan, btw.)

Something has to check the bad guys. Call it a posse or "the state" or whatever, it still exerts force against an individual's "freedom" to be a sociopathic asshole.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Magical Thinking doesn't help anyone.

...or...

Just because people think that not all seekers-of-power are scoundrels doesn't mean that they won't be.

...or...

Human nature. Dialectics and positive thought can't change it.

Why does it follow that anyone who seeks public office has "power" as their sole motivation?

First of all, the forums are weird. If I didn't snip the middle paragraph of the first quote, TFT would not leave the loading screen if I tried to submit a reply. I thought it might have been the brackets that Justin used in that paragraph, but when I replaced them with parentheses it didn't work. Moving on..

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It's not really about people being (or inherently tending towards) 'good' or 'bad'. The primary fact is that people are fundamentally social. That means that, whatever is hard-wired -- to the extent that it is, which it turns out is quite a bit -- into people, it makes them tend rather strongly to do things which result in the creating and maintenance among themselves of society.

(snip)

What's more, the fact that we're still here doing it after several thousands of generations' competition with other survival strategies sort of strongly hints that we do it well, and that (as I have posited elsewhere) civilization is a successful survival trait. Which itself tends to support the contention that, with the possible exception of a relatively insignificant number of truly defectives, every person has the civilization trait.

Word. It barely even makes sense to describe people, as a class, as either good or bad. We're humans. The cognitive capacity that allows us to be judged on a moral basis also enables us with a host of other tools to shape who we are. Of course, you can't get around the fact that we are hard-wired to be social creatures.

Originally Posted by Jordan '88

Forget it. This is stupid. I'm tired of debating. I don't know why you feel the need to insult my intelligence and knowledge of history.

I'm not insulting your intelligence or knowledge of history. I thought you made a highly fallacious argument and asserted a position without much knowledge about the history of anarchism. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant about certain subjects (after all, we only have so much time to devote to intellectual pursuits), but arguing from such a position is going to be problematic.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Both Matt and Justin seem to be arguing from a theoretical perspective based on certain assumptions about how they view people both as individuals and as larger members of groups. They believe certain things and then make conclusions about the larger world we live in based on those beliefs and axioms. Some here have expressed frustration with the increasing abstract nature of this position. I join in that.

I'm frustrated with your abstract description of how I arrived to certain conclusions. I don't know what it means. What I will say is that it's fundamental to my philosophy that we have equal rights and equal privileges -- that is, no one has any more right to initiate force on another human being than anyone else.

To both Matt and Justin..... can you show through actual historical evidence that anarchistic societies of large numbers of people living in relatively close proximity to one another in the Industrial and Technological age of man have actually existed and provided security and peace for the people who live there?

Yes, but it will undoubtedly be unsatisfactory to the both of us in some sense because it's not conclusive proof of the superiority of either system. I think there are a few problems with that question that need to be sorted out, but more on that later.

Without such evidence to show it was and is possible in the world we live in, it is all just wishful thinking as one very perceptive poster wrote last week.

It's wishful thinking regardless.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

And I fear no libertarian or anarchist boogeyman because you folks have not the slightest plan, idea, program, blueprint or even wet dream to suggest how you are going to pull this off.

That's not true. There isn't one plan, but libertarian and anarchists folks do indeed have plans. Virtually all of them.

Originally Posted by Odin

IMO the citizenry need to be engaged so the sociopaths don't take power, as I said before, if everyone thinks that all politicians are scoundrels then only scoundrels will become politicians. You will also need institutions that keep the sociopaths from creating that shadow thug-state and that will inevitably be a state because stopping the sociopaths requires coercion since sociopaths are by definition amoral.

That is what I'm trying to get at, you can't have a functioning society without at least some form of coercion.

Well you probably could, but for practical purposes, coercion will be necessary. Again, this is not inconsistent with anarchism.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The crucial difference being the concept of monopoly. When government truly is by consent -- which is to say, the right inheres in each element of society to withdraw its consent from a particular governing body or model -- then it is functionally indistinguishable from anarchism. If a government cannot enforce itself (as government) on the unwilling, I think you would have a hard time making the case that it is a government. The case might be made, and I'd be willing to hear it out and consider it... I just think it would be really tough.

This was Nozick's minimal state, IIRC. He thought that if a dominant protection agency (DPA) emerged out of the hypothetical state of nature, then it could avoid violating anyone's rights if: A) Compensation were given to those people who would live under the jurisdiction of the DPA to actually bring them under the authority of the DPA; B) If people still rejected the authority of the DPA by rejecting the compensation, then they could not justifiably be brought under it's authority, since they had steadfastly not consented to be ruled. But Nozick thinks this state-like entity would still be a formal monopoly since the holdouts still have the right to enforce justice, but lack the power to carry their desires out. So he rejected the anarchist label for these reasons.

I tend to agree that his ideal government is indeed a State. But I think it still is rights-violating.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The dilemma for the anarchist is that he would have to FORCE the VAST majority, against their will, to accept his approach.

Kinda defeats his whole objective.

Nonsense. People would be forced to ride the tide if the State did indeed collapse, which might be against their wishes -- but it doesn't make sense to consider these people to be actively forced in the sense you are using.

Originally Posted by Jordan '88

I guess my question is what do you think about our constitutional republic? Was it not established in such a way that we would be able to withdraw our consent, either by voting the wrong people out of office or by forceful revolution?

What do you mean by "we?" The individual cannot consent to the State because consent requires that there are reasonable alternatives to the State. And if the individual cannot consent, then surely society cannot consent either.

You could well be on to something, I don't know. I have yet to be able to envision a scenario in which anarchism could work. If you could explain it or perhaps give a specific example from the modern era (say post-renaissance) in which anarchism has worked on a large scale then I am more than willing to listen.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

That is the key question that they have been avoiding answering all day now. There is no such example.

Originally Posted by Jordan '88

I mean I guess it would be ok if there isn't an example, I don't recall too many examples of a constitutional republic before the US did it either. I'd just like an explanation for how it would work, logistically.

For example, these institutions that will be running society, how will they be funded? Law enforcement, roads, schools, military, post office (basically anything that relies upon taxes today); how would they continue to work? Would they have to become true for-profit businesses? Because people will not fork over cash voluntarily for this stuff, we already have a hard enough time forcing people to do it. And how will we prevent corruption within these businesses? Completely 100% unregulated capitalism doesn't work. And don't tell me about institutions that will regulate and enforce these things, because that is a form of government.

I don't know, it just doesn't make sense to me.

First of all, a quibble. Anarchists favor 100% freedom from State intervention, which does not equate to unregulated capitalism. In market systems, we "regulate" the market by making choices, choosing what and what not to buy, etc. As I've said countless times, the information is out there for how an anarchist society might adopt useful government functions. There are plenty of approaches, and it doesn't take much looking to find them.

OK. There is a list of anarchist communities on Wikipedia. The most interesting examples, IMO, are medieval Iceland, Anarchist Spain, and modern-day Somalia (which is not listed for various reasons). I've also been to Freetown Christiania. Surprisingly, I managed not to get killed!

Two things:
1) It's probably not necessary to think of specifically anarchist communities to actually see anarchy-in-action. We go about our daily business without regard for the government all the time, and we manage to do just fine. I find the suggestion that we, collectively, suddenly couldn't solve problems without a coercive monopoly to be counter-historical indeed.
2) The fact that there are few historical examples of anarchism working for an extended period of time is not an argument for the legitimacy of the State, and anyone who thinks it is a valid argument needs to review basic logical principles. You might be more skeptical of the idea that certain things can be properly dealt with minus the empirical evidence, but personally, I think that such skepticism is pretty unfounded.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I have never at any point said that incremental solutions are unacceptable. Perhaps I am atypical among libertarians in this regard, but I think that net progress toward a truly free society is always preferable to none at all.

I don't think you are. Who would argue with you on that point?

from Matt

Anarchists favor 100% freedom from State intervention, which does not equate to unregulated capitalism. In market systems, we "regulate" the market by making choices, choosing what and what not to buy, etc.

100% freedom from State intervention......

in everything Matt????? Even something like traffic laws?????

Under your system would a person be able to sell what they claim to be drugs or medicine on the street or in a store without any control or regulation or law of any kind? What about food products.... same thing???? What about any product.... same thing????