Trump is fantastic. He said (and it's on his website under 'positions'), - "it's been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights."
When people voluntarily accept authority, that IS anarchism.
You can apply this to all sorts of areas:
1. If I'm looking to write a contract, I seek an authority on contracts and hire an attorney. 2. If I'm looking for advice on how to invest my money, I seek an authority on investment and hire an investment manager. 3. If I have a bill not being paid, ignored, etc. and I need help collecting it, I seek an authority on collecting outstanding bills and hire a collections firm. 4. If I have security needs, I seek an authority on the type of security I need and hire a security firm.
You get the picture- a great deal of society functions without the need for monopoly government and if you accept the notion that the free market always provide a superior product/service for less money, which should be relatively uncontroversial even by Mises own writings, then the ultimate goal should be to have a society that works on solely a free market/voluntary basis, which includes voluntary acceptance of authority.
It's already been shown that fire departments existed before government monopoly power, the concept of arbitration is proven even though the state and it's monopoly participants move to quash it routinely, & we have private security in malls & the like today.
There's simply no reasonable logic that suggests the goal of freedom in society should be otherwise(some hybrid for example), and many writings from prominent thinkers such and Block and Hoppe fully explore that notion(and private defense agencies) in detail.
I don't even have to have NAP violators accept that goal if I live by the NAP...because in concept I'm defending myself if egreged upon by someone not accepting the authority of a private defense firm, all I have to do is explain to the firm the situation and let them handle it from there. The NAP covers me, & strictly from a common sense standpoint most people when fully understanding of the concept would seem to agree with it as well.(and that's the battle for now, getting enough people to understand what the NAP is and its implications). Private defense firms that did not practice enforcement on a NAP basis simply would not last that long.
For whatever reason, Mises didn't not fully extend his logical thinking to a logical outcome. Maybe he doubted whether PDA's could exist sensibly, we have that today within the libertarian movement, for example Ron Paul has his doubts whether a private/free market justice/enforcement system could work today- so I can grant/understand that there are exceptionally intelligent people on the other side of the "debate".
However, what none of those minarchists can deny, is that they have to break the logic surrounding WHY the state should be "small" or "limited" in the first place...so they aren't logically consistent by not extending the "why" to its natural conclusions.
Very well stated Nick, as usual. I believe you're missing your calling for a man who has not been a libertarian for long. Lol!
At any rate, simply put, it is logically impossible for an entity whose very existence depends on violence to provide "security". Period.
Conversely, I have never in my 49 yrs. of existence heard anyone, not once, logically explain/answer why competing security firms cannot provide superior security over and above what we are accustomed to (by force, no less...).
I share some of Wags frustration with anarchism. I don't believe the pat replies and hypotheticals given by so-called anarchists in political salons and Internet comment sections represent anything more than a type of intellectual hamster wheel. I am willing to concede the theoretical logical conclusion it represents but have grave concerns about the "devil I don't know" when the rubber hits the road to get to a stateless society. I mean, even Marx thought capitalism would degrade into socialism then communism then finally into a stateless utopia. We all know how that turned out and maybe still is turning out.
How does society get from here, today's statist crony capitalism nearing overt fascism, to "the goal of freedom" you define as anarchism?
Say the condition of anarchism (without rulers) arises organically among the population tomorrow. Does what has been stolen to date by statists and their employees/cronies in violation of the NAP stay stolen?
"I am willing to concede the theoretical logical conclusion it represents but have grave concerns about the "devil I don't know" when the rubber hits the road to get to a stateless society."
It's a fair/reasonable concern, but you have to ask yourself why you should devote yourself to a principle that can't hold true consistently, and how you argue for it if you don't deep down believe that's the case in some areas.
For example, you acknowledge a logical inconsistency, which is good-but it's really hard for you to argue for free markets when you think there's a limitation...because then it's just a matter of degrees:
1. Progressives have a certain level of unfree markets 2. Republicans have another 3. Cato followers yet another
Etc., et al
How do any of them resolve their difference when in essence they all believe some degree of unfree markets are necessary? It's all opinion at that point and no principle-
Then they go in circles with each other, trying draw a line someplace and end up violating the NAP in trying to enact their version of utopia.
I'm not sure how we get to a stateless society(if we ever do), but I am sure that government provides no long term solutions to anything, and certainly causes far more problems than it solves. That experiment has been run many different ways over thousands of years.
Like Jefferson, (paraphrased) I would rather attend to the things that come about from too much liberty than not enough.
"How does society get from here to there".
The same way it got from there to here: The human will.
Does what has been stolen stay stolen? I would say absolutely not, although should a free society emerge organically tomorrow I'm inclined to believe most people would have other things on their mind.
"I'm not sure how we get to a stateless society (if we ever do)..."
That's just it. Anarchism is a political abstraction that allows a person to claim moral and intellectual superiority without actually doing anything. One could even say that an avowed anarchist who involuntarily obeys government laws is a hypocrite, albeit one who wants to live.
Founding Fathers, Ron Paul style minarchism presents no such quandary. It even gained a heretofore unimaginable level of grassroots support in 2012. Changed my whole worldview about things. Progress towards liberty seemed possible. What happened since? Rand drops the baton and no one there to pick it up. The "liberty movement" devolves into the nihilistic political equivalent of navel gazing, anarchism. For whatever it's worth, Trumpolini and New Deal Redux Bernie carry the banner for the anti-establishment voter.
Politics may not be "the answer" but it is a physically peaceful pursuit of change for the better. It's a marketplace of ideas out there and I agree with Wags that a better case needs to be made to those not yet swayed to liberty involving politics and the devil we know, government. The alternatives are no change, "not peaceful" change, and/or change for the worse.
A Jefferson quote to buttress an argument in favor of anarchism? That's rich...
The human will will get us to anarchism? Great! Care to be more specific about how you would convince, say, suburban soccer moms of the virtues of anarchism? How about urban primitives? Current beneficiaries of statism?
Absolutely no to what has been stolen staying stolen? Excellent! Who decides jurisdiction and metes out justice when the banksters jet away to private islands with all the gold and their private armies? What recourse does someone with no property have against those with property? Would they simply be so deliriously happy with their new found freedom that they wouldn't care and be happy to live as Diogenes clothed in a barrel ( as long as they could find a private property owner willing to allow them trespass)? Details would be helpful.
"That's just it. Anarchism is a political abstraction that allows a person to claim moral and intellectual superiority without actually doing anything. "
Well put in context, why is that a problem?
For example, if I do "nothing", as opposed to a thief who steals from people it would seem to follow that I'm morally superior. Why is that a problem for you?
"One could even say that an avowed anarchist who involuntarily obeys government laws is a hypocrite"
I have no idea how you would arrive at that conclusion. Could you explain?
"The "liberty movement" devolves into the nihilistic political equivalent of navel gazing, anarchism."
Well, I don't know why you'd spend your time here, at LRC, or any other self-identified an-cap sites if it was all about the "navel gazing".
Look, people first have to believe in an idea(and understand it)before they actively pursue it and then it might become reality. The day that anarchism, or Rothbard's anarcho capitalism more specifically, is at least understood and accepted or rejected by at least 50% of the population in general, might be the day you can call all those that believe logically it would be the best system as "navel gazers" if they "did nothing"...but the very act of you and I discussing it here, all the articles posted daily at LRC, here, EPJ, and/or a bunch of other sites is so that the ideas are clearly elucidated and understood, with the hopes that as time go on more people come to understand and agree in principle that free markets, the NAP, & private property are key to a peaceful and productive society. That's not navel gazing.
Right now if you walk out on the street in any given metropolis and ask people what "anarcho capitalism" is I guarantee you get a blank stare back 90%+ of the time.
"Politics may not be "the answer" but it is a physically peaceful pursuit of change for the better."
Physically peaceful? I'm not going to argue that point, because it's not necessary. Taxes, wars, victim-less crimes...all come from politics. Politics is not physically peaceful.
"I agree with Wags that a better case needs to be made to those not yet swayed to liberty involving politics and the devil we know, government. "
You think a case needs to be made for politics and government? Are you sure?
"The alternatives are no change, "not peaceful" change, and/or change for the worse."
You really don't know that, the free market is a wondrous thing that continually amazes. You've presented three outcomes from your world view, not the actual list of all possibilities.(which is impossible for anyone to provide)
You know, I think minarchists could go a long way if they were actually more honest in their assessment, like you mentioned earlier, but with a small tweak. Instead of saying "I'm for free markets in the areas I think are best" they'd be much better off saying "I'm for free markets, though I'm scared about taking free markets to their natural conclusion, meaning freedom over all of society, I think we should try it in lieu of the thousands of years of failed government we've had oppressing humanity."
At least then minarchists could claim to be logically consistent, which would really make them anarchists. It's much easier to make your case as an anarchist to a statist than as a minarchist as you just come off as a hypocrite. (by suggesting you know best where free markets should or should not be, just like them)
Hollow Daze, there is nothing peaceful about the pursuit of politics. By its very nature, politics is the power to use force, coercion and violence against peaceful people.
@Nick: So now you do know how we get to a stateless society? You believe that you and I and others reading and interacting in the comment section of this site or reading other similarly inclined websites about anarchism constitutes "society" progressing towards a stateless society or at least something other than political "navel gazing"? Ok. Fair enough. I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.
Interesting how you mention free markets generally but didn't address the marketplace of ideas that I mentioned. How do you sell liberty and capitalism to the 90% of people with a blank stare? With esoteric abstractions like anarchism? Do you think Ron Paul's unprecedented expansion of people interested in peace, liberty, and sound money would have occurred if he self-identified as an anarchist or called for abolishing government? Compare his success converting statists to a minarchist posiition (or at least somewhat less statist position) to that of Rothbard. There is no contest.
BTW, do you really think Ron Paul, by engaging in politics, was being "not physically peaceful" when he ran for Congress or president with his messages of Peace, Liberty, and Sound Money? Politics (as opposed to some of the results of politics like taxes & wars) can be violent but, for the moment in this country, they are not.
Look, what Wags has been saying repeatedly is that anarcho-capitalism is a dead end politically. If you want to successfully engage in politics and move the needle in society at large, you have to be more like Ron Paul minarchist and less like a Rothbard an-cap. If you don't want to engage in politics, you can continue to perfect your imaginary anarcho-capitalist utopia by debating random strangers like me on the internets. I am entertained by intellectual hamster wheels...;
@Rick: I hope you didn't support or vote for Ron Paul, who, by your logic, engaged in "non-peaceful" politics when running for Congress and President. Do not listen to that bad man...
"Compare his success converting statists to a minarchist posiition (or at least somewhat less statist position) to that of Rothbard. There is no contest. "
You're really comparing apples to oranges. Many people, including Ron Paul, attribute Rothbard to their development intellectually:
“It would be difficult to exaggerate Professor Murray N. Rothbard’s influence on the movement for freedom and free markets. He is the living giant of Austrian economics, and he has led the now-formidable movement ever since the death of his great teacher, Ludwig von Mises, in 1971. We are all indebted to him for the living link he has provided to Mises, upon whose work he has built and expanded.”- Ron Paul
So the question you should be asking is what would have been Ron Paul's success without Murray Rothbard.
"Politics (as opposed to some of the results of politics like taxes & wars) can be violent but, for the moment in this country, they are not."
I believe we have a "chicken vs. egg" dilemma here.
I'm fairly certain that every policy Ron Paul put forth was a net reduction in NAP violations, I can't recall any one candidate or politician before or since that can make that claim.
"If you don't want to engage in politics, you can continue to perfect your imaginary anarcho-capitalist utopia by debating random strangers like me on the internets."
I don't want to participate in politics. I will continue to try to convince people that the NAP, private property, & free markets are great systems to adhere to.
You can try to convince them that politics is great I suppose, as it doesn't appear you hold free markets, the NAP, or private property as always best.
We each have our intellectual hamster wheel I suppose.
Rothbard has much to offer and I consider his body of work to be influential and outstanding. What's interesting, though, is that Ron Paul does not identify as an-cap. So he too has rejected the logical conclusion anarchists claim. There's also a quote out there along the lines of before Ron Paul's political activities, the number of folks identifying as libertarian could fit in a phone booth. Politics includes the discussion and promotion of ideologies and political "systems." It's a means not and end in and of itself. You seem to think you're somehow above the fray and exempt from the consequences of not participating. You're not.
"“It would be difficult to exaggerate Professor Murray N. Rothbard’s influence on the movement for freedom and free markets. He is the living giant of Austrian economics, and he has led the now-formidable movement ever since the death of his great teacher, Ludwig von Mises, in 1971. We are all indebted to him for the living link he has provided to Mises, upon whose work he has built and expanded.”- Ron Paul
"You seem to think you're somehow above the fray and exempt from the consequences of not participating. You're not."
What makes you think that? I've never once suggested that I'm anything that you just posted,even remotely.
I have no idea where you'd get that notion.
Just to clarify, I don't participate because I don't think politics "works"- even if we qualify Ron Paul's success, it was only using the political process for education.
In terms of the traditional metrics of "success" as those participating in politics might think, he wasn't really that successful.
In other words, he used the system to educate many(including me), using Rothbard and others as his intellectual basis for persuasion.
I'll always be grateful to Ron Paul for that- but I don't have to participate in a corrupt system that yields continual NAP violations thankfully- even if I'm subject to them.
Subjectively, I feel my time is better spent convincing people that the free market & NAP adherence are fantastic goals.
You feel that participation is politics is the best way to spend your time. Fine. To each their own.
Annnnd... Ron Paul's still not an anarchist and doesn't espouse anarcho-capitalism. Without Ron Paul, the Rothbard cult is still meeting in a phone booth.
"Ron Paul's still not an anarchist and doesn't espouse anarcho-capitalism. "
Was that ever in question or debated? I don't think you actually addressed anything I wrote, I'm not even sure where you and I disagree other than how we spend our time and to what degree we believe in the NAP & free markets.
"Without Ron Paul, the Rothbard cult is still meeting in a phone booth."
This is a claim without proof- but more importantly it ignores Ron Paul's own comments on Rothbard and a host of major contributors other than Ron Paul like Lew Rockwell, Block, Hoppe, etc. et al....the list is quite prodigious, and regardless of Ron Paul's fantastic job of opening up a new world philosophically to many people, it's disingenuous to suggest there'd be no growth otherwise.
I give you full credit though for admitting that minarchists break from logic in pushing limited statism.
I also understand their(and your) concerns even though I think that full freedom should be at least tried.
To repeat, politics includes the discussion and promotion of ideologies and political "systems", such as free markets and libertarianism, as reflected in the NAP. Thus, you and I both participate in politics. Your insistence otherwise while explicitly acknowledging you spend time convincing people of the value of the NAP and free markets is a contradiction.
While I concede Libertarianism may have experienced more than 0 growth without Ron Paul I continue to claim it would have achieved significantly less growth than it actually achieved with him. Your and theageofnow's assertion of Rothbard's outsized influence on Ron Paul is, in my opinion, significantly mitigated by the fact that Ron Paul never embraced the logical conclusion of anarchism promoted by Rothbard. Thus Ron Paul's minarchism has been significantly more influential society wide than Rothbard's anarchism.
Finally, you believe that "full freedom" defined as anarcho capitalism should be "tried" but only in a manner exclusive of politics, except to the extent you engage in politics while attempting to convince people of the virtues of anarchism, the NAP, and free markets, and that a state of anarchy involving such desirable goals as voluntarism, capitalism, peace, liberty, and sound money may simply arise serendipitously, without any other effort on your or other adherents behalf. I don't happen to see much hope for that strategy but it is certainly your prerogative to follow it.
"To repeat, politics includes the discussion and promotion of ideologies and political "systems", such as free markets and libertarianism, as reflected in the NAP. Thus, you and I both participate in politics. Your insistence otherwise while explicitly acknowledging you spend time convincing people of the value of the NAP and free markets is a contradiction. "
I think it's important to be charitable when discussing so that we can come away with a better understanding of our positions, here's the definition of politics, the first one listed, from google:
"the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power."
This is the definition of "politics" I'm using, and I'm not interested in doing that. You might be I'm assuming because you're not for 100% free markets & NAP, but I don't know that for sure.
This is the definition I'm practicing:
"a particular set of political beliefs or principles."
However that was not the context that we were discussing things in(until now?) regarding Ron Paul & and participation in the US political system.
"Your and theageofnow's assertion of Rothbard's outsized influence on Ron Paul"
LMAO! Dude, all I did was quote Ron Paul himself, it wasn't even my "assertion", it was Ron Paul's statement.
"Finally, you believe that "full freedom" defined as anarcho capitalism should be "tried" but only in a manner exclusive of politics, except to the extent you engage in politic"
Yes, I engage in the second definition above, not the statist oriented first...obviously there's a significant difference.
"you engage in politics while attempting to convince people of the virtues of anarchism, the NAP, and free markets, and that a state of anarchy involving such desirable goals as voluntarism, capitalism, peace, liberty, and sound money may simply arise serendipitously, without any other effort on your or other adherents behalf. I don't happen to see much hope for that strategy but it is certainly your prerogative to follow it."
Well thank you for acknowledging my freedom to do so, but you are wrong about "without any effort". I talk with people all the time, in fact, I make arguments as well extolling the virtues of all you noted to those that even just partially agree.
:)
There's lot of us making a lot of effort outside the statist political system, even Ron Paul acknowledged it with his statement on Rothbard.
I'm glad you came to see the inclusive definition of politics. Ron Paul has always been involved in both types and I never meant to discriminate between the two in any of my comments. When he was running for office or in office, he was also writing books and arguing for and promoting liberty. In my opinion, the former amplified the latter to unprecedented success. I would add that, as an anarchist, you reject, and are ideologically precluded from the former and must rely solely on the latter. I see this as handicapping your and other adherents' efforts to see anarchism spread beyond libertarian esoterica.
As far as "assertion", dictionary.com says "a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason." In this case, I meant positive statement or declaration but did not mean without support and reason. Interesting choice to focus on that parse and ignore the content of the rest of the sentence...
" I see this as handicapping your and other adherents' efforts to see anarchism spread beyond libertarian esoterica. "
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I think the big question is: how many Ron Paul supporters eventually became an-caps? (and how many more will?)
" Interesting choice to focus on that parse and ignore the content of the rest of the sentence..."
Well at least you clarified that you were using your own definition, but I didn't ignore the rest, we already discussed Ron Paul being a minarchist that credits Rothbard earlier, I even compared your argument to fruit.
The truth is, I simply do not have the time to write long, drawn-out responses to you or anyone else and there is already a vast amount of literature available to anyone who wants to pursue answers to these matters. I suggest you take advantage of the resources available to you wherever you can find them.
As far as the Jefferson quote goes, the focal point is in the substance of what he was saying. A simple reading of it absent a poor attitude or antagonism makes that clear.
I have travelled the world over several times and there is one thing that I have always been struck by: People unable to exercise full freedom are, generally speaking, miserable, lack prosperity and face constant violence.
The matter of the human will:
The whole point here is that until a person, or persons, are willing to do something, to act, nothing substantive will change for them. People have to be willing. The willingness to achieve freedom must be chosen. Even then, freedom does not necessarily come quickly. A culture cannot be changed overnight and 400+ yrs of poor philosophy has wrought significant damage.
So yes, the human will is what gets one from "here to there".
The matter of Ron Paul (even though I have no dog in this hunt):
Don't celebrate too quickly. My understanding of Dr. Paul's reluctance to embrace full-blown An-Capism (based on his own words mind you), is due to his inability to get around his concerns of the privatization of police forces/security should they become corrupt. Otherwise, I suspect he would embrace it fully. Rothbard was hugely influential on him.
Unfortunately, he does not have logic or economics on his side in this matter. Again, much has been written on this by people far more capable than I so I will not rehash that here.
Unknown: You must know that the Founders, including Jefferson, were no fans of anarchy. I am certain he would reject your use of his quote in the context that you used it. Jefferson on anarchy:
"Let this be the distinctive mark of an American that in cases of commotion, he enlists himself under no man's banner, inquires for no man's name, but repairs to the standard of the laws. Do this, and you need never fear anarchy or tyranny. Your government will be perpetual." --Thomas Jefferson: Manuscript, 1801
"The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Philadelphia Citizens, 1809.
My opinion of the inherent nature of anarchism is that it has caused its adherents to forfeit the field of politics, retreat into intellectual echo chambers smugly convinced of their theoretical logical superiority only to continue to watch the degradation of the political system from the sidelines. It's self-limiting politically to the extent that it appears as if it was (to quote another commented from a while back who I can't remember) a perfectly designed COINTELPRO op.
People have been convinced to love slavery and will need to be convinced to love freedom. It will require good salesmanship and work. I trust you and others are confident in your product, anarchism, and, are working to sell it far and wide beyond libertarian echo chambers. If not, it will remain esoterica. I happen to think Ron Paul minarchism is a better product that could continue to sell in the marketplace of ideas.
Wags, How big do you think your mini-archy should be? How many police should you have? How many tanks and soldiers? What should the budget be? Or better yet, what process do you use to determine these things? Then ask yourself how many massage therapists or restaurants should a society have? And what process is used to determine that number?
You're being obtuse. The Jefferson quotes are irrelevant. I clearly stated the whole point was in the substance (or spirit) of the saying.
Furthermore, even if I grant you for the sake of argument, if those who supported a minimal state then were somehow miraculously transported to today, I would hope that they would be the first to admit that they were foolish and incorrect in the philosophy they embraced.
Further still, I would hope and pray that they would be the ones shouting warnings to us from the rooftops.
For anyone who may be interested in the subject of law-enforcement, private police, economics, etc., there is a PDF available through the Mises Institute authored by Patrick Tinsley in a 1999 issue of "The Journal of Libertarian Studies" titled "The Police: A Note".
It takes authority to say what people can and can't do. That's not anarchism.
ReplyDeleteTrump is fantastic. He said (and it's on his website under 'positions'), - "it's been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights."
ReplyDeleteWhat other politician talks like this?
"That's not anarchism."
ReplyDeleteWhen people voluntarily accept authority, that IS anarchism.
You can apply this to all sorts of areas:
1. If I'm looking to write a contract, I seek an authority on contracts and hire an attorney.
2. If I'm looking for advice on how to invest my money, I seek an authority on investment and hire an investment manager.
3. If I have a bill not being paid, ignored, etc. and I need help collecting it, I seek an authority on collecting outstanding bills and hire a collections firm.
4. If I have security needs, I seek an authority on the type of security I need and hire a security firm.
You get the picture- a great deal of society functions without the need for monopoly government and if you accept the notion that the free market always provide a superior product/service for less money, which should be relatively uncontroversial even by Mises own writings, then the ultimate goal should be to have a society that works on solely a free market/voluntary basis, which includes voluntary acceptance of authority.
It's already been shown that fire departments existed before government monopoly power, the concept of arbitration is proven even though the state and it's monopoly participants move to quash it routinely, & we have private security in malls & the like today.
There's simply no reasonable logic that suggests the goal of freedom in society should be otherwise(some hybrid for example), and many writings from prominent thinkers such and Block and Hoppe fully explore that notion(and private defense agencies) in detail.
I don't even have to have NAP violators accept that goal if I live by the NAP...because in concept I'm defending myself if egreged upon by someone not accepting the authority of a private defense firm, all I have to do is explain to the firm the situation and let them handle it from there. The NAP covers me, & strictly from a common sense standpoint most people when fully understanding of the concept would seem to agree with it as well.(and that's the battle for now, getting enough people to understand what the NAP is and its implications). Private defense firms that did not practice enforcement on a NAP basis simply would not last that long.
For whatever reason, Mises didn't not fully extend his logical thinking to a logical outcome. Maybe he doubted whether PDA's could exist sensibly, we have that today within the libertarian movement, for example Ron Paul has his doubts whether a private/free market justice/enforcement system could work today- so I can grant/understand that there are exceptionally intelligent people on the other side of the "debate".
However, what none of those minarchists can deny, is that they have to break the logic surrounding WHY the state should be "small" or "limited" in the first place...so they aren't logically consistent by not extending the "why" to its natural conclusions.
Very well stated Nick, as usual. I believe you're missing your calling for a man who has not been a libertarian for long. Lol!
DeleteAt any rate, simply put, it is logically impossible for an entity whose very existence depends on violence to provide "security". Period.
Conversely, I have never in my 49 yrs. of existence heard anyone, not once, logically explain/answer why competing security firms cannot provide superior security over and above what we are accustomed to (by force, no less...).
I share some of Wags frustration with anarchism. I don't believe the pat replies and hypotheticals given by so-called anarchists in political salons and Internet comment sections represent anything more than a type of intellectual hamster wheel. I am willing to concede the theoretical logical conclusion it represents but have grave concerns about the "devil I don't know" when the rubber hits the road to get to a stateless society. I mean, even Marx thought capitalism would degrade into socialism then communism then finally into a stateless utopia. We all know how that turned out and maybe still is turning out.
DeleteHow does society get from here, today's statist crony capitalism nearing overt fascism, to "the goal of freedom" you define as anarchism?
Say the condition of anarchism (without rulers) arises organically among the population tomorrow. Does what has been stolen to date by statists and their employees/cronies in violation of the NAP stay stolen?
Thank you for the kind words "Unknown".
Delete"I am willing to concede the theoretical logical conclusion it represents but have grave concerns about the "devil I don't know" when the rubber hits the road to get to a stateless society."
DeleteIt's a fair/reasonable concern, but you have to ask yourself why you should devote yourself to a principle that can't hold true consistently, and how you argue for it if you don't deep down believe that's the case in some areas.
For example, you acknowledge a logical inconsistency, which is good-but it's really hard for you to argue for free markets when you think there's a limitation...because then it's just a matter of degrees:
1. Progressives have a certain level of unfree markets
2. Republicans have another
3. Cato followers yet another
Etc., et al
How do any of them resolve their difference when in essence they all believe some degree of unfree markets are necessary? It's all opinion at that point and no principle-
Then they go in circles with each other, trying draw a line someplace and end up violating the NAP in trying to enact their version of utopia.
I'm not sure how we get to a stateless society(if we ever do), but I am sure that government provides no long term solutions to anything, and certainly causes far more problems than it solves. That experiment has been run many different ways over thousands of years.
:)
"...grave concerns about the devil I don't know."
DeleteLike Jefferson, (paraphrased) I would rather attend to the things that come about from too much liberty than not enough.
"How does society get from here to there".
The same way it got from there to here: The human will.
Does what has been stolen stay stolen? I would say absolutely not, although should a free society emerge organically tomorrow I'm inclined to believe most people would have other things on their mind.
"I'm not sure how we get to a stateless society (if we ever do)..."
DeleteThat's just it. Anarchism is a political abstraction that allows a person to claim moral and intellectual superiority without actually doing anything. One could even say that an avowed anarchist who involuntarily obeys government laws is a hypocrite, albeit one who wants to live.
Founding Fathers, Ron Paul style minarchism presents no such quandary. It even gained a heretofore unimaginable level of grassroots support in 2012. Changed my whole worldview about things. Progress towards liberty seemed possible. What happened since? Rand drops the baton and no one there to pick it up. The "liberty movement" devolves into the nihilistic political equivalent of navel gazing, anarchism. For whatever it's worth, Trumpolini and New Deal Redux Bernie carry the banner for the anti-establishment voter.
Politics may not be "the answer" but it is a physically peaceful pursuit of change for the better. It's a marketplace of ideas out there and I agree with Wags that a better case needs to be made to those not yet swayed to liberty involving politics and the devil we know, government. The alternatives are no change, "not peaceful" change, and/or change for the worse.
A Jefferson quote to buttress an argument in favor of anarchism? That's rich...
DeleteThe human will will get us to anarchism? Great! Care to be more specific about how you would convince, say, suburban soccer moms of the virtues of anarchism? How about urban primitives? Current beneficiaries of statism?
Absolutely no to what has been stolen staying stolen? Excellent! Who decides jurisdiction and metes out justice when the banksters jet away to private islands with all the gold and their private armies? What recourse does someone with no property have against those with property? Would they simply be so deliriously happy with their new found freedom that they wouldn't care and be happy to live as Diogenes clothed in a barrel ( as long as they could find a private property owner willing to allow them trespass)? Details would be helpful.
"That's just it. Anarchism is a political abstraction that allows a person to claim moral and intellectual superiority without actually doing anything. "
DeleteWell put in context, why is that a problem?
For example, if I do "nothing", as opposed to a thief who steals from people it would seem to follow that I'm morally superior. Why is that a problem for you?
"One could even say that an avowed anarchist who involuntarily obeys government laws is a hypocrite"
I have no idea how you would arrive at that conclusion. Could you explain?
"The "liberty movement" devolves into the nihilistic political equivalent of navel gazing, anarchism."
Well, I don't know why you'd spend your time here, at LRC, or any other self-identified an-cap sites if it was all about the "navel gazing".
Look, people first have to believe in an idea(and understand it)before they actively pursue it and then it might become reality. The day that anarchism, or Rothbard's anarcho capitalism more specifically, is at least understood and accepted or rejected by at least 50% of the population in general, might be the day you can call all those that believe logically it would be the best system as "navel gazers" if they "did nothing"...but the very act of you and I discussing it here, all the articles posted daily at LRC, here, EPJ, and/or a bunch of other sites is so that the ideas are clearly elucidated and understood, with the hopes that as time go on more people come to understand and agree in principle that free markets, the NAP, & private property are key to a peaceful and productive society. That's not navel gazing.
Right now if you walk out on the street in any given metropolis and ask people what "anarcho capitalism" is I guarantee you get a blank stare back 90%+ of the time.
"Politics may not be "the answer" but it is a physically peaceful pursuit of change for the better."
Physically peaceful? I'm not going to argue that point, because it's not necessary. Taxes, wars, victim-less crimes...all come from politics. Politics is not physically peaceful.
"I agree with Wags that a better case needs to be made to those not yet swayed to liberty involving politics and the devil we know, government. "
You think a case needs to be made for politics and government? Are you sure?
"The alternatives are no change, "not peaceful" change, and/or change for the worse."
You really don't know that, the free market is a wondrous thing that continually amazes. You've presented three outcomes from your world view, not the actual list of all possibilities.(which is impossible for anyone to provide)
You know, I think minarchists could go a long way if they were actually more honest in their assessment, like you mentioned earlier, but with a small tweak. Instead of saying "I'm for free markets in the areas I think are best" they'd be much better off saying "I'm for free markets, though I'm scared about taking free markets to their natural conclusion, meaning freedom over all of society, I think we should try it in lieu of the thousands of years of failed government we've had oppressing humanity."
At least then minarchists could claim to be logically consistent, which would really make them anarchists. It's much easier to make your case as an anarchist to a statist than as a minarchist as you just come off as a hypocrite. (by suggesting you know best where free markets should or should not be, just like them)
Hollow Daze, there is nothing peaceful about the pursuit of politics. By its very nature, politics is the power to use force, coercion and violence against peaceful people.
Delete@Nick: So now you do know how we get to a stateless society? You believe that you and I and others reading and interacting in the comment section of this site or reading other similarly inclined websites about anarchism constitutes "society" progressing towards a stateless society or at least something other than political "navel gazing"? Ok. Fair enough. I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.
DeleteInteresting how you mention free markets generally but didn't address the marketplace of ideas that I mentioned. How do you sell liberty and capitalism to the 90% of people with a blank stare? With esoteric abstractions like anarchism? Do you think Ron Paul's unprecedented expansion of people interested in peace, liberty, and sound money would have occurred if he self-identified as an anarchist or called for abolishing government? Compare his success converting statists to a minarchist posiition (or at least somewhat less statist position) to that of Rothbard. There is no contest.
BTW, do you really think Ron Paul, by engaging in politics, was being "not physically peaceful" when he ran for Congress or president with his messages of Peace, Liberty, and Sound Money? Politics (as opposed to some of the results of politics like taxes & wars) can be violent but, for the moment in this country, they are not.
Look, what Wags has been saying repeatedly is that anarcho-capitalism is a dead end politically. If you want to successfully engage in politics and move the needle in society at large, you have to be more like Ron Paul minarchist and less like a Rothbard an-cap. If you don't want to engage in politics, you can continue to perfect your imaginary anarcho-capitalist utopia by debating random strangers like me on the internets. I am entertained by intellectual hamster wheels...;
@Rick: I hope you didn't support or vote for Ron Paul, who, by your logic, engaged in "non-peaceful" politics when running for Congress and President. Do not listen to that bad man...
Delete"Compare his success converting statists to a minarchist posiition (or at least somewhat less statist position) to that of Rothbard. There is no contest. "
DeleteYou're really comparing apples to oranges. Many people, including Ron Paul, attribute Rothbard to their development intellectually:
“It would be difficult to exaggerate Professor Murray N. Rothbard’s influence on the movement for freedom and free markets. He is the living giant of Austrian economics, and he has led the now-formidable movement ever since the death of his great teacher, Ludwig von Mises, in 1971. We are all indebted to him for the living link he has provided to Mises, upon whose work he has built and expanded.”- Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/darrell-falconburg/murray-rothbard-and-ron-paul/
So the question you should be asking is what would have been Ron Paul's success without Murray Rothbard.
"Politics (as opposed to some of the results of politics like taxes & wars) can be violent but, for the moment in this country, they are not."
I believe we have a "chicken vs. egg" dilemma here.
I'm fairly certain that every policy Ron Paul put forth was a net reduction in NAP violations, I can't recall any one candidate or politician before or since that can make that claim.
"If you don't want to engage in politics, you can continue to perfect your imaginary anarcho-capitalist utopia by debating random strangers like me on the internets."
I don't want to participate in politics. I will continue to try to convince people that the NAP, private property, & free markets are great systems to adhere to.
You can try to convince them that politics is great I suppose, as it doesn't appear you hold free markets, the NAP, or private property as always best.
We each have our intellectual hamster wheel I suppose.
Rothbard has much to offer and I consider his body of work to be influential and outstanding. What's interesting, though, is that Ron Paul does not identify as an-cap. So he too has rejected the logical conclusion anarchists claim. There's also a quote out there along the lines of before Ron Paul's political activities, the number of folks identifying as libertarian could fit in a phone booth. Politics includes the discussion and promotion of ideologies and political "systems." It's a means not and end in and of itself. You seem to think you're somehow above the fray and exempt from the consequences of not participating. You're not.
DeleteOHHHH
Delete"“It would be difficult to exaggerate Professor Murray N. Rothbard’s influence on the movement for freedom and free markets. He is the living giant of Austrian economics, and he has led the now-formidable movement ever since the death of his great teacher, Ludwig von Mises, in 1971. We are all indebted to him for the living link he has provided to Mises, upon whose work he has built and expanded.”- Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/darrell-falconburg/murray-rothbard-and-ron-paul/
So the question you should be asking is what would have been Ron Paul's success without Murray Rothbard."
Checkmate lol
"You seem to think you're somehow above the fray and exempt from the consequences of not participating. You're not."
DeleteWhat makes you think that? I've never once suggested that I'm anything that you just posted,even remotely.
I have no idea where you'd get that notion.
Just to clarify, I don't participate because I don't think politics "works"- even if we qualify Ron Paul's success, it was only using the political process for education.
In terms of the traditional metrics of "success" as those participating in politics might think, he wasn't really that successful.
In other words, he used the system to educate many(including me), using Rothbard and others as his intellectual basis for persuasion.
I'll always be grateful to Ron Paul for that- but I don't have to participate in a corrupt system that yields continual NAP violations thankfully- even if I'm subject to them.
Subjectively, I feel my time is better spent convincing people that the free market & NAP adherence are fantastic goals.
You feel that participation is politics is the best way to spend your time. Fine. To each their own.
Annnnd... Ron Paul's still not an anarchist and doesn't espouse anarcho-capitalism. Without Ron Paul, the Rothbard cult is still meeting in a phone booth.
Delete"Ron Paul's still not an anarchist and doesn't espouse anarcho-capitalism. "
DeleteWas that ever in question or debated? I don't think you actually addressed anything I wrote, I'm not even sure where you and I disagree other than how we spend our time and to what degree we believe in the NAP & free markets.
"Without Ron Paul, the Rothbard cult is still meeting in a phone booth."
This is a claim without proof- but more importantly it ignores Ron Paul's own comments on Rothbard and a host of major contributors other than Ron Paul like Lew Rockwell, Block, Hoppe, etc. et al....the list is quite prodigious, and regardless of Ron Paul's fantastic job of opening up a new world philosophically to many people, it's disingenuous to suggest there'd be no growth otherwise.
I give you full credit though for admitting that minarchists break from logic in pushing limited statism.
I also understand their(and your) concerns even though I think that full freedom should be at least tried.
To repeat, politics includes the discussion and promotion of ideologies and political "systems", such as free markets and libertarianism, as reflected in the NAP. Thus, you and I both participate in politics. Your insistence otherwise while explicitly acknowledging you spend time convincing people of the value of the NAP and free markets is a contradiction.
DeleteWhile I concede Libertarianism may have experienced more than 0 growth without Ron Paul I continue to claim it would have achieved significantly less growth than it actually achieved with him. Your and theageofnow's assertion of Rothbard's outsized influence on Ron Paul is, in my opinion, significantly mitigated by the fact that Ron Paul never embraced the logical conclusion of anarchism promoted by Rothbard. Thus Ron Paul's minarchism has been significantly more influential society wide than Rothbard's anarchism.
Finally, you believe that "full freedom" defined as anarcho capitalism should be "tried" but only in a manner exclusive of politics, except to the extent you engage in politics while attempting to convince people of the virtues of anarchism, the NAP, and free markets, and that a state of anarchy involving such desirable goals as voluntarism, capitalism, peace, liberty, and sound money may simply arise serendipitously, without any other effort on your or other adherents behalf. I don't happen to see much hope for that strategy but it is certainly your prerogative to follow it.
"To repeat, politics includes the discussion and promotion of ideologies and political "systems", such as free markets and libertarianism, as reflected in the NAP. Thus, you and I both participate in politics. Your insistence otherwise while explicitly acknowledging you spend time convincing people of the value of the NAP and free markets is a contradiction. "
DeleteI think it's important to be charitable when discussing so that we can come away with a better understanding of our positions, here's the definition of politics, the first one listed, from google:
"the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power."
This is the definition of "politics" I'm using, and I'm not interested in doing that. You might be I'm assuming because you're not for 100% free markets & NAP, but I don't know that for sure.
This is the definition I'm practicing:
"a particular set of political beliefs or principles."
However that was not the context that we were discussing things in(until now?) regarding Ron Paul & and participation in the US political system.
"Your and theageofnow's assertion of Rothbard's outsized influence on Ron Paul"
LMAO! Dude, all I did was quote Ron Paul himself, it wasn't even my "assertion", it was Ron Paul's statement.
"Finally, you believe that "full freedom" defined as anarcho capitalism should be "tried" but only in a manner exclusive of politics, except to the extent you engage in politic"
Yes, I engage in the second definition above, not the statist oriented first...obviously there's a significant difference.
"you engage in politics while attempting to convince people of the virtues of anarchism, the NAP, and free markets, and that a state of anarchy involving such desirable goals as voluntarism, capitalism, peace, liberty, and sound money may simply arise serendipitously, without any other effort on your or other adherents behalf. I don't happen to see much hope for that strategy but it is certainly your prerogative to follow it."
Well thank you for acknowledging my freedom to do so, but you are wrong about "without any effort". I talk with people all the time, in fact, I make arguments as well extolling the virtues of all you noted to those that even just partially agree.
:)
There's lot of us making a lot of effort outside the statist political system, even Ron Paul acknowledged it with his statement on Rothbard.
I'm glad you came to see the inclusive definition of politics. Ron Paul has always been involved in both types and I never meant to discriminate between the two in any of my comments. When he was running for office or in office, he was also writing books and arguing for and promoting liberty. In my opinion, the former amplified the latter to unprecedented success. I would add that, as an anarchist, you reject, and are ideologically precluded from the former and must rely solely on the latter. I see this as handicapping your and other adherents' efforts to see anarchism spread beyond libertarian esoterica.
DeleteAs far as "assertion", dictionary.com says "a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason." In this case, I meant positive statement or declaration but did not mean without support and reason. Interesting choice to focus on that parse and ignore the content of the rest of the sentence...
" I see this as handicapping your and other adherents' efforts to see anarchism spread beyond libertarian esoterica. "
DeleteMaybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I think the big question is: how many Ron Paul supporters eventually became an-caps? (and how many more will?)
" Interesting choice to focus on that parse and ignore the content of the rest of the sentence..."
Well at least you clarified that you were using your own definition, but I didn't ignore the rest, we already discussed Ron Paul being a minarchist that credits Rothbard earlier, I even compared your argument to fruit.
:)
A friend once asked me in a chat a work, "What's the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist?"
Delete- A few months
I was arguing minarchism and he was constantly challenging me. I got halfway through "For a new liberty" and have been since full An-Cap.
Hollow Daze,
DeleteThe truth is, I simply do not have the time to write long, drawn-out responses to you or anyone else and there is already a vast amount of literature available to anyone who wants to pursue answers to these matters. I suggest you take advantage of the resources available to you wherever you can find them.
As far as the Jefferson quote goes, the focal point is in the substance of what he was saying. A simple reading of it absent a poor attitude or antagonism makes that clear.
I have travelled the world over several times and there is one thing that I have always been struck by: People unable to exercise full freedom are, generally speaking, miserable, lack prosperity and face constant violence.
The matter of the human will:
The whole point here is that until a person, or persons, are willing to do something, to act, nothing substantive will change for them. People have to be willing. The willingness to achieve freedom must be chosen. Even then, freedom does not necessarily come quickly. A culture cannot be changed overnight and 400+ yrs of poor philosophy has wrought significant damage.
So yes, the human will is what gets one from "here to there".
The matter of Ron Paul (even though I have no dog in this hunt):
Don't celebrate too quickly. My understanding of Dr. Paul's reluctance to embrace full-blown An-Capism (based on his own words mind you), is due to his inability to get around his concerns of the privatization of police forces/security should they become corrupt. Otherwise, I suspect he would embrace it fully. Rothbard was hugely influential on him.
Unfortunately, he does not have logic or economics on his side in this matter. Again, much has been written on this by people far more capable than I so I will not rehash that here.
Best of luck in your journey.
Unknown: You must know that the Founders, including Jefferson, were no fans of anarchy. I am certain he would reject your use of his quote in the context that you used it. Jefferson on anarchy:
Delete"Let this be the distinctive mark of an American that in cases of commotion, he enlists himself under no man's banner, inquires for no man's name, but repairs to the standard of the laws. Do this, and you need never fear anarchy or tyranny. Your government will
be perpetual." --Thomas Jefferson: Manuscript, 1801
"The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of
necessity produces despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Philadelphia Citizens, 1809.
My opinion of the inherent nature of anarchism is that it has caused its adherents to forfeit the field of politics, retreat into intellectual echo chambers smugly convinced of their theoretical logical superiority only to continue to watch the degradation of the political system from the sidelines. It's self-limiting politically to the extent that it appears as if it was (to quote another commented from a while back who I can't remember) a perfectly designed COINTELPRO op.
People have been convinced to love slavery and will need to be convinced to love freedom. It will require good salesmanship and work. I trust you and others are confident in your product, anarchism, and, are working to sell it far and wide beyond libertarian echo chambers. If not, it will remain esoterica. I happen to think Ron Paul minarchism is a better product that could continue to sell in the marketplace of ideas.
Best of luck in your journey as well.
Wags, How big do you think your mini-archy should be? How many police should you have? How many tanks and soldiers? What should the budget be? Or better yet, what process do you use to determine these things? Then ask yourself how many massage therapists or restaurants should a society have? And what process is used to determine that number?
ReplyDeleteHollow Daze,
ReplyDeleteYou're being obtuse. The Jefferson quotes are irrelevant. I clearly stated the whole point was in the substance (or spirit) of the saying.
Furthermore, even if I grant you for the sake of argument, if those who supported a minimal state then were somehow miraculously transported to today, I would hope that they would be the first to admit that they were foolish and incorrect in the philosophy they embraced.
Further still, I would hope and pray that they would be the ones shouting warnings to us from the rooftops.
For anyone who may be interested in the subject of law-enforcement, private police, economics, etc., there is a PDF available through the Mises Institute authored by Patrick Tinsley in a 1999 issue of "The Journal of Libertarian Studies" titled "The Police: A Note".
ReplyDeleteIt is very brief, but, well worth, reading.