Anarchism necessary? - Liberty.me

Anarchism necessary?

Tags: Anarchism Minarchism pluralism

Ethan Shukis October 15, 2016 at 10:18 am

Does one have to support anarchy to be a principled libertarian? Or can one still be in favor of a small government or limited one.

Second, is it possible to create a system which removes majoritarian rule? I find that this isn’t the case even with anarchy, because groups will form and they will decide on issues like that.

My main problem with anarchy is that even voluntaryism leads to governance of some sort, it just becomes less rigid and more atomized. But I still believe that this would tend towards a coalescing to make trade and defense easier.

So again I ask, out of principled debate, can one be a libertarian who opposes anarchism and still be principled?

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Marco den Ouden October 15, 2016 at 12:58 pm

There is and continues to be a schism in libertarianism between anarchists and minarchists. I believe both sides are principled. They just disagree. It depends on how you define principled. If you define principled as “I’m right and everyone who disagrees with me is unprincipled,” then sure one side can say the other side is unprincipled. But they are really just engaging in semantics. They are defining their position as the only principled position.

Recently at a libertarian meeting in Vancouver, Walter Block asked whether the attendees identified as minarchists or anarchists. We were split about 50-50. Walter, while an anarchist, supports the idea that libertarianism should be a big tent. We shouldn’t ostracize or kick people to the curb for being less than pure, however we may define purity.

Interestingly, during Q&A, one friend asked why he couldn’t be both, minarchist and an anarchist at the same time. It seems like an obvious contradiction, but I rather liked his explanation of his position. That got me to thinking and I wrote an article supporting his point on my blog. It’s called Pluralistic Libertarianism.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

dL 1337 October 15, 2016 at 5:35 pm

So again I ask, out of principled debate, can one be a libertarian who opposes anarchism and still be principled libertarian?

yes…

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Al Gutierrez` November 16, 2016 at 7:43 pm
  
  First I would recommend The not So Wild Wesat byt Terry Anderson on how thw WQesat was anarchocapitalist. Then there is Thge Voluntary City by david Beito which outlines again with historical data how such a society can work. Let us not forget in the 17th century or 18th century in America roger Wliiams and the similar type of society thatr actually did work in Rhode Island. ADDITIONALLY looik at Celtic ireland under brehon law and was artound for One thousand years And how aBOUT THE REPUBLIC OF Cospaia in whatr is now italy. That lasted for about 400 years. Anarchocapitalists can form their o0wn towns if they wish to get away from a govermnment that is rotting from within. Huerta De Soto states that statism even within a minarchist type has the seeds of its own self destruction within it or how he described it the virus of its own self destruction./ We see that well over two million americans are living off grid. Many of them live in small areas like in Alaska one named Port Protection. Still in such a society for protection youcan have insurance companies who provide protection through private security firms who compete in a free market unregulated and in private law based upon polycentric law. law would be based upon contracts that people enter into with each other As to resolving disputes one has arbitrations. We see now that mkechanism working. By the weay, Appelatte couirts have upheld arbitrration agreements In such a society there is not a necessity for government as same uses force and has taxation which is theft. Government is the enemy of the people
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Al Gutierrez` November 16, 2016 at 7:47 pm
    
    I apologize for my typos but I was typing my response in an area that was not exactly well lit In the future I will avoid such an area
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Ross Milburn November 20, 2016 at 8:42 am
    
    Al Gutierrez
    
    You give some fine examples of societies outside the coercive state, and it encourages us to see that alternative social organisations have thriven in many places.
    
    However, no past examples would satisfy the needs of modern mass societies based on high technology. For example, Irish Brehon law was based on feudalism, and strict duties of persons to their social superiors. The Republic of Cospaia in Italy lasted for 400 years, but it had an area of one square mile, and few inhabitants. These and most other “anarchies” fell victim to armed states, most within a few months.
    
    A libertarian society must be “civilized” – specifically, it must comply with the Non-Aggression Principle, and therefore must have laws against rape and theft, and the means of enforcing such laws. I believe all serious attempts at “anarchy” have had to deal with troublemakers, sometimes by means of “tribal elders” or other ad hoc systems, but a modern society with millions of members, and the possibility of armed gangs that can fly across the world within hours, must necessarily have a much larger force for defence of its members.
    
    Just as important is the need of a modern society to build infrastructure such as airports and railways that cost billions of dollars. Even if they can be developed by private organizations, it is usually necessary to force thousands of people from their property in order to build them, and without a state, very special laws must be passed, based on absolute human equality and created by a consensual process. Of course, any modern society must have strong laws covering property rights and contract, in addition to the Non-Aggression Principle.
    
    In my view, the sole purpose in creating a libertarian society is to dispense with a king or dictator, or a ruling class that has the power to use arbitrary force. This gets rid of taxation, warfare, etc. This was already achieved during human evolution: all hunter gatherers lived in this way.
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Mal Roarke is a pseudonym… October 15, 2016 at 7:02 pm

Indeed! Each person who will accept the label anarchist today probably has in mind a qualification of his position.

It would follow that a word in general usage which cannot be precisely applied to any particular person or doctrine without some type of explanation or modification, is more handy as a term of opprobium and scorn than otherwise.

http://tinyurl.com/Autarchy-is-self-rule

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Ethan Shukis October 15, 2016 at 7:48 pm

Thank you all for your comments. Marco, I appreciated yours for clarifying with me, and alleviating my identity crisis haha

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Ricky Peter Newins October 16, 2016 at 1:58 am

Yes. To start with, those who are aware of libertarianism, who are for the most part libertarians and socialists, mostly recognize it as a minarchist ideology. Anarcho-libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism/free market anarchism (one and the same) is nowhere near as well known, nor are its thinkers e.g. Rothbard, Hoppe, Huerta de Soto. The latter is where one arrives if we universalize (making no exception for any individual e.g. a wise leader nor group of individuals e.g. A limited/minarchist government) the principle of non aggression against man and his property.

Quite clearly minarchists are not willing to go that far. Minarchists are willing to, as they see it, accept a pragmatic trade off per se. They are willing to be taxed by a government in order to provide certain services.

However, let us not dismiss an important point here, which I have hardly even seen mentioned/debated by us lot, and that is the role of Voluntaryism, to be precise, the will theory of contract. If ALL participants, let’s say in “Minarcho Island” consent to having X amount taken from them by group of individuals X in order to provide them with A,B and C, then there is no violation of NAP, nobody is coerced and no theft takes place. It is no different to setting up a standing order or direct debit with your bank.

Btw, I though it also pertaining to mention that in “Minarcho Island” the market could also compete with the state in proving such services just as long as they state was not granted exclusivity/monopoly.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Mal Roarke is a pseudonym… October 16, 2016 at 3:37 am

TRUTH IN LABELING: Minarchism or miniStatism?

https://disqus.com/home/channel/denniswilsonarticles/discussion/channel-denniswilsonarticles/truth_in_labeling_minarchism_or_ministatism

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Mal Roarke is a pseudonym… October 16, 2016 at 4:00 am

For an alternate libertarian” form of governance, I offer L Neil Smith’s Covenant of Unanimous Consent which is explicitly based on the Non Aggression Principle.

One does not need to wait for the inevitable collapse of the USA Imperial Empire–nor “remove” it–in order to begin having rational, peaceful and productive relations with other people.

Details here:

tinyurl.com/The-Bare-Minimum

[NOTE: Disqus Comments are available at the end of that article.]

As the Imperial Roman Empire became increasingly tyrannical and finally died, people ran away to the Germanic and Frankish areas that surrounded Rome. To illustrate that fact, here’s a quote from a man named Salvian the Presbyter, from about 440 AD:

Thus, far and wide, they migrate either to the Goths or to the Bagaudae, or to other barbarians everywhere in power; yet they do not repent of having migrated. They prefer to live as freemen under an outward form of captivity, than as captives under the appearance of liberty. Therefore, the name of Roman citizens, at one time not only greatly valued, but dearly bought, is now repudiated and fled from, and it is almost considered not only base, but even deserving of abhorrence.

When central governments collapse (and they ALL do collapse!), what is the nature of the agreements that individuals will make to provide for the security of themselves and their family?

Have YOU considered one based explicitly on the Non Aggression Principle? There is no need to wait for the collapse let alone “remove” them!

The Covenant of Unanimous Consent gets one out of “We” stuff–there is no We–and back into dealing with *I* and perhaps you and me. Where do YOU have a problem with the Covenant? Or where do you agree with the Covenant?

https (colon) //denniswilsonlibertysite.liberty.me/whither-now-libertarian/

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Sam Spade October 21, 2016 at 11:32 pm

Fifty or so years ago I was strictly “liberal”. Democrat, I voted for John Kennedy for “president” in 1960; was teaching in government (“public” ha ha) school. A member of TSEA (Texas State Education Association), NEA (National Education Association), now blatantly labor unions (education associations were strictly non-union in my day — it was “illegal” for government employees to belong to unions). Your question could be fairly easily answered, because one “became a member” of, or “joined”, those entities. The word “libertarian” was not in my vocabulary.

When the Watergate phenomenon came along in the early 70’s, I stood up for Nixon against the hordes. NOBODY stood up for Nixon. I did. I saw through the gangland-style media. Like Trump today — everywhere you turned, you saw negativity directed toward Richard Nixon. He was evil personified on the 6 o’clock news. I was devastated when he tossed in the towel and resigned from being US president. “They had won”. It was totally unfair.

What I couldn’t have known then, I know now: I was libertarian in those early 70’s — I simply had no intellectual means by which to express it. It’s not that I had “switched parties” or anything like that. Actually, I had “switched” to Republican much earlier, and was an avid Barry Goldwater supporter in 1964 (the last time I ever participated in one of those bread-and-circus shows called “elections”). I had not voted for or against Nixon.

Back to my story: I was seeing “Watergate” as a libertarian before I knew the word. Nixon was perhaps the best politician in the 20th century. Politicians lie. That’s what politics is — prevarication and obfuscation. Nixon was good. Long after he resigned he was sent (I think by a Democrat — and I might have my facts wrong) to the place they’ve been calling “China” for a thousand or more years, to negotiate away from a disastrous war and other matters only he seemed capable of clearing up. I forget the details, but Nixon was a highly respected statesman. Hopefully neither you nor I will ever be looked upon as statesmen.

Today I recognize collectivist vs individualist thinking. It’s in the way one asks questions and seeks answers. Thomas Pynchon said it best: “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers”.

Libertarian is a lifestyle, or philosophy for living. When one lives libertarian, she has principals (recognized, I suppose, as “libertarian principles” by some who are still making the transition). S/he practices liberty, sees all monopoly “power” as coercion and evil. S/he believes in the worth of the marketplace for resolving human problems. Human problems that will always develop where there are groups of human beings.

I used to lament, “…I wish I could be a Methodist. Or a Catholic. Or a Democrat…” You see, in any of those collectivist entities there is usually a printing entitled “statement-of-beliefs” (or “planks” for the Demopublicans). I could open a book, read down the line and remark, “…gee — I’m glad I believe that!…” I wouldn’t need think, or to be responsible for the questions I asked or the answers I accepted. However, since I was libertarian, I couldn’t be Methodist. Or Demopublican. Doesn’t mean I didn’t have opinions regarding “g-d”, or current events. Sometimes I had them in spades. Not so much in my dotage.

If you’re a libertarian you must be anarchist. Because “anarchy” merely means “without central political authority”. There’s nothing to join. It’s the way you live, the way you think, the principles upon which you believe and in which you practice. I can’t make any rules for you, and I don’t think in terms of “creating a system” (collectivist thinking).

That’s my opinion. Which could be flawed. Sam

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Jorge Trucco January 4, 2017 at 8:06 am
  
  I totally agree, Sam.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Ross Milburn November 5, 2016 at 1:47 am

I advocate a “scientific” viewpoint, because science supports evidence-based and therefore “objective” truth, that can be agreed by any clear-thinking person. At the heart of libertarianism, and anarchy, are the natural human desire to be as free as possible. To be as free “as possible,” implies freedom that can be possessed by all members of a society. Therefore, a society that would tolerate criminals who rape or steal is not considered “free” because rapists and thieves reduce the freedom of other people. That is why the Non-Aggression Principle was invented.

A society with a coercive government is not “free” because all its members, apart from the ruler(s), are subject to the arbitrary power of the state, which is actually indistinguishable from “crime,” because it comprises the initiation of force.

But notice that if we do not wish to tolerate “crime,” by individuals or the state, then we must agree consensually to live by rules that prohibit such crime. That implies a means of arresting people who initiate force, of trying them in a court, and using “defensive” force to reduce the damage that they do to the non-criminal majority.

A legal system costs money, and therefore, all libertarians (or “anarchists” if they prefer that highly ambiguous title) who wish to live in a libertarian society must somehow join with other like-minded people and agree the rules that make such a society possible. That process includes the agreement of all members to pay a (probably minuscule) charge for the laws that determine freedom. Of course, it would be morally legitimate for criminals to be set too work to pay for the damage they do, including the cost of administering justice. So it is just possible that libertarianism would be free of cost to non-criminals.

Of course, I know that plenty of libertarians, finding the subject hard to think about clearly, give up and reach the pathetic conclusion that libertarianism is just a personal philosophy, and that we will always have coercive governments. I do not wish to be rude to anyone, but I must say that people who claim that society cannot be changed are considerably lacking in intellectual courage, and perhaps common sense. Humans are enormously intelligent, and nearly all of us value freedom and want to live in a “fair” society. The idea that we cannot ever bring this about is a very silly idea indeed.

Of course we can build a libertarian society! Indeed we have already done this in the Stone Age, when simple hunter-gatherers would not tolerate coercive leadership. Later, we fell back to the chimpanzee-like “dominance hierarchy” only as a result of war over resources, when we became the dominant hunter on the planet. We no longer need to fight over resources, because we have markets and laws – we merely have to agree to use them properly.

So the answers to Ethan Shukis’ questions are:

(1) No, you cannot be a libertarian if you want coercive government, large or small. You must understand that humans, being intelligent, are biologically adapted to collaborate by voluntarism, which could be called “consensual governance” if it involved the agreement of all.

(2) Yes, you can avoid majority rule by avoiding any arbitrary central authority. We could still make consensual decisions, if we all agreed on something. Of course, we must have laws, to define property rights, contracts, and to prohibit the use of force. “Freedom” cannot be attained unless we agree to restrain individuals who destroy the freedom of others.

(3) You say “voluntaryism leads to governance” but more accurately, “voluntaryism leads to collaboration.” Of course, large-scale voluntaryism, such as building an airport near your town, may seem a bit like “governance” but it is not coercive, and does not reduce your liberty.

(5) As a principled libertarian, you cannot oppose all anarchism, because many anarchists simply wish to remove the coercive state that contravenes the Non-Aggression Principle, just as common crime does. However, you can oppose anarchists who are simply against all “restrictions,” including the laws that prohibit the initiation of force. No human society can exist without having, at least, implicit rules against the use of force. The Non-Aggression Principle extends this prohibition to include state criminals.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Jorge Trucco January 4, 2017 at 8:10 am
  
  But who will impose those “resgtrictions”? a political authority? I’d oppose that.
  A free society is a private society. Owners of places will have rules. But that woulld not be centralized. Then there is factors such as reputation, ostracism, social boycott, etc.
  A laissez-faire society as explained by the Tannehills, is the onlu freedom that exists.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Lee Roesner November 15, 2016 at 9:36 am

Ross, excellent comments. That’s it in a nutshell.

The thing is this, if human beings were all of a sudden put into a state of total anarchy, in a moment, they would begin to organize the moment next. To try to stay and operate in a “state” of condition of individual existence, believe it or not, will require force to keep us from organizing. It is out of our hands.

There is just too much economic benefit in co-operating. That’s to say there is too much gain to be had, and then too much pleasure on top of that. We cannot stop it. We are creators and producers, and we can create more and have more with less of our finite time and energy, by co-operating.

There is only the question of how we organize, but that is out of our hands too.

Scientifically speaking, biologically speaking and philosophically speaking, there is no such thing as anarchy. Sorry folks.

Despite what we believe, feel, think and want in our heads, it is all very well organized out here, and organized at every moment, and organized by reason, and organized to perfection. You cannot have it any way you want it. This is “objective truth”, otherwise called “reality”…and so much of it is missing in these conversations.

Human beings will intellectually organize with others on a grander scale whether you want it or not. It’s only natural. Now you may not want to organize beyond a handshake with your neighbor (then don’t), but the vast majority will and do, to attempt greater gain…and you gain the economic benefits just as well.

But, if we intellectually choose to organize by force (that is forced organization), we will fail every time, as human history makes self evident. There is reason for that, and that reason is not because we used the wrong “plan”…although we keep trying.

Bottom line is it doesn’t matter what one feels or believes, there is scientific reason why forced organization fails, because there are scientific reasons (physical reasons) for co-operating and not co-operating, that have to do with cause and effect and gain and loss, the ultimate lesson the goofy human race still has not figured out.

Bottom line is, this whole anarchy thing to me, is intellectually immature, as the “objective truth” here is, the quality of our lives is directly relative the degree and level we can voluntarily co-operate. This physical reality cannot be escaped.

There is only to co-operate better…and that is to co-operate more efficiently, and the “objective truth” is, that is only possible in a “State” of freedom. That’s what you should have voted for, you’re own freedom, and everyone else, whether or not it was on the ballet, that is the greatest attempt at intellectual organization, as flawed as it may or may not be at the moment, meant to set the fundamental ground rules of human interaction.

Again, great job Ross.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Sam Spade November 17, 2016 at 9:51 pm
  
  Lee Roesner November 15, 2016 at 9:36 am:
  
  “…Scientifically speaking, biologically speaking and philosophically speaking, there is no such thing as anarchy…”
  
  Quoting from “The Obviousness of Anarchy“, John Hasnas:
  
  <p style=”text-align: right;”>”…Anarchy refers to a society without a central political authority. But it is also</p>
  <p style=”text-align: right;”>used to refer to disorder or chaos. This constitutes a textbook example of Orwellian</p>
  <p style=”text-align: right;”>newspeak in which assigning the same name to two different concepts effectively</p>
  <p style=”text-align: right;”>narrows the range of thought. For if lack of government is identified with the lack of</p>
  <p style=”text-align: right;”>order, no one will ask whether lack of government actually results in a lack of order.</p>
  <p style=”text-align: right;”>And this uninquisitive mental attitude is absolutely essential to the case for the state.</p>
  <p style=”text-align: right;”>For if people were ever to seriously question whether government is really productive</p>
  <p style=”text-align: right;”>of order, popular support for government would almost instantly collapse…”</p>
  
  I’m thinking, Lee, you are approaching this idea from the collectivist point of view. That there is no such thing as anarchy — because it would require “we“, or perhaps some other collective, to achieve success in producing or creating and/or sustaining anarchy.
  
  I am a sovereign state. As a result of my sovereignty I am the wealthiest man in my city. A goodly part of my wealth derives from the fact that I recognize the reality that I do not need the input from others for me to be free. I must take the necessary steps to acquire and maintain my liberty. I hope you become free also, but that is not my responsibility.
  
  My freedom does not require “a village”. It requires me. Sam
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Lee Roesner November 18, 2016 at 2:02 pm
    
    Hi Sam…I read this a few times over and do not disagree at all with the quote above, or even your statements about being a sovereign state. I get it, and not arguing — but agreeing with those points. I am not suggesting we force a “we”. I only attempt is to expand the meanings of these statements outside the box, to something larger.
    
    “Anarchy refers to a society without a central political authority. “
    
    Yes, but know the word anarchy is also suggesting, and is understood to be, a society without order.
    
    Anarchy, as it’s understood to be, is a concept that fails before it even gets off the ground.
    
    My point is this, order “happens” naturally without force, as the rest of the quote above is suggesting.
    
    When individuals are free, they mutually co-operate without force. That is to say, they organize…naturally, and for reason…without force.
    
    AND, if people do not co-operate, it’s for reason just all well. All together, this co-operation and non-co-operation manifests “organization” that is all by reason, that is not by force.
    
    Why co-operate?
    
    Individuals freely co-operate (or not) at different levels, because there is economic benefit in doing so (or not) …AND…economic benefit is pleasurable. There is more productivity, more stuff, more comfort, more security, more love, more life, more fun, more, more, more — all for less work. This cannot be achieved without mutually-agreed-to co-operation…and cannot be achieved by force.
    
    So to initiate anarchy, that is to remove all government force, as so many understand anarchy here to be, you will not have anarchy — or disorder. Natural order will take its place…that is all by economic reason.
    
    Co-operation, if free, IS inherently, mutually agreed, “natural”, “unforced” organization.
    
    What I see missing from these conversations, is that this is a natural biological process. Yes, the invisible hand. But this is only the beginning of this process, that has direction, driven by pain and pleasure, that are directly linked to physical gain and physical loss.
    
    They next rung up on the biological ladder of co-operation and non-co-operation, driven by the desire to reach greater gain and greater pleasure, is only by intellectual organization. A need makes itself self evident, that we require formalizing, by intellect, foundational and mutually-agreed-to operating principles…if we are to co-operate efficiently (economically) beyond a group of 2 or 3 individuals.
    
    But, there is no need to pull these principles out of our a$$, as many assume, as we would naturally discover there are fundamental, operating commonalities inside all the independent groups of freely co-operating individuals.
    
    Those commonalities are distilled and become fundamental operating principles, THAT IS NOT COERCIVE FORCE, but defensive, that define and protect fundamental individual “rights”, and so, that protect individuals from “wrongs”…that formalize the fundamental “natural right” to be 1) alive, and 2) free from the force of another.
    
    Can we not all agree on that?
    
    But then, with freedom and liberty in hand, and with the mutually-agreed-to operational ground rules of the game of civilization set, ADMINISTERED AND PROTECTED by mutual consent, there is the next intellectual level of mutual and free co-operation, and that is the middle-ground, and that is the playing of the game.
    
    That’s were democracy comes in…and if it is not understood, how it becomes abused, and used to overtake these fundamental operating principles of freedom and liberty, to force another.
    
    You don’t want anarchy, what you really want, is freedom and liberty, and you want that protected for you and for others, by you and by others.
    
    But then I could be wrong…
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Randall Chester Saunders November 15, 2016 at 11:23 am

Hi Lee,

“The thing is this, if human beings were all of a sudden put into a state of total anarchy, in a moment, they would begin to organize the moment next. …

“There is just too much economic benefit in co-operating. That’s to say there is too much gain to be had, and then too much pleasure on top of that. We cannot stop it. We are creators and producers, and we can create more and have more with less of our finite time and energy, by co-operating.”

<b>Cooperation does not require organization.</b>

You can look at the spontaneous relationships of individuals pursuing their own lives and objectives, cooperating freely with one another whenever and wherever it is to their own advantage as “organization” if you like, but organization usually implies some collective method of that places the, “organization,” above individual interests, which actually cancels the advantages of free cooperation.

There is no reason individuals cannot freely cooperate without joining anything and without some externally imposed “organization.” If people choose to cooperate they simply cooperate, they don’t have to organize some kind of club, or gang, or society, or system imposed by force, do they?

Randy

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Ethan Shukis November 15, 2016 at 12:39 pm

See, but this still requires an implicit agreement with the way these laws are made. Small scale we could expect everyone to have an equal say (but if you disagree what then? You’d have to put up with it), but we’re not small scale, and as we know from our stances on cooperation, we don’t prefer it. It’s not as effective because it limits the kind of amazing specialization we could utilize that Adam Smith wrote about.

So that goes back to my original post..we may like the thought of everyone being able to give consent to every law, but I don’t think that to be feasible. Large scale communities limit that, and again if there’s one law out of the bunch you disagree with, how likely would you find a society where you agreed with every law? Again, when communities coalesce, it limits that kind of utopia we could find, unless we could have that in basically what we should be at now with state governance and localities working under a federal branch (for the specialization I mentioned…think about the farming states vs industry ones).

At some point society by ease becomes so large that certain laws have to be accepted, not necessarily agreed with. We don’t want just laws to protect from property fraud and crime, but commercial fraud. But where is that line drawn? I could support x policy for protecting people from fraud, yet oppose y. I think we can’t practically reach a truly voluntary society.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Al Gutierrez` November 17, 2016 at 2:54 pm
  
  Let us say if you disagree with someone you can then have the flexibility to move i9f you wish or if part of a small town you can then find an area where you can move to and eventually find people that would agree with you. Let us not forget that in an ancap society each group can formulate polycentric law which is what is suited for a specific area and not one size fits all that the state imposes under threat of force. Again I cited examples of history demonstrating that an ancap can and does work from the Wild West to Ireland and Cospaia. The Not so Wild West by Terry Anderson is best along with The Voluntary City
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Ross Milburn November 20, 2016 at 8:52 am
    
    Al Gutierrez,
    
    If you only want a solution for a handful of people, they can build a small town in South America, Alaska, Siberia, or on a Pacific Island, and live without the great cultural benefits of large cities. But what about the 7.4 billion people living with the boot of the state on their necks? We need a system of freedom that will work for our species!
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Mal Roarke is a pseudonym… November 20, 2016 at 2:59 pm
      
      Chimming in, commenting prior to Al.
      
      Ross, your question would seem to get the answers that the WE, the state, government, top down, command control group traps form follows function, set up, lead to, answer and presume…Instead of individualism, bottom up, spontaneous order…
      
      Perhaps, just perhaps START with a question, the right question, the one that does not pre-suppose government in one’s question. After all govt is only a small subset of POLITICS….
      
      A beginning introductory question might be: Is working on your own freedom, and hanging out with those who want you to be free predicated on feeding every starving person, freeing every slave etc etc?
      
      There already is so many people who vote with their feet, some, many people who subscribe to linux, subscribe to bitcoin, subscribe to encryption etc…
      
      Those communities and others are perhaps more numerous and less in the outback nor need they be then some imagine.
      
      How are you freeing yourself? Why is that important, not important to you? Searching this thread perhaps points to some questions and perhaps some answers? That might spur, catalyze your own creative juices, connections etc?
      
      Think of all those who home school? If you were home schooling would you really care if 7 billion people were properly re oriented on their thinking and life style and freedom from govt?…I could go on, but there is so much out there…
      
      Starting with your own mind set, your own attitude and assumed philosophical truisms.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Ross Milburn November 23, 2016 at 5:55 am
      
      Hello Mal Roarke,
      
      “Spontaneous order” is great – for termites, which have zero intelligence, and which are controlled by pheromones to employ their behavioral repertoire suitably to build termite mounds, etc., as a result of evolutionary engineering. But humans who sign multi-million dollar contracts for infrastructure projects need laws that specify what has been agreed down to the last dollar. You know I’m right, surely?
      
      On Libertyme.com there are some people who, like yourself, advocate optimising your own life within the constraints of the coercive state, and ignoring the plight of others. There are also some people who, like myself, advocate their theories of stable self-government that will evolve over time, if mother nature has her way. It seems you belong to the first group, and I the second.
      
      These two activities are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to minimise your tax burden, not vote, home school, use linux, encryption, bitcoin etc., while also advocating a libertarian system of self-government. However, a human living under coercive state is like an animal in a bad zoo – sure, you can “pretend” to be free, but humans are social animals and life in a society dictated by political criminals with sovereign power is never going to equal the real thing. If the madmen running our world start a major war, will those choosing independence be immune to nuclear weapons? Or even to conscription into the armed services? Everybody minimises tax, but it is unwise to push one’s luck. Why do we need encryption, unless we are fermenting violence, which you seem to disavow? Linux seems attractive but most of us reject it for inferior application support. Bitcoin is intriguing, but there was a US$65 million theft of bitcoins in Hong Kong (where I live) recently. Home schooling is an excellent idea, but most of us work for a living and don’t have the time. And home schooling is a poor substitute for the “social schooling” (child-centered education within a free society) that is natural in a genuinely free society. Incidentally, today I spent several hours and hundreds of dollars getting a VISA to visit communist China, which is near my home. What would you have me do, Mal: pole-vault over the fence?
      
      Of course, we know why politicians maintain coercive conditions for the general population – they are parasites that benefit from it. And those of us who oppose them gain nothing from our efforts. But do you really believe that we should all leave the design of society to politicians, who seem to be the most ruthless, unprincipled, and often unintelligent groups we know of?
      
      Finally, I shall continue to be an uncompromising libertarian and attempt to minimise the effect of the coercive state on my life, as I have always done – so thank you for your positive comments!
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Craig Spencer November 23, 2016 at 2:08 pm
      
      Spontaneous order works rather well for humans too. It produces such things as the English language and the global scale coordination and cooperation within which it makes sense for some people to “sign multi-million dollar contracts.”
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Mal Roarke is a pseudonym… November 26, 2016 at 2:39 am
      
      Re: ‘Hello Mal Roarke (AtlasAikido)’,
      
      And
      
      Re: ‘Of course, we know why politicians [and those played by them] maintain coercive conditions for the general population – they are parasites that benefit from it. And those of us [Ross Milburn] who oppose them gain nothing from our [Ross Milburn’s] efforts. But do you [AtlasAikido] really believe that we [Ross Milburn] should all leave the design of society to politicians, who seem to be the most ruthless, unprincipled, and often unintelligent groups we know of?**’
      
      AND
      
      Re: ‘“Spontaneous order” is great – for termites, which have zero intelligence, and which are controlled by pheromones to employ their behavioral repertoire suitably to build termite mounds, etc., as a result of [observable] evolutionary engineering [“mother nature”]. But humans who sign multi-million dollar contracts for infrastructure projects need laws that specify what has been agreed down to the last dollar. You know I’m right, surely?’
      
      -WOW! That is such a witty, convincing rebuttal! sarcasm off
      
      -Behold what Hayek and Thomas Sowell coined as the fatal conceit of [pseudo] intellectuals Vs the [implied] knowledge of mundanes. And what Orwell coined DOUBLE speak.
      
      -Watch “Spontaneous Order vs. Centralized Control” on YouTube
      
      ———-
      
      Re: “On Libertyme.com there are some people who, like yourself [AtlasAikido] , advocate optimising your own life within the constraints of the coercive state [upholding ‘“Spontaneous order” which per you Ross Milburn is (only) great (RELEVANT) – for termites, which have zero intelligence etc, and yet this IS the very SAME mindset, school of thought as politicians], AND [which involves] ignoring the plight of others. There are also some people who, like myself [Ross Milburn], advocate their theories of stable self-government that will evolve over time, if mother nature has her way. It seems you [AtlasAikido] belong to the first group, and I [Ross Milburn] the second.’
      
      -Indeed as to the first group Watch “The [Phenomena of] Spontaneous Order Vs. Centralized Control” [the second group] on YouTube
      
      Watch “I, Pencil Extended Commentary: Spontaneous Order” on YouTube
      
      ——
      
      I am reviewing Ross Milburn’s post…
      
      Re: ‘These two activities are not mutually exclusive…’
      
      AND
      
      Re: ‘However, a human living under coercive state is like an animal in a bad zoo – sure, you can “pretend” to be free, but humans are social animals and life in a society dictated by political criminals with sovereign power is never going to equal the real thing.
      
      AND
      
      Re: ‘….Incidentally, today I spent several hours and hundreds of dollars getting a VISA to visit communist China, which is near my home. What would you have me do, Mal: pole-vault over the fence?’
      
      Call me Atlas, one of my favorite parts in the movie, Rob Roy is the scene where the MacGregor Clan is contemplating on what to do about the feudal landlord thugs who destroyed their home and property. Rob Roy comes to the conclusion that it is more reasonable to not retaliate, because he fears the retribution from the retaliation will be swift and ruthless. He understands that everyone is still breathing in and out, and that property that is lost can be regained except for the self, once that is lost, it’s lost forever. I would like to expand further on this point, because I think it cuts right to the heart of the matter. In this movie scene, Rob Roy demonstrates that even the concept of personal property is not of higher value than one’s own life. One cannot recreate and rebuild if one is not alive…
      
      Clearly Ross, you have decided there is a price to be paid and have decided to pay it. This time…
      
      Given your asserted confusions regarding the few offerred free market alternatives that do not require forced SUBSCRIBERS and Economies of Scale that naturally emanate (which you poo poo as Irrelevant, Time and Energy wasters) then all the more reason to not WASTE my and your life, home schooling you, given the BEST you can come up with IS “What would you have me do, Mal [AtlasAikido]: pole-vault over the fence?”
      
      The point of achieving proficiency in any martial art is to be able to walk away from a fight…ESPECIALLY if it’s a foreseeable avalanche…
      
      A Bruce Lee student was asked what I would do if someone stuck a knife in my ribs and wanted my wallet. “My [paraphrased] answer was immediate. I’d make change! There are times you should fight and times you should SPLIT…”
      
      The total population of the United States is: 324,961,751.
      
      So, here is a very significant raw number: 198,600,142 people either did not choose to vote, including about 47% of registered voters, or were not registered, or not eligible to register to vote.
      
      As a result of this one basic fact of non-participation, only 18.44% of the American people voted for Donald Trump. About 18.55% of Americans voted for $hillary. Fully 61.11% of the American people did not vote.
      
      Raw Numbers, Real People, by Jim Davidson
      
      http://ncc-1776.org/tle2016/tle898-20161113-05.html
      
      Is it conceivable that sufficient numbers, **defacto libertarians** [mundanes], have already walked away And gotten a life? Yes! So much for those who say the libertarians vote (seceding with your feet re -associating with like kind) don’t count locally nor globally…
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Ross Milburn November 29, 2016 at 2:22 am
      
      Hello Mal,
      
      I presume that you have just stumbled on the (excellent) video (“Spontaneous Order vs. Centralized Control”) about spontaneous order and think that you can be the first to break the news of this innovation to the older generation, such as myself, who are so set in our ways. But the video itself refers to Adam Smith who wrote his major opus in 1776, so you’ll have to speed up in your thought processes if you want to be the “flash Harry” of Libertarianism!
      
      Another little point that I’ll draw to your attention is that you seem to assume that my theory of “stable self-government” that you deride, somehow conflicts with spontaneous order. But you did not watch your video attentively enough old chap – otherwise you would have seen the great emphasis it places on the fact that spontaneous order can only take place when “people are left to organize their own lives.” But the state does not leave people to organize their own lives – it attempts to rule by top-down force, as the video clearly describes. And the communist system, with the greatest of all ignorance of spontaneous order, does the most damage, and produces catastrophic results.
      
      So how will humans get back to living in a society regulated by spontaneous order, Mal? Do you actually have any opinions on this, or just sarcasm? I would point out that the state – the political class – is an extremely efficient parasite that makes a very good living out of defeating spontaneous order. So if you advocate spontaneous order, then you must somehow determine how the parasitic state can be encouraged to permit that spontaneity, right?
      
      Supposing you had a dog with parasitic fleas? Or, supposing you had a daughter with a parasitic tapeworm in her intestine? What would you do, Mal – sit there making sarcastic comments, waiting for the fleas to spontaneously jump off the dog, and the tapeworm to spontaneously slither out of your daughter without killing her?
      
      I am confident that you have ample intelligence to act like a normal dog-owner or parent and get rid of the parasites by any means within your power. You could also consider supporting those libertarians who are manly enough, or womanly enough, to contribute what they can to the struggle against the parasitic forces that are currently defeating the spontaneous order of our societies, with such terrible consequences. When I propose “the rule of law” I am proposing libertarian law, including the Non-Aggression Principle that lies at the heart of all liberty, as well as, for example, property rights, without which we cannot have markets, without which we cannot utilize spontaneous order. Watch the video again if you can’t follow this.
      
      I would prefer to hear your own, constructive and sincere thoughts on how liberty can be promoted, by spontaneous order or anything else. And if you do choose to write more directly, how about dropping your confusing pseudonym – Mal Roarke seems a very satisfactory name to me?
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Mal Roarke is a pseudonym… December 11, 2016 at 11:15 pm
      
      Watch “Sheldon Richman: Spontaneous Order and Its Value to Society” on YouTube
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Mal Roarke is a pseudonym… December 12, 2016 at 2:24 pm
      
      Watch “The Inevitable Collapse of the State” on YouTube
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Mal Roarke is a pseudonym… January 31, 2017 at 4:25 pm
      
      Perhaps Mal Roarke intended to leave something appropriate for YOU–Ross Milburn–to write about!
      
      INSTEAD of writing about “pseudonyms”, “termite” colony spontaneous order (methodological individualism), AND as such UNfit for “an animal in a bad zoo”, “dogs with fleas”, LET ALONE children with the “tapeworm” of STATE assimilation in the malevolent hands of “flash Harry”, libertarian “opinions” etc…, Roarke chose to write about laissez-faire capitalist libertarian anarchist…heroes standing on the shoulders of Adam Smith–without strategies that enslave nor disarm others–and that are in accord with freedom, cooperation, trade, safety, protection, security and order such as:
      
      1. Mal Roarke December 11, 2016 at 11:15 pm
      
      Watch “Sheldon Richman: Spontaneous Order and Its Value to Society” on YouTube
      
      AND
      
      2. Mal Roarke December 12, 2016 at 2:24 pm
      
      Watch “Jeffrey Tucker The Inevitable Collapse of the State” on YouTube
      
      AND
      
      3. Mal Roarke November 26, 2016 at 2:39 am
      
      Raw Numbers, Real People, by Jim Davidson
      
      http://ncc-1776.org/tle2016/tle898-20161113-05.html
      
      Is it conceivable that sufficient numbers, **DEFACTO libertarians** [mundanes], have already walked away And gotten a life? Yes! So much for those who say the libertarians vote (Seceding with your feet re -Associating with like kind) don’t count locally nor globally…
      
      Regarding children:
      
      …By making my life better i.e. Voting with my feet–My children’s lives automatically START in better place. Of course they have free will, and they are free to screw it up as much as they want. There is no WE! tinyurl.com/there-is-no-we
      
      I am an individual as are my children. Even with children, (there is no We), living their lives for them puts one in a controlling position. One might as well be government.
      
      What about all the people who don’t have children? Hell, half the population don’t have children. Look at all the children and young adults who don’t have children.
      
      Ross Milburn’s whole argument falls apart for lack of children! Or perhaps its too many children? LOL!!
      
      Perhaps the government argument “for the chiiiildren” is a poor justification for anything.
      
      …Dear Reader, What was posted by me prior to these responses was a link briefly teasing out “The Covenant of Unanimous Consent” which is explicitly based on the Non Aggression Principle by L Neil Smith, and what it achieves as it relates to direct alternatives and personal inter-relationships in a division of labor society and its remnants.
      
      tinyurl.com/The-Bare-Minimum
      
      The Covenant of Unanimous Consent tinyurl.com/Covenant-and-Galts-Oath.
      
      I believe the above demonstrates a respect for ideas and individuals in communities, society without the need to convince nor control others i.e. “direct alternative” (the freedoms of “Live and Let Live”), which I submit is CERTAINLY NOT THE SAME as having a DISrespect for ideas, malevolence of others AND the “INdirect alternative” of fixing others to achieve one’s own ends!
      
      Regarding “sarcasm” and RESPECT for ideas…
      
      And
      
      Re: “I would prefer to hear your own, constructive and sincere thoughts on how liberty can be promoted, by spontaneous order or anything else [including methodological individualism and EMULATION]”.
      
      Someone who beats one over the head with false equivalencies–PUNS are made from switching contexts–and for failing “to speed up in your thought processes if you want to be the “flash Harry” of Libertarianism! Etc has NO respect for ideas LET alone Adam Smith, which ARE BEING used by me https://connect.liberty.me/ and others, Sheldon Richman, Jeffrey Tucker…100’S of years after his death! Someone with actual respect for ideas, individuals and order would be thanking me!
      
      AtlasAikido
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Brian Farmer November 15, 2016 at 8:04 pm

Ethan, you need to differentiate between coercive governance and voluntary governance. Being an anarchist doesn’t mean you oppose all governance, it just means you oppose coercive governance. For example, you may be a member of a golf club, and elect someone to help run it and organize it. They may get to make decision on when and where to have meetings, and how to spend membership money. But you voluntarily joined, and you are always allowed to opt-out if you want. With coercive governance, they don’t take kindly to you wanting to opt-out.

>Large scale communities limit that, and again if there’s one law out of the bunch you disagree with, how likely would you find a society where you agreed with every law?

Every man’s home is his castle. You can always retreat to your own home.

>I think we can’t practically reach a truly voluntary society.

Easy. Every man’s home is his castle. He is making a voluntary choice when he leaves his castle. (When in Rome, you do as Roman’s do. When you leave your castle, you are voluntarily choosing to accept the rules of whomever’s castle you enter next.)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Ross Milburn November 16, 2016 at 2:35 am

Thanks Lee, you and I seem to be in rather close agreement. Randy, I know, does not believe in “joining.” I am ready to fight to the death against being “made” to join, if such a battle has a good chance of victory. But I equally insist on my right to join others in any activity I think is profitable, fun, and moral.

Supposing in a future libertarian society, half a million people, including Randy, are invited to consider building an airport in a local area of low population, what will Randy say? Let me guess: “I don’t want to join the mailing list. I don’t want to hear about the opportunity to invest in what some think will be a very profitable venture. I don’t want to hear about the airport’s sound footprint, so that I may object if I believe my environment will be illegally damaged (remember the NAP includes sound pollution). I don’t want to take part in the discussion of the size and scope of the airport that might critically affect my quality of life.” What does Randy have against joining others in voluntary governance of his own home district? I don’t know that.

If an airport does require that free people join together voluntarily to make it happen, so does “civilisation.” Quite simply, until we are able to work together voluntarily to suppress those who contravene the NAP, then we will continue to be ruled – and ruthlessly exploited – by both criminals and political criminals who use force.

Ethan, you seem to support voluntarism for small societies, but believe it is harder for larger societies. That’s just propaganda from cunning politicians and lazy academics. The imaginary “discussions” or “agreements” that you think are impracticable are completely unnecessary. Nearly the whole of our current legal systems are unnecessary. The global laws supporting the NAP, such as prohibitions on rape, and theft, and the definition of valid contracts and property rights, will almost never change and require minimum discussion. Most of the regulations that supposedly protect people against suppliers, or employers, for example, will not be required in a free society, because the NAP already implies complete, universal, and long-term protection against any “harms” based on force.

Everything else in society will be achieved by free people, as individuals, or as voluntary companies, or as voluntary communities. Most infrastructure will probably be owned by cities, villages, or other voluntary communities. Many communities will be culturally exclusive through their monopolistic land ownership, to protect their members from mass intrusion of alien cultures. So, while some people, especially the young, may prefer multicultural city communities, most will live content in their own culture (under the NAP though), and by land ownership. So people who value an “English”, or “Catholic,” or “Judaic,” or “Moslem” culture, will no longer have to invest in barbaric force to live separately from those whom they do not want as neighbours. Won’t that be an improvement?

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Randall Chester Saunders November 16, 2016 at 3:26 pm
  
  Hi Ross,
  
  “Supposing in a future libertarian society, half a million people, including Randy …”
  
  You don’t know Randy. He won’t ever be ‘part’ of any organized society. He might live in the midst of one, have friends and associates who are a part of it, but he will never be part of it himself.
  
  If I want an airport, I’ll build one. If you want an airport, build it. If you, or any other number of individuals cooperate in the building of an airport on your property, and I don’t like it, that’s my problem.
  
  Randy
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Al Gutierrez` November 17, 2016 at 11:30 pm

Anarchism comes from the ancient Greek meaning simply no central authority and/or the abolition of government It is quite clear per the definition If you want to term it private governance, Voluntaryist. These are synonyms for the same type of philosophy. As I stated before the Irish had such a system lasting over one thousand years. They resolved disputes without a coercive government In The Not So Wild West but existed as well by groups such as the miners, cattlemen associations and property clubs. Again the Not So Wild West by Terry Anderson and Voluntary City by David Beito. The aforementioned provides very strong and persuasive evidence that it has existed and it worked and it can work again

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

RJ Miller November 23, 2016 at 7:32 pm

I don’t think it’s possible to fully eliminate majoritarian rule, any time mutually-exclusive options must be chosen for the same circumstances there really isn’t a way around it.

But I do see where you’re coming from on this. Government’s main problem is that it renders a single decision on an entire governed region based on what just over have the voting public wants.

I’d suggest you take at concepts like panarchy or FOCJ as ways of making government more “bearable” by Libertarian standards. When people are able to act peacefully irrespective of what everyone else wishes to impose on them, then true independence is the end result.

Also, I’d like to second the recommendation made by @raftrunner93 – “The Voluntary City” is an awesome work that even Jerry Brown of all people (governor of California) found insightful.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Sam Spade November 26, 2016 at 2:02 pm

Ethan Shukis, I’ll first congratulate you on an excellent topic. As I see it, any discussion forum, or forum topic, is only as good as the number of divergent comments elicited. You’ve brought forward a goodly number — from all the “ism’s”. So give yourself a pat on the back (but beware: don’t strain your arm :-] doing it!).

My personal “ism” stems from a non-collectivist stance — individualist to be exact: The world revolves around my belly-button, not yours. My world. The advantage that “ism” provides me is the understanding that your world revolves around your belly-button — whether you admit it or not. Therefore, I can rest more easily tonight knowing you did not spend a large part of your day in attempt to oppose or undermine me. You’re naturally far more concerned about yourself and your views than you are about me and mine.

I think about myself more than I think about you. (Incidentally, this concept is the gambit in the science of rulership that “voluntary compliance” — an oxymoron if there ever was such a thing — is all about. The ability to rule others rests on the need to quash all individualistic tendencies from the hoi polloi. Individualism must be seen as “selfishness”. There are a couple comments even here on this “Liberty.me” topic of yours that have crept in to point to that).

A fun time to be alive. Congratulations again on a good thread. Sam

I suffer from the confirmation bias from which you and other posters and commenters suffer. You can be certain that I will try to stack all the “evidence” in my favor.

<p style=”text-align: center;”>”…Second, is it possible to create a system which removes majoritarian rule?…”</p>
<p style=”text-align: left;”>Individualism asks me to resist the temptation to attempt “…to create a system…” which would include you — voluntarily or involuntarily. I’m a strong believer in the marketplace — unsaddled by collectivist (state) intervention. Since none of us have ever seen such a condition, it is difficult to imagine. Therefore, libertarian and anarchist theories abound. But psychopaths, hiding under the mantle of “government”, have always had their grubby fingers in the cookie jar — as far back as most of us can remember or even comprehend.</p>

<p style=”text-align: left;”>Sam</p>
<p style=”text-align: left;”></p>
<p style=”text-align: left;”>(You’ll have to forgive me for being old, compooter illiterate, and incapable of navigating around in this forum format. I try, but it seems to always come up conflabulated, and half of my comment seems to have disappeared in the dust. I simply don’t comprehend the various commands. I grew up in an age when one had to think — nothing was “programmed” to the extent that all s/he needed to do was to follow “prompts”)</p>

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Adrian Bartholomew December 23, 2016 at 2:27 pm

On Principle – Government – however small – contradicts the non-aggression principle by physically threatening anyone who offers competing Rights Protection Services.
However, because a society, without a Rights Protection Service (usually supplied by a Government), generally deteriorates into chaos and eventually Dictatorship, it is a time sensitive issue.

Dissolving an existing rights violating body such as a Government must be done only after private rights protecting institutions are in place and available for public consumption- if Freedom is the goal.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Randall Chester Saunders December 23, 2016 at 3:39 pm

Hi Adrian,

“However, because a society, without a Rights Protection Service (usually supplied by a Government), generally deteriorates into chaos and eventually Dictatorship …”

Since this, “generally,” happens, how about a couple of examples of it.

Randy

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Rob Wells December 23, 2016 at 6:10 pm
  
  Good question Randy. I would have thought that the bulk of the evidence points to the opposite view. The state crowds-out non violent solutions and when the state does not provide “Rights Protection Services” (is that an oxymoron?) then private solutions emerge. Ed Stringham provides some nice examples of this in his publications but there is plenty of other research supporting this view.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Randall Chester Saunders December 23, 2016 at 8:47 pm

Hi Rob,

“‘Rights Protection Services’ (is that an oxymoron?)”

Sounds oxymoronic to me, since those, “services,” always involve the use of force.

I do not know where this view that, “sans government,” automatically means society devolves into, “chaos,” and, “dictatorship,” comes from, but someone needs to point out that, “chaos,” and, “dictated order,” are contradictory.

Randy

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

1 2