Thread: From Limited Government to Anarchy in Ten Easy Steps

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

So we need a centralized government of thieves and gangsters in order to protect us from gangsters and thieves?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So we need a centralized government of thieves and gangsters in order to protect us from gangsters and thieves?

Yes, we need gangsters and thieves who are threatened with the possibility of losing elections if they screw things up. Without that set up, we just have a bunch of gangsters and thieves threatened by nothing except not being bad ass enough to stay powerful. Elections have a way of taming thugs to a significant extent.

What do you think of what I said about the inevitability of government? Isn't somebody going to take charge sooner or later?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, we need gangsters and thieves who are threatened with the possibility of losing elections if they screw things up. Without that set up, we just have a bunch of gangsters and thieves threatened by nothing except not being bad ass enough to stay powerful. Elections have a way of taming thugs to a significant extent.

What do you think of what I said about the inevitability of government? Isn't somebody going to take charge sooner or later?

Well what happened to your propounding of liberty and freedom? You are now saying that we need people in power who have the ability to coerce and steal from us simply because you think that political parties can always inevitably be different. How are you going to limit the power of an institution in which you honestly declare that they are criminals?

Concerning the inevitability of government, I think that is a myth. I think order is inevitability due to its positive consequences but government is not order. Government in essence is civil war, with each class or interest group fighting one another to achieve the political power necessary to institute their agenda.

Concerning the 'American form of government' video, the author of this video seems to be making the same mistake as you do. Anarchy is not a system lacking order and law. It is a system lacking coercive governmental rule. Unless you conflate government with order, which is bizzare for limited government advocates because you would then need to explain how limiting government would not create more 'disorder'. I think I have previously stated this before, but the opposite of government providing everything is not that everyone has to provide for themselves. If you can buy dentist services, call girl services, psychological services, self-help services etc. on the free market, then the only thing barring police services [ going beyond private detectives ], fire fighting services, or road services is the fact that the government has a monopoly on these. It is illegal and impossible to compete against the government for these things. Why is a monopoly on governmental services acceptable yet private monopolies bad? I'd really like to hear an answer to this especially from someone who is an Austrian.

'The proper amount of government makes people freer'
This makes it sound like the government is a voluntary institution that doesn't coerce people to buy its services [ which it does through taxation ]. If this video proclaims that individuals who have a system of legal order thereby become free, then why must it be government?

This video portrays Fidel Castro...as an anarchist? Pray tell where is Castro's anarchist writings? I'd very much like to see this since I am a revisionist historian. It would be interesting to show the defunked Castro in a new light. Oh wait, now Lenin is an anarchist. Lenin actually insulted anarcho-socialists. He called them infantile. Lenin was a Marxist, and Marx himself was devoutely against Anarcho-Communism [ see his work "After the Revolution" which was an attack against Bakunin who was an Anarcho-Communist. Marx called him a "School boy" ]. And now Hitler came to power because of anarchy..? Pray tell, there was no German government experiencing hyperinflation during the 1930's?? I'm sorry but this is amateurish scholarship that completely strawmans what anarchism is and I refuse to continue to listen to it.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well what happened to your propounding of liberty and freedom? You are now saying that we need people in power who have the ability to coerce and steal from us simply because you think that political parties can always inevitably be different. How are you going to limit the power of an institution in which you honestly declare that they are criminals?

You know what kinds of shit politicians get into when they are caught being criminals. That is a deterrent that works to a significant extent. What do you suggest (that is realistic) would work better?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Concerning the inevitability of government, I think that is a myth. I think order is inevitability due to its positive consequences but government is not order. Government in essence is civil war, with each class or interest group fighting one another to achieve the political power necessary to institute their agenda.

Name one situation of anarchy that has lasted. When has there ever been an absence of government that was not soon filled by a power structure that fought for and gained control? We can either have democracy or some form of totalitarianism. Democracy seems to be the better of the two. Anarchy is not a possibility.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You know what kinds of shit politicians get into when they are caught being criminals. That is a deterrent that works to a significant extent. What do you suggest (that is realistic) would work better?

Well I have already told you what system would be better. You haven't really responded to the points though.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Name one situation of anarchy that has lasted. When has there ever been an absence of government that was not soon filled by a power structure that fought for and gained control? We can either have democracy or some form of totalitarianism. Democracy seems to be the better of the two. Anarchy is not a possibility.

From 930 AD to 1262 AD the Icelandic communities were essentially anarchistic, that is over 300 years of stable anarchy. Rhode Island from 1636 to 1648, was an anarchist community. Pennsylvania from 1681 to 1690. Right now there is a anarchist community in Denmark called Christiania which is still functioning. This myth that anarchism is a 'transitory' system of power has been squashed.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well I have already told you what system would be better. You haven't really responded to the points though.



From 930 AD to 1262 AD the Icelandic communities were essentially anarchistic, that is over 300 years of stable anarchy. Rhode Island from 1636 to 1648, was an anarchist community. Pennsylvania from 1681 to 1690. Right now there is a anarchist community in Denmark called Christiania which is still functioning. This myth that anarchism is a 'transitory' system of power has been squashed.

What you have described, and what your audio track has described (or at least the first half did since it was too long and boring to continue) have been very small communities. Of course an anarchist community could work on a small scale. Anything could work on a small scale. When you try to apply this to billions of people there are bound to be some differences. So I ask: prove how an anarchist form of society would be able to efficiently regulate the lives of 7 billion people.

Personally, I don't think it would work. Sometimes decisions need to be made. We live in a world where people don't just agree with each other. Sometimes decisions need to be made. Unfortunately, you can't always leave it to the group to decide.