What's bad about anarchy?
Problem is that it's hard to work and plan under the threat of someone killing you, enslaving you, or stealing your stuff.
Interesting line. The real problem however, is simply living your life. Threats ALWAYS exist in one form or another. Mountain lions, bears, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, meteors, hail, virii, bacteria, falling and breaking bones. Which of these can you work and plan for? After that, then you can get concerned about Thaddeus Thug, Tommy Thief and I.M. Tyrannus.
Remember this line, I'll get back to it.
Ergo the advantages of government - where, under some objective laws, murderers, slavers and thievers do not get to act out in the open.
Faulty premise. Laws simply prevent nothing. Laws simply state what are unacceptable in terms of behavior and some go so far as to spell out consequences for engaging in such behavior. If law were indeed effective at prevention we would live in a world without crime.
It is a mistake to confuse the seeking of liberty in socialist or mixed-economy nations with anarchy. It is an error perpetuated by both enemies of liberty, and accidentally by friends of liberty who lose sight of the reasons why liberty is important, and attack the idea of government itself rather than stratifying certain government activities as good or bad.
This is compounding error. Liberty is freedom of action exercised by an individual. Anarchy is where there are no external artificial restrictions such as laws and regulations imposed on liberty.
The open excesses of socialist and mixed-economy nations should not be mistaken as the OPPOSITE of anarchy. In both, an individual faces the scourge of enslavement, thievery, and sometimes murder. That in a socialist country this is rationalized as providing for a hungry person means little to the individual who is violated - a bandit in anarchy is likely just as hungry, or has just as much "need" for the unearned labor of his victim. In both predicaments, an honest man sees reduced potential rewards for his own labors.
The open excesses of any form of government and it's economy are strictly the fault of that form of government and it's economy. Government is, as a practical reality, a form of intervention into the exercise of liberty by individuals. It is interference with the individual.
Rational men want government so as to be protected from coercion at the whim of others. Government, however, can be perverted to coerce some men at the whim of others.
Don't you really mean fearful men want government so as to be protected from coercion at their whim? If you are unafraid to defend what is your property, why would you need government? Were you defended by government on 9.11.01? Has bombing Iraq for the past 13 years defended you? Since Haitians aren't pillaging your community or burning down your doors, are you being defended? Martha Stewart has been convicted for lying to government, were you defended? Since the Ohio sniper is being investigated by police, are you being defended? Oh, that's right! The law has prevented him from acting in such a manner. Therefore there is no Ohio sniper. Since we are protected by the law then apparently we need no armed agents of the government.
************************************************************
Here's another gem! This one is by RatFink:
There could never bee true anarchy. The world is full of too many sheep that would need to huddle together under the protection/rule of someone stronger. At the very least it would turn into tribalism.
So, families are sheep? What is evil about "tribalism"? Did not tribes spring from families? If so, then perhaps the communists were on to something when they espoused the idea of disintegrating the nuclear family. Eliminate the source of the evil "tribalism". Maybe family life is more short, nasty and brutish than previously thought!
Following this same train of thought perhaps it's time to reconsider the strict definition of nations. After all, nations are made up people. People that are joined to tribes and ultimately to families. They share a common culture, a common ethnicity and dialects of a common tongue. If tribalism is evil then nations must be even more evil! In fact, Americca would be evil because we rose up in rebellion against the English. Does this make us a nation? Were we not composed of tribes? We had English, German, French, Spanish and Africans among us as well as native Americans who were avowedly tribal. Was it not tribes that sold Africans into slavery? Was it not concepts of property that kept the Africans from reorganizing into tribes? Was not this prevention accomplished by dividing the families of Africans?
So? What is so evil about tribalism? Is it the fear that others will organize into roaming bands of thugs? Our own versions of the Mongols, the Goths and Visigoths who will ruin empires in the making? Or that these tribes will organize into nations that will compete against our interests on the world stage? What is the source of this evil of tribes?
************************************************************
Rock Jock says:
Historically, anarchy always leads to tyranny. And in short order too.
Cites? I see socialism leading to tyranny. I see a federal republic leading to tyranny. I see democracy in it's many manifestations leading to tyranny. In fact, I see any form of government leading to tyranny whether it's composed of kings or committees. It's commonly referred to as the "nature" of the beast.
If you are thinking of cities and towns and even entire nations engulfed in some form of chaos being led to tyrranny, then yes. I do understand that. However, it must be noted that chaos does NOT equate with anarchy.
************************************************************
By c_yeager:
The funniest part is that at least around these parts the people who are the biggest proponents of Anarchy are going to be the first against the wall if it ever comes about.
Do you really believe that we who do not subscribe to the "principles" of government are unwilling and unable to defend ourselves, our families and our property? Self-defense of these is the most basic practical application of living as an anarchist! How else would it work? By wishful thinking or pretending that all evil will simply go away? Do you think that perhaps by waving signs with the Non-Aggression Principle printed on them at bad guys will save our butts?
Wearing masks and running around with a can of spray paint isnt going to go over too well in a world where property owners can simply shoot you without consequence.
Who wears a mask and carries cans of spray paint? Are you thinking of those WTO protesters? They only claim to be anarchists. It's Viagra for their egos. They are little more than left-liberal dupes trying to live out their pseudo-communist pipedreams. You are Soooo... correct when you say that their misguided action "...isnt going to go over too well in a world where property owners can simply shoot you without consequence.'. There. A brief glimpse of the essence of practical anarchy....defending your own property against those who aggress against it.
Furthermore being heavily "counter-culture" won't be all the comfy when the "traditionalists" in this country tend to be the ones with all the firepower.
After a brief glimpse at the truth ...a quick reversion to the nationalist lie. How sad for you. Does "counter-culture" frighten you so much that must threaten firepower? Did someone with an orange mohawk whiz on your wheaties? Or was it just the appearance of someone different that made you toss your cookies? Perhaps you would like it better if these "counter-culture" types lived somewhere else. You could very well get your wish under anarchy. People do tend to gather in groups of like people. It's an outdated and outlawed idea called freedom of association. We had it once in America but, it's long gone now. With freedom of association traditionalists could act collectively to preserve their neighborhoods and communities. Counter-culture types could do the same. That way you could be freely a traditionalist and the other folks could be freely counter-culture. The only thing that prevents this today is the government.
Echoing the sentiment of Chris Rhines, I would even be willing to accept a libertarian government if anarchy remains elusive. Even under the Articles of Confederation we fared much better than we do now from the standpoint of liberty. I'm not looking for horse and buggy type charm or the old mill stream. I simply wish to have what was promised by the formation of America...life, liberty and the pursuit of property.
Chipper
EDITED: to correct a grievous error. I left the "h" out of Chris Rhines last name.
