Ask an Anarchist thread

Ya it's important to think critically, but that's why we should perfect our systems of democracy to limit injustice to the lowest possible level without losing the purpose of the government.

All the matters of efficiency in institutions are not the point. Obviously a democratic system should strive to maximize the efficiency of the various functions of life.

The overarching point remains that signing up for the state (figuratively) is worthwhile because it protects us from the alternative. If you accept *any* form of government then the intuitive appeal of anarchism is lost, because you open yourself up to the possibility of this more efficient government, that more efficient government (and so on). If you reject any form of government and fully embrace anarchism then you have to explain to me how you're so damn brave; I would be pretty scared to sleep at night with the knowledge that some guy with a personality like Hitler might wipe my area off the map (a fascist government arises - there's no requirement to stay anarchistic, it all depends on what the most powerful decide).

Your system is never going to be feasible in actual time. Let's think about it. Either some states become anarchistic (the government is overthrown; anarchy is assumed) or the whole world becomes anarchistic (every government is thrown). Barring the (likely) possibility that whoever was strongest at the time of the government's dissolution will probably seize power, let's just imagine this doesn't happen and figure out what results in each case.

One (or a few, doesn't matter) states become anarchistic:
The anarchistic "states" are annexed by other states or abused by other non-anarchistic states (boundaries are lost, assumed, stolen, etc.). This is inevitable. In which case anarchy is lost by absorption, or by the population rising up to defend itself together--government.

If the non-anarchist states allow the anarchist people freedom: -- see below


Every state becomes anarchistic:
Governments will emerge as people become more powerful (minor governments, in all likelihood, which is so much scarier than a centralized democracy). Customs will arise; laws will be made, armies will be conscripted, etc etc. There is nothing to safeguard against new governments arising because there is no controlling factor. You claim that governments protect against chaos and turmoil "on paper" - no, they protect against these problems with armies, with pens and with voices.


I don't see how anarchy can ever exist.


Edit: Your point on how corrupt governments exist is not relevant. We should overthrow these governments and install democracy in their place. This has an *assurance* of minimal suffering in the place of the possibility of massive levels of suffering, which I think is worse. Anarchy can never be argued to be safer than democracy (or governments generally, in my opinion).

 

I’ll try and keep this brief because I can see this conversation isn’t going anywhere constructive. I don’t think there is any fixing democracy, a system where decisions are made via mob rule isn’t a good one. Many people are raised being told it’s the best system on earth so I can understand the attachment. As far as Hitler goes, that would have never been possible without the institution of government. As far as being annexed goes I think defense funds and firms could protect a certain geographical area from foreign invades, with the benefit of not being able to overspend without going out of business or invade without going out of business. As far as a new government forming that is worse, I find that highly unlikely after a philosophical shift where people adopt libertarian principles. They would rely on a monopoly on the initiation of force which is impossible to secure in a market environment and they would be violently opposed.

What I’m trying to do is spread a philosophical awareness. To promote voluntary interaction and a principle of non-aggression. It doesn’t matter what the belief is, but if someone tries to enforce it on me either directly or by proxy through force they are an enemy to me. This system is not either moral or practical, and I’d invite you to do more research on the subject. I have personally spent more than 10,000 hours reading philosophy, economics, history, and law so I can say I’m at least somewhat of an expert in this particular field of study (Austrian economics, philosophy, etc).

You can also message me on skype, I'd love to discuss it in real time.