I believe the government should be abolished, and the free market should replace its usual functions.
Basically I believe that Anarchy (and the Free Market) exist only as hypothetical concepts. Any time you stick two people in a room together there is a government (of sorts) between them, albeit an extremely unstable one.
No matter how you try to approach anarchy, people will organize themselves. And when any one organization or coalition of organizations grows big enough, they start laying down rules.
Basically I believe that Anarchy (and the Free Market) exist only as hypothetical concepts. Any time you stick two people in a room together there is a government (of sorts) between them, albeit an extremely unstable one.
No matter how you try to approach anarchy, people will organize themselves. And when any one organization or coalition of organizations grows big enough, they start laying down rules.
I'd really like to unpack all this and understand it, because I don't believe I've come across an assertion like this before, and it sounds quite interesting.
Basically I believe that Anarchy (and the Free Market) exist only as hypothetical concepts. Any time you stick two people in a room together there is a government (of sorts) between them, albeit an extremely unstable one.
So I'm not sure if I'm really grasping this, or maybe you're using words in a way I'm not expecting. I really don't think there's any kind of "government" between two people just from interacting. I mean, there's certainly some social and cultural expectations; if we're standing in a room talking, it's reasonable to assume I know better than to suddenly attack you or start yelling at you for no reason. But that's not any kind of "government", not in the usual sense of the word. We might form some kind of agreements about certain things - like we go eat at a chicken place instead of a pasta place - but that's all done through mutual agreement, not through any kind of force. And that really is a key component, I think, force.
Ultimately, a government does two things (I mean it does more than two things, but these are the relevant points) - it lays down a bunch of orders for its citizens, and then it enforces them with the threat of force. So requiring to me get a driver's license before I can drive on public roads is an order. And then if a cop pulls me over and sees I don't have a license, he says "You're required to have a driver's license to drive on these roads, I have to take you to jail". If I refuse, then he'll start to use physical force on me, and if I also respond with physical force, he might draw his gun and kill me for it. And that's true for basically every law - it's an order, one backed with the threat of physical violence or even death if resisted enough or in particular ways. And that makes sense because it's a dominance hierarchy, with the state at the top, and it's citizens underneath it, forced to obey by the rules.
So a normal interaction between people usually doesn't have that feature, the feature of force or the dominance hierarchy. My wife worked from home today, for instance, so we talked and hung out a bit before I came to work today. And there's no threat of force from either of us to the other; you can't really say either one of us was potentially threatened if one of us acted out of line. Also there's no dominance structure; we each regard the other as equals, and neither one of us is subservient to the other. Well, you might think "but that's a democratic structure, where everyone has a say", but even democracies have people in charge. They don't have all the power, that's kind of the point of the whole thing, but they certainly have a great deal more than normal citizens. And even in democracies, their orders that are issued are still backed with the threat of force. Just because we live in a western democracy doesn't mean we can ignore laws, because the police will still come and still order us to jail or worse. And it doesn't matter if you agreed or disagreed with the law either - if a law passes by a vote of 51%-49%, 100% of the population must obey the law or face the threat of physical violence. I don't think those features really exist in standard relationship between two people. Societal and cultural expectations certainly exist, but those aren't usually enforced with violence unless someone feels threatened or in danger.
I would also like to comment on the "hypothetical concept" part, but I think I need to get my thoughts together more for that. Would you think that totalitarianism and central planning (I would think the ideological opposites of anarchy and free markets) are also just hypothetical concepts, or not?
No matter how you try to approach anarchy, people will organize themselves. And when any one organization or coalition of organizations grows big enough, they start laying down rules.
I think we're agreed on the first bit. People will come together - in the name of mutual interest, typically - and organize together for various things and purposes. That's partly because of the way we're wired as human beings, being social creatures, and partly because it's just more efficient to do things that way. We can get more done if we're 10 people pooling our resources than each individual person refusing to cooperate with others.
And it's only natural that organizations law down rules and the like; but I think what you really meant was they start to lay down rules that they also start applying to other people without their consent. And that is where the problems start. Because if you have two groups, let's call them Alice's Alphas and Bob's Bravos, and Alice's group gets pretty big and decides "Bob is right next door, we can probably get them to join if we lean on them a little bit", they're gonna come and try and convince Bob's group to join their group.
So Alice's group send a little delegation, and maybe they bring some gifts and are nice, and try and convince them to join. Bob's group is gracious and polite, but are firmly in the "no" camp. Alice decides to go again, talking to them a little more, being a little more forceful about them joining, but Bob's group holds their ground. Now Alice shows up, with about a hundred armed soldiers, and says "Anyone who doesn't join is gonna get killed". Now Bob's group's only choice is to either submit to them or fight back with physical violence, since there's no one else to contact.
And it's worth noting this is a big reason why I'm Libertarian and not Anarcho-Capitalist. In a Libertarian society, the government would still exist and would still have the responsibility of protecting citizens from assault by their fellow citizens. So in a Libertarian world where this was happening, Bob's group appeals to the state and says "Hey, Alice's group is getting rowdy and is threatening to use force on us, we need some help." And so police swoop in, arrest the trouble-makers in Alice's group, and Bob's group is spared a really rough and terrible choice. I don't see these kinds of protections in An-Cap thinking, which is partly why I don't agree with the abolition of government as a whole.
I'd really like to unpack all this and understand it, because I don't believe I've come across an assertion like this before, and it sounds quite interesting.
> Basically I believe that Anarchy (and the Free Market) exist only as hypothetical concepts. Any time you stick two people in a room together there is a government (of sorts) between them, albeit an extremely unstable one.
So I'm not sure if I'm really grasping this, or maybe you're using words in a way I'm not expecting. I really don't think there's any kind of "government" between two people just from interacting. I mean, there's certainly some social and cultural expectations; if we're standing in a room talking, it's reasonable to assume I know better than to suddenly attack you or start yelling at you for no reason. But that's not any kind of "government", not in the usual sense of the word. We might form some kind of agreements about certain things - like we go eat at a chicken place instead of a pasta place - but that's all done through mutual agreement, not through any kind of force. And that really is a key component, I think, _force_.
Ultimately, a government does two things (I mean it does more than two things, but these are the relevant points) - it lays down a bunch of orders for its citizens, and then it enforces them with the threat of force. So requiring to me get a driver's license before I can drive on public roads is an order. And then if a cop pulls me over and sees I don't have a license, he says "You're required to have a driver's license to drive on these roads, I have to take you to jail". If I refuse, then he'll start to use physical force on me, and if I also respond with physical force, he might draw his gun and kill me for it. And that's true for basically every law - it's an order, one backed with the threat of physical violence or even death if resisted enough or in particular ways. And that makes sense because it's a dominance hierarchy, with the state at the top, and it's citizens underneath it, forced to obey by the rules.
So a normal interaction between people usually doesn't have that feature, the feature of force or the dominance hierarchy. My wife worked from home today, for instance, so we talked and hung out a bit before I came to work today. And there's no threat of force from either of us to the other; you can't really say either one of us was potentially threatened if one of us acted out of line. Also there's no dominance structure; we each regard the other as equals, and neither one of us is subservient to the other. Well, you might think "but that's a democratic structure, where everyone has a say", but even democracies have people in charge. They don't have _all_ the power, that's kind of the point of the whole thing, but they certainly have a great deal more than normal citizens. And even in democracies, their orders that are issued are still backed with the threat of force. Just because we live in a western democracy doesn't mean we can ignore laws, because the police will still come and still order us to jail or worse. And it doesn't matter if you agreed or disagreed with the law either - if a law passes by a vote of 51%-49%, 100% of the population must obey the law or face the threat of physical violence. I don't think those features really exist in standard relationship between two people. Societal and cultural _expectations_ certainly exist, but those aren't usually enforced with violence unless someone feels threatened or in danger.
I would also like to comment on the "hypothetical concept" part, but I think I need to get my thoughts together more for that. Would you think that totalitarianism and central planning (I would think the ideological opposites of anarchy and free markets) are also just hypothetical concepts, or not?
> No matter how you try to approach anarchy, people will organize themselves. And when any one organization or coalition of organizations grows big enough, they start laying down rules.
I think we're agreed on the first bit. People will come together - in the name of mutual interest, typically - and organize together for various things and purposes. That's partly because of the way we're wired as human beings, being social creatures, and partly because it's just more efficient to do things that way. We can get more done if we're 10 people pooling our resources than each individual person refusing to cooperate with others.
And it's only natural that organizations law down rules and the like; but I think what you really meant was they start to lay down rules that _they also start applying to other people without their consent_. And that is where the problems start. Because if you have two groups, let's call them Alice's Alphas and Bob's Bravos, and Alice's group gets pretty big and decides "Bob is right next door, we can probably get them to join if we lean on them a little bit", they're gonna come and try and convince Bob's group to join their group.
So Alice's group send a little delegation, and maybe they bring some gifts and are nice, and try and convince them to join. Bob's group is gracious and polite, but are firmly in the "no" camp. Alice decides to go again, talking to them a little more, being a little more forceful about them joining, but Bob's group holds their ground. Now Alice shows up, with about a hundred armed soldiers, and says "Anyone who doesn't join is gonna get killed". Now Bob's group's only choice is to either submit to them or fight back with physical violence, since there's no one else to contact.
And it's worth noting this is a big reason why I'm Libertarian and not Anarcho-Capitalist. In a Libertarian society, the government would still exist and would still have the responsibility of _protecting citizens from assault by their fellow citizens_. So in a Libertarian world where this was happening, Bob's group appeals to the state and says "Hey, Alice's group is getting rowdy and is threatening to use force on us, we need some help." And so police swoop in, arrest the trouble-makers in Alice's group, and Bob's group is spared a really rough and terrible choice. I don't see these kinds of protections in An-Cap thinking, which is partly why I don't agree with the abolition of government as a whole.
maybe you're using words in a way I'm not expecting.
Probably that one. I'm using 'government' in an extremely loose sense of the word, crudely shoving most human interactions into the framework of the Social Contract.
We might form some kind of agreements about certain things - like we go eat at a chicken place instead of a pasta place - but that's all done through mutual agreement, not through any kind of force. And that really is a key component, I think, force.
Sorta. If someone wanted pasta and had to 'settle' for chicken, it can be said that they were 'forced'. Even if that 'force' is nothing more than the social pressure to not make too much fuss. All else being equal, did the group choose chicken? Why couldn't the chicken-voter be the one to capitulate? Somebody 'lead' the group, either through stubbornness or by pioneering a compromise.
Ultimately, a government does two things (I mean it does more than two things, but these are the relevant points) - it lays down a bunch of orders for its citizens, and then it enforces them with the threat of force. So requiring to me get a driver's license before I can drive on public roads is an order. And then if a cop pulls me over and sees I don't have a license, he says "You're required to have a driver's license to drive on these roads, I have to take you to jail". If I refuse, then he'll start to use physical force on me, and if I also respond with physical force, he might draw his gun and kill me for it. And that's true for basically every law - it's an order, one backed with the threat of physical violence or even death if resisted enough or in particular ways. And that makes sense because it's a dominance hierarchy, with the state at the top, and it's citizens underneath it, forced to obey by the rules.
Absolutely.
So a normal interaction between people usually doesn't have that feature, the feature of force or the dominance hierarchy. My wife worked from home today, for instance, so we talked and hung out a bit before I came to work today. And there's no threat of force from either of us to the other; you can't really say either one of us was potentially threatened if one of us acted out of line. Also there's no dominance structure; we each regard the other as equals, and neither one of us is subservient to the other.
I feel like the only reason that equilibrium exists because you both have very similar ideas of your proper place in society relative to your spouse: next to her. And you both probably work very hard to keep it that way.
Well, you might think "but that's a democratic structure, where everyone has a say", but even democracies have people in charge.
Actually I think a successful marriage looks more like a socialist utopia of two (most of the time)
I would also like to comment on the "hypothetical concept" part, but I think I need to get my thoughts together more for that. Would you think that totalitarianism and central planning (I would think the ideological opposites of anarchy and free markets) are also just hypothetical concepts, or not?
Anarchy is so unstable as to be practically non-existent. You know how much work is involved maintaining the equilibrium of marriage; imagine trying to do that with people you aren't so fond of. A stable Anarchy would require the whole society to possess levels of self-sacrifice you don't usually see outside of religion. As for totalitarianism... depends on how far you want to push that definition. I think a 'perfectly' totalitarian state would be one that doesn't involve any humans whatsoever, or else some disturbing levels of mind manipulation.
And it's worth noting this is a big reason why I'm Libertarian and not Anarcho-Capitalist. In a Libertarian society, the government would still exist and would still have the responsibility of protecting citizens from assault by their fellow citizens. So in a Libertarian world where this was happening, Bob's group appeals to the state and says "Hey, Alice's group is getting rowdy and is threatening to use force on us, we need some help." And so police swoop in, arrest the trouble-makers in Alice's group, and Bob's group is spared a really rough and terrible choice. I don't see these kinds of protections in An-Cap thinking, which is partly why I don't agree with the abolition of government as a whole.
Agreed; as far as I can tell An-Cap society would end up looking like the Mexican cartels.
> maybe you're using words in a way I'm not expecting.
Probably that one. I'm using 'government' in an *extremely* loose sense of the word, crudely shoving most human interactions into the framework of the Social Contract.
> We might form some kind of agreements about certain things - like we go eat at a chicken place instead of a pasta place - but that's all done through mutual agreement, not through any kind of force. And that really is a key component, I think, force.
Sorta. If someone wanted pasta and had to 'settle' for chicken, it can be said that they were 'forced'. Even if that 'force' is nothing more than the social pressure to not make too much fuss. All else being equal, did the group choose chicken? Why couldn't the chicken-voter be the one to capitulate? Somebody 'lead' the group, either through stubbornness or by pioneering a compromise.
> Ultimately, a government does two things (I mean it does more than two things, but these are the relevant points) - it lays down a bunch of orders for its citizens, and then it enforces them with the threat of force. So requiring to me get a driver's license before I can drive on public roads is an order. And then if a cop pulls me over and sees I don't have a license, he says "You're required to have a driver's license to drive on these roads, I have to take you to jail". If I refuse, then he'll start to use physical force on me, and if I also respond with physical force, he might draw his gun and kill me for it. And that's true for basically every law - it's an order, one backed with the threat of physical violence or even death if resisted enough or in particular ways. And that makes sense because it's a dominance hierarchy, with the state at the top, and it's citizens underneath it, forced to obey by the rules.
Absolutely.
> So a normal interaction between people usually doesn't have that feature, the feature of force or the dominance hierarchy. My wife worked from home today, for instance, so we talked and hung out a bit before I came to work today. And there's no threat of force from either of us to the other; you can't really say either one of us was potentially threatened if one of us acted out of line. Also there's no dominance structure; we each regard the other as equals, and neither one of us is subservient to the other.
I feel like the only reason that equilibrium exists because you both have very similar ideas of your proper place in society relative to your spouse: next to her. And you both probably work very hard to keep it that way.
> Well, you might think "but that's a democratic structure, where everyone has a say", but even democracies have people in charge.
Actually I think a successful marriage looks more like a socialist utopia of two (most of the time)
> I would also like to comment on the "hypothetical concept" part, but I think I need to get my thoughts together more for that. Would you think that totalitarianism and central planning (I would think the ideological opposites of anarchy and free markets) are also just hypothetical concepts, or not?
Anarchy is so unstable as to be practically non-existent. You know how much work is involved maintaining the equilibrium of marriage; imagine trying to do that with people you aren't so fond of. A stable Anarchy would require the whole society to possess levels of self-sacrifice you don't usually see outside of religion. As for totalitarianism... depends on how far you want to push that definition. I think a 'perfectly' totalitarian state would be one that doesn't involve any humans whatsoever, or else some disturbing levels of mind manipulation.
> And it's worth noting this is a big reason why I'm Libertarian and not Anarcho-Capitalist. In a Libertarian society, the government would still exist and would still have the responsibility of protecting citizens from assault by their fellow citizens. So in a Libertarian world where this was happening, Bob's group appeals to the state and says "Hey, Alice's group is getting rowdy and is threatening to use force on us, we need some help." And so police swoop in, arrest the trouble-makers in Alice's group, and Bob's group is spared a really rough and terrible choice. I don't see these kinds of protections in An-Cap thinking, which is partly why I don't agree with the abolition of government as a whole.
Agreed; as far as I can tell An-Cap society would end up looking like the Mexican cartels.
Not OP, mind.
How would it go about doing such a thing, though? How would the "council" be formed, how would it take control, and how would it force loyalty from it's fellow citizens? I want to know what you're envisioning when you talk about this kind of thing.
(I don't necessarily disagree with you; as a Libertarian I definitely believe we need a government, heavily restricted and limited though it should be. But it's always good to get others' opinions and thoughts, as well as sort out our own.)