You have probably noticed, as have I, how many supposed libertarians cling to government at some level. It is as if they are scared to take that last step. They come up with excuse after excuse for why that last vestige of government is necessary to keep us all from killing each other.
Often they point to the Constitution, the "founders", religion, or their own military career as justification for their beliefs. They resort to insults such as the over-used "If you don't like it, move". Brilliant, Sherlock. And where exactly would you suggest as fertile ground for freedom? The entire globe is infected with your statism.
I am so tired of hearing them make excuses for blocking freedom. If you are scared, fine. Get out of the way and at least stop being a traitor to liberty. This really makes me angry. Governments should have "friends" like these.
So, should we simply write those people off as hopeless? I don't know, but I think they are even more stubborn and dangerous than flaming statists.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Anarchy is too risky! We might get taken over by the communists!"
ReplyDeleteYes, this was basically one person's argument.
Hi, Kent,
ReplyDeleteJust stumbled across your blog, and I
like the thought process, and from where it seemingly evolves-that wilderness freedom that has become so very rare.
That being said, I think you need to better define your position-do you intend to maintain property in an anarchical society? From your other posts it seems you will, and if so, how will you do so with out government; property other than that which can be immediately defended, is unnatural, as you know, being an outdoors man.
I think also that you assume that people are equal when they, thank God, are not. This means that there will be leaders, and followers, and there will be reasons to combine labor, and to specialize-soon you will have a rudimentary government, not due a bully but a saint. It has happened everywhere, with the only short term exceptions being areas where systems of law were developed. None of those places exist today.
My view is, as you discussed in an earlier post, that anarchy essentially exists now, if by anarchy you mean a lawless society.
I don't like it.
I suspect we disagree on that, but I rather hope I'm not hopeless, we are on the same side(although I gave up the term libertarian after whatshisface from daily kos tried to say he was-I just go with individualist).
Enjoyed the blog, keep it up.
Mike S
Mike,
ReplyDeleteIn an anarchical society, I intend to maintain my own property; what others do would be their choice, of course. I doubt I would have the resourses or the ambition to maintain more property than I could immediately defend. Others would have the means to defend more property than me. That isn't "unfair"; just reality.
I don't believe people are "equal". I'm not even sure how you would define that concept realistically. Some people are smarter, some are stronger, some are more attractive, some have skills that others lack, some inherited money or property, some have more ambition, ... the list goes on and on. I do think everyone has the same rights as everyone else. That doesn't guarantee equal success or happiness.
I have no problem with "leaders"; only "Rulers". Leaders lead by example and without coercion. A leader will convinced you his way is the right way, and will let you go your own way if you disagree. A Ruler will "convince" you by sticking a gun (or a "law") in your face and then harming you if you try to go separate ways.
A "rudimentary government" will be unlikely since, as I have been recently reminded, people who have tasted freedom will not submit as easily as those who only think they are currently free. However, there is no reason to think that no one would form associations that would resemble "government" to a casual observer. The difference would be that these would be voluntary and if someone were being coerced to participate they could defend themselves from it, with the help of their friends and other freedom-protectors.
Ours is a society suffering from "law pollution" which resembles a "lawless society" in many ways. Once you make everything either mandatory or prohibited, people begin to ignore the important rules of behavior: such as: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation." This is chaos, not anarchy.
I sometimes think I don't get my point across very well. I hope this has cleared up some things.