I saw a headline recently, which read in part, "Ideologies clash..."
It turns out one side simply wants to exercise liberty (open a brewery), while the opponents want to violate the first side's liberty for "reasons". The reasons include religion, fear of negative consequences of letting people control their own lives, and prohibitionism.
One side is an ideology, the other isn't.
Liberty isn't an ideology. It is the acceptance of the reality of self-ownership. From this acceptance flows certain principles. It doesn't matter to the existence of liberty whether people accept it or not-- it just is, to be respected or violated.
Yes, there will be consequences for exercising liberty. Everything has consequences. But slavery's consequences are worse than liberty's. And you're the bad guy when you choose slavery over liberty, no matter what "reasons" you come up with.
This is why governing others is never a valid form of interpersonal interaction. It allows people to violate the liberty of others too easily, and without the risk which should come along with such anti-social behavior.
_______________
Reminder: I could really use some help.
Q? if someone was born an uyghur in chinese turkistan; how would that anarchy work? wouldn't they just be a slave, like everybody else? and while they may carry their religion/beliefs in their head; externally they must comply or die.
ReplyDelete[anarchy may only be realizable within the protection of a minarchy, or the fading remnants of minarchy.]
how about eastern europe during soviet occupation? or proletariat in soviet union? or cambodia under pol pot? or the irish under british rule? or women under islam for 1400 years?
Deleteto speak up is to die. to act up is to die.
most people throughout history are in those circumstances.
they had to immigrate to western civ and to a minarchist society- before they could explore anarchy.
there have been several pockets of anarchy throughout history.
Deletefor example, many siberian invaders of the americas ("indians") lived in loose collectives which have many anarchist characteristics. for centuries, they did not face an organized state like china for example. where they existed, organized states crushed anarchist bands (eg, incas, mayans). and then, the resources of a US minarchy overwhelmed their ability to resist.
so history suggests anarchy lives as long as there is limited threat. once there is an organized threat, anarchy is incapable of organizing effectively enough to resist.
Deleteone other historic approach, is immigration to get away from organized threats. the americas served that purpose for centuries, and anarchy prospered for a time and in some places. but four things: (1) that anarchy society disappears when an organized threat appears. (2) pockets of anarchy can exist within minarchy (when allowed by the organized state). (3) there is nowhere on earth free of organized states- to immigrate to. (4) immigrating to the asteroid belt, mars, or moons of jupiter- is not yet financially achievable.
So we are stuck here, and the only chance is our protection within the shield of a benevolent minarchy.
we are stuck.
Deletebut trying to understand the situation we are stuck in; the dependencies, the opportunities/risks, and any options.
"Q? if someone was born an uyghur in chinese turkistan; how would that anarchy work?... how about eastern europe during soviet occupation? or proletariat in soviet union? or cambodia under pol pot? or the irish under british rule? or women under islam for 1400 years?
DeleteThe same as it works anytime you find yoursefl surrounded and outnumbered by bad guys. Sometimes you're just not going to survive, regardless. Not even if you turn into a bad guy, too. This is the flaw behind "Kill 'em all!"
I'm not going to become a Nazi just because everyone else is a Nazi and I won't survive otherwise. If I become a Nazi I'm no longer me; anything of me worth existing for has been surrendered. Yeah, I'd probably be killed. I'm going to die anyway. I'd rather die without feeling I deserved it.
"once there is an organized threat, anarchy is incapable of organizing effectively enough to resist."
In previous times, when technology was rationed by the State, that was true. Is it still true? If so, what could be done to make sure technology isn't limited to the bad guys of the State now or into the future?
"one other historic approach, is immigration to get away from organized threats"
I've written several times that the lack of a viable frontier is going to lead to disaster. How to solve that?
"the only chance is our protection within the shield of a benevolent minarchy."
Then we are doomed, because there's no such thing as a "benevolent minarchy". If the reality is that we are doomed, we might as well face it and prepare for it.
If you feel you need a minarchy (or any other kind of state) to survive, go ahead and create one. I will neither stop you nor join you. But I can't be a part of it.
re: "If you feel you need a minarchy"...
Delete(i) i need farmers to grow food for me- but that doesn't mean that i am become a farmer.
(ii) i am arguing/realizing that anarchy is unpossible without some "benevolent overwatch". anarchy has been incapable of defending against organized threats. minarchy provides defense against several types of threats.
(iii) minarchy is a system that tolerates some anarchy. most societies/cultures throughout human history- do not, have not.
so i propose that we/anarchy depend on a minarchy (or something like it), and are lucky to live under a [vanishing] minarchy, when compared to the rest of human history and the rest of the world in our lifetimes.
i need water. i am not water. too much/submersal in water may be deadly. yet, i acknowledge the benefits of water. without water, i would die.
a little minarchy is like being a little pregnant. yet, i pay sales tax and income tax and contribute to the minarchy (there is no choice). as long as they don't submerse/drown me with it, i benefit from the overwatch. without the tolerance which minarchy has for anarchy- anarchy would die.
from a practical perspective, it is a love-hate relationship.
but i acknowledge my dependancy on minarchy. on one hand it provides that overwatch which is the primary pre-requisite for individual anarchy to operate. on the other hand, that very overwatch is the greatest threat to anarchy, and is the second greatest threat to my life.
...second greatest ... second greatest ...
Delete[need "edit" feature]
" i need farmers to grow food for me- but that doesn't mean that i am become a farmer. "
DeleteFarmers don't murder and enslave in order to grow food. One farmer doesn't declare a monopoly and nuke other farmers who compete. Farmers don't forbid you to grow your own food or to harvest wild edibles. Just because you don't want to be a farmer doesn't justify you sending the farmer mafia after me if I don't need a farmer.
"i am arguing/realizing that anarchy is unpossible without some "benevolent overwatch".
I'd rather take my chances. You are free to feel otherwise.
"i benefit from the overwatch."
I would benefit from a mugger who gives me a percentage. But that doesn't make it right, and I won't hold my hand out.
re: "But I can't be a part of it."
ReplyDeleteLoL: you didn't choose government - but it chose you!
it volun-told you to pay taxes, or be killed. so you are contributing to the bureaucracy.
and you benefit from contract law and defense against invading foreign states (all much worse kleptocracies). benefits, whether you want them or not.
I accept no responsibility for government nor for any other mugger or molester who victimizes me (or you). And I will never encourage or assist in setting up a government nor otherwise empowering archators. That they exist around me isn't my fault.
Delete