RE: You Can't Beat Me Into Anarchy
Until coming to this site, I had no interest in government: I took an AP gov class 15 years ago in high school, but I never thought about it afterwards or wondered what type of ist/ian/can/ic I am. After reading this, I'm on the same page with you and consider myself basically a minarchist. I simply don't see how having no government is clearly a better situation. I understand the counterargument, slippery slopes and what not. But I just don't think pure anarchy is ideal, maybe done gradually it would be, but I am at the moment unconvinced. A parable I've referenced a few times in other blogs which questions problems with anarchy by @biophil: a parable about voluntaryism
I wrote a blog a few days back questioning why anarchy is necessarily better, and concluding that some regulation is positive. I never received any answers telling me otherwise.
I see a lot of parallels in your subdivisions of anarchy to atheism, and wish I had acted like a more compassionate human being to those who believe in the past. In the end we are all on a quest for knowledge, and people are on different stages of their journey.
nice blog, upvoted and followed
Thanks!!
For clarity, anarchy does not necessitate no form of government. It doesn't necessitate no rule or law. It DOES necessitate no rulers. The difference is whether the administrative agent is simply that, or is coercive. As soon as it's coercive, it's overstepped and become the state. So you can still be an anarchist and embrace an idea of some form of administration/governing body. They just can't have authority over the people.
Reams have been written on the practicality of this. There are challenges, but the questions are whether freedom is preferable to coercion and if conditions under the known tyrrany of the state are better than the unknown challenges of an society without rulers.