Questions for Anarchists: What if I Have More Guns than You and I Take You Property by Force?
Oh boy, what have I gotten myself into? I'm in the middle of a big debate on Facebook about anarchy and it's bringing all the statists out with their outlandish hypotheticals and straw-man arguments.
Of course, multiple people came forward with some version of this question:
How would you stop a powerful warlord from taking control?
Ha! Checkmate anarchists! Betcha never thought of that one!
I'm going to drop one example from my Facebook conversation as well as my response:
My response to [redacted] is simple:
Oh the irony...
Seriously, isn't it so ironic that those who cling to the state do so because they're scared that a group of violent, power-hungry men might forcebly take control? They need a government to protect them from that...
Guess what. That's what government is!
And it's true, I don't have a practical solution to that question, but I don't need to.
Just because I don't believe in government doesn't mean it's my job to know how to solve all of the world's problems.
I don't need to know the answer to every practical concern to be able to determine right from wrong.
It's wrong to steal. It's wrong to strip away the rights of others. It's wrong to claim ownership of other people and their property.
These are all core facets of any government, and they're all wrong.
~Seth
For me, anarchy requires "the agreement to live peacefully, without rulers" - since no model of social/communal living can be successful without the intention to actually live in a way that is balanced.
No answer will ever be good enough for them. They're waiting to shoot down ideas like clay pigeons.
Yes. It's hard to have a rational discourse with those who have already made up their minds. I just try to answer honestly without being aggressive or resorting to name-calling. Hopefully someone will listen.
What a moron. In anarchy or minarchy we would have A) private police or B) state police. In a minarchy the only thing you would pay taxes for is a small government who's only job is to protect your property rights. In an anarchy you pay some private folks to help you if some "warlord" poses a threat to you.
And I do love your response! That is just the plain truth. You're completely right. They suffer from Stockolm syndrome. They are so beaten down that they want their oppressor to protect them against imaginary oppressors that they make up in their heads.
"How is the market going to protect you" Well, it can't in that exact situation. But if you keep robbing honest people with your guns, eventually people will get rid of you. And again, to assume that in an anarchist state there won't be provided protection? Wow..wrong. There will be great means of protection against evil people. People who own a lot of guns will hire out their guns to protect people against loser scumbags like yourself (not you @sethlinson ;) ) and make money legally.
How's that for "how will the market save you"? What can YOU offer the market? Nothing I assume. Loser.
Great comment!
Fun isn't it?
"You should have to live entirely within the bounds of my imagination"
I had an interesting observation about private security forces, a few months ago.
One could argue from the point of math/calculus... The smaller the centralized governments, the easier they are to resist and the smaller their ability to create harm is.
Thus the amount of evil a government can commit as its size approaches zero is also zero. The limit of evil the government can commit as its size grows to plant size is nearly infinite.
I like this approach.
THe only Way we left is to condemn.
All peoples must condemn and vigorously condemn these non-governmental acts by some governments of the world
The world is advancing towards armament and this is not in favor of anyone
Thank you bro for your posting
I think he is saying that type of thinking is contrary to freedom. If you give the Government power over anything they will screw it up. So your statement that some governments must be condemned for not doing governmental work is confusing. What do you think the Government should do for you? What cost should there be to provide that service?
Another part of totally control!
So anarchist whole thing is no laws or rule over another?
By definition, anarchy means "no rulers"
What about roads ands traffic laws, seem somewhat nessesary right?
Can roads only exist if a violent entity forces us to pay for them?
Traffic laws are unnecessary. People don't follow the rules of the road primarily because they're afraid of getting fined or arrested. People drive safely because of our instinct for self-preservation. We don't want to die. We also (generally) don't want to kill other people.
General guidelines of conduct are useful so that people know how to behave safely on roads. But we don't need to be violently forced into obeying those guidelines.
I think you assume the best of people while I assume that the Purge would likely happen based your philosophy.
The western world is so far from an egalitarian structured society simply removing hierarchy will never last.. someone would see it as a power vacuum and attempt to fill it to some degree. For example back to your post's topic that in an anarchist society you would condemn acts of aggression thus discouraging it. So what would stop a militia from forming to seek revenge against their enemies? Thus you have a self-governing group that easily go right back to the hierarchical structure by simply choosing a leader ... you will inevitably repeat the past over and over again.
The anarchist's philosophy seems to me to be extremely idealistic making absolute claims against rule of law and ignoring history/ human nature.
I am no fan of zealous traffic laws, traffic cams and parking restrictions are one of my most despised government practice. Yet they are a major reason why roads function and I think a universal symbol of order in society.
Go to Mexico City where they don't enforce simple things like red lights. Traffic is impossibly deadlocked because the human inclination towards greed takes over. It's an overcrowded area and no one stops at intersections, they keep driving through like a fucking congo line creating even more congestion. You might say that it is symbolic of the government's complete lack of authority which is why some areas of Mexico are controlled by cartels and a defacto military state forms just to keep a grasp on tourists cities.
Next Go to Austrailia where an overbearing government will take your license immediately for speeding. . . and as a result, rarely do people speed even a few KMPH over the limit.
It wouldn't be impossible for roads to be built the free market, just don't expect roads in rural areas to be built or maintained, I would predict it would be like the current way the telecom industry builds internet infrastructure. Areas without a profitable population of customers still use dial-up quality connections in the US because the infrastructure is privatized and not "Common Carrier" like electricity or telephone cables. Many times the Free Market is a solution however sometimes its really not in public sectors. I think most people would agree that US Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 sped up growth in the private sector. Now, it's a huge crumbling concrete mess and needs to be replaced by a new technology, a whole different rabbit hole...
Ireland has Gov infrastructure for internet and it is better and cheaper than the US. There are many reasons for this, building infrastructure is expensive and companies can't risk their high-profit-margin expending investment in fiber-optic networks because they are too worried about expending funds on marketing to compete with each other. (soon internet may be completely wireless in urban areas but thats a whole different topic)
I am all for scaling back government, however, the world is an extremely complex chaotic system that will not be restructured without conflict. I for one am not ready for the inevitable vigilante justice that would result from a true anarchist society. Unless you are advocating for a Minarchy, sometimes gov is necessary sometimes its not.
I'll add to that.
There will always be some people that drive recklessly or do bad things IN SPITE of said "laws". For those who act in a decent manner by default, the "laws" (opinions backed by the threat of violence) are redundant. It also creates an incentive for the state to revenue collect and avoid actually fixing a problem.
It always makes me laugh when I see a sign that says "$500 Fine for littering", as if some jackass that is going to litter is going to care. There is always litter on the roads, so we know that doesn't help. The reason people do bad things is because they don't care. The best deterrent for stupid people doing disagreeable things, is social pressure such as ostracism and better parenting to help people actually achieve adulthood.
Very well said. Laws don't do much to alter the behaviour of those who were already going to behave well. It's a redundancy, as you said.
And laws won't stop those who are going to behave "recklessly" either.
You're right on about the irony! However, as a budding anarchist myself, I do feel called to lead towards creative solutions. I do believe that we, humanity, are indeed capable of solving our problems. We just need a new mindset. I just published a perspective on that here on Steemit, I'd love to know what you think. Upvoted you and thanks for being vocal about anarchy—it's important!