No problem. I greatly appreciate that you value my opinion. As a liberal who is a libertarian “fellow traveler” (how’s that for irony!), I find it gratifying when I find common ground with people who have adopted a more radical libertarian philosophy.

Generally, I’m all for de-centralization, local control, voluntary action, and people “pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.” My concern is for those who were born without the benefit of these mythical boot straps (a reason I am interested in “basic income” ideas). This question of economic justice, coupled with my concerns over public safety and common defense are among the relatively few reasons I do not subscribe to a philosophy similar to your own. As always, thanks for the discussion.

“I think the case for government is much stronger than the case for a deity, but you still have an interesting point.”

Well, the case for government is airtight! I understand the inevitability of government — I just want it to be as dispersed as possible, down to the individual level.

Anarchism is self-responsibility. Delegating self-responsibility is living in denial.

Excellent point, Cynical. I don’t know that I’ve thought about matters of state in that exact way before. This part of your discussion reminds me of the views of Bertrand Russell (and others) on the concept of god. People think that their must be “something out there” protecting them and waiting for them after they die, so they find atheism to be shocking or evil. They just can’t believe that they are “alone” and that “nothing is out there.

To be honest, I think the case for government is much stronger than the case for a deity, but you still have an interesting point.

–Yup, you’ll have that at a meeting of anarchists. Thanks, I had a good chuckle at that one.

#19 Omar:

“Anarchism has nothing to do with these over-privileged polititards who believe pretty much the opposite of what the word means.”

–Well said. They remind me of modern conservatives who still claim that they stand for limited government.

“Addressing all who think anarchy can exist as some sort of capitalist utopia: forget it.”

Utopia? Heavens no! Less violent than the present system? Most likely. Concentrated power has a multiplying effect, so that World Wars would be impossible in an anarchic world where political power resides at the individual level, whereas these catastrophes only occur in the statist world where political power resides in the hands of a very few.

Thomas Blair wrote: “Some may want to set themselves up into a communistic society with common ownership of property. I doubt it will work at the city level, though it does work with small enough groups (think nuclear families). Others may want to set up some kind of state in a given geographic area. Others may want to live entirely isolated.”

To which Tim C replied, “What do you suppose happens when the “some” who set themselves up as a communist group find that their system isn’t working out (or simply decide their system is right)? You think they’re going to realize what went wrong, and either right their course or just starve to death on principle?”

There is actually a historic example in U.S. history. The Puritans, on landing in New England in 1620, set up a communist government with common ownership. Within 2 years, the colony was decimated from starvation. There was no incentive for anyone to grow any food if it was “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” In the third year, the leader Winthrop reorganized the colony to private property and the harvest was so succesful that year that the celebration feast we know as Thanksgiving had its inaugural.

That doesn’t mean that anyone would also starve to death on principle. I mean, the Donners were probably communists on the Eastern Sierra, but quickly became interested in private property in the passes, if you know what I mean!!!

I agree with Dave and Thomas who argue that communism is always doomed to failure, at least on a scale greater than that of blood family. So, those little anarchocommunist experiments will go the way of the Dodo, and what will be left is an anarchocapitalist society founded on individual responsibility and respect for private property.

“Same goes for anyone organizing in a state, or what have you. Unless (say) those that chose to organize their state did so as a republic and set up a military to repel those that decide their state is worth looting (sound familiar?), the course would be the same.”

I am not optimistic that any anarchist experiment could succeed given what I understand about human nature (laziness, weakness, corruption, fear, superstition, greediness, etc.). I fully expect the State to rise again even after an anarchist revolution. It appears to be built into the code. Specifically, it is death, and the threat of death, that is the essence of the State. Until death is conquered, it will be among us. That is the fall of man.

“The idea of government is to establish a rule of law and to restrict the ability to initiate force (in other words, police to deal with citizens who initiate force against other citizens, the military to deal with those who initiate force from outside, and the courts to peacefully and impartially resolve differences that crop up in dealings between citizens).”

In theory, you are correct. And as you note in the following paragraph, in practice reality is far different. The fallacy behind instituting government is in delegating individual responsibility for self-defense to an unaccountable outside agency. Another way of stating this is that fearful, weak individuals panic and yield control over their lives to the strong. It’s that simple.

“Obviously our government has gone far beyond that, but anarchy leads to the USSR a hell of a lot more quickly. Again, you don’t have to agree with me on the philosophy behind this, but just look at history.”

Anarchy could just as easily lead to the U.S., Nazi Germany, Sweden, China, or any other variety of State. Communism is probably the unlikeliest outcome because it is so fatally flawed. The USSR was an example of what supercat I believe calls “totalitarian anarchy,” where a select few are beholden to no one, and everyone else is beholden to the State. In fact, at root all States are totalitarian anarchies by that definition.

As for historic examples of anarchy leading to communism, I would be interested in a history lesson from you, Tim. The only successful anarchic societies that I know about were medieval Ireland and Iceland, and parts of Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and North Carolina in the 1600s, and all of these were of obviously limited duration.

All in all a great discussion.

True anarchy is not chaos, anarchy is order.

See, it’s this kind of shit that makes The Agitator such a cool place to hang!

I really don’t know enough about these people to comment, but there are some things I can try to extrapolate.

First, nice touch Radley. I know you posted this with me and other anarchists who post here in mind. Thanks for giving us our day in the sun.

Second, I don’t know anything about these people — even that they think of themselves as anarchists. It was the reporter who used the term, referring to anti-government and anti-globalization. By the quote above, they are probably anarcho-communists, if they are anarchic at all. I simply don’t know.

Third, if there is a contradiction, it is owed to these folks still choosing to live in society. I experience that contradiction every day. It’s hell coming to anarchism after you’ve made big life decisions like getting married and having children.

Anyway, I wish them luck and the best. Butler Shaffer wrote that freedom-loving people will find a way to be free. I believe that.

They’re anarchists like George W. Bush was “limited government”. I wonder if any of them have even heard of Murray Rothbard?

Yes, and also when you’re an anarchist.

All right! It’s the new professionalism at work! Ring the doorbell? Knock on the door of a house like a normal person?

Fuck that!

Go up to a house where there are no sounds of struggle… no screaming, no yelling, etc… and start SCREAMING AND BANGING on the door like a wackjob! Then bust in, spray 5 rounds in the general direction of the first person you see (You know, to protect the children) then run back outside and call for backup.

(Voice of Chief Wiggums) That’s good work, boys!

At the end of the article the author mentions organs are baing harvested from criminals after thay have been executed by lethal injection.
I have heard this claim several times and, personally, I don’t have a problem with it.
The only issue I have is, after the criminal has been injected with lethal dose of poisonous chemicals, are the organs still fit for transplant? Is China selling tainted prducts?

Look at the Spanish Civil War. While the “anarchists” in question were POUM or Marxists, the movement carried a lot of weight and the voluntary nature of military service was a big selling point.

I’m not so sure that a centralized government has to exist for the voluntary protection of a free society by a group of individuals.

I will say this though, Market anarchy would depend several VERY wealthy individuals/corporations shouldering a LOT of the defense burden because the cost of effective weapon systems is … ridiculous.

“Some may want to set themselves up into a communistic society with common ownership of property. I doubt it will work at the city level, though it does work with small enough groups (think nuclear families). Others may want to set up some kind of state in a given geographic area. Others may want to live entirely isolated.”

What do you suppose happens when the “some” who set themselves up as a communist group find that their system isn’t working out (or simply decide their system is right)? You think they’re going to realize what went wrong, and either right their course or just starve to death on principle? Same goes for anyone organizing in a state, or what have you. Unless (say) those that chose to organize their state did so as a republic and set up a military to repel those that decide their state is worth looting (sound familiar?), the course would be the same.

The idea of government is to establish a rule of law and to restrict the ability to initiate force (in other words, police to deal with citizens who initiate force against other citizens, the military to deal with those who initiate force from outside, and the courts to peacefully and impartially resolve differences that crop up in dealings between citizens). Obviously our government has gone far beyond that, but anarchy leads to the USSR a hell of a lot more quickly. Again, you don’t have to agree with me on the philosophy behind this, but just look at history.

They are left-wing socially progressive people who think the government hasn’t done ENOUGH to create this equality they want. Ask the “anarchists” with the hoods over their faces about what should be done about health care, trade restrictions, environmental concerns, organic food, etc. Their answers, nearly without fail, will be more regulation, more money, more laws.

They only call themselves “anarchists” because they have their “corporation goggles” on. They can’t see the difference between a corporation and the government, so they think they the only way to get what they want is to destroy the government (corporations) so they can replace it with a socialist paradise.

Those anarchists are, in my mind, more confused and full of shit than the Republicans.

Libertarian oriented anarchists, on the other hand, do actually stand for anarchy. Anarchism has nothing to do with these over-privileged polititards who believe pretty much the opposite of what the word means. Whatever you think of the practical applications, anarchism a mighty noble concept.

#15 Boyd Durkin

That is hardly the only reason Dobbs is full of crap.

LOL! Yeah, it barely scratches the surface.

Totally agreed. But the point is that those who wish to set up such communities are free to do so. I, too, think they’ll fail, and quickly, but it’s their business. It’s not only that it defies human nature, but that humans have different conceptions of what’s “fair” in return, and without prices, there will be endless bickering. To pull an example from domestic life, what is the exchange rate between loads of dishes and cleaning the bathroom? No one knows.