Thursday, June 03, 2010

The Rain in Spain


At their hugely popular website ‘Crooks and Liars,’ John Amato and David Neiwert have helped to expose the fact that there is no conservative party in America any more. They show that the right wingers are not conservatives, they are anarchists.

The only law the right wing believes in is the Law of the Jungle. No schools, no hospitals, no job programs, no nothing. Their idea of nirvana is Mogadishu.

-Rep. Alan Grayson
I have come to regard statists of all self-professed [ed. "soi-disant"] political ideologies as crackpot Hobbesians. "The Law of the Jungle"? Well, it works as a minor Dylan lyric. Look, Hobbes was wrong even on his own terms, but a couple of centuries of subsequent investigation, discovery, and revelation about the natural world lead ineluctably to the conclusion that it is not a war of all against all, but a vastly complex, interdependent, and beautiful mechanism for the proliferation and continuation of life. And that is not to say that there is no violence, no conflict, but that taken holistically, "nature" is not some perpetual cataclysm whose depredations we avoid only via the bulwark of civilization, but that it is instead a magisterially complicated and faceted system of systems of systems against whose billion-year evolution our brief species and briefer societies, for all their apparent (to us) ubiquity, pale and thin.

As for anarchy, I am fond of my friend J.R. Boyd's definition:
Stripped of its arbitrary associations, anarchism just means skepticism toward authority.
This being the nut of it, how are we to conclude anything but that the honorable Mr. Grayson, reading anarchy into his political opponents, objects to their insufficiently graceful acknowledgment of his authority--that is to say, the rightful authority in which he believes himself to partake by grace of his membership in a particular temoporary political majority? Are we to take it that "anarchist" is just an insult to hurl at another faction in the palace intrigues? Why not just call them terrorists? Oh, wait . . . what? You have.

Plainly and obviously, the Republican Party, the "tea party" . . . whomever Grayson is talking about, these people are not actually skeptical about authority, and certainly not about state authority. Their emphases are different, but their belief in the efficacy, use, and necessity of an extremely powerful, intrusive government mechanism is not. If so-called conservatives favor the martial over the judicial, say, or the legislative over the regulatory, well, in neither case is any real skepticism about authority observed. These are matters of mechanics, not of essence. Anyway, Republicans are quick to abandon their anti-Federal stance when "the border" is at stake, and Donks are quick to abandon their questions about the military where "humanitarianism" is concerned, and none of them are hollering that we must throw open the doors of the prisons, open the borders, permit everything, prohibit nothing, let the chips fall where they may. Accusing either one or other of the major political parties in this country, whose entire reason for being is the acquisition of political power and control of the government of the nation-state, of anarchism is like accusing the ocean of being dry.

68 comments:

Dan said...

I haven't even read this post yet, but I'm totally jizzing over that pic. I think I've found my next tattoo.

Is that from a book I ought to have read by now?

Cüneyt said...

Yeah, well, The Economist had an interesting article called "For Jihadist, Read Anarchist," back in 2005. Terrorism has lost its punch, and small-state conservatism isn't being attacked in any consistent way, but rather as a stereotype. And I'm glad you mention opening the prisons, because that's what actual anarchists did, before they were crushed by the bourgeois libs, Stalinist left, and the fascists... Hmm.

Cüneyt said...

Oh, and by the way, I actually take Hobbes' bellum omnium contra omnes as a wonderful description of anarchism--even cooperative anarchism. Every power in nature is checked or somehow responded to by other powers. That doesn't always mean violence, as you say, but nature isn't centralized; it's well, anarchic. And sometimes this kind of life or condition predominates until conditions emerge and then life adapts to that, and so on, and so on. But there's no permanent resolution but merely an ever-shifting environment of organisms working alone, in teams, and in ecosystems, in and out of balance, and there is no correction, no perfection, but that doesn't mean that there is no effort or striving.

There, that was properly heavy-handed and obvious, I hope.

IOZ said...

Haha. Yes, actually. If only Hobbes had meant it in that way.

Cüneyt said...

I find Hobbes' philosophy in a state of nature and, being intrinsically valueless, it is up to a greater power (i.e., me) to marshal it and claim its rights.

Or, rather, Hobbes writes of a state of nature in which all have a right to all, including each others' very bodies, and that we overcome this by surrendering our rights (or submitting before God, or giving up our passions)... I don't think we escape samsara; that's just life. And we are still in a state of nature and cannot help to be, and I have a right to freely interpret Hobbes (or no less right than he himself, though out of courtesy I should say when I misinterpret him.

StonedTerrorist said...

Hate the way people throw around the word 'anarchy' and eventually demonize it.
Over time, it has been reduced to represent Gotham City, without batman.
:S

Dan said...

Oh, and...psst. Your link to ladypoverty goes right back to your page.

IOZ said...

Thanks, Dan. Fixed it.

Michael said...

Yeah man, fuck all of human history up to this point. Freedom from aggressors and oppressors for everyone!

What if some groups in this anarchist utopia have bigger guns and more control over the food supply than other groups? Does legitimizing powerful coalitions as "the state" make the situation any different for the people on the outside looking in? Well, I forgive you for not wanting to think about that right now.

Montag said...

Michael, that's when you choose whether to nut up or shut up.

ever seen Seven Samurai?

Jack Crow said...

Lucy Parsons.

Lucy Parsons.

Lucy Parsons.

Anonymous said...

What if some groups in this anarchist utopia have bigger guns and more control over the food supply than other groups?

People always be imagining anarchist societies without many anarchists in them.

IOZ said...

Lol. Yeah, what if our post-racial society were still racist. What if we dismantle the patriarchy and are still rulled by menz?!!!!?????!!

Anonymous said...

What a drooling pompous ass.

Michael said...

Nonny 12:45, so you admit that a functional anarchist society must consist entirely of anarchists? How do you expect to achieve that?

the talking dog said...

"Anarchy is liberalism cleansed of the police." -- Leon Trotsky

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Grayson is just playing 3d string QB (pine-riding pontificator) in the Super Bowl of American Politics... it's the Mighty Donkeys vs the Bumbling Elephants... and Alzie is proud to be affiliated with those Donkeys... mighty proud.

Crooks and Liars... also mighty proud to be Of The Donkle, By The Donkle, Donkle Forever!

Chris Hedges, he of the pseudo-skeptical Donkist apologia, several months back uttered the same moronic misread on Anarchism. I commented back then that Hedges reminded me of the cartoon housewife who sees a mouse, shrieks EEK! loudly, and jumps onto the nearest chair. Hedges seemed to suggest that Anarchism is 99% violent mayhem, 1% pretense at principled opposition to authority.

And thus, so does Alzie Greyboy without the Allstars.

LOOK! CRAZY RETHUGS! OVER THERE! FEAR THEM NOW! SUPPORT THE DONKLE!

yawn

Professor Coldheart said...

Michael's got a point. I mean, what if we establish our anarchist utopia tomorrow and some faction gets all the guns and takes over? OH NO. I suppose we'd better leave things as they are today, i.e., some faction has all the guns and has taken over.

augustus818 said...

@Micheal In my version of "the law of the jungle" you are free to fight the lion or get the fuck out of it's way. Rather than civilization's forcible method of sending the lion half of your brood and half of your food all for the "privilege" of having tea parties (no pun intended) with the damn thing.

IOZ said...

I suppose Michael believes that China is composed entirely of communists. And everyone in America votes. And there really aren't any homos in Iran. Well, it's like I always say, a single invalid counterexample disproves an unrelated proposition every time.

Anonymous said...

Nonny 12:45, so you admit that a functional anarchist society must consist entirely of anarchists? How do you expect to achieve that?

By passing a law that forces everyone to behave like anarchists, of course! Seriously though, the convenient thing about organizing society around a centralized authority is that you can force everyone to behave within the system whether they agree or not. That's why such systems are neither democratic, nor freely existing.

Also, I don't expect to achieve a functional anarchist society, such societies already exist. Anarchist communities may not rival the size of even the smallest nation-states, but they exist nonetheless.

demize! said...

Ah, Fighting Rep.Grayson. The new hero of leftdems. So Liberal so progressive, except on the singular moral issue of our day; Palestine. You would think that politicians would at least be able to know the correct definition of a major political theory, even if just a cursory one.

Joe said...

Somebody always has to play the "utopia" card whenever the subject of anarchy comes up. Has anyone ever actually claimed that there'd be no problems in an anarchist society? As far as I can tell, states haven’t exactly eliminated violence and oppression from society. Is it okay then to declare the state a failed utopian scheme and move on to the next thing?

demize! said...

Micheal, how is that any different from what we are currently living under. Are we not the subjects of warlords? Does the "legitimate" use of violence accrue to the most mercenary, greedy, cruel and vain as it is?

Mr.Fundamental said...

it's like Lenin said.

Justin said...

I am the walrus

George Jones said...

No schools, no hospitals, no job programs, no nothing.

sounds pretty nice, actually.

Michael said...

Prof. Coldheart and demize, yes I realize that my perception of the future of any anarchist state closely resembles the current political setup. And I despise that setup as much as anyone. But I think any true anarchy will result in a good deal more violence in the long run since it always reverts to statism anyway. You create this gigantic power vacuum into which the most belligerent group is bound to step. You'd have a fall in violence due to war and ill-conceived social policy, but this would be extremely short-lived once sovereignty was claimed again and a group challenged that sovereignty. Plus there's all the associated small-scale robberies and rapes and what not that borderline sociopaths are bound to try if they believe the victims to be weaker than them and to have no legal recourse.

IOZ, that was precisely my point. As long as you have a few people around in the anarchist territory who do not believe in anarchy, have access to weapons and food, and believe they have a better way of doing things (usually involving putting themselves in charge and making others pay tribute), the true anarchists will quickly and rudely get a lesson in nation-building. In a perfect world your way would be sustainable forever, but applying politics to angels somehow doesn't cut it.

Nonny 2:29, what's the largest possible anarchy that you think could exist? What's to stop one anarchist group from attempting to overtake another because they want their gold or women or whatever? There may be no defined power structure in such a society, but people could still read the writing on the wall and agree on what would benefit all of them the most.

Michael Dawson said...

This Grayson dude is a mere pitchfork thrower for the pitchfork catcher-in-chief. This hyperbolic posing is his schtick, and it works among those who still see reasons to bother to vote. Remember his Republican-bashing on behalf of the private-meds bailout?

demize! said...

That is true. Bernie Sanders really irratates me. He is so obviously full of shit, but he's selling and somebody must be buying.

Kropotkin's Beard said...

The anarchist tradition is rich. There isn't one answer--the river of anarchism is wide and fluid. Check it out:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/

Jack Crow said...

Michael,

I think the problem with your formula is the insertion of "always."

That determinism has no basis in demonstrated proof.

Professor Coldheart said...

Michael: okay, I'll bite. Note that I'm speaking PURELY FOR MYSELF in the following. Not for our host and not for any other self-identified anarchists.

There's no "anarchist state" - or even a potential "anarchist state" - any more than there's an "atheist church." Atheism is the belief that there is no god or gods. You can be an atheist without bombing churches or murdering priests, even if you believe the world would be a better place without either. Atheism does not advance its own theories about ethics. Atheism simply says, "All this stuff about gods? It doesn't make any sense, does it?"

Similarly, anarchism is the belief that there is no State. By "State," I mean "some independent body of law that limits the unjust use of power." There is no such animal. I can't sum up my entire argument in a blawg's comment box, but, in brief: (A) what we call the State is not a singular entity but a network of agencies with different agendas; (B) the State is no more immune to human folly than the humans it governs; (C) the State is a concentration of power, not a bulwark against it.

My ultimate point: we are already living in anarchy. We are already living in the world that you predict anarchy would turn into - a world where the biggest gang has grabbed all the guns and cowed everyone they can't shoot. That's the state of affairs right now. Anarchism, as a philosophy, simply exposes that. Anarchism states that the idea of Power Subservient to Justice - a/k/a, a benevolent State - is a myth.

Again, the above is my take on anarchism; I can't vouch for anyone else; offer not valid in California; blawg blawg blawg, etc.

Gridlock said...

I believe in nuzzink!

IOZ said...

The Prof earns his honorific. I dare you to find someone in these parts proposing some means of getting to . . . uh . . . "an anarchy"? I mean, not to get all your ex-girlfriend on you, dudes, but you don't know what I want! you don't know anything about me!

I'm taking my cocaine.

And I am going back to Greensburg.

Sedgewickian said...

I think the problem with your formula is the insertion of "always."

That determinism has no basis in demonstrated proof.


Read some history. Since the first caveman met the second and bashed his brains in for his meat there has been a state.

--------------------

Or, rather, Hobbes writes of a state of nature in which all have a right to all, including each others' very bodies, and that we overcome this by surrendering our rights

Exactly and Hobbes was completely right. Even in an anarchist society most people will voluntarily give up their rights in order to join a group that offers them security and prosperity. This could be as libertarian as a workers collective or as authoritarian as a petty-dictatorship.

Hobbes was wrong about the need for an absolute state or the possibility of actually escaping violence but he was right about the nature of man and the nature of community.

---------------------

but a couple of centuries of subsequent investigation, discovery, and revelation about the natural world lead ineluctably to the conclusion that it is not a war of all against all, but a vastly complex, interdependent, and beautiful mechanism for the proliferation and continuation of life.

Absolute and utter bullshit of the worst order. Where do you think statist come from? What about thugs and the power mad? Do you think they were imposed on us by the devil? Of course not. The entirety of human history is a testament to the fact that Hobbes was right when he said it's a war of all against all.

Crime is envy and advantage seeking taking it's most natural form. Go look at other apes and higher mammals. Humans, before the ideas of justice and morality that the state and church created from while cloth, raped and killed each other over the littlest things.

Nature doesn't give a shit about you or about the poor. All that matters to nature is that the most adaptable genes get past on. It's not a process for creating and sustaining life but the opposite, a gauntlet to test and kill off those who cannot handle it.

A gang of thugs taking power and ruling everyone else would ensure greater stability, great efficiency, and less risk than hundreds of gangs of thugs fighting for control of every little thing every day. Ask a columbian where they prefer to live in the affluent city or the villages on the border of rival rebel territories.

I'll take the lesser of two evils every time.

-------------------

@Professor Coldheart @ 6:51pm

Exactly. E-fucking-xactly. That's what Hobbes means for the modern day. That's what I've been saying. That's what mature anarchism is without the utopian nonsense that says without an organized government all the ills of the human race will just disappear.

Thank you, sir.

Dan said...

You could always bring your cocaine to Philadelphia. Y'know, just putting it out there...

Jack Crow said...

"Read some history. Since the first caveman met the second and bashed his brains in for his meat there has been a state."

It's funny that you would choose cheap Hollywood trope to actual historical conclusions about early communities.

It's also really neat that your example for history comes from a period properly understood as pre-history.

davidly said...

Mischa's all, "Just poppin' in to say, 'Oh yeah!?' cuz I'm jus' that thick."

And then he's like, "Yo, I unnerstan' what ya'll sayin', it's just that things is pretty good, you know, not that I like it or nuttin' but, y'see, dey's guns! An' dat shit's for real."

I'm frightened. Everyone do what Mischa says.

Mr.Fundamental said...

I had an anarchy once. it sucked, and not in the right way. this is more fun.

my man, Utah:

". . .and I discovered watching him that anarchy is not a noun, but an adjective. It describes the tension between moral autonomy and political authority, especially in the area of combinations, whether they're going to be voluntary or coercive. The most destructive, coercive combinations are arrived at through force."

Michael said...

Prof. Coldheart, I agree with all you wrote above in theory but you're moving the goalposts to an entirely different field if you call any skepticism and distrust of the state anarchy.

Sedgewickian, great post and pretty much exactly how I feel. A strong and competent leader ensures order, peace, and prosperity. Thousands of roving "gangs", as would arise quickly after any anarchist revolution, do the polar opposite. (And no Donny, these men are not Nazis.)

Jack Crow, read Keeley to disavow yourself of "The Myth of the Peaceful Savage".

TGGP said...

I was going to link to Allen Thornton's "The Laws of the Jungle", but it's not online (it html form at least) anymore. I'll put it up once archive.org starts cooperating.

Skepticism of authority = anarchism? By that logic, I'm an anarchist. Anarchism requires rejecting the State. What the hell you mean by that (I never tire of citing Bob Black) is a matter of much dispute.

Thanks to my pestering him, Achwin de Wolf has reposted Richard Garner's "If Hobbes is Right, Then He Is Wrong".

davidly said...

As in really skeptical. If you don't know any anarchists - as in the way they live their lives - that's your loss.

Look at it this way: First they came for the anarchists...

Professor Coldheart said...

but you're moving the goalposts to an entirely different field if you call any skepticism and distrust of the state anarchy.

And you're constructing a sturdy strawman if you expect me to defend a utopia of like-minded Lotus eaters as the intended end state of "anarchism."

Besides, I don't think I'm mischaracterizing anarchism as a philosophy. Read Stirner, or Spooner, or the less crazy parts of Rothbard. Or Arthur Silber, or our gracious host here.

Anyhow, like I said, I'm only speaking for my own interpretation. You might find more profitable argument with other folks.

stras said...

We as a species got along for most of our existence without anything approaching a State. Anarchy has been the norm for homo sapiens; it's only been since the rise of agriculture allowed for the concentration of more and more resources in fewer and fewer hands that human beings have existed under anything pretending to be an orderly hierarchy of laws.

Now, hunter-gatherer societies were hardly utopian, but they lacked many if not most of the cruelties and atrocities modern civilization takes for granted, including homelessness, inequality, permanent warfare, the prison state, and the capacity to exterminate most multicellular life on the planet as a result of an incoherent spat over Cuba. I'm a bit skeptical that the state can be abolished short of some sort of massive civilizational collapse/reset that restores us to that state of technological development; the bright side - if you want to think of it as such - is that we're probably headed there anyway.

Anonymous said...

What crap. Anarchism isn't "skepticism" towards authority. It's a staunch belief that a particular kind of authority (state authority) is bad. Anarchists from Spooner to Rothbard to de Cleyre all make this very clear.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Short version of Michael at 4:39 pm:

I'm tewwwwwwwifyed! Fwytend. So skayuhd. Pweeeze sayv me, Soopahstayt! PWEEZE!

Oopsy Daddle said...

Grayson, a prog with 'tude, not afraid to call the Republicans names, like "anarchist," which would really rankle them in like 1913. I believe Grayson followed up the insult by calling John Boehner "swarthy."

Tim Baste said...

Thanks for this post, IOZ - your first paragraph in particular.

As for the aftermath, Stras has it nailed, in my opinion, and there's basically no hope for cats like Michael and Sedgewickian after this fleeting and anomalous moment of "history" is, well, history.

Jack Crow said...

Michael,

I didn't offer up a myth of a peaceful savage. I just found the attempt to treat pre-history as history amusing.

IOZ said...

A strong and competent leader ensures order, peace, and prosperity.

Lol, yeah. Like Stalin. And Louis XIV. Uh, Constantine? He out-Herods Herod!

Jack Crow said...

TGGP,

I think, as with atheism, you can approach the anarchist positions from varying perspectives.

Some atheists, for example, merely disbelieve God - but have no opinions about metaphysics, politics or the structure of the universe sans God.

Some atheists are not so much anti-
God, as without God. That's my own perspective. Even if it could be demonstrated that God was real and really did love me enough to send me to the sulfur lake forever, I would not have him as my God. I would be without god, even in the face of God.

So, too, with anarchism. Some of us are anti-State, sure. For a host of reasons, they are rather immediately devoted to destroying the mind-colony of the State. But some one us are without-State. Even if the officeholders of the state (and this is demonstrably true) are running about mucking up the works, we don't feel the need to obey them. We can accept existence of these assholes without agreeing to their terms of existence.

And it's even more fluid, than that. In the course of a lifetime, depending on circumstance and fortune, an anarchist can oscillate between those two positions, as well as the many others I haven't mentioned.

Respect,

Jack

James said...

Michael, thanks for asking the questions I wanted to ask. As someone who knows nothing about anarchism, the responses to your objections have (mostly) been very informative and helpful.

BDR said...

Out-Herods Herod? Hamlet, yes, but there's Hecht's poem too:

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=179059

Christopher said...

I don't know shit about anarchy, but I'm slowly being convinced that it must make perfect sense, just because the arguments against it seem so silly.

I mean, everybody seems to think that "Anarchy has never existed in human history" is somehow a convincing argument.

If I were to go back in time and space and explain to an Italian circa 1200 that in my time, war between European states is unthinkable, most of my compatriots believe that women and men are pretty much the same, homosexuality is practiced out in the open, and we occasionally find time to travel to the goddamned moon, do you think I would sound lucid, let alone like I was describing the inevitable?

Our own society only seems plausible to us because we live in it. There's all kinds of unprecedented shit happening, so how can you even think "It's unprecedented!" is a valid argument against anything?

PS-Yes, I know that none of what I've described is completely unprecedented, but then neither is any kind of utopian society you care to name.

IOZ said...

Shit, you'd have a hard time explaining to an Italian, circa 1200, that he was an Italian.

Scats said...

@Christopher: your first sentence - muah.

Indeed ye olde "unprecedented" argument is a great anti-anarchist chestnut.

As is the "impermanence" argument: States are the least-worst necessary evil because they are more stable. Even though they've only been around for 500-10K years of the 200K years of human existence (depending on how you count).

Nothing in this world is stable, kids, even Mommy's skirts.

What would be really nice is a compilation of these terrible arguments in the form of a primer of some sort. Kind of a Euclid's Elements for people in conversation with authoritarians. Surely that exists?

George Jones said...

I haven't read it, but Sartwell's Against the State might fit the bill.

TGGP said...

I have read some of Thornton's "Laws of the Jungle" and that sounds close to what you're talking about.

Sedgewickian said...

I just found the attempt to treat pre-history as history amusing.

Good, as it was meant to be humorous.

Even though they've only been around for 500-10K years of the 200K years of human existence (depending on how you count).

You mean states organized in a modern form as opposed to disorganized or non-modern ones like criminal bands and authoritarian tribes. A system of coercion is a state. Thus tribes are states.

I'm willing to call simple absence of a state anarchy and even say that anarchy has existed throughout human history but it's been dysfunctional. Pre-state and non-state man lived as an animal, by his might alone.

That's what Hobbes got right. Without something (voluntary contract, king, robot overlord) to enforce a set of rights everyone can take from everyone else and the only thing to stop them is brute force.

So being human beings we are better off joining gangs that insulate us (somewhat) from the violence of the other gangs. By submitting to one gang of thieves we are protected from the others. No man is an island and the bigger the gangs the more abstract and distant the violence becomes.


Nothing in this world is stable, kids, even Mommy's skirts.

More stable and stable are not the same things. Nothing is stable but some things are more stable than others. Or how about, everything decays but different elements decay at different rates.

IOZ said...

"As an animal, by his might alone."

So Robert Frost and Rudyard Kipling walk into a bar . . .

Sedwickian, I recommend that you read Leviathan. "A set of rights"? Um, what? Meanwhile, it was Donne who said "no man is an island," and the phrase does not mean what you think it means.

NutellaonToast said...

"I suppose Michael believes that China is composed entirely of communists. And everyone in America votes. And there really aren't any homos in Iran. Well, it's like I always say, a single invalid counterexample disproves an unrelated proposition every time."

But IOZ, you perpetually blindered work horse of poorly thought but well written prose, anarchists allegedly forgo the main tool that the communists and that what-have-yous use to keep the non-communists and the what-have-you-nots from keeping in line.

I mean, unless your definition of anarchy is a bunch of people with guns making it a law against making laws, well, then, don't you get the same fucking problem you have with libertarianism? How do you properly define rights? Is it violence if I pollute your stream?

You'd be so much smarter if you realized your ideas where as stupid as the rest of ours.

NutellaonToast said...

"The Prof earns his honorific. I dare you to find someone in these parts proposing some means of getting to . . . uh . . . "an anarchy"? I mean, not to get all your ex-girlfriend on you, dudes, but you don't know what I want! you don't know anything about me!"

Well, in that case, I think humans should just be born with built in food replicators and the ability to regenerate! That would be an ideal system.

Scats said...

...anarchy has existed throughout human history but it's been dysfunctional.

lulz. So "functional" is by definition "people in State"? I'd say not having lived with a State for most of our species' existence would suggest that humans are actually deeply maladaptive for living in specialized hierarchical social formations. So who's the dysfunctionalists now?

Not all, or even most, pre-agricultural tribes are authoritarian. Egalitarian tribes aren't hard to come by if you look at the historical record instead of the tea-room imaginings of the a priori posse. What's more, many such tribes have lasted longer than state formations. So our beloved 'stability' returns.

Check out some anthropology. Mauss, Clastres, Graeber, Barclay. All good times.

Joe said...

Sedgewickian,

You've managed to conflate the idea of voluntary association with states twice now. A group of people joining together *voluntarily* for the purpose of defending themselves against aggressors is not the same as being forced to pay for "protection services." You're not surrendering any of your rights so long as you're free to opt out of an arrangement.

Anonymous said...

Without something (voluntary contract, king, robot overlord) to enforce a set of rights everyone can take from everyone else and the only thing to stop them is brute force.

Yeah, I guess here is the problem in your line of thinking.

...
E.g., how easy do you think was for communist dictator's kids to find spouses?

...
When my dad was interrogated by a Commie Secret Police goon, did the goon keep in the back of his mind that his son and I were in the same class? Did the goon let my dad off with a slap on the wrist (defamation of the Communist State, punishable with up to 10 years in prison)?

...
Did communist student quotas against the kids of educated people get dropped when commies' own kids came up for college entrance exams?

...
Brute force "the only thing"? I beg to differ, Sir.

John Sabotta said...

I think it's safe to assume that at least some of the people claiming we must support the present State lest it be replaced by rule by Mafia/warlord/biker gang/psycho guy would be making the same arguments if we were actually being ruled by the Mafia/warlords/biker gangs, etc.

"We can't overthrow Don Corleone or he might be replaced by Hannibal Lector! Or the Banditos."

WOW Gold said...

Great write-up. this is my 1st visit to your blog. Thank you for publishing an excellent post. Cheap diablo iii cd key buy diablo 3 Gold