Freedomain Radio

I've been studying free market anarchism for many years. This has mostly been Austrian literature like Rothbard but I also like David Friedman and others. I like the theory and would enjoy living in such a society but it will be a lot easier for me to believe in its feasability if I ever see it in action. (Apparently Stefan argues that we see it all around us, so more on that later). The study of free market anarchism has brought me to Stefan, who is essentially the last remaining prominent free market anarchist for me to read. Perhaps he can convince me that the theory is sound and works in practice, because as of now I think it may have some fatal flaws. I have no interest in proving or disproving AC theory, only in pursuing the truth, so I hope to learn from Stefan and everyone else here. He certainly seems to have a lot of supporters, and I'm quite sure I will get a perspective on AC that differs from what I have read elsewhere.

 Salutations!

Hope you enjoy the conversation here.Stef has 2 books on anarchy here if you have not already read them.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/books.html

Everyday Anarchy & Practical Anarchy Probably the latter would be more interesting for you, but the first shows how we already live with some anarchy.

Lucifer=Lightbearer.  Is that what you had in mind?

Lucifer:

I have no interest in proving or disproving AC theory, only in pursuing the truth, so I hope to learn from Stefan and everyone else here.

When did your shift in emphasis change from specifically MA, to the truth in general? And, what did that mean, for you? How has your approach to knowledge changed? What do you think or do differently now, than when you were only interested in MA? What do you hope to gain from pursuit of the truth?

Welcome to Freedomain.

Hey there,

Welcome to the forums i look forward to debating anarchism perpaps in the chat window with you some time soon.

Tom

My two main questions are

1) Does the emergence of anarcho-capitalism require mass ideological support? If it does, then we should look at humanity's evolved preferences to understand why they gravitate toward collectivism, hierarchies, aggression, and territoriality.

2) If it doesn't require mass ideological support, then why are there not any private defense agencies for us to hire? A private defense agency must defend against individual  aggressors and states alike, so the fact that we live under a state should not prevent the emergence of anarcho-capitalism.

Do you really think that the government would allow the creation of a viable and practical alternative to its own "defense" military? In order to be viable, it would have to possess military power similar to that of the existing state, which would never be allowed...

I agree, and that is my point. A great advantage for the state is that it does not require our consent to exist, but we could not exist (as PDAs) without its permission.  Nonetheless states are on this planet and have been for all of recorded history and if AC requires that they somehow disappear before it can emerge, that is a huge failing of AC. PDAs need to be able to emerge within states and to defend against them before AC can be considered a viable alternative to the state system. What I want to argue is that there is a process of group selection at work that renders the collectivism, territoriality, hierarchy, and aggression of states as adaptive relative to what AC proposes. The fact that AC can not conceivably emerge and defend us against the ATF, DEA, and IRS is I think a serious shortcoming of the theory. A viable free market anarchist system cannot be dependent on the consent of the aggressors.

As all powerful governments have done in the past, surely today's powerful governments (primarily the US, the EU, and China) will fall.  When that happens, do you still see the emergence of PDAs as an impossibility?

 Who knows what will come out of the creation of such a huge power vaccume? I shudder at the thought myself.

nexalacer:

As all powerful governments have done in the past, surely today's powerful governments (primarily the US, the EU, and China) will fall.  When that happens, do you still see the emergence of PDAs as an impossibility?

It's true that states don't last forever, and even the US will fall someday. But again, if AC depends on the disappearance of the state before it can emerge then it is unviable. And for the same reasons that it cannot emerge under a state, it probably can't survive the emergence of a new state, rendering it highly unstable. Besides, there is no guarantee these powerful governments will fall just because they have in the past, and predictions of their imminent collapse is the anarchist version of Christians predicting the apocalypse, it's done fairly regularly and the lack of success doesn't wane their confidence. I'd like to go on the record and predict the US will still be here in 10-15 years.

Lucifer:

 

It's true that states don't last forever, and even the US will fall someday. But again, if AC depends on the disappearance of the state before it can emerge then it is unviable. And for the same reasons that it cannot emerge under a state, it probably can't survive the emergence of a new state, rendering it highly unstable. Besides, there is no guarantee these powerful governments will fall just because they have in the past, and predictions of their imminent collapse is the anarchist version of Christians predicting the apocalypse, it's done fairly regularly and the lack of success doesn't wane their confidence. I'd like to go on the record and predict the US will still be here in 10-15 years.

I think the issue here lies in the treatment of political and social organization as something statically connected to the human condition, or, rather, lying outside human progress.

The movement toward societies that respect the individual is not unlike technological progress. Part of our accumulation of knowledge about the world is the accumulation of knowledge about the nature of human beings. For the most part, we've been evolutionarily static in the course of recorded history. We're the same humans. All that's changed is the stock of human knowledge, which has been retained through society's passing on of knowledge via inscription, printing, and now digital recording. In a way, I think that's even related to why we've STOPPED evolving in the very strict biological sense. The growth of knowledge and innovation has supplanted what role our changing body parts once played.

And if that's occuring, and if the state is indeed a bad thing for rational people (which is well-demonstrated), the state should disappear like smallpox has disappeared. Medical science gained mastery over the human body in that regard. I would say that the stakes are much higher for social organization, so it will take much longer and many more years of empirical information about how bad the state is to sufficiently proliferate that knowledge.

Anyway, just thought I'd throw in an inkling of my theory, but hopefully that'll be a starting point for answering why anarchism is a viable option. It lies in our future as much as medical nanites do.