
Why I Am An Anarchist - geoka9
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/anarchist.html
======
mithaler
I don't know about 1934, but this is what the ballot looked like in 1938.
<http://danariely.com/2010/10/05/hitler-nudge/>

In any case, he doesn't answer the central question that arguing for anarchy
inevitably provokes: once we take away the power monopoly of government,
what's to stop someone from seizing power by force and being far worse than
any government that preceded them?

The problem with the Hitler example is that that's pretty much exactly what
Hitler did. Weimar Germany was far from a model of sane government; it felt
powerless after the war, it was crippled economically and it lacked real
leadership. The spirit of nationalism that had made Germany such a powerful
force before WWI had been broken by its defeat, and Hitler took power by
stepping in to fill the void that it left.

In other words, the Hitler example is exactly what a sane government prevents.
The problem there wasn't the fact that there was a government in power; it was
that there wasn't one. Anarchy was the problem, not the solution.

------
lukevdp
Just because a government can possibly turn ugly, it doesn't mean that no
government is better.

The argument is akin to "beef can give you food poisoning, so we should
eradicate all cows".

Everyone hates paying taxes... But anarchy? Come on. The fabric of the society
that has advanced so far in the last 300 years is built on, at the very least,
property rights and stability

~~~
face
I do not think he is arguing against property rights. I think that forms of
anarchy allow for property rights and other individual liberties.

~~~
astine
In theory, but not practice. Hobbes particularly, makes the point that without
government, property rights are largely unenforcible. The strong will out.

~~~
anamax
> In theory, but not practice. Hobbes particularly, makes the point that
> without government, property rights are largely unenforcible. The strong
> will out.

Umm, the strong will out even with govt. In fact, govt will enforce the will
of the strong.

Consider how eminent domain works in the US. One of the seminal cases in the
US involved GM wanting to build a plant where a bunch of poor people lived.
The local govt took the land under eminent domain and basically gave it to GM.
(It's the "poletown" case if you're looking for cites.)

Yes, you get to vote, but as they say, democracy is two wolves and a sheep
voting over what to have for dinner.

~~~
astine
At least that sheep has a vote. I dislike eminent domain abuse as much as
anyone but there is a big difference between what property right abuse looks
like now and what it would look like without a discernible and relatively
incorrupt government.

~~~
anamax
> there is a big difference between what property right abuse looks like now
> and what it would look like without a discernible and relatively incorrupt
> government.

Those aren't the only possibilities. (And relatively incorrupt is optimistic.
It isn't consistently corrupt.)

Consider the sudan (no functioning govt) with zimbabwe (malevolent govt). It's
not obvious that the sudan is worse.

Also, remember that the effective genocides have had govt backing.

------
seles
Another problem with democracy: lets say there are 9 people and there are some
dishes that need washing, one could propose a vote to make Bob always do the
dishes every time for ever. If everyone votes in their best interest then Bob
is screwed. Obviously this is not fair and people would hopefully have the
sense not to do this, but you can't count on people to be "fair" or even know
what fair is.

This dilemma already exists, one examples is welfare. Now you may agree or
disagree that welfare is good or bad, but surely there is some degree of
welfare that is too much, and it will reach this limit eventually if it
already hasn't.

I liked the quote: "...democracy is a terrible form of government, but eight
times better than any other." -Winston Churchill

I do not agree that anarchy is the solution, although democracy has it's
flaws, it does indeed seem eight times better than anything else... Or at
least anything that could practically be done. I think the ideal solution
would be to create a very basic set of laws that guarantees individual rights.
And make any form of new laws impossible.

But how practical is this idea? The only way I can see it happening is if some
rich dude buys an island and puts investment in it to get its economic
foundation going. Yes I know crazy idea.

~~~
zimbu668
People have advocated man made islands that would reside outside the territory
of any nation (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading>)

Sealand is an interesting example, some sort of British military base on a
platform in the North Sea was claimed and declared an independent country,
with little recognition by any established countries
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand>)

------
duncanj
I was a little disturbed by the glib comparison between Nazi Germany and the
IRS. Also, I think there are a lot of people who do not "suffer" under a
redistributive welfare state, but rather suffer less than they would without
the redistribution.

------
ryandvm
My take on the article is that the author is basically advocating less
powerful central government. What he fails to recognize in the article are
that strong state and local governments are part of the balance that the
Constitution put in place and they work quite well.

Indeed, not only is strong local governance a good preventative measure
against the unlikely military coup, it works for all kinds of things. Want
socialized healthcare? No reason your state can't do it. Don't want a national
war on drugs? California is about find out if one is actually constitutional.

When you have states with economies that are larger than most countries, there
is no reason to be bumping so many responsibilities up to the federal level.

------
swombat
A pretty poor argument for gun ownership...

If this was the case, then personal handguns should be made illegal, and
assault weapons should be available to all with appropriate training.

Handguns aren't going to do much if the US government decides to ethnically
cleanse a state.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I don't think assault weapons would do much, either. Don't bring a machine gun
to a tank fight.

~~~
swombat
Machine guns are pretty handy for guerilla warfare.

Tanks, not so much.

~~~
pavel_lishin
That was just an example. Others include:

* helicopters

* jet airplanes

* satellites

* artillery

* light armored vehicles

* unmanned drones

etc.

As a side note, I fucking hate HN's formatting.

~~~
trafficlight
The US military has all of those things and yet the Iraqi resistance still put
up a good fight.

~~~
semanticist
Because the coalition forces in Iraq aren't engaged in ethnic cleansing. If
they weren't worried about killing civilians and looking bad on the news, they
could probably level most of the country.

------
iterationx
If there was no government then gangs would take over.

~~~
e40
In this day and age, I think it would be corporations. The void left by no
government would be filled by the second most powerful entities, and those are
most certainly corporations.

When I read "Market Forces" (scifi) I thought, very entertaining but
completely unrealistic. In the absence of government, maybe not.

~~~
astine
If there was no government, there would be no corporations. A corporation's
power is dependent on the social framework a government creates. To give an
example of what I mean, modern currencies are fiat, that is, they have value
because various governments have declared them to have value. With the
collapse of government, one of the chief sources of power for corporations,
their immense liquid wealth, would become meaningless.

That's not to say that corporate entities wouldn't be able to adapt and fill
the power vacuum, but they wouldn't resemble corporations as we know them
today, and they likely wouldn't resemble some of the silly concoctions that
you sometimes see in SF (_Venus Incorporated_, etc.)

~~~
duncanj
I agree with you, but only because what you are saying is a tautology. If the
government was vaporized, and some powerful corporations took over, there
would be a new _de_ _facto_ government. The corporations would then have to be
overthrown.

If a national government decided to let an independent fiat currency be
developed by an independent corporation, and all the other corporations, such
as banks, agreed to use that fiat currency, that currency would have the same
value: you need it to trade for your needs because you get paid in it.

It is not clear why trade could not continue in the absence of the federal
government, as all the banks would probably be willing to lend to corporations
with good credit, and they would probably continue storing their reserves in
those banks.

In other words, I think you assume too many magical steps.

------
james2vegas
s/anarchist/(anarcho-capitalist|right libertarian|Libertarian)/

