Anarchy! - Why We Need It

Robert P. Murphy of the Mises Institute delivers a fantastic audio lecture on anarchy.

mises.org...

Presented to Dr. Brad Birzer's seminar on "American Order and Disorder," Hillsdale College, 02-09-2005.

Bookmark the thread and listen to it while you have some down time at work.

Murphy describes his brand as "free market anarchism".

Interesting post. I haven't heard this one yet.

Recently, in a Reason Magazine article, they discuss The Tale of Two Libertarianisms

Robert Murphy is a very is mart man. I enjoy his notes on Rothbard's "Man, Economy, and State".

edit: spelling and...

Have you read any SEK3 or Stefan Molyneux? Even though Molyneux has a questionable following, his incites in free market volunteerism are riveting.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by DINSTAAR]

Murphy is one of my favs to listen to.

I haven't read that stuff, I'll check it out when I get a chance.

If you have online copies you can link to, post em.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Chaos Theory

Study Guide to Murray Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State

I am sure there are more, but these two are a good start.

I just completed a debate in the debate forum on the subject of anarchy. Most of the research I did concluded that it is in fact, a non viable way of society. But a very interesting topic either way.

I wont pollute the thread with my reasoning, but here's a link to the thread anyway, which has a few interesting points on both sidea of the argument.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by OzWeatherman


Exceptional debate. It was an enjoyable read and enlightening especially for one such as I (My ideal world would be anachronistic). Your views on the reality versus the theory were on the nose and I think a good read for the OP if he is so inclined.

Cheers

Anarchy hm?

It doesn't even exist. It will never exist. That is like asking for Utopia.

What drives this world is the so called game theory. Even in an anarchy, there will be benefits with working with one another, which ISN'T anarchy.

After all, who are you going to call when I try to kill you? And then the person after me etc.

reply to post by FritosBBQTwist

It doesn't even exist. It will never exist. That is like asking for Utopia.

Anarchy exists almost everywhere. Every contract or association done outside systematic violence of governments is an example of people living in anarchy with each other.

Market anarchy is not Utopian. It is actually a theory that exists because Utopia is not a practical end.

What drives this world is the so called game theory.

Agreed, but this statement is irrelevant to your point.

Even in an anarchy, there will be benefits with working with one another, which ISN'T anarchy.

What!? Anarchy is the lack of enforced authority. Whatever premise you base your opinion on, it is a false one.

After all, who are you going to call when I try to kill you? And then the person after me etc.

So if we didn't have government to produce and distribute food, clothing, and shelter we would all be starving, naked, and freezing to death. Policing is important and free people are surely able to provide protection for themselves. Private security firms, deriving power from voluntary contracts and agreements, are infinitely more ethical than government-run police forces deriving power and authority from a system that uses the police's own monopoly of violence to enforce is power to steal(taxation).

Another practical way to think of anarchy is an absence of mandatory contracts. A mandatory contract, like the Social Contract, is a contract that one party agrees for all parties effected. It is hardly contract at all. Anarchy allows for voluntary contracts and voluntary association.

@OzWeatherman

Decent debate, but I see a no reasonable argument against anarchy. In fact, many good ideas were not discussed. neformore needed to go on the offensive and ask you to justify the existence of the state. Any attempt to justify the state is like sprinting through a minefield of logical fallacies.

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
.

@OzWeatherman

Decent debate, but I see a no reasonable argument against anarchy. In fact, many good ideas were not discussed. neformore needed to go on the offensive and ask you to justify the existence of the state. Any attempt to justify the state is like sprinting through a minefield of logical fallacies.

But thats the whole point of the debate, its to try and make a reasonable argument for either point of view regardless of wether its true or not

]Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
After all, who are you going to call when I try to kill you? And then the person after me etc.

Who said anacrhy would occur that way? And if you dont think that anywhere has any anarchic government, try doing some research on Somalia, thats the closest thing to an anarchic government, not that its working all that well though

reply to post by OzWeatherman

anarchic government

Oxymoron

Somalia is not an example of political anarchy. It is an example of political chaos. Chaos that ensued because of the actions taken by the state of Somalia, rebels wishing to make a new state, and other states meddling in something they had no right to (Ethiopia, UK, US).

A state is a legal authority over a region. Chaos ensues when more than one party claims legal authority over the same region. That is what a war is, and what is going on in Somalia with the rebel parties and warlords.

I STARTED A NEW THREAD asking for the justification of a state.

reply to post by DINSTAAR


There will be authority, and always will be.

Whether or not it is a systematic government is besides my point.

An unspoken law and an unannounced group will lead together.

Even if there was "anarchy"...it would be dissolved so quick by people packing together for whatever reasons. That to me is considered order.

edit - To Oz, about Somalia. You said "anarchic government". That is not anarchy. You are using anarchy as an adjective to describe a government...which means there is still a government.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by FritosBBQTwist]

everyone into anarchy should look into a guy called john zerzan, he is an anarcho primitivest has his own radio show on every tuesday, go to his site, johnzerzan.net and check out his #. i have two of his books and listen in every tuesday.

I think one important facet to remember is that Anarchy is not "without rules", it isn't "without government", it isn't even by technicality leaderless; rather, Anarchy is the belief that no state, individual, or government has the authority over an individual. You do not need authority as a government, if the very people who are in the government, and decide on governmental issues, is the people who the government serves. Government should only exist to protect an individuals freedoms. If an individual infringes on the freedoms of another, then that is a case for law and justice to be delivered fairly. If others attempt to destroy us, we protect ourselves. Having a standing army isn't difficult in an Anarchy because, in a simple way, the people can be the army. Switzerland essentially does this; they do have an army but also have a militia consisting of every male over the age of 18. That is why Hitler didn't invade Switzerland.

Anarchy can work, we just ALL need to be willing to try.

reply to post by sqeaks

everyone into anarchy should look into a guy called john zerzan, he is an anarcho primitivest has his own radio show on every tuesday, go to his site, johnzerzan.net and check out his #. i have two of his books and listen in every tuesday.

What is primitive about having a radio show and a website? Just kidding. I just thought that was a funny point.

reply to post by SpectreDC

Anarchy can work, we just ALL need to be willing to try.

And by willing to try, you mean willing to give up violent control of other peoples lives.

Anarchy is easier than people make it sound.

For example, I do not violently exert control over anyone else. I do not force people to comply with my will directly or indirectly(voting), and live in peace with my neighbors.

The trouble is, I am constantly being forced to do stuff, or give up my property to serve other peoples causes. My work is being exploited by people who, themselves, contribute nothing to society. All actions done by our masters are a net loss of productivity.

In fact, most statists do live in a state of Anarchy the majority of their lives.

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist

After all, who are you going to call when I try to kill you? And then the person after me etc.

I could call upon anyone I see fit to call upon. Even myself.

The more important question to ask is why are you trying to kill me? And does any answer lend itself to law as prevention? Or is it just more law as revenge?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

I could call upon anyone I see fit to call upon. Even myself.

Great point.



Minus the flashlight, plus a collapsible bipod in the fore grip and a bayonet. I am not terribly worried about people trying to kill me, especially if I have neighbors like thisguyrightthere and all of our friends.

If you want to remain safe, you can freely associate with people that can ensure that. Just because you formed a group, does not mean the group exerts authority.

reply to post by SpectreDC


That is a great theory of defense. However, it begs a few questions. Who would pay for the arms, ammo, guns, and clothing necessary to wage a prolonged fight? Who would ensure the soldiers that volunteered were reimbursed for their time? How would we ensure that their families were provided for while they were away fighting?

How would you deter a country, with the might of China, from taking your lands and resources by force?

Right, Im afraid this is a total misconception of anarchy and it has gone on long enough.

What you are discussing here gentlemen, is what is called, in none such terms, either individualist anarchism or ANARCHO-CAPITALISM.

John Zerzhan Is a fringe primitivist and by no means reflects anarchist thought in general. Names like Mikhail Baukunin, Peter Kropotkin, Murray Bookchin et al. are who you wanting to be reading around if you want to get an understanding of what an anarchist society would represent.
Alas, i get the feeling that many of you who would argue for things like "free market anarchy" and "minimal government" would be unnerved somewhat by the things you would read there,

Namely because, it sounds alot like communism! (and all the kneejerk terror that this provokes from many to scalled "libertarian" americans).


But honestly, if you want to get you serious about it, here are some snippets www.infoshop.org... ...Capitalism in general in an anarchist context.

www.infoshop.org... ...Anarcho-capitalism

www.prole.info...... also useful

en.wikipedia.org... ... have a browse through the whole portal, should outline some basic differences between Social and Individualist Anarchism.

To sign off, dont rouse people up with lofty words if all thats going to result in is bigger cages and longer chains. We will not be free untill the destruction of both Capitalism AND the state.......

reply to post by TheSilentProtagonist

To sign off, dont rouse people up with lofty words if all thats going to result in is bigger cages and longer chains. We will not be free untill the destruction of both Capitalism AND the state.......

I have no idea what, specifically, you mean by capitalism. It cannot be 'free market' because if you are advocating the destruction of a free market you are advocating control over that market (for examples, see the USA) by some authority. That would, in turn, not be Anarchy.

In an anarchy, free market is assumed because any control over the market would require the existence of a state or union, exerting force to control the actions of people. The union, in this case, would become the state and the union leaders would become the depots.

In a free market, both capitalism and socialism can work. It is all based on a volunteer system instead of a system of voting a social control. If one chooses to be a part of a socialist system, they can. If they want to leave the socialist system, they can.

Namely because, it sounds alot like communism! (and all the kneejerk terror that this provokes from many to scalled "libertarian" americans).

You seem to assume a lot about libertarians. That is more of a knee-jerk reaction by the right to belittle the left and a knee-jerk reaction of the left to cover their tracks.

Nothing wrong with communism as long as it is voluntary. The very first communists believed in anarchy. The problem arises when communists seek to control, socially or otherwise, the freedom of the individual. For a good example of this see the USSR. Any method of coercion or any system that derives power from violence is a 'state'.

State-communism is not that far from State capitalism. They both rely on a state to function as a bastard child of the 'communism' or 'capitalism' idea.

I do not know why social anarchists are so adamant in distancing themselves from other anarchists. We have a fundamental difference in the theory of value, but we both believe that the state is not a necessary or a preferred way of doing things.

I believe that in a world without government, socialism and capitalism will interact in peace.