Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 41 [42]   Go Down

Author Topic: Libertarian vs Anarchism  (Read 96962 times)


  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 306
  • Practical Anarchist
    • Unruled
Re:Did you say "anarchy?"
« Reply #615 on: August 12, 2003, 04:17:31 pm »

Suppose there is a fair demand for something...  call it Mopery.  The point is, how could the Mopery aficionados form or hire an Agency?  They cannot.  Lots of rich people hate the idea, so thier Agencies will make it impossible.

Actually lots of people hate Mopery (by assumption), rich and poor.  The rich can hire agencies with lots of hired muscle to prevent moperty.  The poor can join agencies with lots of militia muscle to prevent mopery.   It is clear that in anarchy there is much more tolerance resulting from the system than there is in statism.  However, even anarchy is not infinitely flexible.  A tiny enough minority, be it 1% or or .1%, wanting to do something that the others consider disgusting enough, will simply be squelched on it.  

Don't read that statement too broadly.  In anarchy tiny minorities won't be allowed to do things generally considered disgusting/wrong/evil/etc, whatever it may be -- most places.  But voting with the feet works in anarchy just as well, if not better, than it does in statism.  Mopers can form their own places just as easily under anarchy as they can in statism.  This is a specific case of a more general feature of anarchy that I have stated repeatedly in this thread: any solution to a problem that works under the State will work in anarchy, except solutions that require initiation of force, or fraud; in those the State can do things that anarchy simply cannot.

But the Mopery Fans CAN, since there are a fair number of them, form a Minarchy with a Mopery-Friendly Constitution and enjoy their bracing sport 24/7 within their geographically-localized Minarchy.

We have an example of statism around us, and it is not particularly pretty.  In our reality, you can't form a new state if you are unhappy with your choices.  It's simply not an option; libertarians have thought of it and even tried it.  Property is for sale in our world; but sovereignty is not.  I see no  reason to think that minarchies would act any differently than modern states as far as sovereignty goes.  In fact I see reason to think they would act the same.

Thus even if the Zack Bassward world of multiple minarchies did, by some miracle, get started, Mopers would still be out of luck.   Unless we assume that they got one of the "first states" as they were colonized or something.  In that case, though, we can always imagine a minority that likes some new vice, that didn't exist back when all the states formed - let's call them "Dopers".  The Dopers are just SOL.  They are forbidden from Doping everywhere, and they have no ability to form a Dopery state because no existing state will cede sovereignty to do so.

By contrast, in anarchy, when it happens, all you need to form your minority enclave is to buy up the property and move there.  Anarchy has one huge disadvantage: not actually existing.  But statism has the big disadvantage of not actually letting anyone opt out.  Of the two, I like the former better.  Your opinion may vary.

When lots of those [minority minarchies] exist within AnCap, we have what I've been advocating:  A multiplicity of Minarchies, some of them with Libertarian Constitutions.  You may still consider them to be groups living on Private property within AnCap, if you like, but they differ in no way that I can see from a bunch of City-States that arose in any other manner.

I do like to consider them to be groups living on Private property within AnCap.  

They differ in one way worth talking about.  While it is possible for them to be city-states, there is no reason to think that they will necessarily become states.  Take mopery for example.  Maybe initially there is only one agency in Mopery City - it doesn't enforce any mopery laws; but it does enforce other laws that even mopers agree on.  Murder or something.  But what if another mopery friendly agency is formed and tries to compete?  In that case the first agency either (a) forceably excludes the second (and in so doing becomes a state), or (b) doesn't - and competition comes to Mopery City.  Nothing wrong with that.  Even mopers need costs kept low and customer service kept high by the bracing discipline of the free market.

Having competition in Mopery City does, however, mean that the political dynamic of the place is quite different than in statism.  In particular, if a band of activist anti-Mopery busybodies manages to gain control of an agency, they cannot impose their agenda: everyone will just move to another agency.  Whereas, if the early Mopers formed a state, and Mopery prohibitionists manage to get into control, then the Mopers lose.

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Did you say "anarchy?"
« Reply #616 on: August 12, 2003, 11:12:09 pm »

Zach, what would keep the multiple minarchies from warring upon each other?



  I don't see much of a difference between this and a system of anarchic agencies.

Geographical localization.


Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Did you say "anarchy?"
« Reply #617 on: August 12, 2003, 11:17:25 pm »

  ... your multi-minarchy would evolve within a few years into anarchy as the minarchies realized they could branch out and serve more people without violating NAP.

Why wouldn't they violate NAP?  Not all of them are Libertarian Constitutional Minarchies.  Some of them are Constitutional Muggeries.  Some are Benevolent Dictatorships.  (Some were once not so benevolent, but 99% of the people moved.)  Some of them are even (eeew) Democracies!



  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #618 on: December 09, 2016, 10:52:06 pm »

I am an anarchist.I do not believe in top-down domination in either the social or economic realm.I am neither a syndicalist,a Primitivist nor a collectivist.I believe in the freedom of the individual and the equal rights of all human beings to enjoy a decent life.I regard religion,political domination,logical positivism,private property and legal rights as spooks.
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 41 [42]   Go Up