Jump to content


Why We Couldn't Abolish Slavery Then...


Recommended Posts

Why We Couldn't Abolish Slavery Then and Can't Abolish Government Now

By Robert Higgs

 

Slavery existed for thousands of years, in all sorts of societies and all parts of the world. To imagine human social life without it required an extraordinary effort. Yet, from time to time, eccentrics emerged to oppose it, most of them arguing that slavery is a moral monstrosity and therefore people should get rid of it. Such advocates generally elicited reactions that ranged from gentle amusement to harsh scorn and violent assault.

 

When people bothered to give reasons for opposing the proposed abolition, they advanced many different ideas. In the first column of the accompanying table (below), I list ten such ideas that I have encountered in my reading. At one time, countless people found one or more of these reasons an adequate ground on which to oppose the abolition of slavery.

 

In retrospect, however, these reasons seem shabby—more rationalizations than reasons. They now appear to nearly everyone to be, if not utterly specious, then shaky or, at best, unpersuasive, notwithstanding an occasional grain of truth. No one now dredges up these ideas or their corollaries to support a proposal for reestablishing slavery. Although vestiges of slavery exist in northern Africa and a few other places, the idea that slavery is a defensible social institution is defunct. Reasons that once, not so long ago, seemed to provide compelling grounds for opposing the abolition of slavery now pack no intellectual punch.

 

Strange to say, however, the same ideas once trotted out to justify opposition to the abolition of slavery are now routinely trotted out to justify opposition to the abolition of government (as we know it). Libertarian anarchists bold enough to have publicly advanced their proposal for abolishing the state will have encountered many, if not all, of the arguments used for centuries to prop up slavery. Thus, we may make a parallel list, as shown in the table’s second column.

 

In the table, my repetition of the cumbersome expression “government (as we know it)” may seem odd, or even irritating, but I have chosen to tax the reader’s patience in this way for a reason. When the typical person encounters an advocate of anarchism, his immediate reaction is to identify a list of critical government functions—preservation of social order, maintenance of a legal system for resolving disputes and dealing with criminals, protection against foreign aggressors, enforcement of private property rights, support of the weak and defenseless, production and maintenance of economic infrastructure, and so forth. This reaction, however, shoots at the wrong target.

 

Libertarian anarchists do not deny that such social functions must be carried out if a society is to function successfully. They do deny, however, that we must have government (as we know it) to carry them out. Libertarian anarchists prefer that these functions be carried out by private providers with whom the beneficiaries have agreed to deal. When I write about government “as we know it,” I am referring to the monopolistic, individually nonconsensual form of government that now exists virtually everywhere on earth.

 

Readers may object that at least some existing governments do have the people’s consent, but where’s the evidence? Show me the properly signed and witnessed contracts. Unless all of the responsible adults subject to a government’s claimed authority have voluntarily and explicitly accepted its governance on specific terms, the presumption must be that the rulers have simply imposed their rule. Propaganda statements, civics texts, opinion surveys, barroom allegations, political elections, and so forth are beside the point in this regard. No one would think of proffering such forms of evidence to show that I have a valid contract with Virgin Mobile, which supplies me with telelphone service. When will the governments of the United States, the state of Louisiana, and St. Tammany Parish send me the contracts wherein I may agree (or not) to purchase their “services” on mutually acceptable terms?

 

The similarity of arguments against the abolition of slavery and arguments against the abolition of government (as we know it) should shake the faith of all Americans who still labor under the misconception that ours is a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” From where I stand, it looks distressingly like an institutional complex that rests on the same shaky intellectual foundations as slavery.

 

Arguments Against the Abolition of Slavery and Arguments Against the Abolition of Government (as We Know It)

 

1. Slavery is natural.

 

1. Government (as we know it) is natural.

 

2. Slavery has always existed.

 

2. Government (as we know it) has always existed.

 

3. Every society on earth has slavery.

 

3. Every society on earth has government (as we know it)

 

4. The slaves are not capable of taking care of themselves.

 

4. The people are not capable of taking care of themselves

 

5. Without masters, the slaves will die off.

 

5. Without government (as we know it), the people will die off.

 

6. Where the common people are free, they are even worse off than slaves

 

6. Where the common people have no government (as we know it), they are much worse off (e.g., Somalia).

 

7. Getting rid of slavery would occasion great bloodshed and other evils.

 

7. Getting rid of government (as we know it) would occasion great bloodshed and other evils.

 

8. Without slavery, the former slaves would run amuck, stealing, raping, killing, and generally causing mayhem.

 

8. Without government (as we know it), the people would run amuck, stealing, raping, killing, and generally causing mayhem.

 

9. Trying to get rid of slavery is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a cockamamie proposal.

 

9. Trying to get rid of government (as we know it) is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a cockamamie proposal.

 

10. Forget abolition. A far better plan is to keep the slaves sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and occasionally entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter.

 

10. Forget anarchy. A far better plan is to keep the ordinary people sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter.

Link to comment

Not to be dismissive, but aren't these all just rationalizations to justify what where once seen economic and political neccesities. IE; the confederate states feared the loss of slavery because of it's economic impact, and to a large degree they were right, the end of slavery caused great economic upheaval in the south. The continental congress failed to adress the issue mostly because they knew the south would not ratify the constitution if it did. BTW didn't slavery come to an end because of govenment intervention. Surely, you don't believe the plantation owners of the colonial period would hve given up their own wealth without a fight. Or do you suspect slavery wouldn't have come about without the govenment? Actually, I think you'll find that slavery pre dates govenment by long margin.

Link to comment

SOCAL, quick question. I'm interested in your anarchist philosophy. I admit I don't share it, but it's nice to see someone argue from the extreme ends of the spectrum every so often. My question is this: in another post you mentioned 'establishing free property' as a basis for this system of self 'government.' But how on earth do you suppose we do that? If Mr. Jerry Smith rolls onto my property with tanks because his band decides they like my lake front property, what am I to do? It seems to me, at least on the surface, that this entire anarchic premise rests on the same foundation as Communism, e.g. that people are naturally good and want what's best for the group as well as themselves.

 

Remember Thomas Paine said "Society is produced by our wants and governments by our wickedness."

Link to comment

Not to be dismissive, but aren't these all just rationalizations to justify what where once seen economic and political neccesities. IE; the confederate states feared the loss of slavery because of it's economic impact, and to a large degree they were right, the end of slavery caused great economic upheaval in the south. The continental congress failed to adress the issue mostly because they knew the south would not ratify the constitution if it did. BTW didn't slavery come to an end because of govenment intervention. Surely, you don't believe the plantation owners of the colonial period would hve given up their own wealth without a fight. Or do you suspect slavery wouldn't have come about without the govenment? Actually, I think you'll find that slavery pre dates govenment by long margin.

 

What about individual's arguments for the existence of government, and against anarchy, are not about economic and political necessity?

Link to comment

SOCAL, quick question. I'm interested in your anarchist philosophy. I admit I don't share it, but it's nice to see someone argue from the extreme ends of the spectrum every so often. My question is this: in another post you mentioned 'establishing free property' as a basis for this system of self 'government.' But how on earth do you suppose we do that? If Mr. Jerry Smith rolls onto my property with tanks because his band decides they like my lake front property, what am I to do? It seems to me, at least on the surface, that this entire anarchic premise rests on the same foundation as Communism, e.g. that people are naturally good and want what's best for the group as well as themselves.

 

Remember Thomas Paine said "Society is produced by our wants and governments by our wickedness."

 

I guess I don't see what's so extreme about an individual wishing to make, and be held responsible, for his own choices in life, but I will admit that it is not exactly something that a lot of people, especially on this board, are willing to embrace. Regardless, when it comes to property rights I believe that if a demand for a service exists that a market for that same demand also will exist. How this relates to Communism you'll have to cue me in? Anyways, since a demand for security would exist in your scenario, there would no doubt be a market for insurance to back your need for defense or you would sign a contract with a defense company to ensure that your property was secured. If someone attempted to violate your rights, by infringing upon your property, this would be seen as initiating force against you and your defense contractor would come to your aid. For more details to this question see this site or Ch 8 of this book.

Link to comment

SOCAL, quick question. I'm interested in your anarchist philosophy. I admit I don't share it, but it's nice to see someone argue from the extreme ends of the spectrum every so often. My question is this: in another post you mentioned 'establishing free property' as a basis for this system of self 'government.' But how on earth do you suppose we do that? If Mr. Jerry Smith rolls onto my property with tanks because his band decides they like my lake front property, what am I to do? It seems to me, at least on the surface, that this entire anarchic premise rests on the same foundation as Communism, e.g. that people are naturally good and want what's best for the group as well as themselves.

 

Remember Thomas Paine said "Society is produced by our wants and governments by our wickedness."

 

I guess I don't see what's so extreme about an individual wishing to make, and be held responsible, for his own choices in life, but I will admit that it is not exactly something that a lot of people, especially on this board, are willing to embrace. Regardless, when it comes to property rights I believe that if a demand for a service exists that a market for that same demand also will exist. How this relates to Communism you'll have to cue me in? Anyways, since a demand for security would exist in your scenario, there would no doubt be a market for insurance to back your need for defense or you would sign a contract with a defense company to ensure that your property was secured. If someone attempted to violate your rights, by infringing upon your property, this would be seen as initiating force against you and your defense contractor would come to your aid. For more details to this question see this site or Ch 8 of this book.

 

What I'm trying to do is find any logical way in my mind that this system could ever be established even in theory. I've studied enough of world history to realize that human beings aren't very kind to each other, and that while it's nice to think that we could all live and let live in anarchy, it's never happened before. When you have a small enough population competing for what appears to be unlimited resources (the kind of Polynesian tribes Melville wrote about) it makes a little sense, but government occurs when society decides that there are enough breaches of community order that rules as well as enforcement to those rules need to be set down.

 

But you still haven't answered my question about property rights. How on earth would you establish them? Sign a democratic treaty? Hold an election? Imagine some of the gang bangers from LA deciding to form roving military packs. They show up on your property one day and decide it's theirs. You'd better hope to hell you're insured––though you'd also hope to hell they didn't just come from pillaging the insurance company you paid to defend you.

 

It seems to me that government is a natural part of human interrelations. It may not be necessary when we have two, three, or twenty people in a group. But when we get to five hundred, a thousand, or 300,000,000, we start forming laws and regulations that no one is exempted from whether they agree with them or not. Is there too much government in our country? Of course––no one with half a brain thinks otherwise. But could we transition into an anarchy? Practically speaking it would be impossible with anything short of a nuclear holocaust. Philosophically speaking it doesn't strike me as the best idea, either.

Link to comment

Not to be dismissive, but aren't these all just rationalizations to justify what where once seen economic and political neccesities. IE; the confederate states feared the loss of slavery because of it's economic impact, and to a large degree they were right, the end of slavery caused great economic upheaval in the south. The continental congress failed to adress the issue mostly because they knew the south would not ratify the constitution if it did. BTW didn't slavery come to an end because of govenment intervention. Surely, you don't believe the plantation owners of the colonial period would hve given up their own wealth without a fight. Or do you suspect slavery wouldn't have come about without the govenment? Actually, I think you'll find that slavery pre dates govenment by long margin.

 

What about individual's arguments for the existence of government, and against anarchy, are not about economic and political necessity?

 

I'm merely saying, that these arguements are moral equivacations used to justify decisions already made, not the considerations that led to those decisions. IE Slavery (gov) is natural. What is economic or political about that? Same could be asked of 2,3,4,5,9,10, these statements appeal to moral sensabilities rather than economic or political realities.

Link to comment

SOCAL, quick question. I'm interested in your anarchist philosophy. I admit I don't share it, but it's nice to see someone argue from the extreme ends of the spectrum every so often. My question is this: in another post you mentioned 'establishing free property' as a basis for this system of self 'government.' But how on earth do you suppose we do that? If Mr. Jerry Smith rolls onto my property with tanks because his band decides they like my lake front property, what am I to do? It seems to me, at least on the surface, that this entire anarchic premise rests on the same foundation as Communism, e.g. that people are naturally good and want what's best for the group as well as themselves.

 

Remember Thomas Paine said "Society is produced by our wants and governments by our wickedness."

 

I guess I don't see what's so extreme about an individual wishing to make, and be held responsible, for his own choices in life, but I will admit that it is not exactly something that a lot of people, especially on this board, are willing to embrace. Regardless, when it comes to property rights I believe that if a demand for a service exists that a market for that same demand also will exist. How this relates to Communism you'll have to cue me in? Anyways, since a demand for security would exist in your scenario, there would no doubt be a market for insurance to back your need for defense or you would sign a contract with a defense company to ensure that your property was secured. If someone attempted to violate your rights, by infringing upon your property, this would be seen as initiating force against you and your defense contractor would come to your aid. For more details to this question see this site or Ch 8 of this book.

 

What I'm trying to do is find any logical way in my mind that this system could ever be established even in theory. I've studied enough of world history to realize that human beings aren't very kind to each other, and that while it's nice to think that we could all live and let live in anarchy, it's never happened before. When you have a small enough population competing for what appears to be unlimited resources (the kind of Polynesian tribes Melville wrote about) it makes a little sense, but government occurs when society decides that there are enough breaches of community order that rules as well as enforcement to those rules need to be set down.

 

But you still haven't answered my question about property rights. How on earth would you establish them? Sign a democratic treaty? Hold an election? Imagine some of the gang bangers from LA deciding to form roving military packs. They show up on your property one day and decide it's theirs. You'd better hope to hell you're insured––though you'd also hope to hell they didn't just come from pillaging the insurance company you paid to defend you.

 

It seems to me that government is a natural part of human interrelations. It may not be necessary when we have two, three, or twenty people in a group. But when we get to five hundred, a thousand, or 300,000,000, we start forming laws and regulations that no one is exempted from whether they agree with them or not. Is there too much government in our country? Of course––no one with half a brain thinks otherwise. But could we transition into an anarchy? Practically speaking it would be impossible with anything short of a nuclear holocaust. Philosophically speaking it doesn't strike me as the best idea, either.

 

First of all, what historical evidence do you have that humans, as individuals, aren’t very nice to each other? I don’t mean humans in the form of government because history proves that government creates, supports and perpetuates the most evil; but rather humans as individuals? Are you an evil person? Do you personally know any truly evil people? Sure, we hear and read about a few psychotic individuals amongst us, but does that mean the entire population of human beings must be categorized as evil and therefore subject to punishment because of them?

 

I’m not saying an anarchist system could spring into action overnight and be successful. As I have stated numerous times, it will require an education on what freedom truly is in order to succeed. This would include the idea that freedom is the ability to make your own free choices and then to be held accountable for your own actions. This evolution may take decades if not centuries. Dumping civilization into something that it is not ready for would bring about chaos, the call for help in the form of more government and definitely not liberty. However, using the chaos of failed government to define anarchy is not correct, for it is still the failure of government. Sure, there may have been anarchy, in the sense of the absence of a ruler, but the failure of it could hardly be placed with a system in which no one is aware, had a choice or is accountable. Is that not what responsibility is, making decisions and answering for them? We have created such a welfare state, that all self-responsibility has been literally drained from humanity. Responsibility cannot be achieved without education.

 

Once a large number of the population is educated on individual freedom, they will choose to be free and the abolition of government will be impossible to stop. Since individual rights are an extension of, and the same as property rights it is natural for individuals to understand property rights. However, because there are a few psychotic individuals amongst us and as a means of implementing property rights, the market will no doubt create security as well as deed agencies that would ensure property rights are secured.

 

You may say that I need to go further into detail, but there’s really no way of me fully explaining how this will be obtained or fully functional in an anarchist system because I don’t have a crystal ball or psychic thought and I cannot account for every decision that every human being is ever going to make. If I could, wouldn’t I be God, the government, the Federal Reserve Chair and all that is wonderful in the world. I may not be able to fully satisfy your question, however, I do know that you too cannot look into the future and tell me that it won’t work. Also, when a demand exists so does a market, which any logical entrepeuner would eagerly seek to fill. You may state that humans act a certain way, but I can also show that they act a certain way because of government. In case you haven't noticed, government influences nearly all aspects of society.

 

One staple of government is that it always uses violence as a means of obtaining it ends. Is it any wonder that we also see the same from a society that is heavily influenced by government? I do not and will not ever think that the use of initiating force against another individual is morally acceptable, do you? Since I believe this way, I will never use or sanction the use of force against you? By applying this philosophy, it means you have the right to disagree with whatever I say, believe in whatever you would like, and take any actions that you would like just as long as it does not impede on my rights. Would you not grant me the same treatment? If you would, what would we need government for? Does this type of thinking resemble a nuclear holocaust?

Link to comment

Not to be dismissive, but aren't these all just rationalizations to justify what where once seen economic and political neccesities. IE; the confederate states feared the loss of slavery because of it's economic impact, and to a large degree they were right, the end of slavery caused great economic upheaval in the south. The continental congress failed to adress the issue mostly because they knew the south would not ratify the constitution if it did. BTW didn't slavery come to an end because of govenment intervention. Surely, you don't believe the plantation owners of the colonial period would hve given up their own wealth without a fight. Or do you suspect slavery wouldn't have come about without the govenment? Actually, I think you'll find that slavery pre dates govenment by long margin.

 

What about individual's arguments for the existence of government, and against anarchy, are not about economic and political necessity?

 

I'm merely saying, that these arguements are moral equivacations used to justify decisions already made, not the considerations that led to those decisions. IE Slavery (gov) is natural. What is economic or political about that? Same could be asked of 2,3,4,5,9,10, these statements appeal to moral sensabilities rather than economic or political realities.

So rationalizing against their moral arguments because of supposed political and economic necessities makes it ok? I hardly believe that you feel slavery is ok. If you do, wow!! Also, doesn’t the fact that humanity has continued despite the abolition of slavery prove that their rationalizations were incorrect? The point of the article was to show the similar, and unfounded arguments between those for slavery and those for government, while at the same time showing that we don't have to make the same mistake twice. Today, people are rationalizing government and government programs in the very same way. Some even look at it morally while at the same time disregarding the moral argument. You can’t be both moral and immoral at the same time, can you?

 

Also from your first post I think you need to go back and reread your history. #1, The loss of slaves did not lead to the economic upheaval in the south. Did the fact that they were fighting and funding a war and at the same time being trampled with government regulation somehow slip your mind? Tag this on with the fact that the majority of the working population in the south was non-slave owners and I don’t quite see how you can claim that the abolition of slavery led to the south’s economic problems. #2, Also, how do you know that slavery would not have ended without intervention? Did it ever occur to you that maybe if the government had stopped arresting and returning slaves to the south that it could have ended slavery without actually interfering at all?

Link to comment

SOCAL, quick question. I'm interested in your anarchist philosophy. I admit I don't share it, but it's nice to see someone argue from the extreme ends of the spectrum every so often. My question is this: in another post you mentioned 'establishing free property' as a basis for this system of self 'government.' But how on earth do you suppose we do that? If Mr. Jerry Smith rolls onto my property with tanks because his band decides they like my lake front property, what am I to do? It seems to me, at least on the surface, that this entire anarchic premise rests on the same foundation as Communism, e.g. that people are naturally good and want what's best for the group as well as themselves.

 

Remember Thomas Paine said "Society is produced by our wants and governments by our wickedness."

 

I guess I don't see what's so extreme about an individual wishing to make, and be held responsible, for his own choices in life, but I will admit that it is not exactly something that a lot of people, especially on this board, are willing to embrace. Regardless, when it comes to property rights I believe that if a demand for a service exists that a market for that same demand also will exist. How this relates to Communism you'll have to cue me in? Anyways, since a demand for security would exist in your scenario, there would no doubt be a market for insurance to back your need for defense or you would sign a contract with a defense company to ensure that your property was secured. If someone attempted to violate your rights, by infringing upon your property, this would be seen as initiating force against you and your defense contractor would come to your aid. For more details to this question see this site or Ch 8 of this book.

 

What I'm trying to do is find any logical way in my mind that this system could ever be established even in theory. I've studied enough of world history to realize that human beings aren't very kind to each other, and that while it's nice to think that we could all live and let live in anarchy, it's never happened before. When you have a small enough population competing for what appears to be unlimited resources (the kind of Polynesian tribes Melville wrote about) it makes a little sense, but government occurs when society decides that there are enough breaches of community order that rules as well as enforcement to those rules need to be set down.

 

But you still haven't answered my question about property rights. How on earth would you establish them? Sign a democratic treaty? Hold an election? Imagine some of the gang bangers from LA deciding to form roving military packs. They show up on your property one day and decide it's theirs. You'd better hope to hell you're insured––though you'd also hope to hell they didn't just come from pillaging the insurance company you paid to defend you.

 

It seems to me that government is a natural part of human interrelations. It may not be necessary when we have two, three, or twenty people in a group. But when we get to five hundred, a thousand, or 300,000,000, we start forming laws and regulations that no one is exempted from whether they agree with them or not. Is there too much government in our country? Of course––no one with half a brain thinks otherwise. But could we transition into an anarchy? Practically speaking it would be impossible with anything short of a nuclear holocaust. Philosophically speaking it doesn't strike me as the best idea, either.

 

First of all, what historical evidence do you have that humans, as individuals, aren’t very nice to each other? I don’t mean humans in the form of government because history proves that government creates, supports and perpetuates the most evil; but rather humans as individuals? Are you an evil person? Do you personally know any truly evil people? Sure, we hear and read about a few psychotic individuals amongst us, but does that mean the entire population of human beings must be categorized as evil and therefore subject to punishment because of them?

 

I’m not saying an anarchist system could spring into action overnight and be successful. As I have stated numerous times, it will require an education on what freedom truly is in order to succeed. This would include the idea that freedom is the ability to make your own free choices and then to be held accountable for your own actions. This evolution may take decades if not centuries. Dumping civilization into something that it is not ready for would bring about chaos, the call for help in the form of more government and definitely not liberty. However, using the chaos of failed government to define anarchy is not correct, for it is still the failure of government. Sure, there may have been anarchy, in the sense of the absence of a ruler, but the failure of it could hardly be placed with a system in which no one is aware, had a choice or is accountable. Is that not what responsibility is, making decisions and answering for them? We have created such a welfare state, that all self-responsibility has been literally drained from humanity. Responsibility cannot be achieved without education.

 

Once a large number of the population is educated on individual freedom, they will choose to be free and the abolition of government will be impossible to stop. Since individual rights are an extension of, and the same as property rights it is natural for individuals to understand property rights. However, because there are a few psychotic individuals amongst us and as a means of implementing property rights, the market will no doubt create security as well as deed agencies that would ensure property rights are secured.

 

You may say that I need to go further into detail, but there’s really no way of me fully explaining how this will be obtained or fully functional in an anarchist system because I don’t have a crystal ball or psychic thought and I cannot account for every decision that every human being is ever going to make. If I could, wouldn’t I be God, the government, the Federal Reserve Chair and all that is wonderful in the world. I may not be able to fully satisfy your question, however, I do know that you too cannot look into the future and tell me that it won’t work. Also, when a demand exists so does a market, which any logical entrepeuner would eagerly seek to fill. You may state that humans act a certain way, but I can also show that they act a certain way because of government. In case you haven't noticed, government influences nearly all aspects of society.

 

One staple of government is that it always uses violence as a means of obtaining it ends. Is it any wonder that we also see the same from a society that is heavily influenced by government? I do not and will not ever think that the use of initiating force against another individual is morally acceptable, do you? Since I believe this way, I will never use or sanction the use of force against you? By applying this philosophy, it means you have the right to disagree with whatever I say, believe in whatever you would like, and take any actions that you would like just as long as it does not impede on my rights. Would you not grant me the same treatment? If you would, what would we need government for? Does this type of thinking resemble a nuclear holocaust?

 

1. Once I put a candy bar on the kitchen counter. I wanted that candy bar, but I couldn't have it then. I told everyone in my family not to touch the candy bar. Lo and behold, I came back later for the candy bar and found my sister had taken it. The question of people being good and evil is an old one and a stupid one. Human beings are all good and evil. The role of government, as Thomas Paine once beautifully put it, is a result of our wickedness. The capacity for murder, rape, adultery, theft, negligence, apathy, and greed exists within every person, just as the capacity for hope, love, friendship, compassion, and empathy also exist. But the sad truth is I can't point to a single example of anyone who's never done an evil act, myself included. While I agree with Benjamin Franklin that those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither, it does not mandate that those who have liberty will inevitably have security, a la Utopian Anarchy.

 

2. To the second bolded point in paragraph two. I'd assume you agree with me that in some point in man's natural history our evolutionary timeline placed us in a period of anarchy where no formal government or civilization existed. For some reason our ancestors abandoned individual or pack hunter-gathering and instead began to farm and form communities. Once these communities evolved to a certain size, came into contact with other large but culturally different communities, laws of conduct and the means of enforcing these laws were developed. Point being, it would seem that anarchy was already abandoned by our race a long time ago, and yes, you're right, the result of forcing it upon this generation would be suicidal, hence my point.

 

3. You mention the antidote to this is education. To educate people on liberty. I ask again: how do you propose to do this through anarchy? By your own definition you have no control over what the people learn or don't, what they agree with or don't. You can't force them to abandon government. And even if they did, say, temporarily give up Washington politics, it's more than a little likely that something else would spring up in its place, probably of a more local flavor. How do I know this? Do I have a crystal ball? No, but I don't need one. What I need is a thousand daily situations, conflicts of morality, inter-community decisions, and countless other possible events which would require a group of people coming together and figuring out how they were going to decide to live with each other and prosper together.

 

I'm not a fan of the politics of Richard Dreyfuss, but he did say something once that impressed me. The world has been asking itself a question for thousands of years. How do we live in peace among each other? While imperfect, the American Constitution and our republican form of government is the best answer we've yet come up with. And while we have constant spats and bitching, it's working pretty well. More advancements have been made in America's 233 years than in all of recorded time before it. Could anarchy be the next phase? Possibly, but I doubt it. "Government has always existed" is not a valid argument against anarchy as 1- It probably hasn't, and 2- Tradition as a basis for anything is a fallacy. A better answer would be is that government serves a function useful to people, and comes from people. And yes I can demand specificity from you. Tradition may not win my argument, but it does shift the burden of proof on you to tell me where in history a pure anarchy has resulted in prosperity, peace, and freedom for individuals.

Link to comment

1. Once I put a candy bar on the kitchen counter. I wanted that candy bar, but I couldn't have it then. I told everyone in my family not to touch the candy bar. Lo and behold, I came back later for the candy bar and found my sister had taken it. The question of people being good and evil is an old one and a stupid one. Human beings are all good and evil. The role of government, as Thomas Paine once beautifully put it, is a result of our wickedness. The capacity for murder, rape, adultery, theft, negligence, apathy, and greed exists within every person, just as the capacity for hope, love, friendship, compassion, and empathy also exist. But the sad truth is I can't point to a single example of anyone who's never done an evil act, myself included. While I agree with Benjamin Franklin that those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither, it does not mandate that those who have liberty will inevitably have security, a la Utopian Anarchy.

So, if you believe the capacity for murder, rape, theft and greed exist within each and every person, how is that that you expect government to protect you from these same actions? Doesn’t government consist of only men, who also share these same heinous traits? Since that is the case, isn’t creating and sanctioning an entity that empowers evil men contradictory to the views you express?

 

Also, there’s nothing utopian about anarchy. It merely allows men the ability to make choices and to be held accountable for those same choices. There will always be evil because men are humans and humans make mistakes. However, the absence of government dissolves the tool that allows men to force their choices on others and at the same time shields them from the consequences.

 

2. To the second bolded point in paragraph two. I'd assume you agree with me that in some point in man's natural history our evolutionary timeline placed us in a period of anarchy where no formal government or civilization existed. For some reason our ancestors abandoned individual or pack hunter-gathering and instead began to farm and form communities. Once these communities evolved to a certain size, came into contact with other large but culturally different communities, laws of conduct and the means of enforcing these laws was developed. Point being, it would seem that anarchy was already abandoned by our race a long time ago, and yes, you're right, the result of forcing it upon this generation would be suicidal, hence my point.

Yes, I would agree to that point but I also don’t believe that men also had the understanding or knowledge of freedom that exists today. Since they had not lived through the tyranny that government offers, how could they have known that forming a government would be so disastrous? Isn’t that what learning is about? Making choices, learning from your mistakes and correcting them?

 

3. You mention the antidote to this is education. To educate people on liberty. I ask again: how do you propose to do this through anarchy? By your own definition you have no control over what the people learn or don't, what they agree with or don't. You can't force them to abandon government. And even if they did, say, temporarily give up Washington politics, it's more than a little likely that something else would spring up in its place, probably of a more local flavor. How do I know this? Do I have a crystal ball? No, but I don't need one. What I need is a thousand daily situations, conflicts of morality, inter-community decisions, and countless other possible events which would require a group of people coming together and figuring out how they were going to decide to live with each other and prosper together.

The way to educate is to provide answers, discuss alternatives and constantly question that which we are subjected to. There’s no reason to force people to believe anything, because anarchy is voluntary. Each person is free to think and act as he chooses as long as he does not use force to infringe upon another’s right to do the same. Since each action is voluntary, individuals can live as they choose. If they voluntarily consent to live in a collective so be it. Why anyone would choose to give up freedom is beyond me, but I’m sure some people, somewhere would. All I ask is that I be allowed to choose what’s best for me.

 

I'm not a fan of the politics of Richard Dreyfuss, but he did say something once that impressed me. The world has been asking itself a question for thousands of years. How do we live in peace among each other? While imperfect, the American Constitution and our republican form of government is the best answer we've yet come up with. And while we have constant spats and bitching, it's working pretty well. More advancements have been made in America's 233 years than in all of recorded time before it. Could anarchy be the next phase? Possibly, but I doubt it. "Government has always existed" is not a valid argument against anarchy as 1- It probably hasn't, and 2- Tradition as a basis for anything is a fallacy. A better answer would be is that government serves a function useful to people, and comes from people. And yes I can demand specificity from you. Tradition may not win my argument, but it does shift the burden of proof on you to tell me where in history a pure anarchy has resulted in prosperity, peace, and freedom for individuals.

It’s working out well for whom? Americans? What about the poor, the Germans, Iraqis, Chinese, Japanese, Cubans, Native Americans, Africans, Mexicans, Latin Americans, Afghanis and all others who have been butchered and left in poverty by the American empire? Do they also agree that it’s worked out well? Yes, there has been some advancement in America’s short history but that same history also proves that progress came about despite government, not because of it. What exactly is it that that you believe government provides that the men himself cannot? The answer is nothing. Government brings absolutely nothing to the table. It steals, murders, creates poverty, and wreaks havoc at every turn. It is only the individual who has made society prosper and anarchy is what allows the individual to make choices which allows him to prosper the most.

 

And as for your burden of proof, do you really believe that because pure anarchy has never existed then it can never exist? Come on, that's like saying that because a computer didn't exist 100 years ago that it could never exist. We both know that's not true because the computer most definitely exists.

Link to comment

1. Once I put a candy bar on the kitchen counter. I wanted that candy bar, but I couldn't have it then. I told everyone in my family not to touch the candy bar. Lo and behold, I came back later for the candy bar and found my sister had taken it. The question of people being good and evil is an old one and a stupid one. Human beings are all good and evil. The role of government, as Thomas Paine once beautifully put it, is a result of our wickedness. The capacity for murder, rape, adultery, theft, negligence, apathy, and greed exists within every person, just as the capacity for hope, love, friendship, compassion, and empathy also exist. But the sad truth is I can't point to a single example of anyone who's never done an evil act, myself included. While I agree with Benjamin Franklin that those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither, it does not mandate that those who have liberty will inevitably have security, a la Utopian Anarchy.

So, if you believe the capacity for murder, rape, theft and greed exist within each and every person, how is that that you expect government to protect you from these same actions? Doesn’t government consist of only men, who also share these same heinous traits? Since that is the case, isn’t creating and sanctioning an entity that empowers evil men contradictory to the views you express?

 

Also, there’s nothing utopian about anarchy. It merely allows men the ability to make choices and to be held accountable for those same choices. There will always be evil because men are humans and humans make mistakes. However, the absence of government dissolves the tool that allows men to force their choices on others and at the same time shields them from the consequences.

 

2. To the second bolded point in paragraph two. I'd assume you agree with me that in some point in man's natural history our evolutionary timeline placed us in a period of anarchy where no formal government or civilization existed. For some reason our ancestors abandoned individual or pack hunter-gathering and instead began to farm and form communities. Once these communities evolved to a certain size, came into contact with other large but culturally different communities, laws of conduct and the means of enforcing these laws was developed. Point being, it would seem that anarchy was already abandoned by our race a long time ago, and yes, you're right, the result of forcing it upon this generation would be suicidal, hence my point.

Yes, I would agree to that point but I also don’t believe that men also had the understanding or knowledge of freedom that exists today. Since they had not lived through the tyranny that government offers, how could they have known that forming a government would be so disastrous? Isn’t that what learning is about? Making choices, learning from your mistakes and correcting them?

 

3. You mention the antidote to this is education. To educate people on liberty. I ask again: how do you propose to do this through anarchy? By your own definition you have no control over what the people learn or don't, what they agree with or don't. You can't force them to abandon government. And even if they did, say, temporarily give up Washington politics, it's more than a little likely that something else would spring up in its place, probably of a more local flavor. How do I know this? Do I have a crystal ball? No, but I don't need one. What I need is a thousand daily situations, conflicts of morality, inter-community decisions, and countless other possible events which would require a group of people coming together and figuring out how they were going to decide to live with each other and prosper together.

The way to educate is to provide answers, discuss alternatives and constantly question that which we are subjected to. There’s no reason to force people to believe anything, because anarchy is voluntary. Each person is free to think and act as he chooses as long as he does not use force to infringe upon another’s right to do the same. Since each action is voluntary, individuals can live as they choose. If they voluntarily consent to live in a collective so be it. Why anyone would choose to give up freedom is beyond me, but I’m sure some people, somewhere would. All I ask is that I be allowed to choose what’s best for me.

 

I'm not a fan of the politics of Richard Dreyfuss, but he did say something once that impressed me. The world has been asking itself a question for thousands of years. How do we live in peace among each other? While imperfect, the American Constitution and our republican form of government is the best answer we've yet come up with. And while we have constant spats and bitching, it's working pretty well. More advancements have been made in America's 233 years than in all of recorded time before it. Could anarchy be the next phase? Possibly, but I doubt it. "Government has always existed" is not a valid argument against anarchy as 1- It probably hasn't, and 2- Tradition as a basis for anything is a fallacy. A better answer would be is that government serves a function useful to people, and comes from people. And yes I can demand specificity from you. Tradition may not win my argument, but it does shift the burden of proof on you to tell me where in history a pure anarchy has resulted in prosperity, peace, and freedom for individuals.

It’s working out well for whom? Americans? What about the Germans, Iraqis, Chinese, Japanese, Cubans, Native Americans, Africans, Mexicans, Latin Americans, Afghanis and all others who have been butchered and left in poverty by the American empire? Do they also agree that it’s worked out well? Yes, there has been some advancement in America’s short history but that same history also proves that progress came about despite government, not because of it. What exactly is that that you believe government provides that the men himself cannot? The answer is nothing. Government brings absolutely nothing to the table. It steals, murders, creates poverty, and wreaks havoc at every turn. It is only the individual who has made society prosper and anarchy is what allows the individual to make choices which allows him to prosper the most.

 

And as for your burden of proof, do you really believe that because pure anarchy has never existed then it can never exist? Come on, that's like saying that because a computer didn't exist 100 years ago that it could never exist. We both know that's not true because the computer most definitely exists.

 

1. Yes, government consists of men who share the same flaws and weaknesses. The difference, however, is in our form of government (as opposed to the monarchies and dictators of past and present ages) no one wields power absolutely. We wrap ourselves around ideals which are formed into written law, then abide by the law, and punish those who don't. Even though the president is the Commander in Chief, the army won't leave the barracks in his defense if he's found guilty of treason. He'll be tried, convicted, and thrown out of office. So no, it is not contradictory. What is contradictory is claiming that government is made of the will of men the same as anarchy and then claiming government-as-concept is evil because it comes from the will of men.

 

2. One could argue this learning process works with government as well. We transition from non-written oral law to the code of Hammurabi to Athenian democracy to American republicanism. The human race constantly asks itself the basic question I mentioned in my last post. Ideally we keep finding better answers, even while mistakes are made. (And malleable America has had a funny way of finding itself on the right side of history in the end, even when its mistakes were grave and bloody.)

 

3. The third point is based around a presupposition that anarchy would bring about 'real freedom.' Philosophically speaking we could all be living in a deterministic universe anyway, so here's a point there is no right answer to to begin with. After all, you're still limited by your own brain, your own physical skill, etc, etc. Also, you're assuming (probably to your downfall if we ever had this system) that all people will adopt your personal ideals of freedom and liberty as absolute ideals? It goes back to our discussion about good and evil in people. You yourself mentioned psychopaths who lack the ability to feel empathy. What if it comes about that more people decided the "me and mine regardless of everyone else" mentality? Without a common law which is enforced what's to prevent this from destroying everything?

 

4. Listing off the wars America has participated in isn't a good counterpoint, since it says nothing whatever about the merit of anarchy as a better system. In fact I would argue that in anarchy it would be much easier to find ourselves under an absolutist dictatorship than it would through republican democracy. And when it comes to matters of history, I think it's a matter of weight. The good of America has far outweighed the bad. Our contributions to science and technology will pay increasing dividends in perpetuity. How, by the way, did Nazi Germany make your list of national pity cases? If America is an empire, it's a pitifully inept one.

 

Government brings common law and order to the table, what anarchy lacks. It brings enforcement of policies that allows men of science and business to operate without fear that roving gangs are going to break in, slaughter the family, take the cow and kick the dog. While it's true that government can raid the farm with an invisible hand, at least our government is accountable to the people, able to be changed by the people, and subject to the people. Again, totalitarianism is just as likely if not more likely in an anarchy, because, after all, who's to stop the strongest and fittest?

 

Burden of proof point: quite the opposite. What I said was anarchy almost certainly did exist and was abandoned. The nice thing about the human mind is that it allows us to project possible outcomes and weigh risks before we make a decision to abolish something which, as you say, has existed forever. What you owe us, the majority opinion (I'll assume this part and I'm sure you'll agree), is reasons why your system is going to surpass the one we have now, provide the things you hope it will provide, and not end 'in disaster.'

Link to comment

1. Yes, government consists of men who share the same flaws and weaknesses. The difference, however, is in our form of government (as opposed to the monarchies and dictators of past and present ages) no one wields power absolutely. We wrap ourselves around ideals which are formed into written law, then abide by the law, and punish those who don't. Even though the president is the Commander in Chief, the army won't leave the barracks in his defense if he's found guilty of treason. He'll be tried, convicted, and thrown out of office. So no, it is not contradictory. What is contradictory is claiming that government is made of the will of men the same as anarchy and then claiming government-as-concept is evil because it comes from the will of men.

First of all whose ideals do those laws represent? Also, who gave consent to make those laws? They sure as hell aren’t ideals of mine and regardless, they didn’t ask my permission to make the laws. What if I was to tell them no? You might argue that I'm allowed to vote, but what if I don’t want to be involved in running others lives? Does that mean that because the majority vote and feel a certain way that they can force their beliefs on everybody? Sounds a little like mob rule to me. Do you believe force should be used on people who refuse to sanction and fund laws that don’t represent their ideals? If so, does that not leave the power absolutely with those who believe the laws are ideal? You could argue that voting can be used to bring about changes in those laws, but I’d like to know when that has ever happened? Secondly, what proof do you have that the laws have actually usurped power and tyranny from anyone? Doesn’t the president go to war without a declaration? Don’t presidents issue signing statements? Doesn’t Congress pass laws all the time without regard for their constituents? Doesn’t the Supreme Court make decisions that everyone is bound to? If history and the growth of government under the Constitution is any indication, the laws have only served to benefit those with political power and not the other way around as you so imagine.

 

And as far as you saying my statement in contradictory, how do you figure? First of all, I’m not the one who sanctions government because men are evil and therefore society needs to be protected from them. So, trying to say that I do is completely baseless. I merely stated that government is the tool that allows evil men to bring forward their evil agendas because government is a monopoly. In a free society, those same men would have no such luck because of the competition their actions would incur. I believe that some men are good and some men are evil, but that doesn’t mean we need either in power to maintain order. Government doesn’t come from the will of all men as you state, but only from those who wish to rule or be ruled. What about those who choose neither? Anarchy is not about ruling but about having individual choice, there’s a difference and the difference isn’t a contradiction.

2. One could argue this learning process works with government as well. We transition from non-written oral law to the code of Hammurabi to Athenian democracy to American republicanism. The human race constantly asks itself the basic question I mentioned in my last post. Ideally we keep finding better answers, even while mistakes are made. (And malleable America has had a funny way of finding itself on the right side of history in the end, even when its mistakes were grave and bloody.)

It very well could, but what then is the next form that government will take? I haven’t heard of any new breakthroughs on government ideology; maybe you could clue me in. Over the last few centuries we’ve run the spectrum on government, from Communism, socialism, fascism, dictatorship, monarchy, democracy, mercantilism, corporatism and a republic. Society has tried them all and not one has led to anything but tyranny and poverty. What’s next? You claim that America has ended up on the right side of history, but what about astronomical debt, a collapsing dollar, daily loss of freedom, an irresponsible and entitlement driven society, continuous wars and record poverty do you perceive as right?

 

People might say that we need to go back to the days of the founders, but then what? Government grows again and we end up in the same predicament again, maybe worse. We already know how this party ends and it isn’t good. Learning from your mistakes is one thing, but reliving them is another. I believe, and very well could be wrong, that we have run out of government ideas and the next logical step is the dissolution of government. Think of it as the next step in the evolution of individual freedom. This allows individuals to make choices freely and to be held responsible for those choices. Isn’t that what freedom really is?

3. The third point is based around a presupposition that anarchy would bring about 'real freedom.' Philosophically speaking we could all be living in a deterministic universe anyway, so here's a point there is no right answer to to begin with. After all, you're still limited by your own brain, your own physical skill, etc, etc. Also, you're assuming (probably to your downfall if we ever had this system) that all people will adopt your personal ideals of freedom and liberty as absolute ideals? It goes back to our discussion about good and evil in people. You yourself mentioned psychopaths who lack the ability to feel empathy. What if it comes about that more people decided the "me and mine regardless of everyone else" mentality? Without a common law which is enforced what's to prevent this from destroying everything?

No, I am not assuming that anyone adopt my idea of freedom. I am merely stating that each individual should have a choice in what they perceive freedom to be. With government that option does not exist. If someone wishes to live in a socialist compound they should be free to make that choice, they just cannot use force to make others live the way they do too. Nor can anyone use force to make others subsidize their activities or buy their products. Is voluntary choice that abstract of a concept? Each individual would be free to live life and make choices that he sees fit. This is the exact opposite of what we live today and nothing of what you state above.

 

And as for the enforcing natural law, that would be left up to the market. Do you think that maybe some of the weaker individuals might want to be protected or that the rich might want to safeguard their wealth? As I have explained earlier if there is a demand for a service the market will provide it. The free market allows those who provide the best possible service at the best possible price to flourish and competition ensures this. Security and dispute resolution would work the same way. With the system of laws and justice being used today, the one you sanction, the government keeps a monopoly that doesn’t actually provide either, is that what you mean by order?

4. Listing off the wars America has participated in isn't a good counterpoint, since it says nothing whatever about the merit of anarchy as a better system. In fact I would argue that in anarchy it would be much easier to find ourselves under an absolutist dictatorship than it would through republican democracy. And when it comes to matters of history, I think it's a matter of weight. The good of America has far outweighed the bad. Our contributions to science and technology will pay increasing dividends in perpetuity. How, by the way, did Nazi Germany make your list of national pity cases? If America is an empire, it's a pitifully inept one.

 

Government brings common law and order to the table, what anarchy lacks. It brings enforcement of policies that allows men of science and business to operate without fear that roving gangs are going to break in, slaughter the family, take the cow and kick the dog. While it's true that government can raid the farm with an invisible hand, at least our government is accountable to the people, able to be changed by the people, and subject to

the people. Again, totalitarianism is just as likely if not more likely in an anarchy, because, after all, who's to stop the strongest and fittest?

Really?? What good has America done? What inventions of science and technology has America contributed? Last time I checked those were all done by individuals, not the fictious entity you claim as America. Society, or America in this case, is only composed of individuals, so in order for America to have done something good all those individuals who comprise America must have contributed to do something good. Since that is not the case, it is only each individual who did something good, and not America.

 

Nowhere did I mention Nazi Germany. I said Germany, as in the Germany that was demolished after WW I, which led to the rise of Hitler and the despicable actions of WW II. Are you seriously going to argue that the US had no involvement in the destruction and sanctions that created poverty and despair in Germany, which led to the nationalist scene?

 

Also, how do you figure that anarchy would lead to an “absolutist dictatorship” or a totalitarian regime? If each individual is educated on freedom and is also free to make his or her own choices how do you figure a dictator will assume power? Obviously you need to learn about the basic economics of liberty if you believe such erroneous and fallacious activities would arise from a free market. The government and its laws are actually what permit monopoly power to expand. This is what leads to dictators, not the individuals, the competition or the free market.

 

And as for government bringing common law to the table and creating order that is also erroneous. There is nothing about government laws that promote order. If anything, they create disorder and many unintended consequences. Any law that actually does anything to protect an individual is also a natural law. Natural laws don’t need to be written because they happen naturally. Do you really believe that if we didn’t have written laws that killing, theft and all other violations of humanity would escalate? In a free society, one in which individuals are free to make choices and then held responsible for those actions you would realize that humans look out for their own best interest. This means they don’t kill because that leaves them open to being killed or the consequences of such actions. Men don’t steal because of the same. If anything, the laws created by government are often contradictory and lead people to do things that lead to more crime.

 

Burden of proof point: quite the opposite. What I said was anarchy almost certainly did exist and was abandoned. The nice thing about the human mind is that it allows us to project possible outcomes and weigh risks before we make a decision to abolish something which, as you say, has existed forever. What you owe us, the majority opinion (I'll assume this part and I'm sure you'll agree), is reasons why your system is going to surpass the one we have now, provide the things you hope it will provide, and not end 'in disaster.'

I don’t owe the majority opinion a reason for anything because I’m not forcing anyone to do anything except to allow me the freedom to make my own choices and be responsible for them. What do I need to prove, that I know what is better for my own life than anyone else? Do I really need to prove that? I don’t want to be forced to participate in your system and that’s all I ask. If others feel the same way or if they wished to participate in a collective as you do, I would allow them the same courtesy, would you? Or would you, with the threat of violence, force them to contribute and obey your so-called ideals? The answer should be pretty simple. Either you believe that individuals should be allowed to make their own choices in life and be held responsible for those choices or you believe that people are slaves and need to work their entire lives to support the murderous, tyrannical, despicable and poverty inducing entity known as government. The choice is yours.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...