Oddbean

Well, it depends. There are very few situations which have a universal solution. I’d need more information to tell you how I’d react. I don’t self describe as an anarchist - but I’m very sympathetic to the position. My comment was to point out that the fear of organized crime is silly because that’s already what most governments are. All of the worst atrocities throughout history have been endorsed by a government. Skip paying your property taxes for a few months, I guarantee the mafia will arrive to extort you. Anarchy is ultimately about the freedom to choose what set of rules to be a part of - it’s not a rejection of all order. You can create a community which voluntarily pays for policing, fire, health care, education, whatever. That’s still anarchy.

That’s probably the natural conclusion of anarchy so yes, in most cases that is what would happen. The word “minarchy” applies well, and I think it’s much more approachable than anarchy. The one distinction I’d make is that an anarchist probably wouldn’t support voting, since it wouldn’t be useful to society. Economic and legal interactions would be on a voluntary basis. For instance, if my neighbor doesn’t want to pay for the private police to protect his house, that’s his right. But then the police won’t come and he’ll have to protect himself. There would be tons of different, competing models for how to structure this type of a system, and it would never end in a uniform, “one size fits all” outcome. This is a bit strange to say - but I think anarchy is a better reflection of reality. Extremely strong and tyrannical governments overshadow this reality, but we’ve always been free to interact with others in whatever way we wish. Even today, I could choose to not pay taxes, not vote, protect myself, and reject laws I find unlawful. The reason why I don’t is because there is a giant state apparatus which would likely crush me. A real anarchist just wants to live in a world where trade and ideas are the standards of living, not theft and violence. And they are usually willing to take risks and push boundaries to create that world.

I honestly think that the system you just described is close (in spirit at least) to the original American idea. The entire concept was a federal government that protected the borders and handled disputes between states. Everything else was “left to the states.” Granted, people living in those states voted and enacted laws that applied to everyone, but governments handled much less, meddled much less, and the culture and values were much more homogeneous (along with population being much smaller). It puts me in mind of a point from Montesquieu: “It is in the nature of a republic to have only a small territory; otherwise, it can scarcely continue to exist. In a large republic, there are large fortunes, and consequently little moderation in spirits: the depositories are too large to put in the hands of a citizen; interests become particularised; at first a man feels he can be happy, great, and glorious without his homeland; and soon, that he can be great only on the ruins of his homeland. In a large republic, the common good is sacrificed to a thousand considerations; it is subordinated to exceptions; it depends upon accidents. In a small one, the public good is better felt, better known, lies nearer to each citizen; abuses are less extensive there and consequently less protected.” I am also put in mind of Franklin’s first fire department, and library. I certainly don’t disagree on the need to reduce and decentralize government - I think my difference with anarchists then is an issue of scale. I don’t believe man left entirely to his own devices will live peacefully (indeed I believe we would devolve into tribal warfare, and a might makes right attitude) but I agree that the current state of government is both too large to represent the best interests of any citizen, and far to powerful to prevent becoming abusive to the natural rights and freedoms of humankind. Thank you for the education on some points on anarchism. I feel less put off by the word now, and see some common ground.

Thanks for the very thoughtful response and for hearing my perspective. I love the original idea of America, it’s a great system of government. Voting also wasn’t as foundational as they make it seem these days - America didn’t even have direct presidential elections until the mid-1800s. With that said, there always has to be a foundation of true individual autonomy for a society like that to function long term. It’s the natural state of the world, and if we stray away from it, it’s a very slippery slope into collectivist societies and a tyrannical government (as we have seen unfold). I think you’d be surprised by how few people would freely choose to act violently against their fellow man. It’s normally not in our self interest to do so. Plus, government itself still doesn’t stop the people who don’t care about laws from doing bad things to others. Life is a very risky proposition which only ever ends in death, and when we sacrifice some freedom for the illusion of safety, all we will ever find is tyranny.

I enjoyed this conversation immensely. I’m getting the sideways eye from a very sleepy wife or I’d go at it all night in this very constructive tone. I look forward to future talks on the nature of man and forms of governance. 🫂

You are on the right track here! However, we need to understand why it's a "matter of scale". And they reason why is because it's actually a matter of accountability and free will. At smaller scale you enjoy of more accountability when it comes to violations of someone's free will.

We are currently working towards several principles that overlap with anarchism, and I believe that's what makes this discussion more interesting. I don't think the problem they are pointing out is wrong, but it looks like their solution might be worse. Like Karl Marx wasn't wrong about the problems the working class was suffering, but his solution was basically making everyone poor, which technically solves inequality but at a much higher cost. 🤔

Very interesting comparison! There is some truth to this. Ideas in theory are exactly the same as in practice. Anarchy and socialism are pretty much direct opposites however. Anarchy is the individual acting in their own self interest, freely with no central interfering force. Socialism is the individual acting on behalf of the group, through compulsion and sometimes to their own detriment. Letting individuals be in control of their own destiny will always be preferable to me, even if it produces bad outcomes. Since I know the opposite will guarantee failure, at least those who can manage the responsibility well with anarchy can succeed.