Replies

Was busy so it took me a while to get to that link, but when I read that whole article it sounds like three independent failures of anarchy.

Yes, but exactly what sort of failure? In each case, failure was the result of individuals' scheming to get power for themselves. That's the fundamental fact of human nature we're facing: not only will G-men come after you if you defy today's government, but if government disappeared, men would promptly set about creating one--precisely because it's such a great racket for the fellows at the top.

or a minority insisted and the majority could not organize to resist. Both argue against your case. That's exactly what happened--but how does that "argue against my case"? I've said all along that lack of government is better, but that humans are such unevolved herd animals that the masses would refuse to live like that. They're to frightened, if the alpha male isn't there to tell them what to do.

First, contrary to your implication, I was doubting that people in the aggregate would continue to do something very bad for them, as you suggest government is, for many millenia.

You didn't suppor this claim of yours. I claim the opposite, and support it thus: apes evolved cooperative behavior, because cooperation provides a competitive advantage. However, in small family units, that "cooperation" is essentially socialistic. Thus humans evolved as socialistic herd animals, and they retain their herd instincts to this day. Thus they don't choose self-government because it's contrary to their genetic programming.

There are any number of examples where intellect can improve on nature, but that doesn't mean nature cooperates.

Second, I was specifically *not* suggesting that people *don't* have a tendency toward hierarchy. As you note, this is an evolved social trait and people have it too.

That's what makes anarchy essentially impossible today, as I've said before.

You're correct that I have whatever human baggage you do. However, humans can overcome instinct with reason--for example, someone afraid of heights can nevertheless motivate himself to bail out of an airplane. At the same time, most humans do not overcome their instincts.

So one way of looking at it is that humans will adopt anarchy when they evolve sufficient intelligence for the majority to leave behind animal instincts. Then again, there's no reason to believe that humans ever will evolve enough intelligence.

I'd say government clearly increases cooperation compared to many small hierarchies...

That's possible but by no means obvious. In the world we have an anarchistic system running in parallel with governments, called the "free market". That market is imperfect, because government interferes in it frequently, but it's essentially anarchistic. And whenever it goes head-to-head with government, it kick's government's @ss. After hurricane Katrina, for example, WalMart's response to the disaster put Fema's to shame.

If cooperation were an essential survival trait, and supposing you agree people are better off alive than dead, doesn't govenrment clearly have a social benefit relative to anarchy?

That's an excellent question! My suggested answer is that evolution doesn't pick the "best" solution; it picks any solution that works. "Cooperation" is a survival trait, but that doesn't mean that evolution picks the best possible form of cooperation. The tyranny of the alpha male is "better" than trying to survive all by yourself, but there are much better ways.

Anarcho-capitalism isn't about not cooperating; it's about all cooperation being voluntary.