Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anarchic Order
Spintech Magazine ^ | January 4, 2002 | Paul Hein, M.D.

Posted on 01/14/2002 6:38:35 AM PST by SteamshipTime

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-162 next last
Comment #101 Removed by Moderator

To: SteamshipTime
Great Post!.........finally a a definition of anarchy that isn't spun the government.
102 posted on 01/14/2002 12:33:10 PM PST by SemperFidelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Architect
Yet, the fact remains that anarchy - in the strict sense of the word "without government" - is the natural human state of affairs. We evolved to live in circumstances in which there is no government. Despite the lack of government, there most definitely was order.

The good news is that the anarchic utopia you relish already exists! It's in New Guinea. You will have to submit to a little government hassle upon landing in Paupau, but once you leave the city (there are no roads going much beyond the city) you may live completely outside of the controlling arms of government.

Of course you will not be able to enjoy the fruits of technology such as refrigeration, plumbing, etc, and you will have to catch on to the practice of "payback", for since there is no law, there is only petty feuding and familial revenge.

Instead of flaming Freepers, you should try to be a real man and go try anarchy for a while. Go live "outside the box". I dare you.

When you get back, you can post pictures of your adventure in pure freedom, and we will either all be humbled by the superiority of anarchy, or we will pity you the squalor of your utopia, should you survive to tell about it.

103 posted on 01/14/2002 12:35:23 PM PST by Wm Bach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Trident/Delta
Still searching. I think the old Articles of Confederation may be a good model: a coalition of sovereign states with their own militias and no federal government. At some point, I plan on reading Murray Rothbard's 4 volume opus on the colonies/states prior to the ratification of the federal constitution, Conceived in Liberty and also Hans Herman-Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed. My hypothesis is that the current system is first, not likely to change given the self-interested voting by the electorate, the majority of whom are net tax consumers, and second, simply not sustainable due to ever-increased federal debt and inflated currency.
104 posted on 01/14/2002 12:38:51 PM PST by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"...who notifies next of kin, and who apprehends the murderer."

The individual will be missed and asked for by the family, and, under the scenario you describe, they will apprehend and deal with the criminal.

At least that's how I would do it if not for the interference of the "goverment".

105 posted on 01/14/2002 12:51:56 PM PST by wcbtinman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ridin' Shotgun
How would anarchy better deal with individuals who couldn't/wouldn't govern themselves?

This is the right question, not the one about unidentified bodies in a dumpster, which, as I pointed out, are more likely to show up where there is public property.

The answer to this is two-fold. First to understand how much government contributes to the existence of individuals couldn't/wouldn't govern themselves. Secondly to understand the mechanisms which the natural order uses to impose self-governance.

WRT the first. Not only is government the single greatest criminal which exists, stealing and murdering far more people than any smaller gang, it also is the ultimate source of most private crime as well. The vast majority of crime comes directly from the government welfare system attacking fatherhood and the family, the government's war on drugs and the crime schools called prisons.

As to the question of how the natural order keeps people in line, the prime mechanism is through ostracism. Why do you pay your debts? Not (primarily) because of the threat of court action but rather because people will cease to deal with you if you welch. If you're behind on your credit cards, eventually you pay up. And life goes on. No expensive lawyers and prisons. Etc. Simply quiet resolution of the problem.

The same mechanism can be used for other things as well. Ostracism is a powerful way to keep people in line. It works. And the ultimate form of ostracism, for those who simply refuse to follow the rules of good behaviour, is banishment.

In the modern world, any one who is banished better hope he can find some other community to take him in. Otherwise, he is going to be awfully hungry.

106 posted on 01/14/2002 12:52:36 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
I disagree.

"There are some ideas so preposterous, only an intellectual could believe them."
- George Orwell

Maybe you can demonstrate how a government reduces any violence.

Rather amazing that I need to spell this one out to you. That you don't understand indicates you won't get the answer.

If a serial killer gets busy in a city, what happens?
With government, a police force tracks him down and removes him from society.
With anarchy, practically nothing happens, and the crimes continue.

Government is like a lock: at minimum, it keeps the honest people honest.

107 posted on 01/14/2002 12:54:05 PM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Ridin' Shotgun
How would anarchy better deal with individuals who couldn't/wouldn't govern themselves?

Easy, if they get out of hand, they would be "sleeping with the fish."

108 posted on 01/14/2002 12:54:48 PM PST by SemperFidelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Wm Bach
That's worth repeating.

Instead of flaming Freepers, you should try to be a real man and go try anarchy for a while. Go live "outside the box". I dare you.


109 posted on 01/14/2002 12:56:25 PM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
If a serial killer gets busy in a city, what happens? With government, a police force tracks him down and removes him from society. With anarchy, practically nothing happens, and the crimes continue.

In a society where each is responsible 100% for himself, serial killers don't last long, as the populace is armed.

Oh, and honest people don't need anything, especially government, to keep them honest.

110 posted on 01/14/2002 12:59:58 PM PST by Doctor Doom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

Comment #111 Removed by Moderator

To: ctdonath2
If a serial killer gets busy in a city, what happens? With government, a police force tracks him down and removes him from society. With anarchy, practically nothing happens, and the crimes continue

You don't think that people would act to protect themselves against such a person? By hiring private detectives perhaps? I submit that, not only would they do so, they would be far more efficient than the bureaucrats in the police.

112 posted on 01/14/2002 1:02:36 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Wm Bach
Instead of flaming Freepers, you should try to be a real man and go try anarchy for a while. Go live "outside the box". I dare you.

If people are civil to me, I'll be civil to them. My post #95, to which you pretend to be responding, was perfectly civil. This little rant has nothing to do with it. Nor is it a response to anything, just the typical "America, Love it or Leave It" garbage. You, sir, deserve flaming.

113 posted on 01/14/2002 1:09:23 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Government is like a lock: at minimum, it keeps the honest people honest.

And the dishonest ones in Washington.

114 posted on 01/14/2002 1:10:27 PM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Architect
the prime mechanism is through ostracism

Only works in a society where people know each other well enough. A small frontier community might be able to ostracize someone, but not a modern city.

My co-workers don't know what I do outside work. The grocer, gas station attendant, haircutter, etc. don't know if I've done anything objectionable, and if one does the others don't. If groceries aren't paid for, the haircutter won't know. If I pay for my groceries with mugging money, the grocer doesn't know. If I'm ostracized from a given location, I need only walk a few blocks to become anonymous again. I work in a city of a million people; on the whole, they won't ostracize me...or you...or anyone else. My daily activities are spread across a 900 square mile region. Money talks; otherwise, I'm an anonymous face.

We're not in a frontier community of a few hundred people who really rely on each other. We're in a rapid-commute, mega-city, suburb-enhanced culture. If you're not welcome somewhere, just drive another minute or take a different bus...they won't know you and your cash talks.

Ostracism was once practically equal to death. Today, it means practically nothing.

115 posted on 01/14/2002 1:10:41 PM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Architect
It appears that you've spent some quality time with this subject. Thank you for that very reasoned response. Have you given any thought to how we might reclaim the trillions of acres of land that government has confiscated? I can only see anarchism working if people had access to the land and weren't crammed into high rises in the cities and employed in produce-nothing, paper-shuffling jobs. We'd almost have to go back to an agri/industrial economy (good plan anyway, IMO), wouldn't we?
116 posted on 01/14/2002 2:12:28 PM PST by Ridin' Shotgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Doom
Great article, ST. I always wonder why people can't understand concept of spontaneous ordering when we see it every day in aa free market, or why 90 percent of our ills happen because of, in tribute to, or on the tragic commons.

My guess is that most people do understand "spontaneous ordering," but they fear the kind of order that is likely to result.

117 posted on 01/14/2002 2:18:13 PM PST by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: SemperFidelis
"sleeping with the fish."

Guess that means the EPA and PETA will have to get thrown to the fish also. Works for me. Can we do the same with the rest of the ABC agencies? If so, call me anarchist.

118 posted on 01/14/2002 2:19:29 PM PST by Ridin' Shotgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
Yes - people do prefer security to liberty, it seems.
119 posted on 01/14/2002 2:20:43 PM PST by Doctor Doom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
People who call 911

A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

120 posted on 01/14/2002 2:21:41 PM PST by Ridin' Shotgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-162 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson