Posted on 01/14/2002 6:38:35 AM PST by SteamshipTime
Anarchy, I must point out, is not synonymous, at least in my mind, with bomb-throwing lunatics, or rioting in the streets. It is as placid as a pond, as peaceful as a park. There is nothing chaotic about it. It is certainly not the absence of government, but only of government imposed by strangers. The anarchist governs himself, based upon principles found to be enduring and valuable: the Ten Commandments, for example. Anarchy has been the basis of society, long prior to the existence of government. Does your family have bylaws? Are there regular elections, or meetings for the sake of writing new laws to cope with new problems? Do family members regularly charge one another with violations of the law, and demand justice, as meted out by strangers? Not in my family. Family members may disagree, of course, but these disagreements are worked out and eventually settled without recourse to written statutes or judges. No lawyers are necessary. God’s law, we have been taught, is written on our hearts. We don’t need to quibble about the precise meaning of words in laws because we all know, instinctively, what is right and fair, and what isn’t. It is only when we leave the family that we encounter the world of legalisms. As a physician, I am on the staff of several hospitals. All have staff bylaws. These are bulky multi-page documents, intended to deal with any and every circumstance surrounding a physician’s staff privileges. Before being accepted on the staff, you must sign the bylaws and agree to abide by them. Indeed, one hospital even affixes to its signature-line the jurat that the signer will be bound not only by these bylaws, but by any additions that may be made in the future. Astonishingly, this absurdity seems to provoke little reaction from the doctors. Perhaps that is because they realize that the bylaws don’t mean anything anyway, but exist mainly to provide the hospital with justification for acting against a particular physician if his actions might be considered dangerous to the hospital. Strangers from hospital-accreditation, who, ultimately, control the purse strings, require them. The laws of your local community, not to mention state and federal governments, are sufficiently numerous and complex that you cannot possibly know them, although ignorance of the law – an excellent excuse for any alleged lawbreaker—is considered no excuse by the lawmakers, who may profit from infractions. You manage your day to day activities quite nicely without reference to these countless regulations. Indeed, were you to consider them prior to acting, you would be reduced to inactivity; they would overwhelm you. In fact, the innumerable laws which are said to apply to all of us are out of our thoughts. That undeniable fact is, in itself, an excellent argument for anarchy. We have government, with its innumerable laws, but we function as though we didn’t, because otherwise we’d spend more time pouring over the statute-books, and haggling over definitions, than doing our work. Moreover, the government itself, though passing new laws with alacrity, pays little attention to them, at least where its self-interest is concerned. It does what it thinks it must do, and if its actions are prohibited by the laws, it ignores them. The proof of this is all around us. To wit: "No state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender for debt." That constitutional provision would virtually eradicate our economic problems; the government not only ignores it, but violates it. Actions not specifically permitted to government by the constitution are denied it. Nearly all of the government’s actions are, by this constitutional standard, unconstitutional. Does anyone in Washington care? Do most Americans? The written laws are tools to be used, when it is considered desirable to do so, against individuals and corporations, except the federal corporation, which ignores any laws it finds oppressive. What keeps society together are not the myriad laws imposed by government, to be applied as needed; it is the law written on our hearts. The shootings at schools around the country have undoubtedly stimulated a new outpouring of laws, but there are already numerous laws prohibiting shootings at schools, or anywhere else. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is the relevant law, and it’s already written, though not taught. Indeed, it is forbidden to be taught in many schools. Therein lies the problem! There is freedom in the law, we are told, but that is only true if it is God’s law, not that of some strangers who call themselves government. Those laws bring slavery. Indeed, that may be their purpose.
I believe it was Chesterton who remarked that Christianity had not failed; it had not been tried. And Ayn Rand described capitalism as the unknown ideal. I would like to suggest, in a similar vein, that anarchy has been tried, is being tried and is a universal success, but remains an unknown ideal. I’ll explain.
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.
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".
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.
"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.
Easy, if they get out of hand, they would be "sleeping with the fish."
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.
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.
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.
And the dishonest ones in Washington.
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.
My guess is that most people do understand "spontaneous ordering," but they fear the kind of order that is likely to result.
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.
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
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.