Replies

All sufficiently-complex systems are self-ordering. Think of an ecology. The conifers grow on the hills and the cactii in the deserts. Nobody orders them to. It just happens. The same thing happens in an economy. We use the term "marketplace" to refer to this particular self-ordering mechanism.

When government imposes its will on society, this has the effect, not of imposing order on disorder, but rather of freezing motion. In other words, it does not impose order. It imposes stasis.

You talk of government as if it were a foreign entity imposed on society. That may be true when one nation conquers another; otherwise, every government grows out of a particular community or nation. One could say that government, like the economy, is a "self-ordering mechanism."

Just as some trees grow in the mountains and not in the desert, some forms of government have florished in some societies and not in others. Have you considered why there are no anarchistic societies anywhere today? What sort of society would be required for anarchy to form and florish spontaneously?

You talk of government as if it were a foreign entity

Guess what? The Supreme Court talked that way too, respecting Volume 20; Corpus Juris Sec. 1785 (NY re: Merriam 36 NE, 505 141): THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION WITH RESPECT TO A STATE. There are others that say basically the same thing. But then the States incorporated, the counties incorporated, the cities incorporated and now you compete with all of these corporate entities in business.

You talk of government as if it were a foreign entity imposed on society.

That is precisely what it is. A government may, as you say, be organic and grow out of its community (or more accurately, out of previous governments). But that does not change its purpose - which is to control and manipulate the development of that community. It imposes a system of law and order instead of letting the market choose the mechanisms for self-defense and conflict resolution which work best.

Have you considered why there are no anarchistic societies anywhere today?

Historically, they have been conquered by states. Once installed, the state has been extremely difficult to weed out.

What sort of society would be required for anarchy to form and florish spontaneously?

Well, the first step is obviously for people to recognize that such a thing is thinkable.

I would say that a second would be a recognition of the right to individual secession. A friend of mine has this dream of buying an island in the Straits of Juan de Fuca and making her own country. Why the hell shouldn't she have the right to do precisely that?