The Reluctant Anarchist

LewRockwell.com ^ | 1/22/2003 | Joseph Sobran

[Snuffington]

I wouldn't go along with him from a practical standpoint.

Exactly my problem with Sobran lately. It's his abandonment of the practical, seemingly because he found it too hard.

And it is hard. It's frustrating when you realize our political system isn't dominated by philisophically unified "parties" so much as by loose alliances calling themselves parties. Making change in any direction seems to threaten the destruction of the alliance, leaving the field to the less savory alliance in opposition. How on earth can one man affect change in an environment such as that?

That is the practical problem Sobran seems to shy away from by retreating into abstract theory, without a path for bringing those abstractions back to earth.

[JohnGalt]

But the dichotimy of the Christian anarcho-capitalist is wielding of power bad and consolidation of power (government) downright evil and free exchange of individuals, good. Man by his nature is sinful and thus violence for defense must be used from time to time to protect the virtuous, but there is a certain simplicity to this moral theory that is very attractive.

Politically, again, would apply more to local pursuits, no? I guess it would be a fair question to ask whether Joe particpates in setting town tax rates and zoning laws. One could be an anarcho-capitalist and a local statists, no?

[editor-surveyor]

"How could society survive at all without a state?"

Only in the millenial Kingdom of Christ.

"I can't say I'm ready to subscribe to the idea that all hope of returning to a constitutional form of government is lost..."

Explain what course you imagine would be efficatious.

[editor-surveyor]

"The tricky part is in determining the appropriate time to rise up, force the current government from power and start over."

No, there is one part that is far trickier.....

How would you ever force the current government from power? - Especially in light of the fact that the news media are all under the control of a handful of elitist tyrants that are of the same mind: World tyranny.

Your proposal is the same as the Yugoslavs, and the Argentinians had, and they were crushed completely; each in a different way, but both are crushed.

[x]

Just think, before liberal democracies, there were 'no total wars to end all wars.

Small comfort for those who perished in Europe's Wars of Religion, or crusades and jihads or ancient imperial struggles that resulted in cities being demolished, fields being salted, and populations butchered or sold into slavery.

Sobran, like Hoppe and Rothbard, is provincial in his understanding of history. It's presumed that the conditions that may have prevailed in Europe from 1648 to 1789 or so were normative, optimal, and reconcilable with modern conditions and appetites. But the situation in Europe in those years was atypical in the history of the world. It was not as much of a utopia as it's made out to be, and I doubt libertarians or anarchists would be happy or contented to play the role of serfs.

I'm glad Joe has had such a pleasant life. For those in other parts of the world -- the Middle East, the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Indian Subcontinent, Central Africa, Central America -- things aren't so simple. It's easy to say that the state is the enemy, but when you are assaulted by an enemy state, you need to have one of your own or perish.

If we in America have succeeded in successfully working out a system of government that maintains order and doesn't deprive us of essential freedoms, we can congratulate ourselves on doing so, but that doesn't mean that we could simply do without that system and keep the benefits we've secured under it.

[JohnGalt]

http://www.freestateproject.com/

I like beer and football to much to be watering trees with any blood these.

[editor-surveyor]

Doesn't look much different than what the Confederates wanted; how would it turn out different?

[JohnGalt]

Television.

[sheltonmac]

It is at times like this that I am glad my citizenship is in that heavenly kingdom!

[MEGoody]

"what would increase people's participation and voice in the decisions being made that affect them'.

And you think anarchy would do this?

[MEGoody]

"You are right of course, much better to embrace a system of thugs"

How is anarchy better than what you call our 'system of thugs'?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

I thought you might find this of interest.

[tpaine]

bump

[tpaine]

I suspect there's a logical fallacy lurking beneath this sentiment. Sobran notes how some states are murderous, then generalizes from this that all states are murderous. This is no more true of states than of men.
9 Dumb_Ox


A serious conclusion would at very least require examination of other questions, such as: Do we have the ability to "end the state"? What are the possible consequences of successfully "ending the state"? What are the possible consequences of our ATTEMPT to "end the state"?
Sobran is playing at this anarchy thing like a naive college kid plays at liberalism. It's a reaction to a situation he doesn't like. He hasn't bothered to work out the details of his own position yet. He's too busy arguing against the flaws of the other.
He's smart enough (and old enough) for us to expect better.
29 Snuffington



"The tricky part is in determining the appropriate time to rise up, force the current government from power and start over."
No, there is one part that is far trickier.....
How would you ever force the current government from power? - Especially in light of the fact that the news media are all under the control of a handful of elitist tyrants that are of the same mind: World tyranny.
Your proposal is the same as the Yugoslavs, and the Argentinians had, and they were crushed completely; each in a different way, but both are crushed.
44


editor-surveyor:
http://www.freestateproject.com/
46

THe answer lays, imo, in massive civil disobedience to unconstitutional 'law'. -- At the state, or even county level.
Non-violent mutiny works, -- as demonstated by Ghandi.
- And as 'Ox' notes, our government MAY not be murderous, -- yet.

[Tauzero]

"A serious conclusion would at very least require examination of other questions, such as: Do we have the ability to 'end the state'? What are the possible consequences of successfully 'ending the state'? What are the possible consequences of our ATTEMPT to 'end the state'?"

Excellent questions.

My personal opinion is that state-forming behavior is a natural part of the human condition, and that we are essentially doomed to repeat the cycle of liberty-tyranny-rebellion.

[JohnGalt]

So you ideas from non-Christians like Ghandi and Thoreau to unseat the state and restore a document that did not work?

I don't think you will get much support from the anarcho-capitalist side, but it's worth discussing.

[tpaine]

So you [would use?] ideas from non-Christians like Ghandi and Thoreau to unseat the state and restore a document that did not work?

No, -- we would use non-violent [Christian? Non-? Who cares?] methods to disobey, which would force the state to restore order by using [hopefully] constitutional methods.

-- The states only other option would be using brute force against a mass of its own citizens, a clear violation of our constitution, to which they still pay lip service.

Thus, - to quell a non-violent rebellion the state has to use non-violent means, unless the state is willing to admit to being totalitarian.
- It worked for India.

[editor-surveyor]

"And as 'Ox' notes, our government MAY not be murderous, -- yet."

You have the temerity to make that supposition after Waco, OKC, Ruby Ridge, and numerous Clintonian individual home-invasion assinations, and 'mysterious' and convenient witness deaths?

[editor-surveyor]

"It worked for India."

If you cast your gaze seriously at India, you will have to see that nothing has worked for India. They are the bottom of the 3rd world cesspool; economically, morally, and especially spiritually.