Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Missing Billions":
I'm still not convinced that Anarchy would be better than a democracy with checks and balances. Democracy is not perfect, but it appears to be the least worst system (maybe a "direct" democracy is better?).
***The question is not democracy, it is free markets. Free markets are only possible in Anarchy.***
Didn't tens of millions more people die under Stalin (in various purges), Mao (in the cultural Revolution), et al.?
***All claiming to be democracies... and the capitalist democracies were no slouches when it came to killing either, with their relentless bombing campaigns.***
In anarchy, a strongman or dominant group in mob rule can still come into power by force or violence - what would prevent this?
***Jim Crow laws were laws, only when there is State can a strongman or dominate group achieve mob rule. In anarchy, no one has the violence of the state to back up their claim.***
Anarchy does not rid society of violence I think. There will always be charismatic, ambitious people, it's in human nature.
***Sure, and no end to nitwits who follow them. But then they go too far, and form a State, so they can out vote the creative and productive.***
I believe that both systems, democracy and anarchy, can have this strongman problem.
***Show where it has occurred under anarchy. In every democracy we have it.***
Also, in an anarchy system, a nation would need a military to defend itself from other countries. How would the military be managed and controlled?
*** Anarchy means no nation. Costa Rica has no standing army, and has defeated Nicaragua the three times Nicaragua has invaded. Afghanistan has no real army, but it just defeated USA, as did the Vietnamese, etc. Like all emergency needs, a group forms around a leader to get a job done.***
Does a country under an anarchy system exist or ever existed that has provided a stable society?
*** Earliest record is in the bible, 450 years. 200 years in Iceland... and others, plus anarchy is relative... Andorra, San Marino, Hong Kong.. and 95% or you life is non-state controlled.***
Also, with the Catholic Church, they are tolerant of voluntary associations?
***The Catholic Church is a voluntary association.***
What about the Spanish Inquisition?, conflict in Europe during the Protestant Reformation?
***Inquisition was a State security question, and the reformation was a real estate rents question.***
The role of the Catholic church in the Spanish Conquest of the New World and subjugation of various native populations?
***You mean condemning and forbidding it?***
I think the early Catholic Church was also political as well as any interest group (Kings justify their power using divine right of kings and support from the church I think).
***Of course, the existence of Kings and States give leverage of all sorts... no kings or states, then freedom from that leverage...***
I'm still not convinced that Anarchy would be better than a democracy with checks and balances. Democracy is not perfect, but it appears to be the least worst system (maybe a "direct" democracy is better?).
***The question is not democracy, it is free markets. Free markets are only possible in Anarchy.***
Didn't tens of millions more people die under Stalin (in various purges), Mao (in the cultural Revolution), et al.?
***All claiming to be democracies... and the capitalist democracies were no slouches when it came to killing either, with their relentless bombing campaigns.***
In anarchy, a strongman or dominant group in mob rule can still come into power by force or violence - what would prevent this?
***Jim Crow laws were laws, only when there is State can a strongman or dominate group achieve mob rule. In anarchy, no one has the violence of the state to back up their claim.***
Anarchy does not rid society of violence I think. There will always be charismatic, ambitious people, it's in human nature.
***Sure, and no end to nitwits who follow them. But then they go too far, and form a State, so they can out vote the creative and productive.***
I believe that both systems, democracy and anarchy, can have this strongman problem.
***Show where it has occurred under anarchy. In every democracy we have it.***
Also, in an anarchy system, a nation would need a military to defend itself from other countries. How would the military be managed and controlled?
*** Anarchy means no nation. Costa Rica has no standing army, and has defeated Nicaragua the three times Nicaragua has invaded. Afghanistan has no real army, but it just defeated USA, as did the Vietnamese, etc. Like all emergency needs, a group forms around a leader to get a job done.***
Does a country under an anarchy system exist or ever existed that has provided a stable society?
*** Earliest record is in the bible, 450 years. 200 years in Iceland... and others, plus anarchy is relative... Andorra, San Marino, Hong Kong.. and 95% or you life is non-state controlled.***
Also, with the Catholic Church, they are tolerant of voluntary associations?
***The Catholic Church is a voluntary association.***
What about the Spanish Inquisition?, conflict in Europe during the Protestant Reformation?
***Inquisition was a State security question, and the reformation was a real estate rents question.***
The role of the Catholic church in the Spanish Conquest of the New World and subjugation of various native populations?
***You mean condemning and forbidding it?***
I think the early Catholic Church was also political as well as any interest group (Kings justify their power using divine right of kings and support from the church I think).
***Of course, the existence of Kings and States give leverage of all sorts... no kings or states, then freedom from that leverage...***
1 comments:
Regarding your assertion that "95% of your life is non-state controlled." I remember reading somewhere that an ordinary person through the course of their typical day violates God-knows-how-many-laws inadvertently and unknowingly (I'm not sure if this is true or not, but with the expanding size of the federal code of regulations, I would not be surprised if this were true), so maybe anarchic-like conditions prevail more than is thought, even in the confines of an existing state government. Maybe we have more of a "minimalist state"? (Hence 95% Anarchy and 5% State in effect).
From : "Anarchy, State and Utopia" by Robert Nozick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia
"To support the idea of the minimal state, Nozick presents an argument that illustrates how the minimalist state arises naturally from anarchy and how any expansion of state power past this minimalist threshold is unjustified."
Enduring anarchy may not be achievable in reality, but just a minimalist state.
Post a Comment