Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Does the "Freedom Train" Metaphor Work?
An anarchist libertarian wants to hop off the metaphor of the "freedom train"--a somewhat common metaphor used by those trying to keep on board libertarians with different opinions on exactly how little government they want.
The metaphor implies both anarchists and minimal-statists are natural allies heading in the same direction, just with different opinions about when to get off the train. "Rad Geek" disagrees. An excerpt:
The image of political factions hopping onto a train, and getting off at different stations, might work well enough if you’re talking about factions within a party all of whom agree on the legitimacy of an electoral process. ......But does the same image work for the relationship between minarchists and anarchists? I don’t think it does. The basic problem is that when we imagine the minarchists
getting off the train,we imagine that they are simply done with going where they want to go, and, while they prefer to stay at the minimal-government station, we will be free to go on past that station to the anarchy station.....if minarchists simply hop off the train and leave the anarchists in peace to go on towards the anarchy station, then they are no longer acting as minarchists. Once we’re down to the minimal State and the anarchists start trying to withdraw and set up their own competing defense associations (or withdrawing in favor of individual self-defense, or whatever), the minarchists have only two choices. They can allow it to happen. But then what you have is
governmentwhere any subject can choose to refuse or withdraw her allegiance at any time, and give it to a differentgovernment,or to no government at all. But that wouldn’t be a minimal government, or any kind of government at all; it would just be one voluntary association amongst many in a state of anarchy. Or they can try to forcibly suppress anarchists’ efforts to withdraw from the minimal State, and to move from limited government to no government. If the minarchists really mean it, then in the end they are going to be turning their limited-government cops and limited-government military on us, just as surely as any Bushista orProgressive.
Anonymous Bastert|1.25.08 @ 7:40PM|#
Ummm... can we just all agree to work on ending drug prohibition
first? I think everyone agrees on that issue, and it'll have an
immediate and direct and positive impact on numerous lives.
How low will government be ratcheted down? Does that really have to
be decided now? Does that question have any relevance whatsoever in
our current situation?
Vent|1.25.08 @ 7:43PM|#
Great. The metaphor's nonsensical. Let's stop working together against the great breadth of government power.
|1.25.08 @ 7:43PM|#
Honestly, who cares? If they don't believe in the electoral process they're not voting anyway. And an anarchist who's worried about how minarchists will react to a push for anarchy once some minimal state is achieved is just basically just playing Dungeons and Dragons.
|1.25.08 @ 7:49PM|#
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It assumes that we're in a state of anarchy now, and the "train" is moving toward some sort of government. In fact, we're in the big-government station now, and we're talking about a train moving toward less government, so of course the anarchists would be on board. If you're an anarchist, minarchy is better than what we've got. Also, if you're an anarchist, you're dumb, but that's another matter.
|1.25.08 @ 7:53PM|#
Ummm, when we get to a government that is about 1% the size it
is now, this will become a relevant question. Not exactly holding
my breath over that happening. Until we effing reverse the growth
of government, the 0%ers and the 0.01%ers and the 1%ers and the
50%ers and even the 99%ers should all be pretty solid allies.
But just to take a stab at it -- as a very minimal minarchist, I'd
be quite willing to let the anarchists go their own way and ignore
the government until they initiated force against someone, at which
point they'd be treated as outlaws if they resisted being held to
account for their usurpation.
There's a real blurry boundary between anarcho-capitalism and a
thoroughly minarchist state with voluntary "taxation" and a high
tolerance for any anarcho-rebels willing to not infringe upon
others.
anarcho agoro|1.25.08 @ 8:05PM|#
People get the government they deserve. I highly doubt the bulk
of USAians will soon ascend to deserving no government at all.
Regional occurrences, probably very transient in their time frame,
is about the best we can hope for.
By nature, "Anarcho" anything isn't scalable.
|1.25.08 @ 8:05PM|#
Oh, and technically, we already have an anarcho-capitalist state
with competing private defense agencies -- it's just that one of
the PDAs is really really large, and holds in its thuggish grasp
about 95% of the population, and doesn't let their victims go
elsewhere. The other PDAs -- the Mafia, individuals armed with
guns, and anyone who is an outlaw who refuses to file tax returns,
vote, or in any way cooperate with the government.
And I'm saying that about 5% of the population, because right off
the bat you have all the illegal / undocumented immigrants living
under the radar and off the official books -- and if anyone
purports to know for sure its 12 million, and not 20 million or
whatnot, perhaps they can explain where they're getting such a
precise counting of people taking great pains to not be
counted.
Ventifact|1.25.08 @ 8:23PM|#
prolefeed -- As a very side note, I have to say it's a rare treat to see someone actually use "to not" when appropriate instead of always saying "not to".
The Wine Commonsewer|1.25.08 @ 8:30PM|#
What Prole said. Once you get the Fed abolished, maybe we can
sit down and talk.
Hell, for that matter, you can't even get the got dam Dept of
Education abolished, so I don't really think the Oppression of
Anarchists by the Minarchists is even as relevant as the Oppression
of the Night People by the Day People.
Plus, I like the Digital Duke version of Take The A-Train,
but I don't recall jumping on anybody's freedom train. That sounds
more like something from the 1970's.
Don't take that the wrong way, neither, it is a time honored
avocation for young libertarians to sit up until all hours sipping
expresso or swilling beer, smoking until the room looks like LA on
a bad day, hashing (pun intended) out all these really obscure and
irrelevant what-ifs. Guilty myself. And it's fun. Er, was fun. Now
I'm just a stick-in-the-mud.
Anyway,
Anarcho Agora|1.25.08 @ 8:32PM|#
This thread inspired me to read a bit of Sam Konkin's "New
Libertarian Manifesto" (1983 edition)
I hadn't looked at it for years.
I found this quote:
Internally, the "Libertarian" Party has reached a crisis with the 1980 American Presidential election. The premature unmasking of the statism inherent in partyarchy by Crane-Clark's blatant opportunism has managed to generated not only Left opposition but Right and Center opposition. [4] Major defections mount daily. [5]
The failure of some reformist element to oust the Kochtopus by the Denver Convention (August 1981) and lull the unradicalized back in line would set the U.S.L.P. back dramatically and generate thousands of disillusioned recruits for the MLL and anti-party educational and counter-economic activities.
"Kochtopus"? In '83? I thought that was fresher than '83...
|1.25.08 @ 8:35PM|#
Any RISK players here? How about we both fight and defeat them
before we then turn and fight each other.
Think of Mao's communists and Chang Kai-Chek's nationalists
combining to fight the Japanese.
Once the common foe is gone, we can nitpick the details.
thoreau|1.25.08 @ 8:37PM|#
Clearly, what we libertarians really need is one more reason to
not get along with each other.
In fact, I'm writing a newsletter article about how much the other
species of libertarian suck ass. Some of the language is a bit
colorful, but it's all about appealing to a disaffected base. Would
any of you like to subscribe?
The Wine Commonsewer|1.25.08 @ 8:50PM|#
thoreau, I've always wanted to subscribe to your
newsletter.
You never wanted to subscribe to MY newsletter.
[makes pouty face]
Anarcho Agora|1.25.08 @ 8:53PM|#
Koch Family Foundations
Honestly, my oldest active recollection of the word "Kochtopus" is
time stamped weeks ago (off of Karen De Coster's site).
libertreee|1.25.08 @ 9:01PM|#
I guess I was a minarchist who looked down on anarchists, like
the commenter above, as dumb.
Now I am an anarchist who works in the electoral process, once with
the LP, now with Ron Paul.
I may be an anarchist who works only with anarchists in the future,
like Rad Geek suggests.
|1.25.08 @ 9:04PM|#
I don't see how this breaks the metaphor. Isn't this just saying
that when the Freedom Train gets to Minarchist Central, all of the
locals will start beating up the driver and spiking the
tracks?
As others have noted, it's kind of a Trans-Siberian journey at this
point anyway, wake me up for the infighting when we get to
Ulaanbaatar.
libertreee|1.25.08 @ 9:07PM|#
In Somalia we have a near anarchy (ok, a kritarchy) that is
being oppressed by democracies.
There are historical anarchies, if you look hard enough. Or, you
might call them kritarchies. They did pretty well.
Iceland became corrupted from within. The Irish were slowly
conguered by monarchy. Southern India appears to have been
conquered by nature, not man. Friesland became absorbed into nation
states.
Those are the big four succesfull anarchies that I know of. There
may have been city sized anarchies and of course aboriginal
anarchies as well.
The anarchists of the Spanish Civil War accordint to Rothbard
formed very repressive, statist communites and acted more like
communists than anarchists.
Oh, yes, the Russian anarchists, who had communes in major Russian
cities, and who dressed in black and marched with black flags and
rifles, actually saved Lenin's ass a couple of times. They were
later purged by the communists.
Rimfax|1.25.08 @ 9:10PM|#
So, if you're not with him, you're against him. Where have I heard that before...?
Franklin Harris|1.25.08 @ 9:30PM|#
"Kochtopus"? In '83? I thought that was fresher than '83...
It's probably older than '83. Seriously, this whole
cosmotarian/paleolibertarian fight -- in one form or another, with
different names, with some people switching sides (Raimondo was
anti-paleo in '88, as I recall), and with some a-pox-on-both-of-you
factions briefly sprouting up -- has been going on since 1980.
Brandybuck|1.25.08 @ 9:38PM|#
Two quotes from the author, which I think are telling:
I think that it was foolish for anarchists to sign on to the Dallas Accord. Partly because I'm a self-righteous ultra...
At least he lets us know this right up front! He is unwilling to
compromise any of his political points. But such an unwavering
demand for pure anarchy is going to net him only misery. Is this a
man who would reject a 50% tax cut because it would leave the
remaining 50% of taxes in place? I think it might be.
I imagine a slave in the antebellum South. He is beaten every day.
But then his master decides to sell him to a kinder slaveholder
down the street, one who only beats his slaves once a month. The
slave begs his master not to sell him, because the sale would only
legitimize his slavery! And so he continues to be beaten daily
instead of once a month.
Personally, I have no desire to join any movement whose members [minarchists] will turn around and shoot me in the end.
This is a vile mischaracterization of minarchists. Minarchists are
not statists. They are anti-statists. What makes them different
from anarchists is the pragmatic realization that anarchy is not
viable. If a state is inevitable, then let's see to it that it will
be as small and as unobtrusive as possible.
If I were an anarchist, I suspect I would be significantly happier
in a minarchist society than in today's authoritarian regimes. I
also suspect that it would be much easier to achieve true anarchy
if you start from a minarchist state than from an maxarchist
state.
As one of his commenters says: "Sisyphus old lad, would you rather
push a pebble or a planet up a hill?"
|1.25.08 @ 9:43PM|#
This peaceful anarchist is currently incoherent, but still
senses this would be a good thread to come back to later.
thoreau,
Hold my place...
Ruthless
|1.25.08 @ 9:48PM|#
Don't all of the continuum-based political analogies fall apart
at the extreme fringes? At some point the rules don't matter as
much as the enforcement of the rules. It's what allows us to debate
whether Stalin was a fascist, or Mussolini was a commie or
whatever.
That said, isn't the existence of that political compass
indicative of the failures of the continuum approach?
|1.25.08 @ 9:49PM|#
This sounds like Trotskyists ranting against class-traitor Maoists and vice versa. Ho hum.
libertreee|1.25.08 @ 9:53PM|#
What makes them different from anarchists is the pragmatic realization that anarchy is not viable. If a state is inevitable, then let's see to it that it will be as small and as unobtrusive as possible.
Ah, but is a state inevitable?
I think the age of nation states is on the decline.
Beginning in 1640 or so with the Treaty of Westphalia, it-the age
of nation states-started with good intentions. It would end
internecine warfare by allowing for the participation of different
ethnic and religious groups in a nation through some form of
participation in power, parliamentary democracy or other.
The American Revolution started the decline even as the French
Revolution brought its ideological apogee. America denounced the
Divine Right of Kings and established a decentralized order. The
French Revolution abolished the Divine Right of Kings but by
Regicide established a totalitarian secular order.
Freedom flourished for the first half of the nineteenth century
such as never before, but the chaos of the Napolionic wars had the
seed of nation state destrucion therin.
The consolidation of small states into large central states and
empires after 1850 with the American civil war, the consolidation
of Germany under Bismark, Italy under Garibaldi, and the triumph of
Disraeli over Gladstone in England.
The War to end all Wars, WWI, and the end of any monarchy, the
triumph of bankrupt democracy, in other word, the suicide of nation
states.
The death throes continue as America replaces England as world
empire, WWII, Cold War, now Islamo terrorism, and the nation states
are unable to rachet down their imperialistic, militaristic nature
that stems from their geographical monopoly on the use of
force.
The 21 century opens with the same opera playing, but new currents
are pushing us to anarchy, not nation state dominance. The biggest
is the Internet, and the ability to survive in cyberspace, which
transcends the nation state geographical space.
The nuclear age brings the ability of nation states to really
defend its geographical monopolies into question.
Somalia becomes the first nation to VOLUNTARILY abandon nation
hood.
Other so called "failed states" emerge, and the great powers are
powerless to stop it.
Fourth generation warfare makes a mockery of nation state armed
forces.
The 21 century might yet see one world government. But, sooner more
likely than later, technology and individualism will triumph over
collectivism. The end of nation states will come.
To be continued...
|1.25.08 @ 9:56PM|#
The analogy is fine for people who have a bit of political
realism. The train represents the movement and supporters of the
movement are on the train. The train only moves forward with the
support of the majority of voters, many of whom are not on the
train at all.
If it reaches the minarchy station, the anarchists will propose
that it move forward. If the majority of those on the train are
anarchists, such an effort will be made. Committed minarchists may
well get off the train. Regardless, the train will only move foward
with majority support of all of the voters.
If most voters want private courts suppressed, then they will be
suppressed. Only if most voters favor (or at least will tolerate)
private courts, will they be implemented.
If most of those on the train don't want to move forward, the
anarchists can get off the train and take a new one. But, that new
one will only move forward with majority support of the
voters.
I think as a general rule, if the anarchists on the train can't
convince the other libertarians on the train to move forward, they
probably won't have much chance at winning a majority of all
voters.
I think this approach applies also to Constitutionalist
libertarians, Friedman/Hayek libertarians, and even average people
who generally favor more personal and economic liberty. We need a
big tent and everyone on the train. And we will see how far it
goes.
The "train" analogy, then, assumes a strategy of working within
democratic politics to implement change.
|1.25.08 @ 10:00PM|#
I'm an anarchist libertarian who utilizes the electoral process while it exists (self defense). I think the analogy holds. If you look at the freedom train as a train moving from a totalitarian state on the one end to progressively more free areas, anyone can say, "Hey, this 'town' has exactly the amount of freedom I want" and get off there. The anarchist, on the other hand, would stay on the train until the end of the line where you come to a 'town' with no government at all. It doesn't have to have anything to do with believing in an electoral process. It's about how long and far you fight for less government.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.25.08 @ 10:11PM|#
has been going on since 1980 Jesus
Chrysler was on Mess Duty. Or at least since Rand gave Branden the
boot.
There. fixed it.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.25.08 @ 10:24PM|#
I did look at what Karen DeCoster has been writing about the
Kochtopus and she is definitely making the connection to the Koch
Oil money, which has, on balance, done a lot of good.
Diss those boys if you want, but they've made a lot of things
possible that never would have happened otherwise.
She's also wrong on some of her facts......Sanchez doesn't work
here no more. And, well, I'm not going to get into that, but she's
wrong about some things.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.25.08 @ 10:26PM|#
The end of nation states will come.
[Pours another glass of wine while some unnamed hippie type sparks
a doob.]
Brandybuck|1.25.08 @ 10:47PM|#
Ah, but is a state inevitable?
I would assert that it is, for sufficiently large groups. The only
examples of working anarchy that I am familiar with were in small
groups or sparsely populated areas. It's no accident that the rise
of government coincided with the rise of cities. I can imagine a
successful anarchy in Montana, but I cannot imagine one in New York
City. You talk about nation states, but I refer to all government,
down to the level of a local planning commission. As long as it is
institutionalized coercion, I do not want it.
So why do I think the state is inevitable? Because it is human
nature. If there is any correlation between voting behavior and the
propensity towards coercion, then government is inevitable. Maybe
it arises because people band together to hire a sheriff. Maybe it
arises because some homeowners band together outlaw yapping dogs in
the neighborhood. Mabye it arises because one group wants to
oppress another group. But it will arise.
If we're going to have a state, let's have a tiny one on a short
leash.
|1.25.08 @ 11:02PM|#
I was just utterly flabbergasted to see her ranting on about
big, evil corporate money.
It was like she was blogging from Bizarro world, man.
John Kindley|1.25.08 @ 11:10PM|#
I consider myself philosophically an anarchist and pragmatically
a minarchist. It's the theoretical anarchism (e.g. Lysander
Spooner's demonstration that the Constitution is of "no authority")
which justifies and enjoins the minarchism, rather than a mere
unprincipled preference for less government. Thoreau's essay on
Civil Disobedience expresses my attitude very well, especially the
first and last paragraphs. I don't have a problem with government
laws which merely forbid me to do something I have no right to do
anyway, like kill or rob. I have a big problem with taxes, but
wouldn't have a problem with a Georgist "single 'tax'" on the
unimproved value of land and other natural resources, which is only
fair. (For your own edification google "Henry George." The man was
a genius, and a true friend of liberty.)
So anarchism is a state of mind, People. You can be there right now
if you only think it. "The Truth will set you free." The Freedom
Train has already arrived. Just be sure to avoid the thugs with
guns (or at least the thugs with more guns than you) who wanna take
your stuff, just as you would still need to do if the U.S. of A.
collapsed into nothingness tomorrow. And do your best to lead
others to the truth that those thugs who have both guns and
government "credentials" have no moral authority over you. It'll
make it that much harder for the thuggish minority to continue
lording it over the rest of us.
|1.25.08 @ 11:13PM|#
I'm guessing that if a gang of marauding minarchists pound this chap into the ground after the revolution... it isn't going to be because they're acting as tools of statist repression.
Brandybuck|1.25.08 @ 11:36PM|#
For your own edification google "Henry George." The man was a genius...
The man was a kook! The only reason he wasn't a dangerous kook like
Marx, was that he was essentially a libertarian. His horrendous
economic mistake was assuming that rents were unproductive with no
economic value. But rents are a market mechanism to allocate scarce
land, and so have a vital purpose.
Both George and Marx found holes in the quite spongy classical
ecomonics of Smith and Ricardo. But instead of attempting to
retheorize the classical assertions of value, they took them as
Holy Writ and created single-minded political movements. They're
they economic equivalents of the guy who reads a bad textbook on
physics, and then spends the rest of his life trying to create a
free energy engine to plug up the thermodynamics loophole he
found.
Still, a single form of taxation would be an improvement on the
nightmare hodgepodge we have today. Just keep the tax low enough
that bureaucrats need a second job to make ends meet.
GILMORE|1.25.08 @ 11:36PM|#
Oh come on.
You're almost making me want H&R to post about Ron Paul more.
This 'minarchist' thing is like making the best effort to
deligetimize any kind of pragmatism at all. Fucking "anarchists?"
Whatever. That reads to me like teenage-rationalization of
politics, where there is some potential reality that has never been
achieved, where if only we got there it would work like
magic.
Unicorn politics. Frankly i'm never using the term 'minarchist'
either. I'm just for limited government. At least that doesnt sound
like it came from some goth teenager who has 'theories' to talk
about. Why are we here? to change the status quo. You dont do it
with new, fancy words. You do it incrementally. I see this whole
debate as being some kind of stupid distraction while real like
passes the iconoclasts by.
GILMORE|1.25.08 @ 11:39PM|#
thoreau | January 25, 2008, 8:37pm | #
Clearly, what we libertarians really need is one more reason to not
get along with each other.
Forget what i said. T dog got the money shot in early.
GILMORE|1.25.08 @ 11:41PM|#
since i'm pile-on posting, i will add that this is yet another time to read Eric Hoffer's "True Believer" for a dose of sensibility. At the least, it explains why the hardcore hate the halfway-types more than the 'enemy'.
GILMORE|1.25.08 @ 11:44PM|#
(vomitous post fest)
Is this one of those things where the perfect is the enemy of the
good?
I'd guess so.
Derrick|1.25.08 @ 11:44PM|#
I really, really, really wish that libertarians and anarcho-capitalists would split once and for all. I don't know whether political libertarians are holding anarcho-capitalism back, but the reverse is certainly true. It is really hard to sell libertarianism to the general public when there are people who call themselves libertarians talking about eliminating all government. Not that I think that's a bad idea - it's just that I really think we have to get to minarchism before we start talking about setting up Galt's Gulch or some theoretical shit like that.
Franklin Harris|1.26.08 @ 12:08AM|#
has been going on since 1980 Jesus Chrysler was on Mess Duty. Or at least since Rand gave Branden the boot.
The Rand/Branden split is a different creature entirely. That's
purely internal to the Objectivist movement. I'm talking
specifically about the Crane/Koch vs. Rothbard/Rockwell thing.
John Kindley|1.26.08 @ 12:43AM|#
RE: Henry George
He was most certainly not a kook. Albert Jay Nock, author of the
libertarian classic "Our Enemy the State," called him "one of
America's very greatest men" in a biographical essay. Other
avowed admirers included
Winston Churchill, Leo Tolstoy, Albert Einstein, Mark Twain, Louis
Brandeis, Clarence Darrow, George Bernard Shaw, John Dewey, Teddy
Roosevelt, Henry Ford, and William F. Buckley, among many others.
According to Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman: "In
my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved
value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years
ago."
Hardly something a great economist would say about a "kook."
|1.26.08 @ 12:48AM|#
Is this like the difference between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks? The answer to which side is correct depends on which one is willing to cut off the most heads, because when you try to institute radical social change that's what it normally comes down to.
John Lennon|1.26.08 @ 1:12AM|#
while real like passes the iconoclasts by.
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other
plans.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.26.08 @ 1:16AM|#
Franklin: Yes, but the broader point is that this stuff has a
long history.
For the third time this week:
libertarians are like the Mafia. We gots to got to the matresses
every four or five years.
And, for the fourth time this week, libertarians are cannibals.
Brandybuck|1.26.08 @ 1:16AM|#
Hardly something a great economist would say about a
"kook."
When I say "kook", realize that I am saying it as an ardent Ron
Paul supporter. :-)
I agree with Friedman that a single tax on the unimproved value of
land would be the least objectionable tax. That's not my problem
with George. It's that he goes on from there to the claim that it
would miraculously solve the problem of poverty.
His followers are definitely more kookier than he himself was.
Single Tax proponents can yammer on for hours about the new utopia
that will arise if only we tax land in precisely the right way.
Single-Taxers are great people to have in libertarian social
groups, as they allow you to sit someone between a Objectivist and
a Bircher!
John Kindley|1.26.08 @ 1:42AM|#
Brandybuck: "That's not my problem with George. It's that he
goes on from there to the claim that it would miraculously solve
the problem of poverty. His followers are definitely more kookier
than he himself was."
Well, I do think that government confiscation through income and
sales taxes of a substantial portion of the meager earnings of
people on the lower end of the income scale, while simultaneously
denying them their natural right to a free and equal share of the
earth and the earth's natural resources, is the biggest "cause" of
poverty.
I've heard from a number of people besides yourself that modern day
Georgists tend to be kind of kooky. That's unfortunate, because the
"single tax" idea itself is very sound. I myself have not yet met
one in person. I'm an "internet" Georgist:)
Robert|1.26.08 @ 2:11AM|#
Day & night people, commonsewer? Excelsior!
Left libertarian Quaker, I know one anarcho-Georgist.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.26.08 @ 2:25AM|#
Robert: Drink! Or go to bed. Think I'm going to adjourn to the
California King.
Thanks.
|1.26.08 @ 2:27AM|#
I really, really, really wish that libertarians and anarcho-capitalists would split once and for all.
So do I. Let's get it started. I, a limited government type, will
henceforth refer to myself as a limitarian.
Limitarians unite to crush the Ancap hordes!
|1.26.08 @ 6:15AM|#
As an anarchist I also think this is irrelevant. I am on the
train.
Besides when the time comes when a minarchist government agresses
against an individual it is much easier for that individual to
fight back since the state would be much less powerless and the
individual much more powerfull.
|1.26.08 @ 7:28AM|#
My answer is: Yes, it works as a METAPHOR. Much of this
commentary suggests it's something MORE than a metaphor, as if
there will come a day when the anarchos and minarchos wage war or
something. Both strains of thought are constructs, and nothing
more.
I'm neither. I'm a lessarchist. I don't subscribe to grandiose
private defense companies or even a literal interpretation of the
Constitution. It's one thing to spin out science-fiction scenarios,
another to think they are real and actionable.
I suggest we table the science fiction stuff. Government is awfully
big and growing, so it strikes me the first order of business is to
stop the growth, then reverse it.
Eric Dondero|1.26.08 @ 8:46AM|#
The term "Minarchist" is utterly ridiculous.
There are Moderate Libertarians, NOT some version of
"Chists."
Minarchist is still essentially Anarchist. They both fall into the
fringe, radical out of the mainstream end of the libertarian
spectrum.
Episiarch|1.26.08 @ 9:43AM|#
DONDERROOOOOO
Thanks for your input, Eric. Good to know what a "libertarian" (how
vinegary are Rudy's balls, by the way?) like you thinks about
anarchism.
I, like a poster above, am an anarchist in theory and a minarchist
in practice. If we ever get to the stage where minarchists can
oppress me, I'll probably be so giddy with joy and my legal drugs
that I won't get too worked up about it.
I can't believe that the subject of this article is worried about
this. It's like being worried about the sun going nova. It's just
not something that you are going to see.
|1.26.08 @ 9:49AM|#
An anarchist society is unstable because it is inevitable that a
subset of the society is eventually going to try to exercise
state-like power (ie, organized coercion) over the rest. To prevent
this requires the rest of the society to organize and coerce that
group to stop. Either way, a state-like structure will inevitably
arise, whatever term one invents for it.
And the states that arise out of anarchy tend to be much more
coercive than a minarchist state would be. I like the idea of
anarchy, but ultimately I think a minarchist "night watchman" state
is like the benign bacteria that live in your skin pores and
prevent nastier types from moving in. Sure, it would be nice to be
totally bacteria-free, but that's not going to happen.
|1.26.08 @ 9:55AM|#
Anarchists want to Smash the State.
Minarchists want to Shrink the State.
Say you have two guys standing next to a typical 2008 computer. One
guy thinks it's bloated with too much extraneous hardware, and
wants to reduce it to just a motherboard, seeking to get rid of the
video card, hard drive, DVD drive, wireless card, etc. The other
guy hates computers and wants to reduce it to dust.
Do you see these two cooperating?
Nick|1.26.08 @ 10:24AM|#
This discussion is slightly interesting if you want to talk
about political theory. If you want to actually change anything
it's pretty useless.
I view myself as a moderate or pragmatic libertarian. I want a much
smaller government and a great deal more respect for individual
rights. I don't see a problem cooperating with dems, repubs, or any
other evil statist types if it will lead to more freedom. I don't
grok the people who think that to work towards any bill or
political solution that is less than their ultimate goal is
violation of principle.
As far as the anarchist who feel they can't ride the freedom train
with us, I don't really see why I should care. If you're not
willing to work within the electoral process, why would we care if
you with us or against us?
The way to effect change is to build a coalition of people who are
dedicated to the change you want to make and then work to convince
the normal people in the middle. Ron Paul is a great example of
getting a coalition together, altho his campaign could use some
work in convincing moderates to his side.
Actually given that the most constant smear against RP is that his
supporters are all kooks, I think we might be better off without
the anarchists. In today's sound bite world, it's pretty easy to
take a cheap shot by mocking the most extreme supports of an
idea.
|1.26.08 @ 10:25AM|#
That is, do you really think the guy who hates computers is going to help the other guy remove all the extra components in a way that doesn't damage the motherboard, and only when all that arduous work is done and the motherboard is separated, will they have a disagreement about what to do next?
The Wine Commonsewer|1.26.08 @ 10:45AM|#
I, like a poster above, am an anarchist
Lissen guys, there can be only one Antichrist.
libertreee|1.26.08 @ 10:45AM|#
Maybe it arises because people band together to hire a sheriff.
The idea that the sheriff arose from the people who delegated their
authority of self defense to him is unfortunately a fiction.
The office of sheriff came from Anglo Saxon Earls in the late
period of Anglo Saxon English rule, just before the Norman
invasion. The sheriff was NOT a friend of the people. He got his
power and renumerations from the nobles.
True, the American sheriff is a product of American democracy, but
although he is elected, and in that sense is more in touch with the
people than city appointed police, he is still an officer of the
state. American democracy is at heart merely a REFORM of monarchy,
not its abolition.
libertreee|1.26.08 @ 10:50AM|#
I like the idea of anarchy, but ultimately I think a minarchist "night watchman" state is like the benign bacteria that live in your skin pores and prevent nastier types from moving in.
But, what will keep the state down to night watchman size? The US
Constitution has not kept the American government small. The
tendency of government is always to grow. The state has a
geographical monopoly on the use of force, and it uses force to
sustain itself through taxation. There is no real incentive to stay
small for a monopoly.
The idea of competing free market defense and justicial agencies at
least offers a theoretical framework where we can see that the
incentive to grow has its limits.
And the technology of the 21 century may well provide the means,
while the collapse of nation states the opportunity, to implement
this alternative.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.26.08 @ 10:54AM|#
They both fall into the fringe, radical out of the
mainstream end of the libertarian spectrum.
All libertarian thought is out of the mainstream. Or did you just
mean out-of-the-libertarian mainstream?
And some people think it's a circle.
|1.26.08 @ 11:08AM|#
Anarchists are stupid. And not just because they believe that
all government is evil.
"We want no government, but we're not gonna do shit about
it."
I'm libertarian (or at least libertarian leaning) out of
practicality, not ideology. Anarchists like private corporations
and free markets with choices and that crap, right? You can think
of a nation as that, too. Living in other countries where you can
get your own petty freedoms is a trade-off because most of those
countries are poor and unstable. And we all face trade-offs. It's
the free market of states. I do not say, "the state is evil." I
say, "we can all do better with less of the state."
It sucks that libertarians and anarchists can't unite for a little
bit. I see Paul Krugman bashing Obama like fucking crazy in his
op-eds (I don't actually BUY the Times or visit the site; don't
worry). I ask, why not bash the conservatives? To a liberal,
wouldn't changing a few lefties to extremists be less important
than changing a few conservatives to moderates? Why do anarchists
have to be little Paul Krugmans?
|1.26.08 @ 11:12AM|#
I can imagine a successful anarchy in Montana
There is a much stronger collectivist streak in the "rugged
individualists" up here in Montana than you might suspect. Think
Major Major's old man. Not to mention the Californicators, and
their ilk.
The train metaphor is only relevant (in my view) in that the train
is running full throttle in the wrong direction. We can jump off,
and hide out in a little bubble of pretend libertarian paradise,
but we're only one traffic stop, or one nosy, pissed-off neighbor,
from being victims/ possessions of the State.
Don't know why I'm such a spoilsport, this morning.
x,y|1.26.08 @ 11:49AM|#
Oh, and technically, we already have an anarcho-capitalist state with competing private defense agencies -- it's just that one of the PDAs is really really large, and holds in its thuggish grasp about 95% of the population, and doesn't let their victims go elsewhere.
This doesn't seem right. How can you call the state we have now a
PDA? There's no consent or voluntary exchange.
Jacob|1.26.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Um, wouldn't it be easier to secede from a minimal state that wasn't tapping your internet and phone lines, where gun ownership was unrestricted and the culture appreciated freedom and federalism, a state that maybe didn't even have a standing army versus the current one?
thoreau|1.26.08 @ 12:31PM|#
Government is awfully big and growing, so it strikes me the
first order of business is to stop the growth, then reverse
it.
But have you considered the full theoretical implications of
supporting something that isn't perfect?
:)
Eric Dondero|1.26.08 @ 12:37PM|#
No, not all libertarian thought is "out of the mainstream." Moderate libertarianism, as presented at MainstreamLibertarian.com is just as legitamate as Radical Libertarianism. There is no one true form of libertarianism. And just because the Anarchists are less polite and more obnoxious than Moderate Libertarians does not mean in any way they get to rule the roost.
|1.26.08 @ 12:49PM|#
One of the PDAs is really really large, and holds in its
thuggish grasp about 95% of the population, and doesn't let their
victims go elsewhere.
I missed the part where I couldn't leave the US of A anytime I
wanted.
Or even surrender my citizenship.
For all of its flaws, we're still a long way from North Korea.
Anarcho Agoro|1.26.08 @ 12:50PM|#
I've already seceded. Our house has been an "anarcho capitalist
collective" for over a decade. It works for us (hell, these days
I'd go so far as to say it's wildly successful), but it's just not
scalable. As it stands today, if you're gonna leave everyone to
their own devices, a significant number of people demand a boot on
their neck.
Read this:
http://exile.ru/print.php?ARTICLE_ID=6473&IBLOCK_ID=35
It'll be 4 generations (at least) before we have even a remote
chance of anarchists and minarchists arriving at a zero-sum game
point.
GILMORE|1.26.08 @ 1:01PM|#
Daniel Reeves | January 26, 2008, 11:08am | #
Anarchists are stupid. And not just because they believe that all
government is evil.
I wish you'd stopped with the first part.
I'd have said, 'Anarchists are a bunch of fags'
|1.26.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Anarchists want to Smash the State.
Minarchists want to Shrink the State.
Say you have two guys standing next to a typical 2008 computer. One
guy thinks it's bloated with too much extraneous hardware, and
wants to reduce it to just a motherboard, seeking to get rid of the
video card, hard drive, DVD drive, wireless card, etc. The other
guy hates computers and wants to reduce it to dust.
Do you see these two cooperating?
I see it as more like an anarchist and minarchist standing next to
statist cart full of steaming manure, with a sign on it saying,
"Free gifts for you! And the children! Just vote for me and you'll
get your share!"
The miniarchist wants to shovel out the manure onto the statist's
doorstep and try to salvage the wagon. The anarchist wants to wheel
the wagon to the front door of the statist's house and set the
whole shebang on fire.
Both are excellent ideas -- and neither is likely to happen anytime
soon, because the statist's enforcer is watching over the wagon,
with a shotgun he made you pay for aimed at your chest.
|1.26.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Anarchists are stupid. And not just because they believe
that all government is evil.
I wish you'd stopped with the first part.
I'd have said, 'Anarchists are a bunch of fags'
You forgot to include standard libertarian disclaimer #69 --
NTTAWWT.
GILMORE|1.26.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Prolefeed =
dude, i think it's time to turn the computer off for a few
hours.
Ararchists, steaming shit, shotguns? Maybe its time to enjoy a
movie, a book or something.
|1.26.08 @ 1:14PM|#
What the fuck doesc NTTAWWT mean?
I'd answer, but you requested that I step away from the computer
before somebody got hurt. ;)
Not That There's Anything Wrong With me doing That ...
BlueBook|1.26.08 @ 1:39PM|#
As a hobo camped out on the roof of the Freedom Train, I will probably continue to ride until the tracks run out and the whole thing plunges into a rocky chasm. But that's just me.
Brandybuck|1.26.08 @ 1:53PM|#
I've heard from a number of people besides yourself that modern day Georgists tend to be kind of kooky. That's unfortunate, because the "single tax" idea itself is very sound. I myself have not yet met one in person. I'm an "internet" Georgist:)
You really have to meet one in real life! For maximum effect, do
not let him know that you're a Georgist too. Let him drone on and
on about the coming utopia. Casually suggest that perhaps landlords
do provide economic value by acting as a market allocator for a
scarce good, and listen to him rant on for another hour. See him
thump his worn copy of "Progress and Poverty" like it was a Bible.
If he starts slowing down, idly wonder why Alfred J. Nock doesn't
have a bigger reputation in libertarian circles.
It's like watching a 9/11 Truther talk, but without so much
spittle.
BlueBook|1.26.08 @ 1:58PM|#
For the nerdy hell of it:
Two Borg drones are a having a debate; one wants to dismantle 99%
of the cube but retain the most basic systems; the other wants to
scrap the cube entirely and send each drone off on his own way. The
debate is lively and enlightening, but at the end of the day, they
are still Borg. Short of the entire collective spontaneously
collapsing, the best they can hope for is to someday make their
bio-mechanical control implants slightly less itchy.
Jacob|1.26.08 @ 2:13PM|#
I'm an anarchist on Wednesdays. What day is the Freedom Train scheduled to arrive at Minarchist Station?
Jacob|1.26.08 @ 2:16PM|#
It's like watching a 9/11 Truther talk, but without so much spittle.
You know my 9/11 truther!
Jacob|1.26.08 @ 2:21PM|#
Off topic, but I suggest that we all have gay sex at the next
Reason happy hour, just to frustrate the Lew Rockwell crowd:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018918.html
|1.26.08 @ 2:36PM|#
prolefeed,
Well, obviously neither minarchists nor anarchists have many viable
options at this time for advancing their respective political
philosophies. My point is, even if they were free to act without
interference from statists, their goals are fundamentally
different, and the means of achieving those goals are ultimately
incompatible.
Minimizing the state, while preserving its basic functions of
protecting individual rights, would be a very long and arduous
process of gradual change via the electoral process. I don't think
anarchists are going to stick with us when their goal could be much
more quickly achieved by destroying the govt entirely.
John Kindley|1.26.08 @ 3:09PM|#
"I don't think anarchists are going to stick with us when their
goal could be much more quickly achieved by destroying the govt
entirely."
Or the anarchists could simply, arguably more effectively, spend
their time trying to convince the People (which arguably includes
"mainstream libertarians") that the government has No Authority to,
e.g., impose an income tax, or put people in jail for smoking
marijuana. (In fact, it has no authority to do anything other than
what conforms with natural justice, which everyone has a right to
do anyway, whether they're "from the government" or not.) Even if
on principle such anarchists don't participate in the electoral
process, this would hopefully have an influence on the people who
do.
Anarchism can and should be framed in a way that is much more
palatable to mainstream sensibilities. Of course, the historical
connotations of the word "anarchist" itself is a big part of the
problem.
How radical really are the following principles expressed by the
"radical" anarchist Lysander Spooner (from his The
Unconstitutionality of Slavery [1860]:
If, then, law really be what this definition would make it, merely
"a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power of a state
" ‑‑ it would follow, as a necessary consequence, that law is
synonymous merely with will and force, wherever they are combined
and in successful operation, for the present moment.
Under this definition, law offers no permanent guaranty for the
safety, liberty, rights or happiness of any one. It licenses all
possible crime, violence and wrong, both by governments and
individuals. The definition was obviously invented by, and is
suited merely to gloss over the purposes of, arbitrary power. We
are therefore compelled to reject it, and to seek another, that
shall make law less capricious, less uncertain, less arbitrary,
more just, more safe to the rights of all, more permanent. And if
we seek another, where shall we find it, unless we adopt the one
first given, viz., that law is the rule, principle, obligation or
requirement of natural justice?
Adopt this definition, and law becomes simple, intelligible,
scientific; always consistent with itself; always harmonizing with
morals, reason and truth. Reject this definition, and law is no
longer a science: but a chaos of crude, conflicting and arbitrary
edicts, unknown perchance to either morals, justice, reason or
truth, and fleeting and capricious as the impulses of will,
interest and power.
If, then, law really be nothing other than the rule, principle
obligation or requirement of natural justice, it follows that
government can have no powers except such as individuals may
rightly delegate to it: that no law, inconsistent with men's
natural rights, can arise out of any contract or compact of
government: that constitutional law, under any form of government,
consists only of those principles of the written constitution, that
are consistent with natural law, and man's natural rights; and that
any other principles, that may be expressed by the letter of any
constitution, are void and not law, and all judicial tribunals are
bound to declare them so. Though this doctrine may make sad havoc
with constitutions statute hooks, it is nevertheless law. It fixes
and determines the real rights of all men; and its demands are as
imperious as any that can exist under the name of law. [*15]
GILMORE|1.26.08 @ 3:27PM|#
John Kindley | January 26, 2008, 3:09pm | #
Anarchism can and should be framed in a way that is much more
palatable to mainstream sensibilities.
Sure. Problem being, most self-described 'anarachists' are also
'patent assholes'. It's a bit of a branding problem.
|1.26.08 @ 3:36PM|#
Also, East Asian people pronounce anarchist "anal-kiss", which turns off the majority of the population (Herrick and His Balls notwithstanding).
The Wine Commonsewer|1.26.08 @ 6:23PM|#
I liked Prolefeed's Antichrist/libertarian/steaming metaphor.
The Libertarian Guy|1.26.08 @ 9:18PM|#
Being a minarchist, I have no interest in suppressing anarchists
whatsoever.
Therefore, I have no idea what this radgeek guy is getting at, and
will be scratching my head for a day or so after reading his
ideas... free as he is (for now) to express them, as are we (also
for now) free to express ours.
|1.26.08 @ 9:52PM|#
Off topic, but I suggest that we all have gay sex at the
next Reason happy hour, just to frustrate the Lew Rockwell
crowd:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018918.html
Jacob | January 26, 2008, 2:21pm | #
If nobody's down for it, then I was just joking, of
course.
Oh, we're all with you, Jacob. Just, you know, waiting for you to
go first. But hey, we'll all chip in for the gay midgets, the
Wesson oil, and the trampoline to get things started ...
(rejoins betting pool regarding when exactly Jacob will utterly
humiliate himself)
hunert=100|1.27.08 @ 5:01PM|#
If everyone (and I mean everyone) ignores the government completely, won't it vanish?
Roderick T. Long|1.27.08 @ 5:04PM|#
Check out RadGeek's follow-up, which answers a lot of the questions people are asking here.
|1.28.08 @ 3:18PM|#
ya..."Dispossessed" By ursala K La Guin is a good book....very unlike the above mentioned article.
Graeme|1.29.08 @ 12:11AM|#
The sentiment of the statist libertarians posting on this board
show their true colours. I do not know how one can defend property
rights, but not be concerned with justice in property
acquisition.
IE...Ron Paul's immigration position, is the most non-libertarian
position, one can take and the same can be said for defending
corporate privelege. The property was not acquired justly, but lets
just pretend that did not happen...
John Kindley: I am a geoanarchist as well, although I have not met
any other georgists in my life.
|1.29.08 @ 10:10AM|#
"Honestly, my oldest active recollection of the word "Kochtopus"
is time stamped weeks ago (off of Karen De Coster's site" --Anarcho
Agora
The term referred (in the '70s) to the dominating influence Koch
was inadvertently building in libertarian movement circles. The man
was donating a lot of money and it was having an effect. The
effects were both good and bad. The term today refers to those who
are still attached to the sections of libertarian organization
started or still funded by Koch. It used to be an affectionate
term, as I understand it.
PhysicistDave|1.30.08 @ 5:59AM|#
Brian N.,
No, "Kochtopus" was definitely not originally an affectionate
term!
If memory serves me right, it may have been Dave Nolan who coined
the term: at any rate, Nolan was associated with a newsletter (that
I subscribed to) which popularized the term.
Initially, Rothbard was associated with the Kochtopus: I remember
talking with Murray about the term, which he admired as a pretty
clever piece of propaganda from the other side. (I was a doctoral
student at Stanford at the time, when Cato, the Institute for
Humane Studies, etc. were all based nearby, in the San Francisco
Bay Area, so I had a ringside seat to all this.)
Murray admired it even more when, a while later, he had a falling
out with the Koch operation -- Rothbard believed that the focus
should be on long-term
intellectual/scholarly/philosophical/educational development, but
the Koch forces decided to go "mainstream" and try to influence the
existing powers-that-be. This was connected, for example, to Cato's
move from the West Coast to DC.
Historically, the split is connected, as I suppose Karen is
emphasizing, to the current Cato-Reason cosmopolitan-libertarianism
vs. the Ron Paul paleo-libertarianism.
It does not have much to do with the anarchist/minarchist split,
however. Rothbard was friendly to Paul, although Rothbard was a
radical anarchist. And , many of the most outspoken Paul supporters
are Rothbardian anarchists (for example, Lew Rockwell and many of
his writers). On the other hand, many of Paul's critics, at Reason
and Cato, are minarchists, even though Paul is also a
minarchist.
Rad Geek (Charles Johnson) is of a different anarchist persuasion
than the Rockwell crowd, so his points are rather independent of
everything I just explained!
Sorry, for the complications, but that's the story from One Who
Actually Lived Through It.
Oh, and for the record, my own sympathies way back then tended to
be Rothbardian and now tend to be Rockwellian-Paulian anarchist,
though I'm interested in the points made by other factions: I
actually think Rad Geek raises some interesting points, though I
disagree with his conclusions.
PhysicistDave
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245