Anarchism

'I See Anarchism as a Research Project'

Ed Stringham, Jason Brennan, and Bruce Benson on private governance

|

Tonight a small mob of Republicans will go on TV to argue about which of them is best suited to be the next head of the U.S. government. If that sounds too dreadful to sit through, here's an alternative piece of programming: a panel of scholars discussing some of the forms of governance—note that they use the word governance, not government—that emerge from voluntary cooperation.

The lead speaker is Ed Stringham, an economist at Trinity College and the author of the interesting new book Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life (Oxford University Press). Comments follow from the Florida State economist Bruce Benson and the Georgetown philosopher Jason Brennan (from whose remarks I took the title of this post); the GMU economist Peter Boettke serves as master of ceremonies.

An excerpt from Stringham's book appeared in the August/September issue of Reason; you can read it here.

Advertisement

NEXT: How Ronald Reagan's Ghost Haunts the GOP

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good morning reason!

  2. I’ve often said that I can’t imagine anything less interesting than a political debate, but watching 10+ hours of disheveled academics uh, um, and drone their way through lectures on anarchism might just top it.

    1. That’s the last time I invite you over for dinner then.

      Jerk.

    2. Yet again. Enemy of fun.

      1. Look dude, academic conferences are fucking boring okay? Now if Jesse finds us some videos that explore anarchism while making better use of the visual medium, I will be all over them.

        1. After the burning man thread last night, I began to wonder in earnest if we happy few Hit&Runners; (which I estimate make up around 97% of America’s libertarian population) might do our own “Burning Man”, but without requesting licensing and constant police patrols on the grounds.

          We might call it… I dunno… Yearning Man.

          1. No licenses? No permission? Call it Suborning Man.

          2. Maybe we could take over a Rainbow Gathering.

            1. You’ll never, ever get that smell out, Zeb.

              1. Does lipstick really smell that strongly?

                1. You are confusing smelly hippies in the woods and mythical blowjob parties, I think.

          3. Where is the exact center of America? That seems the logical place to have it.

            1. “two miles northwest of Lebanon, Kansas.”

                1. 404 errors are fun. I’m disappointed it’s not Somalia, Kansas though.

                  1. There are no roads leading there, so better that it’s not.

                    1. Roads? Where we’re going we don’t need roads…

                      *runs around room mimicking spaceship sounds*

              1. That is for the contiguous states.

            2. I went there about ten years ago. At the time there was a signpost and the eroding ruins of a hotel.

        2. …which is then summarized in 144 characters, refined, condensed, and administered intravenously while I sleep.

        3. Meh. I bought the book instead.

          1. OF COURSE YOU DID

    3. You prefer your academics properly sheveled?

    4. Yep. Good writers aren’t necessarily good speakers. I’d much rather read this than watch this.

    5. Yeah, I’m a fan of everyone involved here, but… I think I’ll pass. I’ll pick up his book.

      1. Will you give me the gist? I ain’t got time for that.

        1. ANARCHY = GOOD

          Maybe it’s a bit more complex than that. Though chances are I’ll delay buying this for a while; I feel it’s finally time I check out Huemer’s The Problem of Political Authority.

          1. The Huemer is soooooo good.

            1. That’s the word, and I like what I’ve read, but I got the sense it was mostly rehashing many of the arguments I already knew. But I thought last night that that’s a weak reason to keep putting it off, so I’m on the hunt for a used copy. The damn library says their copy is for in-library use only.

              1. You will be familiar with a lot of it. I see it less as re-hashing, though, and more as pulling together all of the best arguments around the same point. It’s exhaustive.

                And it’s exhaustive to the end of proving that there can be no such thing as political legitimacy–it has to be exhaustive to fulfill that goal.

                And it’s readable and well argued, so I found it well worth it.

                There will probably be at least bit of new-to-you material because most similar writings only address one or some of the arguments in it.

              2. razzlefrazzletorrentwatermeloncantaloupe. It’s good, not just in its arguments but in backing it up with references and data.

    6. I love listening to lectures. I put it on my phone, listen to it while I do dishes or laundry or whatever.

      1. This. I haven’t had an involuntary conversation with a coworker in years.

      2. You do dishes and laundry?!!!! You mind coming over to dish and fold clothes?

        I can provide wine, beer, blood, and food.

  3. OT =

    1 – Like Caligula, or Perhaps King Joffrey….Whale Entertains Itself Trying to Kill People

    2 – We spent either $500 million… or $5billion…. for…. this.

    which, if you consider other Obama projects…. *is better than average*

    1. 1) They had it coming

      2) Off-shore, Sub-contractors never perform to expectations

      1. You shouldn’t have to pay people defend their country from religious zealots.

        But then, these people are basically being squeezed between ISIS and the Red Army. And who’s their Sugar Daddy? Mr “I abandon our assets to the wolves at a moment’s notice”? Real confidence inspiring there.

    2. The whale was just trying to get laid. That’s all.

      1. “”####*****xxxxxxxx//////////__—-_++++++

        Translation = “I’m telling you, they don’t have harpoons anymore…. seriously!! Ok, just watch this shit, it’ll be hilarious…”

  4. OT = “You Mad Bro?” – idiotic forensic psychoanalyst deconstructs presidential candidates based on their facial expressions and body language…. Determines Bernie Sanders is a walking time-bomb of repressed Rage.

    1. You don’t need a psychoanalytic credential to know THAT. Even in the few pictures where he’s smiling, Bernie looks like he’s about to bite someone.

      1. He looks like a socialist parody of Dick Cheney.

    2. Bernie strikes me as the least scary guy you could have as president. At least directly.

      The great thing about Bernie is that if he brought in his much vaunted socialism, his personal weaknesses would leave him vulnerable to overthrow/assassination by the real committed socialists he’d bring into his midst.

      1. Personally, sure. His policy proposals are pretty terrifying, though.

        1. Bernie’s like the hapless Hollywood scientist experimenting with superbugs in a lab. Eventually, his own creation would get away from him, leading us to the Zombie Apocalypse. The Zombie Apocalypse not being his intention, of course…

    3. IMPOTENT
      RAGE
      MANNNNNN

  5. Way back before some of you were born, I had some very lefty friends who considered themselves anarchists, but it was that Chomsky-esque commie-kind– the type that believed that when the state faded away, everyone would engage in a system of mutual aid and shared labor.

    Then when we got well into the 90s, many began to dither on that– not the least of which was Chomsky– because of the stark realization that when there was no government, not everyone around you did what you expected them to do– and those people needed to be brought to heel.

    1. I’m just amazed that there are people, much less deep thinkers like Chomsky, who think a system of forced economic redistribution can exist without a state. They basically just their institution any other name than “state”, or pretend that humans would naturally piss away their wealth to the collective if there were no “state” at all. Then they have the gall to tell anarcho-capitalists that they are fake anarchists. It’s hard to know where to even begin taking down their myriad stupid arguments.

      1. People will voluntarily give up their wealth to the predations of other people right around the time people voluntarily forego their natural talents and inclinations so that society can be made egalitarian.

        Which is why muppets like Tony resort to violence and coercion at every opportunity.

        1. Please do not disrespect the muppets like that.

          1. It was a typo.

            mop?pet
            m?p?t
            a small endearingly sweet child.

      2. People will voluntarily give up their wealth to the predations of other people right around the time people voluntarily forego their natural talents and inclinations so that society can be made egalitarian.

        Which is why muppets like Tony resort to violence and coercion at every opportunity.

      3. And yet, that seems to be what most self-professed anarchists believe. It’s never made sense to me.

        1. I’m closer to being an anarchist than in any time in my life. However, I come to the philosophy with the clear, open knowledge that there are going to be people and actors who will range from the annoying to the downright evil. Ie, I’m well aware not everyone is going to act like I want them to.

          Which is why I’m not a pacifist.

          1. I think anarchism, though not Chomsky style “anarchism” obviously, deals with evil better than the statist system. Systems of outlawry, ostracism and even good old fashioned imprisonment or death would exist and function to better satisfy consumer demand for those services than the state is able to provide. Bear in mind, the state’s courts and statutory laws are essentially just monopolies of the production of economic goods and services; namely dispute resolution and security. The iron laws of monopoly, among them that over time quality falls and costs rise applies equally to these products as they do all other products.

    2. Unfortunately for a lot of people, they can’t agree on what anarchism means, especially in a political sense. That’s why you end up with qualifiers like “individualist anarchist” or “syndicalist anarchist” or “anarcho-capitalist”.

      But it’s very easy to tell in within seconds whether you’re dealing with a me or a Nicole as opposed to a Chomsky-esque type or a commune anarchist or whatever. Even if nobody can agree on terms, you know what you’re dealing with.

      1. From where I stand, “anarchist” can’t possibly mean “absence of hierarchy”, since that basically defies all naturally occurring human social institutions that are hierarchical. Call me old fashioned when I say that it means “absence of (political) rulers”. I know I know, it’s silly to actually source the definition from the Greek term it originates from.

        1. To be as distilled and terse as possible, I tend to look at it as “absence of overwhelming monopoly of force by anyone”. Humans are always going to have hierarchical relationships, people are going to dominate each other, and that’s all part of basic human interaction. My problem is when any one person or group claims to have a monopoly on that and then uses force to maintain that monopoly. It’s still human behavior, but one that is morally wrong, detrimental to individual liberty, and one that should be opposed at every turn.

          1. But I think it’s a behavior that will always exist. Getting rid of government doesn’t mean nobody has a monopoly on power.

            1. But I think it’s a behavior that will always exist. Getting rid of government doesn’t mean nobody has a monopoly on power.

              I disagree. My ideal utopia would be a system of highly limited government where a monopoly on power couldn’t form. Keyword “monopoly”. I’m not suggesting no one or nothing would have power, but it would be constantly checked by other powers.

            2. But if someone has a monopoly on power, then you have a government, even if that’s not what it calls itself.

            3. But I think it’s a behavior that will always exist. Getting rid of government doesn’t mean nobody has a monopoly on power.

              That’s exactly what it means . If someone has such a monopoly (on legal aggressive force), like mobsters for example, then by any reasonable standard they are a government regardless of the name they call themselves.

              1. This is why while I am philosophically pretty well an anarchist, I don’t put any hope in anarchy ever actually being the reality on the ground. Governments are really hard to get rid of and probably happen organically whenever you have enough people living together.

                Honestly, I think that the best one can hope for is that things remain disorganized and chaotic enough that no one gets too much control. Which is really the main advantage of democracy (or a democratic republic, anyway).

                1. probably happen organically whenever you have enough people living together.

                  Cannibalism was, once upon a time, a naturally occurring phenomena within human interaction. Eventually economic incentive abolished cannibalism in favor of slavery which in turn, was ended once society was wealthy enough and (more importantly) philosophically sophisticated enough to do well without it.

                  Nowadays it would be pretty incomprehensible that cannibalism and slavery would arise naturally modern societies, beyond at least the criminal practice of those behaviors. I think the same will eventually be true of the state. Once we reach enough philosophical sophistication as a society and once economic conditions make it an easier choice to make, I think it will become incomprehensible to future generations that a state would arise naturally in their community, apart from the state-like behavior of criminal organizations.

        2. Anarchism is about the absence of coercive political authority. How society organizes itself beyond that is more of an empirical question than a prescriptive one.

          1. Voluntary errthing, son!

          2. Yes, well put, Hugh. Humans are going to organize themselves, that’s just what they do. It’s only when the distortion of monopolies of force come into play that it becomes problematic.

          3. How do you get rid of coercive political authority? I could organize my friends into a de facto political group to redistribute your wealth through force. You could fight back, but there’s certainly no reason to think some wouldn’t have a force disadvantage and be at the whim of whoever collected the most force.

            1. How do you get rid of coercive political authority?

              You kind of can’t. The best you can do is defend yourself from others’ coercive authority– probably by forming an association of your own– which itself would be in danger of evolving into its own coercive political authority.

            2. There’s nothing to stop a large group of individuals from engaging in guerilla tactics against the organized force. Only time would tell how successful it would be. The long term goal could be to just cause more problems than some other group which is enough to drive the organized force elsewhere.

              1. Gustave de Molinari: “Anarchy is no guarantee that some people won’t kill, injure, kidnap, defraud, or steal from other. Government is a guarantee that some will.”

            3. Respecting property likely has a broader range of support than domination and taxation, so there’s reason to expect more people to side with defending the anarchist status quo from such a threat. Liberty Fund has put up Anthony de Jasay’s book Social Contract, Free Ride, which uses game theory to explain why we can reasonably expect Hobbesian aggressors to fail. (and why other social contract/public goods arguments are wrong or doubtful) I think it’s mostly in the section, “Restricted Domain: The Hobbesian Asymmetry”

              Of course the threatening force could triumph, for any number of reasons. And a state can be overthrown or descend into civil war. Nothing is guaranteed.

            4. The point isn’t in getting rid of it, but as recognizing it as illegitimate and responding on that basis.

              1. That’s a good point, nicole. On the one hand there’s anarchism as a thought experiment about social organization in a post-government world, and on the other hand there’s anarchism as a responsive paradigm to government and the institutions it spawns here and now.

              2. Yes, exactly, Nicole. It’s going to happen, the question is how you deal with it.

                1. The obvious answer is by being the worst.

              3. The point isn’t in getting rid of it, but as recognizing it as illegitimate and responding on that basis.

                Which is funny, because my first experience with self-styled lefty anarchists in the 80s was that getting rid of it was the entire idea, solely for the purpose of letting the collective build up a newer, better-er one.

                Anarchists were the engine of change– agents whose sole purpose was to destroy the existing state structures, leaving a power vacuum that Noam Chomsky would fill.

      2. You with your dickie and Nicole with her tiara make such a cute king and queen of the anarchist ball.

        1. Do you, uh, like my dickie, Sparky?

          1. If you had gone with velvet instead of sequined lace I’d be more impressed.

            1. Velvet? In the autumn? Heathen.

            2. Velvet? In the autumn? Heathen.

              1. Hi squirrel.

      3. individualist anarchist

        Epi, I know you have explained what an individualist anarchist is in the past, but I have forgotten. Could you please explain it again?

        1. I really don’t have time to explain my particular take on it, but this is a primer. Also the works of Lysander Spooner are a good starting point to.

          I do with political philosophy what I do with recipes for cooking. I take the parts I like and make my own mix. So I’m not going to be exactly like anybody else, but at least the linked stuff above gives a good basis. Also, Nicole might be more willing to take the time to explain things if you ask her. She and I are extremely close in our philosophies.

          1. Word of warning: everything Epi cooks tastes vaguely of ballsack.

            1. What’s your frame of reference?

            2. When he says he uses tea bags, you didn’t think he meant small bags of tea leaves, did you?

            3. Vaguely?!?

          2. She and I are extremely close in our philosophies

            We already know she’s the worst, Epi – you don’t need to rub it in.

          3. Thanks Epi et al.

            I have always thought of anarchy as necessarily being individualistic in tradition. Even in the syndicalist anarchist tradition, I still see the individual as primary, free to join or not. Anything else isn’t really anarchist, at least to me.

            1. Seems obvious, don’t it? I’m still always surprised whenever anyone tries to hype up some form of collectivist anarchism.

              1. Seems obvious, don’t it?

                Yes, which is why “individualist anarchist” seemed redundant to me.

                1. Yes, which is why “individualist anarchist” seemed redundant to me.

                  As long as statists like Chomsky are calling themselves anarchists, the distinction, though redundant, is helpful.

            2. That’s true on a fundamental level, but -individualism carries a connotation that individual choice (beyond the choice of association and exit) is the most important value governing human action.

              Not all people in an anarchist world are going to see it that way, and some will inevitably put other values like family, business, community, religion, or the environment above their own individual desires.

              That is still an individualistic choice, but it’s not choosing individualism, if that makes sense.

              1. Not all people who believe they are in the anarchist camp are actually in the anarchist camp.

              2. Just so.

                1. (I was responding to Hugh.)

                  1. (I was responding to Hugh.)

                    I see how it is, you just couldn’t leave it ambiguous, could you?

              3. Indeed, Hugh. It’s the choice being up to the individual, uncoerced, that is the key.

                Hell, in an individualist anarchy, a person can opt to join a commune or declare themselves king or assimilate themselves into a hive mind or whatever – but they can’t make anyone else join/follow them.

        2. I’ll jump in here. It’s actually a blanket term covering a smallish range of anarchist ideologies, ones that *supposedly* center around individuals as the preeminent political unit. I say “supposedly” because some fairly leftoid egalitarian crap sometimes gets labeled as a species of individualist anarchism.

          1. Individualist anarchism is a completely unrealistic philosophy, unless you think that every person has the potential to, eventually, become a fucking adult.

            1. Why do you assume that the philosophy posits that retards, dependents and the indolent would suddenly be transformed into fully autonomous human beings? No one is arguing that all people have the potential to live as sovereign individuals. What’s unrealistic is your claim to have studied the concept if you literally think that’s the anarchist position on individuals and personal responsibility.

              Those people will need to get by on the good will of family, friends or charity as opposed to empowering a 3rd party with a gun to rob tax payers on their behalf.

              1. I agree with your last sentence. Not sure what you’re on about in the rest.

                1. I was responding to this:

                  Individualist anarchism is a completely unrealistic philosophy, unless you think that every person has the potential to, eventually, become a fucking adult.

                  Like I said earlier, “individualist anarchism” is a range of philosophies and you’re indicting particular philosophies, like anarcho-capitalism or agorism, that certainly don’t assume the transformation of humans into autonomous superbeings when presented with the absence of a state.

                  1. Where did i equate “being an adult” with “being an autonomous superbeing,” or indict anything? As it happens, i think anarchocapitalism is necessarily the economic expression of individualist anarchy, and agorism is a perfectly legitimate method of living as close to anarchy as possible in a statist world.

                    1. Forgive me, I thought I could be a bit hyperbolic and not be taken literally. If you care to read the first response to that post of yours in question where I wrote “fully autonomous human beings”, i.e. a “fucking adult”. Now for your benefit I’ll reiterate one more time what it is that I’m responding to, which I’d thought up to this point was fairly obvious.

                      Individualist anarchism is a completely unrealistic philosophy

                      FULL STOP. Now breathe deeply. Count to ten. Now think about it some more…….. Okay now let’s read the next segment

                      unless you think that every person has the potential to, eventually, become a fucking adult.

                      If this is not what you meant, that “individualist anarchism” is completely unrealistic because not everyone is capable of accepting personal responsibility, then by all means let me know. Otherwise quit pretending you don’t know what I’m responding to. Or don’t quit I guess, I will though. I can’t make it any more clear.

                    2. Oh, i see what the problem is: your sarcasmometer is on the fritz. I am completely an individualist anarchist myself, dude.

                    3. To clarify, i believe that every person (with the obvious exception of the mentally incompetent) IS capable of becoming an adult, taking responsibility for their own actions and the consequences thereof, forming mutually beneficial relationships with other equally empowered individuals, etc. Society as it is rather strongly encourages the opposite of that.

                    4. My apologies. I hope you can see how your statement might not be taken as sarcastical by the uninitiated, like myself apparently. It’s almost verbatim what I hear from minarchists when they defend the necessity of the state.

                    5. I SEE NOTHING.

                    6. Society as it is rather strongly encourages the opposite of that.

                      Yeah, I agree with this. Everyone but the sufficiently crippled are capable of personal responsibility and ones that simply choose not to embrace their responsibilities should only be able to do so with the voluntary cooperation of others. The system we have, is one where indolent pieces of shit get to live the life the way they want at the involuntary expense of other people.

                    7. Not only that, but almost every piece of American society, from government policies to the educational system to pop culture – caters to and strongly encourages a state of permanent childhood, or at least adolescence. And that’s perfectly complimentary to the progressive vision of government as the All-Parent and every citizen a child.

        3. Differs from the collectivist-anarchist– which if memory serves, is where the Chomsky set hails from.

          1. Anarcho-communists are among the dumbest beasts to have walked the earth. Chomsky’s libertarian socialism is a close second.

            1. You forgot to put “libertarian socialism” in quotes, otherwise you lend credibility.

            2. Despite his utter wrongness, I have to credit Chomsky a bit in moving me in the anarchist/libertarian direction.
              Even if it’s wrong, it’s good to have someone suggesting that maybe things don’t work the way everyone has been telling you they work for your whole life.

        4. If you’re old enough to have had a decent civics class in HS, True REAL communism is a kind of anarchist philosophy. Socialism would evolve to perfection, the standard state institutions would fade away, leaving the workers’ paradise and factories in the hands of the workers’ collective. Decisions would be made democratically, and everyone would voluntarily enter into shared labor collectives.

          I used to read a lot of this critical theory crap back in the early 90s, and shared labor looms very large in the philosophy. The shared labor concept is almost ground zero on why the system fails, and why it’s intrinsically inefficient.

          1. True communism died the minute they had to invent the idea of lumpenproletariat. Once you admit that, practically speaking, everybody is too imperfect to possibly build your utopia, you have to give up the game and go home.

            1. everybody is too imperfect to possibly build your utopia, you have to give up the game and go home.

              That’s where gulags and firing squads come in.

          2. The notion that the institutions of state would ever “fade away” is where the whole Marxist progression, from feudalism to capitalism to socialism to anarcho-communism, really jumps the shark. I think it’s far more likely that the sequel to socialism is just a return to a sort of feudalism.

            1. I think it’s far more likely that the sequel to socialism is just a return to a sort of feudalism.

              It is. It wasn’t until late jr high that I understood this.

              Socialism is the economic system, Communism the political system. Communism was an ‘ideal’ that the Soviet Socialist Republic (for example) hadn’t yet achieved, by its own admission.

            2. When the basic assumptions of a philosophy are based on humans behaving the exact opposite of human nature, Houston, we have a problem.

              That’s Marxism in a nutshell. It’s absurdly, comically idiotic about basic human nature in ways that the simplest person should be able to see. People like it because it’s what they want to see, and that’s what led to so many problems.

              1. And thus, Bernie Sanders.

              2. From what I have read Marx had some romantic notions about how tribal band societies work and wanted that to be scalable on a national to global level. But to the extent it does work in those societies it is because everybody knows each other and can shame slackers. It does not work where most of the people in the society are total strangers to any given individual.

                1. But to the extent it does work in those societies it is because everybody knows each other and can shame slackers. It does not work where most of the people in the society are total strangers to any given individual.

                  This is exactly correct. I grew up in a society like that, and they go beyond just shaming slackers if necessary. I think most libertarians would probably like it for the most part, although there are large parts that they would chafe at (mostly land issues and ‘expected sharing’).

          3. Ground zero was their pricing problem, of which labor was a subset. But suppose for moment that socialism did progress to “perfection” and all decisions were made democratically blah blah blah, that assumes that democratic majorities make good decisions or are even the proper institution to make decisions on behalf of non-contracted (associated) individuals. A purely democratic utopia is a contradiction in terms. Democratic majorities ruling my life would be hell on earth for someone like me.

            1. Democratic majorities are a form of coercive government. Otherwise it’s just a bunch of people saying “Aye!” and then being totally unable to affect the 49.9% that disagreed with the result.

              1. Wolves and a lamb, voting on lunch.

              2. Democratic majorities are a form of coercive government.

                Sure, when it’s in government. But corporate boards vote on things, business partnerships, as do any voluntary organizations. It’s not the democratic mechanism itself that is illegitimate, it’s imposing that decision-making system onto our legal system or onto institutions where membership is effectively involuntary that it becomes an ethical problem.

                Thus, factory collectives where everyone democratically makes decisions isn’t necessarily unjust, it may be a bad business but not unjust. It’s when all factories are somehow compelled into being collectively run by democratic majorities or otherwise owned democratically that it’s unjust in addition to being a retarded way to run a business.

                1. Free Society:

                  We may be talking past each other a bit. I agree. Not all democratic majorities are illegitimate or unjust.

                  It depends where and how those democratic structures appear.

                  This gets deeply theoretical, but as coalitions form– wherever they form– depending on what the goals are, they may interfere with one’s autonomy. Especially where things are held in common. Whether those things are a resource, real property or access to same.

                  If those freely formed democratic coalitions have majorities which block the minority’s access to such resources, at some point, there’s some coercion that’s probably going to take place. Even if that coercion somehow remains nonviolent.

                  1. If those freely formed democratic coalitions have majorities which block the minority’s access to such resources, at some point, there’s some coercion that’s probably going to take place. Even if that coercion somehow remains nonviolent.

                    I can see what you mean. Home Owners Associations might be a good example. They are ostensibly voluntary communities where nonetheless, the executive boards are often coercive, unethical or even downright dickish but so long as they operate within the framework that you bought into, they aren’t necessarily behaving “unjustly”, for lack of a better word.

  6. Two kayakers needed a much bigger boat to handle an unexpected visitor that nearly killed them.

    Frankly, what they needed was a smaller whale.

  7. OT = Justice Department Argues it Should Be Easier to Read People’s Emails Whenever it Wants….

    …unless those people are, you know….’public servants’… in which case, well, that’s a matter of privacy and stuff.

  8. I don’t know if I’ll be here for the P.M. links, but I like you guys a *lot* and want to give you a gift, in the form of this link.

    Don’t thank me, I’m just in a giving mood.

    https://twitter.com/50NerdsofGrey

    1. That is totally awesome. Thanks, Eddie

    2. She stroked it, squeezed it and rubbed it but nothing happened. ‘I don’t understand,’ he said, ‘I only charged my iPhone half an hour ago.’

      Gold

  9. Who wants to watch a bunch of old men throw bricks through storefront windows?

    That’s all anarchists do, isn’t it?

    1. “”That’s all anarchists do, isn’t it?””

      Are Gutter Punks anarchists? They certainly seem to be living the dream.

      1. progress! Take that you teapublicans!

      2. Hipster hobos living off the refuse of offended hipsters. I like it.

    2. Well, they might not be anarchists. They might be students of Krugmanomics.

    1. HE FUCKING LOVES SCIENCE

  10. I am an Anarchist, yet I have absolutely no desire to revolt or blow anything up. It seems no matter how noble the concept people over time will corrupt it. The problem as I see it, are people who enter politics want to lead rather than serve. Maybe if you had term limits it would help but that will never happen because polticans will not put a limit to their power. In my world if business wants to get their goods to market they would build and maitain major highwsys. Their trucks tear up the roads. If business and the rich want police they should pay for it. Police don’t stop home invasions, mugging or any other crime against middle class. If someone actually gets caught not only don’t you get compensated but you have to help pay for their incarceration. It was better when you just hung them. My main complaint about government is they are always making laws that never seem to apply to themselves or their rich freinds.

    1. My main complaint about government is they are always making laws that never seem to apply to themselves or their rich freinds.

    2. Bomb-throwing anarchists is a stereotype with little in the way of factual reality to back it up. The original left-anarchists rarely engaged in violent activity.

  11. I am an Anarchist, yet I have absolutely no desire to revolt or blow anything up. It seems no matter how noble the concept people over time will corrupt it. The problem as I see it, are people who enter politics want to lead rather than serve. Maybe if you had term limits it would help but that will never happen because polticans will not put a limit to their power. In my world if business wants to get their goods to market they would build and maitain major highwsys. Their trucks tear up the roads. If business and the rich want police they should pay for it. Police don’t stop home invasions, mugging or any other crime against middle class. If someone actually gets caught not only don’t you get compensated but you have to help pay for their incarceration. It was better when you just hung them. My main complaint about government is they are always making laws that never seem to apply to themselves or their rich freinds.

    1. The problem as I see it, are people who enter politics want to lead rather than serve.

      I see it the other way. They don’t want to lead, they want to be followed. If they want to serve, they want others to serve them or serve with them.

      1. IT’S A COOKBOOK!!!!!

    2. Give it some time and you’ll end up a cynical misanthropic reactionary.

      1. 3 . . 2 . . 1

        Mission accomplished!

  12. Reason updated their story regarding Richard Glossip, the death row inmate in Oklahoma:

    The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals issued an emergency stay of execution just four hours before Glossip was scheduled to be executed in order “to give fair consideration to the materials included in his subsequent application for post-conviction relief […]”.

    They postponed to September 30th.

    1. “Abraham asked, ‘Lord, where you want this killin’ done?
      God said, ‘Out on Highway 51…”

      /Dylan via Johnny Winter

      1. Whoops – “Highway SIXTY one…”

        1. “God Dammit!”

          *Death, waiting 10 mile south*

      2. This is Oklahoma. They should obviously have executions on…Route 66!

  13. I see Aarchism as a utopian state with a half life measured in milliseconds.

    1. “”Aarchism””

      I for one would accept Malory Archer as a charismatic overlord.

      However, if you mean to suggest Golden Archism, I have a number of objections to Ronald McDonald’s idealized resource-allocation schemes, particularly those involving the Hamburgler.

      1. Not to mention the deeply-rooted corruption of the McCheese regime.

            1. You know why you never see the Fry Kids anymore? Extraordinary rendition.

    2. Auto correctdoes not do anything in the most stupid places and changes perfectly sensible words for no reason.

  14. Many make the mistake of conflating anarchy with anomie.

    1. I always confuse anomie with manga.

      1. But what are your thoughts on yaoi?

        1. That green sauce for seared tuna? I love that stuff!

  15. I just started 6 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $4,200…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home. This extra cash has changed my life in so many ways, visit this following website for more details,,, thank you!”

    http://www.OnlineJobs100.Com

    1. 2 check? You now can afford hooked on phonics biotch!!!

  16. Anarchy is chaoooossss!!!

    Imagine no Top men!!!

    Imagine no taxation!!!

    How are the top men supposed to rob money from folks and distribute it more efficiently throughout the heavily distorted market with their magical socialism that only works only when statists, liberals, and conservuhtives think things are too complicated for the “market” to handle even despite evidence contrary to their imagination????????

    Hmm, force government on individuals that wish to be free because you know what’s best for them. Sounds a lot like being the top man and socialism many so despise. Way to go slaver.

  17. Social Anarchism is my choice for a form of governance. People of like mind can band together to accomplish mutual goals. People that choose not to contribute are free to strave. Those that choose to steal are free to hang. Families and clans can care for the young and old. Show me one thing that central government has not messed up. All the people that shout how wonderful our form of government is need to wake-up because it died when Abe Lincoln became President and has been a rotting corpse ever since. Of all the forms of political thought Progressivism may be the worst. It is definitely time for the people to demand their country and freedom back.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.