Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?

[Chris]

An old paper, Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy? (https://mises.org/library/revisiting-do-we-ever-really-get-out-anarchy), first published 30 years ago in the Journal if Libertarian Studies. The author draws on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, and thanks Murray Rothbard and Walter Block.

It assumes the natural state of man is anarchy.


...Anarchy is a social order without Government, subject only to the economic laws of the market. Government is an agent external to society, a "third party" with the power to coerce all other parties to relations in society into accepting its conceptions of those relations....

...society is always in anarchy. A government only abolishes anarchy among what are called "subjects" or "citizens," hut among those who rule, anarchy prevails.

...The more plural the politics of a country, the more the rulers behave without any reference to a "third party" and thus the more society resembles natural anarchy. The less plural or more hierarchical the politics of a country, the more society appears to be ruled by a truly "external" element, a God-like figure sent from the heavens of history, religion or ideology....

...We have shown that anarchy, like matter, never disappears-it only changes form. Anarchy is either market anarchy or political anarchy. Pluralist, decentralized political anarchy is less violent than hierarchical political anarchy. Hence, we have reason to hypothesize that market anarchy could be less violent than political anarchy. Since market anarchy can be shown to outperform political anarchy in efficiency and equity in all other respects,' why should we expect anything different now? Wouldn't we be justified to expect that market anarchy produces less violence in the enforcement of property rights than political anarchy? After all, the market is the best economizer of all-wouldn't it also economize on violence better than government does, too?


The full .pdf is available here: https://mises.org/system/tdf/3_2_3_0.pdf?file=1&type=document

[Ethereal]

One could argue that the majority of small scale interactions within America occur in an anarchic context. For example, 99% of the time I'm driving on the road, there are no cops around. Under such conditions, self-government largely prevails. I stay on the right side of the road out of self-interest and convention and not necessarily because I'm afraid I'll get a ticket.

[Common]

The super rich are the ruling class not the govt. The govt controls the little people the rich controls the govt

[Peter1469]

One could argue that the majority of small scale interactions within America occur in an anarchic context. For example, 99% of the time I'm driving on the road, there are no cops around. Under such conditions, self-government largely prevails. I stay on the right side of the road out of self-interest and convention and not necessarily because I'm afraid I'll get a ticket.


You remember how many cops are around here in Northern VA?

[Chris]

The super rich are the ruling class not the govt. The govt controls the little people the rich controls the govt

OK, so why don't you explain how that works? Then answer a simple question, would it work without the government? Again, how?

[Ethereal]

You remember how many cops are around here in Northern VA?
Yea, but that's somewhat anomalous given its proximity to the capitol. In most other exurban places, the police presence is pretty sparse.

[Chris]

One could argue that the majority of small scale interactions within America occur in an anarchic context. For example, 99% of the time I'm driving on the road, there are no cops around. Under such conditions, self-government largely prevails. I stay on the right side of the road out of self-interest and convention and not necessarily because I'm afraid I'll get a ticket.

I'm sure we can all name countless examples of people interacting and exchanging in society without any involvement of the government. It is seriously an external third party that tries to control the social order for the benefit of the rich and powerful.

[Peter1469]

Yea, but that's somewhat anomalous given its proximity to the capitol. In most other exurban places, the police presence is pretty sparse.

True.

[kilgram]

OK, so why don't you explain how that works? Then answer a simple question, would it work without the government? Again, how?
Again we have to pass through this again? Yes, it would work wihtout government. Government is just a tool. Without this tool they would not lose any power.

They already have the control of everything. We are ruled by the main corporations in the different main stock markets. And those are purely free market, and there the corruption is enormous. Because, the ability to influence in the stock market of some participants is very simple and easy. So yes, there is no need of government to keep enslaved most of the people.

[Chris]

Again we have to pass through this again? Yes, it would work wihtout government. Government is just a tool. Without this tool they would not lose any power.

They already have the control of everything. We are ruled by the main corporations in the different main stock markets. And those are purely free market, and there the corruption is enormous. Because, the ability to influence in the stock market of some participants is very simple and easy. So yes, there is no need of government to keep enslaved most of the people.



The question was and still is how would they do that sans the power of the government? How, sans the government, would they control everything, how would they rule, how would they enslave? Influence is not control or rule or slavery.