Observation and common sense show that there are only two forms of social organization: voluntary and involuntary (i.e. tyranny). If there is one point on which anarcho-capitalists agree, it is on the following definition of government:
a license to initiate force against others and to take others’ property without consent.
Although you will not find this definition in any "According to Hoyle" dictionary, it does accomplish two things. First, it concentrates on the sole and essential difference between government and the rest of humanity. Government is allowed to do what no individual, or even any group of individuals is allowed to do. It has rights that people do not have, which it gets from people who do not, themselves, have those rights to give. Second, it dispels the notion that government exists to serve people. Government, in any and all of its forms, has always existed at the expense of people and only to serve a very select few ... namely its owners (who are not the same as its "constituents"). All others exist to be governed, and resist at their peril.
All this raises one basic question, which is if government is necessary at all. Most people simply answer "YES" without a second thought, and they do so chiefly because they assume two things. First, they assume that it has always existed and, second, that there is no alternative. These assumptions are based in ignorance of history, lack of imagination and/or outright sociopathy, i.e. the drive to control others and use them for one’s own benefit, as property. The good news is that a quickly growing number of people worldwide can and do answer "NO" because they can and do see high quality alternatives to a monopoly of force.
Below are a few sample questions around which to build an introductory discussion, in no particular order. They are provided merely to stimulate thought on the matter. Of course, if you want to participate in such a discussion, then either you already have similar questions of your own or else you will need to formulate one or more of these in your own words in order to make them truly yours. It is a difficult subject for many, and therefore it must be met halfway if you want to make progress with it. All problems raised by these simple questions may be solved without abandoning the Nonaggression Principle.
- What is the difference between rulers and leaders?
- Who will build the roads?
- How can security be provided?
- What about national defense?
- Without voting, how are group decisions to be made?
- How are property rights established?
- How can disputes be resolved without courts?
- Who will educate the children?
- How can trade be settled without a national currency?
- How do we get there from here?
- Etcetera...
One final point remains to be made. Anarchism is not a system without rules, but one without rulers. There is no prohibition against rules so long as all affected parties voluntarily agree to them. Those who don’t agree are not required to participate, and may opt out at will.
As a case in point, and in order to develop some practice, whatever discussion may proceed beneath this article will do so under one simple rule: If you wish to participate, you must do so with at least one relevant and specific question, which is to say that if your contribution lacks a question mark, then it may be deleted. This is not the place to declare your opinion about free-markets or to complain about … whatever. The sole purpose here is to discover practical, high quality alternatives to a monopoly of force.
So, given this preamble, what are your questions?
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment