Libertarian Discussion Forum Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (504)	7/15/1998 11:37:00 PM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) of 13060

Actually, his "humor" was taken in good "humor". I respect his view. His history of the Plains Indians is essentially correct, though they were FAR from anarchic (read "Undaunted Courage" to get an excellent view of how the Plains Indians were hierarchically developed). Besides, my original point is that essentially anarchic arrangements are successful, but they cannot survive without a government of some nature. All of his examples of "successful" anarchic arrangements are dead. As are mine (Celts, Hanseatic League). Primarily because anarchic arrangements are successful as long customs are adhered to, and interlopers are controlled, or the system is closed in some way. The essential flaw in "anarchic" arrangements is that it fails to be successful when outside influences of a disciplined nature overwhelm them (refer to any "anarchic" arrangement...and you'll see that). In order to be successful over the LONG HAUL, some disciplines are necessarily developed. Rome was essentially anarchic in its Republic years, but had a highly developed governmental discipline. It failed when its disciplines became OVERDEVELOPED into a tyranny.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next