>>>Real Libertarians and Anarchists never actually exist in times of peace.<
> I know more about libertarians than anarchists, but I think you are wrong. My take on both is that they believe in something called "spontaneous ordering," the idea that, if left alone, human being will spontaneously form associations and societies for mutual benefit. This
spontaneous ordering creates an extremely complex and interdependent system, layer after layer of complex social organization, all based on mutual consent.<<<<
Yeah. Well, in chaotic situations, people sometimes try this out. In the sixties, for instance, there were a number of spontaneous kinds of social experiments.
The ones that were most free (had the least rules and enforcement for rules) were the ones that immediately failed, usually amid nattering over who got to do the dishes, why more people didn't have jobs, or why those who had money didn't contribute more of it.
Others became cults (tyrannies), clans (extended families with strict rules), or focused communal situations, usually with some kind of mission and some kind of ad hoc aristocracy running things just because they always had, or by force of personality, or sometimes just force. And a few that were basically township democracies. Tens of thousands of experiments, few of which continued to function for long and very few or none of which, to my knowledge, continued to function with any fewer rules than they had before.
>>>Real Libertarians and Anarchists never actually exist in times of peace.<<<
I reiterate this. You say it's a powerful ideology. If it's so powerful, where's all the Libertarian countries? Seems like they are having a hard time getting started. I believe for 'real' Libertarians to exist, they must have done something somewhere. Won an election, run a state, something. Otherwise they exist like the Pat Paulson presidential campaign exists.
Maybe Libertarianism is just one of those entities that needs a host body to survive.
If I'm wrong, and Anarchism and Libertarianism really work, where are all those happy Libertarian and Anarchist states or state free zones?
>>>the source of order in society should come from the spontaneous ordering of civil society<<<
In California we have a name for this kind of organization. They're called 'street gangs.'
The natural order of humans is pretty much like the natural order of other primates. Hierarchical. Status, size, power, quantity, money, whatever is at issue, you can be sure a simple number scale can be applied to it. From 1 to 10, how would you grade... This instinct toward how much is universal.
There is a countervailing animal instinct for altruistic behaviour. This has now been observed in all kinds of animals. However, it takes a great deal of clever arranging for our better instinct to override our foolish ones, because the more pernicious a motive, the more likely it is to be effected through use of force. (I acknowledge the exceptions.)
To the extent we have been able to override our more nasty/foolish primate instincts we have done it by trying to make rules and putting in place mutual enforcement mechanisms, be that only being shamed in front of others.
Of course this whole debate with you makes me delirious with the sense of irony it generates. In the sixties we were out to tear down the corrupt structures of society, destroy militarism, mindless materialism, and so on. We refused to participate and went around making pretty innocuous demonstrations of our faith. Whenever a straight member of society (that meant 'square' in those days, not heterosexual) would get peeved about this, they would inevitably query thus: 'Before you destroy everything, don't you think it would be a good idea to have a plan for replacing it?'
Our response was, of course, that revolutions are not made that way. And don't be so blindly Statist.
Now what we hadn't realized was that the few that had truly succeeded had had plans. Sometimes elaborate plans, ala the American Revolution.
Even dirty plans, like Lenin. We had no plans. Plans were for dictators and Statists.
What I see about anarchists is that they aren't really planning anything. Usually they end up throwing a few bombs, disrupting a few meetings, and perhaps helping to creat an environment where strong-man government can take over, to the extent that they ever act. In fact, as Indonesia recently has demonstrated, it's pretty hard to tell the anarchists and revolutionaries from the agents provocateurs.
Libertarians are a little more talky, and have a few more plans, but those ideas that aren't completely crack-brained or amateurish seem to be completely conventional. The Cato institute being a great case in point. All of the papers they generate about the difficult details of not doing much directly about problems seem to amount to elaborate rationalisations concerning how everything will actually work out great, don't worry, be happy. There is no global warming, so pollute away. No problem about the food supply, we'll all eat algae. Go ahead and have kids. Charities will provide medical care. Etc.
Chaz |
