Freedomain Radio

OK, all you Freedomain nutjobs, all you anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, anti-staters, you who run around with mohawks and ripped pants, I really need to tell you: I agree that something is wrong with this government, but to pose as a solution to GET RID OF IT?? Are you completely our of your minds?? Obviously you never read anything about economics or ethics. Without government can you imagine the madness that would unravel immeditately? The nation would plunge into a state of mass mutual warfare, the rule of law would disappear, trade would get crippeled and we would all be yearning for an apparatus that keeps together the fabric of society ... the government.

OK, I will stop that rant right here. This is pretty much the nonsense most of us here are familiar with. It is what we get everytime we confront someone with the idea of a stateless society.

The problem is of course as we all know that when we propose the idea of a stateless society, THEY think we want to get rid of the functions that the state fulfills in their minds, while WE think of nothing but abolishing an apparatus that subsists solely by the means of aggression.

This of course really means that both sides have a very different definition of the term state. They have the fantasy high level conceptual definition, we have the one that simply looks at reality.

With those two opposing definitions it is obviously impossible to gain common ground.

I recently talked about it with a friend who is, I would say, a classic liberal, and a soon to be convert-anarchist (*evil laugh*). The following was conceptually the gist of the dialog:

He said: "I agree that something is wrong with the current way the government produces justice."

I told him: "Well, I just think that the service of justice should not be provided by an institution that obtains its resources by the means of aggression, it should be voluntarily provided by DROs who compete for consumers." (of course I explained him a bit more about DROs)

He said: "Well, then THAT'S your government, whether you want to call it DRO or whatever, it is a government. See, we NEED a government."

Obviously he is wrong when we apply our commonly understood definition of government. But if we apply a statist's definition of government, such as "That institution that produces justice." he is actually very much correct.

Thus I would like to suggest that our Anarcho-Capitalistic position is actually not all that different from moderate statists' positions. By saying we want to get rid of the state we will always and everywhere meet resistance and ridicule. As crazy as it sounds in our definition, we do indeed just want a DIFFERENT government from their point of view if we work with their shallow definition of government.

Thus I think we shouldn't put the "abolish government" banner at the front lines of our march, but rather try to keep in mind what definitions most people are working with ...

Example: I have had more people agreeing with me when I told them things like "yes we need roads and police, but how about we let the people in charge raise the funds for these efforts voluntarily from those they are serving, and allow other people to try and provide these services in a better way to bring more customers on their side".

What I said above is 100% anarcho-capitalistic, howerver it will be a lot more agreeable to deluded and misguided statists. I'm not saying it will be absolutely agreeable right away, but certainly a lot more than to open with the idea that you want to get rid of the state ...

EconomicsJunkie.com

Hey,

Fantastic post, I'll spend a little more time thinking it over before I say anything major.

economicsjunkie:

The problem is of course as we all know that when we propose the idea of a stateless society, THEY think we want to get rid of the functions that state fulfills in their minds, while WE think of nothing but abolishing an apparatus that subsists solely by the means of aggression.

This line however spoke to me very deeply. It is such a common occurence in society today that I stuggle to even get beyond separating state and society within people's minds in discussion. Even those "conservatives" and "free marketeers" who claim to understand it, act as if they don't in 99% of their opinions.

It reminds me of this article, which will blow many minds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/field_01.shtml

It is a BBC educational article (your standard state funded propoganda) in which the author acts as if there is no necessity for the state involvement in free healthcare, and as if the NHS is just some modern representation of friendly societies from the early 20th and 19th centuries. It is this kind of mindset which makes it so difficult to discuss anything honestly with statists without them becoming extremely confused and necessarly defensive. Who wouldn't get defenisve if someone proposed the poor should die! They refuse to recognise that the state and charity are entirely separate entities.

Thanks,

James

This was a pleasure to read! Thanks for posting!

"- - their shallow definition of government." I think you hit the nail on the head right there. To the average person, a DRO will sound exactly like a government, because it is stepping into the role that the government has always performed in their lives.

That's the way our brains form associations, and when something (e.g. parents, state, government etc.) has been a constant, the brain repels change... The information that disrupts the status quo goes into one ear and straight out the other, it just doesn't register. It's a neurological problem!

If you keep pointing out the absence of forced participation, the idea will start to sound very appealing to the common statist. In the stateless society, nothing will be lost or removed - except coercion.

Keep hammerin' it in, and you will start to get through!

After Free-market anarchy, I present you Free-market anarcho-government

First of all, great post, Mr Junkie. I do agree that saying something like "I'd like the functions of government to be provided in a voluntary manner" before saying "abolish the state" might be a good way of sneaking past people's defenses.

economicsjunkie:

I told him: "Well, I just think that the service of justice should not be provided by an institution that obtains its resources by the means of aggression, it should be voluntarily provided by DROs who compete for consumers." (of course I explained him a bit more about DROs)

He said: "Well, then THAT'S your government, whether you want to call it DRO or whatever, it is a government. See, we NEED a government."

It always make me VERY angry when people do this. By "this", I mean pretend like they can't see the difference between lovemaking and rape. Like there is no important difference between a baker who sells his bread the usual way and a baker who shoots the customers that won't buy his bread at the price he imposes on them, and who shoots anyone who tries to compete with him.

Whenever I get to this point in a discussion, I ask the person I'm talking to very directly whether they really think that the difference between "violence" and "not violence" is unimportant. I have had several people answer "yes" to this (as in "yes I really think that"), or saying that they think the difference between "shooting someone for opening a store on sunday" and "not paying someone to do a job for you that you don't want or can't afford to have them do for you" is unimportant.

I don't think it's a good idea to debate further with such people. We can't help them. Their will was broken in early childhood, and the only person who can possibly help them is themselves, with the help of a very good therapist. As long as they're not commited to helping themselves, though, they will inevitably act out on people who debate a non-violent position with them.

I think it's important to stick with the argument from morality, with the principle of non-aggression and voluntarism, but even that doesn't always work. 

Like Mozz was saying, we run up against people's psychological defenses when talking about abolishing the state because, metaphorically speaking, we're talking about their family and perhaps the not so virtuous choices they've made in life in addition to that.  There are some techniques in slipping past these defenses, not jumping directly to "abolish the government" is one of them for sure, but I'm finding it important to examine myself in the moment, and the other person.  To ask these questions:

How do I feel? Is this person curious or are they too defended to accept radical ideas despite all the reason and evidence I show them?  Are they the type of person whom I'd want representing these ideas?  Would they, based on their values and character, work to help or harm the cause of freedom?

There are several manners of approach one can take when dealing with these difficult topics, but rather than try to cover every single base imaginable, it might be good to ask: What manner approach sold *me* on these ideas?  Did anyone have to slip through *my* defenses?  If so, why? If not, why not?

Libertarians tend to drive people away by jumping to the hyperbolic conclusion that 100% of what goverment does is bad. Of course, not everything coming out of the government is bad, because the government has co-opted legitimate forms of social cooperation (emergency services, welfare, CPS, etc.) that would naturally exist in a free society. Just like sensible atheists shouldn't want to burn down churches, but rather stamp out the idea of religion, a lot of governmental functions wouldn't have to be eliminated, but just revamped.

In the case of things like hospitals, schools, and fire/police departments - where the capital outlay for starting a private business is insurmountable - it would make more sense to stage democratic takeovers. Given that anything receiving large amounts of tax-dollars is effectively unowned, then it stands to reason that they should go to whoever is applying labor to them. The schools go to student & teacher guilds, hospitals to nurses, and so on.