Anarchist: 'Look, if all the power-hungry psychopaths would just pinky-swear not to become despotic warlords, we wouldn't need any government.'pic.twitter.com/36tmJbI6tv
-
The difference is that current governments have safeguards against tyranny. What ancaps are calling for is an unstable government without any safeguards or accountability.
Exactly. And no stable traditions of public accountability, no social norms that support institutional gravitas, no checks and balances, etc.
-
-
Exactly. And it makes sense why this distinction is so important for classic libs, as monopolization of violence paired with inviolable rights to protection from the violence is a key consequence of divine individuality (and social stability, upon which markets rest).
-
AnCaps make the error in assuming that markets are more fundamental than they really are. There are plenty of reasons why markets collapse; they can only exist within a (relatively) narrow band of human activity and social structure.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The anarchists would say that there would be safeguards of the kind that currently exist within private entities. People could go to other protection agencies. And why think there could be no "social norms" or "institutional gravitas" in a stateless society?
-
The markets necessary to fund agencies like that would not be able to exist in a world with those agencies. You have either 1) no dominant agency, which means constant warfare, which means a drastic reduction in stability, or 2) a dominant agency, which means a State.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.