This is a violation of the promised new format of the blog, but due to the furor it has apparently raised, I penned this response. I'll post it once, than return to the promised format changes.
Nous Defions!
John Mosby
Somewhere in the mountains
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
My comments opposed to the anarcho-capitalist point-of-view as a reality, including this one:
“the first dumb motherfucker that comments on this about how the Constitution was a Hamiltonian power-grab and that anarchy is superior to any form of governance, needs to email me through the blog with their contact information. I will personally pay for a one-way ticket to Somalia, or another suitably anarchic society, in order for you to put your precious, assinine, and unrealistic views to the test”
have elicited a great deal of comment on others' blogs who have linked to my articles. As I have repeated, ad nauseum, I support anyone's right to say anything they want.
That having been said, I notice that no one has emailed asking for their air-fare...
I will try and respond, this once, to this question, before reverting to the promised new format for the blog.
I do not view Somalia as a “straw man” argument whatsoever. Someone at WRSA anonymously claimed that Somalia is no more anarchist than the USA. While the idiocy of that statement is beyond comment, I do agree that Somalia gets thrown out as an example of a failed-state example of anarchy far too frequently, without comment. I'm as guilty of it as anyone. So, here's my comment on it for those not current on Somali history.
Somalia has a long history of relatively successful pastoral tribalism. Let's ignore their role in failed ancient kingdoms and empires, and focus on relatively modern history. Following the fall of the Socialist government through military junta, Somalia was ruled by a military “Supreme Revolutionary Council (SRC)” led by Barre. This came about in 86 or 87 (I want to say 86, but I'm too lazy to Google it at the moment).
Obviously, as we can all guess (and are pretty much experiencing at the moment), life under a military dictatorship pretty much sucks goat's ass (no pun intended in reference to pastoral Islamic societies and goats...I promise). So, local tribal groups banded together long enough to overthrow the regime. That's fair. After all, a government should only be allowed to rule as long as it maintains the consent of the governed. No one disagrees with that, except the government that lacks the consent of the governed. The problem that arose was that, once the government was overthrown, the tribalists didn't really have any plan...except to return to their tribes and live happily ever after. Cool again. Hell, that's pretty much exactly what I want. Unfortunately, without some form of limited governance, they did what people do: They looked out for number one, using their tribe to take what they wanted from weaker neighboring tribes who didn't have the manpower to stop them. Dying for your private property is a noble concept, but staying alive to enjoy the fruits of that property beats it any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
We can argue the semantics of what constitutes “anarchism” until we're all blue in the face. I'll sit and drink a beer with anyone and debate the relative merits of the philosophy all weekend long. Unfortunately, the reality that history demonstrates to us, every single time, is that when you pull out all the stops, with no plans to develop some method of protecting the rights of individuals/minorities, you end up with a situation that most rational people would not want, and one that few who clamor for it would survive.
I don't advocate for limited government because I'm besotted with love and adoration for the state. I don't advocate for limited government because I particularly NEED it's protections. Let's face it, I happen to possess a certain personality/psychology that made my personal professional background possible. Even without the government-provided training, I'd still have developed many of the same attributes and skills, even if through private “military/security” work, albeit in a less compressed time and convenience manner. I'll be just fine in a violent tribal society, and make no mistake about it, for all of our vaunted Judeo-Christian cultural ethics, if the government collapses, we WILL experience a similar state of affairs to what Somalia experienced following the fall of the Barre regime.
I advocate for a LIMITED government to help provide for the protection of those without my personal psychological make-up from incursions by other “tribes” against their persons and their private property rights. I advocate for limited government to protect the rights of the minority from the will and mass of the majority.
I think Cato, in a comment on AP's blog, hit the nail on the head, intentionally or not. If the PEOPLE won't protect the liberties and rights enshrined in the Constitution and BoR, what the fuck makes anyone think they'll protect their rights and liberties under an anarchist “system” (how's THAT for an oxymoron)? They won't. Instead, they'll revert to their basic nature and be clamoring for guys like me, with the critical psychological make-up (for definition: no innate psychological restraint proscribing the use of force, other than the recognition that an ordered, civil society with rule-of-law, makes life more pleasant than having to look over my shoulder every 30 seconds to make sure the brother of the guy I killed last week isn't sneaking up behind me), to go to guns in order to protect them.
The anarchist/”voluntarist” argument that free-market economic theory would provide for that defense through their ability to buy protection from mercenary companies is flawed as well. As historians like to point out, Rome ultimately fell because the citizenry decided it was easier to levy taxes and hire out the defense of the Republic rather than perform the duty themselves. Hiring mercenaries to defend your property and security is not a particularly sensible way to protect it, since they have guns, and the will to kill (they'd be pretty unprofessional mercenaries if they lacked either). Eventually, one or two of them are bound to realize that, if they just kick your ass and take your shit, they can get paid more, and not have to risk getting shot at for peanuts. The argument that society would go ahead and organize then, to overthrow them is ridiculous. If you're such a chicken shit, or just too weak, to defend your interests in the first place, what makes you think your neighbors are going to come to your rescue? They have their own self-interests to look out for. Tribalism is not the Disney-esque, pastoral nirvana too many anarchists have been suckered into believing it is.
So, yes, I advocate for limited governance, under the constitutional republican system enshrined in the Constitution.
:-)
ReplyDeleteI like the format, and the violation. And the furor.
what the fuck makes anyone think they'll protect their rights and liberties under an anarchist “system” (how's THAT for an oxymoron)? They won't.
That sums up my problem with the anarchist system, however defined.
I accept it in theory; I know it won't work in fact.
Neither will any system that depends on people(all of them) ultimately be a utopia.
It's all about struggle, I think.
Whenever any people, under any circumstance, quits struggling, quits resisting, they're screwed.
No matter what flavor the state is.
AP
No Somalia ticket for me.
DeleteMy fight is here, not in Europe, Africa, or Asia. Here.
There's no other place I'd rather live. Or die. Or fight.
For what it's worth.
AP
Can you fix the reply sections. Black print on the brown background doesn't work very well.
ReplyDeleteThanking you in advance,
DAN III
Pennsylvania
Actually, Dan- on my 'puter it's dark black print on a lighter black background.
DeleteReally ? Must be this damn Droid. Thanks for the info.
DeleteDAN III
Pennsylvania
GREAT WORK YOU ARE DOING!!!!
ReplyDeleteI am reading, learning and applying to my life.
Thank you.
Besides the great info on tactical, I particularly enjoy your insight on items as the above article. It provides a much needed belly laugh, to hear your colorful, convincing viewpoints related to the benefits of LIMITED gubmnt vs the chaos of anarchy, where the guy with the biggest stick eventually rules...like todays burgeoning police state. Your explanation of the difference between the two "systems" becomes clear as a mountain stream, not that I ever seriously considered the latter as viable.
ReplyDeleteEnjoying your work.
Thank you.
CB
III
I agree with your last paragraph, about voluntarism and mercenaries.
ReplyDeleteThis font is really hard to read though.
Dang, first Dan, now Rollory (I think I'm in there somewhere, too, but don't quote me on that)... maybe we should just take over the blog? LOL- Just kidding, JM: it's your house, you can paint it how you want.
DeleteThose of you having issues reading the blog due to color / font / etc
ReplyDeleteUnder Firefox - View -> Page Style -> No Style
Carry on.
Can we table this distraction and move forward please?
ReplyDeleteGood grief people, don't you have enough to worry about than splitting hairs over this?
We all want less - let's get on with the process of that and when we get there we can throw horseshoes for this garbage.
This all looks like a lot of noise and thunder from folk too scared to move a muscle - no wonder we all are not being taken seriously.
The font is not so bad if you right size it. Hit Ctrl/shift and the + key until it gets to the size you want.
ReplyDeleteDidn't have a problem with the statement the first time you made it.
ReplyDeleteI've found a two-way ticket to Iraq and Afghanistan also works for adjusting the viewpoint of many Americans.
I am glad somebody else jumped onto the sanity bandwagon here. All of these pie in the sky anarchy fantasies presume that people are nice and have good intentions. Unfortunately the opposite is often true. Even still anarchy has so many issues even for a legitimately tough well trained guy. Good luck finding a job or trading. People can't and won't run businesses or put money into projects if the next yahoo with a gun who comes along can take it. How prepared for violence are ones family members? How are you going to secure the homestead while doing whatever you do to provide for the family? What about granny who lives alone?
ReplyDeleteAlso there is just always somebody tougher or with more friends. You can be a genuine tier one operator but if caught walking through a field by four nasty guys with deer rifles on a hill that is probably all she wrote.
Realizing that anarchy would not be fun and is not desirable is probably up there with worrying about food, energy and clothing at least as much as guns and ammo on the survivalist maturity checklist.
Thats the real rub Ryan,
ReplyDeleteif you have to spend your entire evening defending what you worked to build in the daytime you will burn out in a few days.
IF everyone was honest and had good intentions then there would be no need for any form of state. Except that people disagree even with good intentions. By and large they can comprimise and work out those differences but there are times when one side or the other will not budge. In those times a neutral third party must be brought in to settle the difference. That is civil. If everyone can agree with those terms then fine but again there comes a time when violence will be the result. We institute governments to try and reduce that violence to the most isolated cases. To be that neutral third party settling those disputes.
Good post JM
Grenadier1
We must have a body of Law first. We must first recognize a Law higher than any human being, or there will be no civilization.
ReplyDeleteGo back and read your ten commandments, endowed by our creator and handed to us by Moses.
You shall not steal.
You shall not murder.
You shall not covet.(which, of course, leads to the former proscribed misdeeds)
You shall not screw your neighbor's wife.
Come on folks, how hard can that be?
Then of course Christ gave us one other, Love your neighbor as yourself. When asked to define "your neighbor" Christ gave us the parable of the "good Samaritan". A GOOD Samaritan? Was there such a thing? That is the point! In those days Samaritans were recognized as transplants, usurpers, and pretenders. But, even one of "them", I mean, seriously, one of "THEM", could be your "neighbor", if he is the one who pulls you out of the ditch, patches you up and pays the motel owner to keep you until you can move on your own again.
Establishing a clear left and right limit, one extremely narrow for government and very wide for people, ensures we have liberty under law.
Think about that folks, the range fan is clearly marked. You are free to shoot, move, and communicate anywhere, left, right, and front as you move downrange! Weapons hot, GO! THAT is liberty! Be as creative as you desire to be! Move about as much as you care to, respecting the range fan.
That, my friends is how we protect the right to property... everyone's right to property. The right to property is what causes prosperity and a rise of a middle class. That is essentially what the Constitution was supposed to be.
Go back and read your ten commandments, endowed by our creator and handed to us by Moses.
DeleteYou shall not steal.
You shall not murder.
You shall not covet.(which, of course, leads to the former proscribed misdeeds)
You shall not screw your neighbor's wife.
And if you live in a pastoral Muslim country...
"You shall not screw your neighbor's goat."
"And if you screw your own goat don't eat it."
Posted at WRSA, pop it in here for good measure...
ReplyDeleteI personally don’t give a shit if a patriot claims to be a minarchist, an anarcho-syndicalist, a separatist, nationalist or a friggin Alien. As long as he holds the restoration of the Constitution as written and the BoR as his primary mission, then I can work with him. All else is crap. Let the poo flinging monkeys of the left eat each other over differences and dogma, we Pro-Liberty folks can’t afford it. We don’t have the numbers. I’ll be more that happy to iron out our differences AFTER we clean house.
A gov't that can provide protection can also provide harm, which is what we have right now. So how do you want your harm, right out in the open or hidden behind lies?
ReplyDeleteI'm an anarchist...
ReplyDelete...But I don't want a ticket to Somalia. To me, Anarchism is the ideal form of gov't, in the utopian sense of the word "ideal". The same way, in a perfect world, Democracy and Republic would be utopian.
On Earth, though, it's more vulnerable to instability than any other form of social order, simply because it offers each individual the most freedom to be a shitstain, and thus requires the closest and most constant scrutiny. Dictatorships are stable because few individuals have the freedom to destabilize them. Republics have a pretty short shelf life, though, because they're subject to the whim of the public, which can be subverted.
I love freedom, but I don't want a meth-cooking savage down the street to be quite as free as I want my Bible-and-Sig-carrying friend to be. So, in reality, despite the utopian appeal of not having a gov't, we need one so that good people can be free, and savages won't be.
Sandman: Enemy of my enemy is my friend, and right now I'll be friends with *anyone* of the libertarian/minarchist/anarchist streak. If a bunch of pot-smoking hippies want to be left totally alone, that's fine as long as they don't get in the way of me being left totally alone with my Bible and firearms. And I'll definitely trade with them for vegetables from time to time, just not the aromatic kind.
@General Soren: (gov't) we need one so that good people can be free
ReplyDelete==========================
If someone is in charge, no one is free.
There always was and always will be thuggery, it's probably human nature for some.
I don't want to rule or be ruled, I just want to be left alone.
I am able to defend myself against common thugs but prohibited from protecting myself from gov't thugs. This is wrong.
No one gets to harm anyone else. I will have nothing to do with the formation and institution of a system that inherently causes harm to people.
Gov'ts have harmed 200,000,000 people in the 20th century. It's easy for some to claim Somalia is a terrible place because the US gov't has not targeted them yet. This is false thinking and should be dismissed summarily. In time the US gov't will target all the citizens. To deny this is ignorance. To sanction this is unforgivable.
Quote from anonymous: And if you live in a pastoral Muslim country...
ReplyDelete"You shall not screw your neighbor's goat."
"And if you screw your own goat don't eat it."
Indeed!
Right on the money, hombre.
ReplyDeleteI have had a couple of dozen clients who are Somalian immigrants. They don't speak any too highly of how friggen great it was. The stories they tell about their experiences would make the average American patriot/survivalist piss his pants.Put me in the anarchy is not so great camp.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteThough I agree with you in principal that a light form of government is optimal, especially in my own self interest. I think your argument that the anarchistic form of government differs from a light, liberty focused government by always reverting to some sort of feudalistic mess is somewhat inaccurate. Isn't that exactly what is going on now? We started with a light friendly form of government. That's certainly not what we have now, and everyone reading these blogs all think it's going to get much worse before it gets better! Maybe it's just a matter of velocity and frequency. Without a gov you slow the progression down, but you also prolong the low, unpleasant bits, with the occasional bigger bang. I think the jury is still out whether over a long period (1,000 years or so) if a light form of government is better than no government at all, though there is no possible way to conduct that experiment, so it's all purely academic.
Then again, maybe a light form of government attenuates the high and low points, smoothing things out. Or, maybe society is just getting better in a jagged upward progression. This whole argument is completely academic, just fireside philosophizing. There is no purely anarchistic region in detailed history (ancient Sumeria, and Greece may have been for all intents and purposes, but we'll never know for sure - likely more tribal) including Somalia. The most honest answer is that "we simply don't know". Instituting a light form of government seems to be the most risk conscious and intelligent hedge we can make. It's the seemingly prudent direction, but we should admit, that we could be wrong in the long run.
Black6
Amen
ReplyDeleteThe only way to herd cats is with the offer of a free meal...
ReplyDeleteLongbow, you are right on.
ReplyDelete...to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...
I believe the founders worked tirelessly to ordain the best compromise in government, as men could not be goverened by angels. Unfortunately the natural tendency is for tyranny to grow & liberty to yield, regardless of the starting point. I believe Anarchy is a dream, the same way Socialism is also a dream, & neither can work in the real world. Ideals are great when it is only talk. We were given the best compromise ever devised by man, in reality the founders even surmised that it would only work for a moral people, & experience has shown as our society has become more immoral our government has followed. They really DO represent us as a whole. I would sure love a shot at what we were given, not what we have now. I see only a whole lot of purification can possibly get us to reverse course, out of the slavery & collapse that has been necessary with all great societies throughout history. I see many that aren't willing to wait for that, I don't think I am either, that is a getting to be a kinda' hell I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, let alone my family, or posterity. If we can plot a course to get us through that purification to the freedom that awaits on the other side, we will have accomplished something as great or greater than our forefathers & I am willing to work with anyone with that common goal in mind. There is plenty of work for everybody & we need a plan. bpfreebuckeye
Thanks.
DeleteAnarchy, tyranny, despotism are all varying shades of the same thing. The only true government for men is enshrined in the constitution of these united states with the attendant bill of rights.
ReplyDeleteWhat has gone on for too long is we have encouraged lawyers and legal experts to run for elected office. That was the start of the decline. As the constitution was framed, lawyers where to be judges, not elected officals. Somewhere they all got together and agreed to screw us. It has just accelerated under the current administration.
We are rapidly approaching a reset. Take your AO, put together a group who agrees with you and start a state. Keep growing till you meet another one and ask them to join, agreeing to the constitution.
As a one off you are at the mercy of any organized gang, which is Anarchy, Tyranny, or a Despot.
Keep your powder dry and be ready.
Anarchy is the biggest baddest MF'er on the block with a overgrown ego who eliminates all of his competition.
ReplyDeleteNow you have government.
Our constitution was created to prevent that. But, our constitution also required us, the citizens, to be its keeper. And we have been found wanting.
Arbitrary State power outside the boundaries of natural law is confusion and select anarchy.
A few relevant comments from a similar thread over at WRSA:
ReplyDeleteSean | February 17, 2012 at 15:31 | Reply
Well, now we’ve heard from the revisionists, anarchists,etc. Nice opinions, formed after the fact, and devoid of any contextual or historical basis, and of course, lacking any better ideas. Yes, the country, by large, but not by all, is immoral. ANY system we come up with will have its flaws, because we are flawed. Get over it. We will either regenerate towards liberty and reform and a good cleaning out, or we will go down the road to ruin and serfdom. But I really pity you guys who SEEM to have noted nothing good about this country, ever. You won’t be satisfied with your pie-in-the-sky utopia, because you’ll never see it, and what you do see, you won’t like either. All you’ll ever find is how many angels you think can dance on the head of a debate pin, and you’ll critisize the angels for not being anarcho-libertarian-capitalist-Hamiltonian-pseudo Tea Party useful idiots. And what I need to know and learn, Pat Hines, won’t be from you. I learned all I need to know from you at Auschwitz.
Rollory | February 17, 2012 at 17:58 | Reply
Think you’re overreacting there. People wouldn’t be so pissed about the current state of the country if they hadn’t loved it once.
oughtsix | February 18, 2012 at 06:22 | Reply
Good on ya, Sean. Just so.
I’m so sick of the theorists with no historical precedent, no real understanding of human nature to stand upon.
One. Last. Time. Please, pay attention:
You hard line, dogmatic anarcho/agorist/capitalist/completelyfree individualists (whatever) theorists are no different than the progressive/commie/gaialoving (whatever) utopians. Your whole deal rests upon the notion that “if only people would behave the way I think they should,” all would be well.
Fugedaboutit. Nevahappen. Folks are just too…. er, individualistic to ever get in line with something so… dogmatic. And, speaking of historical precedent, every time they have approximately done so, it’s like, Nazi Germany!!!! Or Obambam’s vision for UHHmerika.
See, the Constitution was written by men who understood human nature. It was designed to give the maximum opportunity for self expression to the maximum number, while restrained by the Rule of Law from taking unfair advantage. We were to work out our individual destiny. The flaw, and they all understood the danger, was that Liberty requires Responsibility. They warned us. We forgot.
We are supposed to enforce the Constitution, not the other way round.
Don’t like that? Go elsewhen. But, remember that The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.
Semper Fi, 0321 | February 19, 2012 at 02:25 |
So who’s dogmatic, me or you?
oughtsix | February 19, 2012 at 06:47 | Reply
You.
oughtsix | February 19, 2012 at 07:06 | Reply
OK, I short changed You…
What, exactly, is dogmatic about the idea of maximum individual Liberty, consistent with and coequal to that of every other individual, enshrined in the Rule of Law?
As opposed to, say, the mere notion of same (with the implication that everyone should be able to navigate these uncharted shoals) shouted aloud by theorists who will allow of no Authority but themselves? Dogma, meet unfounded theory.
Personally, I’d like nothing better than a world where your word is your bond and uncouth speech can get you killed instantly. But few there are who desire or could cope with such. They will need some structure and I would prefer that it not be tyrannical, lest I have to fight yet another Enemy of Man.
Rule. Of. Law.
Neither dogma, nor men.
Jon III (oughtsix)
How free were the people after the revolution was won & before they had a government. Were they not living as an anarchy then.I'd say at least for about 10 years before the constitution was established & even until they devised a means of control.I'd like to see us going back to the first ten admendments,keep our Constitution as originally written, & start over from there. We already know the mistakes that were made after that time, so we don't make them again.
ReplyDeleteDennis -
ReplyDeleteThe colonies, and the towns and villages within them, had the apparatus of self-government from the beginning. One of the grievances that propelled the colonies toward Revolution was the meddling of the Crown in the rights of the colonists, as Englishmen, to make laws for themselves. When the royal governors (or whoever was in charge in a given colony) dissolved colonial legislatures, those legislatures moved re-located and kept going. Even before the Articles of Confederation were signed, the States had come together in the Continental Congress.