Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Conservatism, Libertarianism and Other Distinctions
I recently got back from attending the 10th annual meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. It’s a libertarian organization of the anarcho-capitalist variety, started by Hans Hermann Hoppe (anonymous recently reviewed one of Hoppe’s books). I found the visit rejuvenating: rarely do I spend four or five days in the company of so many libertarians.
Even on Ricochet, there seems to be a constant conflict between conservative and libertarian ideology. What most people — including many of my fellow Ricochetti — would find most surprising about the conference is how conservative these anarcho-capitalists are. I present to you a speech from last year’s meeting by Dr. Gerard Casey, a Catholic, conservative anarchist, and a lovely and brilliant man. To me, it encapsulates why so many anarchists exist in the libertarian movement, and why they aspire to the same morals as most conservatives.
Published in Culture, Religion & Philosophy
This can’t be true. Libertarians are all drug addled, sex crazed, libertine maniacs.
I know, I read it on Ricochet.
You forgot welfare addicted.
Sorry about that.
I know it’s long, but the talk is worth it. Also, in my experience, many conservative that do not think they are libertarians might be one. And Dr. Casey speaks much better than I write.
And God-hating.
Thanks for the link, Barkha. I should have time to watch it tonight.
I am not sure anyone can be both conservative and an anarchist at the same time
;).
I will have to watch later when I have time.
I see this. This is why the post. Also, do watch the Casey speech on Religion if you think there is any inconsistency between being a practicing Catholic and anarchist.
Anarchist as defined as:
noun
1.
a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2.
a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3.
a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.
Even with Anarchism as defined:
noun
1.
a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
I do not believe in the abolition of government. Now, you might latch on to the part that says “or governmental restraint” but now we are working hard to make a special case against the general understanding of what Anarchy itself means, which is a lack of government. Anarchy is not stable, and will always collapse into something pretty bad just as soon as the number of people heads north of 150 or so. Anarchy leads to terrible tyranny.
Perhaps yours, and his understanding of these words is different than mine. For myself, I cannot imagine why anyone would call themselves an anarchist with pride.
There are many more eloquent writers than me who can speak to why “some government” is inconsistent with Non aggression principle. I urge you to listen to the video. Just because I cannot win an argument does not change who I am and what I believe.
I just managed to finish the video. Brilliant stuff, and a great summation of what most of the Ricochet Libertarian Coalition have been saying around here for years now.
We have this? Must’ve cropped up during sabbatical.
I think you need to get off this ‘more eloquent writers’ and ‘I cannot win an argument’ stuff.
I’ve seen you do both just fine.
As much as a group of libertarians can “coalesce”.
And thank you kindly for the vote of confidence in my abilities.
Good evening Barka- please correct the typo in your title.
That bit of pedantry out of the way, I can now properly thank you for the post. I like you Libertarians well enough, but we will disagree about drugs (probably) and life issues (though less likely). I’m glad you’re around and will take you over any D and some Rs any day.
Well, it’s a pretty straightforward why anarcho-capitalists tend to be so moral when you realize that proper anarchism is the natural conclusion of the most intuitive fundamental moral beliefs we all share.
This is the first thing that everyone says in the first 15 seconds of being introduced to anarcho-capitalism. Do you really believe that all the adherents are too stupid to think of this? Or is it maybe that they’ve considered it enough that the “obvious” conclusion is much less obvious given the right conditions.
In a country where most people think anarchy will automatically collapse it will collapse, just like when you try democracy in a 3rd world country where everyone expects the victor of the first election to become the next dictator. Expectations are destany. But somehow we got enough people together who had the right morals to make democracy work, and then like magic no one here (reasonably) expects the president to hold onto power after his term because he would be crazy to try.
If we vaporized the government tomorrow another one would take it’s place, because everyone (even anarchists) expect it to. But possibly with enough argument and progression of morals, one day there will be a critical mass of people who understand that government is inherently immoral and there are ways to structure society with a sable, but not centralized, distribution of the legitimate use of force.
LOL!
To expand on my LOL:
The Founders of this Republic well knew that Anarchy was to be feared. They were students of history. Anyone advocating the elimination of all government (which is what Anarchy is), is advocating for chaos followed by rule of tyrants. It has always been thus. There were examples of democracy and republics prior to the founding of the USA.
If by Anarchy you don’t mean the elimination of government, well then, you are taking a word as most people understand it, and changing its meaning.
I guess I deserve the misspelling of my name :-D. And, thanks for pointing mine out.
Making drugs illegal has not “fixed” the drug problem. So, yes, we will have to agree to disagree. As for abortion, most libertarians I know are against it. It falls clearly within the non-aggression principle.
Let me clarify that by anarchy all libertarians (to my knowledge) mean the absence of “Government”.
It means the absence of government in what most people think of under the heading “government.” Sometimes one of the retorts is “Oh, there’s a system to settle disputes and people with guns who’s job is to protect people? Well, that’s government! Ergo, it can’t be anarchy.”
As if an argument based on semantics and stretching definitions beyond their common meaning is useful when trying to discuss a completely different way to organize society.
So you believe that there can be a state that has no government at all and be stable?
Government:
noun
1.
the political direction and control exercised over the actions of themembers, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, andstates; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; politicaladministration:
Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.
2.
the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed:
monarchical government; episcopal government.
Pretty #2 defines what I underlined above.
I am not the one playing with the meaning of words.
State – no.
All “instability” on large scales requires a state. No anarchist group ever reached the scale of destruction that a state has ever achieved.
Mike H is correct; before democracy, there were people who doubted any state would survive the lack of kingship. A cultural evolution is needed, but yes, I believe that stability is possible without a state and might be the only hope for stability and peace.
However, let me say that not all stability is good. Dictatorships can be stable. Ditto all peace.
Guys: Please outline for me where in history this has worked. Or, failing that, present to me the specifics of the system you mention, how it would work on a State Scale, and how it would operate as a nation in the world today.
That might be a better way to convert me to your cause, other than telling me that “government” does not mean what it does.
And I am not going to accept some sort of “Government v. government” argument. The moment a group appoints a leader, they have had an election, even if it is not an “Election”.
The idea is to rise above “elect a leader”. All state is monopolistic; Before the first democracy, there was no democracy. So the need for a historic example is irrelevant. Why is a concept of peer to peer governance (in as much as it is governance) is valid yet misunderstood. Do we need to be governed? I could do without it.
The way to “convert” you is to have you watch the video. (Have you?). And start reading Rothbard.
^ This.
And I’d recommend you read Michael Huemer.
So the idea that you don’t need any government at all, and everyone just governs themselves. I think I have heard that before from someone.
A good essay on why Anarchy (by Michael Huemer):
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/03/04/michael-huemer/problem-authority
And Rothbard :
http://store.mises.org/Anatomy-of-the-State-P588.aspx
And, of course, there is Hoppe himself:
I don’t think it is too much to ask, what this anarchy looks like, other than telling me to read a book.
If it is such a profound truth, can’t you sum it up in a post?
This OP video does not lay out how it would work. In fact, he argues that culture is independent of libertariansim. That is nuts. The whole idea of Liberty is based in culture.
If a society that runs without a government is so a profound truth, you should be able to outline the basics of how it works. Don’t send me a bunch of links.