::: "Personally, I am and always have been an anarchist; biased towards Schumacher-like "small is beautiful" communities based around voluntary co-operation; I believe the nation state to be an artificial and unwieldy construction."This assumes no aspiration of individuals above small, beautiful communities. But of course history shows us otherwise. Are you suggesting some kind of surgical or chemical lobotomy to weed out the natural leaders and meglomanics? Perhaps public education can reform itself (fat chance) or become a maniacal caricature of itself (much better chance) and begin producing citizens with no thought to fancy themselves leaders - just happy drones.
::: Under anarchism; participation in a society is voluntary; that is to say, there are agreed codes of behaviour, but no-one is coerced into them; if you don't like the rules of society X, you leave it. Simple as that.
What if I don't like the rules and don't want to leave. Maybe I want to kill people for sport. What should be done with me? Cast me out you say?
::: Now, murder isn't a valued social event. People who murder their fellows tend to be pretty unpopular. As such, very few people in a community would disagree with exiling a murderer. Since most murders are not impersonal (i.e. random), this doesn't automatically mean that someone who commits murder is always a murderer.
Cast me out indeed. But where will I go? Why, I'll go conglomorate with like tempored individuals who will accept me into their established chaos or I will find peace alone in the woods somewhere. But the faction of degenerates will decay into poverty while the faction of those industrial types will thrive. You know this but you will scream about the inequity of it when it happens.
::: However, I'm digressing. The defining point is that you have the freedom to decide whether or not to be part of a community; unlike the present situation, where you are assumed to have given implicit consent to the social contract by being born.
::: To put it more simply; where did you agree to abide by the laws of your native country? I know for a fact I've never agreed to follow the laws of the U.K.; nor have I been asked; it has been assumed from my birth that I do. In fact, since I have to abide by the laws of the country to leave the place, I cannot even just decide to opt out.
::: The Government do actually enforce this; there was a case a couple of years back when a man declared his own personal secession from the UK; he and his house would no longer be part of the British Isles. He was arrested by armed police; and is now in prison.
I assume, with no more detail than what you have provided, this man
wanted to assume that his personal property was completely his to manage as he pleased without any state interference. This is quite shortsighted on his part. That man has no expectation of personal property rights without the state enforcing that right. Indeed, no one has the expectation of personal property rights outside of the purview of the state. Personal property can only be legitimately guaranteed through the collective will of the governed by assent. The people assent to allow governmnent power to enforce these rights. Without assent of power to governments, there is no agency of enforcement and therefore there are, in practice, no rights.
It may be nice to wonder what life would be like if every man and woman in the United Kingdom asserted what this man did. Britain would cease to exist. But with no central authority, disputes of each soveriegn would be settled in every manner, including violence - no stranger at all to the hearts and souls that live there.
When you take on this man's case, you make an argument against democracy. I think you know this but do you wish to make the case that anarchy is superior to democracy?
::: At present, the individual has not got the freedom to leave this country; it is assumed that you are covered by the laws of the country whether you have agreed to it or not.
::: As such, you cannot vote with your feet; not in the UK, at any rate.
Sure you can Gideon! Just try to refrain from breaking their laws before you leave. Is that too much to ask, that you respect the law of the realm before you hit the road? You would be a hard anti-authoritarian if you couldn't manage that.
::: As such, the social contract is enforced where I believe it should be a genuine choice; if you don't like the ethics of a small community Y, you can leave it and migrate to Z (which better suits your outlook). Look up the theory of demarchy; the city-state as the administrative unit; a flawed theory, but one that could be built on.
This theory is optimistic and hopeful. It is also quite humanistic and naive. Most men will always follow others of good character. Some men will aspire to raw power and seduce his followers. Others will simply have good character and garner followers. When has this not been so?
Good men with powerful ideas and bad men with powerful ideas will produce nations. Men war. City-states will war. Nations will war.
When conflict arises what are you going to do? Hit the road?
Or will you fight to defend your property and principles?
Under anarchy there will be more nomads, vagabonds, theives, murderers, hobos, and bums. Just like always there will be inequity and hardship. But there will be one less thing - justice.
::: Secondly, examine the root cause of many murders; socio-economic inequality and xenophobia; it is my opinion that the centralized nature of hierarchical organisation leads to the concentration of money and power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many; I believe that a more decentralized structure would benefit a greater number of people; even if the rich were less "rich" relative to the poor than they are now.
Well there it is - stuck in there right at the end exactly as expected but thankfully without any reference to the pure life of the Pygmie.
Gideon, it isn't wealth distribution that causes these things. It is the heart of man that fosters greed and covetry. If men weren't greedy they wouldn't hoard so much. If men weren't covetous they wouldn't envy so. Why would you blame something so innocous as money or an economic system for something that is so clearly an issue of the heart?
Stuart Gort
