Saturday, November 17, 2007

The borderline Anarchist.

The more I learn, the more of an anarchist I become. And I don't think I need to qualify that with "-capitalist" or "-socialist," as I think only one is representative of true back-to-nature anarchy.

Anyway, I've been thinking that in the future (post-singularity, when we're all either software entities on an information network or entirely comprised of nanoswarms) government as we know it won't exist. A new form of "market-government" (shout-out to Zhzi for the term) will emerge, where governments/constituencies will not be defined by their physical borders, but by their members. I haven't worked out many of the details, but I would think that being a "citizen" of a country would be much like being a member of a union, or any other club that charges fees in exchange for perks.

Digg This

Add to Technorati Favorites


Peter M. Eyre said...

Hopefully everyday we're helping to deconstruct the State apparatus and get to the "market-gov" you mention. However, does your term imply that a government would arise along a Nozickian path?

To touch on your differentiation (or lack thereof) of capitalist and socialist anarchists is that the former respect the choices made by others (even to form collectivist communes) as long as they do no harm to others while the latter seeks to force everyone to live a certain way, often going back to "nature" w/o the standard of living and technology of today.

An area w/o arbitrary political boundaries with user fees you mention is very much in line with Rothbard's advocacy of complete privatization.

If you haven't yet read it, you may want to check out this book: (if you want to check it out I could always bring it to Cato on Mon as I'm dropping by for the Coyne forum). Also, anything by Rothbard is awesome and accessible.

For content online, check out this site:


JPB said...

I think anarchy, as theorized, is fine.

But, in absence of law, might invariably makes right in real life anarchy. See Somalia, the mafia, or inner-city Baltimore.

Less state is good. No state is not.

Sapphire Eyes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sapphire Eyes said...

Wow! 2 comments! Miso happy! (I deleted the above comment because I got JPB's initials wrong. Sorry!)

Pete - I'm a bad libertarian...I haven't read Nozick (yet-It's on my read-list). To me, anarcho-capitalism is redundant. Even in a wild-west anarchic environment, capitalism (or in simpler terms, "ownership and trade") is an inherent part of human psychology...does what I'm saying make sense? Our cave-man brains are not wired to be concerned for the "good of the many vs the good of the few." If the Geico cave men are available for comments, I'd love to hear their input. :)

JPB - 'ello! Good to see you cyber-side. Yes, I have to concede your point. I'm not sure I'd like to live in a Hobbesian jungle in absence of the state. However, I see the state as unstable, and unable to be stabilized. The state is a collection of individuals, who are not evolutionarily hard-wired to seek out the good of the many (their constituents). My intellectual love-affair with anarchy has little to do with real-world applicability and more about finding a system dynamics, finding an equilibrium point (if one exists).

I hope what I'm saying makes sense - I'm suffering one bastard of a cough/cold this weekend, and much of my previous writing experience has been technical/research writing, not philosophical/argumentative. But that's what this blog is all about - improving my ability to think and write coherently. I'd rather be challenged and shown to be wrong than waste my mental efforts on dead-ends. Thanks you guys for your comments, and please continue reading.

Anonymous said...

Pure Anarchy doesn't respect the right to private property while Anarcho-Capitalism does. So it's up to you to chose the path you believe in most. I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist, I believe in the right to private property.

Peter said...

Anarcho-capitalism is the way. ^^

It's not redundant. The state is not necessary for private property as the original anarchists thought. The term itself implies that it advocates private property without a state.