There isn't worse than anarchy, that's the entire lesson when it comes to the FFs
They were very wary of government in general and democracy in particular (look at how much shit congress is barred from doing to you in the constitution... Implying that otherwise that's likely what cong would inevitably try to do to you...)
And at the same time they still went for a gov, because it's the lesser evil, but evil nonetheless... Anarchy being the bigger evil
That's how I see it
People who advocate for no gov at all have no idea of what they are asking for, it's like people asking for communism while they never lived under a communist regime
Minarchism is a good way to start imo
The problem we have with all our govs all over the west is the "ratchet effect", it's an ever bigger expansion without a possibility of rollback (on purpose), regarding various jurisprudence, trade deals, policies, bureaucracy etc...
.Gov is like sails on a boat which can only be deployed, not folded
We shouldn't have that problem in the first place, a system of rollback to minarchism should be possible, during hard times for instance, without waiting for fucking martial law and insurrection to be able to fire public/admin/bureaucratic staff en masse, and then in better times you deploy (.gov services) again
There are "services" you can't rollback, defense related mostly, military/justice, this is typically the core you just don't do away with entirely for obvious reasons, the rest can be put on hold for a given time (folded/shutdown)
That's the best I can think of personally, while a government running only on those services clearly isn't perfect (it's pretty england 17th century) the main focus being the protection of private property and persons in controlled areas, market places/cities typically
The army can handle pandemics (medics exist in the military), police work eventually (that's a stretch for detectives... But why not it's not necessarily impossible), and fires (firefighters happen to be in the military too)
... I'm talking super bare minimum system here
I agree with most of what you say. I wouldnt completely discount anarcho-capitalism though. It's worth consideration at least.
Anarchy is a state of things first and foremost
It's the state of "things" before the establishment of any given social order, or after its collapse
In a way it's the natural "state of things"
Otherwise, within any given social order, anarch-ism, is a means to bring down the said social order, in order to fill the void/power vacuum with a new type of social order once the collapse happened
When the said social order/system, exists only for the sake a tiny fraction of the population, at the expense of the vast majority, anarchism tends to become de facto the political leaning everybody ends up agreeing upon to some extent; bring the shit down BAMN first, in a nutshell, and "we'll discuss what order should take place/prevail... After shit is brought down". A that point you have revolution essentially
Mad max is pretty much what anarchy looks like practically speaking, on a day to day basis
You need order for commerce to take place.... So anarcho capitalism...
Take singapore, it's ranked second regarding economic freedom, worldwide
And it's a dictatorship, it's not a perpetual mess/anarchy
I disagree with your vision of what anarchy has to look like. But i agree with everything else you say.
(post is archived)