Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

« The Housing Bill | Main | TSA's No Fly List Politicized »

Anarchy Works?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw

Interesting, charmingly entertaining video that seems to be saying: Anarchy works, because we already have it!

Well, all righty, then.

-RC

Comments

proof (noun)- evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

I think the point of that piece is to provide something analogous to a 'mathematical' proof. Now, whether or not this is sound or even valid is perfectly subject to question and discussion.

Your post seems to indicate that it somehow suggests that we are currently in such a condition, which is obviously absurd from your perspective.

Perhaps addressing the 'proof' rather than dismissing a self fabricated (induced?) straw man would be more genuine. Horse laughter is a pernicious intellectual tool.

[reader: if you haven't watched the aforementioned video, watch it before reading my comment, as it contains spoilers.]

The proof[?]:

* Some people are able to do business without benefit of contract enforcement, due to the fact that they will be doing repeat business, and therefore reputation does the job.

* This "doing business" includes making laws

Does this prove that a system of law making/enforcement based on reputation can effectively replace monopoly government? I'm not persuaded yet, but his argument intrigues me. Does the system he mentions in his "punch line" really map to a system of protection agencies? I need to meditate on the idea for a while.

I don't see how his argument deals with the problem of protection services doing the merger mania thing. I've read Forbes long enough to grok that corporate executives love to consolodate industries. The history of Standard Oil includes a trend towards geographic monopoly using the methods at the end of this video.

I wish to reiterate that while I am not yet persuaded on the merits of anarchy by this video, I am intrigued. Molyneux is addressing the issues that anarchists need to address in order to be taken seriously.

That said, even if the theoretical argument withstands counter-arguments, this is not a license to engage in name-calling at those who still consider the state to be needed. The real proof will be in the doing. Political theoreticians historically have made serious errors when extrapolating aggressively.

Compelling theory is a call for experiment.

Agree, Carl. I give Molyneux a LOT of intellectual integrity points on this effort.

I also wonder about the network effects of having a reasonably level set of rules that apply to all. Methological individualism breaks down for me in a complex social order where a multiplicity of actors interact with each other. 1:1 relations are few in our daily lives, so does this analysis miss the forest for the trees?

Post a comment

Free-for-all (frfr-ôl) -- n. A disorderly fight, argument, or competition in which everyone present participates.

from Dictionary.com



Advertisement
Free For All -- The Free Liberal Blog