Comments on: Left-Anarchist Criminality and Incoherence

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:59:46 +0000

Without a state, who performs law enforcement?

In short, those who do not want to be victimized by criminals. And who keeps this law enforcement under control? Those who do not want to be victimized by someone else’s law enforcement.

What is the reason law enforcement would need to be a monopoly?

By: Anthony Gregory

Anthony Gregory — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:15:35 +0000

Most of the reason law is followed now is cultural, not structural. And most law enforcement is probably done privately. It is not that difficult to imagine the market and community norms taking over law enforcement entirely.

By: Dick Clark

Dick Clark — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 05:55:32 +0000

Mr. Roper, I would encourage you to read the excellent paper by Gil Guillory and Pat Tinsley on a related topic, available at Libertarian Papers here: http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/12-the-role-of-subscription-based-patrol-and-restitution-in-the-future-of-liberty/

By: John Roper

John Roper — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 04:59:57 +0000

I don’t disagree with your description of the modern state as a monopoly on violence but am still unclear how you intend to replace it. My statement of the state as “The formalized collective will of a populace in an attempt to control violence and protect property” was certainly more of a expression of Locke’s ideal then the reality of the modern state, which is mostly based on repression rather then liberation.

However, I am still unclear how you intend run a stateless society. Do you think that morality and a sense of civic pride alone will keep people from murdering and stealing? Without a state, who performs law enforcement?

By: Anthony Gregory

Anthony Gregory — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 03:21:30 +0000

“Isn’t that what a state is? The formalized collective will of a populace in an attempt to control violence and protect property?”

No. A state is a monopoly of violence that is accepted as legitimate by most people living under it. Social norms are necessary for civilization. A state is not. For a state to exist, it must be a monopoly, either engaged in a legitimate function while prohibiting others from engaging in it (which would in itself be illegitimate, since all legitimate activity should be allowed, with no coercive barriers to entry), or it is barring others from engaging in illegitimate behavior which itself practices. A monopoly on violence is inherently criminal. Its acceptance by the masses is what we anarchists would like to see gone. We still want the masses to accept certain moral norms — the moral prohibition of murder, theft, kidnapping, rape, assault, etc. — but we want the masses to believe that these norms should not and need not be enforced through a socialist and inherently criminal monopoly. Once that particular belief becomes mainstream enough, the state shall cease to exist but law and law enforcement would remain.

By: Libertarian Standard

Libertarian Standard — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:58:05 +0000

New blogpost: Left-Anarchist Criminality and Incoherence | http://bit.ly/c3Z79u

By: John Roper

John Roper — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:07:53 +0000

So let me get this straight, a stateless society could succeed as long as everybody subscribes to your personal views on property rights and non-aggression? How have you not simply replaced the repression of the state with your own new set of laws determined by you alone?

Isn’t that what a state is? The formalized collective will of a populace in an attempt to control violence and protect property?

How is anarcho-libertarianism more achievable then any other anarchism? Without the state to stop them, won’t people resort to “might makes right”, whether they are on the right or left?

libertarianism != anarchism