Of course he's right. Although, Stefan does go too far, as all extremists do try to emulate perfection. What I mean to say is, he's not pragmatic when it comes to applicable theories for society. Maybe he's got a reputation to uphold, or he actually believes humans are capable of creating a perfect world --and perhaps he just wants to prove his point without contradicting any of his methods. In any case, the model of anarchism Stefan espouses is not sensible in the extreme sense. Naturally, I admire the man. He's intelligent, thoughtful, well spoken and honest. But, he does not support the concept of minarchy, such as the republic of these United States at its origin. He makes the mistake so many have done in modern society, he believes what we have NOW is the direct result of what once existed. In fact, given any society, if a people were to ever become complacent and decadent, the society will be corrupt and power will shift to the hands of government, which is corruptible. In this sense, any society, be it socialist, a constitutional republic, anarchist, you name it, cannot stand the test of time. I know there is no government in an Anarchist vision of society. This does not mean people will not create one out of false necessity. Of course, many Anarchists have perfect solutions for everything, because in truth, their theories are computer simulations and concepts drawn out of myth and lore, not reality. Now, I get what Stefan says about Anarchist philosophy, I really do. What he, and those like him always FAIL to see, is that our very limited government and minarchist society already had MOST of the tenets of anarchism, I say the best parts, inherently installed. As long as we fail to see a real path toward liberty, the more we welcome the ways of indifference. Because, trust me or not, following the impractical theories of anarchist ideology will give you nothing in return for your studies except disappointment. Some of my responses to this video: Of course minarchy comes with consequences. It takes constant vigilance, work on the part of every person to keep it honed well and working within its confines and boundaries. Anarchy, on the other hand does not come with these consequences, because its theory is based on the absence of the State, hence the absence of the use of unjustified force. To not have consequences would be utopian, therefore not based on reality. This is why anarchy is more dangerous than a minarchy. The problem with Anarchy is thus, Take a sheet of paper and divide it into two columns. On one side write the word "perfection", and on the other write the word "human". Now, honestly assess this situation and tell me, if the two are equal, then Anarchy is sustainable. In theory, Anarchy is perfect. In application...? No? Maybe we will find out. Maybe not.
The question of how much governance a people needs is one which could generate a life time of debate. I also believe that perfect anarchism doesn't take into account the fallible nature of people. Pure voluntaryism is my version of the socialist utopia championed by the great majority of the voters....of course, like anyone who has a strong conviction of something, I happen to believe in it. However, it would be contingent on people not being complete poopheads. I pride myself on not centering my opinions on any talking head. Mr. Molyneux has higher ideas than are possible; about that you are most correct. My problem is that for all of my life, I have had the same uber-logical view of society as some kind of engineering schematic of a machine which, when gone awry, can be repaired with highly rational processes. I know that the right answer falls somewhere in the middle out there, but the times coming down the pike aren't going to allow me to become less of a stickler for such thought processes. I'll depend on more compromising individuals to help keep me in check.
There is a maximum limit to the number of people one can command with authority. The military is a perfect example of this. One of the biggest problems is too much government and not enough leadership. I firmly believe that instead of delegates of authority, we need true leaders in a specific size of people. Honestly, I think this number is small. I'd say 1 leader per 500 people, 1 leader per 50 leaders and 1 leader per 5 to illustrate an inverse relationship of the number of people. I just pulled those numbers out of the air for illustration purposes.. but there is a max number of people that one can sustain any direct leadership over and that number is FAR FAR FAR surpassed by any structure we have now. ...and for the record, I don't mean leadership as in "dear leader". I mean it in such a way that a regular joe american can adequately relay HIS groups' voice. But I digress.. this will never happen. So "just leave me the hell alone" is my plan B
"Just leave me the hell alone".... .....the core principle of voluntaryism. This is what I would love. No man is an island, true, but by god, if I don't need you around, then you better pound sand.
Yup. The ability to "opt-out" of any and all programs or society itself should not be met with force, but accepted --period. All of this 'used to be' possible, made so by private property ownership. The gradual decline of our republic and replacement with a "democracy" spells the clear result. When you were on your land, nobody, no authority on earth was greater than your own. If there was ever a question of rights, the first and only question needed to be asked was, "who owns the property?". Problem solved. Today, this is not the case, obviously. People are serfs who pay rent to live on land which is owned by the State. They are taxed heavily, treated like prison inmates by police, beaten, interrogated, imprisoned and their property seized. There is no justice, only the rule of "law", which is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
