Anarchy is neither theoretical nor Utopian. It’s a way to live among others without violating them. Probably the only way. It works in real life, every day, in the real world in which we live.
Classical liberalism does not disavow the state. Indeed, it embraces and celebrates it, but only, the classical liberals insist, in the form of “limited government.” This regime, sustained by taxation, includes legislators who enact rules, executives who control police and armed forces to enforce the rules, and judges who settle disputes between persons and between persons and the state. In many versions it also includes active engagement in the construction and maintenance of public works (now often called infrastructure) and a system of government schools (now often with compulsory attendance). The classical liberal imagines that this setup will support free markets and more generally a free society and that it can be sustained indefinitely.
Everyone desires human connection, and we are able to get a higher quality connection the more honest we are. So, it seems insane that people would desire to lie to anyone they would have a relationship with. Sure, people who want to use people to get something in the short run would be incentivized to lie, but why would someone lie to someone they desire to have a long term relationship with?
You don’t have to be pollyannish to believe that good always triumphs over evil. Oh, sure, it may take a long time for the good to win. And all the ends of life won’t tie themselves up neatly. But most evil is an attempt to thwart reality. And reality is not something to be thwarted.
Editor’s Break 043 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: social coercion and voluntaryism, rights in the negative sense and as a social convention, how markets, and not governments, increase peace and tolerance in society, using force when persuasion fails, the negative aspects of the so-called “thin blue line”, what Utopia is and why the free society is not Utopian, the foolishness in treating celebrities as authorities on politics and economics, and more.
If I have one ethical ideal for how human beings should relate to each other (“politics”), it’s this – non-violence. There’s a lot more to say about ethical societies and ethical human behavior, but when it comes to politics, I’m really not much more complicated than that. My views are actually pretty mundane.
I understand it is inconvenient to work strictly within your rights, and respect the rights of others. It is easier to cheat; to use the political method to get what you want. I will always see that as a cop-out. As lazy and wrong. Even if you claim it is necessary to get where you want to go.
Is it better to be a cynic or an idealist? Should you give up on dreams or pursue them? Is the universe fundamentally friendly or hostile to happiness? Maybe you don’t have to choose.
People are not all the same, and they make different choices because they have different values, circumstances, and levels of understanding. Sometimes those choices are peaceful and wise; sometimes they are not. So what are the best ways to promote good choices and cooperation while preventing and providing resolution for conflict?
In some ways, I think shitting on the flag is worse than loving the flag. If you hate your tribe so much, choose a different tribe.