I must disagree. No utopia can ever be achieved; hence by utopias are utopian. Anarchism can be achieved, and thus by definition is not utopian.

The confusion lies, I believe, in the implication of utopia. Utopias imply perfection. But, perfection is impossible. No matter what system of government we have, from fascism to anarchism, there will still exist crime. There will still exist poverty, and disease, and aggression. The only relevant question is: Which system of government is best suited to handle these ills?

Anarchists and minarchists disagree on one or more of the following fundamental point: courts and police.

The minarchist believes that we need a minimal government so as to ensure that there is an arbitor of last resort, or to make sure that we don’t have competing police agencies that begin to war with one another.

The anarchist believes that these functions work best when we have competing firms handling them, rather than government-instituted monopolies, which tend to become bureaucratic and inefficient, or simply destructive of one’s Liberty. The anarchist argues that these competing firms will not war with one another because it would be in their economic interest to maintain the peace and to serve their customers by protecting them from invasions.

The minarchists don’t buy that, and maintain that some limited government is required as a safety net.

The anarchists fear that having any centralised authority is a liability, since centralised authority can easily be seized by tyrants.

Either way, both sides present rational arguments, and neither side is inherently utopian. Anyone who, on either side, claims that, once minarchy/anarchy is achieved life will become easy as cake and everyone will be happy, is a utopian. And any minarchist who makes the additional claim that maintaining a limited government in its limited capacity forever is possible is also utopian.

Respectfully,
Alex Peak

Dondero wants the U.S. to nuke the Middle East, because he wants the Middle East to retaliate and nuke the U.S.

Dondero wants every country nuked.

Dondero wants to see every human die.

Without living humans, there can be no government.

Therefore, Eric Dondero is an ANARCHIST.

More accurately, Eric Dondero is a utopian who believes that criminals should be able to commit their murderous crimes if they simply refer to themselves as “governments.” He believes it’s okay to have lawlessness. He does not believe that all entities, including governments, must abide by the law. And then he calls someone who. And then he has the balls to call someone an anarchist because that person doesn’t want to see any organisation ever cause the death any innocent person, because that person believes that any entity that causes an innocent person to die is liable for his/her/its actions.

The LP Presidential Candidate is supposed to serve as a general spokesman for liberty, focusing on issues which liberty-loving folk can rally around. Frankly, Ruwart could do that just fine, and if Bob Barr clarified some of his views, even he could serve that role.

Barr really ought to clarify his views . . . that is if such clarification bolsters his Libertarian credentials. If his clarification IS NOT in concert with Libertarian views, he could not “serve that role”.

Until the government is dramatically smaller—or in the chance that Konkin’s agorism starts to plays out (not too likely in the near future, IMO)—the whole issue is pretty irrelevant.

My memory of Rothbard’s writing is that he describes the day.to.day relations of individuals as the clearest demonstration of how anarchy can work. It is based on trust, reputation, social custom and mores, etc. But I may have Rothbard mashed up with Hoppe and others as well. It’s been a while since I’ve had the luxury of time for necessary background reading :-/

Let Freedom Growl

LOL

This indicates, the “has never occurred and never will”, and “it’s just a theory” characteristic of utopia is not a core definition of the term. I am of the belief that the fundamental definition of utopia entails the “perfect society” aspect, and not the “impossibility” of it happening.

So although Rothbard talked about the Iceland experience as (correct me if I’m wrong) the closest thing to anarchy ever recorded, I really don’t think he thought of it as utopian in either sense of the word.

I will again resubmit the idea that the state, in trying to “right” the “wrongs” in society is more unachievable than the idea of an society based upon eschewing aggression. Plus, the “stated” goals of the state to fix the unregulated society smacks of trying to achieve a “perfect society” through coercion. Absolutely a contradiction in my view.

maybe this will come through for beginning and end of text you want to italicize, and for beginning and end of bold text.

P.S. – How does one italicize words or produce the vertical lines along the left side of a paragraph indicating quoted material on this blog?

Starchild, Susan Hogarth enlightened me at to how to do some of these things. I can’t find her post with the web link, but if you want to italicize a section of verbiage, you put at the beginning, and at the end of the desired text. by the same token if you want to bold text, you put at the beginning and at the end. As far as the vertical line you want to use, I don’t know on that one.

“Anarchists by definition want zero government and therefore oppose all laws”

Not so: there is even a book entitled Anarchy and the Law, edited by Ed Stringham, discussing the foundation of law under anarchy. Customary and common law arose in different settings without governments, such as Ancient Israel, Medieval Iceland, and Ireland for two millenia. The Law Merchant, which is the foundation of modern business law, was created entirely by international merchants needing to deal with each other without any government to oversee and enforce contracts.

We didn’t need government to tell us that murder was wrong, nor for that matter that pre-pubescent children are not capable of contractual consent for sex. This was understood in every anarchist society. People could even subscribe under anarchy to a legal system that adopted numerical rules, such as age of consent laws, to clarify the application of law.

Market anarchists believe in law. What we don’t accept is that any group of people should be exempt from the law by virtue (sic) of calling themselves “government officials.” Those who believe acts that are illegal when performed by most people become legal when performed in the name of government are the lawless ones. What makes us ALL libertarians is that we hold government officials to the same standard of non-aggression we apply to the rest of society.

One of the frustrations of the manner in which the Dallas Accord is being interpreted is that not discussing these things openly has led enormous numbers in the LP to misunderstand what market anarchists believe and advocate. This is more of a problem for anarchists than minarchists, since most people better understand the status quo.

“Although I’m an anarchist, I agree with most of what Steve says here. Really, it should go without saying. Sad day for the LP that this even needs to be discussed at all. This was settled in 1974 and should have been left at that.”

It seems high time for us as a party to reaffirm and formalize the 1974 Dallas Accord, and for the anarchists and minarchists among us to agree that we as a party will leave the door open to either anarchy or minarchy as our desired end state. The LP platform and other official party documents and statements should presume neither that governments will or should exist, nor that they will or should not exist.

Anarchists by definition want zero government and therefore oppose all laws, so of course any anarchist worthy of the name is going to oppose age discrimination laws. So when Wayne Allyn Root or anyone else says someone who opposes age discrimination laws is unfit to be our presidential candidate, what they are really saying is that people with anarchist beliefs are unfit to run for president on the LP ticket.

That’s what made Root’s call for Mary Ruwart to drop out of the race over views that she and other libertarians have openly held for years not just an attack on her, but a de facto attempt—hopefully an unwitting one—to trash the Dallas Accord and divide the party.

You write:

I can’t quite discern what in Root’s essay made Steve think Root was “publicly attacking another candidate as an ‘anarchist’”. While I disagree with anarchism even more strongly that Steve does, I can’t agree at all that to merely call a self-described anarchist an “anarchist” constitutes an “attack”. (And if merely disagreeing with anarchism is such an “attack”, then Kubby just committed the same infraction.) The only unfair criticism of anarchism I see in Root’s piece is the assertion that anarchists aren’t libertarians.

The explanation is in your own words:

– Root describes Ruwart as an anarchist.
– Root says that anarchists aren’t libertarians.
– Therefore, Root is saying that Ruwart isn’t a libertarian.

I think it’s fair to describe the claim of one candidate for the LP’s presidential nomination that another candidate for the LP’s presidential nomination is not a libertarian as an attack. And if the evidence for that claim is the claim that said opponent is an anarchist, then it’s fair to describe that attack as “attacking [said opponent] as an anarchist.”

Then again, I’ve always had trouble understanding why “attack” is such a dirty word in the LP. Since we’re talking about “utopia” too, I’ll just say that the vision of all the candidates offering their positive vision for the LP, without ever criticizing their opponents, is pretty utopian. In the real world, political candidates promote their own vision— and attack their opponents and their opponents’ visions.

As a side note, if you think our candidates get nasty with their attacks, you should read some of the stuff that went back and forth between Jefferson and the Federalists for a good 15 years, starting late in Washington’s administration and running through Jefferson’s second term. The nastiest modern campaigns have trouble holding a candle to those of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.