This is in response to larkenrose’s “anarchist diatribe”.
I understand all of the libertarian and anarchist complaints against the current incarnations of government and agree with the majority of them. Crony capitalism and the rentier economy are tearing the world apart. BUT . . . .
What libertarians and anarchists don’t get is that government is, at heart, only (and all of) the control structure/technology that supports/enables the modern technological world. Their blind spot is the irrational assumption that “the market” will spontaneously create a better structure with fewer (or less serious) downsides. I, too, have read all the cool science fiction novels with libertarian utopias. Too bad that they don’t explain how the most powerful and/or stealthy of cheaters are suppressed and prevented from filling the vacuum.
The true problem with current government is that it is a set of somewhat primitive tools that has been co-opted by entities too fearful, short-sighted and/or greedy to use them to best effect for everyone. Libertarians and anarchists are certainly correct that corporations wield “the government” as weapons in the sociopathic pursuit of profits – but dismantling government will only force them to learn new forms of warfare while removing much that currently constrains them to reasonable behavior. Instead of tearing down our monolithic system and expecting utopia to magically spontaneously arise out of the rubble, we need to create a better system of systems with incentives that stabilize it by providing rewards for providing for everyone rather than selfishly “looking out for number one”.
Instead, libertarians and anarchists are actually supporting the continuation and worsening of the existing system by refusing to recognize (or even discuss the possibility of) any viable alternatives. Their insistence upon throwing the baby out with the bathwater only forces the rational majority to fight to retain both (rather than moving forward to separate them). Worse, they even allow the crony capitalists to throw out the very regulations designed to prevent the manipulations of government that they then rail about.
All of larkenrose’s “examples” are not endemic to the concept of governance but are caused because of the ways in which we have not correctly improved government and have allowed bad incentives, rot and corruption to take hold. Government is not “Always a bad deal” (just ask the rich and corporations – most are really screaming about a few annoyances while taking extreme advantage of the rest). Each of his examples can be rebutted with methods by which they can be fixed – if he weren’t covering his ears and screaming “NO! Tear it ALL down!!!”
Proposing the “ultimate solution” of no government (and no governance) is NOT a stable, viable answer. *Something* will arise in the vacuum. The only question is whether we will have any say over our own future. Our current track-record of decision-making does NOT make me optimistic (unless something major changes).
(book cover images from Amazon.com; buy/read the books!)