Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

February 17, 2006

Why Aren't You an Anarchist?

by Robert

Dr. Fred Foldvary advocates a variant of ananchism, “geoanarchism, in which people would live in contractual communities whose public goods are financed from land rent” […] “The members would share the belief that the land rent should be collected and distributed to all members equally or else used for public goods.”

what s the best antivirus software

Geoanarchism also solves the problem of the provision of public goods, which is problematic for atomistic anarchism. For example, with atomistic anarchism, each household would contract with a street provider, but the street company could charge a very high renewal fee to access the street, since the house owner has no alternative.

Atomistic anarchism (a.k.a. anarcho-capitalism) also envisions multiple defense agencies, which are constantly negotiating conflicts among members, while geoanarchism

envisions all communities in harmony under one federation and rule of law. With one federated system, geoanarchism

would be under a libertarian constitution, whereas atomistic anarchism has no constitution and could have communities with tyrannies of the majority, forcing dissidents to move out or comply. Nevertheless, individualist anarchism would be mostly libertarian, and buy cytotec could solve the defense and street problem by moving towards a more communitarian version.

So, given the option of geoanarchism which provides a uniform viagra soft tabs rule of law, and therefore harmony without tyranny, why aren’t you an anarchist?

Would anyone care to challenge the good doctor’s assertions?

hat tip: Old Whig

zp8497586rq
Freedom is sexy, so share!Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Digg thisShare on StumbleUpon0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Email this to someone
TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/02/17/why-arent-you-an-anarchist/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •
  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/21/who-is-eric/ Eric

    What he is talking about is essentially what the US Articles of Confederation, and later US Constitution, aimed to set up. For the first 80 years, roughly, it worked fairly well. For the following 140 years, we can see for ourselves that is devolved into authoritarian oligarchy over time.

  • http://www.pubcrawler.blogspot.com/ tkc

    “while geoanarchism envisions all communities in harmony under one federation and rule of law. With one federated system, geoanarchism would be under a libertarian constitution, whereas atomistic anarchism has no constitution and could have communities with tyrannies of the majority, forcing dissidents to move out or comply.”

    What if I don’t like the ‘harmony’ under one federation? In other words, define harmony. It is usually different for all sorts of people. When government is used to define such things as happiness or harmony then somebody, somewhere, is almost certainly going to be left out. Or worse, coerced into a ‘harmony’ he dislikes.

  • http://www.pubcrawler.blogspot.com/ tkc

    Okay, I see. One can ‘opt out’ if the harmony chosen is not of your liking. So it is really not much different from anarcho-captialism. Those that want to enter into public type agreements with other people would be able too. Those that don’t, won’t have to.

  • http://www.foldvary.net Fred Foldvary

    The U.S. Constitution was not geo-anarchist. Individuals were not allowed to secede, and there were taxes imposed on goods, sales, and produced property. It did not work well if you were a slave or an Indian.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/21/who-is-eric/ Eric

    Fred, Jefferson clearly believed, if you read his writing, that secession and/or rebellion was fully justified and an option. Madison probably did too, although he did his best to keep that quiet. The entire foundation of the American Revolution was that secession/revolution was a moral response to a government that was immoral.

    I agree that slaves and Indians were still second and third class residents, but consider the era. The Articles of Confederation, especially, were a serious first attempt at the idea.

  • http://n-k-1.blogspot.com James

    Geoanarchism depends on the unlikely assumption that whoever collects the land tax will use it for the production of public goods. This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense; If people are normally unwilling to provide public goods, why is the taxing authority expected to be any different? We see this now with the kinds of taxes we already have. Politicians don’t allocate tax revenues to the production of public goods. The use those revenues to provide the set of private goods that they believe will get them the most votes. This isn’t something that will change just because the basis of tax assessment changes.

    Regarding the bit about “collected and distributed to all members equally”, I don’t see why anyone would want this. But if Foldvary wants this now, he could at least get closer to the ideal by making a covenant with 10,000 of his best friends to put the portion of their income derived by using human languages* into a single account and distributing it equally among all members to the covenant. The only benefit to to geoanarchism is that Foldvary and his friends could force the rest of us to join them in this exercise.

    * Georgists support taxes on land on the grounds that land value is created socially but the individual user gains the benefit. This argument should pertain to languages as well if one is to be consistent.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/21/who-is-eric/ Eric

    Their philosophy on this is derived, in many aspects, from Ben Franklin, who felt the same way about property value.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML