Comments on: LeviathAnarchy

By: Black Bloke

Black Bloke — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:17:49 +0000

I assume that there’s a password that’s supposed to be entered here.

By: John Q. Galt

John Q. Galt — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:47:24 +0000

Ruwart-reference for the politically correct.

http://up01.ayame.jp/up/download/1243337656.zip

Interesting reading. Hebo-anarchism.

By: Roderick

Roderick — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:53:01 +0000

No language! No language! No language! No language! No language!

By: Roderick

Roderick — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:39:53 +0000

Yeah, the virtual-canton thing wasn't my political ideal, but was offered to minarchists as a way of getting the least bad minarchy possible. (For a different compromise proposal, see here.) I later worked out the virtual-canton proposal in more detail; see part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4. Since I think the establishment of a libertarian society is likely to be more bottom-up than top-down, I'm not sure how much utility these constitutional proposals have. But there they are, for whatever they're worth.

By: MBH

MBH — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:13:37 +0000

Yeah, I was assuming you both were talking about something very similar. I love the “non-territorial voluntary Leviathan.” It has the same affect as Kevin Carson’s “free market anti-capitalism.” And Simon and Garfunkle’s “sound of silence.”

By: Gary Chartier

Gary Chartier — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:04:33 +0000

Sorry—I was reading too quickly (something I notice I do too frequently when responding to blog posts). I think the notion of a virtual canton turns out to amount to much the same thing as what I meant to convey when talking about a non-territorial voluntary Leviathan (an ugly phrase I use here for its shock value [perhaps I should have employed it in the original post]).

By: MBH

MBH — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:52:08 +0000

Hey Gary! I was responding to an article Roderick wrote 15 years ago. I don't think he was advocating a central institution as much as trying to reconcile anarchy and minarchy. But since you ask: I don't think one would be necessary. Though, I do like hearing the reasons that invasion and conquest would be unlikely.

By: Gary Chartier

Gary Chartier — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:35:48 +0000

I don’t think Roderick or I is talking about any sort of central institution. Why think one would be necessary?

By: MBH

MBH — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:21:47 +0000

Unrelated question: I just started watching Musical Minds on Nova. The first question--posed to Oliver Sacks--is whether music or language comes first. I remember a lecture you gave (2004-ish) on how neither essence nor existence necessarily precedes the other--that we could say the question is meaningless or that they arise at the same time. I wonder if it's best to do the same with music and language--to say that music is language and language is musical?

By: MBH

MBH — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:41:40 +0000

Cool. I can imagine the non-territorial canton level in the 21st century–especially with the Internet. But what would the central power look like? I know you want it weak, and you want most activity on the canton level, but are you talking about a United Cantons-type institution?