Perils of Minarchist Advocacy

Some advice on strategy from Darian Worden:

guy with club

Advocating anarchy is more practical than advocating minimal government.

To say that government should only be involved in matters of force gives off the perception that you want to use government only as a club, and never as a crutch – to hurt people, not to help them. You’ll be seen not as a principled individual, but as someone who wants to make oppression run more efficiently and cares most about keeping people in line. …

The military, police, and court-prison systems are actually the worst offenders of government and support the rest of its crimes. They should be delegitimized to stop authority’s attacks on freedom.

Read the entire piroh.

, ,

6 Responses to Perils of Minarchist Advocacy

  1. Scott August 7, 2010 at 12:44 am #

    While we’re on the subject of perilous forms of social organization, Professor Robert Paul Wolff, author of “In Defense of Anarchism” has an interesting development over at his blog which could be quite relevant to anarchist thought and possible reconciliation: http://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com/2010/08/proposal-for-conversation.html

    Just throwing it out there.

  2. MBH August 7, 2010 at 6:56 am #

    You’ll be seen not as a principled individual[…]

    Sure. By those anarchists who can’t imagine government as a necessary shell in which the new society will grow. Why can’t you boneheads see this as a tag team? You guys get to do the fun work of building the new society. My guys will do the dirty work of holding off the people who want to cripple the government for the sake of corporate interests. It’s really not that hard to figure out. You just have to hold two ideas in your head at the same time. So quit projecting and put down the club.

    • Roderick August 7, 2010 at 10:47 pm #

      My guys will do the dirty work of holding off the people who want to cripple the government for the sake of corporate interests.

      But if my guys are right, then it’s impossible to “cripple the government for the sake of corporate interests,” and your guys will only end up serving corporate interests by throwing them in the briar patch.

      • MBH August 7, 2010 at 11:47 pm #

        […I]t’s impossible to “cripple the government for the sake of corporate interests[…]”

        That’s an a priori argument against something with no a priori existence.

        • Roderick August 7, 2010 at 11:52 pm #

          I don’t think it’s a purely a priori argument. I don’t think the a priori / a posteriori distinction lines up with the necessary /contingent distinction. (“I exist”: a priori but contingent. “Lead is heavier than cork”: a posteriori but necessary.)

  3. js August 7, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    Here, here. You start out arguing that police and military are the only legitimate function of government and pretty soon you are arguing that spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and locking up a staggering proportion of the citizenry somehow makes sense. This is called becoming a Republican.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes