hotdensestate Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Anarchism, unlike socialism, is incredibly complex.Whatever you imagine anarchy to be like in your head is probably wrong, because of what Hayek refers to as the "discovery process" - people voluntarily working together to discover the best ways to manage societal problems typically don't use the same methods governments impose. Price signals determine what each individual values and in what ratios they value it - for instance, one family might rather take their chances with a less-safe car, while spending their money on superior structural quality of their home. Other families might choose the opposite, or might rather just save their money. You can't predict these things. Politics is about forcing everyone to make the same choices, which destroys the price-signal system that communicates scarcity. Socialism, on the other hand, is very simple. It is a denial of reality. Whatever scarcity/abundance that exists for any good/service is ignored by bureaucrats who wish to shape society in their "ideal" way. Don't have enough food for everyone? No problem, ignore the existence of scarcity and FORCE everyone to share their calories. It works in the short-term, but it doesn't address the underlying problem - scarcity of food. So now that food is socialized, there is no profit to be had in discovering new ways to expand the supply of food. That sector of the economy stagnates like swamp water, and progress is lost. The exact same thing happens in any area of the economy - whether it's education, healthcare, security, transportation... whatever. Government regulations destroy our ability to discover alternatives and make progress. I'm not saying it's simplistic. I'm saying the idea of a society being able to exist without some form of government arising is naive... there are always going to be thugs taking peoples' money for protection (similar to the tax system we have in place now.) I'm comparing the naiveté of thinking you could have a stable system without thugs taking people's money with the (more widely practiced) naiveté of thinking a socialistic system could work (which it can't). I didn't say that very clearly. Less government is better. No government could never work. Governments WILL always be there, in one form or another. Governments look out for people as little as they can with still successfully getting away with it (...remaining in power). Of course, if governments can't be held to a standard by the people (they generally can't) their power should be reduced. But if, eg, the United States (just using this example as I live here) government was taken down, we would get a bunch of small-scale thugs controlling the weak, which would be worse than the system we have in place, because right now, the public can hold the government up to at least a few standards, and generally speaking the government can't get away with murdering people for not, eg, paying taxes. (Jail, yes. Jail is bad, but not as bad as murder. I know you are going to say "but people would defend themselves" -- what about the weak?) Unorganized governments of thugs and petty rulers are worse than our basically-democratic system because we have at least a little control over our government. Our government has issues, but destroying it is not the solution. To think that destroying our current government entirely would really improve things for people is naive, in my opinion. (To be honest, this is basically philosophy. A perfectly anarchic society is as impossible as a perfectly socialistic society -- which is why I think it's silly to be a full anarchist, and equally silly (or a bit sillier) to be a full socialist. We obviously disagree but I stand by my views until I see enough evidence otherwise.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now