Sunday, April 29, 2012

Maybe Logic: An introduction to Anarchy

Instead of choosing who you're going to blame when nothing changes again in this up coming election maybe it's time to give logic a try. In these two brief videos, Alan Moore and Robert Anton Wilson share their insights on Anarchy and why it is the only sensible and moral option. According to Max Weber, the state is an entity which "upholds the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force". For those new to the concept of Anarchy ask yourselves, Is the initiation of the use of force ever justified and what makes it "legitimate"? Should any group of people be given a monopoly on violence? What are the implications of doing so?


  1. It would be interesting to see an alternate universe with an anarchist society. Although no government is perfect, I do enjoy a lot of the things they do provide. Pretty interesting stuff though, I would like to learn more about it but I couldn't follow everything Robert Anton Wilson was saying. He was right about most people not knowing a lot of the terms he used as well as the full extent of anarchy.

    1. The great thing about a free society is that you and your community would have a real say in what you're going to provide and the quality of that service. As it stands now the services that the government provides us with are mediocre at best, take public education for instance. Another great thing is that these services would be voluntary! Instead of being mugged (aka taxed) and given a crappy product in return all these services could be donation and volunteer based. It would seem to me that people are a lot more generous and care more when they aren't being forced to support something. Take hurricane Katrina for instance, it was the voluntary organization and support of the people that helped out the most in the aftermath, not the government which failed to do anything. Food for thought, I appreciate the comment.

    2. I appreciate the thorough response. That seems like it would work quite well as long as people didn't deem it necessary to form small governments, which might turn into large governments like what we have now.

    3. Hmm, yeah... I'm not sure I would have a problem with people forming small "governments" so long as they remained completely voluntary like R.A.W. said, and so long as they don't violate the non-aggression principle. Would we still call these "governments" if that's the case? Maybe syndicate is a better term. That's the danger of minarchism, the smallest government will inevitably turn into largest government. If our biggest worry about Anarchy is that we'll end up with a government again then why not try it I say.