Some honest questions for proponents of #anarchism, specifically of the individualistic sort (ie, #anarchocapitalism):
🧵
What do you make of the lack of [significant experiments in the real world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities) (note that most examples on that page are collectivist societies, communist #libertarians, etc — not experiments where all property is private)?
I get that a modern nation doesn't sell a region or a province to a group of like-minded individuals to let them live and interact as they please, and that even if that were possible, such community would still depend on the “outer world” for lots of important things.
Still, isn't is suspicious that there aren't at least a bunch of long-lasting, functioning libertarian experiments where members voluntarily ditch outer courts and laws, shun subsidies and quotas of any kind, rely on an inner grey market to conceal income and wealth as much as possible, rely solely on voluntary agreements among them, etc?
With so many passionate supporters worldwide, why isn't that happening, at least to the extent it's feasible within the framework of existing jurisdictions?
~~But who would build the roa…~~
How would such a society handle driving licences (or lack thereof!)?
Even if courses, examinations, issuing documents, etc were done by private entities, wouldn't you need some kind of central authority to enforce some minimums?
>"Still, isn’t is suspicious that there aren’t at least a bunch of long-lasting, functioning libertarian experiments where members voluntarily ditch outer courts and laws, shun subsidies and quotas of any kind, rely on an inner grey market to conceal income and wealth as much as possible, rely solely on voluntary agreements among them, etc?"
You mean like the Mexican drug cartel?
I was thinking they acted more like anarchists -- no laws or formal gov't. But, as you say, that can't last long since someone always wants to be king.
The US started out mostly libertarian.
After a libertarian or anarchist group/society starts, they quickly run into situations where something harmful needs to be addressed with some kind of regulation.
And if there is no harmful thing, then some wanna-be king will invent a harmful thing so they can justify creating enough regulations that they can exploit to become king.
That's my intuition too, yes.
(#Anarchism is absence of hierarchies (we usually call that a State). A drug cartel is definitely _not_ hierarchy-free.)
I get the sense that anarchism is more of a philosophical concept to facilitate thought experiments, rather than an actual system to be implemented. It's kind of like philosophers used to speak of a "state of nature" as a starting point for the development of political philosophies. It's not an actual situation that actually exists or existed, it just a way to help conceptualize a problem.
My issue is with people who defend #anarchism (or fascism, or communism, or authoritarianism) as a viable system, as a recipe for human flourishing and well-being. There are many of those.
@Pat
I very much doubt that drug cartels function as free societies where members enter voluntary agreements, act according to the #NAP, and respect the property of others…
I just asked #ChatGPT (take this with a ton of grains of salt):
> _“Overall, the political organization of a Mexican drug cartel is **highly centralized and hierarchical**, with a strong emphasis on loyalty and obedience to the top leadership. The cartel leaders operate as quasi-political figures, exerting control over large territories and often engaging in **violence and corruption** to maintain their power.”_
In any case: if a Mexican drug cartel were the best example we had of a #libertarian society in action, then I rest my case.