Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren't Nice to You - Christopher Cantwell

You are right that anarchy is absent of a state. The Celts did not have a state but they certainly had a government structure and were anarchists and libertarians.

However, laws without force to back them up is useless. If total force stays with the people and the state has no force than there is no need for the state. If there is a state and the state is to survive than the state must have total force on it's side. If total force is on the side of the state than criminals will eventually take over the state. It's not practical to change the state every couple of decades or centuries. Hence, I'm an anarchist.

And in that link it says over 200,000 people flocked to Ca to get rich. What prevented chaos was that the mining camps quickly establiahed rules. Paraphrased of course.

That would argue against anarchy. And in any case, 200,000 people is not that many compared to today. The link would seem to suggest that lower population densities and lower population overall is more responsible for less violence than anything else. I'd agree with that.

It's all still a form of people governing each other. Not anarchy

,...without the need for a central government.

It was anarchy.

You are absolutely right. It's amazing how few people actually carried firearms in the Wild West.

Albert Jay Nock would suggest that you were failing to draw a proper distinction between government and the state. The state, by definition, engages in the criminal application of force in order to exploit the labor and/or ingenuity of others, while its members produce nothing by their own labor and/or ingenuity. Government, on the other hand, is closer to what you describe as having taken place in the gold mining towns of the early West, i.e., the establishment and enforcement of rules for the preservation of ordered liberty.

It wasn't government by the accepted, modern definition of the term.

I don't think he cares about your argument any more than feeding his uncle to the dogs. Are you gonna argue against him, his auntie did.

I guess I need to clarify my point if possible. I don't belong to any Church Christian, Pagan, or otherwise is because all organized religions, i.e. Church, have a religious state of some sort with a government run by the religious gang of the moment. Being a anarchist that would go against my principle of free thinking.

I know you have heard of the cavalry.

It was more of a cooperative than a government.

Government is a central authority.

Albert can argue all he wants. Dont make either of us right or wrong.

It appears the definition of anarchy is the real question. DD said I didn't know what it was. But I do. What I'm gathering is that those on this board who espouse anarchy have a definition that is specific to this country in this time. If I'm understanding right, it's just the absence of the governments we have now right? Not the people per se, but the system. But that some sort of order and governing of people is ok? Hmm

Here's the anarchy definition as I've always known it and that I've been arguing with.

Main Entry: an�ar�chy
Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌn�r-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler � more at arch-
Date: 1539
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government 2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature � Israel Shenker> 3 : anarchism

I bet that it wasn't. I bet leaders stepped up and lead while others followed. I bet that there agreed upon representatives and agreed upon rules.

The makings of a state structure. It happens whenever people congregate.

Anarchists aren't against rules we are against the state and it's absolute force.

Given much more time or size, there would have been one.

There was no central authority.

There was no government.

Quite possible.

Given enough time, it could have become corrupt enough to call it a government.

Rules are the birthplace of a Government. Rules require consequences and enforcement.

This is the nature of man. All the required corruption was already present.

Assumed authority is the birthplace of government.