That even well educated people don't seem to understand the Herclean task of keeping civilization safe, fed, connected, and individually empowered to pursue happiness does not bode well for the continued existance of humanity. Complacency and cynicism now rule. FFS, just try living through four days with no electricity. In winter. During an ice storm. With streets flowing with rain and meltwater and drainage blocked by ice. I did this a mere TWO YEARS AGO. In Canada. It was a tiny, frightening taste of what happens when a single taken-for-granted infrastructure fails. Libertarianism and anarchy will make you free, sure. Free to wish you'd bought more candles.
A modern feudalism would definitely occur here if the Project 2025 blueprint is thorough instituted. Government functions would all be privatized, and wealth from plundering resources and the labor of the serfs - the 98% of us non-millionaires - would indeed all flow upward to the top overlords. Your description of total anarchy is exact. Anyone advocating for no government at all is a mindless, dangerous, fool.
I remember reading this a couple years ago. At once hilariously written, yet detailing the reality of a town with no central governing and little resources to come together to solve a big problem. Thanks for bringing this to our attention!
People I know here in rural Nevada think having no government would be bliss, they constantly talk about how government is the problem with the US (!?). I say so you want to build your own roads? No traffic rules on the highway? No way to use planes to fly out of a city? Fire fighters and sheriff's are all volunteer? What if the volunteers don't like you? etc.....
I have a brother who calls himself a minarchist. I think it's supposed to be like a bridge between anarchy and minimal government. The ironic thing is that this guy spent his entire career as a CPA working on people's taxes, and now that he's been able to collect social security and Medicaid, he wants to pull up the ladder for all the generations behind him. We've been estranged since the election, not because he voted for Trump - he doesn't vote at all - but because he wouldn't stop hassling me for supporting the Democratic Party. I should add that I support the Democratic Party only because I don't want the United States to be headed where it's headed now. I did my part.
I agree that all of us in a society do better when all of us do better. Thinking of the collective good is the only sensible way.
Nozick’s libertarianism is what led us to Trump. What you paint is a terrible, and inaccurate stereotype of anarchism. Anarchism is a way of looking at class, hierarchy, social,relations, history, government, and economics. Try reading Graeber, Glenn Wallis, etc. But if you are convinced a state, whether minimalist, as in Nozick’s formulation, or not, is necessary, the problems with inequality, capitalism, nationalism, etc., will never be overcome. Another misconception that people have is that anarchism is antigovernment. This is false.
Of Glenn Wallis's work, anarchism isn't just about rejecting government—it's about questioning the very thought structures that perpetuate hierarchy and domination. Wallis's non-buddhist approach parallels anarchist thinking by dismantling ideological formations that keep us trapped in systems of inequality. Like he argues, we need to "unfix" our conceptual certainties to create truly liberatory spaces. Anarchism is this radical practice of interrogating power in all its forms, not just political ones.
‘What is “the state”? The first thing to say is that the state is not the government. This fact is of crucial significance because anarchism, contrary to its popular caricature, is not anti-government—if, that is, we conceive of “government” as involving social organization subtracted from the statist postulate of order.” —An Anarchist’s Manifesto
Graeber and Wengrow add:
“Back in the 1960s, the French anthropologist Pierre Clastres suggested that precisely the opposite was the case. What if the sort of people we like to imagine as simple and innocent are free of rulers, governments, bureaucracies, ruling classes and the like, not because they are lacking in imagination, but because they’re actually more imaginative than we are? We find it difficult to picture what a truly free society would be like; perhaps they have no similar trouble picturing what arbitrary power and domination would be like. Perhaps they can not only imagine it, but consciously arrange their society in such a way as to avoid it.” —The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity.
And Graeber alone:
“For the last two hundred years, democrats have been trying to graft ideals of popular self-governance onto the coercive apparatus of the state. In the end, the project is simply unworkable. States cannot, by their nature, ever truly be democratized. They are, after all, basically ways of organizing violence…It is in this context that I might suggest that the anarchist solution—that there really is no resolution to this paradox—is really not all that unreasonable. The democratic state was always a contradiction. Globalization has simply exposed the rotten underpinnings, by creating the need for decision-making structures on a planetary scale where any attempt to maintain the pretense of popular sovereignty, let alone participation, would be obviously absurd. The neoliberal solution, of course, is to declare the market the only form of public deliberation one really needs, and to restrict the state almost exclusively to its coercive function.” —The Ultimate Hidden Truth of The World.
So, we’re are back to Nozick’s minimal state, his idea of utopia…and it’s not at all consistent with democracy, unless one thinks capitalism and democracy are the same, and they clearly are not.
My philosophy is aligned within the Anarcho-Syndicalism concept. I'm not sold on it working here or a viable option but it does support some of the changes we are going to have to make. Politics doesn't need to just change it needs to be eliminated. The entire thing is corrupted and disgustingly disconnected from the people.
Anarcho-syndicalism looks great on paper until you realize it's a damn mess to coordinate anything substantial without some central authority (I understand that Federations are a concept that might cure this condition, but Im doubtful personally). Worker-run syndicates end up with their own power-hungry assholes creating shadow hierarchies anyway. When shit hits the fan externally, everyone's too busy reaching consensus to mount an effective defense. Plus, good fucking luck standardizing complex sectors when every workplace does whatever the hell it wants. The whole system's beautiful theory meets brutal reality.
Because while you may behave responsibly , others will not
That phrase cuts right to the heart of anarcho-syndicalism's fatal flaw. You might be a decent person willing to compromise and work collectively, but plenty of other people are self-serving jackasses who'll game any system they're in.
Sure, you'll share resources fairly and respect democratic decisions, but some power-hungry bastard will manipulate consensus processes, hoard information, or form unofficial cliques to get their way. Because while you can regulate how you live and work, you cannot regulate how others live and work or choose to work. So while you're playing by the rules, they're building influence networks and consolidating control behind the scenes.
This fundamental misreading of human nature is why these systems crash against reality. The absence of formal authority doesn't eliminate power dynamics—it just pushes them underground where they're harder to check. No matter how noble the intentions, some conniving fuckers will always exploit the lack of structure to advance their own interests at others' expense.
Look at The Spanish Anarchist Collectives of the 1930s, the CHAZ/CHOP autonomous zones in Seattle, and the Rojava.
On paper what you suggest might work, but in practice thats entirely something else.
Superb! I appreciate the information that you took the trouble to post.
Perhaps you’d agree that no matter the time in history and no matter the structure of [fill in the blank power structure ] that the greedy bastards will game that system to hoard wealth.
I always say:
“Earth is a predatory planet —
Grass eats sun
Beef eats grass
Humans eat beef
And the greedy few prey on the rest of us beefeaters.”
A frightening future indeed. I'm not sure trump and his minions are able to see that their vision of the future is all that different from anarchy as you have described the ramifications.
That even well educated people don't seem to understand the Herclean task of keeping civilization safe, fed, connected, and individually empowered to pursue happiness does not bode well for the continued existance of humanity. Complacency and cynicism now rule. FFS, just try living through four days with no electricity. In winter. During an ice storm. With streets flowing with rain and meltwater and drainage blocked by ice. I did this a mere TWO YEARS AGO. In Canada. It was a tiny, frightening taste of what happens when a single taken-for-granted infrastructure fails. Libertarianism and anarchy will make you free, sure. Free to wish you'd bought more candles.
A modern feudalism would definitely occur here if the Project 2025 blueprint is thorough instituted. Government functions would all be privatized, and wealth from plundering resources and the labor of the serfs - the 98% of us non-millionaires - would indeed all flow upward to the top overlords. Your description of total anarchy is exact. Anyone advocating for no government at all is a mindless, dangerous, fool.
Yes, this Libertarians took over a town, and tried a mild case of that, and the results were predictable.
https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project
I remember reading this a couple years ago. At once hilariously written, yet detailing the reality of a town with no central governing and little resources to come together to solve a big problem. Thanks for bringing this to our attention!
😉I always enjoy sharing it for those who may have missed it. It is such a textbook case of what happens without the framework of society
People I know here in rural Nevada think having no government would be bliss, they constantly talk about how government is the problem with the US (!?). I say so you want to build your own roads? No traffic rules on the highway? No way to use planes to fly out of a city? Fire fighters and sheriff's are all volunteer? What if the volunteers don't like you? etc.....
You are doing the work of good. May your intelligent points penetrate their thick skulls.
You say this as if none of this is happening yet... All of this is happening now!!
…and THAT’S why I think contemporary American Libertarianism is woefully inadequate unless one prefers Anarchy, but with a Libertarian label.
I definitely prefer anarchism, libertarianism requires a state. It is not antistatist at all.
I wish I hadn't read that so close to bedtime. But it is a message well said. As always, I appreciate your writings.
I have a brother who calls himself a minarchist. I think it's supposed to be like a bridge between anarchy and minimal government. The ironic thing is that this guy spent his entire career as a CPA working on people's taxes, and now that he's been able to collect social security and Medicaid, he wants to pull up the ladder for all the generations behind him. We've been estranged since the election, not because he voted for Trump - he doesn't vote at all - but because he wouldn't stop hassling me for supporting the Democratic Party. I should add that I support the Democratic Party only because I don't want the United States to be headed where it's headed now. I did my part.
I agree that all of us in a society do better when all of us do better. Thinking of the collective good is the only sensible way.
Which is why it was short-sighted of Reagan to tank Keynesianism for Neoliberalisn, but then, he only cared about the wealthy.
Nozick’s libertarianism is what led us to Trump. What you paint is a terrible, and inaccurate stereotype of anarchism. Anarchism is a way of looking at class, hierarchy, social,relations, history, government, and economics. Try reading Graeber, Glenn Wallis, etc. But if you are convinced a state, whether minimalist, as in Nozick’s formulation, or not, is necessary, the problems with inequality, capitalism, nationalism, etc., will never be overcome. Another misconception that people have is that anarchism is antigovernment. This is false.
Of Glenn Wallis's work, anarchism isn't just about rejecting government—it's about questioning the very thought structures that perpetuate hierarchy and domination. Wallis's non-buddhist approach parallels anarchist thinking by dismantling ideological formations that keep us trapped in systems of inequality. Like he argues, we need to "unfix" our conceptual certainties to create truly liberatory spaces. Anarchism is this radical practice of interrogating power in all its forms, not just political ones.
But Wallis does not reject government:
‘What is “the state”? The first thing to say is that the state is not the government. This fact is of crucial significance because anarchism, contrary to its popular caricature, is not anti-government—if, that is, we conceive of “government” as involving social organization subtracted from the statist postulate of order.” —An Anarchist’s Manifesto
Graeber and Wengrow add:
“Back in the 1960s, the French anthropologist Pierre Clastres suggested that precisely the opposite was the case. What if the sort of people we like to imagine as simple and innocent are free of rulers, governments, bureaucracies, ruling classes and the like, not because they are lacking in imagination, but because they’re actually more imaginative than we are? We find it difficult to picture what a truly free society would be like; perhaps they have no similar trouble picturing what arbitrary power and domination would be like. Perhaps they can not only imagine it, but consciously arrange their society in such a way as to avoid it.” —The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity.
And Graeber alone:
“For the last two hundred years, democrats have been trying to graft ideals of popular self-governance onto the coercive apparatus of the state. In the end, the project is simply unworkable. States cannot, by their nature, ever truly be democratized. They are, after all, basically ways of organizing violence…It is in this context that I might suggest that the anarchist solution—that there really is no resolution to this paradox—is really not all that unreasonable. The democratic state was always a contradiction. Globalization has simply exposed the rotten underpinnings, by creating the need for decision-making structures on a planetary scale where any attempt to maintain the pretense of popular sovereignty, let alone participation, would be obviously absurd. The neoliberal solution, of course, is to declare the market the only form of public deliberation one really needs, and to restrict the state almost exclusively to its coercive function.” —The Ultimate Hidden Truth of The World.
So, we’re are back to Nozick’s minimal state, his idea of utopia…and it’s not at all consistent with democracy, unless one thinks capitalism and democracy are the same, and they clearly are not.
Well said. Thank you
My philosophy is aligned within the Anarcho-Syndicalism concept. I'm not sold on it working here or a viable option but it does support some of the changes we are going to have to make. Politics doesn't need to just change it needs to be eliminated. The entire thing is corrupted and disgustingly disconnected from the people.
Anarcho-syndicalism looks great on paper until you realize it's a damn mess to coordinate anything substantial without some central authority (I understand that Federations are a concept that might cure this condition, but Im doubtful personally). Worker-run syndicates end up with their own power-hungry assholes creating shadow hierarchies anyway. When shit hits the fan externally, everyone's too busy reaching consensus to mount an effective defense. Plus, good fucking luck standardizing complex sectors when every workplace does whatever the hell it wants. The whole system's beautiful theory meets brutal reality.
Because while you may behave responsibly , others will not
That phrase cuts right to the heart of anarcho-syndicalism's fatal flaw. You might be a decent person willing to compromise and work collectively, but plenty of other people are self-serving jackasses who'll game any system they're in.
Sure, you'll share resources fairly and respect democratic decisions, but some power-hungry bastard will manipulate consensus processes, hoard information, or form unofficial cliques to get their way. Because while you can regulate how you live and work, you cannot regulate how others live and work or choose to work. So while you're playing by the rules, they're building influence networks and consolidating control behind the scenes.
This fundamental misreading of human nature is why these systems crash against reality. The absence of formal authority doesn't eliminate power dynamics—it just pushes them underground where they're harder to check. No matter how noble the intentions, some conniving fuckers will always exploit the lack of structure to advance their own interests at others' expense.
Look at The Spanish Anarchist Collectives of the 1930s, the CHAZ/CHOP autonomous zones in Seattle, and the Rojava.
On paper what you suggest might work, but in practice thats entirely something else.
Superb! I appreciate the information that you took the trouble to post.
Perhaps you’d agree that no matter the time in history and no matter the structure of [fill in the blank power structure ] that the greedy bastards will game that system to hoard wealth.
I always say:
“Earth is a predatory planet —
Grass eats sun
Beef eats grass
Humans eat beef
And the greedy few prey on the rest of us beefeaters.”
And Vegans, ahem.
A frightening future indeed. I'm not sure trump and his minions are able to see that their vision of the future is all that different from anarchy as you have described the ramifications.
Ah, Monty Python! heh