A problem with the argument of no state anarchists (e.g. those who call for abolishing government) is that they presuppose that anarchy would persist without any explanation as to how. There is some expectation that without any state or states(how states would vanish is unexplained, though, presumably, there is at least the ability to "abolish" things), individauls would engage in free trade with each other and, at worst, form voluntary associations that would not only be more moral but more efficient in allocating resources among the individuals involved. However, I wonder how "anarchy" is preserved. Is there not at least a single rule, which requires that there be no states? Would there not be consequences for violating this rule? Is this okay?
Furthermore, what of these associations and there ability to grow large, make markets with their larger numbers, maintain a military and assert influence or force their ideals on others? As this association grows and begins to dominate more territory, how does the anarchist plan to oppose this voluntary association that simply believes in a different set of moral principles like, say, the preservation of the association's members above all else or whatever god says?
No comments:
Post a Comment