| Mr Khan said: I don't think people are quite understanding how anarchy would work. In essence, anarchy would be perfect Communism, requiring an equal-ish balance of all things for all people, and that there would be no need for political power because no-one would be in want, having their needs met by the perfect communal society where all people are as siblings It's much more utopian than libertarianism, which advocates a state-of-nature system with the most minor of implications in place to keep it from becoming chaotic (libertarianism having different beliefs about where human nature goes wrong) Libertarianism is more realistic, but still utopian to the point of unfeasibility. |
It is my take that it is important for people to separate the role of government, from the shape of society. They are separate. If someone doesn't separate this, then they end up not seeing the ends and intentions of people.
Someone can be anarchist for a lot of reasons. Someone who is anarchist can believe government gets in the way of them filling their own potential, and the potential of top performers. Others seen government as the tool of the elite to oppress the masses, so getting rid of government means that equality will happen.
The thing about anarchy is that it doesn't work. Anarchy isn't a system of governance, just a state without there being coersion on top to force conformity to standards of a society as a whole, and the aquisition of resources by coersion in order to reallocate them, so society can be better off. You can't look to anarchy and find anything about the end state desired, because it is a negation (like atheism) based on the lack of something.
I have said that libertarianism is pragmatic anarchy, in that it will tip the hat to sometimes there being a need for the use of coersion for the better state of society. Libertarianism seeks to minimize it though, as opposed to anarchy which seeks to eliminate it completely. And this gets back to my original question about what arguments Libertarians have against abolishing government, rather than seeking to limit it.
