G*rd*n:
> >Nothing is going to be imposed by anarchists; unlike democracy,
> >so-called, anarchy can't be imposed.
Justin Schwartz:
> Nor can democracy, not a credible version.
Then the democratic State is an oxymoron. But does the _nor_ mean that you have now abandoned the view that anarchy is imposed on possibly unwilling populations like liberalism or fascism? This erroneous idea seems to be widely held and evidently it's my job to straighten everyone out about it.
G*rd*n:
> >By the way, I did not sign on to your, or anyone else's,
> >Hobbesian view that the State is the only alternative to
> >barbarism and poverty. It may be, but that has not been
> >proved.
Justin Schwartz:
> I just said you didn't dispute it. I would like to hear how public goods
> are provided for under anarchy.
I could spin any number of fantasies about how provision of public goods could take place in an anarchy. The crux of the matter is whether coercion is necessary to produce public goods. This closely resembles the contention that high technology can be produced only through coercion; some people seem to take it as an article of faith. The specific mechanism remains very, very mysterious, however. Too bad -- I want to know what it is about weapons, military units and discipline, cops, courts and jails and class in general that produces either computer chips or the post office.
-- Gordon