2 Comments
User's avatar
John Quiggin's avatar

I pretty much stopped at 1.

When i got to step 2, the arguments reminded me of "proofs"that 1 ≠ 2, or ontological arguments for the existence of God - obviously wrong, but presented cleverly enough to make it hard to locate the tricks.

Skipping on to 3 didn't require any up-to-date knowledge. In fact, the most useful knowledge was historical. Finding out that Locke was deeply enmeshed in the slave trade and the expropriation of Native Americans clarified a lot of things for me.

Thesmara's avatar

Thanks again for your kind recommendation. The TLDR of my article is that anarcho-libertarianism must assume non-violence and that by factoring in violence, we get a bad anarchic equilibrium. As Madison stated, if men were angels, there would be no need for government (and if they were devils, then no government would suffice).

Stateless societies can find equilibrium and establish relatively peaceful dispute mechanisms, but these equilibrating forces still occur in hyper-violent and hierarchical social orders, whether its US federal prisons or Friedman's example of medieval Iceland.