2012 Presidential election thread

[Dak]

The proper services of government = police, armed forces and the law courts. All of this being funded voluntary. These services are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interest directly, therefore the citizens should and would be willing to pay for such services, just as they pay for insurance.

But what if they aren't? As a former member of the armed forces, I will be the first to tell you that they are un-necessary. While special forces have advanced training that allows them to achieve amazing results (IE murder) with stealth and low numbers, you cannot occupy with that tactic. Without a massive tax base + inflation, you cannot support an purportedly adequate occupation force. Without a government to control, defeat, or appeal to, you cannot enlist tactics to such affect. Therefore, a "country" of anarchists would require total occupation, which is not sustainable. The other option is annihilation, but short of the nuclear option, this is also costly (as if achieving nuclear status isn't costly enough) and counter productive as well, not to mention the ramifications of using nuclear attacks make that option generally undesirable.
Trade would be much more beneficial.

Anarchy (as a political concept) is a naive abstraction.

I don't see how it is an "abstraction", or niave. The niavete is in expecting a moral end from immoral means. It is, of course, not political at all.

A society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first idiot criminal who came along and who would accelerate it into the chaos of gang warfare.

Kind of like how we are already at the mercy of idiot tyrants who come along and accelerate things into warfare on a massive scale. Supported by stealing proceeds of your labor. How is this any better? Instead of it being relegated to a neighborhood, it is multiplied into World Wars, civilian bombing campaigns, concentration/internment camps around the world, etc.

but the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy

This is actually the most ridiculous objection to anarchy. Let me demonstrate:

even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral could not function in a state of anarchy, it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of government.

I think you are confusing voluntary order with coercive exploitation. This would explain your objections. You should do some research and correct this misunderstanding.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

If a society provided no organized protection against force it would compel every citizen to go about armed to turn his home into a fortress and to shoot any strangers approaching his door or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose and bringing about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of some gang rule/rule by brute force and into perpetual tribal warfare like savages.

The use of physical force even in its retaliatory use cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. peaceful co-existence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment.whether his neighbors intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or not or whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance/prejudice/malice - the use of force against one man connot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.

 

[Dak]

If a society provided no organized protection against force it

Organized protection against coercion which requires coercion is the very thing it purports to defend against.

would compel every citizen to go about armed to turn his home into a fortress and to shoot any strangers approaching his door

How often do strangers approach your door, and when they do, how often are you in fear? This is a red herring.

or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose and bringing about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of some gang rule/rule by brute force and into perpetual tribal warfare like savages.

Kind of like the world status today? Except, instead of "tribes", we have other, more impressive names for them. Like "nations", "treaty organizations", "councils", "peacekeeping operations", "kinetic military action", etc ad nauseum.

Again, how has coercive government improved on the supposed situation that would exist without it?

The use of physical force even in its retaliatory use cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens.

Even when left to the police/courts/military/state, it is still ultimately left up to individual citizens, merely citizens with the monopoly on violence. What makes them special in that they may engage in discretion regarding retaliation, that others may not?. This angle is a nonstarter.

peaceful co-existence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment.

Kind of like voting? Where all my neighbors want a bit of my profits so they vote to raise my tax? Or seek to rezone my property, or whatever?

Or how about the constant threat of force by the state if I stupidly use drugs, specifically not the ones produced by Big Pharma? Or if I do something so horrible as consume milk as soon as it is removed from the cow? Or, like in the state of Louisiana, if I have a yardsale or sell something on craiglist without keeping a dossier on every buyer?

Of course, nothing that the state does actually protects me from the threat of violence from my neighbors anyway. Because if my neighbor wants to use violence against me, he most certainly can do so before the cops arrive, unless I take matters into my own hands ANYWAY. At best, the state will merely throw him in jail, and what the fuck does that solve?

whether his neighbors intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or not or whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance/prejudice/malice - the use of force against one man connot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.

Exactly. I agree. This is why you are actually an anarchist.

Edit: To be clear, you need to define force, differentiate between aggression and self defense, and individual. Ultimately, all decisions are arbitrary and by individuals. What cannot be left to one person is the legal monopoly of initiation of violence against another. That is what government is. It is many individuals acting alone, or through other individuals, to "legally" intiatate violence on other individuals.

 

[Einherjar86]

You need to elaborate on the first statement, because the way I perceive it makes it sound ridiculous.

The advocation that human beings possess liberty as a specific "inalienable right" is misleading and inaccurate. Only after liberty is made into a cultural value that resonates with us as reflecting some pristine, original condition that we should yearn for does it seems to us to have been there all along.

You advocate anarchy in support of absolute liberty, but it seems to be that the very definition on which you base your concept of liberty spawned from institutions put in place for the purposes of human subjection (it's no secret that "liberty" as a value is, in this country, used as a means of subjection and asserting power rather than granting it).

If we try to conceive of a human subject uninhibited by the laws of any political institution (i.e. in the wild, the natural man), we might say that this individual possesses freedom; but that individual would not call it that, and "freedom" is not the term that I would use, since freedom only can be realized as a value in structural opposition to bondage/subjection.

I, intead, would suggest that the human subject, as it exists in nature, possesses agency that is actualized through assertions of power (i.e. power to do what one wants, to hunt, sleep, roam, etc.). As it exists in this state, the human does not have freedom, and its existence is more like that of an animal; but since humans have the capacity for self-consciousness and self-reflection, this organization of power through agency and attribution leads to a sense of subjectivity: the human being recognizes itself as a subject capable of organizing power.

Freedom only comes about later, as a kind of interpretation that serves to explain to human beings the organization of power as subjectivity. Humans think of themselves as acting freely, through regular subsumption of these activities (which is recognized as power), and as free individuals (which is recognized as subjectivity). Freedom, in this way, becomes valorized as an inherent trait, when in fact it's a social institution by which we try to interpret our actions, and is pitted against it's ultimate other: bondage, imprisonment, subjection.

This is why I think that advocating absolute individual liberty through anarchy is ineffectual; the concept of freedom itself is founded on its opposition to bondage and on the notion of power struggles. If freedom is the interpretation by which we understand our organization and application of power, then founding an anarchical society on the value of freedom (i.e. as an inherent trait of human existence that is valuable in and of itself, for no deeper purpose) will only lead to the creation of more hierarchical institutions similar to the ones we already have.

 

[Dak]

The advocation that human beings possess liberty as a specific "inalienable right" is misleading and inaccurate. Only after liberty is made into a cultural value that resonates with us as reflecting some pristine, original condition that we should yearn for does it seems to us to have been there all along.

You advocate anarchy in support of absolute liberty, but it seems to be that the very definition on which you base your concept of liberty spawned from institutions put in place for the purposes of human subjection (it's no secret that "liberty" as a value is, in this country, used as a means of subjection and asserting power rather than granting it).

If we try to conceive of a human subject uninhibited by the laws of any political institution (i.e. in the wild, the natural man), we might say that this individual possesses freedom; but that individual would not call it that, and "freedom" is not the term that I would use, since freedom only can be realized as a value in structural opposition to bondage/subjection.

I, intead, would suggest that the human subject, as it exists in nature, possesses agency that is actualized through assertions of power (i.e. power to do what one wants, to hunt, sleep, roam, etc.). As it exists in this state, the human does not have freedom, and its existence is more like that of an animal; but since humans have the capacity for self-consciousness and self-reflection, this organization of power through agency and attribution leads to a sense of subjectivity: the human being recognizes itself as a subject capable of organizing power.

Freedom only comes about later, as a kind of interpretation that serves to explain to human beings the organization of power as subjectivity. Humans think of themselves as acting freely, through regular subsumption of these activities (which is recognized as power), and as free individuals (which is recognized as subjectivity). Freedom, in this way, becomes valorized as an inherent trait, when in fact it's a social institution by which we try to interpret our actions, and is pitted against it's ultimate other: bondage, imprisonment, subjection.

This is why I think that advocating absolute individual liberty through anarchy is ineffectual; the concept of freedom itself is founded on its opposition to bondage and on the notion of power struggles. If freedom is the interpretation by which we understand our organization and application of power, then founding an anarchical society on the value of freedom (i.e. as an inherent trait of human existence that is valuable in and of itself, for no deeper purpose) will only lead to the creation of more hierarchical institutions similar to the ones we already have.

There is a difference between voluntary and involuntary. King Richard is the commissioner of the UMFFL. I did not have to participate. I could drop out at any time. I could have made my own league. But I am participating and agreeing to the rules he established for the league. While this may be a simple and fairly "petty" example, there is no reason that people cannot conduct themselves this way in all things.

Stating that we need government to protect us from eventual government is nearly as circular as saying people are bad so we need a government made up of people.

Your freedom vs bondage position is identical to the position that we "wouldn't appreciate good times without the bad". So what? Should we then not attempt to increase the amount of good times? Should we all just go ahead and commit suicide since we can only truly appreciate life in the absence thereof? Etc.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

But Dak, the nature of governmental action is coercive action. The nature of political power is the power to force obedience under threat of physical injury-the threat of property expropriation, imprisonment or death.

If a society is to be free it;s government has to be controlled, with the laws as its only motive power. Under a proper social system a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases so long as he doesn't violate the right of others, while the government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden, a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted. What I describe is proper government, a government of laws not of men.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I disagree. There are plenty of very cogent arguments that society is less advanced than could be, due to the repression inherent in coercive systems.

Advanced technology requires a lot of infrastructure, which cannot exist without a central regulatory/governing body.

 

[Dak]

Advanced technology requires a lot of infrastructure, which cannot exist without a central regulatory/governing body.

Good thing the Internet had a central regulatory,governing body. ICANN hardly counts.

But Dak, the nature of governmental action is coercive action. The nature of political power is the power to force obedience under threat of physical injury-the threat of property expropriation, imprisonment or death.

I know it is coercive. This is why I am against it. Ends do not justify means, and the desirability of specific, actual ends is subjective anyway.

If a society is to be free it;s government has to be controlled, with the laws as its only motive power. Under a proper social system a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases so long as he doesn't violate the right of others, while the government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden, a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted. What I describe is proper government, a government of laws not of men.

The "grand experiment" of the United States has proven that words and pieces of paper containing arbitrary guidelines do not constrain individual (human) action. Individuals constrain themselves or will eventually be constrained by others.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Not if you know there is a right and a wrong and in most cases it is completely objective. The means of subordinating "might" to "right". The source of the governments authority is the consent of the governed. The government is not the ruler but the servant or agent of the citizens. the government has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

and what do you mean by Individuals constrain themselves?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The advocation that human beings possess liberty as a specific "inalienable right" is misleading and inaccurate. Only after liberty is made into a cultural value that resonates with us as reflecting some pristine, original condition that we should yearn for does it seems to us to have been there all along.

You advocate anarchy in support of absolute liberty, but it seems to be that the very definition on which you base your concept of liberty spawned from institutions put in place for the purposes of human subjection (it's no secret that "liberty" as a value is, in this country, used as a means of subjection and asserting power rather than granting it).

If we try to conceive of a human subject uninhibited by the laws of any political institution (i.e. in the wild, the natural man), we might say that this individual possesses freedom; but that individual would not call it that, and "freedom" is not the term that I would use, since freedom only can be realized as a value in structural opposition to bondage/subjection.

I, intead, would suggest that the human subject, as it exists in nature, possesses agency that is actualized through assertions of power (i.e. power to do what one wants, to hunt, sleep, roam, etc.). As it exists in this state, the human does not have freedom, and its existence is more like that of an animal; but since humans have the capacity for self-consciousness and self-reflection, this organization of power through agency and attribution leads to a sense of subjectivity: the human being recognizes itself as a subject capable of organizing power.

Freedom only comes about later, as a kind of interpretation that serves to explain to human beings the organization of power as subjectivity. Humans think of themselves as acting freely, through regular subsumption of these activities (which is recognized as power), and as free individuals (which is recognized as subjectivity). Freedom, in this way, becomes valorized as an inherent trait, when in fact it's a social institution by which we try to interpret our actions, and is pitted against it's ultimate other: bondage, imprisonment, subjection.

This is why I think that advocating absolute individual liberty through anarchy is ineffectual; the concept of freedom itself is founded on its opposition to bondage and on the notion of power struggles. If freedom is the interpretation by which we understand our organization and application of power, then founding an anarchical society on the value of freedom (i.e. as an inherent trait of human existence that is valuable in and of itself, for no deeper purpose) will only lead to the creation of more hierarchical institutions similar to the ones we already have.

Pat: i have difficulty following your point because you use about 3x as many words in it as you need. anyway though... i think you are right about the concept of freedom and the folly of "advocating it" in the way Dakryn does, but you are not pointing out (or at least not emphasizing) that the concept has significance to us because there is very real-world value to humans in *not being controlled or exploited by other humans* motivating the issue. this is the merit of "advocating freedom" you (seem to) neglect to acknowledge.

Your freedom vs bondage position is identical to the position that we "wouldn't appreciate good times without the bad". So what? Should we then not attempt to increase the amount of good times? Should we all just go ahead and commit suicide since we can only truly appreciate life in the absence thereof? Etc.

How on earth do you equivocate Pat's post with "we should appreciate the bad times"? I'm pretty sure you really don't get what he was trying to say - it was more along the lines of "the bad times are inevitable, and advocating anarchy is like being in denial about this".

 

[Dak]

How on earth do you equivocate Pat's post with "we should appreciate the bad times"? I'm pretty sure you really don't get what he was trying to say - it was more along the lines of "the bad times are inevitable, and advocating anarchy is like being in denial about this".

I really don't see that from what he said, but if that was the intent, that is a ridiculous argument. Why speak out against murder? Or pedophilia? It's going to happen anyway.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I really don't think he's suggesting that we be apathetic to social problems -- just that we don't resort to misleading or ineffective perspectives on the problems.

 

[Dak]

I really don't think he's suggesting that we be apathetic to social problems -- just that we don't resort to misleading or ineffective perspectives on the problems.

If government is the primary method of propagating the major problems we face, how is opposing it misleading/ineffective?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Because the solution you propose in the course of opposing it is arguably completely fantastical with no hope of success. I would prefer to oppose the state by finding workarounds to it rather than attempting some quest to "destroy" it.

 

[Dak]

With the internet it is more possible than it ever has been.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I would say a solution in general is more possible than ever now -- i would not go so far as do define the solution as specifically as you do. There's just too much we can't foresee.

 

[Einherjar86]

There is a difference between voluntary and involuntary. King Richard is the commissioner of the UMFFL. I did not have to participate. I could drop out at any time. I could have made my own league. But I am participating and agreeing to the rules he established for the league. While this may be a simple and fairly "petty" example, there is no reason that people cannot conduct themselves this way in all things.

If voluntary action is in question, then shouldn't we consider the fact that individuals might voluntarily submit themselves to a liberal democratic form of political/social order?

Stating that we need government to protect us from eventual government is nearly as circular as saying people are bad so we need a government made up of people.

There's nothing circular about not wanting to eliminate certain governmental institutions only to have them be built up again years later. It's not about having government now to protect us from government later, and that's a poor interpretation. Rather, I see your solution as doing nothing to advance the human race; as performing no positive action.

Your freedom vs bondage position is identical to the position that we "wouldn't appreciate good times without the bad". So what? Should we then not attempt to increase the amount of good times? Should we all just go ahead and commit suicide since we can only truly appreciate life in the absence thereof? Etc.

Another misinterpretation; part of this argument owes its conception to the theory of structural semiotics. I'm merely pointing out that freedom (as a linguistic sign) opposes itself to bondage (another sign). More concretely, I owe something to Jiwei Ci's essay "China and the Question of Freedom," wherein he writes:

"It is only when we think of freedom as belonging to a mode of subjection with its own conditions of plausibility that it is possible to accomodate in our account both aspects of freedom in a liberal order: its moment of illusion and its moment of reality. At the phenomenological level, these moments translate into the experience of freedom, on the one hand, and the seemingly contradictory practice of conformity, on the other, but it is the seamless conjunction of these that is the hallmark of a liberal society. Indeed, the conjunction is so seamless that we should speak of freedom and subjection not as if they are separate moments but, more precisely, of freedom as a mode of subjection. As such, the value of freedom simultaneously helps give form to agency and bring agents into line with the order that prevails in their society."

Essentially, Ci intends that while "freedom" and "conformity" enjoy an opposed semiotic structure, their opposition actually forms a basis for individual free will within a society. Ci admits that this might create what some would call the "illusion" of freedom; but it is absolutely true that such an illusion has real conditions of possibility (i.e. people can believe in their illusion and in this way function in a liberal order).

Pat: i have difficulty following your point because you use about 3x as many words in it as you need. anyway though... i think you are right about the concept of freedom and the folly of "advocating it" in the way Dakryn does, but you are not pointing out (or at least not emphasizing) that the concept has significance to us because there is very real-world value to humans in *not being controlled or exploited by other humans* motivating the issue. this is the merit of "advocating freedom" you (seem to) neglect to acknowledge.

Obviously I'm not trying to advocate totalitarianism or anything; and I agree that people don't want to be told what to do, and that in a liberal society there are many cases in which we must follow seemingly arbitrary laws (speed limits, drug laws, gay marriage, etc.). What I'm trying to point out is that the valorization of freedom is an institution that is being utilized by the liberal order itself for the purposes of subjection and conformity. The very notion that we have of freedom as a kind of inalienable, pristine human value (in and of itself) has been nurtured by the society we live in; not by any innate human understanding of the notion of freedom.

How on earth do you equivocate Pat's post with "we should appreciate the bad times"? I'm pretty sure you really don't get what he was trying to say - it was more along the lines of "the bad times are inevitable, and advocating anarchy is like being in denial about this".

I really don't see that from what he said, but if that was the intent, that is a ridiculous argument. Why speak out against murder? Or pedophilia? It's going to happen anyway.

It seems to me that, if we embrace anarchy, very few people would speak out against murder or pedophilia. Your system is the one that provides no moral basis for defensive action.

I advocate an understanding of the illusory nature of freedom in a liberal society, but not for the purposes of overthrowing said society and attempting to found an anarchistic civilization on the basis of uninhibited individual freedom; there is no way I can conceive of that as being anything positive or progressive.

I want better critiques of our current systems. I want people to realize that, down to our very system of language, we're ideological beings and that it's difficult sometimes to see the effects of our consciousness. I want people who blindly quote the Constitution of the United States and spout propaganda like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are certain, inalienable rights" to recognize that the very inclusion of that in a statist document does nothing to emancipate us, but solidifies us as subjects in a liberal democratic order. The truth is, I know many people who still believe the Constitution to be a source of supreme truth. I personally believe that we can arrive at more positive, effective governing systems without chucking the whole entire establishment.

Embracing anarchy is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Dak, you yourself mentioned specifics in your post above that relate to some of the positive aspects of social order; defense against criminal action, especially criminal action that the overwhelming majority of people agree on as particularly heinous.

 

[Dak]

I would say a solution in general is more possible than ever now -- i would not go so far as do define the solution as specifically as you do. There's just too much we can't foresee.

I agree. The main pit that anarchist philosophers fall into is trying to guess on how society would look without government. No one possesses a crytal ball. A true anarchist only advocates the end of an accepted immoral institution. When I say true anarchist, I reference this piece:

The Statist mindset of Anarchists

If voluntary action is in question, then shouldn't we consider the fact that individuals might voluntarily submit themselves to a liberal democratic form of political/social order?

There is no question about voluntary submission, the question is regarding secession from said order without having to vacate arbitrary geographical bounderies.

There's nothing circular about not wanting to eliminate certain governmental institutions only to have them be built up again years later. It's not about having government now to protect us from government later, and that's a poor interpretation. Rather, I see your solution as doing nothing to advance the human race; as performing no positive action.

So in other words, you see only see positive action and human advances within the narrow field of political action.

Another misinterpretation; part of this argument owes its conception to the theory of structural semiotics. I'm merely pointing out that freedom (as a linguistic sign) opposes itself to bondage (another sign). More concretely, I owe something to Jiwei Ci's essay "China and the Question of Freedom," wherein he writes:

"It is only when we think of freedom as belonging to a mode of subjection with its own conditions of plausibility that it is possible to accomodate in our account both aspects of freedom in a liberal order: its moment of illusion and its moment of reality. At the phenomenological level, these moments translate into the experience of freedom, on the one hand, and the seemingly contradictory practice of conformity, on the other, but it is the seamless conjunction of these that is the hallmark of a liberal society. Indeed, the conjunction is so seamless that we should speak of freedom and subjection not as if they are separate moments but, more precisely, of freedom as a mode of subjection. As such, the value of freedom simultaneously helps give form to agency and bring agents into line with the order that prevails in their society."

Essentially, Ci intends that while "freedom" and "conformity" enjoy an opposed semiotic structure, their opposition actually forms a basis for individual free will within a society. Ci admits that this might create what some would call the "illusion" of freedom; but it is absolutely true that such an illusion has real conditions of possibility (i.e. people can believe in their illusion and in this way function in a liberal order).

I fail to see the relevance of freedom or subjugation only being understood when contrasted. They still are what they are. You are either able to act as the complete owner of yourself or you are not. A person's philosophical understanding of the situation is irrelevant to it's reality.

The beneficial illusion angle is dangerous, since it is this illusion that every government since the Bernays/Goebbels propoganda revolution has sought to enhance, parallel to freedom and produce being removed.

Obviously I'm not trying to advocate totalitarianism or anything; and I agree that people don't want to be told what to do, and that in a liberal society there are many cases in which we must follow seemingly arbitrary laws (speed limits, drug laws, gay marriage, etc.). What I'm trying to point out is that the valorization of freedom is an institution that is being utilized by the liberal order itself for the purposes of subjection and conformity. The very notion that we have of freedom as a kind of inalienable, pristine human value (in and of itself) has been nurtured by the society we live in; not by any innate human understanding of the notion of freedom.

I would argue it has not been nurtured in our society. Those preaching true freedom (no fallacy) have been marginalized by those currently on the receiving end of the illgotten gains of power, or those seeking to supplant them. Since those same people had control of the education and media for years, one dissident voice could not be heard by the masses. The internet is changing this.

It seems to me that, if we embrace anarchy, very few people would speak out against murder or pedophilia. Your system is the one that provides no moral basis for defensive action.

Surely this was a joke. You are suggesting that without the laws that the majority support, suddenly everyone would fall to murdering and fucking babies, and that without laws from a coercive entity that I wouldn't know when to defend myself?

I advocate an understanding of the illusory nature of freedom in a liberal society, but not for the purposes of overthrowing said society and attempting to found an anarchistic civilization on the basis of uninhibited individual freedom; there is no way I can conceive of that as being anything positive or progressive.

The only thing inhibiting individuals from non positive action is themselves and other individuals. Government makes no affect on this. Considering the root, the methods, and the history of coercive government, it is the most regressive thing I can imagine.

Government does not need to be coercivily funded. Let it function as a market resource. The reaosn it needs to extract value by force is that people actually don't want it. The illusion is that it provides a valuable service at a discount.

I want better critiques of our current systems. I want people to realize that, down to our very system of language, we're ideological beings and that it's difficult sometimes to see the effects of our consciousness. I want people who blindly quote the Constitution of the United States and spout propaganda like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are certain, inalienable rights" to recognize that the very inclusion of that in a statist document does nothing to emancipate us, but solidifies us as subjects in a liberal democratic order. The truth is, I know many people who still believe the Constitution to be a source of supreme truth. I personally believe that we can arrive at more positive, effective governing systems without chucking the whole entire establishment.

I heartily agree with the highlighted statement.

No one is suggesting a situation of "against every man, and every man against him". This would not happen anyway. People are generally "herd animals". Merely voluntary association and governance. It happens all the time on the micro level. There is no reason it cannot happen on a macro level. We do not need to rob and murder to prevent the same.

Embracing anarchy is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Dak, you yourself mentioned specifics in your post above that relate to some of the positive aspects of social order; defense against criminal action, especially criminal action that the overwhelming majority of people agree on as particularly heinous.

How much of government goes into preventing said acts? How often is it people in positions of power that are guilty of those very things? The aphrodisiac of power leading a person to ever worse actions in the illusion of superiority and untouchability.

Also, you said defense. Post action justice is not defense. It is retribution. That is not defense. Government never defends anyone. They merely apprehend and confine the perpetrators at a further cost to society. This method of "justice" is insane.

The baby is humanity. Coercive government is the insane bather holding it down under the dirty bath water of violence.

The inability to think outside the statist box lends itself to satire like this:

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Picture a band of strangers marching down Main Street, submachine guns at the ready. When confronted by the police, the leader of the band announces: “Me and the boys are only here to see that justice is done, so you have no right to interfere with us.” According to the "anarchists", in such a confrontation the police are morally bound to withdraw, on pain of betraying the rights of self-defense and free trade.

The government has to regard such private force as a threat—i.e., as a potential violation of individual rights. In barring such private force, the government is retaliating against that threat.

 

[Dak]

Picture a band of strangers marching down Main Street, submachine guns at the ready. When confronted by the police, the leader of the band announces: “Me and the boys are only here to see that justice is done, so you have no right to interfere with us.” According to the "anarchists", in such a confrontation the police are morally bound to withdraw, on pain of betraying the rights of self-defense and free trade.

The government has to regard such private force as a threat—i.e., as a potential violation of individual rights. In barring such private force, the government is retaliating against that threat.

Let's swap the scenario around. What's the difference?