Source: Original Site Post

—“Which kind of Anarchist are we talking about? There’s many varieties, though the most common, and commonly associated with the term, are Anarcho-Communists. The mental gymnastics required to create such an oxymoron as the combination of something that relies on the existence of a totalitarian government, and a total absence of government, makes it pretty obvious why it fails so damned always. Anatcho-Capitalists, of which I am a former supporter of, are extremely similar to Propertarians in many regards.”— Anon

It doesn’t matter. All humans universally demonstrate the minimum moral constraint that they can get away with. People come together in proximity to reduce opportunity costs making the disproportionate returns on a division of labor possible. The state evolves universally to suppress local parasitism, centralize costs, in exchange for the reduction of transaction and opportunity costs. The use of taxation (fees for suppression free riding, socialization of losses, consumption of commons, parasitism and predation) to produce investments in the returns on commons (infrastructure, parks, etc) allows markets (polities) to compete with other polities for people, families, trade, investment, and those ‘top’ people who produce private excellences (mansions, shops) that as a consequence increase the returns on those commons. The only ‘anarchy’ is in the ‘borderlands’ where one benefits from free riding on the productivity of those markets but doesn’t pay the cost of behavioral, economic, tax, political, conformity to the standards of those commons. Thats why the Russians moved the jews into the pale. Thats where anarchic ‘ethics’ if you want to call them that, come from. Women depend on men, men depend on each other, and together they depend on the organization provided by court, military, and state. But anarchists, like children, like women, are oblivious to the fact that men are required to create their choices, just like anarchist require states to create their anarchies. That is why anarchies of any kind always exist in borderlands as subjects of states and empires. States tolerate borderlands because ‘border people’ give the state plausible deniability for territorial possession (keeping territorial stock in inventory) without bearing a cost of investment in commons political organization, or even much defense. Anarchic polities cannot compete to hold territory (scarce inventory) in competition with commons producers, since the returns on commons like the returns on cooperation and trade, are disproportionately advantageous. In other words, you can’t have commons for free. If you want anarchy you’re left with Alaska, Siberia, and the south pole at present. And it will only get worse.

—“Which kind of Anarchist are we talking about? There’s many varieties, though the most common, and commonly associated with the term, are Anarcho-Communists. The mental gymnastics required to create such an oxymoron as the combination of something that relies on the existence of a totalitarian government, and a total absence of government, makes it pretty obvious why it fails so damned always. Anatcho-Capitalists, of which I am a former supporter of, are extremely similar to Propertarians in many regards.”— Anon

It doesn’t matter. All humans universally demonstrate the minimum moral constraint that they can get away with. People come together in proximity to reduce opportunity costs making the disproportionate returns on a division of labor possible. The state evolves universally to suppress local parasitism, centralize costs, in exchange for the reduction of transaction and opportunity costs. The use of taxation (fees for suppression free riding, socialization of losses, consumption of commons, parasitism and predation) to produce investments in the returns on commons (infrastructure, parks, etc) allows markets (polities) to compete with other polities for people, families, trade, investment, and those ‘top’ people who produce private excellences (mansions, shops) that as a consequence increase the returns on those commons. The only ‘anarchy’ is in the ‘borderlands’ where one benefits from free riding on the productivity of those markets but doesn’t pay the cost of behavioral, economic, tax, political, conformity to the standards of those commons. Thats why the Russians moved the jews into the pale. Thats where anarchic ‘ethics’ if you want to call them that, come from. Women depend on men, men depend on each other, and together they depend on the organization provided by court, military, and state. But anarchists, like children, like women, are oblivious to the fact that men are required to create their choices, just like anarchist require states to create their anarchies. That is why anarchies of any kind always exist in borderlands as subjects of states and empires. States tolerate borderlands because ‘border people’ give the state plausible deniability for territorial possession (keeping territorial stock in inventory) without bearing a cost of investment in commons political organization, or even much defense. Anarchic polities cannot compete to hold territory (scarce inventory) in competition with commons producers, since the returns on commons like the returns on cooperation and trade, are disproportionately advantageous. In other words, you can’t have commons for free. If you want anarchy you’re left with Alaska, Siberia, and the south pole at present. And it will only get worse.