Differences between revisions 2 and 3
1469
Comment: Fixed links
|
1471
Fixed title.
|
Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
Line 11: | Line 11: |
1. It is completely untrue that anarchy has never been tried and was never successful. To back up this claim, I refer you to Daniel Hawkins' excellent series, appropriately named "Anarchy: Never Been Tried," in six parts: | 1. It is completely untrue that anarchy has never been tried and was never successful. To back up this claim, I refer you to Daniel Hawkins' excellent series, appropriately named "Anarchy--Never Been Tried?" in six parts: |
Line 13: | Line 13: |
''Anarchy Never Been Tried'' | ''Anarchy--Never Been Tried''? |
Fallacy:
Anarchy has never been tried successfully, so that proves that the state is necessary.
Response:
Many statists demand that anarchists show a successfully anarchic society before they will even consider that life without a state is even possible, let alone desireable. There are two problems with this fallacy:
- The argument against statism isn't a consequentialist argument, but a moral argument. No one has the right to rule anyone else. It would be like arguing that a slavery-free society is impossible because there are no successful slavery-free societies.
- It is completely untrue that anarchy has never been tried and was never successful. To back up this claim, I refer you to Daniel Hawkins' excellent series, appropriately named "Anarchy--Never Been Tried?" in six parts:
Anarchy--Never Been Tried?