Radish on anarcho tyranny

Radish is excessively unkind to anarcho capitalism, though he is correct to point out that a lot of anarcho capitalists would be quite horrified by an anarcho capitalist polity in which, because the police and judiciary were in large part the direct employees of shopping malls and suchlike, capitalists had a lot of legal authority, and even more horrified if, because suburbia was protected by heads of households, and organizations paid by heads of households, each head of household had near total legal authority over his household, after the fashion of Republican Rome and the Old Testament.

But most of his wonderful article is on anarcho tyranny:

In 1961, 1971, and 1981, city street lights were not systematically de-wired. And the fact that plaques and bells of a century’s pedigree were just now looted attests that they all survived the Great Depression, the punks of the 1950s, and the crime-ridden 1970s.

23 Responses to “Radish on anarcho tyranny”

  1. “It takes very little to govern good people. Very little. And bad people can’t be governed at all. Or if they could I never heard of it.”

    — Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men (Cormac McCarthy)

    • jim says:

      Where I reside at present all bad people are fully controlled, or else encouraged to move someplace else. You can govern bad people.

      • I think you and Sheriff Bell are actually saying the same thing.

        Bad people are either killed or removed from society; I wouldn’t call that “governance.” They do whatever they feel like, and you can print up all the lawbooks and Bibles you want.

        Only good people, whose transgressions never amount to more than negligence, are governable. In a very real sense, the laws are just there to tell the insurance companies who to pay.

        • Dunno about that. I think you can turn good people bad through lousy governance. In fact, I think we HAVE turned good people bad through lousy governance.

  2. RS says:

    The pigs I’ve met have almost always been a class act. No doubt a function of luck and circumstance, to some extent.

    That’s not to say you shouldn’t politely decline to talk to them without a lawyer. It’s not on me if you get * by some *. However I have generally talked to them, to clear up mistaken impressions understandable to me.

    The medics I’ve met, from ordinary nurses, to higher-credentialed ones, to MDs, have often been execrable (obviously not always). Indescribable. I would say watch, watch, watch your back. Again this may be in some extent a matter of luck, or idiosyncrasy.

  3. VXXC says:

    Be polite and smiling, don’t challenge their authority.

    The constable interface is not the interface for politics you’re looking for..

    BTW try the 3d world…

  4. Zach says:

    “You clearly haven’t interacted with a cop or a regulator lately if you think we don’t have tyranny going on.”

    Paying pigs to give us trouble is usually my icebreaker in a politically adept group who are conversing about political concepts that are ghey. No cop, ever, has ever helped me. Literally. Every cop in my small history has ticketed me, for some trivial bullshit. They are rats. They have done nothing good, to me, and to others.

    Fuck ’em.

    Why even have them in cities such as mine? Crime is at zero, or close to it.

    • Just because you don’t see them doing something to help you, doesn’t mean they aren’t. After all, you can’t see someone preventing a crime from ever occurring by their presence (or mere existence).

      I would like to know what city you live in where crime would be “at zero, or close to it” in the absence of law enforcement.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        I live in NYC.

        If the police didn’t exist crime here would (eventually) be much lower.

        • jim says:

          Presumably because you would shoot the criminals or hang them from lampposts.

          • Steve Johnson says:


            This isn’t even theoretical. Organizations that had this purpose existed within living memory.

          • Oh I see. Well, I’ve always been a strong supporter of lynching when the state doesn’t step up, but ideally the state would, you know, step up. Formalized, effective law enforcement being better than either informal or ineffective law enforcement.

            • jim says:

              Where you have social cohesion, zero members of a hostile underclass, you can have zero crime without state law enforcement and with quite mild mannered informal law enforcement, any form of state law enforcement being serious overkill and irritating bureaucracy.

              Vigorous law enforcement starts to become necessary when you have entire hostile groups, which of course our overclass has been vigorously manufacturing and then entirely failing to repress.

        • The description of California’s Central Valley today reminded me of NYC of the 1970s.

      • jim says:

        Any place where you rely on police to protect you is a dangerous place.

        I at present live in a zero crime area. Nearby areas that have crime, have crime because of the tourists, who are overwhelmingly white, middle class, and mostly in family groups. Once in a while you get a partially black family on holiday, or a female headed family on holiday, and that is usually where the crime comes from. Strangely, young single male backpackers on their own are remarkably well behaved, even when drunk, though I have heard of them causing problems in other places. Maybe we get a different class of tourist. And by crime I mean stuff like vandalizing public toilets, or bullying and intimidation. Further away we get stuff like homes being looted when their owners are absent for several months.

        But, supposing there are bad people, what happens to them? I don’t know. The most drastic measure I have seen is that the family of the bad person pays them a visit. I suppose that worse outcomes are possible.

        Back in the big smoke, where crime is more serious, I discover that malls generally have a prison cell on the premises, so mall cops do not need to be as innocuous as they seem. I notice that the mall is way safer than the streets. Presumably the much ridiculed mall cops make it so.

  5. Peter Blood says:

    I used to focus on “Anarcho-Tyranny” but it slowly dawned on me that we have “Anarcho-Anarchy”.

    The lower class non-whites are anarchy unleashed on the middle class–criminal anarchy.

    The upper class non-whites (You Know Who) are anarchy unleashed on the middle class–financial and anti-Christian anarchy.

    Both groups of non-whites need to be suppressed to stop the destruction of their particular forms of anarchy.

    • Red says:

      You clearly haven’t interacted with a cop or a regulator lately if you think we don’t have tyranny going on.

    • jim says:

      The rot set in when they declared all men created equal, which substantially predates major Jewish influence.

      • Peter Blood says:

        Sure the groundwork was laid X years ago, but the switch turning on “anarcho-tyranny” was flipped in the 60s. Before then non-white underclass was under suppression. Since then, not.

        • jim says:

          Yes, the big rise in criminal misconduct occurred as a direct result of the civil rights movement, which was Jewish, but we read Carlyle complaining of how progressives have gone soft on crime, unleashing chaos, which predates substantial Jewish influence by quite a bit.

          • Peter Blood says:

            Sure, the roots go deep, deeper than most of us Americans imagine.

            I remember reading quotes in an E.Michael Jones book (can’t remember which) where 18th and early-19th Century Europeans were fascinated by Africans and the “freedom” with which they expressed themselves. Jones’s comment was that they were living vicariously, through Africans, a less-restrained life, a less-Christian life.

  6. […] Radish on anarcho tyranny « Jim’s Blog […]

Leave a Reply