Back

The work tries to draw an analogy to a person whose legs are bound by birth but learnt to walk, who might mistakenly attribute his ability to walk to the paralyzing binds to his ability to walk and thus be afraid of getting rid of them.

However, the default in our world is having a government. We moved on from anarchy because this was more stable. Prosthetic feet is more accurate as an analogy and one would be wise not to discard them just to see what the world would be like without them.

https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/ is a good mental model for considering this.

While there is some argument to reclaiming the word anarchy, I can't help but think it is intentionally provocative and that is the primarily reason to pick this name. There are other cases like "Stoicism" vs "stoicism" where I actually buy the unfortunate common parlance use. But not for anarchy

> Society without the State, etc., describe exactly the concept
> which anarchists seek to express, of the destruction of all
> political order based on authority, and the creation of a society
> of free and equal members based on a harmony of interests and the
> voluntary participation of everybody in carrying out social
> responsibilities.

It is unclear whether an elected government in a democratic republic would be considered a state by this definition.

A good way I have seen democratically elected governments being describe is as a group of individuals who have been "lent" power for a period of time to take decisions on behalf of the masses because it impossibly inefficient for everyone to do everything. That seems super-reasonable to me - but let us see as I work my way through this book

The second chapter of the book just sets up a strawman. It assumes that people elect the "government" because it assumes those elected are more capable than they are and therefore can rule over the masses.
My view of governments is - as the previous tweets suggest - not so. We simply don't have the time to do everything. I don't think my barista or my financial advisor are "better" than me but simply that they have more time to get good at what they do. It is the same thing with my governor.

I am going to ignore all other types of government like monarchy here. I like social democracy and that is what I am comparing against.

Again, we don't elect "leaders" because they are ubermensch. We elect "representatives" because someone needs to spend time on things we individually might not have the time for