Although that implies that there is a fixed set of ends for society as a whole. Sure that could be summed up in the premise of life quality, but I'm sensing that you're referring to the quality itself rather than the circumstances during wich the life quality can be raised for people in general through their own means.

I'd say the tragedy of the commons is something - by necessity - prevalent in a lot of different societies, not least in Sweden (hello neighbour, by the way!). The problem with common resources is that they are common, i.e. not acknowledged as property of a certain individual/group of individuals, so the incitement to preserve it is virtually non-existent. That's what has happened with the Baltic Sea for instance, with the over-fishing and over-fertilization, and that is what happens when the state expropriate property and doesn't allow us to care for it ourselves. I, for one, cringe at the oh-so-widespread notion that 'we all own it collectively' to which I use to reply something like 'Oh really? Where do I sell off my part then?'.

But now we're heading away from the anarchy discussion. My main problem with anarchy is the absence of a neutral jurisdictional institution that guards over the individual rights of everyone, something I as a libertarian identify as crucial in any social system since noone can ever be sure that everyone will act peacefully and not exercise violence over others to get their way.

Including the government. In fact, that's what government is supposed to do.

Is it? I don't really feel that's a very good description of what the norwegian government does. In my life, it's been a very nurturing influence, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on giving me a free education to become biologist, some of which I did up in the arctic which included expensive scooter trips, cruises around the islands and a trip up to the polar ice cap. If I get sick, I will be provided with a (near) free health care. When I become a parent, I can have a paid leave from work to take care of my child. I've never experienced that the government has excercised violence against me.

Exploiters (embezzlers, robbers, child molesters) are punished and removed (temporarily) from society. I don't really mind. Attempts are made at rehabilitating such people when that makes sense.


The thing about a democratic society is that you can speak up if you think something is not right and help change things for the better. Isn't it better to work with the system rather than just be nihilistic about it?

Yes that is what a government is supposed to do, which is why its power needs to be restricted to fields where it's justified, i.e. enforcing protection from violations of our basic human rights and settling conflicts about wether or not such violation has taken place.

Not with being an American with my personality. You can't work within the system without getting covered in feces.

I agree that looking from the outside, there does seem to be quite a few problems with American politics which there is no easy fix for. However, using that as a basis for a general assumption that all governments are bad is a bit narrow-minded. I'm guessing, but I believe both me and Dotoar are reasonably happy with our governments and don't feel that they are particularly oppressive.

Well, Scandinavia is relatively liberated socially but I do not approve of the concept of a big welfare state since it by definition overrides the liberties of the people, not least economically. Thus I actually agree to OccultHawk's last statement on a general level (and figurative; I'm yet to see the day when the state upholds its monopoly through the use of bodily waste). A lot of the social institutions, at least in Sweden, work under more or less socialistic principles under the general assumption that the government needs to handle certain parts of society that otherwise would be acting out in the civil society (i.e. the free market, which besides isn't very free at all here).

This however, is a discussion unto itself. I would gladly indulge in a minarchy vs. welfare state discussion, but in here I think that we should remain on the topic of anarchy vs. minarchy.

To be honest, I'm surprised to hear such distaste for your government, as I've been under the impression for years that Sweden has topped the charts in studies for quality of life, healthcare, equality, environmentalism, so on and so forth.

I've seen a lot of charts depicting all these factors and more, and yes indeed, Sweden has been lurking around the top on most of them (although WHO ranked Sweden no. 23 on the general healthcare list around 2000) but that's not really implying anything at all. First one has to look at every specific definition of all these factors; what constitutes good healthcare and how do we measure it, for instance. Secondly, we have to look at the reasons why Sweden has been pushed up to the top on such charts, and more importantly, wether or not it could have been pushed up even more if we had had a different approach to all these issues (and if the analysts had taken all relevant factors into consideration).

Regarding the healthcare for instance, it is well-known that the public sector in general, and the healthcare in particular (to which over 80 % of the swedish healthcare spendings are allocated), is ineffective. The employees therein have relatively low salaries which indicates a likewise relatively low governmental spending. In addition, a considerable amount of the spending is on pure administration. Did you know you actually have to make an appointment even to get on the phone with your local doctor if you have a non-urgent issue, and even that during a narrow timespan of the day? Meanwhile it's fairly hard to establish private alternatives, not least due to the general disdain (which is typically formulated in such notions as "One mustn't earn money on people's healthcare issues" which is akin to say that the doctors should treat people for free, motivated only by their goodwill).

I just caught myself digging into a specific topic, and started trekking the web for examples, but I figured it wouldn't add much to the discussion, not least since a lot of them are in swedish so they wouldn't make sense here. But I will adress one general issue: All those factors are derived from one thing - wealth accumulation, something that occurs not in the public sector but in the civil society. If Sweden is ranked high on such charts as mentioned, it is not because of the big public sector and the vast governmental control, it's despite all that.

Hey! Didn't bother to check how old this is, but I am certainly and anarchist! In terms of inter-anarchist debate being "enriching", I'm not so sure, but I'm always willing to try... Anyways, hallo!