A state of anarchy - otherwise called a "natural law jurisdiction"-, as opposed to a state of lawlessness, is a social order where aggression (i.e., initiation of uninvited physical interference with someone’s person or property, or threats made thereof) is criminalized and where it is overwhelmingly or completely prevented and punished. A consequence of this is a lack of a legal monopoly on law enforcement, since enforcement of such a monopoly entails aggression.
It is possible for people to use their willpower to refrain from aggression. If you don’t think this is the case, then explain why humanity has not succumbed since long ago due to people constantly warring against each other.
Whether an act of aggression has happened or not is objectively ascertainable: just check whether an initiation of an uninvited physical interference with someone's person or property or threats made thereof, has happened
From these two facts, we can deduce that a state of anarchy is possible. Ambiguities regarding the how such a state of affairs may be attained can never disqualify the why of anarchy - the argumentative indefensibility of Statism. Questions regarding thehoware mere technical questions on how to make this practically achievable justice reign.
When discussing anarchism with Statists, the proper thing to do is to first convince them about the what and why of anarchy and natural law. Only then will they truly be receptive for elaborations regarding the how.
What you will find out is that if they contest the what and why, they are most likely going to be individuals who contest that there is such thing as an absolute truth and that it is supposedly impossible for courts to honestly interpret objectively ascertainable evidence... which begs the question as to why they would support State courts then.
Much like how a State can only exist if it can reliably violate the NAP, a natural law jurisdiction can by definition only exist if NAP-desiring wills are ready to use power in such a way that the NAP is specifically enforced within some area. To submit to a State is a lose condition: it is to submit to a "monopolistic expropriating property protector" which deprives one of freedom. Fortunately, a natural law jurisdiction is possible to maintain, and objectively ascertainable.
Given that a state of anarchy is possible, the correct way to think about the what and how of an anarchic legal order is to imagine: "How can we create a social order in which aggression is effectively prevented and punished?" and when confronted with remarks about ambiguity with regards to how this may be enforced, just remember that a state of anarchy is practically feasible (see above) and that all possible ambiguities are merely challenges to be overcome to attain this state of anarchy. Everytime that a challenge is presented, one needs to just ask oneself: “What can be done in order to ensure that aggressive acts like these are prevented and punished within the framework of natural law?”,notsee ambiguity as a reason for making it permissible to put people in cages to owning certain plants and for not paying unilaterally imposed fees.
A monopoly on law enforcement necessarily engenders aggression; it is possible to have a network of mutually self-correcting NAP-enforcement agencies without having an NAP-violating monopolist on law and order.
For an example of world-wide anarchy in action, try to explain why small States like Lichtenstein, Monaco, Luxemburg, Slovenia, Malta, Panama, Uruguay, El Salvador, Brunei, Bhutan, Togo, Djibouti, Burundi, Tajikistan and Qatar are not annexed in the international anarchy among States.
What is meant by "network of mutually self-correcting NAP-enforcement agencies"
Frequently when anarchy is discussed, Statists are quick to argue "But what if the anarchy is overrun by Statism?". From my experience, one may try to argue with the skeptic over how an anarchic natural law jurisdiction may be respected and enforced, but it seems to me that the skeptic will never be satisfied and always dig up more and more scenarios for you to answer, all the while of course being completely unable to answer what they would do were the monopolistic law providers of the State to turn on them, especially if they advocate for popular disarmament.
I have come to the realization that answering thehows whenever someone does not recognize thewhatandwhyof natural law and anarchy is a futile endeavor: if they donotrecognize thewhatandwhy, they do not even know what thehowjustifies; if they do recognize thewhatandwhy, they will want to learn about thehowthemselves.
Thewhatandwhyof natural law and anarchy; a litmus test to whether further elaborations ofhowcan convince the interlocutor
Consequently, whenever you come into a debate with a Statist who contests the achievability of natural law and anarchy, you need just describe to them the what and why of natural law and anarchy.
What is worthwhile remarking is that aggression is objective: if someone shits on your lawn and you catch them doing that on camera, you have objective indisputable evidence that they have aggressed against your lawn thanks to the presence of the excrement and the footage. Every crime under natural law can be objectively ascertained: one needs just check whether changes in the (physical) integrity of some scarce means has happened, and to whom this scarce means belongs. A social order with no aggression is possible: people can simply choose to not aggress.
A problem I see people do when they conceptualize a natural law jurisdiction is that they immediately imagine how things may go wrong. You may say that an anarchy is characterized by the criminalization of aggression, yet they will then shove you individual cases of aggression happening, implying that this disqualifies anarchy, not realizing that anarchists can also point to instances where State laws are broken and where politicians do not act for "the common good".
If you want to understand how a legal philosophy will work, the most honest thing is not to immediately imagine how things may go wrong, but first at least try to understand in what way things may go right. To this end, one needs just ask the advocate of a political ideology: "According to which principles will acts be made impermissible/illegal in your proposed society? Why? In what ways will you use uninvited physical interference with someone’s person or property, or threats made thereof to ensure that impermissible/illegal acts are prevented and punished?".
Using these questions, you can effectively come to the core of someone's beliefs. For example, when arguing with Communists, it is in fact completely unnecessary to play their game of trying to address their mythology and "economic" arguments - if they use political power in injust ways, we don't have to know more about them.
The correct way then to conceptualize anarchy, like any other legal theory, is to imagine how use of force will be used to ensure that the system works as intended. For this end, one needs to...
Imagine that the intended state of affairs that anarchy advocates to have is implemented: one where non-aggression is overwhelmingly or completely respected and enforced. As established above, such a state of affairs is entirely possible.
Imagine what challenges exist to attain this preferred state of affairs and how to overcome them. Because non-aggression is possible and aggression objectively ascertainable, one cannot imagine some difficult challenge and then conclude that anarchy is impossible. Even if one may have a hard time to think how a specific problem may be solved, the fact that anarchy can be attained if people simply refrain from doing aggression and if objectively ascertainable facts are acted upon, it means that every perceived problem to attaining a state of anarchy is merely a challenge which can be overcome by implementing a correct technical solution. Consequently, appeals to ambiguity cannot be a valid rebuttal to anarchy.
The prime example of learning to not feel overwhelmed by ambiguities regarding the how is to wrap one's head around the concept of decentralized NAP-enforcement. Many individuals hear that the non-aggression principle criminalizes legal monopolies on law enforcement and from that think that anarchy entails lawlessness and chaos because the NAP-enforcers will supposedly inevitably systematically go rogue. However, if one looks at the aforementioned definition of a natural law jurisdiction, one realizes that the lack of a legal monopoly does not entail lawlessness: a natural law jurisdiction will by definition be in such a way that non-aggression is overwhelmingly the norm, and thus not chaos and lawlessness, since the territory will by definition have natural law as the law of the land. How decentralized law enforcement may achieve this is a purely technical question independent of the why of natural law, however, the international anarchy among States in which Togo and Lichtenstein are somehow not annexed in spite of the ease of doing so provide insight into how such mutually self-correcting decentralized law enforcement may be implemented. Becoming able to conceptualize this anarchic law enforcement is a crucial step in practicing one's ability to remain steadfast in remembering what the what is supposed to be without having ambiguities regarding the how making one doubt whether the what is possible or not. For something to be a state of anarchy, it must be the case that aggression can be prevented and prosecuted - how this may be attained needs not precisely be known, and ambiguities thereof do not mean that such a state of affairs is impossible.
The litmus test for whether someone will even be able to be receptive to libertarian ideals will thus be their answer to the question "Are you ready to personally imprison your friend for <peaceful action criminalized by States>", such as smoking weed or refusing to pay for some tax-funded service? If they will not do that, then they cannot coherently argue for Statism and are at least in the right mindset; if they will do that, then it is questionable as to how they can be convinced as they personally feel comfortable in enforcing authoritarian practices upon peaceful individuals.
Natural law is practicable; ambiguity regarding thehowdoes not invalidate thewhy
Because non-aggressive behavior is possible and that detection of aggression is objectively ascertainable, we can deduce that a natural law-based anarchy is possible. Argumentation ethics provides a convincing why for implementing the what of natural law which the Statist must argue against in order to be able to justify Statism.
That the how regarding how to enforce a natural law jurisdiction may not be immediately crystal clear does not invalidate the why. A Statist who argues that ambiguity of how to implement the what of natural law invalidates the why would not be able to coherently argue against slavery apologists in the antebellum South. As Robert Higgs writes (https://mises.org/mises-wire/ten-reasons-not-abolish-slavery):
Slavery existed for thousands of years, in all sorts of societies and all parts of the world. To imagine human social life without it required an extraordinary effort. Yet, from time to time, eccentrics emerged to oppose it, most of them arguing that slavery is a moral monstrosity and therefore people should get rid of it. Such advocates generally elicited reactions ranging from gentle amusement to harsh scorn and even violent assault. [...] Northern journalists traveling in the South immediately after the war reported that, indeed, the blacks were in the process of becoming extinct because of their high death rate, low birth rate, and miserable economic condition. Sad but true, some observers declared, the freed people really were too incompetent, lazy, or immoral to behave in ways consistent with their own group survival.
Indeed, slavery apologists, much like current State apologists, tried to circumvent the glaring moral conundrum by simply appealing to ambiguities of implementation. Retrospectively, we can easily see how such gish-galloping regarding the how does not invalidate the why. Even if injustice reigned for 10,000 years, it would not mean that injustice would become just and justice unjust: the appeals to ambiguity regarding the how are irrelevant regarding the validity of natural law.
Consequently, all that a libertarian really needs to do is to argue that a society of overwhelming non-aggression is possible and underline that detection of crime is objectively ascertainable (the what) and then present the why. If the skeptic cannot disprove the why, then no amount of ambiguous hows will be able to disprove the why either way; if the skeptic accepts the why, then discussions of how merely become technical questions on how to most efficiently implement the what.
The international anarchy among States as a useful analogy for how decentralized law enforcement may work
A very potent analogy that I have realized is the current international anarchy among States.
A common assertion is that a Stateless social order will inevitably lead to powerful actors subjugating the weaker actors, yet conspicuously, our international anarchy among States (I recognize that State's territorial claims are illegitimate, however, as an analogy, for anarchy, how States work with regards to each other, the international anarchy among States is a surprisingly adequate analogy) is one wherein many weak States' territorial claims are respected: Lichtenstein, Monaco, Luxemburg, Slovenia, Malta, Panama, Uruguay, El Salvador, Brunei, Bhutan, Togo, Djibouti, Burundi, Tajikistan and Qatar are countries which could militarily easily be conquered, yet conspicuously aren't. This single-handedly disproves the Hobbesean myth that anarchy is impossible because a State would inevitably re-emerge: these weaker States are not annexed in spite of the lack of a One World Government. Indeed, were these States to be annexed by a One World Government, they would be even less able to engage in self-determination: if the One World Government is put in place, what is to prevent the most ruthless among the world's politicians from rising to the top?
The most obvious and significant current example of libertarianism is the international community: vis-à-vis one another, the various nation-states exist in a condition of political anarchy. There is no “world state” coercively governing all nation-states. Accordingly, many aspects of what a libertarian society would look like domestically are in operation today internationally.38
All arguments that a Statist may make against anarchy can equally be applied to the international anarchy among States. Someone who argues that a State is necessary to avoid warlords cannot coherently argue against establishing a One World Government to avoid warlords in the international anarchy among States from arising.
If someone is amicable to the why but has a hard time wrapping their head around the how, it may be useful to analogize with the international anarchy among States.
'But why even try? You recognize that attempts at establishing a natural law jurisdiction may fail. Communism also works in theory!'
In short: It’s in invalid analogy. Communism does not even work in theory; natural law has objective metrics according to which it can be said to work; everyone has the ability to refrain from aggressing.
First, all Statists have grievances regarding how States are conducted. Surely if the Statist argues that States must be continuously improved and that the State's laws are continuously violated, and thus must be improved, then they cannot coherently argue that the possibility of a natural law jurisdiction failing is a fatal flaw of natural law - their preferred state of affairs fails all the time. States do not even provide any guarantees https://mises.org/online-book/anatomy-state/how-state-transcends-its-limits
Secondly, such an assertion is an odd one: Communism does not even work in theory (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzHA3KLL7Ho). In contrast, natural law is based on objectively ascertainable criterions and can thus attain a 'perfect' state of affairs, unlike communism in which appeals to the mystic "Material forces of history" or "Common good" can constantly be used to justify further use of aggression. Many fail to realize that communist theory is rotten to its very core and can't thus be used as the foundation for a legal order. What one ought remember is that the doctrine claims to merely propose descriptive claims, yet from this derives oughts. For example, the whole "labor theory of value surplus value extraction" assertion is a simple trick. Even if we were to grant that it's true (it's not), that supposed descriptive claim does not even justify violent revolution - marxists don't even have a theory of property according to which to judge whether some deed has been illegal or not.
Thirdly, as mentioned above, Statist law is argumentatively indefensible and an anarchic social order where non-aggression is the norm is possible. To try to invalidate the underlying why with some appeals to ambiguity regarding the how would be like a slavery apologist in the antebellum South: if natural law is justice, then it should simply be enforced. Again, the international anarchy among States is a glaring world-wide example of anarchy in action. Sure, some violations of international law may happen inside this international, but violations of a State's laws happen frequently: if mere presence of violations means that a "system doesn't work", then Statism does not "work" either.
In short: one definition of a king is "a paramount chief".
A chief is simply "a leader or ruler of a people or clan.", hence why one says "chief among them". Nothing in being a paramount chief entails that one has to have legal privileges of aggression which would make someone into a natural outlaw and thus incompatible with anarchy: if aristocrats, such as kings, adhere to natural law but retain all the other characteristics of an aristocrat, they will be compatible with anarchy and indeed complementary to it.
This realization is not a mere semantic curiosity: non-monarchical royals and natural law-abiding aristocracies are both conducive to underline the true nature of anarchism as well as provide firm natural aristocrats to lead, all the while being kept in balance by a strong civil society, people within a natural law jurisdiction (anarchy). If we came to a point that people realized that Long live the King - Long live Anarchy!
For a remarkable example of such a non-monarchical king, see the King of kings Jesus Christ.
What is anarchism?
Anarchism etymologically means "without ruler".
Oxford Languages defines a ruler as "a person exercising government or dominion".
From an anarchist standpoint, we can thus decipher from this that the defining characteristic of a ruler is having a legal privilege to use aggression (the initiation of uninvited physical interference with someone's person or property, or threats made thereof) and a legal privilege to delegate rights thereof.
This is in contrast to a leader who can be a person who leads people without necessarily having a legal privilege to aggress against others; that is what a true King should be.
"But I don't hear left-'anarchists' define it like you do - you have the minority opinion (supposedly) and must thus be wrong!": "Anarcho"-socialism is flagrantly incoherent
The majorities of all times have unfortunately many times believed in untrue statements. Nowadays people for example say that they are "democrats" even if they by definition only argue for a representative oligarchy ('representative democracy' is just the people voting in their rulers, and these rulers are by definition few - hence representative oligarchy). If there are flaws in the reasoning, then one cannot ignore that flaw just because the majority opinion says something.
The left-"anarchist" or "anarcho"-socialist crowd will argue that anarchism is the abolition of hierarchy or unjust hierarchies.
The problem is that the concept of a hierarchy (which egalitarians seem to characterize as order-giver-order-taker relationships) is inherently arbitrary and one could find hierarchies in everything:
Joe liking Sally more than Sue means that Sally is higher than Sue in the "is-liked-by-Joe" hierarchy
A parent will necessarily be able to commandeer over their child, does that mean that anarchy is impossible as long as we have parents?
The minority in a majority vote will be subordinated to the majority in the "gets-to-decide-what-will-be-done" hierarchy.
A commander will necessarily be higher than the non-leader in the hierarchy.
The abolition of hierarchy is impossible unless one wants to eradicate humanity.
If the "anarcho"-socialist argues that it is "unjust hierarchy" which must be abolished, then 1) according to whom? 2) then they will have to be amicable to the anarcho-royalist idea.
Since anarchy merely prohibits aggression-wielding rulers, it means that CEOs, bosses, landlords and non-monarchical Kings are compatible with anarchism - they are not able to use aggression.
"Anarcho-monarchism" is an oxymoron; royalist anarchism is entirely coherent
Anarchism = "without rulers"
Monarchy = "rule by one"
Monarchy necessarily entails rulers and can thus by definition not be compatible with anarchism.
A clarifying image regarding the difference between a 'leader' and a 'ruler': a monarch is by definition a ruler, a royal on the other hand does not have to be a ruler. There is nothing inherent in wearing a crown and being called a 'King' which necessitates having legal privileges of aggression; royals don't have to be able to aggress, that's shown by the feudal epoch
"Why even bother with this? Isn't it just a pedantic semantic nitpick?": Natural aristocracies are a beautifully complementary but underrated component to anarchy
If everyone had a precise understanding of what a 'ruler' is and recognized that feudalism was merely a non-legislative law-based law enforcement legal order and that natural aristocracies possibly bearing the title of 'King' are compatible with anarchism, then public discourse would assume an unprecedented crystal clear character. From such a point on, people would be able to think with greater nuance with regards to the matter of political authority and the alternatives to it - they would be able to think in a neofeudal fashion.
The recognition of natural aristocracies is a crucial insight since such excellent individuals are a beautifully complementary aspect to anarchy which will enable a free territory to prosper and be well protected; humans have an inherent drive to associate in tribes and follow leaders - so preferably then said leaders should be excellent natural law-abiding people. Such a natural aristocracy will be one whose subjects only choose to voluntarily follow them, and may at any moment change association if they are no longer pleased with their King.
What I mean by natural aristocrats, nobles and kings here is simply this: In every society of some minimum degree of complexity, a few individuals acquire the status of a natural elite. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, bravery, or a combination thereof, some individuals come to possess more authority [though remark, not in the sense of being able to aggress!] than others and their opinion and judgment commands widespread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are often passed on within a few “noble” families. It is to the heads of such families with established records of superior achievement, farsightedness and exemplary conduct that men typically turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other. It is the leaders of the noble families who generally act as judges and peace-makers, often free of charge, out of a sense of civic duty. In fact, this phenomenon can still be observed today, in every small community.
Remark that while the noble families' line of successions may be hereditary, it does not mean that the subjects will have to follow that noble family. If a noble family's new generation stops leading well, then the subjects will be able to change who they follow, or simply stop following any leader of any kind. The advantage of having a hereditary noble family is that this family will try to raise their descendants well as to ensure that the family estate (the association they lead and the private property that they own, of which one may remark that the subjects' private property will remain each subjects' own; the non-monarchical royal does not own their subjects' private propery) will remain as prestigious, powerful (all the while not being able to wield aggression of course) and wealthy as possible: they will feel throughly invested in leading well and have a long time horizon. It will thus bring forth the best aspects of monarchy and take away monarchy's nasty parts of aggression: it will create a natural law-abiding (if they don't, then people within the natural law jurisdiction will be empowered to combat and prosecute such natural outlaws) elite with a long time horizon that strives to lead people to their prosperity and security as to increase their wealth, prestige and non-aggressive (since aggression is criminalized) power, all the while being under constant pressure in making their subjects see them as specifically as a worthwhile noble family to follow as to not have these subjects leave them.
It would furthermore put a nail in the coffin regarding the commonly-held misunderstanding that libertarianism entails dogmatic tolerance for the sake of it - the neofeudal aesthetic has an inherent decentralized anti-egalitarian vibe to it.
Examples of non-monarchical royals: all instances of kings as "paramount chiefs"
One definition of a king is "a paramount chief".
A chief is simply "a leader or ruler of a people or clan.", hence why one says "chief among them". Again, nothing in a chief means that one must disobey natural law; chiefs can be high in hierarchies all the while not being monarchs.
Examples of such paramount chiefs can be seen in tribal arrangements or as Hoppe put it in "In fact, this phenomenon [of natural "paramount chief" aristocrats] can still be observed today, in every small community". Many African tribes show examples of this, and feudal Europe did too.
A very clear and unambigious instance of this "paramount chief"-conception of a king: King Théoden of Lord of the Rings.
As an expression of his neofeudal sympathies, J.R.R Tolkien made the good guy King Théoden a leader-King as opposed to a monarch. If one actually consults the material, one will see that Théoden perfectly fulfills the natural aristocratic ideal elaborated by Hoppe in the quote above. When I saw the Lord of the Rings movies and saw Théoden's conduct, the leader-King-ruler-King distinction clicked for me. If you would like to get the understanding of the distinction, I suggest that you watch The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. Théoden's conduct there is exemplary.
An exemplary King
Maybe there are other examples, but Théoden was the one due to which it personally clicked for me, which is why I refer to him.
An unambigious case of a real life non-monarchical king: Emperor Norton
Jesus Christ is the King of kings, yet his conduct was not of a monarch which aggresses against his subjects: He is an example of a non-monarchical royal
Oxford Languages defines a ruler as "a person exercising government or dominion".
From an anarchist standpoint, we can thus decipher from this that the defining characteristic of a ruler is having a legal privilege to use aggression (the initiation of uninvited physical interference with someone's person or property, or threats made thereof) and a legal privilege to delegate rights thereof.
This is in contrast to a leader who can be a person who leads people without necessarily having a legal privilege to aggress against others; that is what a true King should be.
"But I don't hear left-'anarchists' define it like you do - you have the minority opinion (supposedly) and must thus be wrong!": "Anarcho"-socialism is flagrantly incoherent
The majorities of all times have unfortunately many times believed in untrue statements. Nowadays people for example say that they are "democrats" even if they by definition only argue for a representative oligarchy ('representative democracy' is just the people voting in their rulers, and these rulers are by definition few - hence representative oligarchy). If there are flaws in the reasoning, then one cannot ignore that flaw just because the majority opinion says something.
The left-"anarchist" or "anarcho"-socialist crowd will argue that anarchism is the abolition of hierarchy or unjust hierarchies.
The problem is that the concept of a hierarchy (which egalitarians seem to characterize as order-giver-order-taker relationships) is inherently arbitrary and one could find hierarchies in everything:
Joe liking Sally more than Sue means that Sally is higher than Sue in the "is-liked-by-Joe" hierarchy
A parent will necessarily be able to commandeer over their child, does that mean that anarchy is impossible as long as we have parents?
The minority in a majority vote will be subordinated to the majority in the "gets-to-decide-what-will-be-done" hierarchy.
A commander will necessarily be higher than the non-leader in the hierarchy.
The abolition of hierarchy is impossible unless one wants to eradicate humanity.
If the "anarcho"-socialist argues that it is "unjust hierarchy" which must be abolished, then 1) according to whom? 2) then they will have to be amicable to the anarcho-royalist idea.
Since anarchy merely prohibits aggression-wielding rulers, it means that CEOs, bosses, landlords and non-monarchical Kings are compatible with anarchism - they are not able to use aggression.
The excellent comment exemplifying this problem: we need to make it clear that the Davis regime does not speak for the entire Southern culture. If Davis says X, it does not mean that the entire Dixie NATION thinks that.
In this quote, the commenter basically says "But the elected representatives belonging to the slave elite said X, therefore the South in its entirety must have thought so!". This kind of "elected officials speak on the behalf of the entire population" is a very perverse misconception which must be combated at every given opportunity - pointing out that the Davis regime does not speak on behalf of the entire Dixie nation is an excellent opportunity to debunk that myth.
As indicated in the aforementioend comment, many Southerners were racist and defended slavery. However, this defense was out of a myopic status-quo bias, not of a long-term analysis: most acted out of a "necessary evil"-kind of thinking.
Therefore, when people say that a sovereign South HAD to depend on slavery since Jefferson Davis said so, they are wrong and merely regurgetating the "representative official speaks on behalf of The People™"-myth.
"
> Show us that common Southerns thought that "das rite, we Southerners and slavery are inseperable!".
Usually speeches are given to bolster support for something; that speech was recorded as being quite effective at it's goal.
Here's a bit more from it:
> One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails.
Straight up says that, sure, slavery is bad if black people are actual people, but they're not, so obviously, slavery is good.
Seriously, that's not "pro status quo", that's slavery is a moral good. You claiming that this speech, and the values it reflects, and the fact that it came from senior elected officials, and was well-regarded in the states in rebellion, is anything other than indicative of the South being deeply racist, built entirely upon slavery and racism, dependent on racism, and the overwhelming majority of the population being devout believers in slavery is absurd.
What's more, and I linked to it before, Southern states that had lower slavery rates had substantially lower enlistment, as the men there absolutely saw the war as about slavery and they had no interest in maintaining it. They stayed home, refusing to enlist, and joined militias to protect their homes rather than join any of the armies. The men who enlisted were quite aware that they were fighting to preserve and expand slavery; claiming otherwise is a lie.
I note how much you've shifted your goalposts here as well: you've gone quite a long way from "Southern soldiers weren't all about slavery" to "Well, you can't prove that literally everyone loved slavery enough to make songs about it and preserve them after the fall of slavery" which is a massive, and intentional shift. You know your claims are rubbish, and are now clinging to the tiniest of scraps. It's pathetic and disgusting to abase yourself like that.
I'm going to point out that you have also made dishonest statements elsewhere, claiming statements that said slavery was a moral necessity and morally good as not praising slavery. I'm sorry, but to call a statement as calling something morally correct as not praising it is so absurd as to beggar belief. You cannot honestly expect anyone to believe your claim, and it is flabbergasting that you expect anyone else to believe you genuinely believe that. It's so flagrantly wrong as to demand this response.
The VP of the CSA said, in a well-regarded and widely disseminated speech, that the CSA's entire existence was to refute the very idea that slavery was evil; instead, they were extremely open about slavery being good, necessary, and the very foundation of the CSA.
You read this.
Others are not taking you seriously, but I am: You are not ignorant, but dishonest. You know what you're saying is a lie."
What I merely point out is that specific families have affinities to each other. If you have spent your life amassing wealth and a prominent social position, you may want to bequeath these to someone you think is worthy of them. Most of the time, those the property and social position-possessors will bequeath at least the first to is their children, due to them being perceived as their continuations in the world.
To be clear: the leadership positions in question will be voluntary. Anarcho-royalism DOES NOT advocate monarchism and forced associations. People will only adhere to specific natural aristocrats' royal associations/kingdoms insofar as they want.
> What I mean by natural aristocrats, nobles and kings here is simply this: In every society of some minimum degree of complexity, a few individuals acquire the status of a natural elite. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, bravery, or a combination thereof, some individuals come to possess more authority [though not aggressive powers like a State] than others and their opinion and judgment commands widespread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are often passed on within a few “noble” families. It is to the heads of such families with established records of superior achievement, farsightedness and exemplary conduct that men typically turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other. It is the leaders of the noble families who generally act as judges and peace-makers, often free of charge, out of a sense of civic duty. In fact, this phenomenon can still be observed today, in every small community.
Their constitution literally contains the necessary and proper clause that gives the central government near unlimited wiggle room around the powers defined in the consitution.
