And the discussion on minarchism vs. anarchism goes on. Whereas this discussion never really ended (will it ever?), it recently picked up again after my article attempting to show why minarchists are “the enemy.” Of course, I do not mean to say that minarchists like Mises were necessarily the ultimate enemy of mankind, but I certainly mean that anarchists like Rothbard are much more principled proponents of liberty. Anarchists, I argue, have a true passion for justice, whereas minarchists are stuck treading water in statist territory.
Obviously, one should make a difference between economics and political philosophy. As for the former, there is no reason not to love both Mises and Rothbard. But as for the latter, one cannot help thinking Mises didn’t quite get it right.
Here are the articles:
{ 236 comments }
I fail to see how anyone can maintain the position that aggression is harmful and wrong, but a certain measure of aggression is also an affirmative good.
Because some of them think without a state, there would be even more aggression due to chaos, than the “minor” aggression needed for a minimal state to exist. So they are against aggression but think some is inevitable, and thus they seek to minimize it. It’s like aggression-utilitarianism or something. To my mind this is the most respectable argument for minarchy but it’s still flawed, of course.
Phinn,
While I might not agree with it, the minarchist position is not that a minimal amount of coercion is good, but that it’s a necessary evil. That’s a major reason why I think Per’s position is ridiculous. Minarchists and anarchists are ideologically very close; it’s a task of showing why a minimal degree of coercion (say, for the protection of property rights) is not a necessary evil and why it can be provided by the market through non-coercive exchanges.
I totally reject the idea of a “necessary evil.” It’s a nonsensical term used to defend the indefensible, and has no connection to reality. If something is necessary, then its presence is, by definition, better than its absence. It is therefore good relative to the alternative that reality presents to us. Comparing a state of affairs to some hypothetical, imaginary version of alternate reality is pointless and silly.
Lethal force exercised in self-defense, for example, may be necessary, and because of its necessity, it is not evil, although homicide in the absence of necessity is an evil.
Phinn,
On this point I agree with you. An evil is rarely necessary. I would rephrase it to “not necessarily an evil”.
In my unerstanding of purely ancap reasoning, there is acknowledgement of good rationales for a neutral third party to peacefully resolve disputes according to a well-developed code of laws, and procedures and rules of evidence that render justice equally to both the accusor and the accused.
However, there is a further assertion that such a service cannot be properly administered by sometihng called “government”, but requires “private enterprise” as the only means of providing this service consistent with liberty. Yet the final results arrive at the same objective; justice.
I would say that all of the elaborate concepts that ancap’s have floated with regard to PDA’s are in fact very similar to the corollary concept of government. Rothbard acknowledges the need for a “common code of law” that all PDA’s follow, for example.
However, there is also an ancap assertion that private PDAs would evolve into an equivalent social function through free-market mechanism. If that is so, then at what point do they start looking like just another form of self-government?
I would say that all of the elaborate concepts that ancap’s have floated with regard to PDA’s are in fact very similar to the corollary concept of government.
Similar in some superficial respects, except for that pesky detail by which a state declares itself to be the monopolist, the final arbiter of all uses of force, including (most importantly) its own, and invariably proceeds to compel everyone in its supposed jurisdiction to either pay the monopolist or be attacked.
at what point do [PDAs] start looking like just another form of self-government?
What is “self-government” exactly? Do you mean a corporate state?
Private companies stop being private, and can be fairly called a state, when they engage in the distinctive behavior of states — when they stop dealing with people on the basis of mutual cooperation and voluntary relations, and instead start attacking their putative customers for failing to comply with their demands for payment and obedience.
@Phinn February 18, 2011 at 4:11 pm
“Similar in some superficial respects, except for that pesky detail by which a state declares itself to be the monopolist, the final arbiter of all uses of force, including (most importantly) its own, and invariably proceeds to compel everyone in its supposed jurisdiction to either pay the monopolist or be attacked.”
Is this the way you think it works? This sounds like a coupe.
“What is “self-government” exactly? Do you mean a corporate state?”
Not necessarily. If a group of people who all agree to employ a PDA for some specific service, supported by a levy on everyone’s income. Does that make them a corporate state? As you say below, obviously not.
“Private companies stop being private, and can be fairly called a state, when they engage in the distinctive behavior of states — when they stop dealing with people on the basis of mutual cooperation and voluntary relations, and instead start attacking their putative customers for failing to comply with their demands for payment and obedience.”
Private companies operate on a profit motive. Government is a bureaucracy. That is the difference. Mises wrote a nice little book on the subject. Kathleen Touchstone also wrote on the subject of why providing protection of rights on a profit motive doesn’t work, because selling “protection” for a profit implies other problems associated with protecting the rights of the accused, or not affording protection to those who cannot pay, say children or the incompetent. It is not as simple as you seem to imply.
You are really raising the problem of secession and dictatorship, I think, where people don’t have an option to change or remove government oppression. I agree this is wrong, but I also disagree that self-government and dictatorship are equivalent.
But I do agree with you about accepting a concept of “necessary evil”. If something is evil, it should be opposed and eliminated. Accepting evil as necessary is rarely the case, although I suppose in some short-term situations it might be prudent, as in “picking your battles”.
Indeed PDA would be private city states emerging from the rubble (assuming governments don’t). However they are really governments in kind becaue the PDA rulers claim a monopoly of force over their territory and will force payment out of those who owe them money. Stop paying your PDA membership and men with guns with come around to your place.
Actually, if you observe the chieftaincies of the Commonwealth of Iceland, you’ll find that each chieftancy’s customers were not geographically determined. Not unlike how customers of coca-cola, pepsi, anheiser-busch, etc are not geographically determined.
PDA’s by definition do not establish territorial monopolies.
Somewhere along the line, “territorial monopoly” and “producer of security and justice” were mixed up. They don’t need to have anything to do with each other.
I’m sure he does not mean a corporate state. Corporations are state entities.
Phinn,
Cool, who cares about what you reject? We’re not talking about you, we’re talking about the minarchist.
When a minarchist says to me, “Anarchism is all well and good but for the necessary evil of the state for doing X, Y and Z,” my response is, “That makes no sense whatsoever. That which is necessary is not evil, and that which is evil is not necessary.”
Who cares what I think? Every minarchist who takes the time to tell me what he thinks and thereby solicits my response, that’s who.
“That makes no sense whatsoever. That which is necessary is not evil, and that which is evil is not necessary.”
You’re arbitrarily declaring this statement to be true. I don’t think the definitions of “evil” and “necessary” are mutually exclusive at all.
That’s not necessarily true. He may have just failed to provide his justification.
Allow me to explain:
The “necessary” conditions for a society are also called the “Laws of Society”, which is also called ethical behavior.
Something is “evil” if it is unethical behavior, which is also something that breaks the laws of society, which is also something that is not only not necessary but rather it is necessary that this does not happen to some extent.
“Necessary evil” is about as literal of a double talk as I can think. The only thing one can mean when calling something “evil”, unless one is using it as a mask for “something I don’t like”, is that it is destructive to civilization and therefore it is necessary for civilization that people refrain from evil deeds.
If you really think about it, all this could mean is “It’s bad but it’s good”. A is not A.
Exactly. You’re really, really missing the point Phinn. The point is to educate the minarchist, not marginalize him through ridiculous articles.
It’s not marginalizing to point out how destructive the ideas of minarchism have been to libertarianism (if the state can justly tax for defense, why can they not justly tax for healthcare? This is a direct contradiction that I think played a big role in producing the moral relativism that is rampant today).
You may think it is ridiculous that minarchism is a dangerous idea but, as long as you take “education” to be learning the truth and not what you want to here, the only possible way to “educate” a minarchist is explain to him how bankrupt his position really is.
Nobody is being mean.
I can certainly appreciate the ideological purity and consistency of anarcho-capitalism, but I have some questions, i.e.,skepticism, about how it would work in reality.
As humans evolved and grew from small tribes into larger societies, didn’t we naturally form hierarchies/governments to carry out some “common good” goal? Has human nature evolved past that instinct?
Smoove,
I think different people approach that topic with different answers. For me, and I know there are people who agree with me, governments formed voluntarily very early in human history (the coercive relationship government has over those who make up its “citizenry” then allowed government to grow unrestricted). I think it’s an issue of poverty. I think that with global economic growth, at some point government will no longer be seen as necessary. I would couple the usual cycle of revolution and changes in government, and whatnot (i.e. the point in which an existing government becomes unbearably large and is overthrown by whatever method).
Actually Mises’ position is that government is necessary, along with its necessary coercion, therefore good!
Per’s position is not ridiculous. Minarchists are not close to anarchists. When you see the murderous thugs of the state shooting crowds in Bahrain and Libya you see the state for the evil it is. Even minarchists have a lot to answer for–they are supporting pure evil. It is inexcusable. They should hang their heads in shame.
This comment is a joke, right? I mean, you must be kidding. If not, I’ve lost all respect for you. A minarchist who believes that a common government should be in place to defend against aggression cannot be equated with the blatant use of aggressive force being used by the tyrannical governments in Bahrain and Libya. How dare you!
Does all aggression magically disappear in an anarchist utopia? I’m thinking not. Who is the final arbiter of differences in this utopia? The one with the most force. Not much different than what we have now. The true battle for liberty is one of ideas and convincing others of their virtue. Anarchy is simply giving up on this. The tone of this comment suggests you have. “We can’t convince anyone so the hell with them all”.
Yeah, I thought it was hilariously lame too but Stephen’s not much of a theorizer anyway. Just because he posts here on a subject and pretends to be an expert on it doesn’t mean he has these grand ideas about the world or thinks very much about them. I’m an anarchist, if you need to call people things like that, but that comment was kind of embarrassing.
RTB
Government is an institution of violence. Minarchists support the notion of having government. They are, therefore, supporting the idea that an institution of violence is a right and proper thing to have operating within a society. Anarchists disagree.
The minarchist and the big government totalitarian have far more in common than do the minarchist and the anarchist. The big government totalitarian and the minarchist BOTH support the notion of an ideal government being placed amongst men. For both groups force is a necessity, so long as it is applied upon other people. Anarchists disagree that such an institution is necessary, moral or practical. They consider the notion of an ideal government akin to the idea of an ideal pancreatic cancer. That is, they consider it a fiction, a myth.
Minarchists and big government totalitarians share the principle of government being instituted among men to ensure said men behave as minarchists and totalitarianists would have them behave. Anarchists disagree with the principle of government.
Anarchists point out that the difference between minarchists and big government totalitarianists is merely a matter of degree and marginal detail, not one of principle.
Anarchists say that the result of accepting the principle of idealised government is necessarily initiations of force, violence, fraud, corruption, impoverishment, destruction etc by the very institution set up by the minarchists or by the totalitarians to monopolise the use of force. This is the nature of government. They say that a society can’t survive as a civil peaceful society if it embraces an institution that monopolises force and applies it against others. Interestingly big government totalitarians know this and embrace it as they are not supporters of civil peaceful societies. Minarchists prefer not to notice.
In summary the difference between anarchists and minarchists is one of principle. The same difference that separates anarchists from totalitarians. There is no such difference of principle between minarchists and totalitarians. Both accept the same institution, government, at the heart of society. Both grant it the same tool, violence.
Stephan’s comments, in this light, make sense and are logical and consistent. Sprachethiklich’s comments, on the other hand, are worthless name calling and spittle drooling. Stand back or you might get sprayed (and likely infected with something awful).
Sione
Sorry, but an honest disagreement among friends shouldn’t be so disparagingly dismissed, even by Mr. Kinsella.
I wasn’t really looking to get into a discussion of the merits of minarchy vs. anarchy and probably shouldn’t have included the second paragraph. I only think that the specific remarks are uncalled for. I think that is another discussion, but I will say this. I agree that the non-aggressive principle is a rational basis for the foundation of a society since it stems from the individual. Initiated, unprovoked force is always wrong. But I think that people who want to live together must agree on a common law. With no common final arbiter there is no real peace. Two parties can honestly disagree. What then? Even in an anarchist society the party with the largest force wins. My thoughts are that those who live in a given geographic area must agree on a given set of common laws. If not, move. While at this time I can’t envision an anarchist society, I can envision many smaller ones competing for citizens. Unfortunately, in this day and age, Statism is winning. It is up to us to convince others of the alternative by reasonable and rational discussion.
Who “equated” them?
“Does all aggression magically disappear in an anarchist utopia? I’m thinking not. Who is the final arbiter of differences in this utopia? The one with the most force. Not much different than what we have now. The true battle for liberty is one of ideas and convincing others of their virtue. Anarchy is simply giving up on this. The tone of this comment suggests you have. “We can’t convince anyone so the hell with them all”.”
This is the statist mentality: we will force you to do x, y, z if you disagree.
Jonathan,
If you think Per’s position is ridiculous, I don’t think you comprehend it.
Your statement bares this out and counters the very position you take with Per. It doesn’t matter how ideologically close you *think* the positions are, the fact is, a minarchist would still support the initiation force against an innocent individual in order to protect the government monopoly. The only difference between a full blown statist and a minarchist is not one of principle, but of degree. Thus, the moral dilemma is the same. Using less force and coercion on innocents is still using force and coercion on innocents.
Cory
Spot on.
Sione
Cory,
At this point, we’re talking about an academic debate, not a violent revolution. Let’s keep the situation realistic, and not make it an exercise of fantasy. It’s also worth mentioning that your statement is a very broad overgeneralization of the minarchist individual.
Per’s article marginalizes the minarchist at the expense of a potential united front.
Jonathan,
With the exception of the point you make about “necessary evil” I agree with all of your other statements.
Why is the potential for a united front frustrated here at mises.org? It is obvious that the points of alignment far exceed the points of disagreement.
It appears to me that ancaps have a standard of “total victory”, and have a keen sense of when a person does not buy the entire menu of ancap fare. Often this degenerates into an offensive style of personal attack, (although I have to admit that seems to be getting better.)
For example, Cory says: “a minarchist would still support the initiation force against an innocent individual in order to protect the government monopoly.”
It is a gross generalization, but it is also a terrible insult. It implies that I would initiate force against him for the benefit of protecting ‘THE’ government monopoly, whatever that means.
A person who initiates (physical) force without legitimate justification is a criminal. I am not a criminal, and I object to the implication. It is no wonder a unified front has not emerged!
Furthermore, if it cannot emerge between points of view that share more than they oppose, what is the chance that we could unify with an even broader popular coalition?
This goes a long way to explain why ancaps in particular, and libertarians in general, are so politically ineffective.
Wildberry,
About the necessary evil point, I wasn’t making an argument for minarchism. I was explaining the the argument for minarchism. I don’t agree with it either. My greater point is that once we understand the minarchist argument we can take steps to educate the minarchists. At this point in time why marginalize them, if we can educate them?
Jonathan,
As you can see from my exchange with Phinn, I don’t think it is “the” argument for minarchism. Minarchism does not mean that some amount of evil is necessary.
By your characterization, you are implying that any government is by its nature evil, and minarchists accept that by accepting any form of government. I don’t see that as rational.
Perhaps that is not what you really mean. If you mean that nothing is perfect, then I see your point. For example some humans are evil. We do not have to accept the presence of evil humans in our society. However, eliminating all evil humans has proven to be problematic. We should keep trying, though, don’t you think?
Regards,
Wildberry,
For example, Mises believed government was necessary to protect property rights. He recognized that government was by its very nature coercive, he just didn’t think society could work effectively without that coercive element protecting property rights. I know that George Reisman and Ayn Rand think similarly. I think most minarchists respect that coercive aspect of government, but they see that coercion as a necessary evil to maintain society.
That is the academic minarchist argument that I always read.
Jonathan,
I may be misunderstanding you or making a mountain out of a molehill.
The use of the word “evil” is the wrong connotation for what you describe as “necessary”.
If humans are not to be allowed to run roughshod over other’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there must be a way to enforce the rights of the innocent. Such power of enforcement, since rights that cannot be enforced are no rights at all, is not an evil, it is a good.
Coercion is not a negative when used to protect the innocent, no matter how it is administered. Is coercion applied by a PDA an “evil”? If not, then it is not an evil at the hands of legitimate government function either.
Wildberry,
The term “necessary evil” is a figure of speech. Coercion is bad, but some coercion is necessary. Therefore, it’s called a “necessary evil”.
Jonathan,
You say, [i] I know that George Reisman and Ayn Rand think similarly. I think most minarchists respect that coercive aspect of government, but they see that coercion as a necessary evil to maintain society.[/i]
Look, if coertion is necessary to maintain society, AND if you define “maintaining society” as something important, then coertion is a good, not an evil. It’s simple as that.
The problem is: what society do you want to maintain? is it impossible for a society where coertion is not necessary to exist and thrive?
Augusto,
It’s a figure of speech.
“A necessary evil is anything which, despite being considered to have undesirable qualities, is preferable to its absence. ”
Government has undesirable qualities, i.e. coercion. But, for minarchists having government is preferable to its absence, despite that undesirable quality. This is basic English.
to augusto:
… for italicization.
…use the greater than/less than keys, not the square brackets.
Jonathan,
Say that to Mises:
There are people who call government an evil, although a necessary evil. However, what is needed in order to attain a definite end must not be called an evil … Government may even be called the most beneficial of all earthly institutions as without it no peaceful human cooperation, no civilization and no moral life would be possible. Economic Freedom and Interventionism, p. 57.
(Newson, thanks for the tip on formatting text)
Very valid. Minarchists CAN be educated.
Wildberry,
You are a keen observer. Your observation prompts the question, “Why should this be so?”
Anarchy ( I prefer that word over ancap, but that is another story ) is not closely related to minarchy in any real way other than they are adjacent to each other on the printed page when a line is drawn to represent the continuum of social control from monarchy thru anarchy. Minarchy is statism. Anarchy simply cannot merge with anything else and come out anarchy, because it would itself become the other thing. It is what it is and cannot compromise.
I am sorry if you cannot see it this way. I for one appreciate your personal willingness to forego violence even though you qualify the terms. I am sure you will not be the one to steal my car!
Your question presupposes that union is desired. When you understand anarchy, you see why that is not a question at all.
You are again correct. However, I think you see that as a failure, not a success. It appears that you may think your desire for minimal government can be furthered by inducing the people who champion anarchy to modify it somehow to suit your purpose. Perhaps it must be said aloud to make the point clear, the nature of anarchy cannot be changed. No one “owns” anarchy. No one has the power to do that.
You may be able to convince the occasional anarchist to convert to minarchy, but all you can hope to achieve is to lower the number of anarchists in an already vanishingly small group. Will you please explain why you would want to do that?
The challenge, as I see it, is not to modify anarchy, but rather to better explain its nature, both what it is and what it isn’t. Today’s anarchists coexist with others in a very statist world. Yes, it is a statist world that to a large degree provides the protection needed for the development of the form of anarchy of the future. No one knows when it will be ready, but you can be certain that it will not be imposed by the use of force. Governments, as they have been known since before recorded history, will not be overthrown, they will just crumble. First, people must understand, and not fear, anarchy. Much must be done to make it ready. This very discussion is what is needed. And many, many more.
Cordially,
Don
Don, I would hope none of us are trying to “convert” anarchists to the minarchy position. What I would hope, is that anarchists can see the benefit of helping to propel a society closer to their goal of complete anarchy. Perhaps people would be more comfortable with it, if they had less and less gov’t in their lives, and began to see the practical benefits this would bring? By helping the minarchists, you would be, in essence, helping move society closer to the day when it will be ready, to use your terminology.
I also think we’re bumping into something Kinsella advocates, which is that one does not necessarily have to believe that anarchy is ever possible in order to espouse it’s philosophy. He equates it to cime; we all agree crime is bad, but can never eliminate it, however that doesn’t stop us from condemning it.
I think this is a false analogy. Crime has to do with specific, quantifiable rights violations. Anarchy, while it may claim to do likewise, can alternatively be understood as a broad political or organizational philosophy. As such, I see little to no purpose to advocating something to others, if it is admittedly impossible. That makes a person, in essence, religious. Holding to guiding moral ideals for individual action that can never be wholly achieved? Sure. Advocating for a society-wide system of organization, on the other hand, benefits not at all from ethereal idealism, but rather needs to be grounded in practical reality.
At least, that’s my opinion on it, not binding on anyone else.
Jim,
Thank you for your comments. You have a pragmatic approach that surely serves you well in your pursuits in this world. From your comment I can derive two main points. First, you think it is a good thing for the anarchist to advance arguments in favor of minarchy because it could move some people toward anarchy, and that should be an improvement. Second, that anarchy is “admittedly impossible”.
To the first I say, making an argument, any argument, comes at a cost to the person making it. If I am going to pay that cost, why would I not want to make an argument that would “propel” someone way past minarchy and into the domain of anarchy. It is not the case that the cost is proportional to the point being argued. My view is that it would make my job harder rather than easier. Imagine having to explain to the newly converted minarchist that the minarchy argument was just a ruse in the first place, what I really wanted to do was to convince you that anarchy is best. I can see your pragmatism and raise you one. My pragmatism informs me that any move toward minarchy undermines the motivation of “the masses” to understand anarchy because things aren’t bad enough, yet.
To the second, the “impossibility” of anarchism, I say that you are assuming your conclusion. Exactly who is being “religious” here, the advocate for anarchy who is trying to find ways to explain anarchy so that some day it may be implemented, or the person who declares anarchy impossible, evermore, and thus settles for a society of perpetual violence.
Cordially,
Don
P.S. The explanations must become compelling enough to convince the most ardent minarchist, if there is to be any hope of actually achieving a non state society. Clearly, that is not the case. Yet.
Thank you for your cordial reply.
I think when it comes down to it, we’ll have to agree to disagree on the practicality argument. As I stated earlier, this was a big deal between the “left” and “right” within the communist movement, and it was never resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.
As for the second part, I was specifically referencing a Stephan Kinsella article, linked elsewhere in this thread, in which he states that anarchy may well be impossible, but that he advocates it anyway, and then goes on with the crime analogy. I didn’t mean to state that it categorically was impossible; only that I disagreed with the premise of SK in an article where he himself admitted this may be the case.
Jim,
Advocating for anarchy while believing that it will never be possible strikes me as a deception.
On the other hand, believing that anarchy can be implemented, even if only at some undetermined future date, while not working to help achieve its arrival, is an abdication that leads to a future in which that which you believed to be true is demonstrably untrue. Painfully tortuous process to annul one’s own belief.
One chooses one’s own path.
Cheers,
Don
What I would hope, is that anarchists can see the benefit of helping to propel a society closer to their goal of complete anarchy.
What makes you think your minarchy is any closer to “complete anarchy” than, say, a totalitarian dictatorship? With the right dictator, the dictatorship might be freer! And make no mistake, the minarchy you support relies just as much on having the “right people” in power as the dictatorship. As long as there’s a government, it’s the government that gets to decide what the government’s “legitimate” powers are: as soon as the “wrong man” gets control, your minarchy is done. There may even be an advantage to the dictatorship in that case: a single obvious target. I support anything that means more freedom: if that means supporting the same thing as a minarchist in some particular instance, that’s fine; but it may mean supporting the polar opposite in another instance…”minarchism” itself is not a goal I care about.
@Donald Rowe February 18, 2011 at 6:06 pm
I enjoy your eloquent style of writing, the mark of a sophisticated man.
“It is what it is and cannot compromise.”
I do see it that way, by the way. I think that is the point. This fact serves the dual purpose of making A’s poor conversationalists when it comes to anything less than complete adherence to a state of Statelessness (pardon the pun), and making it apparently impossible for A’s to find common ideological ground with others, beyond the most basics of natural rights.
“Your question presupposes that union is desired. When you understand anarchy, you see why that is not a question at all”
This is a revealing comment. You see, one of my fundamental premises is that humans are social animals. As a result many of the deepest natural desires, i.e. for survival and general betterment in the qualities of life, are predisposed to cooperation with other humans. That is the definition of society that I like best; two or more cooperating humans.
Kathleen Touchstone makes a beautiful analysis of Rothard’s Crusoe device for beginning the analysis of natural rights. Her observation is essentially that when the analysis begins from a model of man alone on an island, it makes it appear that living in society is voluntary. She argues that the primary social unit is not man alone, but mother and child. When society if viewed from this perspective, it seems that cooperation is fundamental to the nature of human existence.
Continuing from this perspective, it seems that the art of cooperation is the art of survival, and the most natural of means for an individual to achieve any important goal beyond those attainable by a man alone on a desert island.
Although I understand you have defined your island, and defend your right to be there, it also means that you wish to choose the island over society. To do so is to reject the fundamental advantages of division of labor and strength in numbers. Because all of human evolution has demonstrated that a man alone is vulnerable to all things and all others. It is a position that depends on the absence of treat from outside the island, and yet is no less immune from the natural and indifferent laws of nature.
”It appears that you may think your desire for minimal government can be furthered by inducing the people who champion anarchy to modify it somehow to suit your purpose.”
I am simply stating the problem in its most fundamental terms. Humans are better serve by cooperation than by “each for themselves”. That cooperation can, and does take many forms. But a man who declares his right to his island must be left alone there as the ship of society sails on. As to whether that ship becomes a government, or of a particular form is a secondary issue. A desire to belong to something, to others, is primary.
“Will you please explain why you would want to do that?”
That is not my purpose, to diminish the already small and ineffective group of people who simply want to be left alone. However, I hope you will be honest enough to admit that unless you actually live on that island, you are a free-rider, as the result of those around you who are willing to do the heavy lifting. In the absence of the protection you no doubt enjoy, from the very society you wish to reject, you would not survive. The phrase “no man is an island” is literally and figuratively true.
“The challenge, as I see it, is not to modify anarchy, but rather to better explain its nature, both what it is and what it isn’t. Today’s anarchists coexist with others in a very statist world.”
I can see that you acknowledge my point above. As I think you will agree, there is a difference between talking about golf and playing golf, taking about war and prosecuting a war, talking about society and playing a role within it. Except for the most extreme of circumstances, being a member of society is not voluntary.
“First, people must understand, and not fear, anarchy.”
I can say that I, for one, do not fear anarchy, for it is a weak and ineffective force in any regard. It is a philosophy that declares its independence from society, and states that joining with others for the attainment of some mutually beneficial goal is unnecessary and undesirable. You wish to stay on your island, face the forces of nature as a man alone, and wait for a time to come when those conditions which now prevent the realization of your vision of a anarchist state of humanity, to simply disappear.
Regards,
Wildberry,
Thank you for your in depth comment. It is always a pleasure to read your writings because you are able to present the content of your mind in a clear and focused manner. I, on the other hand, can make no such claim. I have evidence to the contrary, and I thank you for it.
As I read your post I formed an image of me, as seen by you, that was both new and foreign. If you drew that picture of me from the posts I have made here, perhaps I would be well advised to stop contributing until I can present ideas without causing gross misunderstandings.
Cordially as always,
Don
Donald,
A man more rude than you would have simply said I am insane, but well spoken. Thank you for your cordiality. If I have mistaken you for someone else, please re-introduce yourself. I am interested.
“I can say that I, for one, do not fear anarchy, for it is a weak and ineffective force in any regard. It is a philosophy that declares its independence from society, and states that joining with others for the attainment of some mutually beneficial goal is unnecessary and undesirable.”
You obviously don’t even know what you are talking about. Anarchism is all about society and voluntary cooperation. It’s a political philosophy which refers directly to human society and the form it takes. You seem to be talking about people who do not wish to be in society at all.
Are you really that ignorant of the topic?
Wildberry,
On further reflection of your comments I realize that your conclusions about my thoughts and position on anarchy may be influenced by the views commonly articulated by others. That is unlikely to be the case. There are, or could be, as many views of anarchy as there are anarchists. As an anarchist, I cannot deny others their thoughts, nor can they deny mine.
All sides appear to agree that anarchy is not going to “win” anytime soon. The case for anarchy has been made far more eloquently than I am capable, in many venues and still it is largely ignored. I have often asked Why? If it is not the delivery, maybe it is the product. I don’t mean the ideal concept of anarchy, rather the problem may be the process by which the concept is “proofed”, made apodictic. So far I have identified an axiom that is a conclusion. Also, there is principle that while thought to be a fundamental requirement that is superfluous.
These and can be ignored without altering the ideal of anarchy, but it takes patience to adequately explain.
Also, there is a tool that is universally used by governments that has yet to be explored for use by anarchy.
Cordially,
Don
P.S. I would like to send you a free copy (pdf) of a book I wrote that I hope will help you see better who I am. If you are interested, shoot me an email, donrowe@yahoo.com.
The potential united front must ultimately face the challenge to minarchism.
“…a minarchist would still support the initiation force against an innocent individual in order to protect the government monopoly.”
Jonathan, it’s pretty clear to me Cory wasn’t speaking of minarchist individuals personally but minarchist principle. A minarchist supports just what Cory stated by definition. If that rankles him at all, then perhaps that’s a sign he should reevaluate his position rather than be offended at having his position objectively stated.
But, Per isn’t marginalizing minarchist theory, he is marginalizing the minarchist himself.
I was referring to Cory’s comment that you interpreted as “overgeneralization of the minarchist individual.” As for Per’s statements, my point still applies.
Right, but Cory was commenting on the article itself. He said I missed the point of the article. I didn’t miss the point.
No, a minarchist does not necessarily believe that, it is a gross generalization. I never support the use of force against ANY innocent person. I also support the right for individuals to voluntarily leave the state. I don’t believe that’s anarchy, because there could still BE a state, for the (I believe) majority who would want to remain in it.
If you want go each go live in the Independent Republic of Yourself, then be my guest. But if I, and many others, want to retain a night watchman state, don’t tell us we don’t have the right to, or else we’re evil, criminals, etc.
This may seem like an argument over the meaning of the word “anarchy”. If you just mean that people can get together to have whatever kind of organization they want, then fine, I’m an anarchist. But if you’re saying that no state can be allowed to exist, even if groups of us WANT it to and agree to pay taxes to support it, and everything MUST be run by private companies, then I’d fight against that.
Jim,
It seems to me that if you and those who chose to retain the night watchman state chose to opt into it, it would still fall under an anarchy framework. You guys are just all choosing to participate within an agreed upon framework. There is no ruler still; and having the option to leave at any time guarantees the continuance of anarchy.
Minarchists, to me, seem to want to remove the option to opt out. Otherwise what’s the point? Any government that can be opted out of is not a government; its just an association like any other common thing in the world.
Exactly.
Or, they are making the ridiculous argument that if enough people agree that they want to steal from people, but only a little and for “night watchmen” purposes, who are those people to tell them “no”?
In other words, statism.
“But if I, and many others, want to retain a night watchman state, don’t tell us we don’t have the right to, or else we’re evil, criminals, etc.”
I sure as hell will tell you what you have the right to do if you and your night watchmen come banging on my door demanding money. I’m sorry other minarchists here, but this has convinced me a lot more that minarchism is just statism.
Question, Jim: when people choose to leave your “government”, do they get to keep their houses? I.e., if I want to leave, do I have to move to the other side of some line you’ve drawn on a map which your government claims to administer, or can I redraw that line to exclude my property?
If I can redraw the line, you’re an anarchist, period. If I can’t, you are, ipso facto, supporting the use of force against an innocent purpose.
“But if you’re saying that no state can be allowed to exist, even if groups of us WANT it to and agree to pay taxes to support it, and everything MUST be run by private companies, then I’d fight against that.”
A purely voluntary organization would not be a state. It would be a government, though, to the extent it carries out government functions. The state is a particular kind of social institution which anarchists oppose because it employs unethical means to achieve what many regard as the good ends of carrying out functions of governance.
We have to make the proper distinctions. The test for anarchism vis-a-vis statism is whether or not there is an initiation of force against otherwise innocent people by some other group of people. You can have all the self-government and “taxes” you wish so long the arrangement is voluntary.
In fact, one incarnation of anarchism is called panarchism whereby there are many governments (but not states) existing within the same territory. The governments are non-territorial and are voluntarily subscribed to and supported by individuals according to their preference. This is one potential path to achieving liberty. It is secession without territories, but it envisions secession toward non-aggressive (yet still monolithic in appearance) governments, which differs from the atomistic view that others have of a network of private for-profit companies subscribed to by liberated individuals who have seceded to the ultimate degree, and then from that position begin to build voluntary social institutions which reflect that starting position of pure individualism.
In order to grasp anarchism, you have to look at the principle it is based upon and whether that is being adhered to or not. The potential incarnations can be anything which adheres to the principle of non-aggression. You can have even have communism under anarchism so long as it is a voluntary arrangement. The whole point is that people are free to peacefully associate as they please. All that is required of the other members of society is to not initiate force against those who have not aggressed against you. To refrain from such mindless violence hardly seems an impossible ideal.
Dear Jim, Have you as yet explored panarchy and panarchism? Google offers more references to it than I had so far time and energy to explore, although I have been involved with this idea for over half a century.
The above-mentioned websites by Christian Butterbach and Gian Piero de Bellis offer much on this, including some of my own writings.
I see panarchy as the result of individual and group secessionism and voluntary and exterritorial associationism of the seceded under their own personal law, which may, for each such panarchy, be of a great variety.
To my knowledge no one has as yet been able to refute Herbert Spencer’s “The right to ignore the State” in his early book “Social Statics”. – PIOT, John (Panarchy In Our Time or: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice.)
“But if you’re saying that no state can be allowed to exist, even if groups of us WANT it to and agree to pay taxes to support it”
That’s not a tax! That’s called a bill. That is a fundamental difference.
What if all the people in the group WANT it to tax the guy who DOESN’T want it? What happens in that situation decides whether we are dealing with a private business or a government.
This is hilariously reminiscent of the arguments communists and socialists had from the early 20th century through the 1960s. Ideological purity, or united front? Gradual move through socialism first, or immediate and full communization?
I hung out with these guys on campus back in my radical leftist days in college (before I began studying ACTUAL economics), and can tell you that by taking the no-compromise stand, they ensure that they remain, now and always, fractured, meaningless, and ignored.
I personally think it’s absurd to declare everyone who isn’t a full-blown ancap to be “the enemy” and to refuse to work with them at all. Have fun with your 0.5% of the population, and let me know how that works out for you in advancing your goals.
How do you know what my goals are?
I don’t. But I have sincere doubts about being able to advance them if you categorically refuse to work with anyone who disagrees with you.
What if my goal is to limit my relationships to only those where we both respect each other, relate to one another peacefully, without threat of reprisal, on the basis of mutual benefit and voluntary interaction? What if my goal is to ostracize statists, and eliminate them and their toxic immorality from my personal orbit of relationships?
In that case, it would, by definition, advance my goals if I were to categorically refuse to maintain the pretense of peaceful relations with people who think nothing of sending armed goons to take money from me for their benefit.
I would say you still fail, because if you refuse to engage in the political process with others who may be fellow travelers, then you’re still going to run into the bottom of the well in that you will always have to deal with the state as it currently exists. If you were to temorarily set aside your dislike of working with others who may have different opinions, then in the long run, you may be able to actually reduce the burden of the state on yourself past the point that you can currently achieve.
Very good point.
And there are many anarchists who do form relationships with those of the political right and political left, depending on the particular goals of the non-anarchist individuals. Many do support Ron Paul on the right, and support civil liberties with the left. And when in those settings, the argument usually is instigated by the various “minarchist sects” against the anarchist. “How can you justify helping this cause if you don’t support X,Y, and Z?”
Typically I find more willingness to cooperate coming from the anarchists than from the minarchists, and more tolerance of ideas from the former than the latter.
How many small government libertarians have you known to support out-right anarchist-based action? Not many, they are usually the ones who not only wont help, but will ridicule and support punishing those who “take it too far”.
Ideas are the enemy, not people.
He literally said that in the introduction to the articles (which I have not read yet).
Mises was not a bad person, he just got some stuff wrong.
Why are you and other minarchists here blowing this way out of proportion and taking it way out of context? It should be plainly obvious from what was stated that none of these readings are anywhere close to the author’s intention.
From Alex Knight’s article, “Government Will Die” (you’ll have to google it to read the whole thing since the spam filter is blocking my comment every time I include the URL)…
Hopefully these links will make it through the spam filter…
What It Means To Be an Anarchist by N. Stephan Kinsella (I’m a little more optimistic than Stephan).
Neither Anarchy nor Minarchy is Necessarily Libertarian (but anarchy comes closer) by David Friedman.
As someone still developing in political thought (I’d hope we all are, lest we get caught in the trap of ideaology), I’m trying to determine whether anarchism or minarchism is better. But a blog post like this pushes me away from anarchism. Take from that what you will. The chance to learn is yours.
>>>I’m trying to determine whether anarchism or minarchism is better
On what basis do you plan to decide what’s “better”? What methodology and criteria are you using to reach a conclusion?
My brain and my ability to process arguments? I try not to hold on to individual methodologies or criteria, as those will bias you towards certain results. For instance, I didn’t start by holding onto some preconceived notion of equality of distribution of wealth, either for or against. Doing so would have distorted the conclusions. I have since come to believe that equality of distribution of wealth is not an act that government should engage in. But making this assumption from the start could have led to misteps in logic. In terms of methodologies, I currently give some weight to both the notion of the non aggression principle, while also giving some weight to utilitarianism.
Your original comment said that Mr Bylund’s post pushed you away from anarchism, but you gave no reasoning, leaving me to “take from that what [I] will.”
It appeared, given the absence of reasons provided, that your reaction was based on the aesthetics of the messenger, not logical reasoning of the theory.
I’ve thought about it, and the reason this doesn’t sit well with me is that it reminds me of Bush’s “You’re either with us or against us” mentality. It’s not constructive in any way and makes me wonder if this post is simply designed to make enemies. Maybe it is useful in that it may scare some people who are insecure about being labeled as a statist. Like telling people they’re racist if they don’t vote for Obama. Either way, this post is not worthy of the Mises blog.
That’s a terrible reason to reject anarchism. I don’t think anyone is trying to make “enemies” but rather clarifying their own position. Even if they were, how could this serve as a reason to not accept the arguments?
If we want to analogize, I think this is a lot like people saying they don’t like libertarianism because it has the balls to admit the Civil Rights Act made race relations worse (for example). It’s “mean” in the sense that it will point out when people make mistakes and the damage done by those mistakes. I agree with Hoppe that minarchism (classical liberalism), despite its intellectual affinity with anarcho-capitalists, has done more than its share to confuse people into accepting statism.
Greg,
Exactly. Articles like Per’s damage the movement, they don’t help it.
Bingo. It drives me nuts when people think that everyone must agree 100% with them, or the other person is worthless. I’m not really sure whether minarchism or anarchism is better, but I know that general direction is better, so I want to head there.
If you’re stuck in a canoe with someone miles from the nearest land, but you see 2 islands right next to each other several miles away you don’t try to throw your fellow paddler out of the boat, you paddle towards the land together. Once both are within reach, *then* you can argue about the benefits of one over the other.
I think most minarchists simply can’t imagine the anarchist dream becoming reality, and so they don’t really have a hard and fast idea of what they want, they simply want to go towards more freedom than they have today. If we get to a place where minarchism is a reality, I wouldn’t be surprised if we found out that many minarchists would convert to anarchists.
“It drives me nuts when people think that everyone must agree 100% with them”
This does not make any sense. You either believe what you believe, or believe something else, because you think it is right (I’m assuming no one is lying for some reason or another here).
The question has an answer. Either some government is “necessary/beneficial” or it is not. It cannot be both.
This is called an ad hominem attack and it drives *me* nuts. None of this has anything to do with specific people, and saying “You just want everyone to agree with you” totally misses that. It has nothing to do with people getting a kick out of people “agreeing 100%”, it’s that they are confident enough in what they argue that they will argue it until they are convinced otherwise.
Saying “Well you might be wrong” isn’t very convincing.
This is about ideas. It has nothing to do with anyone “wanting people to agree with them”.
“This does not make any sense. You either believe what you believe, or believe something else, because you think it is right (I’m assuming no one is lying for some reason or another here).”
Reading comprehension matters: I don’t mind people insisting they are right, so long as they respect the other person. Claiming minarchists would turn to violence is not respecting the average minarchist. I did not attack the person, I attacked the idea that “minarchists are the enemy because they don’t agree 100% with me.”
You are attacking me for exactly the reason I made the statement: I don’t appreciate the attack against the character of all minarchists.
Even if you are right that it’s an attack on minarchists’ character, and that this is “disrespectful,” this pales in comparison to the outrageous state violence against us anarchists that minarchists support. At least we are, at most, being “disrespectful”–we are not aiming guns at them.
The minarchists should be happy–they have won. They have their state, and 98% of society agrees with them that there should be a state. THus, they have their precious state.
We, however, have to play by your state’s rules; all that is left to us is complaining about it. THe statists want to stop even that, too, I guess. They want us not only to obey their dictates and evil laws, but to smile and agree with them too.
Stephan,
You are such an extremist! My God, man! When was the last time the State of Texas aimed a gun at you. Yet you shamelessly draw an analogy between the US and Libya, or whatever?
What “state rules” are you actually whining about having to “play” by? Ironically, complaing is the least one can do, yet you insist it is the only option you have.
I keep trying to find a place to build a bridge to your point of view, but I’m thinking it is hopeless. I certainly hope there are others besides me that refuse your claim to all of libertarianism. That is truely utter nonsense. Wake up.
Wildberry:
Thank you.
Yes, it’s shameless. I have the face without pain or fear or guilt. All states are evil. And yes, they all aim guns at us. How can you not see this? All laws are enforced at the point of the gun. Texas threatens me with jail or death if I refuse to abide by its tax laws, property tax, and drug laws. It is evil beyond all measure.
How about property tax and sales tax and drug laws? That is a start.
What other options are there, O Apologist for Evil?
I don’t want bridges to evil statists like you. I am glad you can’t find one.
You say these things, yet I am still threatened with punishment by the state if I don’t abide by their diktats, so look like you are either dishonest are ignorant.
What’s silly is you think I am “attacking” you. I don’t even know you. At most, I attack your ideas.
If anything is supremely irrelevant to this debate, it is that anyone has had their feelings hurt.
Also, where in the world did you draw anything about the “character” of anybody, let alone “all minarchists”, out of my response?
I can’t take you seriously when you say “reading comprehension matters” and follow it with that.
Speaking of reading comprehension, interpreting this blog post as saying “minarchists are the enemy because they don’t agree 100% with me” is completely wrong, which was the point of my last post which I don’t think you grasped.
No one ever said minarchists are the enemy. Minarchism is the intellectual enemy. Huge difference.
I will repeat for emphasis: no one ever said minarchists are the enemy.
“You are such an extremist! My God, man!”
Right. it’s not the people who say “initiation of violence is good sometimes”, without *ever* answering precisely what the “sometimes” really is (in other words violence is okay when I say it is), that are extremists. It’s the ones who dare to take a principled opposition to initiation of violence that are extremists.
“I would never initiate violence and never approve of anyone who does.” “My God, you are such an extremist!” Does it legitimately freak anyone else out that this is the common response? Humankind has some rough roads ahead.
“When was the last time the State of Texas aimed a gun at you.”
Oh I know this game all to well (like when Paul Krugman reminds us that if you stop paying taxes, no one shoots you, you just get a lien on your property!). So if a guy comes up to you in a dark alley, shows you the gun on his belt, and tells you to give him your wallet and you do, he didn’t rob you. See, he didn’t actually point the gun at you and put your life in real, immediate danger. So you have nothing to complain about.
It is really is despicable, and I admire Kinsella’s forcefulness with that. Wildberry you are trying to deny that aggression is aggression because it is obfuscated and done “professionally”. That really is deplorable.
“Yet you shamelessly draw an analogy between the US and Libya, or whatever?”
Who cares if the U.S. isn’t as bad as Libya? This is another ridiculous statist argument that I have heard so many times. We have no excuse to complain about our government, so long as there exists or maybe even one can conceive of a worse government. Only when there is full-blown genocide, maybe, can one actually complain.
Well there are probably parts of the world worse than Libya so they can’t complain either!
What’s so shameful about drawing an analogy between the U.S. and Libya? If anything, the U.S. is far, far worse. It may be true, but I don’t know for sure if Libya operates torture camps. I can’t say the same for the U.S.
“What “state rules” are you actually whining about having to “play” by?”
Haha how about all of them!? Seriously, I can break the law and not get punished for it!? Why didn’t anyone tell me this earlier!? This is yet another statist argument I hear over and over: “I think those rules are perfectly acceptable, therefore you can’t complain that you have to follow them.”
“Ironically, complaing is the least one can do, yet you insist it is the only option you have.”
You speak of other options without presenting a single one. I would love to know what other options one has, and I am going to anticipate the standard statist reponse: “If you don’t like Amurica you can get out!!” Right, so your other option is to sell all of your property, have more than half of it confiscated immediately as a fee for emigrating, and then continue to be taxed remotely by the IRS for the rest of your life, in addition to whatever government presides over your new property. Yeah, Kinsella, why haven’t you done this yet!? Sheesh!
“I keep trying to find a place to build a bridge to your point of view, but I’m thinking it is hopeless.”
Why are you looking for such a bridge unless you can see the appeal and usefulness of the ancap point of view? You would never want to find a bridge with a murderer would you?
“I certainly hope there are others besides me that refuse your claim to all of libertarianism.”
I’m not sure who other than you thinks Kinsella made a “claim to all of libertarianism”. Minarchist libertarians are usually libertarians, I just think they’re too afraid to embrace that nasty “A” word. As I explain somewhere below on this thread, when minarchists talk about their night-watchment governments they are either statists in disguise or anarchists calling the multitude of competing producers of security and justice “governments”. Libertarianism is anti-statism, it always has been. Thus taken to its logical conclusion you get ancap. Kinsella wasn’t even the first to point this out (see Rothbard).
“That is truely utter nonsense. Wake up.”
I don’t see any nonsense, Wildberry. In fact, I think that was one of the most compelling things I’ve ever seen Kinsella write (and I just love that his response to you calling him an extremist was to thank you). Government is initiation of violence, it always is. It really blows my mind what kind of foot-stomping “nuh-uh” responses one can get to making that simple observation.
Wildberry, I can only agree with Mr. Kinsella. It’s only too obvious that a gun is not pointed at me because I so obediently obey the laws as presently constituted. One can imagine what would happen if I didn’t pay my taxes or sold pharmas without a state sanctioned license. And after conviction tried to escape imprisonment.
Articles like Per’s damage the movement, they don’t help it.
And how did you determine that? What is “the movement”? Does it exclude Per? Does it exclude me? Did you poll either of us, or ALL OF US in THE MOVEMENT?
Before you start making objective claims, you might want to find a way to substantiate them.
“Articles like Per’s damage the movement, they don’t help it.” this is the peril of the activist mindset–not focusing on whether the substantive arguments are correct, but on whether they are “helpful.” See my The Trouble With Libertarian Activism.
Or whether they are “nice” enough.
See, I would be a jerk if a guy knocked on my door, said, “Hey man, I just checked and your neighbor isn’t home, let’s break in and steal all of his stuff!” and I told him what a despicable person he is being. I need to treat him with respect!
“Exactly. Articles like Per’s damage the movement, they don’t help it.”
Kinsella included.
Please.. Don’t do us any favors.
We’ll file your complaint as rant # 523421 under ‘excuses to cling onto statism.
He isn’t doing your any favors, he is pointing out how Per is just shooting himself in the foot. Or to turn another phrase, cut off his nose to spite his face.
Way to help convince non-snarky people of the correctness of your position.
The emphasis placed on the distinction between anarcho-capitalists and miniarchists is definately important for theoretical rigor. However, with the terrible state of civil and economic liberties in the world today, truly principled libertarians of both varieties should devote more of their energies to significantly rolling back the oppressive state and less to arguing over whose position is correct. While I am sympathetic to the natural law based anarcho-capitalism of Rothbard and similar thinkers, I must admit that the world would be tremendously more just and prosperous if Mises’s vision of society was implemented.
That’s not something to be “admitted”. What is your reasoning for Mises classical liberal society being more just or prosperous than an ancap society? That’s not very convincing to anarchists, who “admit” that a classical liberal society turns into, I don’t know, the American Empire!
The Minarchism vs. Anarchism Fantasy.
It seems to me that this question about which is better, minarchism or anarchism, has value in philosophical discussions which may have some relevance to the real world but as long as the decision about how to organize the pocket of civilization (one of many societies making up the whole of civilization) is voluntary whose business is it besides those who have the right and responsibility to make that choice? If minarchism is voluntarily chosen for a certain pocket of civilization the anarchists need to stay within the bounds of decency and humbly accept that choice. Of course individuals who want to discuss the merits and demerits can still do so as long as they aren’t deliberately trying to undermine the choice that has been made, otherwise the anarchist is a hypocrite. The same holds true for the minarchists; respecting the choice made by anarchists for their pocket of civilization.
That is the first new and refreshing take on this divide that I’ve heard for some time.
Very good.
If minarchism is voluntarily chosen for a certain pocket of civilization the anarchists need to stay within the bounds of decency and humbly accept that choice.
How is that “staying within the bounds of decency”? If “decency” means allowing yourself to be aggressed against (which is what you’re saying here!), why limit it to “in minarchy”? Surely if you live in North Korea you should “stay within the bounds of decency” and support the Dear Leader, too?
I am not talking about the State as an example of minarchism.
I am talking about classical liberalism societies formed voluntarily, not anything to do with the State. Within these the consensus may be that the best means to provide certain services is to have some kind of government. Of course the test of economics could change that decision later on. In the meantime, and possibly as a consequence, there may be emigration or immigration because of the pattern adopted in that society. The point being that the members of that society have the responsibility to honor the choice voluntarily decided upon by the majority or to find another place that is more pleasing. To stay put and to work to undermine it is counterproductive to progress. How will anyone know if it does not succeed because it is a poor decision or whether it is because of the disruptive opposition? If support is curious and explorative then whatever is learned can then contribute to the advancement of civilization.
Interesting…but I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean by “voluntary.” If someone’s trying to undermine it, doesn’t it stand to reason that they’re not volunteering? Do you mean that if people go into it voluntarily, they can’t change their minds later?
Dear Bruce,
have you as yet considered the non-compromising compromise of panarchism, which offers any kind of statism to any kind of statist and any kind of anarchism to any kind of anarchist, but always only for their volunteers, under full exterritorial autonomy or personal law?
In other words, full experimental freedom extended in the the sphere of political, economic and social systems, so far monopolized by territorial States.
Google offers many more results for a search on “panarchy” and for “panarchism” than I have time and energy to peruse. I would, probably, need division of labor among interested panarchists to explore all these hints.
PIOT, John Zube (Panarchy In Our Time or: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice.
The question is now what is better, anarchism or minarchism. The question is what does libertarianism mean? What do our beliefs imply about the state? Are we against aggression, or not? I say yes. Does the state necessarily commit aggression? Yes. Is the state therefore criminal and unjustified? Yes. The question is: is the state legitimate. The answer is no. The libertarian answer, that is. THe statist, of course, says yes. THe state of whatever size drips with evil. Those who do not see this are not libertarian. See my What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist.
Recognizing this reality does not mean there is nothing of value in our fellow quasi-libertarians. It does not mean they are completely evil. It does not mean there cannot be a united front.
Activist minded types have trouble seeing this, of course, but so much the worse for being an activist.
You’re just calling ancap “minarchism”. Minarchism is, by definition, not voluntary for at least one of the participants. Otherwise it’s just another name for ancap.
Pre-note – I’ve swung to the libertarian perspective from a full-on socialist in the space of about 10 years (it takes a lot to undo the ill effects of California public education). My main concern with the total anarchy approach is that it is ill-equipped to handle an aggressive, statist culture. Things like tanks, bombs, fighter aircraft, and standing armies are established dead weight losses for any economic system. They don’t do anything productive and their end purpose is to break things, the ultimate in the Broken Windows Fallacy.
As I rationally see it, an anarchist society is 100% at the mercy of an entity that, through forced taxation, is capable of fielding aircraft carriers and large-scale bombers and personnel that are completely devoted to combat operations. There is little incentive to maintain main battle tanks, anti-aircraft weaponry, or nuclear attack submarines in a private entity model. Even larger businesses and citizen cooperatives have fairly limited means to engage in such activities as there would not be a consistent application of private military activities among cooperatives, private military outfits, and businesses to create a solid front, or even meaningful combat force.
Certainly, the population can fight back against such an aggression, but combat capability would be limited to partisan small arms combat with smaller contingencies of individuals with propelled explosives and an immaterial existence of any larger scale hardware. Under such an occupation, the population may be able to form more coordinated groups, but they would be forever unable to engage in larger scale warfare to counter an state aggressor as the construction of the capital necessary to build counter-weaponry is effectively impossible.
And partisan combat is no guarantee of victory through attrition. Iraq is a perfect example. Partisan fighting was heavy early in the occupation but, lately, has mostly died out. A state is capable of engaging in decades long occupations to the point that the population has been completely demoralized and even starting to be converted into the state’s philosophy on governance. People will start to say to themselves, “Only if we had our own government military, this wouldn’t have happened.” Liberty is then effectively squashed.
We have to remember that government and states aren’t original conditions of humanity. They formed when aggressors took advantage of pure anarchy and it’s inability to create a cohesive defense against such aggression. The fact that governments exist at all today is proof positive that anarchy failed. Humanity started off in anarchy, and it was consumed by the state because it lacked the ability to fight back.
The main question is as such – by what mechanism can anarchy avoid being once again consumed by the state should by some miracle it come to being again? Don’t discuss what people should do to protect themselves or ideal formations. The answer must be framed entirely in how humans behave and think, including all flaws.
There is quite a bit of anarchist writing on that question. Stefan Molyneux’s How a Free Society Prevents the Re-emergence of a Government is the first that comes to mind.
That fails to answer my question. The entire article pre-supposes that all humans are anarchist and that, no where in the world, does a government exist. It argues against the internal formation of a government under such an arrangement, which fails to answer my question. Anarchy will not spontaneously become the exclusive world-state. There will be a first anarchist society. What, exactly, is preventing an existing, powerful state from taking over this one? What is preventing a repeat of the European colonial powers wiping out the natives situation?
It additionally assumes that Bob or Dave will follow the concepts of private property rights and can be squashed by people refusing to patron their business to fund the adventure. This doesn’t explain how Bob or Dave cannot just form a gang of like minded individuals and start taking from neighbors, enlist more thugs, and offer them riches in the form of lucre. There is plenty of profit in forming your own government because you now have the power to just take it. That’s how Rome functioned for a few hundred years and no one had the ability to stop them. Sure, the eventually collapsed, but that doesn’t do much good for those living under the empire in the mean time. Arguing that anarchy can reassert itself after the failure of a state a few hundred years in the future is a terrible argument for anarchy today as the foundation to prevent the cycle from repeating yet again isn’t firmly established.
That was discussed in an earlier chapter, Collective Defense: An Example of Methodology (both links represent one chapter of “Practical Anarchy”). I was just linking to something that addresses what you labeled as your “main question“, not something meant to be a panacea for all of your concerns about anarchy.
You also seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what the author assumes. That’s my bad for assuming you had already done some reading on the subject. If you are truly interested, here is a good place to start.
Obviously an anarchist society can’t be realized until enough people stop believing the myth that a group of people with the authority to commit crimes is necessary for social order. That’s why I spend most of my time attacking that myth. It’s so obvious that once you stop believing it, you’ll wonder how you could have ever believed it in the first place.
It’s not about me believing or not believing. Everything requires a practical path. His invading anarchy section fails to answer any questions, makes major assumptions, and fails to take examples from actual history.
“There are no particular laws about the domestic ownership of weapons in a stateless society, so he has no idea whatsoever which citizens have which weapons, and he certainly cannot count on having a legally-disarmed citizenry to prey on after defeating a single army.”
So? That’s the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and it certainly isn’t stopping occupation and governmental formation.
“However, where is his army supposed to go once it crosses the border? There is no capital in a stateless society, no seat of government, no existing system of tax collection and citizen control, no centralized authority that can be seized and taken over. In the above example of the two farms and the wilderness, this is the equivalent not of Bob taking over Jim’s farm, but rather of Bob heading into the wilderness and facing coyotes, bears, swamps and mosquitoes – there is no single enemy, no existing resources to take over, and nothing in particular to “seize.””
This is a basic “chicken and egg” argument. For this particular argument to be true, it would create a logical link against the existence of government in the first place. The argument here assumes that government is a required pre-requisite of government, implying that government existed before humanity, as some sort of pre-ordained God or planetary rock formation. Government quite easily invaded, took over, and established bureaucracy where anarchy once existed, which is why nearly every ounce of soil on the planet is under government authority.
Here is how I would invade an anarchistic region – I would immediately head toward the most populous city in the region. From that point, I would set up a blockade of the city. No one goes in, no one goes out. My demand would be to immediately round up all weaponry and deposit it outside the city limits and then submit to my control. Until then, all food and water supplies will be cut-off. For sources that can’t be cut off, like major rivers, industrial pollution is a sufficient course of action. For good measure, I’ll utilize my precision guided missiles to destroy power generation. Cities are unable to self-sustain themselves without external trade. They are unable to maintain required crop growth, water supplies, or even refuse removal. I would then wait.
From here there are three courses of action:
1. The city’s dwellers will sporadically attempt to break the blockade with poorly organized small arms partisans, which will easily be destroyed by my advanced mechanized infantry and armor.
2. The city attempts to rely on slim smuggling operations to get by. Any region of sufficient density cannot survive on such a source. Eventually, some individuals will talk about forming a government to ration goods to the population, which most of the desperate people will go along with. I’ve just forced the city to create the foundation of governance for me.
3. The population will eventually descend into chaos as rationing fails to keep up with necessary demand, refuse builds up in the streets, and human waste backs up in non-functional sewage reclamation plants. Disease will begin to run rampant and medical facilities, cut off from supplies, will be overwhelmed. Desperate people will take up arms against the blockade and beat back easily. The remaining will turn on each other to fight for remaining scraps of food and drops of potable water.
Of course, this is assuming I even care about nominally maintaining a population to rule over or a physical city in that location. If the land and surrounding resources were my main concern, I could just as easily bombard the city until it collapsed and sweep up any remaining people, or just ignore the thing entirely as I go about my business in the surrounding countryside.
The surrounding countryside is easy. I’m concerned with farmland, mines, timber resources, etc. What is Farmer Jim going to do when I send two dozen men and tanks to his farm? If he resists, the farmhouse gets blown away and so does he and his family. I’m only interested in the farmland, not the labor. I can open up the region to “homesteading” for my own citizenry, much like how the USA wrested the Great Plains from the natives.
Additionally, it’s comical that he thinks that there isn’t some basis of existing government. Government is about record keeping. And the free market handed to me, on a silver platter, everything that I’ll ever need to quickly and effectively set up a government in the invaded anarchist region – the Internet. With sites like Facebook out there that freely post addresses, phone numbers, occupations, and all sorts of information out there for anyone to see, I have a convenient, one stop shop for all my needs. I would also just have to target major business sectors like online retailers, insurance agencies, and banks to get a comprehensive list of who does what, how much they likely earn, what they have (online shopping receipts for instance), and where they are. Just because there isn’t something called “city hall” doesn’t mean the necessary tools for quick governmental formation aren’t already in place. These banks, retailers, and insurers will provide the necessary backbone to start up a police force, which I no doubt can coax a number of the citizenry into joining. Not everyone in an anarchistic society are kind, gentle people that only want to keep to themselves. Thugs will always exist, and as a state, I have the means to buy their loyalty.
“Furthermore, by destroying domestic industries for the sake of a one-time transfer of French goods, the German government would be crippling its own future income, since domestic manufacturing represents a permanent source of tax revenue – this would be a perfect example of killing the goose that lays the golden egg.”
For someone to make a rational argument, they really need to know their history. Germany DID wipe out French industry, Polish industry, and Russian industry. That’s how you cripple a region’s ability to fight back. Houses, farms, factories, etc can all be rebuilt. I’d just pass it off as a stimulus project and all the people will be happy to be employed, mainly those I ship from my own overcrowding cities to do the work. I’ve kept the people busy and maintained the illusion of prosperity. Lord Keynes has plenty of literature to support the concept that war = prosperity. I know it’s bogus, but the people don’t. When it all goes sour, I can just blame some banker and the people, except for a few individuals, will eat it all up.
“Unfortunately, this would not work either, at least not for long, because slave labor cannot be taxed, and slave labor would displace existing German labor, which is taxable. Thus again the German government would be permanently reducing its own income, which it would not do.”
This is a laugh. I would tax the factory’s output. The labor is irrelevant to me. And this is assuming I even care to keep the people around and not shove them out of the way.
“However, nothing remains unowned in a stateless society, except that which has no value, or cannot be owned, such as air. There are no “public assets” to seize, and there are no state-owned printing presses which can be used to create currency, and thus transfer capital to Germany. There are no endless vaults of government gold to rob, no single aggregation of military assets to seize.”
No nation ever went to war because some other nation had a printing press. Those can be constructed. The gold is easy, just have them pile it up with the guns to end the siege. Spain managed to loot tons of the metal from the Americas.
“The German leadership, when deciding which country to invade, will know down to almost the last dollar the tax revenues being collected by the Polish government, as well as the value of the public assets they will seize if they invade. The “payoff” can be very easily assessed.”
Tell that to Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Napoleon, or numerous other despots in history. They didn’t care that much about the net gain of national inventory. They were in it for the power and authority. States can’t be assumed to be entirely rational. They can’t be, they lack the proper information to be rational, but they operate just the same.
“On the other hand, if they look west, into the French stateless society, how will they know what they are actually going to get? There are no published figures for the net wealth of the society as a whole, there is no tax revenue to collect, and there are no public assets which can be easily valued ahead of time. There is no way to judge the cost effectiveness of the invasion.”
Bullshit. This anarchistic region will engage in trade outside its region. I can easily take one look at the stream of goods and services crossing the border and have a damned good idea of what’s going on in there. And it’s not like an anarchistic region has a police force or counter-espionage professionals. All I’d have to do is have some of my agents drive around for a month on “vacation” and I just gotten myself a good inventory of what there is to take, where it’s located, and what’s worth taking and what’s left to be destroyed. Anarchy isn’t good at keeping secrets. All my agents have to do is take one quick look through a shopping mall and jot down the addresses of every major manufacturer by just walking through stores and looking at product packaging.
“If I were concerned that my subscribers might be robbed by an invading army, I would offer reduced rates to those willing to allow their electronic money to be secured so that it could not be spent without their own thumb print, or something like that. (Naturally, any system can be hacked, and people can be kidnapped along with their money, but the purpose here is not to prevent all possible workarounds, but rather to simply reduce the material benefits of invading France.)”
So? No invading army in the history of the world was concerned about the printed fiat or electronic currency of a nation. I already know where the banks are (they’ll be advertised out the wazoo), so I know exactly where to go to get the gold. If the vault is a secret, there’s nothing stopping me from planting a transmitter inside a gold bar and depositing it with a major banking operation and finding it. Or tailing the delivery truck. Or paying off an employee. There are so many ways I can find your physical assets. Locking your electronic funds won’t do you a lick of good. And if it’s just your local unbacked paper? Who gives a shit? I can print my own and force you to use it.
“Given that the control of bridges is a primary military objective, in order to facilitate the movement of troops and vehicles, I would also encourage the installation of particular devices in domestic cars and trucks, which would automatically keep access to bridges open. Thus invading armies would find their access to these bridges much harder, which would again slow down the speed of their invasion.”
Or just blow them up and ford the river elsewhere. This is a double edged sword. No bridge for me means no bridge for you, either. And I can barrage the other bank with artillery and send in paratroopers to secure the opposite bank. It’ll slow me down, but probably by a day. Xerxes built a floating bridge across the Aegean Sea, what’s stopping me from crossing a measly river or ravine?
“Furthermore, if invasion seemed imminent, I would arm and train as many citizens as possible.”
Didn’t this guy just argue in a different article that this would be basically impossible? If he could easily arm and train citizenry, that nullifies his argument about government not forming internally. He certainly seems to have the resources and manufacturing capability to arm the population in a day’s notice, which is about how long it would take to cross the border and deep strike 50 miles into a nation on ground and I could bomb pretty much any location within hours. It would take me two weeks to cross the nation and 6 hours to bomb you, and this is assuming I’ve invaded Washington DC and you’re in Seattle. If you can manufacture, arm, and train a combat force in two weeks, government will have already come into existence by then from within.
“These are just a few admittedly off-the-cuff ideas, but it is relatively easy to see how the benefits of invading France could be significantly diminished or even eliminated, while the costs of invading France could be significantly increased or made prohibitive.”
It doesn’t prove anything. It’s all bare assertion that this individual is the expert on national defense and the psychology of tyrants.
“The objection could be raised that some lunatic group could simply detonate a nuclear bomb somewhere inside France, for some insane or nefarious motive – but that is not an argument against private defense agencies, and for a statist society, but rather quite the reverse.”
I don’t even have to remotely go that far to wipe out anarchy.
Again, I’m not arguing against anarchy, it’s just that there isn’t enough evidence or rationality to even suggest it’s capable of surviving in a place where states exist.
I suspect that non-libertarian anarchists would band together to produce a weapon and delivery system that would, if implemented, murder millions of innocent and not-so-innocent citizens of the feared external State.
This group would then inform the State of the group’s intentions, should the State invade the anarchist region.
Of course, the State could decide to obliterate the anarchist region, but obliteration is possible under our current ‘you’re in good hands with All-State’ system, also.
The anarchists — both libertarian and non — might also be aiding those within the State’s domain to undermine the State and its leaders, depending on how totalitarian the State happens to be.
How would the state aggressor convince its citizenry that invasion of the stateless region is necessary? Especially when many of those citizens may be customers or investors with the free stateless society. They may even be banking in the free society. Also remember it was trained individuals organized as militia that kept the nazi out of switzerland. It also seems to me that most of the worlds resources would be held by the free society. Goods and services would go to the highest bidder in gold as it does today. Fiat money only has power because there is no “real” competition. The free society would be the center of world commerce. Tanks would be very expensive in fiat money if gold was competing for those resources. You advocate that history shows no example of anarchy like the one we advocate working. But history dosnt show an example of the anarchy we advocate not working.
Jan – You’re again making the mistake of trying to deflect motive of the aggressor. How did our State convince us to go to war in Iraq? In Grenada? In Panama? How does a state convince its people to do anything? All necessary is to pin the blame of some internal act of violence on that stateless, anarchistic region, and there’s motive enough. That’s not the discussion because the State just does what it wants, when it wants, and frequently gets the people behind it. If we went down your line of thinking, States wouldn’t even exist, but they do. The discussion is in the how, the methods, and the steps required to get there and the necessary contingencies in stopping the inevitable aggression.
J. Murray – your logic is sound except one glitch: “We have to remember that government and states aren’t original conditions of humanity.” Since when were humans ever “anarchist”?
J.Murray,
I want to lend my support to what you say here. This is excellent.
I take exception to the idea that governments are only formed when an aggressor takes advantage of anarchy. Now I grant you that in most instances there is some form of imposition, even with establishing democratic republics. But the fact is, if I and 10 of my friends were stranded in the wilderness, and we all decided to establish some sort of government, and necessity would dictate that we would for survival, we debated the rules, compromised and elected a leader; we just formed a government without any aggression used. We delve into a discussion about personality traits and propensity to assume leadership conditions, but that is human nature and there is no getting away from that
The question you ask about framing the discussion Murray is a good one. The fact is that some individuals focus on anarchy as if it were some holy natural state and ideal, but the thing is, if it was such a great condition human beings never have formed communities. Anarchy is an ideal, thats all it ever will be, human nature dictates that there be some sort of structure to ensure that the strong, or the majority, do not take advantage of the weak, or few, both within and outside of communities.
@k200k
What happens when you and your stranded friends run out of food?
When the voting commences on who to eat, will you be allowed to seceed?
Welcome to the “holy ideal” that is minarchism.
And exactly how would that situation pan out differently under anarchism?
I think you missed the underlying point.
However, if you wish to be literal, then my answer is that one would be entitled by right to defend himself against this so-called government’s decision.
Besides the obvious issue that attempts to limit the scope of a monopoly of coercion have demonstrably failed miserably, what is the purpose anyway? If the use of force is required and legitimate under certain circumstances, then what is the point of ceding that action to a monopoly power?
I don’t see things in terms of ideals or nomenclatures. All I see is that the end result would be the same. Be it “government” or “I’m the biggest guy and I just hit you with a rock”, the end result is the same. One dude dead, the rest eat him. What you call that or the rationalization that leads to that point doesn’t matter.
As I rationally see it, an anarchist society is 100% at the mercy of an entity that, through forced taxation, is capable of fielding aircraft carriers and large-scale bombers and personnel that are completely devoted to combat operations. There is little incentive to maintain main battle tanks, anti-aircraft weaponry, or nuclear attack submarines in a private entity model.
Defense against your aggressive statist neighbors isn’t sufficient incentive?
Certainly, the population can fight back against such an aggression, but combat capability would be limited to partisan small arms combat with smaller contingencies of individuals with propelled explosives and an immaterial existence of any larger scale hardware.
Assuming your point is even true, you mean like Vietnam…the Soviets in Afghanistan…?
But there’s no reason to think it’s true anyway. Anarchyland will have economic advantages over Stateland, and so be better able to afford weaponry, etc.; and with no offensive purpose, they’ll be better able to tailor their defensive capabilities to their potential aggressors, better able to target any necessary response, etc.
And partisan combat is no guarantee of victory through attrition. Iraq is a perfect example. Partisan fighting was heavy early in the occupation but, lately, has mostly died out.
Sure…because most Iraqis aren’t psychotic Taliban types. Never were. Iraq doesn’t even enter into this.
“Defense against your aggressive statist neighbors isn’t sufficient incentive?”
Again, how? As noted below, the hand wave of “free markets will eventually figure it out” is a terrible policy in the face of this particular problem. I’d rather have the realistic mechanism in-place, one that isn’t reliant on assuming the state just will decide to leave us alone, before even making the attempt. Getting it figured out while living under the boot of oppression isn’t a great way to win over followers or bill the philosophy as a good idea.
“Assuming your point is even true, you mean like Vietnam…the Soviets in Afghanistan…?”
Considering the Afghans have failed to eject the United States, terrible example. Vietnam was also in the process of losing, they just got lucky that the US was running out of money to finance the fight. Had the link between gold and the Dollar been severed earlier, Vietnam would probably have a permanent military presence.
“But there’s no reason to think it’s true anyway. Anarchyland will have economic advantages over Stateland, and so be better able to afford weaponry, etc.; and with no offensive purpose, they’ll be better able to tailor their defensive capabilities to their potential aggressors, better able to target any necessary response, etc.”
Hand waving again. Advanced military weapons have little market value. Small arms manufacturers do get by on civilian sales, but who exactly would General Dynamics sell M1 tanks to? Are there going to be 5,000 potential buyers of a $120 million piece of hardware?
“Sure…because most Iraqis aren’t psychotic Taliban types. Never were. Iraq doesn’t even enter into this.”
So anarchy can only work if the population are psychotics? Iraq DOES enter into this. It’s a prime example of how a population can easily be tamed by external aggression. Most people in Anarchyland will find themselves willing to trade away some freedoms and resources in exchange for not being shot, not having their houses burned or factories reduced to rubble.
Sure, you could try and throw this higher ideal about preferring to live in the shadows as an outlaw, shirking all luxuries, like a regular meal and a roof over your head, to fight against the aggressions of the state, even at the cost of your life, if it means you get to die totally free from control. But the question then is – why aren’t you now?
“Again, how? As noted below, the hand wave of “free markets will eventually figure it out” is a terrible policy in the face of this particular problem.”
You keep saying “hand waving” without having read on the subject. You just keep ranting about seemingly omnipotent states and poor defenseless – and apparently brainless – stateless societies.
In your scenarios, you apparently have a rich developed aggressive militaristic state which counts no costs vs a free territory with no defense because, as you said before, people were too busy buying lottery tickets! Oh gee, well, in that case you’ve sealed their fate for them, haven’t you? Is that really a sound argument?
Can you explain why a free people would have no concern over losing their freedom to a ruthless invader? I mean, I don’t even understand the premise of your argument here. Why would they not have an adequate defense? Is it because of your hand waving?
“My main concern with the total anarchy approach is that it is ill-equipped to handle an aggressive, statist culture. Things like tanks, bombs, fighter aircraft, and standing armies are established dead weight losses for any economic system.”
Why do think that is so? I mean, if you are so concerned about this aspect, and you can scare enough people, I smell a burgeoning consumer demand and a business opportunity here. Something this free market thingy is supposedly superior at recognizing and acting upon…. I mean, all present minarchists will demand defense for sure (and IMO most anarchists will also sign up). Add the present neocons, and other pathological critters, and I’m pretty sure there will be a strong demand for defensive services
I don’t remember if Galt’s Gulch had defenses or not. I read that book some 15 years ago…
P.S. I don’t consider defense as a dead weight loss. E.g. would you say that no one would own guns in a anarchist society? People will suddenly become stupid in an anarchist society?
The problem is that defensive services fall into that free rider category. Most individuals would recognize that a defensive service wouldn’t be able to pick and chose where to engage in defenses and would have to defend an entire region. People who find they are covered by a service one way or another are unlikely to pay for it. There isn’t an immediate and direct relationship between the expense and what they’re getting.
Take the US for instance. A realistic defense cost would run around $450 billion. To maintain profitability, let’s use about 8%, meaning the gross revenues would have to be $486 billion. Wal-Mart is the world’s largest company by gross revenue at $400 billion, for comparison’s purpose. The defense industry, whether a single actor or a worse off situation of competing groups, would somehow have to convince 102 million households to pony up $4,700 a year, and this is assuming everyone buys into this. But, realistically, probably a high end of about 1/4 of them will be willing to make that kind of payment plan, which would run $20,000 a year, or something that many of that 1/4 wouldn’t be able to pull off and those who could would find it too expensive to bother.
It’s not about not owning guns or not. The operational maintenance of a perfectly functional F-18 fighter requires approximately 16,000 man hours of labor per plane per year. Don’t even get started on the cost of the thing actually breaks. And this is before the operational costs and training costs associated. The military spends as much every 4 years on a plane as it did to buy the thing. And buying new every time isn’t an option, given the level of precision and that even the Six Sigma concept isn’t good enough for operating a machine that’s meant to fly at twice the speed of sound, the initial inspection, testing, and maintenance of a fresh off the factory floor aircraft is an immense expense.
And don’t even get me started on naval ships. A cheap Oliver Hazard Perry class has an annual maintenance bill that averages about $30 million and because of the nature of naval military hardware, will spend 4 months of the year out of commission. And this is if it wasn’t deployed or engaging in any kind of combat. Again, this is just the maintenance bill. It doesn’t cover the crew, supplies, port facilities, and support necessary for operation. And ships fall into the same problems as the aircraft – massive inspection and repair requirements at initial purchase. Even private companies that purchase oil tankers or even pleasure boats run into the same problems. The drydock in my town makes a killing just maintaining large yachts. Steve Jobs spend close to $60 million to get his private ship properly maintained, which is basically the size of a frigate.
A military is a perpetual money sink – it cannot be made profitable, either by the companies offering the services or the people subscribing to the expense.
These are the questions that need to be addressed before making the jump. Just waving your hand and saying, “Private markets will handle it” is no better than waving your hand and saying, “Government will handle it”. What are the mechanisms? What are the revenue streams? How do you handle the logistics problems and inability to spot-defend just subscribers in time of invasion?
Only fools jump in without all the answers.
The free rider objection is weak at best. The private defense force would only do what it was paid to do it seems to me.
It’s also called the “Public Goods Theory”, and Hoppe’s first chapter in “The Economics and Ethics of Private Property” crushes that better than I ever could.
In short, that there are free riders does not imply that “not enough” would be produced by a market. The same reasoning can be applied to all sorts of goods like gardens, people’s clothes or deodorant, and whether or not you are rude to people.
Wow, you surely can see the future will such clarity. Why don’t you go work for the government?
The precision with which you can predict the necessity for defense services as well as the precision with which you can predict the ability to selectively provide defense surely puts you in a category which the climate modelers can only aspire to.
When you say that people make rational decisions not to buy defense because they perceive they are already adequately protected, you denigrate these people by calling them “free riders”. Why don’t you consider the flip side and note the possibility that people who choose to live dangerously are brave and courageous and generous and kind? Oh, I know, you would just call those people “fools” .
“Only fools jump in without all the answers.” Yeah right.
Whatever crappy government bullying system you set up, please do try to leave us “fools” alone.
Attacking me isn’t helping your case. Reply again without putting words into my mouth. Insulting those sympathetic to the concept but not fully sold won’t win followers.
I don’t see why such military technology would even be needed on such a grandiose scale.
But honestly, why would anyone other than those hoping to enter that business have the answers in the first place? If someone puts merit into Hayek’s Spontaneous Order, wouldn’t the eventual allocation of funds provide the most efficient way for consumers to defend themselves?
This isn’t an argument of “letting the private markets handle it”. If you were to ask the same questions about modern automobiles 100 years ago, no one person would be able to afford you such an answer. The steps between now and an eventual anarcho-capitalist society would clearly involve the process of how the State’s military apparatus would be torn down and diverted to more efficient usage.
It’s like your asking for the details on faster-than-light speed, and if those details aren’t precise, then it’s clearly not feasible.
You keep falling back onto the assumption that everyone operates in the same manner.
“I don’t see why such military technology would even be needed on such a grandiose scale.”
Because it already exists.
The key reason I’m not sold on this whole idea is that, in the end, those trying to sell me it are the same as those people who buy lottery tickets at the supermarket and get excited about what they’ll do with the winnings long before the numbers are ever drawn. They’re the same as those who talk about starting a business and all the riches that flow in before actually putting together a business plan on how to get there.
I really don’t care about the end result. Yes, it sounds nice. It’s similar to the paradise that communists try to sell me. It’s similar to the paradise the government regulation supporters try to sell me. It’s similar to the paradise the socialists try to sell me. In the end, it’s an unknown future state, and it’s being presented to me by dreamers who never seem to bother with the difficult questions:
a. How are we going to get there?
b. Is that plan on how we will get there realistic?
c. When are we actually going to start doing that?
d. If it does succeed, how do we keep what we just gained?
Thus far, the arguments aren’t thought out framed in how people think, framed in the current state of the world, and are in denial that if the state of anarchy is actually attained, that those living in it will have to actively make sacrifices on their own to keep it, and lack the mechanism to convince all of those living under it to make those sacrifices near universally. Without everyone completely buying into the concept 100%, it won’t work.
I’m a strategist, a tactician. I’ve succeeded in this life, in both business and personal realms, because I think 10+ steps ahead. I predict what other people do. I utilize psychology (colors, smells, symbols, words, vocal timbre, facial expressions), tactics, and the physical limits of the world to ensure the best course of action to gain a favorable outcome for myself and those I care about. Every potential failure point I can foresee has alternate paths, plans to get back toward my intended goal. Should I run into an event that I failed to foresee, I remember that and do my best to improvise. If I foresee all paths of a plan will lead to failure, I won’t attempt it, at least until I discover or am presented new information by someone that knows more than I do. I’m always aware that information is always incomplete, and as such I never totally discount any course of action or ever expect perfection of success.
People like Stefan Molyneux, if they’re really the best source of information in the anarchy movement, if they are really the best argument there is, then the movement has failed before it even began. Mr. Molyneux is like those people who talk to me about grand fantasy plans. I tell them they have 30 seconds to get back to reality and tell me how to actually get there and if they fail, I’ll ignore them until they do. Mr. Molyneux’s arguments conjure magicks, seem more grounded in bad plot structure than prudent planning, to be taken seriously. In his world, factories sprout out of the ground like mushrooms, can equip defensive forces within mere hours. Military tacticians are so common they grow like weeds in vacant lots. The hard and fast 10,000 hours of practice required for expertise is thrown out of the window, as if people can just be rounded up, put into those magically sprouted armaments, as if the state opposition will not arrive with ridiculous weapons like thermobaric vacuum bombs that can quickly and easily level entire city blocks, assumes some existing espionage system that is actively providing information back to this anarchistic community about the internal plans and activities of whatever state power is planning an attack with sufficient time to manufacture, arm, and train a quality repelling force. Mr. Molyneux actively relies on assumptions and gambles without contingencies. Mr. Molyneux places hopes in an impotent and weak state entity, a stupid state entity, and a state entity that acts as he would act.
A plan that relies on pre-conditionals isn’t a plan, it’s a fantasy.
I’ve changed my position in life many times. I’m not concerned with whether what I currently believe is right or not, but that I continue down the path to greater understanding. I’ve reached this point by being backed into a corner, by being outmaneuvered when holding whatever position I have had at the time. I was marched down every potential path and all of them lead to failure or were ridiculous fantasies that attempted to argue reality by changing the basic laws of the universe to fit the plan.
This is why I’ve taken the position of the enemy in this discussion. If the role I’ve taken can be outmaneuvered, put positioned, outgunned, and ultimately defeated no matter the path taken, then I know the opposing ideal is superior.
Thus far, all the anarchist community has managed to offer are attempts to stop very real bullets with metaphysical concepts and personal attacks of character. The personal attacks are the most disconcerting. Being referred to as evil, a fool, or numerous other attacks is a sign of ultimate defeat, that the desired outcome is impossible no matter the action taken and the individual is unwilling to abandon it. It’s emotional and irrational. Emotions serve us well in personal endeavors, but have no place in concepts of the greater structure of human life. If personal attacks persist, then it’s abundantly clear that anarchy is a philosophy best abandoned as any further energy poured into it is ultimately wasted.
And this is why I’m engaging in this exercise, in this game of philosophical chess. The end desire is to either strengthen the philosophy or eliminate it entirely – in either case, a clear path of action has been opened, for better or for worse.
Sit down, ask the hard questions, frame every action and reaction in the unbreakable rules of the real world. I’ve done so, and thus far, anarchy is impossible. It can exist, at least temporarily, but the mechanics of getting to that point of existence do not exist, but it’s always doomed to destruction. But, as noted above, I will never have all the information, and if someone does find a path that I’ve missed, one that can reasonably be taken without relying on hopes, prayers, complete revisions of the laws of nature, or magical necklaces that turn back time conveniently given to us by kindly wizards at the beginning of the story, I’ll wholeheartedly embrace the philosophy. Until then, I’ve put anarchy aside as an impossible dream, waiting for superior information to change my mind.
@J. Murray February 19, 2011 at 5:23 pm
I applaud this post. J., that was excellent!
What a well-written post! A real pleasure to read.
Out of curiosity, if I may ask the question – because I am one of those who has lots of plans and ideas for business, but no idea about how to making them real – what is your job?
That’s all well and good, but we’ve been down the minarchist road before, and it has been a proven failure.
I’m a cost accountant. I specialize in deep analysis of manufacturing processes, proper costing of those processes, and also engage in efficiency, waste elimination, and management of production (both physical manufacturing and services) to reduce failures and improve quality. It’s amazing how much a business can improve when you know just how much to sell a product for, where your costs are located, which costs provide no customer value, which ones you can actually get rid of, how to maintain the integrity of the product line, and all sorts of things. It really gives a leg up on the competition to eliminate costs and get a deeper understanding that the product that you thought was your most profitable really was the one taking the biggest loss because the company was making business decisions based on IRS or GAAP rules as opposed to reality.
I’m the libertarian-style accountant. I don’t care about the rules set forth by government in GAAP or tax accounting. I tell the company exactly what it costs and exactly how to maximize benefit.
Adam – It is possible. The possibility is slim as it requires consistent vigilance of the population, but is is possible. Possible to not only get there but to maintain it for a lengthy period of time. Reaching a state of anarchism today isn’t remotely possible. There will be a point when state structures are being dismantled and military forces are shut down and dissipated that the state will be at it’s most vulnerable to external aggression. It takes time for people and organizations to change and adapt. It would take years to readjust to the new paradigm, time that is just not available when living in a world of predators.
It’s nice to fantasize about the end-state anarchy, but we can’t close our eyes to the harsh world around us. Putting your head under the blankets doesn’t protect you from monsters. A solid plan and a big gun does.
I was really impressed with this line:
“The key reason I’m not sold on this whole idea is that, in the end, those trying to sell me it are the same as those people who buy lottery tickets at the supermarket and get excited about what they’ll do with the winnings long before the numbers are ever drawn.”
If cynical whining is an argument, then I guess you win. We can’t have a free society and defend it because certain people buy lottery tickets and fantasize about how to spend it.
Thanks for sharing.
If you are concerned about states attacking an anarchist society, don’t you think anarchists are too? You say that a free society cannot organize defense and raise money for state-of-the-art military hardware, but you make no argument. In fact, you are saying that since everyone wants and needs X desperately, X will never materialize. That is a denial of economic law.
We are not living 500 years ago where native people living in isolation didn’t know that there were empires out there ready to colonize them and/or were too undeveloped to do anything about it. We have the advantage of a huge database of knowledge about history, the rising and falling of states, the workings of economies, the faults and failings of human nature.
Defense in a big topic. Here’s a place to start. The Myth of National Defense, Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production: http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf
Don’t forget about the internet.
Times are changing. All of that about stuff about states taking over the free societies seems, at most to me, to be explaining that it is very unlikely that free societies in past times of history would last long and, well, that’s of course true. But we’re not interested in free societies of the past. Extrapolating what has happened in the past (like the colonizations of indigenous people) to the future probably won’t work well here because there is so much more to account for. And if Austrian economics has taught us anything, a free market of producers can beat whatever a state’s army can throw at them with ease. Someone said there would be no demand for weaponry in a free market, which would stop being true if there was ever a threat or even perception of a threat of an invading state. Also, the U.S. military’s recent activity has illustrated quite clearly to me that dedicated locals beat an organized army every time.
The real question, I think, is what ideas will be around when this state fails? Will statism die with the state, or will it survive? Will people take the death of this state as a sign of the failure of *this* government, or of government itself? That will determine which way things go, and things like the internet hugely impact how ideas are spread. Censorship is at least much harder.
“My main concern with the total anarchy approach is that it is ill-equipped to handle an aggressive, statist culture.”
How does the fact that you “have a concern” justify the aggression committed by the state?
Well maybe he meant in the sense that an anarchist society is doomed, the statists will just take it over so why bother. Of course ethically this is empty, but it seems to be relevant even in admitting that creating a state for the free society would not at all be a solution to the problem. Is the threat of invasion and a “take-over” from a foreign state actually a problem for an ancap society? This is related to but not the same as the question of whether a private firm within the ancap society can “take over”.
I think that is only a problem if there is a only a rudimentary market. If there is a substantial market with no state presiding over it taking it over would be very difficult. You’d be up against lots of relatively wealthy people who are probably very interested in fighting for their lifestyles. The professions of soldiery and weaponry would carry huge wages and draw in experts. They would also be exclusively interested in protecting themselves and have no reason to begin initiating aggression after defeating the invaders, because that would not carry high wages. A developed ancap society could crush a state invasion with ease.
All that is needed is to get to that stage, and we already have the market. We just have to throw the state off of it, and low and behold they’re about to go bankrupt anyways. If enough people believe that society will be better with no government, then this one will die and this market will flourish. If enough people believe otherwise, the whole process will be repeated (except at the end the market will be still stronger and give a better chance for the other idea). The guiding factor is ideas. If ancap did take the place of statism in a market like the one here in the U.S., it would have no problem defending itself against China (who would probably be more interested in trading with us) or “terrorists” (who would have no reason to terrorize us because we wouldn’t be starting wars with them).
This is why minarchism vs. anarchism is so important. It has to emphasized that being an anarchist has nothing to do with hoping for the future, or trying to reach an “end of history” where everything is going to be ancap forever. It is about realizing that states are wrong, and we should only put up with them because we have to, which is true now but may not be true tomorrow (no one can predict the future of human civilization like that). It is realizing that if the chance comes to have a state-less society, one should actively and vocally support this. It is irrelevant if that day will actually come. I probably won’t get a visit from someone saying “Hey your neighbor isn’t home let’s steal his stuff!”, but I know exactly what I would do if that did happen!
I believe the mistake in understanding the minarchist position is trying to define it or attack it using reason.
It is my contention the minarchist position is an emotional and psychological position.
I suggest we view minarchists not as enemies but as children who are afraid of the dark. And as with children, you need a soft approach to show them there is nothing to fear from the dark and in many ways much safety.
Furthermore, I believe that minarchists are just anarchists in waiting…they have not yet evolved and just as it would be foolish to chastise a child for its well intended but misplaced beliefs…it would be equally wrong not to question those beliefs and like Socrates, allow people to find the conclusions on their own.
PS>The child analogy is not meant disparagingly. Every anarchist was at one time a minarchist. In the end, all of us are brothers/sisters in the same struggle…some of us are just younger (in mind… not age).
As a (theoretical) minarchist, I certainly don’t take exception to your analogy, but this little kiddo looks at Murray’s comment and has trouble believing that there’s really a solution that doesn’t involve some form of government to defend against other governments. I would love to believe it was really possible, and if we came to a situation where minarchy existed, maybe I would be able to imagine it, but right now I can’t even do that.
Drigan,
I find these arguments funny because essentially you have one side telling the other their vision isn’t realistic. But really, neither the anarchist or minarchist vision is going to happen at least not in our lifetimes.
Furthermore, the argument is an intellectual one. Evolving into an anarchist is an evolution in thought.
But I would suggest you consider this…
What if there is no such thing as a body politic? What if the vast majority of people are already living as anarchists but just don’t acknowledge it?
Take Egypt-80 million people…300,000 disillusioned …what do the other 79 million do???
Take the US-I/3 votes…what do the other 2/3rds do???
You see, most people don’t care who rules them or not. Most people just live and try to survive. That’s the majority of humanity. The idea of gov. is an illusion.
In an anarchist society, what would people do? Exactly what the vast majority of humanity does today…live and survive.
The revolution occurred 10,000 years ago and continues today in the streets, alleys, and in the countryside…all over the world…libertarianism prevails and always will but few will recognize it.
Think about it Drigan and kiddo… good luck on your intellectual journey:)
I’m a minarchist not because I fear the dark, but because I don’t think it’s possible to convince everyone not to fear the dark.
It sounds like you’re a pessimistic anarchist, not a minarchist.
I understand the logic of what Kinsella is saying, but I don’t agree that he has been appointed from Upon High to bequeath to us the absolute definition of what an anarchist is. I agree with his conditional statements, yet would never call myself, or represent myself to others, as an anarchist, precisely because I do not believe it is functionally possible.
I’d prefer to think of myself as more of a pragmatic anarchist, but I’ll bite on the pessimistic anarchist label too.
Remember being a pessimist doesn’t mean you smarter; It just means that it’s more likely your right.
i prefer anarcho-pessimist.
http://is.gd/cRxVSe
Anarchists may also be minarchists in waiting. The reality is that both views of government are incomplete. The separation of state and government and the concurrency of multiple governments within the state are the real goals of libertarianism.
Stranger,
The concept of separating governemnt and State is a beautiful thing.
In a nutshell, government is a natural process of finding a way to bring about order, whereas the State is ego-driven.
Stranger,
Anarchists may also be minarchists in waiting. The reality is that both views of government are incomplete.
I don’t know if you meant the last part of your statement literally (see bold) but if you did then you have a grave misunderstanding of the anarchist position.
There is only one view- government and anarchists don’t hold that view. Your statement implies that anarchy is a form of government but it’s not. Anarcho-libertaianism is the juxtaposition, a total and complete opposite of government as in… no government.
Due to this relationship, it is impossible (philosophically) for an anarcho-libertarian to be a minarchist in waiting. I hold that the anarchist position is the highest level of thinking one can obtain. The application and presentation of the theory is the only thing that differentiates us as anarcho-libertarians.
I did glance at your links but my cursory review of your ideas is they are more about the devolution of government, which starts with secession and eventually into city-states and such.
But anarchists aren’t really concerned with the process. We look to the outcome and what possibilities can occur after the fact. Of course, we don’t have to look far. There are examples of libertarian anarchy around us everyday.
PS>Your ideas remind me of Ken Macleod’s novel The Star Faction where he describes a very similar society. Of course, we all wish for a New Mars.
The fact is that no-government is impossible. Even in situations where the state completely collapses, people organize themselves to produce justice. They may do so on tribal lines or based on other factors, but the act of governing continues.
Preaching the destruction of all governments is asking minarchists to imagine nothingness. It is preaching pure nihilism. No wonder then that they won’t join up.
Libertarianism has nothing to do with anarchy and it has been a grave error to claim as such. It is about finding out the best way to provide justice. Describe such a way that doesn’t endanger minarchists, and they will join with you.
Voluntary order is not nothingness. Government is not a voluntary order.
I think this is a pure semantic argument. To Stranger, I think “government” means the process of producing security and justice. To Dagnytg, I think it means a territorial monopoly.
In such an order, can the USA still exist? That is critical factor.
If you want to destroy the world’s governments, you are an anarchist. If you can live with them, you are something else.
Stranger,
Though I do enjoy your fresh take on the issue, I must respectfully disagree with some of your definitions and interpretations.
I believe the mistake you make (and DixieFlatline alludes to this) is assuming that cooperation and government are synonymous. They aren’t. (One is choice…the other is not.)
Furthermore, I don’t know any anarcho-libertarians preaching the destruction of government. It would be an antithesis to libertarian tradition and the principle of non-aggression.
And last, freedom has nothing to do with justice. From Rand to Rothbard the term justice is seldom used. Justice is a derivative of equality. Our president uses the term social justice.
Equality and freedom are incompatible. To embrace the distinction and choose a side (i.e. freedom) is a prerequisite to understanding libertarianism. Failure to do so (and your use of the word “justice” gives me pause) negates all libertarian intentions you may have. (I am going to assume it was a rhetorical error and not a philosophical one.)
Note:
This is not to say anarcho-libertarians don’t believe in a just society. They believe there will be less injustice when people cooperate through their own accord. It is government that creates injustice by benefiting certain constituencies (whether that be in a small town or nation-state.)
“I hold that the anarchist position is the highest level of thinking one can obtain.”
The arrogance and hatefullness of some of the attitudes here astound me.
If I’m ever lost at sea, I hope there aren’t any anarchists in my life-raft.
Smoove-
What you present is the mythical narrative the state tells about itself.
Iain-
The narrative might be mythical but the state has been a reality in all large civilizations. I see the happenings in Egypt right now, and I can’t help but think: Here is a civilization that has roots dating back thousands of years. And yet even with all that history to draw upon, the people revolted because they want a “better” state, not anarchy. Methinks humans might naturally prefer gov’t to anarchy.
You’re right people probably do prefer governments, but not for good reasons. Can you show me a direct link between the Egypt of today and the civilization that existed in Europe 5000 years ago? I doubt it. Much has changed. I mean they don’t even know all of the history, we’ve had to reconstruct it over many decades. The state is a reality, but does not need to be. How do you define civilization? You can define it in a way that supports your argument, that is you can define it as a society that has a government. Then, by definition there is no civilization without government. That’s hardly fair.
Iain-
“You’re right people probably do prefer governments, but not for good reasons.”
Therein lies my point. On an evolutionary time scale, humans aren’t that far removed from living in small isolated packs. We are still very tribal and xenophobic, i.e., highly irrational and emotional. I don’t need to be convinced about the merits of anarchism. I need to be convinced that human nature has evolved past this, what appears to be a very fundamental and basic, desire/need to form some “common good” gov’t.
You are describing a set of ideas that has been prevalent among masses of people only for the last hundred years or so.
Through most of western history most people simply saw their governments as nuisances that they didn’t care enough about to actually fight off.
Although I am sympathetic to the minarchist call to arms, I am loathe to accept the logical implications of such a philosophy of half-ass without a good justification. The founding fathers gave a good justification. There’s only one problem: it does not work. Minarchism leads to where we are now, because it allows a monopoly on violence and law, which is at odds with American and British history, namely the common law. If one entity has last right to interpret the law, it will interpret it in its own interest, and, voila!, we have the entitlement state! If some minarchist can show how a limited state can be really limited, I might be interested, but until then, minarchy is as utopian as the golden middle.
By all means, cut down the state, but at least show me how you will keep it cut down given the fact that you have ceded the monopoly on violence and law argument.
I prefer ideological purity over muddled arguments for the state. Principle is more attractive than practicality.
Many could have said, “Enjoy being the .5% that think slavery is wrong. I’d rather be practical and work within the system.” Such a position is untenable and immoral. I’d rather die unsuccessful than compromise my values. I’d rather be 100% right than 100% wrong, even if 99.5% agreed with the wrong position.
“I prefer ideological purity over muddled arguments for the state. Principle is more attractive than practicality.”
“I’d rather die unsuccessful than compromise my values. I’d rather be 100% right than 100% wrong, even if 99.5% agreed with the wrong position.”
Case in point. This is the voice of a fanatic who leaves no room for compromise, for cooperation or even respect for anyone who does not follow him 100%.
If 99.5% of all people agree on some principle, like the right to self-government, doesn’t that give one pause to reconsider the fringe nature of one’s world-view? Can these people really believe that “non-believers” in anarchism are evil?
And what is this principle that is so important? Being “forced” to pay property tax? Collect income tax? Pay traffic tickets? This is equivalent to bombing your own citizens, to murder and other crimes? This “monopoly on coercion” is “dripping with evil”?
Thank you for coming out and letting us all see you for who you are.
As opposed to, for example, a demagogue who cannot express a coherent thought, or a turncoat who shifts his position depending on how the wind blows?
“… if you refuse to engage in the political process …”
You emotional-children need to wake up and look around you. It means nothing that you vote in elections. Participating in the political process is meaningless. Worse than meaningless, actually — it’s not merely irrelevant, but actively harmful to you. Elections are designed for one purpose — to condition you, the livestock, into believing that you are something other than livestock. You’re better off if you get past that illusion, because it’s enslaving you.
Emma Goldman said it best (although she was as much a Commie as an anarchist) — if voting could ever actually change anything, it’d be illegal. Every now and then, a smart farmer learns that it’s a good idea to let the livestock to run slightly more free, but only because free-range livestock is slightly more productive than livestock that spends its life in a cell. The livestock doesn’t ever get to vote to end the farm system. Don’t be ridiculous.
Statism is a charade. A scam. A Three-card Monty game. I don’t know how to convey this to you any more clearly. It’s a con, and you just don’t realize it. You know what they call the one person who doesn’t know it’s a con? The mark. That’s you.
If a corporate State was ever anything remotely beneficial to humanity (which it wasn’t), the benefits of American democracy are long since dead and gone. They control THE MONEY. ALL OF IT! They own your children for 13 years or more. “Public sector unions” is a euphemism for huge and growing class of people whose sole job is to suck the wealth right out of you, and call you a criminal if you dare complain about their gold-plated guaranteed-benefit life long zero-cost health care and “retirement” plans. The gun-based class — the people who are now wholly economically dependent on armed robbery to maintain their lifestyle — is well over 50% of the US population. That’s who “votes.”
Voting is armed robbery through proxy. I would no sooner vote than I would own a slave.
Who said anything about voting? Marching in protest is participating in the political process. Staging strikes. Standing vigil. Advocating to your friends, neighbors, even pushing your local representatives towards less gov’t. Anything you do to try and change the current political reality, is participating in the political process.
I’m willing to concede that there may be something I haven’t thought of; if so, please enlighten me. But if the goal is to achieve anarchy, and you don’t believe people should participate in politics, and you’re strictly pacifist (except defensively), then by what process is the state removed?
I’m willing to concede that there may be something I haven’t thought of; if so, please enlighten me. But if the goal is to achieve anarchy, and you don’t believe people should participate in politics, and you’re strictly pacifist (except defensively), then by what process is the state removed?
First, no one needs to do anything to “achieve anarchy.” I’m not just picking nits. This is an important basic concept to grasp — all human society is INHERENTLY and UNAVOIDABLY anarchistic. Stop waiting for an official declaration that “Anarchy Shall Now Commence.” It’s here now. It’s all around you. It always has been. It always will be.
The mafia organization that calls itself “the State” is not actually in charge. It’s subject to the same anarchistic characteristics of human society as it always has been. Not even in actual prisons can the totalitarians actually gain complete control over how prisoner-society works.
The greatest skill of the political class is not “governing” but PRETENDING that they are controlling things. They take credit for things they had nothing to do with. They place blame on their rivals whenever it suits them, with zero regard for things like cause and effect. The Statists’ greatest productive output is bullshit — lying, deceiving, theater, illusion, the generation of pro-State propaganda, etc.
Yes, I am in favor of there being less violence and coercion and threats thereof in society. I count organized crime like the mafia/State among the crime statistics. Everything the State does is criminal. It is regularized and orderly crime, on a large scale, and therefore more harmful than the sporadic and semi-random crime committed by freelancers who stick up liquor stores. But, yes, I’d like the crime to end. But anarchy is always here, crime or no crime.
Second, what people should do is live with some basic integrity and moral principles in their personal lives. Stop associating with statists. Stop tolerating it when someone sits across from the dinner table and blithely says that they have no problem with armed goons storming into your house at night to collect what they unilaterally declare that you owe. Call them out as the scumbags they are.
At what point does a statist proposition become indecent? When someone politely suggests that your wife and daughter should be rounded up and used as inseminated breeding incubators? That your children ought to be ground up and turned into freeze-dried meals for our brave soldiers overseas? Why is it socially acceptable for someone to suggest that your livelihood and occupation and money and economic life and all the rest should be put to a vote, and by the way, you’re going to be paying whatever they say you’ll pay, and if you resist paying, SWAT teams will come for you, and if you resist them, they will shoot you dead in your own kitchen?
So, that’s my recommendation. Raise your children to find statism as unthinkable as we find slavery today. Be brave in your personal, social life. Learn to cope with the social disapproval you’ll receive for speaking the truth, the way the abolitionists once did. You’ll be in a minority. Maybe in 5 or 6 generations, there will be enough people to comprise a whole town with the basic ethical sense and decency to find armed robbery of one’s neighbors repugnant.
Well said. Your last two posts here are excellent.
Society really is anarchic and the state really is an illusion. It is just an idea that is pounded
into people’s brains from childhood to keep them pacified. It’s the illusion that there is someone or something outside of society which governs it. The reality is that there are only self-governing people and self-governing organizations of people interacting to achieve individual and corporate goals. The state is no different. It’s just a group of people, and inside its organization it is also anarchic. The state differs from every other organization only in the fact that it claims a monopoly on the use of force. To the extent that the rest of society buys into this idea, they are enslaved to the state – not so much by guns, but through their own minds, their own servile response to state propaganda about how big, powerful, and oh-so-necessary it is.
The battle really is a philosophic one. It’s literally “all in your head”.
Imagine that the Egyptians, rather than taking to the streets in the traditional way of “revolution” (still statist), simply decided to not obey the barkings of Mubarak OR the military OR the US OR the UN. That would be a real social revolution. You don’t have to overthrow the dictator. You just need enough people to withdraw support and he crumbles. He isn’t feared anymore, and so loses all of his “power”. Was that “power” ever anything more than what people gave him?
Tyranny and freedom are both rooted in the mind. I think anarchists see that more clearly than others. They also see that “never the twain shall meet,” which is why there are uncompromising (or strive to be so) on principle.
@Phinn February 18, 2011 at 9:14 pm
That was passionately written, and holds true perhaps, as long as what you claim to exist is actually as despicable as slavery.
The “wrongness” of what you say here if there is any, is rooted in the equivocation between the crimes against humanity that you associate with statism, and any other form of social organization (as opposed as the disorganizing factors of chaos) which does not rise to this level of outrage.
By such equivocation, you attempt to carve out for yourself and others of like mind, a moral high ground that leaves the rest of us in the camp of the Mafioso. Free people have a right to associate and cooperate with one another. That does not make us criminals.
If we as a free people pursue an ideal of self-governance that, over 200 years of relative peace and prosperity, has evolved to a beast with fangs which violate that ideal, the rational response is to remove the fangs, not to destroy the beast. A beast, properly constrained and managed, may exist at the service of humanity, not merely always against it.
The distinction between good and evil, even at the level of a single individual, is much more difficult to ascertain than simply opposing all on equivocation of “criminal” and “social”. You simply refuse to acknowledge that self-government, like property, is a human device. Like humans who have the capacity for evil, human devices likewise are tools that can be but to both evil and beneficial ends.
It is the end that is idealized, and the means are selected by humans for human purposes. The measure of “good and evil” is in some large part a measure of the likelihood that a given means will achieve the desire ends.
“The measure of “good and evil” is in some large part a measure of the likelihood that a given means will achieve the desire ends.”
Oh, God.
Zorg,
You are right, that was a bad sentence. What I am referring to, unsuccessfully, is Mises’s comment about the goal of economic study being to analyze the probability of whether a given policy will actually achieve the desired ends. The context was contrasting free-market capitalism with socialism; i.e it could not deliver the goods.
“The gun-based class — the people who are now wholly economically dependent on armed robbery to maintain their lifestyle — is well over 50% of the US population. That’s who “votes.”
Over 50% of the US population are equivalent to “armed robbers”? Really? If you vote you are a criminal?
Gee, that sounds reasonable. Where do I sign up?
Education, that’s easy, because that minarchy propaganda is working wonders.
I laud the goal of a stateless and violence/coercive free society.
But the fundamental problem is while you can philosophize all you want about peace, love, and prosperity from your ivory towers there is a fundamental aspect of reality that your purposely and thoughtlessly ignoring completely.
This reality is that: Despite what you may want or not want to believe there is always going to be people that will actively use force and violence to get what they want. And not only that: they will want to work together to violently get what they want.
I’ve been in lots of situations and met lots of people.
AND……
Until you’ve met a man that waved a gun in front of your face explaining quite peacefully that “Oh there is no need to worry… I won’t kill him or anything like that. I just want to break his leg.”
Then in a quite friendly way explain how he broke his leg skiing once and how painful and long it took to heal and how he would like to do that to your friend. But, you know, you don’t have to worry since that is all he wants to do right now. Also he is quite adamant about the fact that he is willing to pay you quite a bit of money for the chance to break your friend’s leg.
However he did get kinda upset about the dog barking and interrupting him. So he informs you that he will kill your dog if you don’t put it inside.
And sure. He walked up to your house alone. He isn’t scared of you or what you can do. Nor is he worried about anybody trying to run away. Because even though he parked his car a few blocks away his buddies on street and in the alleyway are perfectly capable of breaking legs all by themselves.
It’s a fun fun world out there. Full of fun people with unusual attitudes and conflicting philosophies about how the universe should be ran. That was quite a afternoon that I was glad was over.
That’s why it’s bullshit to get all fundamentalist about anything. Especially involving libertarianism. BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW how it will work out. Nobody knows. Anybody who thinks they have the answers about how a libertarian society can and will work in the real world is deluding themselves entirely. There simply is not enough experience and information out there to really understand what it is like to have a modern, technological society with dense populations work together without a overruling concentration of force to control society for long periods of time.
It’s all theories and conjecture backed up with historical evidence, but nothing solid. Unless your willing to adapt and change your viewpoints then your never going to make progress towards your ultimate goals.
Otherwise all you are is just the libertarian equivalent of people arguing whether it’s better to crack the egg from the big end or the small. Most people are not well educated in economics and philosophy with a grounding in objective history… but that does not mean that they can’t smell bullshit from a mile away.
Personally I think the closest we can achieve towards a anarchist society the better off we are. Almost no question about it. But that is not something that is ever going to happen without intermediate steps. It’s quite possible that the best situation is just to create a government as a placeholder and with the sole duty of ensuring that a more violent government does not decide to fill the void.
It’s very important to keep in mind that although most of human history the world was mostly anarchistic in nature. However it’s also important to note that governments of the world saw opportunity and used military strength. That they did use aggressive force to create centralized state government were none previously existed. We didn’t start off in a world of slavery. We didn’t start off in a world ran by ‘the state’.
The state was created and then it took over a world of free people.
That people that seek to use the organized aggressive force for personal gain actually DO win most of the time, completely regardless the wishes and best intentions of the people they end up ruling.
What we need is something different then what existed in the past and something different then what exists now. What it is is really impossible know, and all we can do is keep trying until we find a successful approach.
nate-m,
I read and re-read your post to be sure I was understanding what your position is regarding anarchy. I am still not sure that I have succeeded. Your feelings of intense fear for your safety doubtless impact your thoughts about violence and its control, or lack thereof.
My reading of your post is that your misgivings about anarchy is due to its inability, in your mind, to protect people (specifically you) from the violence of others and that this failure stems from the anarchist failing to understand the propensity for humans to use unfettered violence against each other to achieve their evil ends. This is exactly the problem many people have and you are in good and abundant company.
If your government, with its massive enforcement arm did not protect you from harm or the threat of harm, then how could puny anarchy, a non-government, possibly be any help at all? Let’s think about this for a bit. Your government’s failure to prevent the situation you described from occurring has set the bar very low indeed. If anarchy also fails in a fair contest all we have is a tie between failures and therefore there is no reason to fear anarchy any more than there is to praise government.
Why does government fail? The problem is systemic. All that means is the problem lies not with any individual or group but form the organizing structure of the system itself. Maybe you have noticed that whenever the government actually does act to prevent harm from occurring to an individual, the protected individual is either a member of the government, or a member of his family but not the common man (you). For the rest of us the government is content to simply issue a broad threat of enforcement of laws against crime. Even then any actual enforcement seems random if not rare. How was the enforcement performed in your ordeal? Was there an apprehension, or punishment? I’ll assume not. The police are good at forensics, they can efficiently find the cause of your death, but not so good at preventing it.
I offer in defense of governments the explanation that attempts to control violence by the use of violence is a barren exercise, and yet this is governments’ method of choice. It is the method itself that is incompetent. If the underlying assumptions, that there exists a relatively small number of evil people and they can be identified and suppressed by force, were true then there would be hope for its success. If we make an alternative assumption, that each person is capable of aggressive use of violence to obtain his ends (Mother Theresa excepted, of course) then it becomes obvious that that method will always fail due to insufficient resources which cannot be increased at a greater rate than the population itself. If any government were to forego its monopoly on the use of force, then it would cease to be government, it would become an anarchy.
If we ignore for the moment wishfully desired results of government control of violence by means of its monopoly on violence and focus on the actually obtained results, we can see more clearly why the failure occurs.
First and most obvious we can see that a government does not enforce against itself, that is the people who are in control in the government, in anything other that a token way. It is not rational to use force against yourself. Have you ever noticed that little window decal, the one that results in the driver of the car on which it is displayed chatting with the officer instead of receiving a speeding ticket? This condition leads many to seek protection from the violence of the government by joining it. How is it this can be considered good for society as a whole?
Second, we see that actual government enforcement activities fall, in the main, on assuring its own flow of revenue in the form of taxes, fines, and other levies. Yes to be sure government does prosecute (some) egregious crimes and when it does it is publicized in what amounts to self adulation. But consider this, the criminal in many cases often has a lengthy history of violent behavior with little or nothing having been done to effect any alteration of it. The usual excuse is that there are insufficient resources. Of course!
Third is an invisible effect that is even more damaging. Inculcating the notion that it is the province of government and only the government to protect against the use of violence leads directly to people naively thinking that government can and does provide all the necessary protection. The individual is lulled into complacency and fails to take even rudimentary steps to assure his own protection or that of his family.
Anarchists truly are aware that humans use violence and it is precisely because of this knowledge that the anarchist expects each member to assume reasonable responsibility for his own self preservation.
I think the problem of people underestimating the ability of anarchy, as you seem to do in your post, to achieve order thru chaos in a large scale anarchic society keeps recurring is because the “capital structure” of anarchy is not well understood. Readers here understand the Austrian theory of capital, if they remain readers long. An economy requires time to adjust its capital structure to changing demand. Just as sudden changes in demand send shock waves thru the economy until is capital structure changes to accommodate, so too must time be allowed for the “capital structure” of society, or its collective mindset if you will, to change and adapt to accommodate the condition of anarchy. An entire society cannot convert quickly from an organization controlled from above into one in which control is dispersed as widely as possible. When it is instant conversion that is conjured up in the mind when anarchy is considered of course the alarm bells go off, as well they should. Anarchy requires self control and self control does not spring from a magic wand, rather it must be carefully taught. Of course it takes time. How to teach self control without the use of force is too big a topic for this blog post, so relax.
In my vision of anarchy, those thugs you encountered would likely not have survived to reach puberty while failing to curb their aggressive behaviors. This is not the place to go into detail about how this would be accomplished, as my ideas for this are not in the mainstream, but suffice it to say that you would have first dibs on retaliation or retribution. The glib answer is that aggressive violence would not happen, but that is not literally the truth, it would occur, but it would be dealt with while it is still small scale and rarely would it escalate to what we see as commonplace today.
One need not be an economist nor a philosopher to understand that personal liberty is desired. The question then becomes, “How best to obtain the desired result?”
Pick your pony and place your bet.
Cordially,
Don
I like it. I think it’s a great idea. I am a big fan. I just don’t think it has a ghost of a chance of working in our lifetimes or our children’s lifetime or our children’s children’s lifetime.
I am not really scared about my personal safety. Most people are trustworthy. But there exists those that are not.
I think that with a lack of government it creates a power vacuum. There will be self-organizing forces in society and abroad that will seek to fulfill that vacuum with force. That is without government, without a state… that just creates very strong incentive for a new one to be created.
It does a good job of protecting me against other governments. Potential domestic states and aggressive foreign ones. I know that it’s not doing it for my personal benefit, but for it’s own. The effect is the same, though.
Exactly. That’s why it’s full of fail. That’s not a realistic expectation. Not at all.
A significant portion of the population will, and always have, surrendered freedom for security. Organized violence works. Lies and false promises works. History has proven that you can, as a government, do pretty much whatever you want as long as you don’t starve your population. Once people start to go hungry then rules change.
Why do you suppose we have welfare? It’s to prevent people in dense population centers from going hungry.
In reality thugs like what I mentioned are the people that form the basis for new states. Why? Because it works. Mafias are essentially illegal ‘corporate’ governments for governing criminal activity. Without legal government they (or people like them) become the new legal government. This is how we got the state in the first place. You have your fantasy about how things could work, I have historical fact.
I think what we _MAY_ end up with, the closest to the ideal we may be able to achieve, is when we end up with situations were taxation is voluntary. That instead of continent-wide government we have city-states were people can choose how they live and if they don’t like it they can go to a different city-state. That may be the best we can get.
People can go to one city if they want to be sheeple. Other people can go to other ones if they want to increase their chances of being successful in large corporate structure, or if they want freedom they can head out to the boonies and find like-minded people.
nice post nate.
However, I think liberal democracies have significantly increased civil and political liberties and freedoms since 1776.
moreover, liberal democracies in the geopolitik are utterly peaceful when engaging each other. Admittingly they are lethal and aggressive to statist regimes. However, if the globe democratizes then I believe mankind will be as peaceful, stable, prosperous, and free as humanly possible.
however, i acknowledge several critical puzzle pieces needs to be added to our constitutional federal republic — namely eliminating economic coercion or government intrusion into the marketplace.
we could start by eliminating these from article 1 section 8 of the constitution:
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; ( I dont agree with this one — but ancaps make a very good argument against this clause that I havent found the wherewithal to challenge)
constitutional amendments should be included that restricted government for all commerce except defense and law — no government spending or influence in education, transportation, communications, housing, arts, et al.
I think this is a difficult task, but it is far easier transition then gutting the entire system and adopting an anarchic system that has no provisions to forestall the eventual emergence to absolutism .
“namely eliminating economic coercion or government intrusion into the marketplace.”
Why do you want to eliminate coercion now? I thought you said that coercion was simply a means to an end, that it was a benefit to the market, and that capitalists in a free market would excel at wielding armed force and use it to further their business interests. You said ancap society would be more prosperous and more violent than a statist one, so I’m curious why you would want to eliminate economic coercion when you characterized it previously as so useful and beneficial to “capitalists”.
Could it be that in your trolling expedition you have forgotten which positions you have taken in various posts?
A few choice ones quoted from another post of yours:
“Moreover, coercion is simply the means by which profit seeking actors and enterprises use to obtain economic wealth.”
“Capitalism means freedom — it makes no distinction on the means, to do so would be to deny freedom to actors and enterprises who have a particular skill set that makes them effective at wielding armed force.”
I don’t like trolls.
How Does A Socialism Junkie Gain Confidence?
The key to all of the classical liberalism suggestions is voluntarism. If you volunteer to be taxed (and no doubt taxes will always increase) so you can live like a socialist then that can and should be your perogative. If you or I want to opt out and to take care of our own affairs and to support and call upon charities when a need arises then that voluntary choice can and should be respected also.
Since I am not forced to support your socialist addiction I have no reason to object to your choices. Likewise it is the responsibility of the socialist to compare and contrast with those who choose relative freedom, respect their rights, and recognize that they themselves also have the right to opt out of socialism at any time in the future should they see that it is the more preferred way of life.
But that’s not socialism. By definition socialism involves people who don’t want to pay for it paying for it.
What some of you minarchists seem to be missing with your arguments for a “night watchman state” is that anarchism provides that outlet to you. Anarcho-capitalism is in many ways similar to our current system. The difference is that if you want to opt out of your current system, no one can stop you. There isn’t a coercive force to tell you no.
This is why I find the minarchist position so unconvincing. Once you give any system monopolistic power, what is to stop it from growing? The State will naturally feed at our most vulnerable points to draw more power. Hell, it’s generally for the right reasons. Policies like prohibition, welfare redistribution, imperialism all have factors that draw in a large number of people in this country. But the altruistic intentions don’t mesh with the results. Liberty is being able to say no without violent or coercive consequences. If your form of societal gathering cannot guarantee that, then you’re offering something that is less than actual liberty.
I’m always puzzled by libertarians who denounce the state as a gang of criminals, but then expects this state to play by the rules on election day.
The pacifist fantasy of a peaceful ancap society is easily debunked:
Owners of valued resources in ancap society must provide a level of security proportional to the economic value of the resource being defended. Owners who do not effectively manage their resources will not have the economic wherewithal to provide a level of security commensurate to the economic value of the resource. This deficiency will attract the gaze of more efficient and productive ancap actors and enterprises, thereby increasing the likelihood that the resource will be annexed by force.
This is a beneficial mechanism in the free market since it allows for the transfer of mismanaged and under utilized resources from negligent owners to productive profit-motivated owners. Hence society as a whole benefits when resources that were heretofore denied to the market are now available.
Note that coercion will only result when the following conditions are present: (1) peaceful exchange is not possible and (2) the transaction costs associated with the use of coercion are less than the economic gain to be realized from annexing the resource. Nonetheless, coecion will occur on the margins of ancap society when a negligent owner does not efficiently manage his resources and covetous profit-seeking individuals and enterprises determine that the economic risk-reward quotient favors the use of coercion as a means to obtain the valued resource.
Moreover, coercion is simply the means by which profit seeking actors and enterprises use to obtain economic wealth. Capitalism means freedom — it makes no distinction on the means, to do so would be to deny freedom to actors and enterprises who have a particular skill set that makes them effective at wielding armed force. Moreover, the denial of coercion as a means is a statist-like scheme that rewards inefficient and wasteful owners of scarce resources from suffering the consequences of slothful and negligent management that has denied a scarce resource from the marketplace.
In sum, the notion of a peaceful and prosperous ancap society is fantasy manufactured by a sect of anarchism that dearly wants to believe that their system of choice is a peaceful utopia.
Ancap society will be prosperous, but it will not be anymore peaceful than the contemporary geopolitik. Indeed, it would be far more violent than a geopolitik dominated by liberal democracies, albeit more prosperous.
I explained the problem of annexation of capital in my essay on the production of land. You have to consider that humans who live outside of libertarian society (“society” here being defined as an inter-social agreement over basic laws) cannot receive protection from its laws. So, while they will be vulnerable to aggression, that says nothing about the peacefulness of libertarian society. The members of libertarian societies will be peaceful because aggression against other members will not be rewarded.
The members of libertarian societies will be peaceful because aggression against other members will not be rewarded. — stranger
that is a subjective value judgment that is not supported by empiricism or logic. If that was true, then why are the most powerful societies in human history the ones that have been the most aggressive and warlike ?
a profit-driven actor will use coercion under the following conditions: (1) peaceful exchange is not possible, (2) peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of coercion, and (3) the transaction costs of coercion are less than the anticipated profits from annexing the valued resource.
it would be irrational for a profit -driven actor to forego a profit for pacifist motives.
Moreover, the peaceful members of society would indeed seek to punish aggressors and they would be successful in many cases. However, the most powerful actors and firms in society would be profit-driven since these entities would have the most capital , and capital is the means by which armed force is most effectively applied ( tanks, bombers, battleships, et al. ) any attempt by pacifist actors to punish profit-driven actors would fail in the aggregate.
In sum, profit -driven actors would be the most powerful in ancap society since they would acquire the most capital, irrespective of the means employed. In turn ,these actors would have the means to best project coercive power. In contrast, pacifist or non-aggressive actors would not have the material wealth to challenge more profit-motivated actors since they would have denied themselves the utility of a beneficial, often used, and often successful means to obtain economic goals — namely coercion.
You have your logic backwards. In fact, it is becoming powerful that makes a society war-like. If your power is held in check or neutralized by a counter-power, you cannot benefit from war.
Not only that, but economic interests will show war to be too destructive in a free-trade, economically interconnected world.
Not only that, but economic interests will show war to be too destructive in a free-trade, economically interconnected world. — lain
what if scarce resources are being denied to the marketplace by non-economically motivated actors or by inefficient and wasteful owners of valued resources who will not accept a fair and peaceful exchange for their valued resource ?
>>what if scarce resources are being denied to the marketplace by non-economically motivated actors or by inefficient and wasteful owners of valued resources who will not accept a fair and peaceful exchange for their valued resource ?
Then a market for alternatives to the good will emerge.
Textbook example of something very related to this idea is the Supreme Court Case United States vs. Alcoa. Aluminum is a scarce resource, and supposedly Alcoa was being inefficient and wasteful and monopolistic, etc. They owned all the aluminum in the country! Even all the factories! This is unfair! Who are they competing against!?
Plastic.
You have your logic backwards. In fact, it is becoming powerful that makes a society war-like. If your power is held in check or neutralized by a counter-power, you cannot benefit from war. — stranger
wrong, there are myriad paths or means to power, coercion being one of the more effective ones. I stated clearly and history has shown that the great powers benefit from coercion to both gain and hold power. The notion that Greece, Rome, Britain, the USA, et al gained power first by peaceful means and later abused this power through coercion is flawed thinking.
for example, the US colonists used coercion to take native american lands thereby leading to a great and powerful nation.
Moreover, I agree with your statement tha power is checked by power — AND power is best maintained by economic means or productive and profit seeking enterprises.
lastly, your notion that society cannot benefit from war is not supported by fact, logic, or empiricism. coercion has been the means for positive change throughout history, particularly when it is used to undermine statist power. a bit of coercion in cuba, north korea, zimbabwe, et al would benefit mankind.
You conquer people through force. After that you have to maintain your conquest.
There seem to be two major approaches:
1) Convince people that they benefit from your rule or that they were obligated to obey you.
2) Use force to maintain it.
Most people use a mixture. The advantage to the first one is that it’s cost effective, but it can give ‘the people’ too much power. The second one is that it’s more fool proof, but it costs more and your enemies (rival states) can use that inefficiency against you.
Eastern Europe and the Soviets have proven that you can maintain rule purely through a combination of fear and creating a surveillance culture. A culture were the government hires or coerces a significant portion of the population to secretly spy on the people around them. You don’t know who is a spy, even if you are a spy. It ends up being very self regulating and rather cheap since the watchers are watching the watchers, but they don’t know who they really are.
As long as you don’t actually accidental starving a population usually you have very little fear of there ever being a uprising. It’s when you give them too much rights in order to gain economic advantage is when you might run into problems since they might gain the ability to resist you.
nate-m,
I agree,
importantly, you hit on a critical point that the ‘pacifist wing’ of the ancap party fails to recognize or acknowledge:
individuals, enterprises, and societies that dont engage in economically profitable capitalist actions are unsustainable in the long run against capitalist adversaries who have the will to engage in offensive, preventative, and pre-emptive war.
nice post.
Clearly you’ve read none of Robert Murphy’s writings on Security and Insurance firms in an anarch-capitalist society.
“Owners who do not effectively manage their resources will not have the economic wherewithal to provide a level of security commensurate to the economic value of the resource. This deficiency will attract the gaze of more efficient and productive ancap actors and enterprises, thereby increasing the likelihood that the resource will be annexed by force.”
Other than the last word of this paragraph, what exactly is bad about this? People who do not manage their resources efficiently will lose them. And the problem is…
Also, you’ve given to demonstrable proof that those resources will be annexed by force. Why wouldn’t the resources simply be bought out voluntarily?
“Note that coercion will only result when the following conditions are present: (1) peaceful exchange is not possible and (2) the transaction costs associated with the use of coercion are less than the economic gain to be realized from annexing the resource. Nonetheless, coecion will occur on the margins of ancap society when a negligent owner does not efficiently manage his resources and covetous profit-seeking individuals and enterprises determine that the economic risk-reward quotient favors the use of coercion as a means to obtain the valued resource.”
How exactly would a test for coercion be met here? Assuming said negligent owner has insured his possessions, how exactly would a “covetous profit-seeking individual” take his property without the owner’s consent?
“Moreover, coercion is simply the means by which profit seeking actors and enterprises use to obtain economic wealth. Capitalism means freedom — it makes no distinction on the means, to do so would be to deny freedom to actors and enterprises who have a particular skill set that makes them effective at wielding armed force.”
Freedom is, by definition, not freedom when coercion is used. The second any enterprise decided to use those arms, they would be violating numerous contracts, and would be subject to said penalties of contracts.
Overall, I have no idea what you’re trying to say, other than spouting off babble to see your writing on the internet.
“”Other than the last word of this paragraph, what exactly is bad about this? People who do not manage their resources efficiently will lose them. And the problem is…
Also, you’ve given to demonstrable proof that those resources will be annexed by force. Why wouldn’t the resources simply be bought out voluntarily?”" — adam
simple, not all owners of valued resources are motivated by economic gain.
for example, hyper-environmentalists acquire saudi oil reserves by peaceful exchange and deny this resource to the marketplace for non-economic motives. Hence they will not realize the economic bounty of this valued resources, thereby they will not be able to fund a level of security commensurate to the economic value of the resources, thereby increasing the likelihood that a profit -seeking individual,investor, enterprises uses coercion to acquire this resource.
in my example, you have seen that not all actors in ancap society are motivated by economic goals. Hence these actors will see their valued resources acquired by coercion IF (1) peaceful exchange is not possible, (2) peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of coercion, and (3) the transaction costs associated with the use of coercion are less than the anticipated profit to be realized from acquiring the resource.
“”How exactly would a test for coercion be met here? Assuming said negligent owner has insured his possessions, how exactly would a “covetous profit-seeking individual” take his property without the owner’s consent?”" — adam
See above for ‘test for coercion’.
a negligent owner is not going to be able to insure his possessions at low cost — further impacting his ability to provide a deterrent level of security. Moreover, o profitable insurance firm is going to insure a mismanaged resource nor is the owner going to have the means to purchase an adequate level of insurance.
as for how a profit seeking actor or enterprise take ‘property without consent’ ?
bombers, aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, tanks, et al.
‘Freedom is, by definition, not freedom when coercion is used.’–adam
that is your definition driven by a subjective moral value judgment that is empty if you dont have the material means to deter predation.
“The second any enterprise decided to use those arms, they would be violating numerous contracts, and would be subject to said penalties of contracts.” — adam
the only valid and reliable contract is one that can be enforced.
“Overall, I have no idea what you’re trying to say” — adam
dont worry, your not the only one, many ancaps are fixated on the fantasy utopian notion of ancap peace.
“simple, not all owners of valued resources are motivated by economic gain.
for example, hyper-environmentalists acquire saudi oil reserves by peaceful exchange and deny this resource to the marketplace for non-economic motives. Hence they will not realize the economic bounty of this valued resources, thereby they will not be able to fund a level of security commensurate to the economic value of the resources, thereby increasing the likelihood that a profit -seeking individual,investor, enterprises uses coercion to acquire this resource.”
I never claimed all owners want economic gain. That doesn’t, however, mean that they are “non-economic motives”. You say these environmentalists won’t realize the “economic bounty of this valued resource”, but value, as well all know, is subjective. So how could one even comment on what they have or have not realized? If this group of people did exactly what you’ve discussed, the price of oil will force other market participants to either pay the high cost or move on to something that may be cheaper and less efficient. Eventually, a party would discover a process to use the efficiency of oil without the environmental costs attached. Nowhere in any of this has coercion been used. Environmentalists voluntarily bought oil supplies, and individuals adjusted accordingly.
“in my example, you have seen that not all actors in ancap society are motivated by economic goals. Hence these actors will see their valued resources acquired by coercion IF (1) peaceful exchange is not possible, (2) peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of coercion, and (3) the transaction costs associated with the use of coercion are less than the anticipated profit to be realized from acquiring the resource.”
From this point, you’ve changed the basis of your assumption. You’ve provided no reason why any of the reasons listed above would even be feasible. As I said before, no one would deny these environmentalists from purchasing oil. Why would they? It’s no different than a group of people that purchase land to make it an historical land mark. Instead of the State coercively using eminent domain, voluntary actors pooled their resources together and peacefully solved a problem they had.
“a negligent owner is not going to be able to insure his possessions at low cost — further impacting his ability to provide a deterrent level of security. Moreover, o profitable insurance firm is going to insure a mismanaged resource nor is the owner going to have the means to purchase an adequate level of insurance.”
Once again, why is this a bad thing? We don’t want negligent owners of resources to hold on to them very long, and in a market process, they will not.
“as for how a profit seeking actor or enterprise take ‘property without consent’ ?
bombers, aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, tanks, et al.”
And where are the resources going to come from to make and upkeep these items? They currently exist because the State has reinvested wealth into their production. Furthermore, who is to say these will be used aggressively? Assuming there is a market for such weapons to be used in defensive purposes, if companies are building them for aggressive purposes, why would investors stick around?
“that is your definition driven by a subjective moral value judgment that is empty if you dont have the material means to deter predation”
No, that is what Freedom means. You may not like it, and may not think people will follow it in the proposed social conditions, but freedom isn’t synonymous with a free market.
“the only valid and reliable contract is one that can be enforced.”
Hence the use of private, third party arbiters to enforce such contracts.
“”I never claimed all owners want economic gain. That doesn’t, however, mean that they are “non-economic motives”. “”– adam
I think you may be confused here.
every action requires a trade-off — if an environmentalist decides to forego economic gain in order to protect wetlands from drilling then he is indeed demonstrating “non-economic motives”
“”You say these environmentalists won’t realize the “economic bounty of this valued resource”, but value, as well all know, is subjective.”"– adam
of course, value is subjective, but motivation and goals are not. actors whose goals are economic gain will generally accumulate more capital then actors who are motivated by some aesthetic gain. Hence the profit motivated actors are more likely to have the means to defend valued resources while the aesthetically motivated actor will not.
“”Eventually, a party would discover a process to use the efficiency of oil without the environmental costs attached. Nowhere in any of this has coercion been used. Environmentalists voluntarily bought oil supplies, and individuals adjusted accordingly.”"- adam
in a pacifist fantasyland, this scenario may always be realized. However, in reality the time preferences for different actors is subjective and there will be profit motivated actors who are not able or willing to pay what they consider to be exorbitant prices for valued resources.
INdeed, if a profit motivated individual or firm believes that they can annex a valued resource being plundered for non-economic gain and hence under defended — then coercion will be a viable and oft used means to obtain the under utilized resources. Moreover, society will not severely judge the aggressor since heretofore under utilized resources are now available to the market place.
“”Once again, why is this a bad thing? We don’t want negligent owners of resources to hold on to them very long, and in a market process, they will not.”" — adam
this is not true in all cases. Using your ‘logic’ the owner of a valued resource like the great lakes can be negligent or inefficient in the management of the resource and still retain possession indefinitely without the threat of loss to the detriment of society as a whole. However, in the real ancap world, there will be a free market mechanism to remove the negligent owner for ownership by a more efficient profit motivated actor — and that mechanism is coercion.
Note that institutionalized pacifism is simply a scheme in which inefficient and negligent owners of scarce resources can retain these resources without the suffering the consequences of bad management.
“”And where are the resources going to come from to make and upkeep these items? They currently exist because the State has reinvested wealth into their production.”"–adam
ancap military firms will be far more lethal than any statist army. Moreover, they will gain this lethality at less cost per unit of firepower then the typical statist defense force.
MOreover, the firms that utilize this capital to gain more wealth will be more profitable then firms that have expensive weaponry collecting dust.
“”Furthermore, who is to say these will be used aggressively? Assuming there is a market for such weapons to be used in defensive purposes, if companies are building them for aggressive purposes, why would investors stick around?”" — adam
investors dont invest in a firm because it is nice and peaceful — they invest in it to make a profit.
hence defense firms that leverage their weaponry to the biggest economic gain will attract the most investors. INdeed, a few pacifists will be bellowing ad nauseam but this will be of no consequences since these pacifists are not a threat to use aggressive force.
note that when the US invaded Iraq, myriad legions of pacifists engaged in considerable whining and handwringing, but none had the will or the means to challenge US foreign policy in any substantive manner.
“”No, that is what Freedom means. You may not like it, and may not think people will follow it in the proposed social conditions, but freedom isn’t synonymous with a free market.”" –adam
your offering your subjective moral value judgment that means nothing if you cant defend it. Freedom is not free, nor is it subject to the moral handwringing of naive pacifists. If an individual or firm has the will and the means to use coercion to gain profit — then coercion it is irrespective of what pacifists think.
“”Hence the use of private, third party arbiters to enforce such contracts.”"– adam
if the third party arbiters have the strongest military, then yes. However, might makes right and if your third party arbiter cant enforce its decrees, then its opinion isnt worth the paper it was recorded on.
You’re confusing monetary gain with economic gain. An environmentalist who buys land to protect it gains from the transaction. Otherwise, the transaction would not take place. It is immeasurable by how much, but that is economic gain.
Like the planner, you assume you know how exactly an ancap society would look. That is a mistake. In fact, that is the very first mistake of all planners and those who misunderstand the explanatory power of economics.
I would rather assume that golden middles and nightwatchmen states are utopian. Ancap philosophy is not utopian. It does not even pretend to be.
“You’re confusing monetary gain with economic gain. An environmentalist who buys land to protect it gains from the transaction. Otherwise, the transaction would not take place. It is immeasurable by how much, but that is economic gain.”– soonerliberty
it is you that is confused. Monetary and economic gain are both goals of profit seeking individuals and enterprises. an environmentalist who does not leverage property or resources for either monetary or economic gain will not have the means to provide a level of security commensurate with the economic value of the resource, period.
“Like the planner, you assume you know how exactly an ancap society would look. That is a mistake. In fact, that is the very first mistake of all planners and those who misunderstand the explanatory power of economics.”– soonerliberty
like the planner, your argument is a strawman. I didnt assume anything about ancap society — I simply stated a logical premise — namely the following:
many actors in ancap society will be profit motivated.
many actors in ancap society will not be profit motivated.
coercion is profitable if a valued resource cannot be acquired by (1) peaceful exchange, (2) peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of coercion, and (3) the transaction costs of coercion are less than the anticipated profit to be realized from annexing the valued resource.
profit seeking actors who dont exercise coercion under these circumstances are not acting rationally.
since coercion is simply a means to achieve a goal, actors who forego its utility in achieving economic goals for pacifist reasons will not have the economic wherewithal to challenge profit seeking actors in ancap society
in sum, these are simply logical tenets on which my premise is based — furthermore, you have not offered any logical or substantive challenge to any of these tenets, save personal opinion unsupported by fact or logic.
“I would rather assume that golden middles and nightwatchmen states are utopian. Ancap philosophy is not utopian. It does not even pretend to be.” — soonerliberty
i never mentioned anything about minarchism or any other system, so your rant is off topic. Moreover, it is a few misguided ancaps who think that the system of their choice will be peaceful — that is incorrect and a utopian position.
Pot meet kettle. Claiming opinions are unwarranted and then offering them based on nothing but purely subjective conjecture.
My only point is that your economic gain vs. non-economic gain is utter nonsense. Economic gain doesn’t have to have anything to do with profit in the sense of money, although it can. Show me the person who is acting without some sort of personal profit. Your environmentalist is profit-seeking in the sense that he gains a benefit from his acquired territory: protecting the environment, which makes him feel really good about himself. You’re merely setting up a premise that is circular by defining profit as money. Profit = money. If people seek profit, then they profit and are profit-seeking. People who don’t seek profit don’t profit and are not motivated by profit. But don’t they profit from not profiting? Perhaps they derive pleasure from nonprofit-seeking behavior. The only thing you’ve done is argue that your definition is correct. I’m simply saying it is not. It is based on a faulty definition of profit, which makes any conclusions derived from it fallacious at best as applied to the real world.
The other problem is that you are judging value externally. We don’t know the real value of the land. Perhaps it is more valuable to the environmentalist than the outsider. How can we know? Why else would he have bought it? Why would we assume he couldn’t secure it? Maybe it is so valuable that he will arm himself to the teeth to protect it. Why do all of these examples assume a strong entity versus a hapless one? We don’t know the combinations that would exist. Why assume so much? It only weakens and overly convolutes your argument. The best examples are the simplest ones. See science for more detail.
There will be force even in ancap society, but there will be no monopoly on it. That’s the only difference.
Pot meet kettle. Claiming opinions are unwarranted and then offering them based on nothing but purely subjective conjecture.–soonerliberay
what is subjective about the following tenets?
many actors in ancap society will be profit motivated.
many actors in ancap society will not be profit motivated.
coercion is profitable if a valued resource cannot be acquired by (1) peaceful exchange, (2) peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of coercion, and (3) the transaction costs of coercion are less than the anticipated profit to be realized from annexing the valued resource.
profit seeking actors who dont exercise coercion under these circumstances are not acting rationally.– Rettoper
“My only point is that your economic gain vs. non-economic gain is utter nonsense.”"– soonerliberty
then you dont understand force and how it is best applied in contemporary society.
for example, individuals and enterprises who are motivated by economic gain will acquire the most capital that is essential to fund an effective coercive machine (army, navy, air force, et al).
In contrast, your non-economic actor will not have the economic or material wherewithal to forestall predation at the hands of an army wielding state of the art bombers, tanks, ships, satellites, et al.
But don’t they profit from not profiting? Perhaps they derive pleasure from nonprofit-seeking behavior. The only thing you’ve done is argue that your definition is correct. I’m simply saying it is not. It is based on a faulty definition of profit, which makes any conclusions derived from it fallacious at best as applied to the real world.– soonerliberty
again, you dont understand how force is best applied. Your non-violent, non-economically motivated actors may experience some aesthetic pleasure from their mismanaged resources — however eventually they will not have the economic wherewithal to fund the security for their valued resources if they dont utilize it for economic gain — hence maximal-capitalism.
There will be force even in ancap society, but there will be no monopoly on it. That’s the only difference. — soonerliberty
your probably right about this, I believe that ancap society will morph into a series of geographically secure regional hegemon PDA similar to today’s geopolitik.
in reality, the closest mankind has come to a global hegemon is the USA. fortunately, our liberal democracy is inherently pacific hence we have not effectively leveraged this temporary hegemon status into outright control over the planet. IN contrast, if the USA was a private ancap monopoly — it would be moving very quickly and efficiently to consolidate itself into a unchallenged and permanent hegemon by whatever coercive means were available.
For example, this hegemon would annex all middle eastern oil instead of engaging in the economically wasteful practice of nation-building. moreover, it would annex and mine strategic natural resources in afghanistan instead of engaging in costly campaigns against indigineous guerilla armies.
moreover, it would probably blockade all of the vital canals and straits around the globe and charge tribute for passage.
“Why wouldn’t the resources simply be bought out voluntarily?”– adam
Not all actors in ancap society are motivated by economic gain.
for example, environmentalists acquire saudi oil reserves and deny its resources to the market. Moreover, they fail to exploit the resources economic bounty thereby reducing the ability to provide a level of security commensurate with the economic value of the resource. Profit seeking actors and enterprises take note and annex the oil reserves by force.
“Also, you’ve given to demonstrable proof that those resources will be annexed by force.”–adam
the proof is self-evident if you are independent thinking, objective, and rational. For example, why would a profit seeking actor or firm forego the acquisition of an economically valued resources in the name of pacifism? In contrast, why would a pacifist engage in profit seeking at the expense of peace ? the profit-seeking individuals and firms will acquire the most capital. In furn, these firms will have the means to best employ armed force to obtain further wealth at the expense of actors who are not motivated by economic goals.
This is the causal mechanism for the soviet collapse and china’s resurgence. namely that societies that are not motivated by economic profit will declined in strength relative to more profit motivated actors. China has sought to forestall defeat against the West by adopting some free market reforms as a means to gain capital to provide a higher level of security.
“How exactly would a test for coercion be met here?” –adam
I will repeat for your benefit: coercion will be the means used to obtain a valued resource if (1) peaceful exchange is not possible, (2) peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of coercion, (3) the transaction costs associated with coercion are less than the anticipated profit to be realized from the annexed resource.
“Assuming said negligent owner has insured his possessions, how exactly would a “covetous profit-seeking individual” take his property without the owner’s consent?” — adam
no profitable firm is going to insure an under utilized and poorly managed resource that is subject to predation. Moreover, the covetous actor will take the resource using tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, cruise missile, bombers, et al — all acquired through productive profit-driven actions in the free market.
“Freedom is, by definition, not freedom when coercion is used.”— adam
that is your subjective value judgment. Moreover, it is empty if you dont have the means to deter those that dont agree with it.
“The second any enterprise decided to use those arms, they would be violating numerous contracts, and would be subject to said penalties of contracts.”–adam
the only valid and reliable contract or treaty is the one that can be enforced.
“Overall, I have no idea what you’re trying to say” — adam
yes I can tell by your questions and assumptions. but stick around if you are open-minded, independent thinking, and rational I can correct this shortcoming.
“The pacifist fantasy of a peaceful ancap society is easily debunked”
Perhaps because it’s a straw man. What “pacifist fantasy” are you referring to?
“This deficiency will attract the gaze of more efficient and productive ancap actors and enterprises, thereby increasing the likelihood that the resource will be annexed by force.”
Every time people try to make this argument, they leave out the tremendous costs of engaging in the
initiation of violence. It is only the state which can sufficiently mitigate these social and monetary costs of engaging in thuggery. That is why the state actually does produce a very vibrant “industry” of plunder. A private firm cannot afford to start wars, engage in murder and plunder, and then afterward expect to carry on business as usual in the free market.
If they did have the money and were brazen and stupid enough to start killing people for their resources, they would be hated and vilified by civilized people. And unless they had the wherewithal
to go all the way and attempt to become a state in order to lend a fabricated legitimacy to their criminal activity, they would suffer retribution from the market and from their victims and supporters of their victims.
Despite the illusion people have of omnipotent governments and gangs of thugs, it is not easy
to pull off large scale open crime. States take hundreds and even thousands of years to get enough centralized power to even attempt to get away with openly criminal behavior, and to be able to survive the backlash.
I’d like to know how you would personally go about stealing people’s property by your own little gang of thugs if you were a capitalist and wanted to gain that property so as to make it more productive. Can you explain why you would turn to violence rather than purchase the property? Can you explain how your corporate board and shareholders and your customers and your peers would support such a decision?
“This is a beneficial mechanism in the free market…”
Really? So how come business owners are not out murdering and plundering every day in the
free market? Hey, maybe you’re onto something. You could be the next millionaire business guru by teaching people how to kill and steal for profit!
Not biting on that great opportunity, are you? Why not?
Reading on, I see that you are fully aware of the high costs and the absurdity of businessmen engaging
in violence:
“Note that coercion will only result when the following conditions are present: (1) peaceful exchange is not possible and (2) the transaction costs associated with the use of coercion are less than the economic gain to be realized from annexing the resource.”
Ok, when is peaceful exchange not possible in ancap society? When are the costs of initiating violence against innocent victims ever less than “the economic gain to be realized from annexing [stealing] the resource”? You must be able to give us dozens of examples of when it’s profitable for private firms in a free market to engage in violence, theft, murder. Let’s hear it.
You must certainly understand that “profitable” here means calculating both the short and long term effects of choosing to engage in lawlessness. That is why I asked you about the board, the shareholders, business peers, customers, victims, etc. You seem to value ethical behavior in a free market and an open civilized technological society at $0. Can you explain that calculation?
“Moreover, coercion is simply the means by which profit seeking actors and enterprises use to obtain economic wealth.”
That’s beautiful. You really put a lot of thought into this, didn’t you?
“Capitalism means freedom — it makes no distinction on the means, to do so would be to deny freedom to actors and enterprises who have a particular skill set that makes them effective at wielding armed force.”
Yes, of course. Freedom means I have the freedom to bash in your skull and you have the freedom
to boil me in oil. Capitalism means forcing people at gunpoint to buy your junk. Free markets mean
companies engaged in “wielding armed force” against innocent property owners.
“Moreover, the denial of coercion as a means is a statist-like scheme…”
If you hadn’t used “moreover,” I doubt that sentence would have had quite the same impact.
“Indeed, it would be far more violent than a geopolitik dominated by liberal democracies”
Indeed. Moreover, you can always tell who are indeed the most violent. They are indeed, moreover,
those who indeed advocate non-violence and, moreover, peaceful exchange. :-/
Zorg,
your diatribe seems to be an emotional subjective condemnation of coercion as a means to obtain an end.
I can’t argued the merits of a subjective value judgment. moreover, my thesis that coercion will be used as a means to obtain ends in ancap society was not rebutted in your diatribe.
Every time people try to make this argument, they leave out the tremendous costs of engaging in the initiation of violence.–zorg
if you read my post you will notice that I didnt leave out the costs of coercion — indeed they are fundamental to my argument:
“the transaction costs associated with the use of coercion are less than the economic gain to be realized from annexing the resource.–Rettoper”
It is only the state which can sufficiently mitigate these social and monetary costs of engaging in thuggery. That is why the state actually does produce a very vibrant “industry” of plunder. A private firm cannot afford to start wars, engage in murder and plunder, and then afterward expect to carry on business as usual in the free market.–zorg
in the preceding quote, you mistakenly imply the superiority of the state over capitalism since it is the only entity that can effectively wield coercive power. In contrast, I believe that capitalism is the more effective at wielding armed force. I am correct and you are wrong. Capitalist will wield power more effectively because it will be based on economic profitability and sustainability. The state bankrupts itself and society when it engages a more profit motivated foe in armed force. The only reason the state has been successful in the use of coercion is that it was competing against other inefficient statist regimes.
the paradox of capitalist efficiency in the execution of armed force is that eventually these private firms will assume regional hegemon status and the lure of absolutism will be to great to overcome.
‘power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely’ — lord acton
You must be able to give us dozens of examples of when it’s profitable for private firms in a free market to engage in violence, theft, murder. Let’s hear it.–zorg
environmentalist acquire saudi oil, deny its use to marketplace, plundered by PDA funded by speculative investors and energy consumer interest groups —- pacifist protest, energy costs decrease, protests fade.
indonesian islamists acquire Malacca straits, charge exorbidant transit fees to fund radical madrassas, shipping companies, consumer interest groups, and speculative investors fund PDA to annex straits by force — pacifists protest, consumer costs decrease, export profits increase, protests fade.
co-op of sportsmen, fishermen, and hunters acquire great lakes region and block shipping and limit use of resources for water consumption and industrial use. Consumers and industry groups fund PDA to gain access to water supply and provide naval escort to iron ore shipments through the makinaw straits — pacifists and sportsmen protest, consumer cost of water and industrial goods decrease, export profits increase, protests fade.
egalitarian movement acquires control of osaka industrial center and major port facilities throughout japan. socialists shutdown ports to imports and raise prices on most consumer products to fund workers ‘paradise’. consumer groups, investors, and capitalist sympathizers fund PDA to retake ports —- pacifists whine, lower cost import goods force domestic companies to lower worker wages to market levels, consumer goods decline in $, protests are forgotten.
a consortium of religious fundamentalists (take your pick) purchase the bridges and tunnels leading into decadent new york city and begin preparation for the destruction of these bridges to highlight and discourage what they believe are capitalist excesses destroying the ‘moral fiber of society’ — wall street firms fund a well respected upstate NY PDA (the Niagara Falls defense group) to intervene and prevent destruction of billions in infrastructure — pacifist whine a little bit, NY city saved, new wall street owners reduce transit costs over bridges, profits among restaurants, theaters, retail stores, et al boom.
Yes, of course. Freedom means I have the freedom to bash in your skull and you have the freedom to boil me in oil. Capitalism means forcing people at gunpoint to buy your junk. Free markets mean companies engaged in “wielding armed force” against innocent property owners.–zorg
Indeed. Moreover, you can always tell who are indeed the most violent. They are indeed, moreover, those who indeed advocate non-violence and, moreover, peaceful exchange. :-/ — zorg
many of your comments are similar to the ones above, meaning they offer nothing substantive to the debate. hence, I wont waste my time responding to them.
Rettoper –
Your assertions, both here and on the LvMI bulletin board, have a flawed methodology.
The main error you commit is that of ignoring a primary motivational factor.
You dwell exclusively on incentive and ignore perception.
Your assertions presume that incentive will always and everywhere result in a singular personal perception. That you know this always and everywhere to be fact – in the past, now, and in the future – repudiates your opinion from serious theoretical consideration.
“your diatribe seems to be an emotional subjective condemnation of coercion as a means to obtain an end.”
Do you support coercion as a legitimate means to an end? Or is it only “capitalists” in your imagination who routinely decide to murder and plunder in the course of business?
“my thesis that coercion will be used as a means to obtain ends in ancap society was not rebutted in your diatribe.”
It certainly was. I asked you how you would carry out murder and plunder as a business decision. You obviously cannot answer that because only a seriously depraved person would even think of engaging in openly criminal activity as a “business”. No rational business person thinks murder and plunder come out on top in a cost-benefit analysis. People who engage in crime generally do so because they are failures at business, are anti-social, sick in the head, desperately poor, or are heads of state.
Since you believe it is profitable for “capitalists” to become conquistadors, why aren’t you or anyone else participating in the great bounty? Seems like the world is waiting for you to share this revelation so that we can get out of our economic troubles. You said that plunder was a “benefit” to the market. You said that businessmen would choose to act lawlessly if the value of the plunder exceeded the cost. That cost, to you, does not include conscience, reputation, retribution, blowback, prison, loss of life, loss of capital, etc. It’s strictly dollars on the barrel head. Fine, show me an example of businesses doing this. This is your theory of how “capitalists” act in a free market, so give us some examples.
“environmentalist acquire saudi oil, deny its use to marketplace, plundered by PDA funded by speculative investors and energy consumer interest groups”
You have no real world examples of how profitable it is for business to engage in crime. Why not? Because in real life, your idiotic scenarios just don’t happen. Environmentalists don’t “acquire saudi oil” and “deny its use to marketplace.” That’s absurd, and it is irrelevant to your claim. Your claim was that ancap society would be characterized by violence. Anyone can offer dream scenarios. There’s no point in responding to them since none of that characterizes normal business activity, even if by some stretch of the imagination such an event were to happen.
I can see by all the fictional scenarios you offered that you have no argument. You can only create supposed examples of the profitability of crime at the extreme margins of what anyone would consider normal business. Your wild examples are extravagant and unrealistic. They certainly do not represent the marketplace in general.
If that is all you can offer, then it proves you don’t know what you are talking about. Crime has always existed and will always exist, but those who engage in it – especially in the course of normal business – are very few. You made the claim that a free society would be characterized by routine violence and coercion in the course of business, but you can’t back it up. You have bizarre made-up examples of people taking over Saudi Arabia and NOT selling the oil, and then people taking over ports in order to CLOSE them off. This is not what happens in the normal course of trade.
“indonesian islamists acquire Malacca straits, charge exorbidant transit fees to fund radical madrassas”
“co-op of sportsmen, fishermen, and hunters acquire great lakes region and block shipping and limit use of resources for water consumption.”
“egalitarian movement acquires control of osaka industrial center and major port facilities throughout japan.”
“a consortium of religious fundamentalists (take your pick) purchase the bridges and tunnels leading into decadent new york city and begin preparation for the destruction of these bridges ”
Gee, and I thought you were going to explain why vending machine companies would install hold-up devices to rob customers who just wanted to buy a snack and a soda! I figured you’d give an example of dentists who use thugs to dissuade you from switching to another dentist in town. I though perhaps you were sure that Walmart would sent out armies of minimum wage workers to burn down mom & pop grocery stores.
But you did not intend to show this at all, did you? No, your intent was to attack “capitalism” in general:
“In contrast, I believe that capitalism is the more effective at wielding armed force. I am correct and you are wrong. Capitalist will wield power more effectively because it will be based on economic profitability and sustainability.”
I don’t know any capitalists who are “wielding armed force,” and neither do you. The only possible examples are private contractors for the Military Industrial Complex, in which case they are arms of the state hired as mercenaries and funded involuntarily through coercive taxation. They are not “capitalists”.
Why don’t you try “wielding armed force” as a matter of course in business and tell us how it works out for you. Since you say, “I am right and you are wrong,” go prove it. Start a consulting business where you train CEOs to increase profitability through the “wielding of armed force.” Hey, it’s a wide open field. You’ll have no competition. No one is as bright as you, and they haven’t figured this out yet. Good luck! : )
Dennis wrote:
This is disproved by the case of Ronald Reagan. If there were any anarcho-capitalists who supported Reagan because he promised to roll back _some_ of the oppressive state then they were badly abused.
People use whatever power they possess for their own good. We often say that power corrupts but that is not really accurate – people always act in their own interest. Giving someone more power does not make them more evil, it simply allows them to wreak more destruction in the pursuit of their own ends than they would otherwise be able to.
People who understand how humans act should never strive to give anyone power over other people – the power to tax and kill. It is absurd to accept anyone’s promise that once they gain power they will act against their own interest and give some of their power back to the people. That is why, if you understand why the state is evil, you should never waste any time supporting a minarchist. Bad theory produces bad policies.
Ohhh Henry,
I used the phrase “truly principled libertarians.” Ronald Regan can not by any stretch of the definition of libertarian be called one, not to mention a truly principled libertarian. Despite some of his rhetoric, Regan was a big-government, proto-neo-conservative, who, on balance, did absolutely nothing to reduce the size and power of the federal government. In fact, by most measures, the size of the federal government actually increased notably under Regan.
The example of a principled miniarchist that I did use was Mises, and I stand by my comment regarding the great improvement that the implementation of his social philosophy, i.e., utilitarian classical liberalism, would bring. And I believe that it is accurate to state that even Rothbard, as a practical matter, supported some positions that stopped short of full anarchism if he believed that they would significantly reduce the size and power of the state.
I know people dislike blog linking, but here’s a 1,000+ word response I wrote to Bylund’s articles: “Minarchists are our Friends“. Comments are more than welcomed (here or there).
It’s fun to read the comments and notice how you discuss anarchy and minarchy as though we had been called upon to chose one of them…
@ J. Murray
Any society can safely assume the biggest threat comes from its own military.
This includes the US, where public resources have been plundered on a scale only an invasion force could rival.
The September 11 attackers may not have expected a bankrupting, trillion-dollar response, but that is what they got, with all the problems soldiers bring home to boot.
That doesn’t answer the question. I’m beginning to lose hope in anarchism if all I get is a subject change or an insult.
Nate-m
Stalin in the Ukraine pretty conclusively proved you can even starve people to death if you do it “right”.
J. Cuttance, on 9/11: That’s a rather novel way of putting it, but looked at that way 9/11 really was extremely successful wasn’t it.
I think he’s only pointing out to you that we’ve already been invaded and conquered.
So your point about a free society being invaded and conquered is tragically moot.
No reason to fear anarchy going bad. It already has. “The way out is the way in.” We
need to see clearly that we already do live in a world run by violent gangs. Then we can begin
to analyze social relations correctly and so avoid giving legitimacy to violent gangs in
the future. We can get out of it by comprehending how we got into this mess in the
first place.
There is nothing but irony in any defense of statism simply because all of the claims of
the state are lies. They “protect” private property rights through a system of looting. They
“defend” you from foreign threats by becoming the greatest domestic threat as they impoverish
you to enrich themselves.
States killed 200 million of “their own people” in the 20th century, yet they are “necessary”
for protection of our rights.
Nothing but irony at every turn. It’s all a bit silly trying to justify the state, isn’t it?
Wow! Lively discussion. I haven’t time to read all of it, so it is likely I’m repeating something already said, but….here goes. (You can skip my comment as I may have missed yours.)
My objective: the elimination of force (viz., violence) from the conduct of human affairs. If someone almost agrees with my position, with only the minor alteration of adding the qualifier “the initiation” of force, to allow for the use of force in self-defense against force, I can accept that, because I will certainly be secure when nobody initiates force. But for myself, and in order to get to that place where force is not, I have theoretically determined and experientially confirmed that unqualified non-aggression is the best and safest defense against violence, oppression or aggression. Rather than pacifism, a better name for my position might be aggressive non-violence. or combative non-aggression. As for the State, it obviously cannot endure without its unholy, assumed prerogative and reliance on the initiation of force. If there could be such a thing as a government that didn’t rely on force, I could accept that, but it wouldn’t be a State or government as we have always known them. A minarchist government without the obscene prerogative would be fine with me, but I don’t think it would be around for long. I think anarchists and minarchists who agree with and abide by the principle of non-aggression can row the same boat harmoniously. Well, maybe not harmoniously but at least they can’t hit each other with the oars.
I always enjoy Phinn’s posts, so I keep an eye out for them; when there are this many long responses, I mainly skim through them, looking for his. There are a lot of other smart, articulate people here, so I say this not to offend anyone else, but to explain what I’ve read, which are mainly his posts and people’s responses to them.
This response from Jim especially caught my eye: “I would say you still fail, because if you refuse to engage in the political process with others who may be fellow travelers, then you’re still going to run into the bottom of the well in that you will always have to deal with the state as it currently exists. If you were to temporarily set aside your dislike of working with others who may have different opinions, then in the long run, you may be able to actually reduce the burden of the state on yourself past the point that you can currently achieve.”
Here’s my opinion, not that anyone asked.
Everyone should read Harry Browne’s classic self-help book, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.
Harry explained that, in his view, the most important key to finding freedom in life is to understand the different between what he called Direct and Indirect Alternatives, and to focus on harnessing the power of the Direct route. Indirect Alternatives require you to go through other people to get what you want, while Direct ones require only decisions and actions by you, acting all by yourself to get what you want within the bounds of the reality of the world as it exists now.
Harry gave an example of how he owned a small business in California several years prior to writing the book.
He was working 80 hours a week, yet the business was still losing money, due in no small part to all of the taxes and other requirements imposed on him by the government. He was constantly besieged by various “small government” groups, wanting him to write more to sway public opinion against such government burdens, write letters to politicians, even run for office himself, etc., etc., etc.
Instead, he researched how he could legally free himself from such burdens. The gist is he fired all of his employees, then hired them back as independent contractors, which eliminated most of the problems, moved the business into the black, and cut his own working hours by more than half.
At the time he wrote the book, he said not only had the efforts of people “working through the political process” not accomplished ANYTHING in terms of reducing government, but the situation had gotten considerably worse in spite of their efforts (and has gotten worse still in the ensuing four decades since he wrote that).
Look, governments have existed for all of recorded history, and for all we know, they always will, so you better face up to it. Look at it as an unfortunate aspect of reality, like natural disasters. Stop wasting your time trying to “reform” it or making it “smaller.” Instead, look for ways to minimize its effects on you, regardless of what anyone else does.
“But what if everyone thought that way?!” That’s true in theory, but it’s irrelevant, because you’re not everyone; you’re only you. A movement, political or otherwise, is going to succeed or fail regardless of anything you do. In cases where one person appears to almost singlehandedly bring about massive change, it means the people in that society were ready for it, and if that person hadn’t brought public sentiment past the tipping-point, someone else would have.
Unlike Phinn, I haven’t reached the point where I’ve decided that participating in the political process is immoral in theory, because the government is going to impose itself on you against your will, although he makes a very persuasive case. But I have decided that it’s a waste of time in practice.
It’s true that Harry later ran for president twice, but he did it because he thought it would be fun and exciting for him — and, whether he anticipated this or not, it also resurrected his career, introducing his work to a new generation of people.
And that brings me to my second point.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with participating in political activities (including discussions on a message board like this, which even people like Phinn do). But, if you do so, it should be because you’re getting some kind of consumption value from it in the present. Maybe you make money selling books or something. Maybe you enjoy debating and discussing things just for the sake of it, like we’re doing here. Maybe you enjoy socializing with like-minded people. Whatever.
That’s all fine. But you should be consciously aware that you’re doing so for that present consumption value only, not because you’re trying to change the world because you think that’s the best — or even the only — way to improve your own situation. To do that, you should be consciously aware of the Direct vs. Indirect distinction, and should deliberately seek to improve your own life through Direct means.
In the words of Ezra Pound, “A slave is someone who waits for someone else to set him free.”
@ JK
I actually found you post to be very interesting and thought-provoking. I may disagree with some of the subjective elements regarding whether it’s “better” to pursue direct v. indirect alternatives, but it certainly gives me more to think about than the emotionally-worded diatribes of people on BOTH sides of this discussion. Thank you for the input.
Wonderful post JK.
I don’t think that it is only for the “present consumption”, though. For one, you have to study theory to construct a rigourous moral defence for your ignoring the state, otherwise you’d be unhappy!
Maybe the confusion here is in defining “government” as the social structures that enforce the laws necessary for society (non-aggression). Of course if you do that you immediately disqualify every actual social structure that has ever been called a “government”, because none of those enforce the laws of society. That might sound strange at first, but only by buying into relentless propaganda.
Laws of society are not enforced by rogue police officers who spend most of their time and money hunting down pot smokers, nor are they enforced (or decided upon) by any remote action in Washington D.C.. They are enforced by the market, and this is only disrupted by what are called “governments”, who have a long track record of driving markets to their doom. Whatever a government official does to help enforce the laws of society, it will be outside his role as a government official.
The only response even minarchists have provided to this is that governments need to protect markets from governments, and that is plain double talk. It is usually masked as “But without the government some gang of robbers will take over and establish themselves as the rulers.” Sooo, the solution to that is a gang of robbers to take over and establish themselves as the rulers!?
This may not make sense to a real libertarian minarchist, for a reason I think is almost entirely rhetorical. I actually suspect minarchists and anarchists are largely saying the same thing, except using different linguistic strategies. Minarchists are trying to save the concept of “government” from the clutches of the monopolistic warfare-welfare behemoths that hold that title, while anarchists (the capitalist kind, at least) are more that ready to abandon the word “government” and highlight as much as possible the difference between libertarianism and other philosophies, which is that markets are better than monopoly.
The minarchists I have heard usually say they want lots of small governments. They seem to usually favor decentralization (as do the anarchists as the path to anarchism) until there are tons of really small governments. It sounds to me like what they are saying is governments need to be so small (and weak) that it would be anywhere from feasible to plain easy to ignore the presiding one so long as you aren’t causing any trouble. Yeah you can stop paying your “taxes”, and if you drive on city roads you’ll get kicked off by the “police”, but they wouldn’t bother to come harass you to actually pay for the roads. It wouldn’t be worth their time because their small size constrains their room for bankrupting policies as such.
That sounds to me like anarcho-capitalism. I say why not just admit that these “small governments” are categorically different from what are called governments today and through most of history, and that they are much closer in form to market structures that produce for voluntary customers? I really think that’s what the minarchists are saying.
And of course the anarchists aren’t advocating “anarchy” or “chaos” but rather the production of security and justice by many competing firms that serve voluntary customers. The only real difference I can see there is that anarcho-capitalism allows for “state lines” that would be a nightmare to actually draw, instead of having them enclose entire neighborhoods, cities or counties. In anarcho-capitalism people living in the same neighborhood can buy security from different people.
On the other hand I think there is a real debate to be had. I think what the minarchists get wrong is that they don’t extend what I think is the most important lesson that Austrian economics has revealed, which is why socialism must fail: you don’t know how to allocate your resources. This is no less true for security or justice than any other good. The whole “necessary evil” thing falls apart once one realizes that the laws of ethical behavior are precisely (what other definition could there be) the necessary laws of society. Breaking those always destroys civilization, and never helps it.
How can a government decide how much to charge for security (how much to tax)? How can it decide whether it should hire another cop, or another judge? How can it decide that it needs to have cops patrolling this area instead of this other area? They cannot rationally allocate these resources and so are bound to waste and produce very expensive and low quality security and justice.
And then there’s the whole myth of national defense problem, where we realize that when A and B surrender to S for security, A is now more defenseless against S (who now can use the wealth of B to harm A), as is B, and the only party that actually receives security is S (who is much better defended against both A and B).
It’s mostly those last two arguments that make me never look back on minarchism, except as a step in the right direction. That society is markets and really nothing else is all around me. Even the government is an internal market. Civilization is markets, and so it is inconceivable that a monopolistic structure could ever be necessary or beneficial in any way for cooperative action and its product of civilization.
Darn, did I miss out on one heck of a thread! I’d just like to see stressed that the difference between minarchist law and ancap law is how the latter is a discovery process, like common or customary law, not a set of rules created and modifed by legislation. Like the market itself, it is this that makes it rigid enough for the societies and communities it serves, but flexible enough to adapt to changing situations and circumstances.
Nonetheless, I’d like to think that minarchists are people who will eventually get the hang of anarchism. At least some of them must be–I went through my minarchist phase before understanding it.
I might get the hang of it-keep trying. But for now I’m thinking the “discovery process” in anarchy would consist of discovering which entity has the most force at their disposal, much like we have now with no holds barred, total governments.
Give minarchists time. I have gone from big-L Liberal to minarchist libertarian to anarchist. It took three years.
How about us anarchists work with anyone who wants to reduce the power of the State. Then, when they decide that they think the State has been reduced far enough, we take them off our friend’s list. This way anarchists and minarchists can be friends for a long time.
i like molyneux’ take on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27bJ5pqPtF4
“minarchism vs. anarchism”
Okay, from the point of view of a layman like me as this debate reminds me on this story “An Elephant and a Twig”:
In Thailand, a baby elephant is trained in obedience by tying it to a heavy log. It continues to struggle this entrapment till it realises that it is an exercise in futility and gradually it resigns to its fate and remain docile.
WHen it is full-growth and subjected to years of entrapment, a herdsman can simply tie and elephant to a twig and it will not move.
Therefore Minarchism is a domesticated elephant with its trade-off and acceptance of minimal state control in defence, security and justice as a “twig”.
Anarchism?
Of course, those free ranging elephants living happily in the wild, happily in control of their own fate as well as subject to the whims and fancies of Mother Nature.
But nothing is free as “Might is Right” and humankind is not perfect.
Who will protect wild elephant from poachers?
Like who will protect Anarchism from a brutal regime who believe in the use of force?
Similarly, can wild elephants (Anarchism) survive outside a protected territory (State) called “WIldlife Reserves”?
I am afraid that those Anarchists (tiger, elephant, rhino, etc) are fighting a losing battle against “Might is Right” statists if there is no State protection (protected wild life reserves).
“Representative government is the political corollary of the market economy. The same spiritual movement that created modern capitalism substituted elected officeholders for the authoritarian rule of absolute kings and hereditary aristocracies. It was this much-decried bourgeois liberalism that brought freedom of conscience, of thought, of speech, and of the press and put an end to the intolerant persecution of dissenters. Ludwig von Mises -Reprinted from The Freeman, April 1960. The Economic Foundations of Freedom
Bloggers here on Mises.org would do well to read a little more Mises and a little less Rothbard, Hoppe and Kinsella.
Wildberry,
Your previous response to a post of mine exposed your shallow understanding of anarchy. This prompted me to finish an explanation of anarchy I promised, and started, months ago to a poster then here named michael. Due to its length, I have not copied the text here. Rather I provided a link to a google doc web page that contains it. The link was placed on a dead thread and probably unnoticed, so I will post the link again here, in case you have a desire to read one man’s view of anarchy and why it is best for all of society.
Cordially,
Don
http://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1arfFGLmIYf4P2CywtPOBtXIfOdkqiPsq3V1GCs7U1Pk
Donald,
I read your first article. Here is my take:
First, you distinguish between anarchy and monarchy by placing them conceptually at opposite points on a line. Monarchy vests all political power in a single man. Anarchy places political power in no man. The derivation of the words themselves are distinguished by the prefix that carries this simple meaning; “single” and “without” -“rule”. Rule by a single man, and rule by no man.
However, I have to wonder where a concept of representative government as fits on this line? Is it somewhere in between? I don’t think so. I think it is a different concept altogether; it is a concept that is “outside the box” of the choices you offer. It is certainly not without rules or rulers, and power is not concentrated and permanently bestowed on a hereditary class. It is government by the governed.
I suspect if we sat down with ample time, and perhaps a good supply of brandy and cigars, and set out to design a system of social organization that avoided the pitfalls of either extreme you distinguish, we might well come to the same conclusions our founding fathers did. I am not comparing this to what we have, which is rotten to the core. I am comparing this to the ideal, to the concept of self-governance starting with first principles. How do these principles arise?
If we were 10 men in a life raft, how would we handle the cooperation and decision-making problem? If the raft contained 1 million souls, what would we design? 500 Million? To each his own is not a society and monarchy has been tried and has failed as a model for modern society. (In fact, it is in the process of reiterating its failure thought the Middle East at the moment.) What has evolved in America is unique, but it appearance followed a completely natural path.
So, your line of distinction is inadequate to address the problem of social organization on a modern technological and global scale. By global, I don’t mean planet earth, but I mean scalable so that numbers don’t matter, much like “the economy” is not limited by scale. Other things, like culture, language and geography might matter, but scale does not.
Discovering exactly where and how the current situation in the US deviates from the ideal, as expressed in the Constitution, and how a course of re-direction might be enabled by technology, etc. is where we are headed, I believe. There is no evidence that we are headed for a state of anarchism, at least not yet. And, if it came to that, would we as a society in modern American accept the rule of a monarch or anything similar? Not a chance. Is it likely that we would remain in a state of pure “free-market non-government”? Not for long. That basic human reality, while not amenable to a two-dimensional analysis, is a much more realistic statement of the issue. Humans are social, and excel by learning to cooperate. Rules that facilitate peaceful cooperation are institutionalized in society. This is the natural evolution of governments and laws. The problem is how does one prevent despotism from consuming it? Answer: the vigilance of the free patriot.
I can use a simple analogy to explain where I think we are on that point. If you leave your garden for a week, the weeds grow by a certain amount. If you leave it for a year, you may recognize its shape and even find a few fruits and vegetables scattered among the weeds, but it is a big job to get it back into shape. If you leave it alone long enough, it reverts to a natural state. Some “purists” would applaud this, but you cannot have both a garden and a natural state on the same plot of land. We have neglected our garden of state for much too long.
One must choose. That choice serves some purpose. That is how and why humans act. It is true for economic trade, and for government. They operate to serve the needs of human cooperation, and conform to the rules imposed upon them. Just as some rules of economic policy may produce “better” outcomes than others, some rules of self-governance produce better outcomes than others. We must choose. And choose we have. The passage I quoted earlier in this blog from Mises is a statement based on first principles, and his observations about representative government are wholly consistent with his analysis of “libertarian economic policies”.
Second, you draw a distinction between “best” and “optimum”. If I understand your point, then you are merely restating the problem of economic calculation, put in political terms. No one can possibly understand enough to be able to “rule” others in terms of directing the actions they may or must take in the conduct of living their lives. It is simply the argument that principles like “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” cannot be handed down by a monarch, or any small group of political elites that “decide” for others how, specifically, they must act. I cannot even figure out for any other single person how they will choose to act, given the liberty to make their own choices. But liberty has limits, and those limits are defined by the cooperative relationship with other humans. Living within those limitations still grants enourmous liberties, and in fact having limits means that you can count on the limits others willingly obey. This is highly efficient in the development of systems for human cooperation. We accept limits in order to enjoy greater liberty.
So, to accept these limits is not the same as saying one is not able to conduct oneself with the liberty to pursue one’s own happiness except in the complete absence of any pre-determined and legitimate governmental function to neutrally enforce these codes of conduct; this social morality. This is not a contradiction.
For example, the fact that we have laws that produce “undesirable” outcomes (i.e. Federal Reserve Act) does not mean that the entire concept of the rule of law is invalidated. Laws are invalidated when they conflict with higher principles. That is a distinction that is sometimes difficult to make, but make it we must.
So, even though you credit me with motivating you to finish this essay, due to my alleged erroneous reflection of your political philosophy, I tend to disagree, at least so far. I think I get it. I just don’t think the philosophy of anarchism is a tool that can be employed as an organizing principle of modern society. I realize that is a mouthful, and requires some understanding of what those words mean. So in the absence of the time or opportunity for you and I to sit down and re-invent the meaning, let me simply refer you to the founding principles, the first principles, of our constitutional governmental system. That is the meaning I mean to impart by those words. Because men are not angles, we create government for and from ourselves. We establish basic rules that we intend to live by, and expect others to conform to them as well. These first principles are fundamentally simple rules, like “thou shalt not kill”, and it evolves from there.
Rules can be abused and manipulated, it is true. That is why it is important to have a citizenry that is schooled in the principles of liberty. Without this context, it is impossible to steer towards liberty or apply the required vigilance to preserve liberty once acquired.
That is one of the great social issues we are struggling with in our time, and one which seems to be experiencing an awakening, to some degree. From this fact, I draw some hope that we can save ourselves as a nation and a people.
At any rate, this is my view, and I humbly share it with you.
Wildberry,
First let me say that I appreciate your time spent reading that overlong letter to Michael. Also, I appreciate your thoughtful and well articulated response.
While your views and my views are mostly members of the same set, there is a difference, and that is at the root of how we arrived at them. One way is by first acceptance of the prevailing wisdom and morality followed by its adoption or assimilation into our personal norm. This is the fast track, and there is nothing wrong with that.* The other way is to derive everything “from scratch,” so to speak. This is of course not very efficient, and moreover risks arriving at conclusions that are at odds with convention. Which approach one takes may be a choice, but it is possible that it is more or less due to an innate (genetic) condition, or perhaps it is simply a carefully taught cultural form of thinking. I recognize that I fall into the second category. I am twice cursed because I cannot seem to accept, for long, even the conclusions I myself reach, before I develop a compulsion to reconstruct them yet again from scratch. In light of that admission, it is wise for my readers to judge for themselves the validity of anything I say for I may say the opposite tomorrow. I am not arguing that anything I think or say actually be accepted, only that I am presenting it for your thought. This is consistent with the fundamental tenets of anarchy, that anyone may present or advocate for any idea.
This is the process by which “truth” and “morality” are continually approximated. You may disagree.
Your statements, “I suspect if we sat down with ample time, and perhaps a good supply of brandy and cigars, and set out to design a system of social organization that avoided the pitfalls . . .” and “We must choose. And choose we have.” exposes the current position of your thoughts. “We” is your shorthand for an elite set of the population that you think can somehow accomplish a goal which the efforts of everyone (anarchy) cannot. My little essay has failed, as expected, to change even slightly your fixed belief.
If one reason for rejecting anarchy, your’s presumably, is the lack of belief that it is even possible, the other considered reason is by far worse. That reason is the belief that anarchy is possible and that it is both powerful and it is as fair as is humanly possible. Only the “winners” in our prevailing power division use this reason, and never overtly. With anarchy they would “lose”. Because some opponents of anarchy hold this reason in the confines of their minds, we must consider that any opponent may also fall into this category.
There is no existing argument for anarchy, nor will there ever be one, that is capable of causing people in the second group of accepting anarchy because doing so is counter to their best interests, as currently perceived. With better argumentation, as more people in the first group become convinced of the possibility of anarchy and of its power to bring order out of chaos by using the most simple of rules, and that anarchy is the highest plane of morality, and as a result become less inclined to cede power to people in the second group, that second group will atrophy until finally it winks out of existence. No one will then even admit to having been a member!
But a vision of the success of anarchy must be constructed, even if it is fanciful at first. There must be a positive reward in the anarchic society and not leave it to punishment alone to provide the means of constraint of our human behavior. Self control is the only way it can possibly work. A positive reward for self control is not only possible, it is essential. There are countless ideas of ways to accomplish this that are yet to be plucked from the void. One idea is presented in the book, a copy of which I offered you. Perhaps your desire to remain anonymous precluded your acceptance. I respect your wish to protect your identity. Therefore I am providing a link to the site where the book is available and one version is currently free of charge.
http://stores.lulu.com/Sebastianeverglover
Cordially,
Don
* I do not want to ignore the possibility that this “fast track” is very much subject to abuse by those in power by pressuring others (children) to accept by rote rather than explain by examples and allow the fundamental conclusions to be independently reached. In this learning process neither speed nor efficiency is essential.
@Donald Rowe February 28, 2011 at 11:56 am
“This is the process by which “truth” and “morality” are continually approximated. You may disagree.”
I think I do disagree, if I understand you. Morality like principles, do not change daily. They are a code of conduct that becomes deeply engrained in one’s conduct. Ethics are adopted by individuals because they make “common-sense”. This is why it is so difficult to be honest and open about one’s ethics, at least on the margins. It takes a real commitment to examine one’s ethical constructs; we behave as if they are a “given”. This does not make our own ethics wrong or unquestionable, but we normally don’t question them regularly because they are, by adulthood, deeply engrained in our self-identity. This is why an adjustment to one’s ethical code late in life can seem so “radical”, because it does literally strike at the roots of who we are. Like the highest standards of evidence, we will only reject our ethics and modify our morality in the face of evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Moral principles (ethics) are adaptive to society because a well understood and widely accepted code of ethics accomplishes a couple of things of social importance; they create reasonable expectation for the conduct of others (i.e. we all agree stealing is bad), and it serves as a guidepost for managing our own conduct without having to re-calculate the logic our principles on the fly. We depend upon our ethics to form habits of conducting ourselves morally and expecting others to do the same, and to navigate a society of mostly strangers. How we develop that skill is somewhat of a mystery, since as you point out, there are many methods to get there. But get there we do. It is part of the human condition, like speech and reason.
“We” is your shorthand for an elite set of the population that you think can somehow accomplish a goal which the efforts of everyone (anarchy) cannot.”
We cannot proceed from this premise, for I reject it as untrue. How does your analysis change if you accept my statement to you that your conclusion here is simply wrong; that is not my shorthand at all? The “efforts of everyone” is exactly what I am talking about.
If you hire me to cut your lawn, does that mean I have set myself up as an “elite” who is going to dictate how your lawn is to be cut, forever more? Why doesn’t that analogy hold for the CONCEPT of representative government as an ideal, like anarchy as an ideal?
“Because some opponents of anarchy hold this reason in the confines of their minds, we must consider that any opponent may also fall into this category.”
I really don’t understand your point here, I fear, but let me reflect my view anyway. That which is not ruled is anarchy. Therefore, anarchy is unlimited freedom. However this unlimited freedom exists within a larger context of limitations; that is, the rules of ethical principles as manifest by moral conduct. “Thou shalt not kill” is a limitation on your liberty which I expect you to accept and practice. If so, I need not fear you or you me. That is a good basis from which to discover possibilities for future cooperation. From this point, society evolves. The choice to self-govern is a natural consequence of this process of social evolution.
“There is no existing argument for anarchy, nor will there ever be one, that is capable of causing people in the second group of accepting anarchy because doing so is counter to their best interests, as currently perceived.”
I get it. I do. People who seek power over others will not likely give it up willingly on moral grounds. They adapt their ethics to accommodate their goals. But I ask you, is there a rational moral basis for self-government? Can there be?
“But a vision of the success of anarchy must be constructed, even if it is fanciful at first.”
Great minds have tried. It is fanciful, because it seeks to extricate part of what is naturally human; to cooperate, and for this cooperation to evolve into self-government. It is a high form of society, just like a modern free market is a high form of barter and trade.
“There must be a positive reward in the anarchic society and not leave it to punishment alone to provide the means of constraint of our human behavior.”
Punishment is not the driving force behind a free market economy, and so it is with self-government. It is a means of betterment of one’s own life, a more liberated expression of one’s own liberty in the context of life with others.
“Self control is the only way it can possibly work.”
Yes, and if men were angles…
I respect your wish to protect your identity. Therefore I am providing a link to the site where the book is available and one version is currently free of charge.
Thank you, I appreciate it. I will check it out.
Comments on this entry are closed.