Anarchy/self-government

There is no equality in nature, only darwinian selection. Which would be even more arbitrary then democracy. And the anarchy would last three days, until the strongest or the smartest would force all the others to submittion.

And any return to the primeval pack won't help civilisation.

 

Hobbes argued that one man is another man's wolf; equating man to a roving beast, while sadly justifiable, is just plain wrong. Societies evolve out of nature, true, but society and Anarchy are not inconsistent. (I prefer the term Natural Order to avoid the negative conotations involved in using the word "Anarchy" as being confused with Chaos.)

One need not necessarily sacrifice liberties in order to live peacefully in an organized society. One needs only to observe and respect in full the property rights of others. Simply put, a Natural Order is nothing more than an expression of the notion that each individual owns his or her own body and material property and has a natural right to be free from coercion by force or fraud.

Society does not imply necessarily a need for a coercive government. Ludwig von Mises, while not a true proponent of Anarchy, did insist that in order for a society to be truly considered a free society, the governing entity must allow an unlimited right of secession. Granted this, a government ceases to be a government as we know it, and becomes more like a private club or business, exacting a fee (as opposed to imposing a tax) for the services it renders. If this were not so, the members of the society (or a substantial portion thereof) would simply choose to secede and refuse to take part in (and support) any "governmental" activity.

An aside: This is the primary reason Lincoln fought the "Civil War" (or as I call it, the war for Southern Secession). Lincoln knew that if he allowed the Southern States to secede, the consolidated power of the federal government would be rendered meaningless. By the way, an unlimited right of secession was expressed in the state constitutions of every state which seceded from the Union. A state's unlimited right of secession was taken for granted up until the time of the war.

For more on this, read Tom DiLorenzo's book, "The Real Lincoln".

Contrast this idea with what is commonly mis-named "Anarchism", but really is "Chaosism". Often, people will decry the idea of a Natural Order as a return to the primitive, a return to the bushes, as it were. In reality, those who refuse to respect the property rights of others would most likely face harsher consequences in a Natural Order than they do in a Socialized society.

Natural rights include a right to defend one's property from vandalism and theft. Criminals would soon realize that attempts to damage or steal the property of another could result in severe consequences, not excluding great bodily harm and/or expulsion from society altogether.

For more on this topic, please read Stephan Kinsella's articles from the Journal of Libertarian Studies:

"Punishment and Proportionality: the Estoppel Approach"
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf

"Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith"
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_4.pdf

And a couple from Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

"The Private Production of Defense"
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

"The Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy, and the Idea of a Natural Order"
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/11_2/11_2_3.pdf

 

But what would happen when, instead of usual criminals, some owners will desire more and will associate and attack other owners to take their properties? And when some charismatic, natural leader will desire absolute power and will convince many people to follow him. Why do you think such a society never evolved naturaly?

 

The articles I cited explain this more completely.

In a nutshell, the chances of such a thing happening would be very very low. First of all because the group of owners, by initiating aggression against the others would invite a rightful and equally aggressive retalliation, usually from a well-funded private defense or protection firm.

Check out John D. Sneed's take on this:

"Order Without Law: Where Will Anarchists Keep the Madmen?"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/sneed1.html

To answer the question about the natural evolution of an Anarchist Society, I defer to Butler Shaffer:

"I am often asked if anarchy has ever existed in our world, to which I answer: almost all of your daily behavior is an anarchistic expression ... If we dealt with our colleagues at work in the same coercive and threatening manner by which the state insists on dealing with us, our employment would be immediately terminated. We would soon be without friends were we to demand that they adhere to specific behavioral standards that we had mandated for their lives."

"In short, virtually all of our dealings with friends and strangers alike are grounded in practices that are peaceful, voluntary, and devoid of coercion."

From the article, "What Is Anarchy?" by Butler Shaffer
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html

Anarchy exsisted (and thrived) during the American expansion to the western frontier in the 18th and 19th centuries. For more on this, you may refer to John Pillip Reid's book, "Law for the Elephant: Property and Social Behavior on the Overland Trail"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0873281640/lewrockwell/104-9829803-4255139

A state of Anarchy exists right now in cyberspace, and the private owners and operators of websites are developing effective means of prohibiting undesirable behavior online. Most of these developments are taking place without governmental intervention. This site is no exception.

 

Anarchy? not gonna happen, someone always wants to be on top...

 

I dident know we were disscusing Hobs, i might have to get out my old debate books, I always used hobs in my contentions. He goes more with my views on society as it should be then other people did, we did a debate on Anarchy vs opressive government, wow, that one was fun...i almost came to blows with some people :$ . And im not a violent person!

 

Locke > Hobbes

 

Unfortunately, this theory makes abstraction of human psychology. The weak will try to create some protection for themselves and the state will reemmerge. Or the powerfull will gain more and more power and again the state will reemmerge. Why do you think no anarchy, or better saying non-state organisation never lasted, it always evolved into state?

 

this happened so long ago, i think that humans have evolved to the point where an anarchy would work for some groups of people, and it does on places such as numerous kibitz in Israel

 

In response, an Anarchist philosophy does not in any way make an abstraction of human psychology. In fact, it is more conducive to the nature of human beings than any other social institution as it allows each individual the ultimate freedom to choose how he will live his life.

Should the weaker feel a need for protection, they may form amongst themselves a protection cooperative. They may even form a sort of community coalition against thuggery. This is fine and well and good, so long as cooperation with and participation in such types of organizations is strictly voluntary.

Should the aggressive seek power, it should be made clear that violations of the natural rights of others shall not be tolerated. No man, no matter how powerful, can forcefully rule over a greater multitude of men for any significant length of time without the consent of the governed masses. No tyrannical ruler is free from the threat of assassination or coup. Alternately, the aggressive and abitious amongst us, in a Natural Order, may rightfully, and with far less personal risk, seek market power; success and control over a large company operating in a competitive market.

Family is a fine non-governmental (and pre-governmental) institution which thrives in the absence of a coercive state. The institution of the family existing in a Natural Order is often, in fact, considered being the most conducive to leading a healthy, happy human life.

Or how about markets? Markets evolve naturally from the mutual, voluntary, and peaceful cooperation between individuals. Here is another fine example of a non-governmental (and again, pre-governmental) institution which thrives in a Natural Order.

I believe that the persistence of coercive governmental institutions stems from a gross misunderstanding of what the state is and is not. For more on this, I refer to Murray Rothbard's article, "The Anatomy of The State".
http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

"If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned ... Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree."

"We must, therefore, emphasize that "we" are not the government; the government is not "us." The government does not in any accurate sense "represent" the majority of the people. But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority."

"If, then, the State is not "us" ... what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion ... The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively "peaceful" the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society."

Obviously, a state is able to thrive only if it maintains a monopoly over its territory. Thus we have an organization which is inately violent and oppressive, not only toward its own subjects, but toward other states as well. Should the governing body be organized to allow for an individual's unlimited right of nullification (secession), it would cease to be a state at all.

Another common misconception is that states are born by some kind of "social contract"; that a state evolves peacefully as a result of the inherent nature of man. Nothing could be further from the truth. The state has always been born out of violent conquest and exploitation, and maintained by oppression and propoganda.

Alright, I could babble on about this for hours. But this should be enough for your brains to chew on for a while. Obviously I can provide only a brief survey of the Epistemology supporting these ideas. I implore anyone interested in seriously exploring these topics to read the articles which I have cited.

 

So that's why they teach us to write essays in school! Excellent argument freedawg, I was on your side already but I've not often heard the state taken apart so articulately. Well done. I'm gonna e-mail all my non-anarchist friends and tell them to read that.

 

Thanks Andy!


The real credit for developing these ideas, however, goes to Murray N. Rothbard and Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

The articles I cited are absolutely fantastic and I encourage everyone to take some time to read and contemplate them carefully.

http://www.mises.org/

 

Free Dawg, the cooperations you describe to protect people in an anarchy are only the beginning of state. Of course state doesn't control everything and it shouldn't. But actualy the state is exactly the protective structure you talk about, created by a community living on a territory. Humans could be completely free only not just by giving up state, but also by giving up society.

 

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there, Sandu.

I think that Society is a wonderful thing which has elevated the general standard of living of mankind since the stone-age. Humans need interpersonal cooperation in order to survive. It is the ability of human beings to divide labor resources which allow us to produce for profit, and generate wealth. The high degree to which human beings have developed this division of labor is precisely why we are a successful species on this planet.

Society is a part of human nature. Government is not. I often hear people lament for want of friendship or companionship. I never hear anyone express a desire to be ruled, or to be governed more restrictively.

The protection cooperatives I describe can in no way be compared to a state. How many times have you heard of a Neighborhood Watch leader pushing for governmental authority?

Aside from this, there are a few categorical differences.

1. A protection cooperative is VOLUNTARY. It allows an unlimited right to refuse to participate in and cooperate with its activities. At the point that it no longer allows this it is no longer a cooperative, it is a millitia.

2. A cooperative has no right or power to obtain revenue through coercion; force or the threat of force. At the point that it would attempt to do so, it is a criminal organization.

3. A cooperative has no right to use defensive force except in response to a direct threat upon it's own members or property, and that only with expressed consent of the property-owners. It must respect the natural property rights of everyone. It has no right or power over and above that of an ordinary person.

This is only one of who knows how many ways entrepreneurs and pioneers will create to offer protective services for customers. People will have the ability to choose for themselves what kinds of protective services best meet their individual needs and then shop amongst a variety of competitive providers.

These providers can in no way be compared to a state as their business is again entirely voluntary, they have no right to a monopoly (very much unlike the state which requires monopolistic control over the use of force and the production of defense), they have no ability to tax, and they must respect natural private property rights.

On a side point, I find it rather amusing that most people who claim to be in support of "diversity" have a problem with allowing for diversity when it comes to providing those services which are deemed "government" services. That goes for everything from water, sewer, electricity, sanitary services, road maintenence, justice and defense. I argue that all of these services are much better provided in a competitive market, where terms are set between merchants and the customers upon whom they are directly dependent, and not by legislators whose votes are too easy to buy. One of the best arguments I use in suport of my position is that of diversity. Markets are, by their very nature, diverse, governments are, by their very nature, not. But some people like tap water, too.

We argue that monopolies are bad because a monopoly will tend to increase costs and reduce quality. Why is it so difficult to realize that government-maintained monoplies over services upon which we depend on a daily basis are no different?

I have cited above some very good resources concerning these topics. Here are a few more:

"Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security"
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf

Lecture: "The Myth of National Defense"
http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/PWD2003/PWD-Hoppe.mp3

Please take some time to consider these ideas carefully.

 

FreeDawg, if you want to see people desiring to live in more restrictive government structures, just go to Globalisation and read the posts of Communism and, in lesser degree, others. Remember the voters of Hitler, who gain power by winning the elections. Just two examples.

People evolved since the Stone Age, but they remained essentialy the same. All the structures you describe can be recognised in tribal structures, especialy those from the Iron Age and even the Dark Age (so, I'm not necesary talking about Stone Age people). You gave the example of Wild West pioneers, but remember they finaly become by their own will part of a state, sicking more order and protection for their property.

What you do with natural monopols? You cann't have more waterpipe systems to bring water in the same place, or more CATV networks for the same building and so on. How can you choose among competitors in this kind of market and who's going to supervise the behviour of the providers?

On the other hand, I agree government atributes should be clearly limited and that we need a strong, well developped civil society to supervise and to limit government actions.

 

I find it instinctively hard to imagine an anarchist society that still uses money. Surely if the main motivation for work was still money... money = power and people would still be oppressed by the super-rich. If everything was free, wouldn't you still work (FreeDawg)? Just for the sake of bettering yourself, for the respect of your neighbours and girls, to excersize your mind and body etc. I just don't see the point of money when it's obvious (because we were doing it before money came along) that we can supply everyone's wants quite easily.

 

Andy,


The notion of "everything" being free overlooks the reality of the scarcity of resources. It is commonly referred to as a "Utopian" ideal. The notion of superabundance renders all conversations concerning economics moot, as resources and products would ultimately have no value. Seriously, if everything were free, and you could have whatever you wanted or needed at any time, with little effort and no cost why would you ever leave the couch? At this point the only things left to economize are time and space.

Reality dictates that resources are scarce, and that labor, sometimes a lot of labor, is required to produce goods. If this were not so, if somehow we had the ability to generate usable goods from nothingness, if we were to suddenly find ourselves in a Garden of Eden, no physical thing would have any value to us at all. Therefore, the notion of "wealthy" does not exist. Money does not exist. Economics as an Epistemology, effectively does not exist.

Strength, talent, intelligence, and skill would also be unnecessary (and eventually unused) human characteristics which would slowly disappear. Developing such characteristics requires motivation, and it's hard to motivate someone who exists in the highest degree of comfort and luxury. If I am a god, what is left to aspire toward?

 

First I think you mean finite resources as there is really a abundance of resources yet they are still and always be finite.

Second the library system has been able to deal with a finite supply of books while still providing free access for a very long time.

 

Free Libraries?!

Salt Lake County Budget for 2005:

http://www.slcoaud.org/pdf/mgtbudget/2005/2005AdoptedBdgt.pdf

Salt Lake County Library System Total Budget for 2005: $31.9 Million!

Where does this money come from? (hint: it isn't voluntary contribution)

The resources of a government are not scarce until they have exppropriated a sufficient amount from the private sector to effectively render it insolvent. As long as the private sector remains profitable on net, a government may continue to thrive, happily, and necessarily, parisitic.

What is important to remember, however, is that a state does not generate wealth, it merely redistributes it.

Using the metaphor of the books as a finite resource:

What is the hold time for the most popular titles at the library? At my local library, one will often wait several months in order to check out a more popular title. In fact, those with higher time preferences will often purchase the book rather than wait for it to become available at the library.

Suppose the books were bread. Bread is not reuseable like books, but one could argue that bread is far less costly to produce in greater quantities. Suppose you normally use 1 loaf of bread per week. Now that it's free, however, you decide that you are going to treat yourself to 2 loaves per week. (After all, it costs you nothing.) What do you suppose would happen to the demand of free bread? It would skyrocket. What does that do to supply? Current supply would dwindle at an exponentially increasing rate. Future supply would be limited by the time it takes to construct bakeries capable of producing in quantity. This is cyclical; as current supply increases, so does future demand.

You may argue that the government may ration the bread to control demand. A democratically elected government official has a severe disincentive to do this. Why? They depend upon your vote to remain in office. If they fail to provide you with the quantity of bread which you "need", you are far less likely to vote for them.

Now, for argument's sake, let's eliminate the ability to purchase bread, or the ingredients and supplies necessary to make it, on the open (now "black") market. How long can you wait for bread?

 

Using the metaphor of the books as a finite resource:
I said free access to the resources the libraries provide

Solution move resource from bookstores to libraries increasing thus more books get cycled around.

Both are solved with direct democracy as now if you want 2 loaves per week eventully in the town hall (as everyone is part of the goverment) you are going to have to deal with increased demand caused by you as being part of the goverment it is your resposiblity to work with the rest of the goverment (the rest of the community) to deal with the issue thus the most logical solution is for you to go back to one load of bread a week and everyone can go home instead of wasting their time debating on how to deal with the issue.