[mikema63]

Except we're junior members, it's e foreigners that risk their lives lobbying the US government.

[Malatant of Shadow]

Except we're junior members, it's e foreigners that risk their lives lobbying the US government.

Depends on how they do the lobbying.

Lobbying a petition onto the floor of Congress may not get foreigners very far, but it isn't dangerous.

Lobbying an explosive onto the floor of Congress is a different story.

[mikema63]

Trying not to give in to every whim of Washington seems to be fairly hazardous as well.

[SolarCross]

I'm inclined to agree with that, taxizen -- maybe minus the exaggeration at the end, but definitely we need for political power to be equally shared, and so far in history it never has been.

Things have gotten better compared to what they once were, but we're not there yet! And I don't believe we can have political equality without economic equality at the same time.

Okay lets have a go at a Minarchist solution in this thread I started in the Libertarian section.

[Rothbardian]

This:

Is contradicted by this:


So long as there are violent persons who wish to dominate and impose their will on other persons there will exist a government. Government is, I think, an emergent phenomenon.

You feel that because there are violent people that wish to dominate us, it is a forgone conclusion that we will be dominated by people who prefer to use violence? That is all a government is, after all.

And as I said, that is one notion many people seem to have. But the fact is states emerged from religion.

[Rothbardian]

So let's see. When someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you and steal your property, it comes naturally to him to turn around, leave you and yours alone, and pay for the damage he caused when he broke in?

Obviously you don't have to force people to do what comes naturally to them; the problem is that when people do what comes naturally to them that isn't always desirable.

To say that something is a natural human trait means you have to apply it to everyone. Murder obviously isn't a part of man's nature because if it were we'd all be murdering each other. Some people do exhibit these behaviors, though, and it is only reasonable to protect against them. That doesn't require a government, though. In fact if you want to make the objective argument that people need their bodies and their property protected, the last thing you should do is create an institution which by its very existence denies their rights to safety and property.

[quote="Malatant of Shadow]This isn't quite true. For one thing, you're ignoring all the stages of development between the informal non-hierarchical hunter-gatherer governing structures and full-fledged states such as the first cities exhibited. As people shift from foraging and hunting to agriculture, population grows, and new governing structures emerge to deal with the increase in vectors of conflict and the increased possibility of collective action, but they don't become full-fledged states in an instant. Tribal governing structures and proto-states such as the Iroquois League or the Icelandic Commonwealth come into being along the way. As numbers increase, increasingly more formal governing structures are required, which allow the community to continue and further evolve, requiring more governmental changes, and so on.

Here is what anarchists have to deal with on an empirical level, and this relates to the OP (with which I agree).

There has never been a hunter-gatherer community that DID have a formal governing structure.

There has never been a community more advanced than hunter-gatherer that DIDN'T have some kind of formal governing structure.

There has never been a community that had not advanced to the point of having cities that DID have a state, properly so called.

There has never been a community that had advanced to the point of having cities, that DIDN'T have a state, properly so called.

A single exception to any of these might show the government is optional and support that some sort of nefarious conspiracy or power grab made it happen. But I know of none. I believe I have a good theoretical grasp of WHY these observed facts are facts; I believe it has to do with the exponential increase in vectors of potential conflict in a more complex society, together with the increased resources that allow for the possibility of desirable collective projects requiring increased organization. Everything else, such as class conflict, is a warping factor that tends to arise for one reason or another but does not create the state itself.

Of course, along those lines, there actually is a way to have anarchy: revert to hunter-gatherer. If we do that, we won't need a government.[/quote]

Actually you're making quite a leap in thinking people went from hunter-gatherer to cities because of governments. Hunter gatherer communities can't support governments because they cannot support people who do not produce. Pre government societies were not cities as you understand them because cities by definition have governments. But they did have laws, judges, complex economies, etc. They weren't nomads.

[Malatant of Shadow]

To say that something is a natural human trait means you have to apply it to everyone.

Not so. Blond hair is a natural human trait. That doesn't mean everyone is a blond.

I really like to use an empirical approach. It does a great job of cutting through and disposing of assumed principles that sound plausible, but just aren't so. That's what I did in the section I presented, that you quoted, and that you completely misunderstood. So let me skip to that.

Here's what I said:

This isn't quite true. For one thing, you're ignoring all the stages of development between the informal non-hierarchical hunter-gatherer governing structures and full-fledged states such as the first cities exhibited. As people shift from foraging and hunting to agriculture, population grows, and new governing structures emerge to deal with the increase in vectors of conflict and the increased possibility of collective action, but they don't become full-fledged states in an instant. Tribal governing structures and proto-states such as the Iroquois League or the Icelandic Commonwealth come into being along the way. As numbers increase, increasingly more formal governing structures are required, which allow the community to continue and further evolve, requiring more governmental changes, and so on.

Here is what anarchists have to deal with on an empirical level, and this relates to the OP (with which I agree).

There has never been a hunter-gatherer community that DID have a formal governing structure.

There has never been a community more advanced than hunter-gatherer that DIDN'T have some kind of formal governing structure.

There has never been a community that had not advanced to the point of having cities that DID have a state, properly so called.

There has never been a community that had advanced to the point of having cities, that DIDN'T have a state, properly so called.

And in response, you said:

Actually you're making quite a leap in thinking people went from hunter-gatherer to cities because of governments.

Please re-read the material re-posted above. I did not say that. I didn't say anything of the kind, actually. What I did say (or at least imply) is that a certain level of social organization requires a certain governing structure. The government doesn't come first and then create the structure, rather, the government and the structure grow up in tandem. Thus, people begin supplementing their foraging and hunting with agriculture, and their population grows accordingly; this creates additional vectors of conflict and the wherewithal to engage in public projects requiring more organization, and the society creates new governing structures. And so on. Without those governing structures, the society would break down and collapse, which is the only sense in which the next level is "created" by government -- and that's a weird way to put it.

We can actually see this in action in the history of Iceland. Anarchists like to cite the Icelandic Commonwealth as an example of a working anarchy but it wasn't; Iceland had a formal governing structure, just not one that should properly be called a "state," and that makes sense because it was a proto-civilization not a civilization. (Only civilizations have states.) The Commonwealth worked fine for a time, but as the population of Iceland grew, and some towns were bordering on being cities, the vectors of conflict became too great for the system to manage and it broke down, requiring that Iceland be governed by a state. As things turned out, initially it didn't have its own state but became part of Norway; today, it does have its own independent state. Theoretically it could have had that in the 13th century but that's not how it happened.

Regarding which comes first in time, the state or the changes to material circumstances that require the state, the latter come first -- but not by much. And if the change to governing structure doesn't follow pretty quickly, the society breaks down.

Hunter gatherer communities can't support governments because they cannot support people who do not produce.

More to the point, hunter gatherer communities don't NEED governments in any formal sense. They are small in number, usually no more than 50 people, and everyone belonging to a hunter-gatherer band knows everyone else and most of them are related.

More advanced societies do need governments in a more formal sense, ultimately progressing to a state in a civilized society.

[Rothbardian]

Not so. Blond hair is a natural human trait. That doesn't mean everyone is a blond.

I really like to use an empirical approach. It does a great job of cutting through and disposing of assumed principles that sound plausible, but just aren't so. That's what I did in the section I presented, that you quoted, and that you completely misunderstood. So let me skip to that.

Here's what I said:

This isn't quite true. For one thing, you're ignoring all the stages of development between the informal non-hierarchical hunter-gatherer governing structures and full-fledged states such as the first cities exhibited. As people shift from foraging and hunting to agriculture, population grows, and new governing structures emerge to deal with the increase in vectors of conflict and the increased possibility of collective action, but they don't become full-fledged states in an instant. Tribal governing structures and proto-states such as the Iroquois League or the Icelandic Commonwealth come into being along the way. As numbers increase, increasingly more formal governing structures are required, which allow the community to continue and further evolve, requiring more governmental changes, and so on.

Here is what anarchists have to deal with on an empirical level, and this relates to the OP (with which I agree).

There has never been a hunter-gatherer community that DID have a formal governing structure.

There has never been a community more advanced than hunter-gatherer that DIDN'T have some kind of formal governing structure.

There has never been a community that had not advanced to the point of having cities that DID have a state, properly so called.

There has never been a community that had advanced to the point of having cities, that DIDN'T have a state, properly so called.

And in response, you said:


Please re-read the material re-posted above. I did not say that. I didn't say anything of the kind, actually. What I did say (or at least imply) is that a certain level of social organization requires a certain governing structure. The government doesn't come first and then create the structure, rather, the government and the structure grow up in tandem. Thus, people begin supplementing their foraging and hunting with agriculture, and their population grows accordingly; this creates additional vectors of conflict and the wherewithal to engage in public projects requiring more organization, and the society creates new governing structures. And so on. Without those governing structures, the society would break down and collapse, which is the only sense in which the next level is "created" by government -- and that's a weird way to put it.

We can actually see this in action in the history of Iceland. Anarchists like to cite the Icelandic Commonwealth as an example of a working anarchy but it wasn't; Iceland had a formal governing structure, just not one that should properly be called a "state," and that makes sense because it was a proto-civilization not a civilization. (Only civilizations have states.) The Commonwealth worked fine for a time, but as the population of Iceland grew, and some towns were bordering on being cities, the vectors of conflict became too great for the system to manage and it broke down, requiring that Iceland be governed by a state. As things turned out, initially it didn't have its own state but became part of Norway; today, it does have its own independent state. Theoretically it could have had that in the 13th century but that's not how it happened.

Regarding which comes first in time, the state or the changes to material circumstances that require the state, the latter come first -- but not by much. And if the change to governing structure doesn't follow pretty quickly, the society breaks down.

More to the point, hunter gatherer communities don't NEED governments in any formal sense. They are small in number, usually no more than 50 people, and everyone belonging to a hunter-gatherer band knows everyone else and most of them are related.

More advanced societies do need governments in a more formal sense, ultimately progressing to a state in a civilized society.[/quote]

Sorry, you don't know what it means to talk about something's nature. Having hair is a natural human trait, having blonde hair is not. Having two legs is a natural human trait, having legs that make you 6'2 is not. When discussing something's nature, you're discussing traits that are applicable universally, with a small degree of error allowed for genetic mutation. This is basic biology.

You can continue to assert that 'advanced societies need governments', but an assertion without a reasoned argument behind it is meaningless. The fact is, humanity progressed beyond hunter-gatherer without governments, and have held complex societies without governments.

Anyway, none of this really matters. Can agree that the scenario you described, someone coming into your home and using a gun or some other threat of violence to demand property is wrong and something we need to protect against? Because I would absolutely agree.

[Eran]

There are two explanations to Malatant's historic observations that are still consistent with the notion of a developed, civilised anarchy.

First, replace "government" with "governance". The observation still holds, even while "governance" is consistent with the kind of anarchy that anarchists on this forum tend to advocate.

Put differently, we can all agree that large, developed and civilised societies need laws and effective means for enforcing those laws. The combination of laws and effective enforcement is what I term "governance". Anarchists (here) agree. The only difference is that we advocate a multi-polar enactment and enforcement of laws, rather than a monopolistic one.

Second, history is full of things that happen for the first time. Prior to the late 19th century, for example, a contemporary "Malatant" could have pointed out that there has never been a democratic society in which women enjoyed voting rights. Prior to the 18th century, a contemporary "Malatant" could have pointed out that there has never been a society beyond a city-scale that had effective democracy. Prior to about the same time, a contemporary "Malatant" could have pointed out that there has never been a society in which State and Church were separated. And prior to the 19th century, a contemporary "Malatant" could have pointed out that there has never been a society which didn't practice slavery (in one name or another).

All of those today-commonplace practices - democracy, no slavery, separation of church and state and legal equality for women - have all been unprecedented innovations. Why rule out that a developed, modern, civilised and peaceful anarchy couldn't also be such an innovation?

[SolarCross]

... Put differently, we can all agree that large, developed and civilised societies need laws and effective means for enforcing those laws. The combination of laws and effective enforcement is what I term "governance". Anarchists (here) agree. The only difference is that we advocate a multi-polar enactment and enforcement of laws, rather than a monopolistic one.
..

Quite so and I would only add that the reason why we seek multi-polar agency of law is so that no one can be above the law and do what any morally competent person would call crime with impunity. The government can kidnap, hold to ransom, steal, murder even commit mass murder and act unlawfully in every possible way with total de facto immunity by virtue of its self-legitimised local force monopoly. Thus anarchism is a striving for a world with less crime and can only happen if no agency can put itself above the law.

[Malatant of Shadow]

Sorry, you don't know what it means to talk about something's nature. Having hair is a natural human trait, having blonde hair is not. Having two legs is a natural human trait, having legs that make you 6'2 is not. When discussing something's nature, you're discussing traits that are applicable universally, with a small degree of error allowed for genetic mutation. This is basic biology.

LOL well, no, actually it isn't. You're not using biological terminology at all here. It's perfectly meaningful to call blond hair a "natural human trait," insofar as it's a physical trait that is natural for some humans -- that is, it's natural for the human population to include a certain percentage of blonds.

In any case, you're splitting hairs (whether blond ones or not), since we're talking about whether it's necessary to engage in coercion in order to have a civilization. And if SOME people find themselves inclined to break into your house and steal your things or assault you and your family or whatever, then we do -- whether ALL people are so inclined is completely irrelevant.

You can continue to assert that 'advanced societies need governments', but an assertion without a reasoned argument behind it is meaningless.

I have a reasoned argument. I even presented one. You just choose to ignore it and stick your fingers in your ears.

The fact is, humanity progressed beyond hunter-gatherer without governments, and have held complex societies without governments.

No, neither of those are facts.

Anyway, none of this really matters.

Well, actually, yes it does. It all means that government is necessary and anarchism is a pipe dream. In the context of this thread topic, that matters a great deal.

Can agree that the scenario you described, someone coming into your home and using a gun or some other threat of violence to demand property is wrong and something we need to protect against? Because I would absolutely agree.

Well, since I can see what you're trying to do here, let me say that someone LITERALLY doing that would be something to guard against. On the other hand, can we also agree that when you owe someone money, using coercive methods to require you to pay it isn't wrong and doesn't fit your description?

Put differently, we can all agree that large, developed and civilised societies need laws and effective means for enforcing those laws. The combination of laws and effective enforcement is what I term "governance". Anarchists (here) agree. The only difference is that we advocate a multi-polar enactment and enforcement of laws, rather than a monopolistic one.

Please briefly explain what you mean by "multi-polar."

[Rothbardian]

There are two explanations to Malatant's historic observations that are still consistent with the notion of a developed, civilised anarchy.

First, replace "government" with "governance". The observation still holds, even while "governance" is consistent with the kind of anarchy that anarchists on this forum tend to advocate.

Put differently, we can all agree that large, developed and civilised societies need laws and effective means for enforcing those laws. The combination of laws and effective enforcement is what I term "governance". Anarchists (here) agree. The only difference is that we advocate a multi-polar enactment and enforcement of laws, rather than a monopolistic one.

Second, history is full of things that happen for the first time. Prior to the late 19th century, for example, a contemporary "Malatant" could have pointed out that there has never been a democratic society in which women enjoyed voting rights. Prior to the 18th century, a contemporary "Malatant" could have pointed out that there has never been a society beyond a city-scale that had effective democracy. Prior to about the same time, a contemporary "Malatant" could have pointed out that there has never been a society in which State and Church were separated. And prior to the 19th century, a contemporary "Malatant" could have pointed out that there has never been a society which didn't practice slavery (in one name or another).

All of those today-commonplace practices - democracy, no slavery, separation of church and state and legal equality for women - have all been unprecedented innovations. Why rule out that a developed, modern, civilised and peaceful anarchy couldn't also be such an innovation?

Sounds like the problem is the butchering the word 'anarchy' has taken. Most people think anarchy means chaos, a lack of order. All anarchy means is no rulers. Rules, but no rulers. The original laws were polycentric and developed from voluntary interaction, they did not come as decrees from on high until religious cults started saying "This guy is an avatar of the gods, so you have to obey him".

[Eran]

Well, actually, yes it does. It all means that government is necessary and anarchism is a pipe dream.

Just as democracy was a pipe dream in the mid 18th century? As was separation of church and state at about the same time?
Or just as legal equality for women was a pipe dream in the mid 19th century? Or how about the notion of a black President?

You know what? It is sometimes good to dream (with or without pipes). Human progress is built on dreams.

Please briefly explain what you mean by "multi-polar."

No single organisation maintains a coerced monopoly over the various aspects of law-enforcement. Multiple organisations offer various law-enforcement-related services, from protection services to criminal investigation to dispute adjudication to judgement enforcement.

[Nunt]

No single organisation maintains a coerced monopoly over the various aspects of law-enforcement. Multiple organisations offer various law-enforcement-related services, from protection services to criminal investigation to dispute adjudication to judgement enforcement.

Futhermore, any law-enforcement agency is bound by the same rules as everyone else is.

[Malatant of Shadow]

Just as democracy was a pipe dream in the mid 18th century?

Well, democracy was properly a pipe dream in the Middle Ages, since the populace wasn't educated for the most part and an educated populace is required to make democracy work. It really WOULD have been impossible to implement democracy in, say, the 12th century. But a sufficiently visionary person could have seen WHY democracy was a pipe dream and what had to change in order to make it otherwise. So far, no one has presented a cogent argument as to what needs to change in order to make anarchy work; anarchists seem to believe that the existence of the state is the entirety of the problem, but it isn't. There are reasons why the state exists and must, and until those reasons are address (or at least acknowledged), anarchism will remain just as much a pipe dream as democracy was in the Middle Ages.

No single organisation maintains a coerced monopoly over the various aspects of law-enforcement. Multiple organisations offer various law-enforcement-related services, from protection services to criminal investigation to dispute adjudication to judgement enforcement.

Then you have a recipe for civil war on a massive scale. No, as long as we need enforcement mechanisms at all, a monopoly on them is a necessity.

[Eran]

In that case, I accept that by your definition, anarchy is a pipe dream today.

Just as educated populace (and several other requirements) are prerequisites for a liberal democracy, so an acceptance of the NAP as the only source for legitimate use of force is a prerequisite for a stable anarchy.

We are clearly not anywhere near that state, though whether it would take 500 or only 100 years - who knows?

Then you have a recipe for civil war on a massive scale. No, as long as we need enforcement mechanisms at all, a monopoly on them is a necessity.

Why? Consider the international arena. No "world government" exists, and yet the nations of the world, by and large and more and more so resolve their disputes peacefully.

Or, closer to home, consider separation of powers. Strictly speaking, there is no single organisation that holds a monopoly over all aspects of government in the US. Those aspects are split between the various branches of government.

Yet those branches cooperate, only rarely resorting to the use of force.

Why do you assume that it would be more difficult for responsible major corporations to cooperate than it is for the President, Congress and the USSC?

[Malatant of Shadow]

Why? Consider the international arena. No "world government" exists, and yet the nations of the world, by and large and more and more so resolve their disputes peacefully.

"By and large," sure -- and when they don't? We call that a war.

I would prefer not to have that happening domestically. I would prefer it not happening internationally either, but since international politics is -- well -- anarchy, it still does.

Or, closer to home, consider separation of powers. Strictly speaking, there is no single organisation that holds a monopoly over all aspects of government in the US. Those aspects are split between the various branches of government.

Yet those branches cooperate, only rarely resorting to the use of force.

The branches of government are forbidden to use force against each other by law, which is enforced by the courts, and so effectively the forbidding of force is monopolized.

It did actually break down once, not between federal branches but between the federal government and the states of Maryland and Kentucky, in 1861. Lincoln essentially placed Maryland under military occupation (which was of course beyond his constitutional authority) in order to prevent the capital from being surrounded by seceding states. However, that was obviously an extreme circumstance, and one could argue that it resulted from a partial failure of the central government's authority.

Why do you assume that it would be more difficult for responsible major corporations to cooperate than it is for the President, Congress and the USSC?

As long as there is an authority capable of forbidding the resort to force, it isn't.

[Eran]

"By and large," sure -- and when they don't? We call that a war.

War is much more likely amongst governments than amongst profit-maximising corporations.

Government decision-makers externalise the cost of the War. It is funded by taxes (which they don't personally pay), and often manned by slave-labour (conscription).

A corporation would have to pay for the cost of an armed conflict, not least by paying its employees to compensate them for the risk.


No - armed conflict is far too expensive when you actually have to pay the cost.

The branches of government are forbidden to use force against each other by law, which is enforced by the courts, and so effectively the forbidding of force is monopolized.

The courts don't enforce the law - they have no power. It is the executive branch that has the power to enforce the law.

Organisations within an anarchy would also be forbidden to use force against each other by law (e.g. common law).

If we trust people not to do that which they are forbidden, why worry about an anarchy?

If we don't, why expect the executive branch to obey the judicial?

[Malatant of Shadow]

War is much more likely amongst governments than amongst profit-maximising corporations.

Corporations are forbidden by law from going to war. If we look at equivalent institutions that operate, for one reason or another, outside such prohibitions, i.e. in a stateless condition, we find that it isn't true. See the illegal drug trade, where corporate wars are endemic.

No - armed conflict is far too expensive when you actually have to pay the cost.

Evidently not. (Empiricism -- a useful thing.)

Organisations within an anarchy would also be forbidden to use force against each other by law (e.g. common law).

If there is no over-arching authority capable of enforcing the law upon enforcement agencies, effectively there would be no such law and they would be free to fight each other.

[Rothbardian]

Evidently not. (Empiricism -- a useful thing.)

Indeed it is. So you can empirically prove a history of war amongst non government entities, to support your position. Or, if you cannot do so, as an empiricist you will surely change your position.

It is an easily demonstrable empirical fact that without a tax funded military, 99% of armed conflicts would cease instantly.