Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

There is a part of limited liability that is unobjectionable -- the idea that some contributors to an endeavor could secure a contact that limits their liability to the amount contributed. There is another part that is -- the "entity status" that makes it so that an organization is distinct from any of its members.

In the former case, some people agree to take on the legal liability of others in order to secure their financial assistance. In the latter, some people legally shield themselves from responsibility to anyone, regardless of anyone else's wishes.

Exactly. shifting liability around via contractual arrangement is something most anyone would find unremarkably nonproblematic. The issue being brought up with "Limited Liability" as the paradigm currently has it is that it shields from liability, rather than simply arranging it in a particular way among the various players.

When you look at it from the standpoint of an injured party, the difference is crystal-clear, and from the standpoint of socio-political incentives, of critical significance.

Mike,

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Then limited liability is't a bad thing? Then why has it bee brought up?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

There is a part of limited liability that is unobjectionable -- the idea that some contributors to an endeavor could secure a contact that limits their liability to the amount contributed. There is another part that is -- the "entity status" that makes it so that an organization is distinct from any of its members.

In the former case, some people agree to take on the legal liability of others in order to secure their financial assistance. In the latter, some people legally shield themselves from responsibility to anyone, regardless of anyone else's wishes.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Exactly. shifting liability around via contractual arrangement is something most anyone would find unremarkably nonproblematic. The issue being brought up with "Limited Liability" as the paradigm currently has it is that it shields from liability, rather than simply arranging it in a particular way among the various players.

When you look at it from the standpoint of an injured party, the difference is crystal-clear, and from the standpoint of socio-political incentives, of critical significance.

Ditto on that. There's nothing, as far as I can tell, that's unlibertarian about the concept of limited liability per se. If it promotes freedom throughout, then why not? I can't speak for the other posters, but I think the correct vantage-point here is one that is critical of the State's role in conferring monopoly privilege with regard to liability, not contractual arrangements resulting from free associations.

You would abolish capitalism? How would you do this?

Erm, I wouldn't do anything. I'd expect that a society that actually embraces consistent libertarianism would be one that recognizes that living well is essential to living, and that cooperating with one another is essential to living well. Certainly competition and profit can provide motive to go about your business, but absent the State (and all the radical land/banking/business reforms that this would entail), the ability to reap huge profits would very likely be significantly lessened, as would the so-called "benefits" (such as power) that high wealth confers.

(Referring to other methods besides legal recourse to discourage unsavory behavior) Could you enlarge on this? Perhaps with some examples?

Naming and shaming. Social ostracism. Encouraging solidarity, community, cooperation and perhaps some interdependency. Why? What were you thinking of?

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I'd expect that a society that actually embraces consistent libertarianism would be one that recognizes that living well is essential to living, and that cooperating with one another is essential to living well.

There are real differences of view that simply cannot be papered over with goodwill.

Certainly competition and profit can provide motive to go about your business, but absent the State, the ability to reap huge profits would very likely be significantly lessened, as would the so-called "benefits" (such as power) that high wealth confers.

Why is a state needed to amass wealth and power? After all, you maintain that the absence of historical libertarian societies does not rule them out. So just because the state has been used historically for such a purpose does not mean it is necessary.

Imagine a society with many businesses, the profits from which allows one to live comfortably. Suppose a particular individual indirectly owns ten businesses and obtains profits equal to five businesses from them. He has five times more income than single business owners and so can live well and have the equivalent of four incomes to invest in more businesses. Not only that but his ten businesses can afford to pay their workers more because the rate of profit their owner needs to maintain himself is half the level for other businesses. So even though the absentee-owned businesses may not have a hands-on proprietors managing them, they will have more competent workers that need less management. So this situation should be stable. And since the rich individual is accumulating income above what he needs to live on he can buy more businesses. Through vertical integration the businesses could start to provide some of each others inputs reducing rates of profit still further. Why is the state required here?

Now you seem to be implying that in a libertarian society men who seek power would not be a significant presence. I am reminded of the libertarian community in Atlas Shrugged that would seem to behave in this way. The people who lived there had voluntarily given up great power and wealth to live in humbler circumstances, which struck me as very bizarre. I don't think real men of power and wealth would do that.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

There are real differences of view that simply cannot be papered over with goodwill.

Well, no, I didn't exactly suggest that. My point was that societal norms would have to reflect the (hopefully peaceful) conditions by which libertarianism/anarchism arises.

Why is a state needed to amass wealth and power? After all, you maintain that the absence of historical libertarian societies does not rule them out. So just because the state has been used historically for such a purpose does not mean it is necessary.

I don't think it's built into the fabric of statism; it's a tendency, albeit a strong one.

Imagine a society with many businesses, the profits from which allows one to live comfortably. Suppose a particular individual indirectly owns ten businesses and obtains profits equal to five businesses from them. He has five times more income than single business owners and so can live well and have the equivalent of four incomes to invest in more businesses. Not only that but his ten businesses can afford to pay their workers more because the rate of profit their owner needs to maintain himself is half the level for other businesses. So even though the absentee-owned businesses may not have a hands-on proprietors managing them, they will have more competent workers that need less management. So this situation should be stable. And since the rich individual is accumulating income above what he needs to live on he can buy more businesses. Through vertical integration the businesses could start to provide some of each others inputs reducing rates of profit still further. Why is the state required here?

Well, it's certainly not required (unless absent the State we would embrace a sort of communistic property arrangement, but I'm not convinced on that point), but the State is relevant to this discussion due to the fact that it makes it easier for an individual to become wealthy in the matter you described above. I'm not particularly interested in regurgitating the various leftist arguments here (both from pro- and anti-state perspectives), but I'd be willing to refer you to solid sources if you'd like.

In short, state privilege (through transportation subsidies, cartelized banking, tariffs, unlibertarian land arrangements, etc.) contributes to the current climate of extreme wealth division; my contention is that absent the State, such privileges that encourage this would be virtually impossible to maintain. The commies do have a good point though: certain types of arrangements (syndicalist, nonhierarchial business management comes to mind) will be so obviously better for everyone involved that, due to the flexibility within the anarchic structure, they will naturally integrate themselves into the 'normal' state of affairs.

Now you seem to be implying that in a libertarian society men who seek power would not be a significant presence. I am reminded of the libertarian community in Atlas Shrugged that would seem to behave in this way. The people who lived there had voluntarily given up great power and wealth to live in humbler circumstances, which struck me as very bizarre. I don't think real men of power and wealth would do that.

I didn't mean to suggest that people will voluntarily give up great power and wealth. My contention is that the ability to amass (and use) power and great wealth just wouldn't be particularly easy -- definitely not as easy as it is under the current system, or virtually any statist arrangement.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I don't think it's built into the fabric of statism; it's a tendency, albeit a strong one.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I was claiming that amassing power and wealth can occur independently of the state, not that state necessarily cause concentrations of wealth.

Yes it is harder to achieve great wealth and power without a state. But great wealth and power is not necessary, only relative wealth and power. Once an elite class having a substantial advantage in wealth and power over the nonelite population, a state will arise from because it is in the interest of the elite. Marx believed that capitalism provided the foundation that supported the state, which served the interest of the elites (capitalists). By demolishing capitalism, the state would collapse, and an eqalitarian order naturally emerge (because it is obviously better for all involved). Marx envisioned that such an order would involve a communal economy, like that of the early Christians or religious orders.

Marx believed that the exsting capitalist elites would not voluntarily surrender their privileges and so a revolution of some kind would have to occur first. Of course a successful revolution requires leadership and this leadership would naturally entail a new elite, which quickly established a state that support their interests after all of the Marxist revolutions.

You posit a slightly different arrangement. Private property and a market economy would exist, but somehow there would be no elites, even though all market economies feature differential outcomes which would over time necessarily create an elite. Also you do not propose a way for such a society to emerge. Any such change would reequire some sort of effort and those in the vanguard of that effort would constitute an elite.

The commies do have a good point though: certain types of arrangements (syndicalist, nonhierarchial business management comes to mind) will be so obviously better for everyone involved that...

It is not obviously better for elites, and there will always be elites.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You posit a slightly different arrangement. Private property and a market economy would exist, but somehow there would be no elites, even though all market economies feature differential outcomes which would over time necessarily create an elite.

I'm not sure what you mean by "elite." Once again, I wouldn't expect equal levels of wealth, but I would expect more parity because the State, through imposition on the natural order, has created excess disparity.

The suggestion that the rich would create a state to facilitate their wealth-accumulation seems like a possibility. Then again, so are a lot of things. But if anarchy is so obviously better (as I think it is), and if there are voluntary institutions that have appropriated some needed government functions, and if a State requires relative acquiescence from the population, then it doesn't seem like a particularly likely development.

Also you do not propose a way for such a society to emerge. Any such change would reequire some sort of effort and those in the vanguard of that effort would constitute an elite.

Why? It seems like it would be the opposite of that..

Originally Posted by Matt1989

The suggestion that the rich would create a state to facilitate their wealth-accumulation seems like a possibility. Then again, so are a lot of things. But if anarchy is so obviously better (as I think it is)

The suggestion the rich would create a state to facilitate their wealth-accumulation makes sense only if you begin with a state. That is, what they create isn't a state, but rather a state that facilitates their wealth-accumulation, as opposed to one that doesn't.

If on the other hand you begin without a state, then what creates the state isn't the rich trying to facilitate their wealth accumulation, but rather the people terrified and disgusted by the chaos of life without one. When that happens, you typically get less in the way of civil liberties protection and restraints than if a state is being overly influenced by the rich (unpleasant though the latter is). Think dictatorship. Think Napoleon or Lenin.

As to whether anarchy is obviously better, I answer that, like true communism (which actually IS a type of anarchy), it certainly would be if it worked the way theory has it. Unfortunately, theory does not deal with the fact that a great many people, perhaps most and certainly a large minority at best, are would-be assholes who only restrain their assholiness because they don't want to risk legal trouble. In other words, they're non-assholes (or not as assholy as they would be in the absense of a state) out of enlightened self-interest, not out of genuine compassion and social responsibility. Change the conditions that make this sort of behavior self-interested, and you will change the behavior as well. This is of course the great flaw in anarchist thinking: a failure of cynicism, a failure to recognize the fact that most people are inherently assholes.

If the state inevitably serves the interests of the rich and powerful, as may be the case, then that is STILL better than what would happen in the absence of a state. Thus, if this is NOT inevitable, the proper replacement for it would not be NO state, but a BETTER state that is genuinely accountable to the people. However that might be accomplished.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The suggestion the rich would create a state to facilitate their wealth-accumulation makes sense only if you begin with a state.

If on the other hand you begin without a state, then what creates the state isn't the rich trying to facilitate their wealth accumulation, but rather the people terrified and disgusted by the chaos of life without one.

Well, that doesn't really cover what has happened in anarchist (or near anarchist) communities historically, but I'm not sure if that qualifies as a 'beginning.'

As to whether anarchy is obviously better, I answer that, like true communism (which actually IS a type of anarchy), it certainly would be if it worked the way theory has it. Unfortunately, theory does not deal with the fact that a great many people, perhaps most and certainly a large minority at best, are would-be assholes who only restrain their assholiness because they don't want to risk legal trouble. In other words, they're non-assholes (or not as assholy as they would be in the absense of a state) out of enlightened self-interest, not out of genuine compassion and social responsibility. Change the conditions that make this sort of behavior self-interested, and you will change the behavior as well. This is of course the great flaw in anarchist thinking: a failure of cynicism, a failure to recognize the fact that most people are inherently assholes.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that people, in general, are assholes. We're all imperfect, sure, and we all probably act like assholes from time to time, but the vast majority of people I have come across are nice, friendly, and helpful -- not destroyers of the social order. And although punishment from authority plays a factor in our decision not to hurt others, I don't think it's a particularly primary consideration on the whole.

As I previously stated in discussions with regard to feminism, I think the idea of an essential human nature, or a baseline that dictates whether we are "naturally" virtuous or vicious is seriously hampered by the existence of human rationality and all that it entails. Some people are nicer than Americans on the whole, others meaner. And for what it's worth, I think the State makes us more vicious than we would ordinarily be in a voluntary society.

But even if we were to concede that vicious behavior is a human tendency that is difficult to avoid under any system, I don't see how freedom from punishment is more explicitly anarchist than statist. After all, state executives, among others, get away with the absolute worst crimes all the time.

Furthermore, it appears absolutely insane (anarchist or not) to refuse to administer out some kind of coercive force toward those who actively and repeatedly seek to disrupt peaceful society through rape, murder, and theft. As an anarchist, I find punishment in response to initiatory force to be a perfectly legitimate function of the State (despite it's need of serious overhaul) but I think it can be done better in a stateless society.

I'd wager that enlightened self-interest implies some degree of social responsibility. Granted, many people fail to embrace this, but most forms of anarchism promote a society where increased reliance on the community (certainly mutualist, collectivist, primitivist, and communist anarchists stress this point especially -- and some ancaps have added their voices to the chorus recently) is fairly necessary to achieve a good amount of one's short-term goals.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Well, that doesn't really cover what has happened in anarchist (or near anarchist) communities historically, but I'm not sure if that qualifies as a 'beginning.'

I'm not sure where you get the idea that people, in general, are assholes. We're all imperfect, sure, and we all probably act like assholes from time to time, but the vast majority of people I have come across are nice, friendly, and helpful -- not destroyers of the social order. And although punishment from authority plays a factor in our decision not to hurt others, I don't think it's a particularly primary consideration on the whole.

As I previously stated in discussions with regard to feminism, I think the idea of an essential human nature, or a baseline that dictates whether we are "naturally" virtuous or vicious is seriously hampered by the existence of human rationality and all that it entails. Some people are nicer than Americans on the whole, others meaner. And for what it's worth, I think the State makes us more vicious than we would ordinarily be in a voluntary society.

But even if we were to concede that vicious behavior is a human tendency that is difficult to avoid under any system, I don't see how freedom from punishment is more explicitly anarchist than statist. After all, state executives, among others, get away with the absolute worst crimes all the time.

Furthermore, it appears absolutely insane (anarchist or not) to refuse to administer out some kind of coercive force toward those who actively and repeatedly seek to disrupt peaceful society through rape, murder, and theft. As an anarchist, I find punishment in response to initiatory force to be a perfectly legitimate function of the State (despite it's need of serious overhaul) but I think it can be done better in a stateless society.

I'd wager that enlightened self-interest implies some degree of social responsibility. Granted, many people fail to embrace this, but most forms of anarchism promote a society where increased reliance on the community (certainly mutualist, collectivist, primitivist, and communist anarchists stress this point especially -- and some ancaps have added their voices to the chorus recently) is fairly necessary to achieve a good amount of one's short-term goals.

It's not that most people are bad guys. It's that bad guys exist and must be guarded against. Same reason you buy fire insurance - fires are rare but you still have to have protection.

And there is a sizeable subset of people who will do whatever pays off, especially if everybody else is doing it, or you wouldn't get the upsurge of sharp practice in an Unraveling that you do.

Now add the number of people who just do what everybody else is doing and figure that if everybody's doing it, it must be all right.

I'm not saying we need a dictatorship to handle that - we don't. But we need some sort of structure once we're beyond the 150-people face-to-face level. Reputation is an important driver of good conduct where everyone knows everybody else, but in, say, a city of half a million, someone could have a vile reputation among those in the know and how would people dealing with this person know that? Short of running background checks on everybody?
Anarchy, like communism, is a great idea - for a different species. Like some form of solitary great cat.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Anarchy, like communism, is a great idea - for a different species. Like some form of solitary great cat.

Agreed. Humans, like many social species -- notably pack hunters -- pick leaders, strive for dominance and compete for territory. For much of human evolution, we lived in hunter gatherer groups. Such groups required lots of territory. The number of people in a group was limited by prudence. Thus, our emotions are balanced to work reasonably in an environment that doesn't exist anymore. With agriculture, irrigation and large armies it became difficult for the societies that might be most natural to compete.

But even in hunter gatherer days, there were leaders, enforcers and rules. Given the current population density, reverting to hunter gatherer social structure isn't an option. We ought to be looking to create a society compatible with our hunter gatherer social instincts, but the communist / anarchist daydream of the state fading away to nothing is unlikely. In fact, I'd be dubious about any system based around idealized philosophical principles rather than a working understanding of how humans behave.

Not that the 20th Century industrial representative democracy model is perfect. We are not that far removed from colonial imperialism and great powers fighting wars of aggression on neighboring great powers. We've got too much baggage left over from days not long past. Thus, I will not chant 'delay is life' and fight all change, either.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Agreed. Humans, like many social species -- notably pack hunters -- pick leaders, strive for dominance and compete for territory. For much of human evolution, we lived in hunter gatherer groups. Such groups required lots of territory. The number of people in a group was limited by prudence. Thus, our emotions are balanced to work reasonably in an environment that doesn't exist anymore. With agriculture, irrigation and large armies it became difficult for the societies that might be most natural to compete.

Perhaps because we are, by nature and evolution, just as much pack hunters as any wolves. (Which may, BTW, explain why some wolves became the very first animals our ancestors domesticated - dogs. Our way of life, and the timber wolf's were quite compatible, and our respective strengths as hunters were quite compatible.)

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I'm not saying we need a dictatorship to handle that - we don't. But we need some sort of structure once we're beyond the 150-people face-to-face level. Reputation is an important driver of good conduct where everyone knows everybody else, but in, say, a city of half a million, someone could have a vile reputation among those in the know and how would people dealing with this person know that?

Right. Background checks are too complicated (and too paranoid) on most smaller matters. But I'm wondering why you are thinking that only a State can possibly act as a preventative toward initiatory force or fraud. Part of the anarchist program is that many of the State's current functions will be adopted by organizations that can perform them more efficiently.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Well, that doesn't really cover what has happened in anarchist (or near anarchist) communities historically, but I'm not sure if that qualifies as a 'beginning.'

Anarchist communities aren't a good indicator of what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the breakdown of state authority such as what happened in the wake of the French or Russian revolutions. The French crown was an overthrown state, and the First Republic was a failed state. Its functions of providing public order were not being met, and so Napoleon seized power with the approval of the public.

Anarchist communities have generally existed on a small scale within the context of a failed or failing state, e.g. the Paris commune. What happened in those communities was part of what was happening on the larger scale, and shouldn't be considered as if it were an independent process.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that people, in general, are assholes.

Life experience, particularly business dealings. Its been my experience that the way people treat strangers often depends on what they think they can get away with. The way they treat non-strangers is a different subject, and people tend to be less assholy with people they know. The problem is that all civilized life involves frequent dealings with strangers. That's why civilized societies require states, while smaller, tribal societies don't.

It's instinctive with us that people we don't know aren't full-fledged people. This isn't rational, but it's normal. As such, we are more selfish in dealing with strangers, because we don't have the same fellow-feeling, the same sense that this person is "one of us," that we do with members of our own tribe -- and tribes still exist within the context of a civilization, because that, too, is instinctive. It takes a saintly, highly enlightened being to see all mankind as "one of us" and feel and behave accordingly.

There are hierarchies of assholiness, of course. Most people will behave callously, non-altruistically, toward strangers. Many people -- perhaps not most, but probably close to it -- will exploit strangers to the extent the law allows, in a non-violent fashion. Some people -- probably not most -- will exploit strangers to the extent the law allows, using violence as needed. A few people -- almost certainly not most -- will behave violently toward strangers for its own sake.

But there's another factor. Assholiness is mutually-reinforcing. My own inclination is certainly not toward violence -- I'm not that much of an asshole. But I also know that most people I meet, in the context of state-enforced law, are not going to be violent towards me. If there were no law enforcement, some minority of the strangers I encounter would try to exploit me through violence (mug me, rob me, etc.), and some smaller minority would want to be violent to me just for the hell of it. Because of this, I would learn to be readier to resort to violence myself when dealing with strangers, out of self-defense. I wouldn't want to do that, but I would quickly learn that I had to -- not necessarily strike first, but certainly threaten something like "mess with me, dude, and you're history." And so I would of necessity become more of an asshole.

I'll note in passing that that's exactly what precivilized life was like when members of different bands dealt with each other. So in our own anarchistic precivilized past, the results I'm describing happened. Only the relative infrequency of contact between strangers made life in that context anything other than a violent hell.

But even if we were to concede that vicious behavior is a human tendency that is difficult to avoid under any system, I don't see how freedom from punishment is more explicitly anarchist than statist. After all, state executives, among others, get away with the absolute worst crimes all the time.

Actually, they don't. They get away with behaviors that you disapprove of, but that are NOT crimes. Perhaps, arguably, they should be -- but absent a state, they can't be. (Of course, absent a state, state executives can't be state executives, either. So that question is really moot and irrelevant.)

Punishment for crimes depends on the effective operation of judicial authority. Judicial authority can be effective in the absence of a state only within a tribal context. In a civilized setting, with constant interaction among people who are not part of the same tribe, the only authority capable of judging and punishing crimes is the state.

Bottom line is this. We can rely on instinctive human behavior only in the material circumstances for which those instincts evolved, which means a familial or tribal context. Outside that context, artificial, non-instinctual mechanisms for enforcing order are needed.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The suggestion the rich would create a state to facilitate their wealth-accumulation makes sense only if you begin with a state. That is, what they create isn't a state, but rather a state that facilitates their wealth-accumulation, as opposed to one that doesn't.

This assumes that the essential purpose of a state is something other than the maintenance of a power elite.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If on the other hand you begin without a state, then what creates the state isn't the rich trying to facilitate their wealth accumulation, but rather the people terrified and disgusted by the chaos of life without one . . . Think dictatorship. Think Napoleon or Lenin.

Neither of those leaders arose in a period of anarchy. Rather they came to power in response to an existing tyranny. The most chaotic times in history are when power elites with waning legitimacy attempt to maintain control. This typically has resulted in their displacement by new elites.

Even if one accepts the idea that such elites are inevitable (per Mike), the process of overturning old elites and replacing them with new ones or changing the structure of the elite is healthy in that it flattens the overall social system. Even if the elimination of elites is an asymptote that history approaches rather than a reasonable goal to be achieved now, blase acceptance of the current arrangement -- or worse, excusing parasites on the presumption that they provide "order" -- is counterproductive.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If the state inevitably serves the interests of the rich and powerful, as may be the case, then that is STILL better than what would happen in the absence of a state.

This is not in evidence, as providing an institution that legitimates "asshole" behavior is not a reasonable solution to the existence of said behavior. Rather, it may be that the actual competitive advantage of the state is that it encourages assholes to parade around in plain view so that the rest of us can more easily avoid them*. Perhaps pageantry is the state's essential function.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Thus, if this is NOT inevitable, the proper replacement for it would not be NO state, but a BETTER state that is genuinely accountable to the people. However that might be accomplished.

Thus, the ideal state would be primarily ceremonial -- entirely composed of "beer summits" and town halls?


* This would also explain why suppression of dissent usually fails in the long term -- as the displays of the protesters begin to rival those of the existing state.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

This assumes that the essential purpose of a state is something other than the maintenance of a power elite.

Correct, and I think that's a valid assumption. A state fulfils the functions of resolving disputes among citizens, providing for the common defense against foreigners, and implementing collective decisions. The maintenance of a power elite is, in one view, a side-effect of the state, and in another, a perversion of its purpose.

Neither of those leaders arose in a period of anarchy. Rather they came to power in response to an existing tyranny.

Definitely incorrect in the case of Napoleon. Lenin is less clear. But it was not Napoleon who overthrew Louis XIV, and the government of the First Republic was too ineffective to be properly called a "tyranny." The nobles who had their heads chopped off in the Reign of Terror were, in effect, murdered by a mob, not liquidated by a Sulla, Hitler, or Stalin.

The most chaotic times in history are when power elites with waning legitimacy attempt to maintain control.

I disagree. The most chaotic times in history occur when power elites with waning legitimacy have been overthrown by force. The new government typically has legitimacy problems of its own, and cannot govern except through raw violence and mob enthusiasm, neither of which provides a stable foundation for governance.

The only instance of what you're talking about that comes to mind occurred in the late Roman Republic and led to the dictatorship of Caesar. But that's a variation on the same theme, with Rome simply skipping the chaotic interval experienced in France between Louis and Napoleon. If Caesar had lost the civil war, most likely the parallel would have been much closer, with a dictatorship arising somewhat later, after the overthrow of the Senate.

I'm not going to defend entrenched elites. I have no motivation to do so.

This is not in evidence, as providing an institution that legitimates "asshole" behavior is not a reasonable solution to the existence of said behavior.

The problem with focusing exclusively on the perfidy of elites is that one loses sight of the potential for non-elite, random, chaos-empowered individual mayhem. The effect of an elite-augmenting state is that it ensures that only the elites may regularly be assholes, and only in certain ways. Even the richest CEO in American cannot rape a woman on the street, for example, and be sure of getting away with it.

Exploitation by capitalists is a bigger problem in this society than violent crime by individuals, but not a bigger problem than such crime would be in the absence of the state.

Thus, the ideal state would be primarily ceremonial -- entirely composed of "beer summits" and town halls?

I'm not sure the phrase "ideal state" has meaning. A better state than we have would be a functioning representative democracy which was not subverted by campaign financing and other untoward influence of wealth. I like to believe that this is possible. Even if it isn't, though, lack of a state would be worse than what we have now.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Punishment for crimes depends on the effective operation of judicial authority. Judicial authority can be effective in the absence of a state only within a tribal context. In a civilized setting, with constant interaction among people who are not part of the same tribe, the only authority capable of judging and punishing crimes is the state.

OK, why? Anarchists of all different stripes have theorized on how judgment and punishment for crimes ought to be carried out. Why is the State the only capable institution?

Bottom line is this. We can rely on instinctive human behavior only in the material circumstances for which those instincts evolved, which means a familial or tribal context. Outside that context, artificial, non-instinctual mechanisms for enforcing order are needed.

Probably, if I understand you correctly. At least if we don't undergo a radical change in our cultural attitude, bigger communities require some formal mechanism. But you seem to be operating under the notion that this function could not be operationalized under anarchy.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The only instance of what you're talking about that comes to mind occurred in the late Roman Republic and led to the dictatorship of Caesar. But that's a variation on the same theme, with Rome simply skipping the chaotic interval experienced in France between Louis and Napoleon. If Caesar had lost the civil war, most likely the parallel would have been much closer, with a dictatorship arising somewhat later, after the overthrow of the Senate.

Actually, starting with Tiberius Gracchus the Roman government slowly descended more and more into rule by mob violence interspersed with episodes of military dictatorship It is not until Octavian that the mob chaos is brought under control.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Correct, and I think that's a valid assumption. A state fulfills the functions of resolving disputes among citizens, providing for the common defense against foreigners, and implementing collective decisions. The maintenance of a power elite is, in one view, a side-effect of the state, and in another, a perversion of its purpose.

And in another, maintaining an elite is the core purpose of the state.

The fact that dispute resolution, defense, and even collective decisions can and have been done by non-state entities even in the modern era shows that these other functions are bundled with the core functions, but are not themselves the core functions. These order functions are inarguably important, which is precisely why the state would be expected to attempt to monopolize them. Such services are the core of social order, and once attached to them, the state is difficult to uproot.

Some libertarians, following Albert Jay Nock, like to distinguish between state and government, by calling the latter the services you describe above and the former the monopolization of those services.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Definitely incorrect in the case of Napoleon. Lenin is less clear. But it was not Napoleon who overthrew Louis XIV, and the government of the First Republic was too ineffective to be properly called a "tyranny." The nobles who had their heads chopped off in the Reign of Terror were, in effect, murdered by a mob, not liquidated by a Sulla, Hitler, or Stalin.

What about that fellow Robespierre? Those "mobs" were driven to action by the official government of France. The following Directorate was only better in that they turned the violence outward, which in turn made the army too powerful and led to military dictatorship under Napoleon.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I disagree. The most chaotic times in history occur when power elites with waning legitimacy have been overthrown by force.

Which people only do when the existing government is particularly awful.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Exploitation by capitalists is a bigger problem in this society than violent crime by individuals, but not a bigger problem than such crime would be in the absence of the state.

That seems unlikely. The level of crime in our society is vastly elevated by the war on drugs, a pure creation of the state. In addition, the material conditions of the poorest members of our society directly influences the sense of desperation that leads to property crimes. This argument of yours seems heavily reliant on equating the state with social order services -- the very connection that is under debate.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I'm not sure the phrase "ideal state" has meaning. A better state than we have would be a functioning representative democracy which was not subverted by campaign financing and other untoward influence of wealth. I like to believe that this is possible. Even if it isn't, though, lack of a state would be worse than what we have now.

To be clear, I'm not advocating anarchism in the here-and-now. Regardless of whether we could live without the state at present (and we probably can't) the goal of a society that doesn't need institutionalized violence for stability is laudable. It is useful to think like an anarchist (even if you're not one) since one will properly view the state as a dangerous organization that needs to be watched and limited. Even if it can't be eliminated, restraining it is a good thing.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

At the expense of who exactly? I do not subscribe to the allegation that taxing the people of a nation and using those funds for the good of society is being done at the negative expense of anyone. It is simply - as Oliver Wendell Holmes put it - the price we pay for a civilized society. If anyone begins to look at taxation and spending as a win for some while a loss of others based purely on individual benefit or usage - its simply the wrong way to look at taxation.

Well, that's assuming Holmes was correct. And being a direct and obvious beneficiary of taxation as well as a person who spent his life immersed in a system that presupposed taxation, I'm not sure he's the best source regarding the legitimacy of taxation.

If you have the anarcho/libertarians attitude toward taxation then I would guess there is nothing more I can say. The idea that taxation is stealing is over the top hyperbole designed to create the biggest strawman of all.

That's a strange way to put it. I've objected to the hyperbole of life under statism as slavery in the past on this forum because I believe it conjures up the wrong images and is unwise on the strategic front. But the 'taxation is theft' line is really just a few very plausible premises:

1) People are the sole rightful* owners of their property.
2) Any entity that uses coercion to take rightfully-owned property from someone commits an act of theft.
3) Government is such an entity (through the process of taxation).
4) Taxation is theft.

I don't think I'm begging the question, either. Taxation is obviously an act that, if done by any other institution or person, we would all consider that to be stealing -- but most people tend to give a moral pass to government for other reasons. I think the more interesting question, then, has to do with whether it is wrong that the government steals.

*By rightful I mean they went through the proper procedure to establish the best claim to their property.

Taxes are simple a fact of live in a civilized society. If one does not want to pay them, there are no walls keeping one here.

I don't pay taxes, and I live 'here.' But maybe life under taxation 'here' is better than no taxation in the middle of nowhere? The anarchist claim is that no taxation here (or anywhere) would be better than taxation here (or anywhere).

Originally Posted by fruitcake

People who believe Libertarians are anti-government or anti-tax understand nothing about Libertarianism.

Well, some libertarians (the most consistent of us) are very anti-government, if by government you mean something like 'rulership.' And even the most occasional of libertarians have at least some principled objections to taxation; I recall a Ron Paul photo where he had a sticker saying "Don't steal. The government hates competition."

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Ideology - mine, yours or anyone elses - is meaningless and counts even less than one of those billions of grains of sand.

Well, doesn't it matter to you?

Originally Posted by Odin

Do you drive on those PUBLICLY FUNDED ROADS by any chance? Don't like taxes? Tough sh*t, taxes are part of living in a civilized society.

You can trace a ton of our actions back to taxation somehow; some more directly than others. But in what alternate reality does this serve to justify the act? Or are you suggesting that those who oppose the act of taxation should make conscious attempts, in the name of consistency (?), to avoid using some of the things the government has funded (you know, like the entrances to our homes). This makes even less sense.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Well said Odin. I suspect our new friend Fruitcake is one of these "sovereign people" who exist in their own constructed reality far different than the society the rest of us live in.

Uh, yeah. We "sovereigns" have no illusions that the State is something to be adored.

You can trace a ton of our actions back to taxation somehow; some more directly than others. But in what alternate reality does this serve to justify the act? Or are you suggesting that those who oppose the act of taxation should make conscious attempts, in the name of consistency (?), to avoid using some of the things the government has funded (you know, like the entrances to our homes). This makes even less sense.

If you are against taxes and benefit from ANY services paid for by taxes you are a hypocrite. As I said elsewhere a while ago, IMO taxation and profit are morally equivalent, if you oppose taxation one must oppose profit as well.

Originally Posted by Odin

If you are against taxes and benefit from ANY services paid for by taxes you are a hypocrite. As I said elsewhere a while ago, IMO taxation and profit are morally equivalent, if you oppose taxation one must oppose profit as well.

The first sentence only follows if the person in question doesn't also oppose the government provision of that service. This is especially true in the case of services where the government is, by law, the sole provider. You can't expect someone to fail to use tax-funded services when no alternative is available.

As for the second sentence, I'm not exactly clear on the argument you're making -- but there does seem to be a good analogy between use of tax-funded services and the nature of wage employment. Many workers find themselves in the position of having to accept low wages or poor conditions due to a restricted number of employers in a concentrated market. Like the libertarian who would like to avoid tax-funded services, many laborers cannot avoid undesirable employers.

So, in the same sense that it is callous to put the entire onus of working conditions on the worker -- i.e. "if you don't like it, go work somewhere else" -- it is callous to tell someone that they cannot object to the state's provision of services without becoming a hermit. In the latter case, it's even worse, since there is nothing more concentrated than the market for core social services. The state often stands alone as the sole provider.

Originally Posted by Odin

If you are against taxes and benefit from ANY services paid for by taxes you are a hypocrite.

Why does being against coercive initiatory force commit one to develop a lifestyle outside of the government's reach? The State makes that nearly impossible anyway: Should I walk slightly off the road to remain consistent? Or should a hungry person refuse food stamps because they have a principled objection to the government's existence?

Of course not. The objection (from the immediatist, at least) is to taxation and other acts of initiatory force, not to the State providing services that do not appear to violate anyone's rights. Taxation may fund certain programs, but insofar as the money cannot be returned to its rightful owners, it might as well go toward something that does some good.

As I said elsewhere a while ago, IMO taxation and profit are morally equivalent, if you oppose taxation one must oppose profit as well.

Why? Profit (ideally) is earned through voluntary means. Taxation is naturally accomplished through coercive ones. That doesn't suggest that profit is morally permissible, but if it's wrong, then it's not from the same reason that taxation would be immoral.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Well, some libertarians (the most consistent of us) are very anti-government, if by government you mean something like 'rulership.' And even the most occasional of libertarians have at least some principled objections to taxation; I recall a Ron Paul photo where he had a sticker saying "Don't steal. The government hates competition."

Whenever a Liberal says "you're anti-government"
I like to say:
Oh no you are mistaken.
We are NOT anti-government.
We are just against YOUR type of government.
We'd absolutely love to have our OWN type of government.

Notice the implicit bias in the statement made by those who subscribe to "big government".
They believe only they have a right to define what is an appropriate form of government so therefore anybody who disagrees with them automatically gets painted with a smear word like "anti-".

Fruitcake
since you mentioned the concept of "big government" could you be good enough to provide exact measurements for all of us so that we know just what you are talking about?

500 words or less, most of them used by normal average people would be nice. If any experts are quoted it would be really extra nice if they had not been turned into worm food for at least 150 years. Real life - that means the way things actually are in the real world where we all live - would be appreciated.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Why does being against coercive initiatory force commit one to develop a lifestyle outside of the government's reach? The State makes that nearly impossible anyway: Should I walk slightly off the road to remain consistent? Or should a hungry person refuse food stamps because they have a principled objection to the government's existence?

Of course not. The objection (from the immediatist, at least) is to taxation and other acts of initiatory force, not to the State providing services that do not appear to violate anyone's rights. Taxation may fund certain programs, but insofar as the money cannot be returned to its rightful owners, it might as well go toward something that does some good.

Every time you use a service paid for by tax-payer dollars you are implicitly affirming the social contract, which includes the "fees" for the upkeep of society, which are taxes. Preventing freeloading in a complex must inevitably involve coercion in some form, complex societies are simply too large for the non-coercive strategies of shame and ostracism found in primitive societies where everyone knows everyone personally.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Why? Profit (ideally) is earned through voluntary means. Taxation is naturally accomplished through coercive ones. That doesn't suggest that profit is morally permissible, but if it's wrong, then it's not from the same reason that taxation would be immoral.

The "voluntary" nature of working to make ends meet is a mere formality when the alternative is starvation. (which is what I think Kurt was alluding to in his response to my post.) In that sense the capital holder has an inherent advantage which he uses to profit from the labor of his employees.

In ages past, before the rise of Liberal-Democratic government, and especially in an agricultural "manorial" economy, taxation was a kind of "profit", the rulers extracted wealth from their subjects for the rulers' own benefit. Democracy changed that dynamic completely (although vestiges of the tax-as-profit mentality survive in the form of corporate welfare). Neither profit and taxation are inherently bad or immoral as long as they are decided upon by a democratic manner, in government this is liberal democracy, in commercial enterprise this is a cooperative.