Originally Posted by Justin '77

Which ones in particular do you assert are false, and why?

Brian did my homework for me while I was out watching the most recent Miyazaki film -- highly recommended, btw.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It is not only okay, but mandatory, unless they are living in isolation with no impact on one another. As long as people are living in a community, their actions must be kept within limits, and that implies that people are ruled.

I have no problem with people's actions being limited by a stateless form of law, either explicit or implicit. But that sort of "rulership" is far different from the ones that anarchists vociferously attack.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Much of how it currently functions is most certainly unethical.

Good. See my second most recent post.

By principle, yes. The challenge, from my perspective, is finding principles which allow maximum freedom while still maintaining order.

Do you suspect order must necessarily collapse under anarchy? Why?

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Think about the behavior of government cops. Think about the amount of police abuse that goes unreported. Think about the State's wars, where powerful men sit in their comfy chairs while ruining the lives of the young. The drug war. The war in Iraq. Vietnam. Think about how the government privileges certain individuals over others and creates self-perpetuating class divisions. Think about how we are spied on, kept "in line," and how peaceful activity is thwarted by the paranoia of elites. Think about how the peculiarities of the State are a manifestation of patriarchy, how it reinforces male supremacy, and guides our culture according to its rules. Etc. Etc. Etc. It's true that some states are more benign than others, but it appears that a lot of the negatives we associate with statism are built into the fabric of governance, especially in the modern world. Certainly any self-respecting liberal should oppose most, if not all of the things I listed above.

Matt, I think you could find examples all over this forum where I've taken issue with each of these. I am also sympathetic with the positions that you and Justin take with regard to intellectual freedom, ending the war on drugs, and ending the legal bans on gay marriage. I generally fall into the left-libertarian category, although I am perhaps both "left" on economic as well as social issues, while there may be other LL's who are more laissez-faire on economics.

I can't throw away government because it is through small-"g" government that societies enforce their rules and ensure that justice is done. And, yes, I realize that's an imperfect system. But we're imperfect beings.

And I think one the strategic reasons for anarchists to continually point these things out is not only to show that piecemeal reform isn't enough, but to open people's eyes to the horrors of statism. The point then, isn't really to say, "Look at all the bad things the State does! Let's abolish it!" (such reasoning clearly, for those immersed in the ideology of the State, misses a key step) but to suggest that an alternative is, at the very least, worth mere consideration. And this thing called anarchism, quite frankly, hasn't been given it's due by most of these liberals, which is strange because most strains of anarchism propose more of the things that true liberals hold dear. (I know I thought it was a silly, pie-in-the-sky thing for quite some time.) Instead, they tend to make up baseless and unthoughtful caricatures about anarchism and anarchists and then attack their own creations, don't attempt to think their objections through, act dismissive, condescending, or alarmist, and so on. Which is unfair because most anarchists that I know are nice and thoughtful people, and they, and their ideas, deserve to be taken seriously.

Well, Matt, you make a better case for your position than the guys who posted the dinosaur pictures. They could get a clue.

But how does it follow that a State is necessary for civilized life? Why do you preclude all other possbilities? The State won out, to be sure, but that doesn't mean it's best for humans.

I think that the State is probably going to evolve into some kind of pluralistic global confederation.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Do you suspect order must necessarily collapse under anarchy? Why?

Because I equate anarchy with chaos and randomness.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I'm an anarchist. I oppose the State, and I oppose violations of what I think are peoples' natural rights -- and my conception of natural rights tend to be generally stricter than that of the average American. To me, most of the problems presented by common political discourse generally have two-three-four unappealing (and unacceptable) proposed solutions. Some of these solutions are better than others, but so long as they are rights-violating, I cannot "favor" them; that is, while I may be pleased if piecemeal utilitarian gains are made, I'm not nearly pleased enough to lend my official support. From what I gather, you are essentially asking us to focus on the 'issues," where the best solution to the problem is, in my mind at least, a certain evil. And being that I come to this conclusion virtually every time important issues are being discussed, then clearly the problem is with the question(s) being asked, a limitation that seems inherent to the ongoing project of statism. For this reason (and some others), I feel much more comfortable discussing philosophy and ideology than specific issues.

Could you articulate what natural rights are being violated? I'm a big fan of the Bill of Rights, but a lesser fan of the justifications created for them by the Enlightenment philosophers. The short form might be that Rights are Good, and God is Good, thus God must want us to have Rights, thus to oppose Rights is to oppose God. I can understand how such an argument came into being. The era was highly religious. The other dominant political theory at the time was that kings were anointed by bishops, bishops are appointed by God, and thus to oppose kings is to oppose God. In a religious era, if one is to oppose kings as representatives of God, one would have to claim God wants it to be that way. (This would reflect my concept on medieval government theory.)

From a more pragmatic practical perspective, I see rights as limits on the power of government that the government dares not take away. Rights came into being in a time when the militia system was strong, when a large part of the population was armed and organized, when mistreating an armed populace was not something the government could do lightly. Rights have continued to exist in an era of democracy, when infringing upon the rights of those who value such rights is unhealthy for an individual or party that wants to win elections. Rights are not created or continued due to abstract theory, but because The People can and will remove from power government officials who abuse rights. Rights are the result of militias, constitutional conventions and legislatures. They were created by aspects of the State for the purpose of limiting the State.

Now, I could see that the power of government needs more limits. However, I am dubious about individuals inventing new rights. Someone recently grumbled about liberals inventing a natural right to health care. If anyone is advocating a rights based theory of change, I would like to see the rights involved specifically enumerated and justified.

There is a life phase where some babies enjoy a game of throwing toys to the floor from the tray of their high chair. They seem to believe that it is their natural right to have the toy returned, that it is the duty of the parents to pick up the toy, return it to the tray of the chair, no matter how often the toy is thrown to the ground. Failure of the parent to return the toy results in crying. Said cries often do little good as the parents have a different view of the situation.

It is easy to proclaim a right exist and to throw a tantrum when the newly invented right is violated. It is another thing for a new right to be accepted by the society as a whole, for the government -- or anyone else who has a desire to coerce for their own advantage -- to dare not trespass.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

And I think one the strategic reasons for anarchists to continually point these things out is not only to show that piecemeal reform isn't enough, but to open people's eyes to the horrors of statism. The point then, isn't really to say, "Look at all the bad things the State does! Let's abolish it!" (such reasoning clearly, for those immersed in the ideology of the State, misses a key step) but to suggest that an alternative is, at the very least, worth mere consideration. And this thing called anarchism, quite frankly, hasn't been given it's due by most of these liberals, which is strange because most strains of anarchism propose more of the things that true liberals hold dear. (I know I thought it was a silly, pie-in-the-sky thing for quite some time.) Instead, they tend to make up baseless and unthoughtful caricatures about anarchism and anarchists and then attack their own creations, don't attempt to think their objections through, act dismissive, condescending, or alarmist, and so on. Which is unfair because most anarchists that I know are nice and thoughtful people, and they, and their ideas, deserve to be taken seriously.

First, not all anarchists present well thought out arguments, either. What I'm seeing here are pie in the sky abstract arguments that strenuously avoid reality.

Could I ask for a transition plan? I suspect no one really wants to do a Cold Turkey transition. As of a certain date, all government employees are fired? Thus, there would want to be a phase out of government. What would this look like?

Could you go through a representative set of example departments of government. I'll throw out three government organizations... The United States Marine Corps, The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles, and the Plymouth Department of Parks and Recreation. I might throw various organization on one of three lists. The functions performed might be either privatized, declared unnecessary, or might be put off until a later phase of the fading away of the state. For the privatized functions, one might want to say a bit about how things are paid for, managed, and how the public prevents abuse of power.

I'll allow you to assume a period of financial crisis and distrust of the government. Assume a population that is disgusted by politicians and not in a mood to pay taxes. (Too farfetched? ™) Sell me a real vision of how a stateless society might look, something a bit more sophisticated than a proposition that any social structure not perfect ought to be destroyed.

What I've seen from the anarchists here is pure vaporware. People seem to be proposing that a magic wand should be waved that will make government vanish. I don't anticipate any such spell working, as man is a social animal that forms groups which have rules and leaders. Human groups cooperate and compete within their groups and with other groups. I do not anticipate a spell working which proposes to change human nature.

But how would one attempt to go about it? What would the transition look like?

from Bob Butler

Sell me a real vision of how a stateless society might look, something a bit more sophisticated than a proposition that any social structure not perfect ought to be destroyed.

Well said. One major problem is the assumption that the anarchist who post here truly wants to create a stateless society and have some sort of plan for the possibility. I see no evidence of that. Instead it becomes an intellectual exercise in parsing words, creative definitions and abstract reasoning completely divorced from real people simply for the purpose of preaching the message.

Like yourself, I would love to see the plan.

How does a Catholic live in Stalinist Russia? Or a Mormon in Philly? A commie in the US?
Neither is any more likely to change the whole state to fit their personal ideology, so how do you live within the system you must? That's a far more interesting question than whatever the Catechism, the Manifesto, or Ron Paul says. Because it's a rubber-meets-the-road question.

My whole life, older people (prophets, cough) have been telling me that my concerns for human rights and individual sovereignty are fundamentally incompatible with our highly progressed civilization. They too, "care" about the prisoners and dead, but they are also sophisticated and enlightened enough to know that mass murder (war), domestic spying, endless prison expansion, and forced labor for aristocratic overlords are essential components of a "peaceful" society. If I don't like it, I can 1) leave, 2) deal with it/ignore it, 3) or join it fully and fight to expand its power.

The youth have not defined the debate, we're reacting to the reality presented to us. We didn't start off advocating abolition of all authority, you told us it was the only alternative to the creep of a fascism you'll be lucky enough to die before seeing. If we have to jump through ridiculous intellectual and philosophical hoops before we can "earn" a debate about issues with you, some of us are willing to play that circus for a little while. The nomad part of me would love to trade insults and quips, but the civic part of me is just getting sick of it and pissed off.

Leaving really doesn't sound that bad, other than the fact that I'd still be liable to provide involuntary labor for the aggrandizement of the empire's overlords. That doesn't provide any real benefit, it just ensures the lack of a vote and influence.

So there's no out, there's no solution. There's certainly no convincing the statist idealists who are willing to overlook any sin for the sake of their own material safety. Its unlikely that any individual or nascent movement has the mass to turn the tides on our nation's downward momentum. Why bother? We know the state is looking for people to make an example of, why even step once out of line?

Originally Posted by antichrist

How does a Catholic live in Stalinist Russia? Or a Mormon in Philly? A commie in the US?
Neither is any more likely to change the whole state to fit their personal ideology, so how do you live within the system you must? That's a far more interesting question than whatever the Catechism, the Manifesto, or Ron Paul says. Because it's a rubber-meets-the-road question.

This could present another way of looking at the problem.

First, I would endorse religious freedom. Stalinist Russia was an absolutist authoritarian society. There was a One True Way, and the force of the government was used to enforce said One True Way. I would endorse the Bill of Rights, especially the rights of conscience, and push government far far away from coercing religious belief.

There might also be a significant difference between a communist's experience in the US in the 1950s and a communist today. Is anyone seriously proposing a worker's revolution as inevitable anymore? One's right to hold and advocate political beliefs ought not to be any less sacred than freedom of religion, but if there is a clear and present danger, political freedoms do get suppressed. Still, as long as one is not proposing violent overthrow of society, I would most strongly endorse political rights of conscience.

I get the impression that some anarchists and libertarians are opposed to economic burdens. Some object to paying for things that they do not believe in or want. Government could be shaped to minimize this. Roads might be paid for by a tax whose primary considerations might be the weight of the vehicles one owns, and the milage put on them. Fire fighting might be paid for by the size and fire risk involved in the buildings one owns. The national parks might be maintained by user fees paid by visitors.

But not everything the government does can reasonably be paid for by user fees. Everyone in the country is protected by our armed services and police. What sort of users fee would finance NASA?

I have daydreamed about linking tax payments to a direct vote computer democracy system. If one votes in favor of sending a manned expedition to Mars by 2025, there would be a dollar amount that would be tied to voting 'yes.' If one votes to authorize a peacekeeping or nation building effort, again, one would have to pay for the privilege of voting yes. All bills resulting in money being spent might have to be paid for by those who favor the bills. Such a system might discourage Big Government.

But that would require a constitutional amendment, likely a constitutional convention. It ought to be tried at local and state level before we commit the nation to it. Obviously, this form of government should be considered a wild idea rather than a Natural Right, but I might be interested in such discussions.

Originally Posted by independent

My whole life, older people (prophets, cough) have been telling me that my concerns for human rights and individual sovereignty are fundamentally incompatible with our highly progressed civilization...

I snipped of a lot of the above post, but sympathize with the whole thing.

We left leaning prophets felt much the same way in our youth. Some of us still feel this way.

While people grumble about idealistic, energetic and stubborn prophets, one has to be idealistic, energetic and stubborn to get things done. In my youth, the guys carried live draft cards, the girls had to be concerned with coat hanger abortions, and the blacks were still sitting at the back of the bus. We yelled a lot about pigs and the military industrial complex. A lot of the things we yelled about changed. The boomers made a lot of noise, while the GIs did more listening and changing than we thought possible.

The blue boomers forced enough change to create Future Shock. The red boomers thought their culture was coming to an end, and slammed on the breaks. I understand how it had to be. Unravelings happen.

Now, I know all about disliking the older generation. Anyone over 30 during the Summer of Love might possibly be considered untrustable still. Greatest Generation (expletive deleted.)

Still, your basic options are lead, follow or get out of the way. If you are going to play the game, then play the game.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

First, not all anarchists present well thought out arguments, either. What I'm seeing here are pie in the sky abstract arguments that strenuously avoid reality.

In that case it looks like anarchists and Liberals have something in common --> pie in the sky scenarios.
for example:
How many times have we heard Liberals say, "Lets tax the rich and spread the wealth!"
Now that is what I call avoiding reality.
There are 195 nations on this ridiculous planet and they all have one thing in common: rich people control government.

BTW there are examples of despotic countries where a president for lifer comes into power and takes wealth away from the rich and pays off his cronies but as for a serious transfer from rich to poor that actually worked, NOPE I cannot think of 1 example. I can think of plenty examples where the middle class got the squeeze to pay for social welfare but that doesn't count because the entire basis of Liberalism is supposedly to soak the rich not the middle class.
Anarchists aren't the only ones that "strenuously avoid reality."

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Could you articulate what natural rights are being violated? I'm a big fan of the Bill of Rights, but a lesser fan of the justifications created for them by the Enlightenment philosophers. The short form might be that Rights are Good, and God is Good, thus God must want us to have Rights, thus to oppose Rights is to oppose God.

I guess I can see how metaphysical justifications for certain rights may be greeted with skepticism. But natural rights are simply duties which all humans are morally bound to respect regardless of the consequences of respecting them. And I think one of the better ways to go about thinking of what our natural rights are is that they are simply an interpersonal claim that, if some X (<-- this becomes the natural right) has been violated by a rational agent, or a set of rational agents, then coercive force (and to avoid confusion, I'm talking about physical force) may be legitimately used against the perpetrator(s). So if we have a right not to be murdered, then a person who murders someone may be justifiably punished through forceful means.

For what it's worth, I have a libertarian anarchist conception of natural rights, which is pretty much the right to not be aggressed against, and all derivative rights.

Now, I could see that the power of government needs more limits. However, I am dubious about individuals inventing new rights. Someone recently grumbled about liberals inventing a natural right to health care. If anyone is advocating a rights based theory of change, I would like to see the rights involved specifically enumerated and justified.

A natural right to healthcare would be bizarre indeed.

It is easy to proclaim a right exist and to throw a tantrum when the newly invented right is violated. It is another thing for a new right to be accepted by the society as a whole, for the government -- or anyone else who has a desire to coerce for their own advantage -- to dare not trespass.

Well you don't invent natural rights. That's kind of the point.

Originally Posted by fruitcake

BTW there are examples of despotic countries where a president for lifer comes into power and takes wealth away from the rich and pays off his cronies but as for a serious transfer from rich to poor that actually worked, NOPE I cannot think of 1 example. I can think of plenty examples where the middle class got the squeeze to pay for social welfare but that doesn't count because the entire basis of Liberalism is supposedly to soak the rich not the middle class.

Anarchists aren't the only ones that "strenuously avoid reality."

Nope, they aren't, but neither is "the entire basis of Liberalism is supposedly to soak the rich not the middle class." I'll grant that the Great Society programs didn't function well at all. LBJ meant well, but took the notion of using taxes to get rid of poverty too far in the wrong direction.

That was how the Greatest Generation approached problems, though. They were willing to "bear any burden, pay any price" to solve serious problems. No problem was to big to attack. Contain communism? Eliminate poverty? Fly to the moon? Sure. Why not? All at once, yet! That was a time when the United States thought it had the energy to attack and solve any problem. Your generation hasn't much of a clue as to what we once were and what we have since lost.

That time is long gone. Very few if any modern liberals -- certainly not any regulars on this site -- would seriously advocate a return to the Great Society approach. What Reagan didn't kill in his small government push, Clinton 42 killed in order to attack the Reagan deficits. No one is seriously looking to go back to it.

But this doesn't prevent people like you from using the Great Society era programs as a straw man argument. It seems like you are having a lot of fun beating the long dead horse. Doesn't the smell bother you?

The very high tax rates on the very rich during the 1950s and 1960s however did work as an economic tool, a way to prevent boom bust economies. If the bubble blowing class gets too much money, they will muck up the economy. Various liberals on this site are advocating a return to pre voodoo economics.

But for me this is a matter for serious economic gurus rather than an element of class warfare. None of us has the economic expertise to say how far we should go in rolling back voodoo economics. There is a careful balancing act required such that the lower classes having enough money to buy stuff while the investing classes have enough money to invest in stuff. Neither is sufficient in and of itself. You need both.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

First, not all anarchists present well thought out arguments, either.

Well no kidding. The same could be said for proponents of any ideology. But that's not a particularly good reason to reject anarchism.

What I'm seeing here are pie in the sky abstract arguments that strenuously avoid reality. Could I ask for a transition plan? I suspect no one really wants to do a Cold Turkey transition. As of a certain date, all government employees are fired? Thus, there would want to be a phase out of government. What would this look like?

Well, I do want to go Cold Turkey, though I might be in the minority on this. But no one really expects Cold Turkey anyway. Two of the more famous revolutionary strategies are agorism (which emphasizes counter-establishment economic activity) and anarcho-syndicalism (which emphasizes the labor movement). Primitivists see the coming collapse of civilization as bringing anarchy. Others see a gradual movement from statism towards anarchy, or predict the State's collapse and transplantation by power in the community due to its own internal inconsistencies and inadequacies.

Sell me a real vision of how a stateless society might look, something a bit more sophisticated than a proposition that any social structure not perfect ought to be destroyed.

I'm actually not sure what you're asking, or if your expectations are skewed. Mutualism, for example, is thought of as middle-way between communism and capitalism.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I have no problem with people's actions being limited by a stateless form of law, either explicit or implicit. But that sort of "rulership" is far different from the ones that anarchists vociferously attack.

"A stateless form of law" is, on the surface, an oxymoron. But let's not jump to conclusions. If we expand the concept of "law" so that laws do not need to be written, then there have in fact been stateless societies with laws.

But as I see it, the problem with anarchism is twofold.

1) All systems of social order which do not include an element of coercion will only function so long as everyone's behavior voluntarily remains within acceptable limits. When I say "everyone's" behavior, I mean exactly that: not most people's, not the majority's, but everyone's without a single exception. The larger the human population, the more vanishingly unlikely that becomes. In practice, even tiny forager-hunter bands, while they did not need "states" per se, did need coercive methods to deal with the scuzzbucket minorities. Since most anarchists seem to object not merely to states as such, but to coercion in any form, that makes anarchy incompatible with any conceivable human society on any scale.

2) As I pointed out earlier, states are systems for applying social order to human societies large enough that not everyone knows everyone else. They are basically formalizations of the order-maintaining systems that work informally in precivilized societies. The formalization is necessary mostly to keep the state itself within acceptable limits. A "big man" in a band, or to a lesser extent even a chief in a tribe, personally knows all of the people he governs. That isn't true of a king, or of any other form of leader in a state. For this reason, an informal leader of a small group can be trusted more than a head of state, and so the latter needs formal rules and restrictions to prevent tyrannical abuses. Hence written law rather than arbitrary whim of the ruler, and formal rules of succession rather than informal whoever-has-the-most-support power struggle. To the extent anarchists object to states per se rather than coercive systems in general, it's necessary to present an alternative that will allow order to be kept in large societies.

Actually it's my belief that any such alternative will fall within the parameters of statehood. Considering that such diverse governing systems as hereditary monarchy, military dictatorship, oligarchic republic, democratic republic, and pure democracy ALL fall within those parameters, it's hard to envision any system capable of keeping order that would not.

But in any case, I have yet to find any anarchist proposal that does not run into one or both of these walls. Either it relies exclusively on voluntary cooperation and so would not be capable of dealing with the problem of scumbuckets, or else it lacks formal rules of order and so would (paradoxically) result in greater -- because more arbitrary -- tyranny of the leaders.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I'm an anarchist. I oppose the State, and I oppose violations of what I think are peoples' natural rights -- and my conception of natural rights tend to be generally stricter than that of the average American. To me, most of the problems presented by common political discourse generally have two-three-four unappealing (and unacceptable) proposed solutions. Some of these solutions are better than others, but so long as they are rights-violating, I cannot "favor" them; that is, while I may be pleased if piecemeal utilitarian gains are made, I'm not nearly pleased enough to lend my official support. From what I gather, you are essentially asking us to focus on the 'issues," where the best solution to the problem is, in my mind at least, a certain evil. And being that I come to this conclusion virtually every time important issues are being discussed, then clearly the problem is with the question(s) being asked, a limitation that seems inherent to the ongoing project of statism. For this reason (and some others), I feel much more comfortable discussing philosophy and ideology than specific issues.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I guess I can see how metaphysical justifications for certain rights may be greeted with skepticism. But natural rights are simply duties which all humans are morally bound to respect regardless of the consequences of respecting them. And I think one of the better ways to go about thinking of what our natural rights are is that they are simply an interpersonal claim that, if some X (<-- this becomes the natural right) has been violated by a rational agent, or a set of rational agents, then coercive force (and to avoid confusion, I'm talking about physical force) may be legitimately used against the perpetrator(s). So if we have a right not to be murdered, then a person who murders someone may be justifiably punished through forceful means.

For what it's worth, I have a libertarian anarchist conception of natural rights, which is pretty much the right to not be aggressed against, and all derivative rights.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Well you don't invent natural rights. That's kind of the point.

I see the Bill of Rights as surviving more or less intact since the Enlightenment. Oh, yes, I grumbled about Bush 43's warrant-less wiretaps and torture. "More or less intact" isn't perfectly intact, and Bush was hardly the only one to interpret the Bill of Rights creatively. Through the Gilded Age, the Bill of Rights was read as not granting rights, but as limiting the power of the federal government. Thus, Jim Crow had his day, but the Civil Rights movement has reversed most such precedents.

I'm trying to parse through your above comments. Use of government to solve issues is generally "unacceptable" or "evil" as doing so violates "natural rights"? Such violations are severe enough to justify violence? Thus, in order to protect one's natural rights, all government must be abolished?

I believe my understanding of natural rights is more or less in line with the Enlightenment tradition and modern precedent. Your understanding is unusual, a variation influenced strongly by modern anarchist thought.

Thus, I would argue that you have invented some new natural rights. You have also failed to enumerate them, or justify them.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

A natural right to healthcare would be bizarre indeed.

Jefferson proposed Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as being among the God given basic natural rights. Health care can be Life. I don't know that the argument for health care as a basic natural right is all that bizarre. I do suspect that after a country has had universal access to health care for a few generations, the notion that one is poor therefore one must die would seem unacceptable.

Then again, the 19th Century southerners saw nothing wrong with slavery. If one grows up within a culture, one might not really be able to see it objectively. This is a crisis, a time when major value shifts do occur, some might see old values as True, while others see anathema.

I'm not going to make a formal moral argument for health care as a natural right, but I suspect that it will considered such several generations down stream.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

"A stateless form of law" is, on the surface, an oxymoron. But let's not jump to conclusions.

No, let's. You seem to be operating under the assumption that explicit law, or laws that are actually recorded and whose jurisdiction extends over a certain area is incompatible with anarchism. But it's not. If the laws are good and libertarian, I actually favor the rules being made explicit, for everyone to see. And why not? Surely explicitness in the matter will tend toward more orderly dispute resolution and consistency in dealing with those who disrupt peaceful activity with their violence. Anarchism is against the State, not mechanisms based on consensual association for ensuring the boundaries of acceptable social conduct.

I think a good case can be made for the relations between the State and the individual as being necessarily lawless. The State rules us not by our consent, but through brute force, (violently) suppressing any alternatives while making itself almost entirely unaccountable; and it's certainly not accountable at all to people like you and me. That is, if you are concerned with lawful activity, then you should probably oppose the State.

The whole point of anarchism, and market anarchism in particular, is to make institutions that allow us to live our lives freely and peacefully accountable to the society that they serve. There are a myriad of ways to go about making law explicit, but the methods suggested by anarchism do not solely involve the right of might in determining what laws bind us.

But as I see it, the problem with anarchism is twofold.

1) All systems of social order which do not include an element of coercion will only function so long as everyone's behavior voluntarily remains within acceptable limits. When I say "everyone's" behavior, I mean exactly that: not most people's, not the majority's, but everyone's without a single exception. The larger the human population, the more vanishingly unlikely that becomes. In practice, even tiny forager-hunter bands, while they did not need "states" per se, did need coercive methods to deal with the scuzzbucket minorities. Since most anarchists seem to object not merely to states as such, but to coercion in any form, that makes anarchy incompatible with any conceivable human society on any scale.

Well I don't know what you mean by "coercion in any form." Libertarians often employ a different definition of coercion than most. I have no problem with people expressing disapproval or methods of discouraging harmful social activity. I also have no problem with physical force being used if people's rights have been violated.

2)
[...]
To the extent anarchists object to states per se rather than coercive systems in general, it's necessary to present an alternative that will allow order to be kept in large societies.

Actually it's my belief that any such alternative will fall within the parameters of statehood.

Why?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'm trying to parse through your above comments. Use of government to solve issues is generally "unacceptable" or "evil" as doing so violates "natural rights"? Such violations are severe enough to justify violence? Thus, in order to protect one's natural rights, all government must be abolished?

Yeah, depending on what you mean by violence. I think most people recognize that government does, in fact, violate our natural rights (whatever their conception may be) on a somewhat consistent basis. But personally, I think the government's actual rule over you does in fact violate your natural rights, and that is enough to favor abolishing government.

I believe my understanding of natural rights is more or less in line with the Enlightenment tradition and modern precedent. Your understanding is unusual, a variation influenced strongly by modern anarchist thought.

Thus, I would argue that you have invented some new natural rights. You have also failed to enumerate them, or justify them.

We mean different things by invented, then. As these rights (assuming they exist) are natural, they are a part of our nature as human beings. They are ethical/political truths; we may either grasp this truth or miss it. That is, we can't create natural rights, but we may articulate incorrect conceptions of what these rights are.

Jefferson proposed Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as being among the God given basic natural rights. Health care can be Life. I don't know that the argument for health care as a basic natural right is all that bizarre. I do suspect that after a country has had universal access to health care for a few generations, the notion that one is poor therefore one must die would seem unacceptable.

Well I believe it's bizarre because I think the right to life could be more accurately stated as 'the right to not have your life unjustly taken away from you by another rational agent.' If I get killed by a bear, or by a hurricane, it seems pretty darn weird to suggest that the bear or hurricane violated my natural rights. So I don't think that someone's health care (which involves being given a service) ought to be guaranteed through rights-language. At the same time, I think that if you are in a position to give a person dying of thirst a bottle of water at no expense to yourself, yet refuse, your refusal cannot be reasonably done without intent to kill that person. But that's a pretty specific circumstance.

I'm not going to make a formal moral argument for health care as a natural right, but I suspect that it will considered such several generations down stream.

Well, on a very vague level, I think everyone should have access to health care. I just don't think we're morally obligated to respect that normative statement regardless of consequences.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

No, let's. You seem to be operating under the assumption that explicit law, or laws that are actually recorded and whose jurisdiction extends over a certain area is incompatible with anarchism.

No, I'm merely operating under the assumption that enforced law (whether explicit or not) is incompatible with anarchism. Absent some mechanism of enforcement, which in a large-scale society means the state, a law is not a law so much as a suggestion.

Surely explicitness in the matter will tend toward more orderly dispute resolution and consistency in dealing with those who disrupt peaceful activity with their violence.

Of course it would, but again, there's that matter of enforcement. If there are explicit penalties for breaking the law, then you have a state; if there are not, then you don't really have laws.

The State rules us not by our consent, but through brute force, (violently) suppressing any alternatives while making itself almost entirely unaccountable; and it's certainly not accountable at all to people like you and me.

This is simply not true, except in the sense that the state is not accountable to you or me as individuals. But then, I don't believe it should be. I am only one individual. Other than my natural wisdom, enlightenment, and spiritual insight , there is no reason why my own will should prevail over that of most people in my society if we disagree.

I know what you are talking about and agree that the state tends to be TOO accountable to the rich and powerful. But I have a problem with a definition of the state that relies on its pathologies. The problem with such a definition is that you forget the positive and necessary functions of the state, and don't understand that if you were to abolish it, you would abolish anything capable of performing those positive and necessary functions, too, not just the pathologies.

I'm not going to say you can't get rid of the pathologies without tossing baby with bathwater, because I'm not ready to give up on that yet. But certainly if you abolish the state in order to abolish its pathologies, tossing baby with bathwater is exactly what you are doing.

The whole point of anarchism, and market anarchism in particular, is to make institutions that allow us to live our lives freely and peacefully accountable to the society that they serve. There are a myriad of ways to go about making law explicit, but the methods suggested by anarchism do not solely involve the right of might in determining what laws bind us.

And that's exactly the problem. As I stated before, all that's fine and dandy so long as everyone voluntarily does what he or she is supposed to do. But it's an unfortunate fact that a society of human beings will always include scuzzbuckets. And in fact it isn't even limited to scuzzbuckets; I freely confess that if I can get away with it I will break any law I disagree with. Now of course with me that's no problem, because I am a model of wisdom, enlightenment, and spiritual insight , but the same words apply to the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh. And sure, you can say that those two were violent and so worthy of condemnation, yada yada, but how would you punish them for breaking laws that they disagree with? If you would do so, then you have something in place that meets the definition of a state. And if you wouldn't, then you have nothing in place that properly should be called law.

Well I don't know what you mean by "coercion in any form." Libertarians often employ a different definition of coercion than most. I have no problem with people expressing disapproval or methods of discouraging harmful social activity. I also have no problem with physical force being used if people's rights have been violated.

Well, OK, but consider. You have no problem with physical force being used to protect people's rights -- but WHO is using that physical force? The person whose rights are threatened? (That's still consistent with anarchy.) That person and his/her friends? (That's consistent with anarchy, too.) An informal governing institution such as a neighborhood watch group? (Still consistent with anarchy since we're a long way yet from a true state.) But what happens if someone comes into a neighborhood from clear across town, someone nobody knows, burglarizes a house, and takes off without anyone able to stop them? Under a state, there are lawfully constituted agencies that can try to find these people, determine their guilt or innocence, and if guilty sentence them to punishment, thus helping to deter such activities. But in the absence of a state, the options are much more limited. I'm not saying nothing could be done, because in precivilized, stateless societies that wasn't the case. But what could be done amounted to feud, vendetta, tit-for-tat, or even war. One tribal group would demand justice from another tribal group that the miscreants belonged to. They would either be willing or not. If willing, justice might or might not really be done. (That is, the accused might actually be innocent.) If not willing, the people of the offended tribe might take matters into their own hands, and ambush the rascal, whereupon the rascal's relatives would counterattack, and pretty soon you had a nasty feud. If it spread to other families, you could end up with tribal war.

That's what happens in the absence of a legally-constituted authority, just as it still happens today between states.

Matt, I just can't see the pre-state version of things as better. Certainly I can't see it as more lawful.

Why?

Didn't I already explain this? A state is a formal governing body over a society of humans large enough that everyone doesn't know everyone else. The smallest true states in history have governed independent cities. Other than that they don't really have any common characteristics. If you have any formal body capable of making, adjudicating, and enforcing laws, then you have a state. It's the enforcing part that's key. If you have such a formal body which lacks any enforcement power, then I agree you wouldn't have a state, more an advisory commission. But I don't see how this could be a good thing.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

"A stateless form of law" is, on the surface, an oxymoron. But let's not jump to conclusions. If we expand the concept of "law" so that laws do not need to be written, then there have in fact been stateless societies with laws.

But as I see it, the problem with anarchism is twofold.

1) All systems of social order which do not include an element of coercion will only function so long as everyone's behavior voluntarily remains within acceptable limits. When I say "everyone's" behavior, I mean exactly that: not most people's, not the majority's, but everyone's without a single exception. The larger the human population, the more vanishingly unlikely that becomes. In practice, even tiny forager-hunter bands, while they did not need "states" per se, did need coercive methods to deal with the scuzzbucket minorities. Since most anarchists seem to object not merely to states as such, but to coercion in any form, that makes anarchy incompatible with any conceivable human society on any scale.

2) As I pointed out earlier, states are systems for applying social order to human societies large enough that not everyone knows everyone else. They are basically formalizations of the order-maintaining systems that work informally in precivilized societies. The formalization is necessary mostly to keep the state itself within acceptable limits. A "big man" in a band, or to a lesser extent even a chief in a tribe, personally knows all of the people he governs. That isn't true of a king, or of any other form of leader in a state. For this reason, an informal leader of a small group can be trusted more than a head of state, and so the latter needs formal rules and restrictions to prevent tyrannical abuses. Hence written law rather than arbitrary whim of the ruler, and formal rules of succession rather than informal whoever-has-the-most-support power struggle. To the extent anarchists object to states per se rather than coercive systems in general, it's necessary to present an alternative that will allow order to be kept in large societies.

Actually it's my belief that any such alternative will fall within the parameters of statehood. Considering that such diverse governing systems as hereditary monarchy, military dictatorship, oligarchic republic, democratic republic, and pure democracy ALL fall within those parameters, it's hard to envision any system capable of keeping order that would not.

But in any case, I have yet to find any anarchist proposal that does not run into one or both of these walls. Either it relies exclusively on voluntary cooperation and so would not be capable of dealing with the problem of scumbuckets, or else it lacks formal rules of order and so would (paradoxically) result in greater -- because more arbitrary -- tyranny of the leaders.

This is an excellent post. An interesting historical observation I have noticed is that as Graeco-Roman Civilization matured around 600-400 BC the populist faction in the various city-states forced the rulers to write down the traditional laws of society as a way to prevent the aristocrats from making self-serving fiat legal decisions that were pulled out of their rear ends.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, I'm merely operating under the assumption that enforced law (whether explicit or not) is incompatible with anarchism. Absent some mechanism of enforcement, which in a large-scale society means the state, a law is not a law so much as a suggestion.

Of course it would, but again, there's that matter of enforcement. If there are explicit penalties for breaking the law, then you have a state; if there are not, then you don't really have laws.

And that's exactly the problem. As I stated before, all that's fine and dandy so long as everyone voluntarily does what he or she is supposed to do. But it's an unfortunate fact that a society of human beings will always include scuzzbuckets. And in fact it isn't even limited to scuzzbuckets; I freely confess that if I can get away with it I will break any law I disagree with. Now of course with me that's no problem, because I am a model of wisdom, enlightenment, and spiritual insight , but the same words apply to the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh. And sure, you can say that those two were violent and so worthy of condemnation, yada yada, but how would you punish them for breaking laws that they disagree with? If you would do so, then you have something in place that meets the definition of a state. And if you wouldn't, then you have nothing in place that properly should be called law.

Well, OK, but consider. You have no problem with physical force being used to protect people's rights -- but WHO is using that physical force? The person whose rights are threatened? (That's still consistent with anarchy.) That person and his/her friends? (That's consistent with anarchy, too.) An informal governing institution such as a neighborhood watch group? (Still consistent with anarchy since we're a long way yet from a true state.) But what happens if someone comes into a neighborhood from clear across town, someone nobody knows, burglarizes a house, and takes off without anyone able to stop them? Under a state, there are lawfully constituted agencies that can try to find these people, determine their guilt or innocence, and if guilty sentence them to punishment, thus helping to deter such activities. But in the absence of a state, the options are much more limited.

Didn't I already explain this? A state is a formal governing body over a society of humans large enough that everyone doesn't know everyone else. The smallest true states in history have governed independent cities. Other than that they don't really have any common characteristics. If you have any formal body capable of making, adjudicating, and enforcing laws, then you have a state. It's the enforcing part that's key. If you have such a formal body which lacks any enforcement power, then I agree you wouldn't have a state, more an advisory commission. But I don't see how this could be a good thing.

Brian, this all indicates to me that you find market anarchism and other similar strains of anarchism to be not anarchist at all. Which is okay, and I've heard this sentiment stressed before, but I certainly don't agree, because the system envisioned by proponents of free-market anarchy doesn't look anything like a state -- it's just a market of private protection agencies. So I don't think that formal mechanisms for enforcing laws necessitates, or is the definition of, a State. It's not a forced monopoly, for one.

I know what you are talking about and agree that the state tends to be TOO accountable to the rich and powerful. But I have a problem with a definition of the state that relies on its pathologies. The problem with such a definition is that you forget the positive and necessary functions of the state, and don't understand that if you were to abolish it, you would abolish anything capable of performing those positive and necessary functions, too, not just the pathologies.

Well it's not that I forget those positive and necessary functions of the State; it's that I don't acknowledge them.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Yeah, depending on what you mean by violence. I think most people recognize that government does, in fact, violate our natural rights (whatever their conception may be) on a somewhat consistent basis. But personally, I think the government's actual rule over you does in fact violate your natural rights, and that is enough to favor abolishing government.

Originally Posted by The First Congress

IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Founding Fathers did believe there were natural rights, pre existing rights that owed their moral force to man's nature and God rather than legislative action. These rights are acknowledged by the Ninth Amendment. However, these rights are finite, are not invented casually by individuals. The Supreme Court over the centuries has recognized several. The right to travel, the right to privacy, and a women's control of her reproductive functions might count as examples. The last, of course, remains controversial.

If one wishes to argue seriously that an unenumerated natural rights exists, one should seek precedent in English Common Law. At the time of the Founding Fathers, was it recognized that the government did not have the power to interfere with certain aspects of the life of The People? If so, one might possibly argue that one has identified a candidate for a new natural right under US law. Do that -- and convince four other members of the Supreme Court of your scholarship -- and you might possibly get somewhere. Be ready to hear complaints of being an activist judge, though.

You'd also likely have to visit the intent of the Founding Fathers aspect of the problem as well. In writing the Ninth Amendment, was it the intent of the First Congress that every attempt by Congress to solve problems should be considered unconstitutional?

I don't think so. I think your modern anarchist concept of natural rights is way out of the norm.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

We mean different things by invented, then. As these rights (assuming they exist) are natural, they are a part of our nature as human beings. They are ethical/political truths; we may either grasp this truth or miss it. That is, we can't create natural rights, but we may articulate incorrect conceptions of what these rights are.

Here, you seem to be stepping outside of the traditional view of natural rights from Enlightenment philosophy and legal precedent. You seem to be drifting towards Social Darwinism, a notion that if you understand human nature you can design a better government. This is a valid perspective, but Darwin was of another era. The social darwinists argue from another point of view.

I have already been making arguments from human nature. I have been saying that man is a social animal. If you look at his culture, he will select leaders and create rules. Within a group there will be both cooperation and competition. There will also be cooperation and competition with other groups. I could go on with other basic drives one might commonly find among animals also found in humans. How man behaves can be studied.

And man creates governments. The notion that it is unnatural in the Social Darwinist sense for man to form governments.... I'm tempted to use the word 'absurd.'

In high school, I was (among other things) treasurer of the marching Band and an ordinary member of the chess club. One steps off with one's left foot. White moves first. The drum major has a larger role in creating a cooperative effort than the leader of the chess club. Not all human activities require the same amount of coordination and discipline, but there are rules.

It is Man's nature to have rules, coordination and discipline. Oh, chess and marching band are just games, but they are games played in preparation for real life. Real life requires rules, coordination and discipline too.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Well I believe it's bizarre because I think the right to life could be more accurately stated as 'the right to not have your life unjustly taken away from you by another rational agent.' If I get killed by a bear, or by a hurricane, it seems pretty darn weird to suggest that the bear or hurricane violated my natural rights. So I don't think that someone's health care (which involves being given a service) ought to be guaranteed through rights-language. At the same time, I think that if you are in a position to give a person dying of thirst a bottle of water at no expense to yourself, yet refuse, your refusal cannot be reasonably done without intent to kill that person. But that's a pretty specific circumstance.

Well, on a very vague level, I think everyone should have access to health care. I just don't think we're morally obligated to respect that normative statement regardless of consequences.

Are members of the health care community rational? Is withholding medicine any different from withholding water? I'm not really ready to argue health care as a natural right. Among other things, I lack precedent under English Common Law. Still, your logic seems contorted.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Well, I do want to go Cold Turkey, though I might be in the minority on this. But no one really expects Cold Turkey anyway. Two of the more famous revolutionary strategies are agorism (which emphasizes counter-establishment economic activity) and anarcho-syndicalism (which emphasizes the labor movement). Primitivists see the coming collapse of civilization as bringing anarchy. Others see a gradual movement from statism towards anarchy, or predict the State's collapse and transplantation by power in the community due to its own internal inconsistencies and inadequacies.

I can see a gradual reduction of the role of government. I see this as a reasonable goal, at any rate.

However, I do not see Cold Turkey as plausible. The transition to a stateless society will be a major endeavor. It will not happen all at once or without careful planning.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Well said. One major problem is the assumption that the anarchist who post here truly wants to create a stateless society and have some sort of plan for the possibility. I see no evidence of that. Instead it becomes an intellectual exercise in parsing words, creative definitions and abstract reasoning completely divorced from real people simply for the purpose of preaching the message.

Like yourself, I would love to see the plan.

I don't see Cold Turkey as a viable plan. Instead, I see a creative definition of 'natural rights.' You are borrowing a phrase from traditional philosophy and legal theory, and applying it to another concept all together. You are one of the more articulate spokesmen for the anarchists, but I am having difficulty not agreeing with Haymarket's summary explaining the lack of communication and respect.

At the risk of going strawman, it seems your argument is that every time you see the government attempt to solve a problem you get upset enough that you feel your natural rights are violated and perceive violence as being justified. This is about two inches away from 'the government ticks me off so I want it to go away.' I would really prefer a much better description of the alleged 'natural rights' involved. I would also like a viable plan.

Of course, as Mick Jagger has said more than once, you can't always get what you want. This might be as true in internet discussion as in dealing with government.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The very high tax rates on the very rich during the 1950s and 1960s however did work as an economic tool, a way to prevent boom bust economies. If the bubble blowing class gets too much money, they will muck up the economy. Various liberals on this site are advocating a return to pre voodoo economics.

You Liberals never fail to entertain me, that's why I keep on coming back for more.
you can't soak the rich
As the chart says, revenue as a % of GDP does not change no matter how high tax rates are.
The proof is in the pudding.
Go ahead and raise the tax rates the rich will just find a way to avoid it.

Have you ever seen those silly but humorous cartoons were one character tries to get the better of another but perpetually fails?
Elmer Fudd vs. Bugs Bunny is a classic example.
When I think of Liberals *trying but failing* to soak the rich I can't help but enjoy a good laugh.
Keep on trying!