Originally Posted by fruitcake

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.

There is no need to soak the rich, per se. It's beside the point. The intent of high marginal rates is to force capital into investments rather than speculation.

Originally Posted by fruitcake

... 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!

You even screwed your example. It's Roadrunner and Wily Coyote.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Like yourself, I would love to see the plan.

If there's a plan, that implies some kind of enforcement of said plan. In which case, you don't have anarchy, you have statism. The whole point of anarchism is precisely the idea that the overall social system doesn't need to be planned -- that order is spontaneous.

Perhaps what you really mean to ask for is not the "plan" for anarchism but a description of what such a society might look like.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

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.

Where did you get this idea that natural rights are dependent on theistic belief? The proponents of natural rights were the most secular people of their time. When Jefferson talked of people being "endowed by their Creator" all he was really saying is that rights are inherent in the nature of being human. (I.e. if people are to live well it is right for them to have life, liberty and the ability to enjoy the fruits of their labor.)

I see your point Kurt - but I did mean an actual plan. I agree that its a contradiction in terms - but that is the point. You simply cannot have an anarchastic society. Oxymoron time. That is one big reason why we never see a plan and why we will never see a functioning anarchistic society.

This is all what i term "sophmore college talk". You go off to college and think you know something because you made it through freshman year and and are now a wise and enlightened sophmore. The world is your oyster. So you get all hopped up on your own exaggerated sense of self importance and too much coffee and end up staying up most of the night talking about things like most of this thread. "Can we have a functioning society based on anarchistic principles?" yeah - for certain types that is deep and heavy stuff. And if you are born in 1989 it seems like one of the major shape of things to come.

But those things never do come. In the end you have no more than what you started with - nothing but words which go nowhere and will continue to go nowhere.

Of course, if you were born in 1989 you probably do not have much more than two sticks to rub together and the debit side of your balance sheet is the only one with lots of figures on it. Its easy to see why anarchism might appeal to 1989.

And then a few years go by, you get that degree and you get a job. You start accumulating money and assets and actually get a life that means something and has some better moments. And you look back ten or fifteen years at the time when all that strong coffee and abstract philosophy made you wish for the end of the social order and you are thankful that all wishes do not come true.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Brian, this all indicates to me that you find market anarchism and other similar strains of anarchism to be not anarchist at all.

On the contrary, what I believe is that such a system would be unworkable. It would not constitute a coercive system for dealing with disputes involving unreasonable people. The very essence, a necessary feature, of such a system that works is that it is a monopoly. You cannot have one that operates on free-market principles.

Here's why. Suppose you have competing "justice systems" vying for customers. (I'm assuming as well that there is no single overarching authority capable of imposing rules on such competing systems, either. If there is, again you have something that falls within the parameters of a state.) One market niche would be for such a system that offers protection to scumbuckets, promising to negotiate on their behalf, and to provide armed protection against the opposing victims/plaintiffs. It's a rule of all free-market economic systems that market niches will always be filled, and so such "justice" (injustice, rather) systems will exist. The plaintiffs, naturally, will go for a "justice" system that favors their position rather than that of the defendant -- and you now have two hostile "justice" systems in conflict, rather than a single such system capable of acting as arbiter.

Again, any anarchic system of order must rely on people behaving voluntarily in ways that fall within acceptable limits. Voluntary arbitration systems work fine as long as all parties are basically goodwilled, and any conflicts arise out of misunderstandings or honest disagreement. But it is useless when any party to a dispute is not acting in goodwill. Scumbags will not voluntarily submit to impartial, fair arbitration because they do not want justice. They want their own selfish advantage, and be damned to everyone else. Anarchic systems of order will only work in the absence of scumbags, and unfortunately that is not reality.

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

Well, as far as I can see that's because you don't acknowledge the existence of scumbags. I'm curious, frankly, how someone could have lived to the age of 19 or 20, necessarily going through the experience of either public or private school, with that belief still intact.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

If there's a plan, that implies some kind of enforcement of said plan. In which case, you don't have anarchy, you have statism. The whole point of anarchism is precisely the idea that the overall social system doesn't need to be planned -- that order is spontaneous.

In fact, that's a historically accurate statement. Order arises spontaneously. Planning comes later, to work out the kinks. But the form that order takes when it arises spontaneously in any society large enough that people don't all know each other, has historically always been a state of some kind. So, saying that the overall social system doesn't need to be planned, or that order is spontaneous, is not really an anarchist claim properly so called.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

I see your point Kurt - but I did mean an actual plan. I agree that its a contradiction in terms - but that is the point. You simply cannot have an anarchastic society. Oxymoron time. That is one big reason why we never see a plan and why we will never see a functioning anarchistic society.

This is all what i term "sophmore college talk". You go off to college and think you know something because you made it through freshman year and and are now a wise and enlightened sophmore. The world is your oyster. So you get all hopped up on your own exaggerated sense of self importance and too much coffee and end up staying up most of the night talking about things like most of this thread. "Can we have a functioning society based on anarchistic principles?" yeah - for certain types that is deep and heavy stuff. And if you are born in 1989 it seems like one of the major shape of things to come.

But those things never do come. In the end you have no more than what you started with - nothing but words which go nowhere and will continue to go nowhere.

Of course, if you were born in 1989 you probably do not have much more than two sticks to rub together and the debit side of your balance sheet is the only one with lots of figures on it. Its easy to see why anarchism might appeal to 1989.

And then a few years go by, you get that degree and you get a job. You start accumulating money and assets and actually get a life that means something and has some better moments. And you look back ten or fifteen years at the time when all that strong coffee and abstract philosophy made you wish for the end of the social order and you are thankful that all wishes do not come true.

I see some resemblance between that description and the Teenaged Baby of Socrates circa 1980.

However, we are probably a Turning and one-half past that point. I wouldn't toss the possibility of a major re-making of society completely out the window.

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.

Written law does not require the state. See, for example, the law merchant.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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.

Yes, but this only requires retaliatory or defensive uses of force. Initiatory force is not required for the enforcement of law. You seem to have ascribed a level of pacifism to anarchists that very few actual anarchists have espoused.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

2) . . . 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.

Per above, written enforceable law does not require central authority. Rather, the crucial insight of anarchism is to apply the economists' critique of monopoly to the provision of legal services.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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

Perhaps . . . after all the whole idea of federalism is a formalization of non-monopoly in law. However, that's not the only, or even the best, way to achieve that.

I sense, however, that you're defining anarchism out of existence. It seems that any sufficiently effective anarchy will be a state. This a "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

In my assessment, the only effective argument against anarchism is that hierarchies can (although not always) be more effective at meting out violence than networks. The result is that hierarchies will evolve to the extent that an economy can bear them and that hierarchies collapse when they overburden the level of economic development. In other words, absolute monarchy didn't collapse to make way for democracy -- rather, an advanced economy cannot be maintained alongside such an arbitrary hierarchy. Essentially, economic development puts an upper limit on the number of people who can subsist on the basis of violence and that limit steadily reduces as we become more advanced.

The above argument is not really a critique of anarchism, so much as it is a critique of the idea that anarchism can be achieved in the present.

from Child of Socrates

I wouldn't toss the possibility of a major re-making of society completely out the window.

Of course, that is a possibility. I do think that we have seen a major remaking of society in this nation - several of them in fact. The America of 1680 was a very different society than the America of 1780 and the America of 1880 was a whole different world, let alone society. And since then we have metamorphosized and changed radically. All those major societal changes have come from one system to another system, each with a structure and a functioning society of citizens. Even a bloody revolution was fought under authority and organization.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Written law does not require the state. See, for example, the law merchant.

I explained above why a free-market system of law is unworkable. Do you have a response to that argument?

Written law does not require the state, but in the absence of the state (or of some other effective form of enforcement), such "law" is only words on paper.

Yes, but this only requires retaliatory or defensive uses of force. Initiatory force is not required for the enforcement of law.

It does if you are going to include property rights. Property consists of stuff for which some effective entity has stated, "This belongs to X, and anyone other than X who uses it without X's permission will be punished." This is a threat, which is initiation of force. In the absence of intiatory force, property cannot and does not exist.

You seem to have ascribed a level of pacifism to anarchists that very few actual anarchists have espoused.

Not really. I'm simply pointing out that in the absence of a state any acceptance of force or coercion is merely empty sentiment without effect. It may not be rejection of all force per se, but as a practical matter that's what it amounts to.

Per above, written enforceable law does not require central authority.

Yes it does. The key word being "enforceable." In the absence of central authority, there is no entity capable of carrying out the enforcement.

the crucial insight of anarchism is to apply the economists' critique of monopoly to the provision of legal services.

That's an error, not an insight, for reasons explained above.

I sense, however, that you're defining anarchism out of existence. It seems that any sufficiently effective anarchy will be a state. This a "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

No, that's not what I'm doing, and it should have been clear from an earlier post of mine. A "state" is a formalized governing system that is entrusted with the duty and authority of enforcing law over a defined population or area or both. That is not a "whatever is effective" definition. It includes effectiveness in that it requires the authority to enforce law, but it goes beyond that to require that it be a formalized governing system over a defined population or area. It's my contention that any society large enough that people don't all know one another requires something that fits this definition. It's an observable fact that all such societies historically have had one. Anarchism, if it means anything, is a claim to the contrary (of the "must," not the "have"). But no model of order-enforcement that I've seen anywhere is remotely plausible, except ones that do fit this definition and therefore are states.

I do not consider market law, as you and Matt have both proposed, to be a state. But I don't believe it would be effective, either. I'm not saying a priori that only a state can be effective at enforcing order, although that's what I believe. The door is open to proposing an alternative. But I haven't seen one yet.

In my assessment, the only effective argument against anarchism is that hierarchies can (although not always) be more effective at meting out violence than networks.

That's a side-lurch. We're not talking about hierarchies. We're talking about states. States may or may not include hierarchical authority arrangements. A network may also be a state.

In other words, absolute monarchy didn't collapse to make way for democracy -- rather, an advanced economy cannot be maintained alongside such an arbitrary hierarchy.

Agreed, but a democracy is still a state.

Essentially, economic development puts an upper limit on the number of people who can subsist on the basis of violence and that limit steadily reduces as we become more advanced.

I would say, rather, that economic development increases the necessary participation in political decisions of the populace, and reduces the economic tolerability of aristocracy. There are several reasons why.

The above argument is not really a critique of anarchism, so much as it is a critique of the idea that anarchism can be achieved in the present.

I've actually given a more basic one. Anarchism cannot be achieved in the present because of the existence in any human population of scumbags. If everyone were acting in goodwill, then voluntary systems of order keeping would work fine. The problem is that not everyone does.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Perhaps . . . after all the whole idea of federalism is a formalization of non-monopoly in law.

No, I don't agree. Federalism doesn't formalize non-monopoly, which implies competing authorities. Federalism, rather, formalizes compartmentalized monopolies -- no one authority is in charge of everything. But each single thing is still the responsibility of only one authority. For example, in the U.S. system, only the federal government is responsible for handling foreign policy, while only the states are responsible for handling most criminal law. The federal government and the states are not (usually) in competition with each other in either of these areas. Where a conflict arises, it is resolved by the courts by determining which one of them holds a monopoly over the particular area in question. But always a monopoly is held by some governing entity or other.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

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.

Sure, it's well out of the statistical norm. But what do you expect?

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.

Where am I stepping outside of this view? (I think it's worth recognizing that there is a rich tradition of natural law that extends through St. Thomas, Aristotle, and Socrates.)

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.

I don't know why you're referencing English Common Law. What does that have to do with natural law and natural rights? Withholding medicine might be qualitatively different than the water example that I gave; it depends on the scenario.

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.

Well, I'll try to get you whatcha need.

Natural rights -- those rights that I think should be respected where the consequence of such respect is immaterial: All are derivative of the 'right to not be aggressed against.' (Or the right to not have force initiated upon you.) This includes your body and your property. You have the right to speak freely, control your own body, associate and move freely, use drugs, have abortions; the right not to be killed unjustly, violently threatened, controlled, tortured, raped, or made into a slave, to have your justly-owned property forcibly taken from you, etc.

My "plan" (if it could be called that) for removing the State from peoples' lives follows agorism (and counter-establishment economics), but my conception of the best agora is deeply influenced by syndicalism and labor unions, mutual aid organizations, communist-styled gift economies, and a multitude of other left-wing ideas. I would like to see more people ignoring the State's absurd rules about acceptable and unacceptable behavior, especially in matters of commerce (and even if anarchism isn't reached, I believe this is still a good development), so we can get to the point where the State is viewed as an unnecessary nuisance (or preferably, a monster) on peaceful, voluntary, activity.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

This is all what i term "sophmore college talk". You go off to college and think you know something because you made it through freshman year and and are now a wise and enlightened sophmore. The world is your oyster. So you get all hopped up on your own exaggerated sense of self importance and too much coffee and end up staying up most of the night talking about things like most of this thread. "Can we have a functioning society based on anarchistic principles?" yeah - for certain types that is deep and heavy stuff. And if you are born in 1989 it seems like one of the major shape of things to come.

But those things never do come. In the end you have no more than what you started with - nothing but words which go nowhere and will continue to go nowhere.

Of course, if you were born in 1989 you probably do not have much more than two sticks to rub together and the debit side of your balance sheet is the only one with lots of figures on it. Its easy to see why anarchism might appeal to 1989.

And then a few years go by, you get that degree and you get a job. You start accumulating money and assets and actually get a life that means something and has some better moments. And you look back ten or fifteen years at the time when all that strong coffee and abstract philosophy made you wish for the end of the social order and you are thankful that all wishes do not come true.

All well and good, except I don't drink coffee.

So clearly your argument is deeply flawed.

Brian, sorry for misinterpreting you twice in a row now. And thanks for clarifying.

May I recommend this then?

Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections

And this?

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libert...hapter_29.html

Matt - coffee or no coffee, in a few years you will get the point.

And I looked at the info from your link RESPONSES TO TEN OBJECTIONS.
Right away we see the usual smoke and mirrors. Government is just like a shoe factory monopoly so lets talk about why that shoe monopoly is not the best thing. Really?

One of my favorite films is THE DEERHUNTER. It has one of the greatest lines ever written for the screen and should be part of every internet message board conversation. It was said by Robert DeNiro.

"This is this. This isn't something else. This is this."

If libertarians understood that, they would have no argument to offer about anything.

The link says it is from Mises University. Just what advanced degrees do they give at Mises University?

Matt:

Lew Rockwell did not include my own objections to anarchism among his ten. My argument is not that voluntary order-keeping methods cannot possibly work, ever. It's that they cannot possibly work, always. And that's what's needed. As long as all you're dealing with are reasonable people, no problem. Since the majority of people are in fact reasonable in most circumstances, there will certainly be circumstances in which voluntary order-keeping works fine. The problem, though, is that there will also be circumstances in which it doesn't, and those incidents will reduce the level of trust and cooperation generally. As I've said several times, the problem with anarchy isn't most people, it's the minority who are scumbags.

With regard to David Friedman's article, I mostly have the same observation. That voluntary arbitration works in many cases isn't an argument in favor of dropping all coercive, legal enforcement options. As I said above, most people are reasonable most of the time, and arbitration by agreement is fine for reasonable people. But what about the unreasonable ones?

Here's where I believe his reasoning really breaks down:

I come home one night and find my television set missing. I immediately call my protection agency, Tannahelp Inc., to report the theft. They send an agent. He checks the automatic camera which Tannahelp, as part of their service, installed in my living room and discovers a picture of one Joe Bock lugging the television set out the door. The Tannahelp agent contacts Joe, informs him that Tannahelp has reason to believe he is in possession of my television set, and suggests he return it, along with an extra ten dollars to pay for Tannahelp's time and trouble in locating Joe. Joe replies that he has never seen my television set in his life and tells the Tannahelp agent to go to hell.

The agent points out that until Tannahelp is convinced there has been a mistake, he must proceed on the assumption that the television set is my property. Six Tannahelp employees, all large and energetic, will be at Joe's door next morning to collect the set. Joe, in response, informs the agent that he also has a protection agency, Dawn Defense, and that his contract with them undoubtedly requires them to protect him if six goons try to break into his house and steal his television set.

The stage seems set for a nice little war between Tannahelp and Dawn Defense. It is precisely such a possibility that has led some libertarians who are not anarchists, most notably Ayn Rand, to reject the possibility of competing free-market protection agencies.

But wars are very expensive, and Tannahelp and Dawn Defense are both profit-making corporations, more interested in saving money than face. I think the rest of the story would be less violent than Miss Rand supposed.

But wait: exactly the same reasoning applies to disputes between states. Wars are indeed very expensive, and, Lew Rockwell foolishly to the contrary notwithstanding, governments do pay these costs. (In money anyway.) The fact that governments' funds come from taxes -- from what he would probably be inclined to call "other people's money" -- does not translate into it being unlimited. It certainly isn't, as current budget impasses show. Yet -- wars happen between states, don't they? And in pre-state societies, they happened between tribes and between bands. We may in fact state this as a truism: wars will happen from time to time as long as there is no authority capable of forbidding them.

In the scenario above, Dawn Defense' primary goal cannot be to save money. It must be to represent the interests of its client, and its client in this case is the thief. If it fails to do so, the fact that it has saved money in the process will not render that any less a failure. In this case, a war is required if it cannot otherwise protect its clients' right to his stolen property.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I explained above why a free-market system of law is unworkable. Do you have a response to that argument?

It is difficult for you maintain that assertion in the face of a clear historical example to the contrary. Such a system did exist, for centuries, and now forms the basis of almost all Western commercial law.

In response to your specific argument about competing legal systems, you're essentially arguing that a market niche will exist for a scumbag club. There are several objections:

a) A scumbag club is a fair description of the state. Thus you're arguing that a competition in legal systems will result in the formation of a state. This too, is contradicted by experience as, in the cited example, the Law Merchant, this system was co-opted by nation states not because some of the merchant courts evolved into states.

b) Scumbags are in the minority, thus necessitating a larger scale for an effective scumbag club relative to a legitimate legal insurance entity. This presents organizational disadvantages for them.

c) Such an entity would have to be covert, otherwise the majority would refuse to do business with them -- defensive measures being fully compatible with anarchism. The extent that such a club was covert would be the extent to which it was actually just.

d) A scumbag club requires social cooperation among scumbags, which is rather contradictory to the entire concept. Nonetheless, such things do happen. But, cooperation among scumbags is a good reason not to have central authority as such people might seize power. In fact, seizing control of such power structures is possibly the only goal sufficient to trigger cooperation among scumbags.

In a sense, these caveats about the development of scumbag clubs do a good job of explaining the various limitations placed on actual states. It explains the necessity of geographical monopoly, the maintenance of legitimacy and the existence of court etiquette (the "Beltway mindset").

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Written law does not require the state, but in the absence of the state (or of some other effective form of enforcement), such "law" is only words on paper.

I take it from your other arguments that those "other effective forms of enforcement" are limited to groups below Dunbar's number. The truth of this proposition is thus, highly dependent on your definition of the state . . . (See below)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It does if you are going to include property rights. Property consists of stuff for which some effective entity has stated, "This belongs to X, and anyone other than X who uses it without X's permission will be punished." This is a threat, which is initiation of force. In the absence of initiatory force, property cannot and does not exist.

I have encountered this argument before, yet it requires making one of two errors. Either:

1) You have to ignore the fact that human beings obviously understand concepts of just possession and thus there is a clear moral foundation for some kind of property*. Thus, many defenses of possessions are understood to be just that, defenses. However, I don't think you make this error. Or,

2) You describe a property right as the assertion of a claim, rather than the result of a social process. Rather, since property is a convention for allocating scarce resources it necessarily implies consent to work out issues of appropriation and abandonment with others who may object. To the extent that property claims take the form of violent assertion, they are illegitimate.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yes it does. The key word being "enforceable." In the absence of central authority, there is no entity capable of carrying out the enforcement.

Per above, this is empirically false. Also, it's not logically required: There is a need for a trusted third party in all disputes, but there is no need for it to be the same third party for all disputes.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

A "state" is a formalized governing system that is entrusted with the duty and authority of enforcing law over a defined population or area or both.

This is a very broad definition of the word state. By that definition, the social systems described by most anarchists are "states." Granted most proposed anarchist legal systems assume a population basis, rather than a geographic one (i.e. my legal services may be different from the guy next door, and our two clubs have agreements with one another). Nonetheless, there is still a formal system and it has defined extent (which may change from time to time, but so do those of current states).

So, my objection still stands -- that your definition is constructed to exclude all viable social systems from the category of "anarchy."

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I do not consider market law, as you and Matt have both proposed, to be a state.

I can't see why not. Which part of your definition does it fail to meet?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That's a side-lurch. We're not talking about hierarchies. We're talking about states. States may or may not include hierarchical authority arrangements. A network may also be a state.

This would be a truly bizarre statement were it not for your particular definition of "state." In my view, there is no such thing as a non-hierarchical state. However, since your definition includes legal systems based on population alone (i.e. some sort of subscription-based citizenship) then this does seem reasonable. However, this means that anarchy is a "state" by your own terms.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I would say, rather, that economic development increases the necessary participation in political decisions of the populace, and reduces the economic tolerability of aristocracy. There are several reasons why.

We're probably saying very similar things here about wealth distribution, which we've previously discussed (in this thread, even).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I've actually given a more basic one. Anarchism cannot be achieved in the present because of the existence in any human population of scumbags. If everyone were acting in goodwill, then voluntary systems of order keeping would work fine. The problem is that not everyone does.

The existence of scumbags is a permanent condition, however, their ability to effectively coordinate activity diminishes with economic complexity. Thus, the viability of less violent social systems increases over time. In one sense, you could then describe anarchy as the asymptote that history approaches but will never quite reach.


* Yes, I realize that some kinds of property, like land ownership, are less cut-and-dry.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Matt - coffee or no coffee, in a few years you will get the point.

And I looked at the info from your link RESPONSES TO TEN OBJECTIONS.
Right away we see the usual smoke and mirrors. Government is just like a shoe factory monopoly so lets talk about why that shoe monopoly is not the best thing. Really?

One of my favorite films is THE DEERHUNTER. It has one of the greatest lines ever written for the screen and should be part of every internet message board conversation. It was said by Robert DeNiro.

"This is this. This isn't something else. This is this."

If libertarians understood that, they would have no argument to offer about anything.

The link says it is from Mises University. Just what advanced degrees do they give at Mises University?

Hey, did he say that during the hunting shack scene where he took the gun away from the liberal man-boy playing tough guy and pointed the gun at the liberal man-boys head until he broke down, cried and begged like a liberal man-boy-baby?

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

And I looked at the info from your link RESPONSES TO TEN OBJECTIONS.
Right away we see the usual smoke and mirrors. Government is just like a shoe factory monopoly so lets talk about why that shoe monopoly is not the best thing. Really?

One of my favorite films is THE DEERHUNTER. It has one of the greatest lines ever written for the screen and should be part of every internet message board conversation. It was said by Robert DeNiro.

"This is this. This isn't something else. This is this."

If libertarians understood that, they would have no argument to offer about anything.

Just. Wow. Dude. It's called an analogy. You might not think the analogy fits for the point the author is trying to get across, but don't knock all analogies.

The link says it is from Mises University. Just what advanced degrees do they give at Mises University?

Don't be an asshole. It's a week-long program.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Matt - coffee or no coffee, in a few years you will get the point.

Generational side-note: It's interesting how libertarianism is the new folly of youth.

Perhaps Matt should also cut his hair and get a job?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

It is difficult for you maintain that assertion in the face of a clear historical example to the contrary. Such a system did exist, for centuries, and now forms the basis of almost all Western commercial law.

It's news to me that Western commercial law operated in the absence of a state; also, commercial law applies to a self-selected community, governing only areas in which they are inclined to voluntary cooperation. I have never said that voluntary cooperation can't possibly work under any circumstances, ever. I have said that it can't possibly work under all circumstances, always.

In response to your specific argument about competing legal systems, you're essentially arguing that a market niche will exist for a scumbag club. There are several objections:

a) A scumbag club is a fair description of the state.

First, no it's not, second, even if it was that would be an irrelevant comment. It certainly isn't an objection to what I said.

b) Scumbags are in the minority

They are, and one would certainly expect them to pay more for their representation as a result; however, this actually would result in the market legal system being dominated by representatives of scumbags, because they would be raking in the most money from the richest clients (who tend disproportionately to be scumbags).

c) Such an entity would have to be covert, otherwise the majority would refuse to do business with them

I'm not sure whether they'd have to be covert or not. But the majority refusing to do business with them doesn't matter. The majority aren't their paying clients. The whole point is that you are never going to get honest people and scumbags to agree on an arbiter when they have a dispute, unless there is a coercive authority (such as the state) threatening a worse alternative to the scumbag if he doesn't.

d) A scumbag club requires social cooperation among scumbags

Not at all, because the name "club" is misleading. It's not a club. It's a business that represents scumbags, much as criminal lawyers often do, except outside the law and with even less in the way of social conscience. Each individual scumbag would be out for himself, not cooperating with other scumbags, just paying for the services of the unprincipled representative.

In a sense, these caveats about the development of scumbag clubs do a good job of explaining the various limitations placed on actual states.

Of course. The state began as an evolution of tribal authority, and once it was divorced from the natural restraint of the leader personally knowing all the followers, artificial restraints (rule of law) had to be imposed. The entire construct is artificial, but then, so is civilization.

Anyway, no one is arguing here that states aren't potentially dangerous, or that restraints on their activities aren't appropriate. I'm arguing strictly against the idea of abolishing them altogether. Fire is dangerous, too, and safeguards on fire are appropriate as well, but I wouldn't abolish it.

I take it from your other arguments that those "other effective forms of enforcement" are limited to groups below Dunbar's number.

That's what I believe. That's also what history suggests, since they are confined to precivilized, small-group societies. There are no real-world examples of civilized societies without states (no, medieval Iceland is NOT an exception, because it was protocivilized, not civilized).

2) You describe a property right as the assertion of a claim, rather than the result of a social process. Rather, since property is a convention for allocating scarce resources it necessarily implies consent to work out issues of appropriation and abandonment with others who may object. To the extent that property claims take the form of violent assertion, they are illegitimate.

Then all property claims are illegitimate, because they all take the form of violent assertion, even though the threat of violence may be several steps in the background.

Also, it's not logically required: There is a need for a trusted third party in all disputes, but there is no need for it to be the same third party for all disputes.

It does need to be the same third party for all disputes of the same kind, though.

This is a very broad definition of the word state.

Necessarily so! Consider that we apply the term to the kings of ancient city-states, to their democratic or republican equivalents, to empires, to Hitler's or Stalin's dictatorships, to a modern representative democracy, to a medieval absolute monarchy or feudal aristocracy, to a constitutional monarchy . . . there are a lot of different things that fall into that category, so the definition has to be broad. However:

By that definition, the social systems described by most anarchists are "states."

This is not true. Anarchist systems uniformly are incapable of enforcing rules on the unwilling, and it is argued that this is unnecessary. That's a necessary feature of a state.

I can't see why not. Which part of your definition does it fail to meet?

It is not a system capable of enforcing order.

This would be a truly bizarre statement were it not for your particular definition of "state." In my view, there is no such thing as a non-hierarchical state. However, since your definition includes legal systems based on population alone (i.e. some sort of subscription-based citizenship) then this does seem reasonable. However, this means that anarchy is a "state" by your own terms.

I probably should add that the population cannot be self-selected. I was thinking of a government of a migrant people. I probably shouldn't have, though, because migrant peoples have historically all been protocivilized rather than civilized and have had tribal governments rather than true states. So I guess we can stick with the geographic definition in all real-world examples, although something else isn't impossible theoretically.

The existence of scumbags is a permanent condition, however, their ability to effectively coordinate activity diminishes with economic complexity.

I see no evidence of this at all.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Matt:

Lew Rockwell did not include my own objections to anarchism among his ten.

It's hosted on Rockwell's site but the speech-giver/writer was Roderick Long.

My argument is not that voluntary order-keeping methods cannot possibly work, ever. It's that they cannot possibly work, always.

Look, I don't know what you're getting at. Can you please be clearer with your language? I'm getting tripped up at "voluntary order-keeping methods."

*Edit* OK I understand better in your response to Kurt.

But wait: exactly the same reasoning applies to disputes between states. Wars are indeed very expensive, and, Lew Rockwell [sic] foolishly to the contrary notwithstanding, governments do pay these costs. (In money anyway.) The fact that governments' funds come from taxes -- from what he would probably be inclined to call "other people's money" -- does not translate into it being unlimited. It certainly isn't, as current budget impasses show. Yet -- wars happen between states, don't they? And in pre-state societies, they happened between tribes and between bands. We may in fact state this as a truism: wars will happen from time to time as long as there is no authority capable of forbidding them.

In the scenario above, Dawn Defense' primary goal cannot be to save money. It must be to represent the interests of its client, and its client in this case is the thief. If it fails to do so, the fact that it has saved money in the process will not render that any less a failure. In this case, a war is required if it cannot otherwise protect its clients' right to his stolen property.

I think you're underestimating the costs. It might be nice to look at Dawn Defense and say, "Wow! I want people that dedicated to be helping me!" But I think most people are going to be turned off by the outbreak of violence -- which may even happen on their front lawn. (I'd also note that I would expect small firms, not big corporations like Friedman suspects, will come to dominate the marketplace. War is really expensive, then.)

But sure, bad things may, and probably will happen. That's unfortunate, but I don't think it bodes too poorly for the whole 'Anarchy is Order' statement.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

It's hosted on Rockwell's site but the speech-giver/writer was Roderick Long.

OK.

Look, I don't know what you're getting at. Can you please be clearer with your language? I'm getting tripped up at "voluntary order-keeping methods."

I mean simply methods of dispute resolution and order-keeping that do not rely on coercion or enforceable authority, but rather an voluntary cooperation among the participants. Arbitration has been presented as an example, and it's a pretty good one. The parties to a dispute voluntarily agree to abide by the decision of a third party.

Of course, in present reality, that happens against a backdrop of enforceable law, which the parties are bypassing by resorting to arbitration. If they don't use arbitration, or if one of them refuses to cooperate, then resort to the law courts is still possible. Still, let's stipulate that for many -- maybe even most -- people, arbitration would be workable even without that backdrop.

What I'm trying to get across here is that many -- maybe even most -- isn't good enough. It needs to come down to all. Scumbags are a minority, but if that minority knows that it can do whatever it wants without fear of punishment, the consequences won't be good.

I think you're underestimating the costs.

I think you're underestimaging human bloody-mindedness.

I think most people are going to be turned off by the outbreak of violence -- which may even happen on their front lawn. (I'd also note that I would expect small firms, not big corporations like Friedman suspects, will come to dominate the marketplace. War is really expensive, then.)

I think the idea of small firms dominating a marketplace where large resource pools are crucial is most unlikely. In any case, a typical mid-sized American corporation has resources that dwarf those of ancient Sparta. Yet the Spartans fought wars. For that matter, Native American tribes fought wars all the time, and they were poorer and less numerous than the Spartans. (Sparta was a civilized city with a state. Most Native American tribes were protocivilized societies with tribal, pre-state government types.)

Most people may well be turned off by the outbreak of violence. As I keep saying, though, most isn't enough. The problem lies with the minority that will be turned on by it. They exist, too.

But sure, bad things may, and probably will happen. That's unfortunate, but I don't think it bodes too poorly for the whole 'Anarchy is Order' statement.

The point is not that bad things will probably happen, but that a stateless society would have no effective way of coping with them. That job currently belongs to the state. In the absence of the state, it would not get done, unless an effective alternative can be proposed. So far, none has.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

My argument is not that voluntary order-keeping methods cannot possibly work, ever. It's that they cannot possibly work, always. And that's what's needed.

Now wait just a minute...

Are you saying that there are some non-voluntary order-keeping methods that work always?

That's certainly a novel claim, though -- I agree -- absolutely necessary for your statement to be a coherent argument.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Are you saying that there are some non-voluntary order-keeping methods that work always?

You should first ask for a definition of "work."