Originally Posted by Odin

You cannot have a civilization without stores of wealth that can be used for public works projects. These wealth stores need to be managed and protected, and from that you have the origin of the state. And thus Brian is correct in saying that anarchism is incompatible with civilization, because civilization requires wealth stores managed by a centralized authority. In modern Western society those wealth stores are tax revenues and profit.

(More objections that don't stick. I'm so surprised.)

Civilization, in the sense you are getting at, undoubtedly requires people pooling their resources towards collaborative projects. But why does a State need to manage this stuff? Plenty of projects are managed by private (i.e. non-government) institutions right now -- academic funding comes to mind.

IMO I am getting the feeling that anarchism is impractical at best, fantasy at worst. It aims for an impossible goal, or at least a goal that is not compatible with civilization.

OK, even if anarchists have the burden of proof (and I do not think they do), then it's still worth your while to say why it's incompatible with civilization. All that's been said are vague, unsupported, or unreasonable (confirming my thought that anarchism is unfairly dismissed as an option) arguments.

Re: Dunbar's Number and medieval Iceland - the basic social unit in medievall Iceland was the same as it was in Beowulf: the Chieftain's holding, with his family, tenants, dependents,and household. And those would be less that 150 people in number, or possibly around that number. Then - and remember the fractal nature of medieval society - the group of such chieftains and the handful of supporting professionals (the priests in the Christian era, the law-speakers, etc) was probably even smaller. When the Allthing met, everyone who could or who had business there showed up, but not everybody spoke.

I'm going to say it was neither an anarchy nor a democracy, though the system of folcthing and Allthing was a lot closer to it than most medieval and early modern states, but as Brian Rush said, a protostate.

BTW - I've working towards a minor in Medieval Studies with a concentration on Anglo-Saxon England, which gets us into then entire Nordic/Germanic way of doing things. If you look back at pre-Classical Greece and Rome, at the Northern European countries, and at states like Iceland everywhere, you see the same structure over and over again: a bunch of people working the land and/or herding the cattle, working for a landowner/chief (thane, baron, chieftain) who may or may not answer to a regional chief (earl, count, high chief) depending on the size and complexity of the society, who may or may not answer to a king. Depending again on size and complexity. Anything that widespread may simply be the optimal way of doing things under the conditions that prevail (agricultural economy, dangerous conditions).

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Here, I agree with you. The only person who can really make the call on that one is the person who had been wronged. Let them determine the exact type and amount of restitution they need to be made whole, or if restitution is impossible and the offender simply needs to be put down like any other irredeemable animal.

No, we don't agree. And you know this. More obtuseness. No one has the right to order the death of another person.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

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

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.)

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.

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.

Hmm... I thought you would be at least aware of the US legal establishment's perspective on natural rights. I've interest in the civil rights and gun rights discussions, and thus have dug into the structure and spirit of the Bill or Rights more than most. Some basics...

While the Founding Fathers were religious, they also believed in reason. They believed they could logically deduce a finite and defined set of natural rights. Thus, the Ninth Amendment invoked unenumerated rights. Thus, the US legal establishment has had to set up a pretty firm set of criteria for what the First Congress intended the natural rights to be when it passed the Ninth Amendment.

One of these criteria is that the right had to be real at the time of the Founding Fathers. If one is going to expect modern courts to recognize a new natural right not long enshrined, one had best be able to go to the precedents set under English Common Law during the Revolutionary and post Revolutionary era. One had best be able to show that said right existed.

From that perspective, you are advocating 'natural rights' which just don't exist. However, the Enlightenment philosophers and Founding Fathers were trying to establish a new and practical form of government, while you are trying to undermine that form of government. Thus, yes, it is hardly surprising that you are proposing something quite different. Well, some of the rights you quote are familiar. Others??? It depends on how certain words might be interpreted.

In invoking St. Thomas, Aristotle, and Socrates, are you claiming they advocated natural rights compatible with what you propose? I cannot recall such passages, and don't think of any of them as anarchists. Can you suggest cites? I'm not saying I'll accept argument from authority here, but do you really think the authorities you are invoking actually support your point of view?

Originally Posted by Matt1989

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.

I'm not a big fan of communist economics. They fell apart worse than we did. Yes, we have to enable labor unions a bit more at this point. I believe your ideas on acceptable and unacceptable behavior are arguably as absurd as "the State's." This thread is a litany of two factions declaring the other's ideas absurd.

But in terms of a real plan, I'd still like to see something more specific. If we are to have a true benevolent anarchy, someone has to go through every department of every level of government and either privatize their function or convince a lot of people that the function is unnecessary. I am very concerned with the nature of the privatization. The checks and balances that limit abuse of power by established government are anything but perfect, but I remain concerned that there are no plausible checks and balances on anarchy. Like a lot of folks, I think anarchy could lead to... well... anarchy.

I suggested three organizations in a prior post, and asked what would be done to either privatize the organizations or show the functions performed unnecessary. My choices were the United States Marine Corps, the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles, and the Plymouth Department of Parks and Recreation. There is nothing magic about those three. If I were to take your "plan" seriously, I would want to see a lot more than three examples. I'd like to see you address enough organizations that I could pretty well guess how you would handle any other organization.

I would also like to see it from a bottom up perspective. From a top down pie in the sky wave the magic wand while uttering platitudes point of view, you have things covered. In terms of tires hitting the road, you have no plan at all.

I can sympathize with some of the platitudes. I can sympathize a lot. Almost nobody likes government interference. Almost nobody is eager to pay taxes. Someone with a serious plan on how to start eliminating both together ought to go far.

But here in Massachusetts we have something called Proposition Two And A Half. Property tax rates can't go above 2.5% without the voters of a city or town approving the tax. That rate was set in mid-unraveling, when the federal government was passing a lot of federal funds back down to the states and towns. With the current federal financial crisis, a lot of the federal aid to local governments is vanishing. Thus, in order to stay below 2.5%, some of the cuts proposed are fairly drastic. My home town of Rockland recently passed an override for the library. If it hadn't passed, the library would have shut down entirely.

OK. That's another government department, the Rockland Public Library. Is the library unnecessary? If it is to be privatized, how would this be done? If as part of a Cold Turkey transition to anarchy the library is to be funded from sources other than government taxation, how would you go about it? If the library over ride had not passed, do you really think the anarchists would have stepped up to the plate and proposed an alternate source of information and recreation?

And why need that issue be solved cold turkey as part of an instant transformation of everything? Are the anarchists ready to handle replacement of every single function of government, all at the same time, as part of a cold turkey transition?

Thus, I see your "plan" as... as... Unacceptable? Nonexistent? Not to be taken seriously? All of the above?

But if you were to go incremental, I might listen. If you were to start with the functions of government that are least necessary or best suited for privatization, and push for smaller government one department at a time, I could show more enthusiasm. So would a lot of others, I expect. Lots of people would like to see less government meddling and lower taxes. However, the proposal would have to be vaguely plausible, plausible enough that people could win elections standing on such a platform. That's where you are losing me.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

No, we don't agree. And you know this. More obtuseness. No one has the right to order the death of another person.

In a less than serious manner, I'm going to mention a science fiction book, The Demon Breed, written by James Schmitz in 1968. It is from the same setting, "The Hub," as the Telzey Amberton books. In a lot of ways the book reads as pure escapist action adventure space opera. The heroine, wearing a bikini, equipped with a pistol, an anti gravity belt, a wrist caller to summon her pet sentient otter and thorough knowledge of the floating island jungle of her water world home planet, turns back an alien invasion. Purest fluff. Absolute nonsense. Much good fun.

Except there are a few passages scattered through the book that discuss the philosophy of the human over government. They have a deliberate policy of encouraging a dangerous environment where the general population expect to encounter and deal with dangerous criminal and alien elements. The official police forces are kept deliberately weak. Thus, in order for civilization to thrive, the people have to have a spirit of vigilante readiness to defend one's own interests.

This is a great background for a series science fiction novels. Heroines like Telzy, Trigger and Nile run into all sorts of criminals and monsters, but they are so capable and conditioned to deal with such problems that the criminals and monsters get thumped. Beware, four times beware! Never underestimate the deadliness of one of Schmitz's cute blondes!

Colonial America was somewhat like that, but far more organized, and much more masculine. There were indians out there, and the occasional Spaniard, Frenchman and royalist Englishman. There were no organized police forces, and small standing armies far to small to provide a meaningful defense. What did exist with the militia. Every man was armed and trained. Every man knew what was to be done when trouble surfaced. There was an organized chain of command, so when a response was needed there was coordination and discipline.

This would be the antithesis of Schmitz's Hub. Schmitz proposed there was little need for an organized government well regulated militia. The fishermen living in the water world would naturally keep heavy weaponry capable of engaging space ships mounted on their small town sized powered rafts. Enemy space fleets could be engaged with police air cars and narcotics control submarines. But most importantly, your typical bikini wearing ranger patrolling floating forests is single handedly ready and able to scare any alien race into fleeing the planet in panic.

Anyway, if the government vanishes in a puff of anarchy, I don't think we can wait for Telzey Amberton to crush any evil doers with her potent psionic abilities.

The militias did serve their purpose in colonial and revolutionary times. However, it takes a clear and present danger for the general public to submit itself to the training and discipline involved. Every Sunday after church the militia drilled. In the east, in the long peace between the War of 1812 and the Civil War, that training became a joke, an excuse for the men to play at social meetings while the women got together to chat.

During the Gettysburg campaign, there were so many men active in various militia units called up to handle the crisis that the militia outnumbered the Army of the Potomac. The Union generals considered all said units useless. They hadn't the training or morale to stand up to the Army of Northern Virginia. They just clogged the roads and got in the way.

Just rambling thoughts. If we were to return to the Founding Father's profound distrust of standing armies, if we were to abolish government hirelings using force and coercion, what takes their place? What training would be required of the general public? If there are private security forces, what checks on abuse of power could be effective?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

No, we don't agree. And you know this. More obtuseness. No one has the right to order the death of another person.

Say that with someone coming at you with a knife or a gun ... sorry. There are some circumstances in which it has to be done. However, I am hard set against the death penalty because there have been too many mistakes. And far, far too many instances in which the Powers That Be didn't care if they were mistaken. Such as the Supreme Court justice who said that if the trial was legal, then proof that the defendant was innocent is irrelevant. (Or why we have gubernatorial pardons. [BTW: to the Justice, I quote "The Letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life."]

take note: within the context of this discussion the word taxes specifically refers to individual income taxes.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The middle class pays most of the taxes, because the middle class is large.

THIS is an interesting statement,
so much so that I'm willing to drop everything else and re-direct my focus to this statement and use it as a starting point for a new discussion.
wikipedia says

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.

You said, "The middle class pays most of the taxes..." using your assertion here we can conclude:

The top 10% rich owns 71% of the wealth but yet they do not pay most of the taxes.
If the rich owns 71% then the middle class must own 29% of the wealth but yet they do pay most of the taxes.
Isn't this proof that the rich have cleverly found a away to avoid taxes?

Perhaps you need to subscribe to a new political ideology that does not emphasize trying to steal money from the rich.
They seem to be out-smarting your attempts at progressive taxation.

What is going on here? Fruitcake takes issue with a statement from Marx&Lennon that the middle class pays most of the taxes. the first thing he does is to restrict the definition of taxes to income taxes. Hmmmm.

Then, to refute the statement by M&L, he gives us figures on ownership of wealth.

Perhaps some exact figures on who pays the taxes being discussed would speak directly to the point? That would be a much more direct and simpler way to go about this than the confusing and convoluted

using your assertion here we can conclude:

The top 10% rich owns 71% of the wealth but yet they do not pay most of the taxes.
If the rich owns 71% then the middle class must own 29% of the wealth but yet they do pay most of the taxes.
Isn't this proof that the rich have cleverly found a away to avoid taxes?

It should be further pointed out to Mr.Cake that taxation is a responsible obligation of citizens of a nation and is not theft or stealing.

Perhaps you need to subscribe to a new political ideology that does not emphasize trying to steal money from the rich.

Or is it indeed your contention that the government can take taxes from other groups and that is fine but when they take taxes from the rich then it constitutes stealing? You recently affirmed that you were not against taxation as part of a civilized society. Have you changed your opinion or are you just protecting the rich?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

All areas in question were governed by states, which created a climate of law and order on which the commercial structure was built. The fact that there exist areas of life (I would actually say most areas of life) that do not require the immediate attention of the government does not argue that government is not needed.

True. Some A are B does not imply that all A are B. However, this cuts both ways. You also can't contend that since all societies contain some centralized authority that all social functions must be managed by one. (Granted, I don't think you're making that argument.)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually the failure is infrequent, and when it happens almost always the cause is the breakdown in government authority, as for example in the French First Republic, or (to a lesser extent) in the U.S. in this saeculum's late Awakening and early Unraveling. And when that happens, the problem is addressed by a strengthening of government authority (e.g. Napoleon) or a correction of government dereliction of law-enforcement duty.

The example you use here (from late 18th century France) indicates that at least part of our disagreement is semantic. Napoleon's government was clearly better overall than Robespierre's. What's important is how authority broke down in the First Republic. It was the overuse of power that undermined that government (i.e. the Terror). Yes, the First Republic failed to keep violence to a low ebb, but that's because the government was driving the violence. So, it seems odd to condemn this as an outbreak of "anarchy."

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You're reversing my logic. I was arguing rather that the fact this hypothetical business was catering to scumbags exclusively (or at least mostly) would result in their being paid more by said scumbags, not vice-versa.

This doesn't really affect my argument. The simple fact that people will pay more for corrupt justice than actual justice does not mean it will take over the market any more than people who like designer-label clothes cause everyone else to go naked.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The death toll as a percentage of the population would be much higher in such conflicts than in even the worst, most horrendous civilized wars. We know it would be, because we know it was.

I do not contest the high relative violence of primitive societies. This is a point in my favor (see below).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In state justice systems, while bribery of arbitrators does happen, it's illegal. In a market justice system without a state, it would not be illegal because in effect nothing would or could be.

Disproven by experience: Contract violations were illegal under the law merchant, and none of the states in which the law merchant operated enforced those laws. Again, there's a semantic issue here where you're defining all effective law enforcement as a "state" even though anarchists do describe and observe what you would call effective law enforcement in what they call a non-state environment. By your definition most people who call themselves anarchists are not actually anarchists.

Your conception of anarchism is very similar to so-called naive atheism where one directly states: "There is no God." Most atheists reject that view in favor of the statement: "There probably is no God." Obviously, anarchists are not denying the existence of the state, just it's necessity for social order. I would agree that saying it isn't necessary right now or ever is not really provable, and thus I reject naive anarchism. You might argue that anarchism with a proviso is just a form of libertarianism (which is in turn just a form of liberalism). OK, but that's semantic -- we're not disagreeing about what my position is, just what to label it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It does not matter for purposes of the present discussion. A system of laws based around the idea of "noninitiation of force" (if that were not fallacious -- never mind; we'll assume the fallacy's accuracy for sake of argument)

And here's another semantic issue. You clearly recognize certain initiations of force (your definition) as moral. Yet there is considerable overlap (and possibly identity between) what you call moral initiations of force and what most libertarians call defensive force.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Then I shall set aside Dunbar's number, which as I do not entirely understand the concept functions here as a verbal trap

I'm going to reply to Grey Badger's post for further discussion of the issue of optimal group sizes.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It could, conceivably. If we were having this discussion in the 12th century, the idea of a representative democracy would be a yet-untried means of governance radically different from the feudal aristocracies and hereditary monarchies that prevailed at the time. But it is still a state.

Well then we can agree on this one, since it seems that you're more attached to your terminology than I am to mine.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I don't see how that argues against my position. Actually, I see it as arguing for it.

And here we get to the core issue. The overall reduction in violence levels has come in tandem with economic development and, more importantly, with social development that increasingly rejects and regards as illegitimate many long standing mechanisms of authority. To me, the development of, say, civil liberties constitutes a reduction in state power, since it is a reduction in the amount of acceptable brutality in society. This social evolution does not seem to require central authority at all. In fact, repeated violation of these principles undermine public support for the state. The arrow of history is away from legitimatized brutality not toward it.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

It should be further pointed out to Mr.Cake that taxation is a responsible obligation of citizens of a nation and is not theft or stealing.

Said observation should not be considered universally self evident. Matt suggests that any coercion is immoral. He seems to believe that taxation backed by law enforcement is an immoral form of coercion that violates his natural rights. While there seems to be few if any principles shared by all anarchists, I would not assume they all believe that merely living in a particular land means they should acknowledge any authority native to said land or feel duty bound to the common good of the inhabitants of said land.

Do not assume everyone believes that citizenship leads to responsibilities and duties. That is a good deal of what this supposed discussion is about.

Originally Posted by Odin

I even detect the same seculaized Judeo-Christian eschatological thoughts of a perfect future with perfect, infinitely good individuals following the Final Victory Over Evil that pervades ALL Western utopian ideas ("If the evil state were destroyed then people would be good and society perfect.").

Well, that's certainly why I reject naive anarchism. There is definitely a millenarian vibe from that. Unfortunately, most important social breakthroughs sound utopian prior to implementation. This cannot be, in and of itself, a reason for their rejection. Otherwise, the conservative elements in society would always win.

from Bob Butler

Matt suggests that any coercion is immoral.

If I may steal and adapt from H. Rap Brown .... coercion is American as apple pie.

Sorry, but the mention of the word COERCION does not freeze my blood in my veins or cause to me to go weak in the knees. Some people do the right thing because its the right thing. Some people do the right thing because they are afraid of the consequences of not doing the right thing. It makes no difference to me which group anyone falls into as long as its not the third group - those who do the wrong thing.

If COERCION stops you from breaking into my home or raping or killing members of my family, thats perfectly fine with me. If COERCION takes your money in the form of taxation and it provides for a civilized soceity for 300 million people, thats perfectly fine with me.

If anyone does not want to live in society that uses COERCION, the door is always open. There is a very long line to get into this country and the opposite to leave.

My patience is worn only so thing with the same BS day in and day out.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

My patience is worn only so thing with the same BS day in and day out.

You're so full of manure. It seems that "the same BS day in and day out" is what you most enjoy doing. At the very least it appears to be something you spend an awful lot of time doing.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

True. Some A are B does not imply that all A are B. However, this cuts both ways. You also can't contend that since all societies contain some centralized authority that all social functions must be managed by one. (Granted, I don't think you're making that argument.)

You're right, I'm not. I think actually that that argument would be as absurd as anarchism.

The example you use here (from late 18th century France) indicates that at least part of our disagreement is semantic. Napoleon's government was clearly better overall than Robespierre's. What's important is how authority broke down in the First Republic. It was the overuse of power that undermined that government (i.e. the Terror). Yes, the First Republic failed to keep violence to a low ebb, but that's because the government was driving the violence. So, it seems odd to condemn this as an outbreak of "anarchy."

My impression of the First Republic is that in addition to being bloodthirsty, it was also incompetent and failed to keep order and quell ordinary violence and theft by ordinary citizens; also it did a poor job of protecting the country against foreign military violence. Actually, if you were a non-noble, non-clergy supporter of the revolution, you weren't in much danger from the guillotine. So although I myself certainly disapprove of the Terror, I doubt that it had quite the same level of condemnation from ordinary French citizens of the time.

Napoleon's government was arguably "better" than Robespierre's, but it was certainly not weaker or less pervasive. In fact (although this is drifting off-topic) I would say that it was during Napoleon's dictatorship that the ideals of the French Revolution found their way into French law, and that Napoleon the autocrat laid down the foundation on which the Third Republic (the first real French Republic) was built decades later. (Just as a point of info, France is currently under the Fifth Republic.) So Napoleon gave France a far more effective government -- and in a perverse way, one more true to the ideals of the Revolution -- than the so-called republic that preceded him.

We may indeed be arguing semantics to a degree, but I also think there's an important extra-semantic point. A government's power and authority should not be confused with its brutality and oppressiveness. I'll come back to this later on, because it's important.

This doesn't really affect my argument. The simple fact that people will pay more for corrupt justice than actual justice does not mean it will take over the market any more than people who like designer-label clothes cause everyone else to go naked.

We've drifted pretty far from what was being argued. Let me draw it back, please.

We were discussing whether a market-based justice system, with multiple competing dispensers of justice rather than a single authority, could replace the state for that particular function. My argument was that inevitably, companies would arise to represent scumbags, because there would be a demand for such. Someone (could have been you but I don't recall for certain) argued that no such company could succeed because most people would refuse to do business with it. That scumbags would pay more for the services of such a company was an argument that it could prosper even though most people would refuse to do business with it. And that as a consequence, the whole system would break down into warring companies.

I actually do think that the unscrupulous companies would dominate the market under such a system, but it's not necessary that that be so in order to support my argument. All that's necessary is that scumbags have an effective alternative to cooperating with an arbitration system designed to suppress scumbaggery. If they'll have such an alternative they'll use it.

Disproven by experience: Contract violations were illegal under the law merchant, and none of the states in which the law merchant operated enforced those laws.

Not an effective disproof, because all of those merchants were operating in a context of law that prevented the real alternatives to abiding by the law even if it could not be strictly enforced. That alternative being simply theft. A merchant wanted the property of another merchant, and could not steal it because the government of the other merchant's country would punish that act if it happened on that territory, while the merchant's own government would do so if he did it at home. So there was no alternative except trade, and if he didn't abide by the rules, trade would be cut off as well.

In order to see what would happen in the absence of a state, you need to look at what happens in the absence of a state, not merely in international relations, which is what the law merchants represent.

You might argue that anarchism with a proviso is just a form of libertarianism (which is in turn just a form of liberalism).

No. Anarchism calls for the abolition of the state. Libertarianism calls for its weakening and containment, but recognizes its necessity. They are similar, but not identical. (And I agree that both have roots in liberalism, at least most forms of anarchism do, and libertarianism certainly.)

I suppose that a philosophy that says, "Well, we need the state now, but under future conditions it might be possible to do away with it," might be considered anarchism in a sense. However, I am only calling people anarchists if they think we should and (other than for political reasons) could abolish the state now. I think there's good reason to restrict it in that way. If you accept that people who think maybe the state can be abolished someday are anarchists, then Marx was an anarchist, because the final stage of his theoretical progression of history was the abolition of the state and a true communist economy. Surely you'll agree that to call Marx an anarchist is a little absurd? For that matter, I could agree myself that it might someday be possible to abolish the state, for example if human genetic engineering plus advanced psychotherapy could someday allow for the abolition of scumbaggery. But it's pretty aburd to call me an anarchist on that basis, too.

And here's another semantic issue. You clearly recognize certain initiations of force (your definition) as moral. Yet there is considerable overlap (and possibly identity between) what you call moral initiations of force and what most libertarians call defensive force.

It's certainly not an identity, and it's an overlap only in that we can come in some cases to similar ethical positions from different logical bases. The logical bases remain different, though. This particular libertarian argument tries to establish an objective justification for absolute property rights. It argues, for example, that punishment for theft is not initiation of force, but that redistribution of wealth is. As an objective fact, neither one is; with respect to property the first force is neither theft nor taxation, nor of course the punishment of theft, but the assignment of ownership in the first place. The only objective meaning to the words "initiation of force" implies the FIRST force that was applied/threatened -- NOT force that, on a DIFFERENT basis, is morally justified. Any use or threat of force after that, intended to change the outcome created by this first threat of force, is responsive, not initiatory force. With respect to theft and its punishment: force creates property and assigns ownership; the thief uses force to change this assignment by seizing property that has been assigned to the ownership of another; the law uses force to change this re-assignment back to the original, or at least to deter similar unauthorized redistribution of wealth.

My entire point is that the concept of "initiation of force" is useless as a moral principle. If I come to some conclusions that are the same as a believer in this principle using a different logic, that does not validate the logic; one may arrive at true conclusions using false reasoning. We also arrive at different conclusions to some other questions.

And here we get to the core issue. The overall reduction in violence levels has come in tandem with economic development and, more importantly, with social development that increasingly rejects and regards as illegitimate many long standing mechanisms of authority. To me, the development of, say, civil liberties constitutes a reduction in state power, since it is a reduction in the amount of acceptable brutality in society.

Again, I believe we must distinguish between the power of the state and its brutality. The government of the United States has more safeguards, more public accountability, less license to abuse people's rights, and on the whole is less brutal (or at least less consistently brutal) than the government of King Henry II of England. But is it less powerful? Does it have less scope to govern? No, it has a great deal more.

This is the problem I have with defining the state in terms of its pathologies. You can see something as a reduction in state power that is only a correction (in part) of its pathological tendencies, while at the same time its overall power is actually increased. Over time, as society has become wealthier and more complex, as population and the venues for conflict have multiplied, government has grown consistently stronger. Over the same time, public consciousness of the dangers of a government running wild have also increased, and safeguards have been placed on the government to curtail its worst abuses. These developments were parallel and there is nothing inconsistent about them.

from antichrist

You're so full of manure. It seems that "the same BS day in and day out" is what you most enjoy doing. At the very least it appears to be something you spend an awful lot of time doing.

A wonderful refutation of the points I raised in the body of my post. Sorry to have attacked your religion antichrist .... okay ... not sorry at all.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

If I may steal and adapt from H. Rap Brown .... coercion is American as apple pie.

Sorry, but the mention of the word COERCION does not freeze my blood in my veins or cause to me to go weak in the knees. Some people do the right thing because its the right thing. Some people do the right thing because they are afraid of the consequences of not doing the right thing. It makes no difference to me which group anyone falls into as long as its not the third group - those who do the wrong thing.

If COERCION stops you from breaking into my home or raping or killing members of my family, thats perfectly fine with me. If COERCION takes your money in the form of taxation and it provides for a civilized society for 300 million people, thats perfectly fine with me.

If anyone does not want to live in society that uses COERCION, the door is always open. There is a very long line to get into this country and the opposite to leave.

My patience is worn only so thing with the same BS day in and day out.

Alas, this is a values based discussion, as are many discussion on this site. I do not believe one can best understand humans as being rational and logical. They have values that they cling to with intense emotion. These values do not come from a vacuum. If one looks at the history of an individual or a people, one can come to understand what caused the values to come to be. However, understanding what a person believes and why he believes it doesn't generally help if one wishes to erode a person's values and impose on them your own.

I can understand how someone believes coercion is wrong or perhaps even evil. I can understand how someone doesn't like being taxed. These things aren't hard to understand. I can see lack of coercion being quite properly one of the highest layers of one's world view. I associate natural rights and the Bill of Rights with a guarantee of lack of coercion. However, some of the anarchists seem to to push lack of coercion to a higher priority than mine, and press for other rights which are not traditional to our culture.

I see cultures and natures as in competition. This competition takes place at many levels, including military, economic, moral, life style and artistic. Many of these competitions require discipline, leadership, cooperation and sacrifice to achieve. The cultures that have survived and thrived such competition thus include concepts of duty and responsibility.

At bottom, the anarchists seem to be putting their own economic interests and personal free choices ahead of responsibility to their fellow men and loyalty to culture and country. To the extent that this is held as a deep values choice, one isn't going to talk them around it. One can get on one's high horse and proclaim that one's one values are ever so superior to theirs. They will respond in kind. Much internet bandwidth might be expended in such an exchange. However, the internet has an awful lot of available bandwidth. The net result of the exchange would thus remain negligible. One is not going to run the internet out of bandwidth that way.

Now, coercion remains bad. Unless there are over riding considerations, I would strongly sympathize with a desire for a culture with less coercion. As an example, with weapons of mass destruction, it seems likely that direct conflict between major powers is becoming more and more unlikely. Thus, military drafts, an extreme form of coercion, are becoming less frequent. It isn't too absurd to say they might be history. As technology improves, assuming the energy problem is worked around, it might be possible to get rid of other forms of coercion as well. In a lot of ways I wish them well.

But, dang it, it won't happen spontaneously in one swell poop. Traditional values aren't going to spontaneously disappear any more than their own. If I don't anticipate anarchists lightly abandoning their deep held values, I don't expect main line Americans to do so either. Less so. Proponents of radical change have to sell change. They have to point at intolerable burdens and present plausible plans for relief. For most people, the rewards of being an American are perceived of as being worth the duties expected. For anarchy to spontaneously break out all over, an awful lot of people will have to reject the core of their world views. Core world views just don't vanish trivially. As I occasionally remind people, to look at what it takes to induce major shift in a culture's world view and values system, look at pictures of Atlanta in 1864 or Berlin in 1945.

Anyway, that's why I have for the most part avoided this particular thread. There is a values deadlock here similar enough to the endless unraveling red - blue nattering. Your rejecting of one of their core values is noted. They will of course reject yours. Any true communications might require a through-the-looking-glass voyage into an alien value set. This is not easy, nor is it generally worth the trouble.

However, if you enjoy typing, by all means continue typing.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Hmm... I thought you would be at least aware of the US legal establishment's perspective on natural rights. I've interest in the civil rights and gun rights discussions, and thus have dug into the structure and spirit of the Bill or Rights more than most. Some basics...

We're obviously having some problems communicating. I am indeed familiar between the U.S. legal establishment's perspective on what our natural rights are; I just don't think it's particularly relevant to what the correct perspective on natural rights is. They may be right or wrong, but it doesn't make much sense to look to the legal establishment for guidance without further reasoning to this effect.

One of these criteria is that the right had to be real at the time of the Founding Fathers. If one is going to expect modern courts to recognize a new natural right not long enshrined, one had best be able to go to the precedents set under English Common Law during the Revolutionary and post Revolutionary era. One had best be able to show that said right existed.

Huh? I don't expect modern courts to recognize another natural right. My point again, natural rights are not invented or created, but they may be recognized.

From that perspective, you are advocating 'natural rights' which just don't exist.

No, I'm advocating natural rights which haven't been recognized by the establishment. If they don't exist, it has nothing to do with human recognition, but human ethics.

However, the Enlightenment philosophers and Founding Fathers were trying to establish a new and practical form of government, while you are trying to undermine that form of government. Thus, yes, it is hardly surprising that you are proposing something quite different. Well, some of the rights you quote are familiar. Others??? It depends on how certain words might be interpreted.

In invoking St. Thomas, Aristotle, and Socrates, are you claiming they advocated natural rights compatible with what you propose? I cannot recall such passages, and don't think of any of them as anarchists. Can you suggest cites? I'm not saying I'll accept argument from authority here, but do you really think the authorities you are invoking actually support your point of view?

Sorry, I didn't invoke them as being compatible with my perspective on what the natural rights are, or what the natural law is. I invoked them with the intent to create a historical link regarding the correct way to approach these issues.

I'm not a big fan of communist economics. They fell apart worse than we did. Yes, we have to enable labor unions a bit more at this point. I believe your ideas on acceptable and unacceptable behavior are arguably as absurd as "the State's." This thread is a litany of two factions declaring the other's ideas absurd.

OK that's fine. I'm not a huge fan of communist economics either, and I think there are structural limitations inherent to any of its formulations. But that doesn't mean bits and pieces of communist theory should not be incorporated into other economic structures (in this case, trade/gifts without the involvement of currency.)

As for acceptable and unacceptable behavior, you might not agree with my perspectives, but there are a lot of people out there who are a lot closer to mine than the States. And there are a lot of people out there that think the State's rules are stupid, and willfully violate them on a daily basis.

But in terms of a real plan, I'd still like to see something more specific. If we are to have a true benevolent anarchy, someone has to go through every department of every level of government and either privatize their function or convince a lot of people that the function is unnecessary.

Well I seriously doubt that this is how it's all going to go down, presuming it does, that is. Certainly a lot of the functions within the purview of government will be placed in non-State hands, but it's not like the government is going to cede their power on the whim of anti-statists.

I am very concerned with the nature of the privatization. The checks and balances that limit abuse of power by established government are anything but perfect, but I remain concerned that there are no plausible checks and balances on anarchy. Like a lot of folks, I think anarchy could lead to... well... anarchy.

Checks and balances? We, my friend, are the checks and balances. We'll be continually reorganizing our preferences in accordance with the environment, choosing our own associations and exchange partners. Order out of anarchy, you know?

]I would also like to see it from a bottom up perspective. From a top down pie in the sky wave the magic wand while uttering platitudes point of view, you have things covered. In terms of tires hitting the road, you have no plan at all.

I'm not sure what you mean here, since agorism is a strategy that anyone can put into practice.

And why need that issue be solved cold turkey as part of an instant transformation of everything? Are the anarchists ready to handle replacement of every single function of government, all at the same time, as part of a cold turkey transition?

Thus, I see your "plan" as... as... Unacceptable? Nonexistent? Not to be taken seriously? All of the above?

But if you were to go incremental, I might listen.

I'm ready for anything, but I'm not going to lie and say that I don't want Cold Turkey. What's the saying? Push for immediate action and you'll gradually get results? Something like that, anyway. I'm willing to go incremental.

If you were to start with the functions of government that are least necessary or best suited for privatization, and push for smaller government one department at a time, I could show more enthusiasm. So would a lot of others, I expect.

I think it's a bit silly to expect the State to be minimized in such a fashion.

Lots of people would like to see less government meddling and lower taxes. However, the proposal would have to be vaguely plausible, plausible enough that people could win elections standing on such a platform. That's where you are losing me.

I'm not interested in making the necessary compromises to win elections, because I think the notion of this sort of compromise defeats what we're trying to achieve. Fortunately, I'm not into electoral politics.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Said observation should not be considered universally self evident. Matt suggests that any coercion is immoral.

Well, I believe initiatory coercion is immoral, and I think initiatory force is rights-violating. I do not think non-aggressive coercion is any of these things though.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Sorry, but the mention of the word COERCION does not freeze my blood in my veins or cause to me to go weak in the knees. Some people do the right thing because its the right thing. Some people do the right thing because they are afraid of the consequences of not doing the right thing. It makes no difference to me which group anyone falls into as long as its not the third group - those who do the wrong thing.

If COERCION stops you from breaking into my home or raping or killing members of my family, thats perfectly fine with me.

Fine, I'm cool with it too.

If anyone does not want to live in society that uses COERCION, the door is always open. There is a very long line to get into this country and the opposite to leave.

My patience is worn only so thing with the same BS day in and day out.

Well, that's unfortunate. But personally, my patience is worn thin by much more important things than a 20 year old's ramblings on the internet.

Brian, I think you can only view property rights as being an initiation of force if the earth is viewed as being owned by the commons (either limited or unlimited, it doesn't matter ATM). Otherwise, if it's unowned, (as I think it is) then setting up physical boundaries shouldn't count as aggression. It does, in fact, limit the scope of one's lawful actions, but at that point it's analogous to something like laws regarding rape or murder.

Feel free to ramble Matt. Please do not take my comments to mean I want you to stop expressing yourself. I only wish I could have expressed myself as well as you do at the same age.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Brian, I think you can only view property rights as being an initiation of force if the earth is viewed as being owned by the commons (either limited or unlimited, it doesn't matter ATM). Otherwise, if it's unowned, (as I think it is) then setting up physical boundaries shouldn't count as aggression. It does, in fact, limit the scope of one's lawful actions, but at that point it's analogous to something like laws regarding rape or murder.

All I'm saying is that whether violence is threatened is purely an objective question entirely separate from any moral significance. If I say to you, "I will whack you with my stick if you do X," I have threatened you with violence. Whether that's justifiable or not depends, of course, on what X is (and might be open to dispute even with that question answered). But the sheer objective fact that I have threatened you with violence remains true regardless.

Whether property is "owned by the commons" or "unowned" is not relevant to the question of whether violence is threatened in the creation of private property. It is. If the property is owned by the commons, then we can also say that the property is stolen in the course of assigning it to private ownership; if it unowned we can't say that. But in either case, the act of assigning (or claiming) ownership amounts to a threat of violence. To say, "this is mine," is to say, "I will whack you with my stick (or, in modern times, with a lawsuit or a call to the police) if you use this without my permission." If no such threat is made (or at least understood), no property is claimed or assigned.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Re: Dunbar's Number and medieval Iceland - the basic social unit in medieval Iceland was the same as it was in Beowulf: the Chieftain's holding, with his family, tenants, dependents,and household. And those would be less that 150 people in number, or possibly around that number.

The overall society was considerably larger and yet operated on the same basic principles. All this demonstrates is that any institutions which make up the smaller building blocks of society will likely be under the limit. Even in modern society, for example, the upper limit of published professionals in scientific fields is about 150, and fields tend to splinter into sub-specialties when this limit is pushed.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I'm going to say it was neither an anarchy nor a democracy, though the system of folcthing and Allthing was a lot closer to it than most medieval and early modern states, but as Brian Rush said, a protostate.

Just to be clear, I didn't claim that medieval Iceland or any other society was an example of anarchy. In fact, Brian brought it up first (presumably because it's been cited as an example by others). All I've said is that centralized authority is not strictly necessary for social order. It may, however, be easier than other methods in certain contexts.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

. . . you see the same structure over and over again: a bunch of people working the land and/or herding the cattle, working for a landowner/chief (thane, baron, chieftain) who may or may not answer to a regional chief (earl, count, high chief) depending on the size and complexity of the society, who may or may not answer to a king. Depending again on size and complexity. Anything that widespread may simply be the optimal way of doing things under the conditions that prevail (agricultural economy, dangerous conditions).

It's very likely that this structure is optimal for those conditions. If it is, it raises problems for the naive anarchist position (especially those which are paired with more radical theories of land use). If anarchism could not work in agricultural societies, then in order for it to work today there would have to be some crucial technology that accommodates it. But then one's anarchism takes on that millenialist flavor that Odin mentioned (or sounds like a late 90s issue of Wired).

What I'm arguing is that humanity is slowing evolving toward a technological and social state that is like "anarchy." But that state could be the ideal that society ever strives for and never reaches (human imperfection and all) or it could be an achievable end. I'm not sure, but I think the former is more likely.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

You recently affirmed that you were not against taxation as part of a civilized society.

If the only thing Liberals advocated was small taxation, enough to maintain a civilization then people like Rush Limbaugh would be out of a job because what would he have to talk about? --> nothing
however...
Since that is not the case, Rush Limbaugh should thank Liberals. They provide him with a paycheck.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Have you changed your opinion or are you just protecting the rich?

The rich do not need my protection.
They are smart enough to avoid those high tax rates.

Liberals do indeed *try* very hard to hang rich people upside down by their toenails.
However, Liberals keep on failing at this.
That's my theory on how taxation works.
How do you like it?

Evidence?
Facts?
Statistics?

Originally Posted by Matt1989

We're obviously having some problems communicating. I am indeed familiar between the U.S. legal establishment's perspective on what our natural rights are; I just don't think it's particularly relevant to what the correct perspective on natural rights is. They may be right or wrong, but it doesn't make much sense to look to the legal establishment for guidance without further reasoning to this effect...

Huh? I don't expect modern courts to recognize another natural right. My point again, natural rights are not invented or created, but they may be recognized...

No, I'm advocating natural rights which haven't been recognized by the establishment. If they don't exist, it has nothing to do with human recognition, but human ethics...

You seem to be echoing a perspective on rights shared by the Enlightenment philosophers, Founding Fathers and First Congress. Rights are not invented by men or enacted by governments. If anyone created them, it was God. They always existed. However, using reason, humans can deduce a well known and finite collection of rights. Those who do not agree with their reasoning, using a modern terminology, got dissed.

I am a big fan of that set of rights that were reasoned out during that era. I highly support the Bill of Rights, and agree pretty much with the collection of rights currently acknowledged by the US legal system.

I am not a fan of the notion that rights are unlike other ideas. If someone argues that they can read God's mind or visit some abstract platonic plane of existence to read the One True Scroll of Natural Rights, I get dubious.

I see rights as being ideas, and fit the 'meme' concept. Ideas are thought up by men and women. Good ideas are shared and put into practice. Bad ideas don't spread. Obsolete ideas fade and are forgotten. As political ideas are constantly evolving, any notion of an absolute and unchanging set of political ideas set in cement by God and / or Jefferson rankles more than a little. At the same time, the notion that someone can come along and add a few extra items that God and Jefferson missed isn't right either. I'd need to be convinced.

To me, both rights and laws are about people getting along. If there is a right to live, the laws against murder, manslaughter and assault enforce that right. If there is a right to property, laws against theft, trespass and vandalism enforce it. Rights are very broad. One might come up with one or two dozen such rights that might stand essentially unchanged and are accepted across somewhat divergent cultures. Laws are much more specific, and much more varied. Different regions, different times and different technologies result in laws that are both more specific and more rapidly changing than the fewer and broader rights.

But both rights and laws comes down to something simple. "If you do such-and-such a vile thing to me and mine, we are going to do something about it. We will by assorted means strive to prevent you from doing it again."

There is a bit of a paradox involved. The more rights a person has, the more laws are required (under a statist model at least) to enforce said rights. The more rights, supposedly, the more free a person is. The more laws, and the more law enforcing agencies running around coercing folks into obeying said laws, the less free a person is.

Now, it seems you have 'recognized' a few rights that are not 'recognized' by others in your culture. If everyone within a culture respects the same set of rights, you have peace. In proclaiming new rights, and that transgressions against said new rights justify violence, there could be a problem. To the extent that you are rejecting elections and due process as means to spread your new rights, said potential problem increases.

On the other hand, you seem to be a paper (binary?) anarchist rather than a gunpowder anarchist. You are not actively pushing for violence. To this extent you seem fairly harmless. Your ideas will either catch on or not.

I do not see The State in general or the United States in particular as perfect. However, I do see a need for broad agreement on what behaviors are acceptable, how unacceptable behavior is to be discouraged, with checks and balances to prevent abuse of power by those doing the punishing.

The notion that all government employees will on Cold Turkey day not report to work, and this will happen without elections and legislation?

Umm... Sure. Right.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

All I'm saying is that whether violence is threatened is purely an objective question entirely separate from any moral significance. If I say to you, "I will whack you with my stick if you do X," I have threatened you with violence. Whether that's justifiable or not depends, of course, on what X is (and might be open to dispute even with that question answered). But the sheer objective fact that I have threatened you with violence remains true regardless.

OK, but the violence itself would not be aggressive, provided it is proportional (or less than) the initial act. Whether it constitutes a threat depends on how you view threats, but I'm not sure how this makes the concept of "initiation of force" useless as a moral principle, unless we view a "threat" of non-aggressive violence as being an initiation of force itself. If there is a linguistic problem that arises here (note: I don't think there is), then it doesn't invalidate the usefulness of the principle, it just means we're not being careful enough with the use of our language.