Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Not precisely. Matt seems to be endorsing agorism, which is basically the market anarchist equivalent of syndicalism (i.e. you focus on building institutions that will exist in the new society so that they can supplant the old when the old system collapses).

Sure. I'm a syndicalist too, in some sense, but it's incorporated within agorist strategy.

I actually have strong objections to the viability of this strategy as it is in the nature of states to deny people the opportunity to build alternative organizations. Also, the goal is not to convince the government that its services are no longer necessary but to convince the public.

Well, the State can certainly go and crackdown on various alternative institutions that they do not approve of. They've done that in the past, and they'll continue to do it in the future. No question about that. But such crackdowns, especially in today's modern world, are met with severe backlash, so most of the time the cost of suppression is greater than the cost of merely letting it be. Americans, and young people in particular won't stand for that kind of bullshit (partially why I'm a little bit encouraged by the current right-wing movement against Obama -- even if they are, on the whole, hypocritical and myopic), and with the ever-increasing capacity to network and share information with other individuals, it seems like a pretty poor strategy for the ruling class to go out and breakup these alternative institutions, especially when new ones will arise shortly thereafter. Indeed, the complexities and bureaucracies of the legal system can only allow the State to focus on a few things at a time; human capacity for generating new systems, ideas, practices, etc. is way too dynamic for the State to really suppress without descending into totalitarianism.

I think the real beauty of agorist strategy is merging political goals with personal ones: that is, you take steps to improve your own life while defying the State and weakening its hold over your person, as well as that of the society as a whole. The government says don't do drugs, don't steal intellectual property, don't hire (or be) illegal immigrants, don't use underground markets, and so on. And people just ignore that because they recognize that many of the State's rules are brutal, repressive, and stupid. Hopefully we can get them to realize that a world covered in states have (empirically speaking) the same qualities, and we can all get along without having to resort to rulership. I think there is a certain maturity in this thought, and it appears to me, that as a method for convincing the public that we don't really need the State and would be better off without it, that agorist strategy is a great educational tool. And even if it doesn't achieve that desired end, we're still better off because of it.

(My idea of agorism is not ideologically limited in this sense. There is a market component to this, but it doesn't necessarily involve the use of currency.)

As an aside, I've noted previously that anarchy is rarely used to simply mean "no rulers." It usually refers to one of three things:

1) The time before history, i.e. the "state of nature" of the Enlightenment philosophers. This leads to the criticism of anarchism as primitivism.

Which would be a total misunderstanding. The "state of nature," as used by Enlightenment philosophers, is a hypothetical world from which the State could be justified.

2) A hypothetical post-history of near perfect social harmony. This leads to the criticism of anarchism as utopian.

3) An interruption in history where chaos reigns. This leads to the criticism that anarchists promote upheaval for the sake of upheaval.

IMO, only the second criticism of anarchism is valid, since advocacy of "going back to nature" or violent revolution are both rare and non-essential to the concept. The idea of a better future, however, is essential to anarchism and thus it is forever subject to charges of utopianism. OTOH, all the good ideas in politics have been attacked as utopian, so that doesn't really kill the concept.

Well, utopianism only becomes a problem if the bumps along the way to utopia, combined with the possibility of achieving such a utopia, makes the strive for this end undesirable. I think that's the criticism Odin was offering. But I don't see anarchism as utopian, because it's not really a true endpoint, or a place of perfect social harmony; rather, I think of it as more of an ongoing project in maximizing human freedom. Furthermore, I think that in the process of achieving statelessness, nearly all steps that are libertarian in nature are (in a consequentialist sense) beneficial to human society.

To be clear, I am not really an anarchist. I think that violence, coercion and heirarchy will probably always be present and frequently have competitive advantage over peace, cooperation and networks. However, I think the trend is toward ever decreasing influence of the former -- so having a conception of anarchy (def. #2) is useful as a guide star.

I don't see how this negates your credentials as an anarchist. Even if someone believes anarchy is realistically unachievable, as long as they regards it as a desirable development, I think that they qualify.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

The government does indeed belong to me, and to all of us.

What you're describing is an illusion created by the people who created the power structure and those who currently maintain it. They are on top, they have the power, and they can force you to do almost anything. So long as the system holds, your rights as an individual are null and void if its in their best interest to violate them. They say you have freedom of choice, but that choice occurs within the context of approved and acceptable options that do not challenge the State's legitimacy as it exists today. The ruling class currently controls the media, the candidates, products, laws, etc. and you have to do what they say (because they say it, no less!) or they will use violence against you. The suggestion that we own the government, and that the government works for us is a sentiment that I find difficult to take seriously.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

What you're describing is an illusion created by the people who created the power structure and those who currently maintain it. They are on top, they have the power, and they can force you to do almost anything. So long as the system holds, your rights as an individual are null and void if its in their best interest to violate them. They say you have freedom of choice, but that choice occurs within the context of approved and acceptable options that do not challenge the State's legitimacy as it exists today. The ruling class currently controls the media, the candidates, products, laws, etc. and you have to do what they say (because they say it, no less!) or they will use violence against you. The suggestion that we own the government, and that the government works for us is a sentiment that I find difficult to take seriously.

I don't find the system to be as onerous as you describe, Matt. I believe you are exaggerating, and the result of such exaggeration is that people simply give up and don't even try to change anything.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

The government does indeed belong to me, and to all of us.

Keep reciting your rulers' mantra. It's what we were all brought up to do.

The facts of the matter, rather than the mere dialectic, are that "all of us" belong, in fact, to the government. Again, any simple attempt to put the ruling class' myth to the test will demonstrate that fact.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

There are, to my mind, two cogent arguments against the argument for unplanned social systems. The first is the argument that this was possible before, but is not any more due to complexity. That argument is very weak though, as modern research shows that networks handle complexity better than hierarchies. The second is that while any particular function may be handled by a networked system, you can't have the entire economy function that way at the same time (i.e. some amount of hierarchy is always necessary, the question is where best to put it). That second argument is much stronger, strong enough to make me step back from full endorsement of anarchism.

It may be that computers and networks will make complex solutions more possible than in the past. I have daydreamed about computer networked direct vote democracy. If one votes yes for a project that requires expenditure, one has to pay for it. Vote no, and you don't have to pay for it. Use a service after voting against it, and one owes back tax. Such an organization might be more plausible in the future, and would get rid of a lot of the coercion, but I don't see any of the anarchists getting serious about describing how a future network like that might work.

Or, in another example, if cars in the near future have GPS systems and wifi, they could calculate from weight, speed and location how much wear and tear they put on a given road. Only those who use roads might have to pay for them, and they would pay appropriately.

It is one thing to object to coercion. It is another thing to seriously attempt to describe a post-coercion civilization.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

But, to argue that I have to explain how a network will solve a problem does miss the point. The whole reason to have a network is because individual nodes in the network (i.e. single persons like us) are not capable of optimizing the problem. Only the interactions of all of the people in the network produce a solution. In other words, if I could tell you with great certainty how precisely to structure the provision of a particular social good, then why not use a hierarchical system with me in charge?

Because you aren't really offering anything the average citizen would consider better than majority rule representative democracy financed by a fairly traditional tax structure. I personally think representative democracy is prone to corruption. The wealthy are one way or another over represented. I can also in abstract agree with an argument that representative democracy with majority rule and taxation has to be coercive. I'd as soon create a non-coercive system, if someone were to seriously work out what a successful system might look like.

But right now people are not yet angry enough to seriously consider alternate systems. There is no revolution pending. There is anger. Some might even fear violence leading to ugly anarchy. I'm not seeing real proposals that will be ready to implement should the revolution actually start.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Part of the issue is that the libertarian approach to policy often entails digging into the complex effects of current policies and recommending what to remove. The default presumption in our current society is to figure out what rules to add. Can you not agree that changing the rules in a subtractive fashion is just as much a policy recommendation as doing so in an additive fashion? In both cases, you are describing the effects of current policy and recommending a change intended to produce better results. Also, would you not agree that if the subtraction occurred in a different order than simply rolling back chronologically that the results would be different from any society previously experienced?

Add. Subtract. Both. Whatever. Just propose something specific enough that one can judge whether it might work and suggest how it might be tweaked. Abstract technobabble doesn't much interest me.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

As an aside, I've noted previously that anarchy is rarely used to simply mean "no rulers." It usually refers to one of three things:

1) The time before history, i.e. the "state of nature" of the Enlightenment philosophers. This leads to the criticism of anarchism as primitivism.
2) A hypothetical post-history of near perfect social harmony. This leads to the criticism of anarchism as utopian.
3) An interruption in history where chaos reigns. This leads to the criticism that anarchists promote upheaval for the sake of upheaval.

IMO, only the second criticism of anarchism is valid, since advocacy of "going back to nature" or violent revolution are both rare and non-essential to the concept. The idea of a better future, however, is essential to anarchism and thus it is forever subject to charges of utopianism. OTOH, all the good ideas in politics have been attacked as utopian, so that doesn't really kill the concept.

These are quite different things. The word 'anarchy' might apply to all three, but none is like the other unless one is a Luddite trying to create a non-machine post history that duplicates pre history. In my opinion...

1. The primitive utopia wasn't really. In some places one was eternally on the edge of sustenance. It was a hard life. If the land was good enough to produce a surplus, there was over population and thus conflict. I'm not enthusiastic about returning to hunter gatherer level civilization.
2. Most political systems present themselves as the best possible system that will lead to perfection. None of them are as good as they might claim to be. Some present democracy with capitalism as the best of all possible societies. If there is any pretense that democracy with capitalism is utopian, I'd renounce it, though. D/C has a long way to go to reach utopia. The anarchists have a lot further to go. I'd like to see a working system before I even consider if it is the best of all possible systems.
3. Failed states exist. If there are no examples of the idealist's utopian anarchy, there are lots of examples of failed governments leaving territories in misery and chaos. There is little real evidence for pre or post history benevolent anarchy. There is lots of evidence for real world ugly anarchy. When the state doesn't exist, one can look up what happens in the history books.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

To be clear, I am not really an anarchist. I think that violence, coercion and hierarchy will probably always be present and frequently have competitive advantage over peace, cooperation and networks. However, I think the trend is toward ever decreasing influence of the former -- so having a conception of anarchy (def. #2) is useful as a guide star.

I will cheerfully steer away from violence, coercion and hierarchy. I am dubious on steering towards something that has never existed, and something you can't describe well enough to attract a sizable following.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Here is where I disagree. The conditions in which people are actually in a kill-or-be-killed situation are increasingly rare.

They are rare in the developed world. They are very common in the third world. I believe the crisis is centered to a great degree where on where kill-or-be-killed is still real.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I think it could be easily argued that your FDR quote is ridiculously naive. Freedom from want?!? Anarchism is way more plausible than liberation from desire. The former requires social and economic progress -- the latter inherently requires a change in human nature. A desire to have more in life is part of the human condition.

Here, you seem to be going strawman. FDR was talking about establishing minimum basic living conditions. He had no intent to genetically modify man to change his basic nature. The above argument is not worthy.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I don't find the system to be as onerous as you describe, Matt. I believe you are exaggerating, and the result of such exaggeration is that people simply give up and don't even try to change anything.

If anything, I'm being generous, since I'm talking about possibilities, and not what actually goes on. (And you probably don't want to hear me babble on about that. That shit is depressing.) I can see why this might be discouraging to statists, but it tends to motivate libertarians and anarchists.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I don't find the system to be as onerous as you describe, Matt. I believe you are exaggerating, and the result of such exaggeration is that people simply give up and don't even try to change anything.

Actually, the result of seeing one's rulers as what they are -- which is to say, mere humans who sit atop a system that empowers them at the expense of the masses -- and of recognizing that the power of the rulers to rule is contained wholly within the myth they perpetuate among the masses is hardly apathy.

People, you see, generally don't like being ruled -- at least, not by other people. When one un-deifies the ruling elite; when their myths are stripped bare for what they really are, then people will start to see the true scope of action available to them, and will be able to start making use of it.

Apathy comes of having one's choices and one's field of vision restricted. Recognition of reality is movement in the direction opposite that.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Keep reciting your rulers' mantra. It's what we were all brought up to do.

The facts of the matter, rather than the mere dialectic, are that "all of us" belong, in fact, to the government. Again, any simple attempt to put the ruling class' myth to the test will demonstrate that fact.

It depends on how crazy you want to get, I suppose. I read and talk about all sorts of wild ideas. The government hasn't tried to curtail me one bit.

See, I don't consider government to be an "it" but a "we."

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Actually, the result of seeing one's rulers as what they are -- which is to say, mere humans who sit atop a system that empowers them at the expense of the masses -- and of recognizing that the power of the rulers to rule is contained wholly within the myth they perpetuate among the masses is hardly apathy.

It is not a myth. It is a promise that got off track and can be reclaimed.

People, you see, generally don't like being ruled -- at least, not by other people. When one un-deifies the ruling elite; when their myths are stripped bare for what they really are, then people will start to see the true scope of action available to them, and will be able to start making use of it.

Apathy comes of having one's choices and one's field of vision restricted. Recognition of reality is movement in the direction opposite that.

It does, and in some ways I believe your diagnosis is correct.

Your solution, however, is extremely problematic. There needs to be a system in place to check those who would abuse power. You will have some sort of governmental body in place in order to enforce society's rules and norms. Don't call it the "state" if that word bothers you. But some sort of rule, convention, law, whatever -- has to be in place, and it has to be clear, consistent, and enforceable.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

We are the government.

Exactamente!!!

Originally Posted by Matt1989

If anything, I'm being generous, since I'm talking about possibilities, and not what actually goes on. (And you probably don't want to hear me babble on about that. That shit is depressing.) I can see why this might be discouraging to statists, but it tends to motivate libertarians and anarchists.

Please don't refer to me as a "statist." I am no anarchist, but neither am I wedded to stasis.

Glad you brought up the subject Child of Socrates. The intentional use of a term like "statist" is intended to be used in a negative fashion to cast the advocate of any formal governmental structure in a false light. It is meant to be a pejorative. Anarchists hate it when some try to paint them as advocating complete chaos and lawlessness when the tables are turned on them. It would be nice if a term like "statist" could be purged from the lexicon.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

People, you see, generally don't like being ruled -- at least, not by other people.

Maybe it's just my Asperger's showing, but I like clear, stable, and dependable lines of authority. As long as those in authority are kept honest and accountable, I really don't mind. There is nothing I hate more than trying to get something accomplished and struggling when it seems like nobody in particular is in charge and everyone is passing the buck.

Ah, hell. Screw the state anyway. Let's just take the next step:

Integral World Government

Originally Posted by Odin

Maybe it's just my Asperger's showing, but I like clear, stable, and dependable lines of authority. As long as those in authority are kept honest and accountable, I really don't mind. There is nothing I hate more than trying to get something accomplished and struggling when it seems like nobody in particular is in charge and everyone is passing the buck.

Right. Not everyone in real life is an INTP. NTTIAWWT

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

It is not a myth. It is a promise that got off track and can be reclaimed.

That is, of course, an integral part of the myth. As far as one can see, however, whatever extent people managed, for whatever brief time (in countless instances throughout history) to assert their supremacy over their rulers, the ruling class has always moved back in with great speed to set affairs back to rights.

As, of course, they should, since their interest is in ruling, after all.

Originally Posted by Odin

Maybe it's just my Asperger's showing, but I like clear, stable, and dependable lines of authority. As long as those in authority are kept honest and accountable, I really don't mind.

Of course, you are not describing people as they actually are; honesty and accountability are the first enemies of authority. But those who would rule have come (actually, rather long ago) to recognize that people would allow -- even desire -- to have themselves put under Angelic rule. When the myth of rule by actual angels proved difficult to sustain, the ruling elites shifted to the myth of rule by angelic systems, or even angelic 'fundamental principles'. Those seem to be working out a lot better for them.

But you -- and, like I said, people in general, do not like being ruled by other people. That is, by real, actual people fundamentally like themselves. The fact that systems of government all are that very thing is something that anarchism strives to bring to the awareness of increasing numbers of people.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course, you are not describing people as they actually are; honesty and accountability are the first enemies of authority. But those who would rule have come (actually, rather long ago) to recognize that people would allow -- even desire -- to have themselves put under Angelic rule. When the myth of rule by actual angels proved difficult to sustain, the ruling elites shifted to the myth of rule by angelic systems, or even angelic 'fundamental principles'. Those seem to be working out a lot better for them.

But you -- and, like I said, people in general, do not like being ruled by other people. That is, by real, actual people fundamentally like themselves. The fact that systems of government all are that very thing is something that anarchism strives to bring to the awareness of increasing numbers of people.

That's strange; I thought that accountability and integrity create authority with someone reasonably competent and clear-headed.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Right. Not everyone in real life is an INTP. NTTIAWWT

No doubt. I'm an ENTP, myself.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

That's strange; I thought that accountability and integrity create authority with someone reasonably competent and clear-headed.

??? I don't get what you are saying. Please expand on it a little bit (or at least use a couple of sentences to say it -- I'm unclear which parts of what you said are subject, object, and referent...) so I can respond to your idea rather than to just my best guess as to what your idea is.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Sorry, I don't think you have justified dismissal. Shoes, of course, have been made by private enterprise all along. Shoemaking has seldom if ever been a function of the government.

In the 1930s, Hoover bought a shoe factory in Schulkyll Haven, PA that for the entire Depression made the majority of the shoes for US citizens during the Depression. It was passed in ownership via the government from president to president until JFK ended the business.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

It may be that computers and networks will make complex solutions more possible than in the past. I have daydreamed about computer networked direct vote democracy. If one votes yes for a project that requires expenditure, one has to pay for it. Vote no, and you don't have to pay for it. Use a service after voting against it, and one owes back tax. Such an organization might be more plausible in the future, and would get rid of a lot of the coercion, but I don't see any of the anarchists getting serious about describing how a future network like that might work.

The back tax wouldn't work, since it implies that you've pre-defined how much a person's contribution is. A more dynamic system would allow differing contributions to different projects, depending on degree of preference. That system couldn't penalize "free riders" though, but I don't see that as a bad thing. I don't need to describe this system, I can just provide links:

Prosper
Lending Club

Now, as of yet P2P lending doesn't handle very large projects. But, it certainly seems scalable. It's basically a bond market where the bonds are very, very small. It could conceivably replace fractional banking as our primary means of funding collective projects.

A similar non-interest system could be used for public goods. You have a P2P platform set up for, say, a town and you post projects on that platform. (Stoplight on 5th and B Street, Water main extension on the east side, renovating the firehouse, etc . . .) If you add a comment section to each project, then you can have town hall meetings that anyone can make time for and no one has to hear about projects they don't care about. This doesn't even have to be strictly anarchic. You could take a city government and run the entire city budget this way. The city council would redirect funds from projects that didn't get funding and define the minimum monthly contribution from people in the town. Right now, most people have no idea what their city government even does and certainly no idea where their tax money goes. This way, they would know exactly where.

Does the city government above qualify as anarchy? No. They're still levying taxes. But it sure seems like a vast improvement over what we have now.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Or, in another example, if cars in the near future have GPS systems and wifi, they could calculate from weight, speed and location how much wear and tear they put on a given road. Only those who use roads might have to pay for them, and they would pay appropriately.

Good luck on that one. Most road wear is caused by big trucks. Companies like having their shipping costs externalized into the tax system. This would be a good idea, but I think you'd find a lot of resistance.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

It is one thing to object to coercion. It is another thing to seriously attempt to describe a post-coercion civilization.

Sure, it's tough. I'm fairly sure such a society isn't even achievable in my lifetime. When asking for specific policy changes, you're asking about incremental improvements. Anarchism is a description of the overall long term goal. That's why I can advocate a new kind of city government (with taxes) above and I'm not violating my principles. That city would be a net gain, an evolution toward a less coercive society.

Do you see what I mean when I feel you're being unfair? I don't need to describe what the anarchist ideal society is any more than liberals or conservatives or anyone else does. In fact, people generally don't talk about politics or economics that way -- and they never do when getting down to practice. Libertarianism informs how I'm going to evaluate policy, it doesn't lay out an immutable 10-step process for achieving utopia.

(The rest of your post, I'll get to later.)

Originally Posted by Justin '77

That is, of course, an integral part of the myth. As far as one can see, however, whatever extent people managed, for whatever brief time (in countless instances throughout history) to assert their supremacy over their rulers, the ruling class has always moved back in with great speed to set affairs back to rights.

As, of course, they should, since their interest is in ruling, after all.

If you are going to frame things that way, there is no way your dream society would keep a new "ruling class" from forming and thus "ruining" your society.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course, you are not describing people as they actually are; honesty and accountability are the first enemies of authority. But those who would rule have come (actually, rather long ago) to recognize that people would allow -- even desire -- to have themselves put under Angelic rule. When the myth of rule by actual angels proved difficult to sustain, the ruling elites shifted to the myth of rule by angelic systems, or even angelic 'fundamental principles'. Those seem to be working out a lot better for them.

But you -- and, like I said, people in general, do not like being ruled by other people. That is, by real, actual people fundamentally like themselves. The fact that systems of government all are that very thing is something that anarchism strives to bring to the awareness of increasing numbers of people.

If people think all politicians are scoundrels then only scoundrels go into politics, the negativism and cynicism feeds on itself, perpetuating corruption while the wannabe utopians whine and play armchair revolutionary and everyone else tunes out.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

??? I don't get what you are saying. Please expand on it a little bit (or at least use a couple of sentences to say it -- I'm unclear which parts of what you said are subject, object, and referent...) so I can respond to your idea rather than to just my best guess as to what your idea is.

Good, trustworthy people earn the respect and deference of their fellows, and that confers authority on those individuals.