Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

What do you think the anarchists are doing here then? I acknowledge that they aren't convincing people, but I thought they were trying.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but what I'm doing here (and anywhere else where I have these sorts of conversations) relates directly to independent's post about Empire. There are many liberals and libertarians who share views about civil liberties and foreign policy who do not work together because of their differences on economic issues. The supporters of Empire are united, the opposition is not.

So, what I've been doing, partly as a personal journey, is getting at the underlying common values and trying to reconcile those economic differences. What I've found is that these supposedly intractable differences are really a matter of habit and aren't nearly as big of a hurdle as one might think.

Granted, there are still going to be libertarians like HM's unnamed deregulation advocate and liberals like, er . . . HM that are very attached to the New Deal era divide that separates liberals from libertarians.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

HM:

In the interests of clarity, it seems to be a standard free-market purist position that any amount of government intervention in the economy suffices to poison the well. No lessons can be drawn from the effects of reducing regulation, or of removing certain regulations, because if you have any regulation at all (beyond issuing currency, protecting property rights, contract enforcement, and the other regulations that don't count as regulations because they're, you know, "protecting our rights" which is what government is supposed to do), then you don't have a true free-market economy. If it squints and sidles towards being a free-market economy it still ain't the real critter and so no conclusions can be drawn about how a True Free Market Economy (TM) would perform.

It's absurd, agreed, but really not all that hard to understand.

There is, of course, a corresponding liberal conceit that any disagreeable results not directly caused by the state constitute proof of the flaws in markets and demonstrate a need for "more" regulation. These two simplifications make the same error -- they view government's impact on the market as a single dial marked "intervention" and the goal is to set the dial in the correct position. (Free market advocates are only unique in how far to one limit they want to peg the dial.)

This model -- the Intervention Dial -- is not only a gross oversimplification, it inhibits discussion by constantly turning any policy debate into a dissection of which way the dial will be turned and as soon as both parties agree on which direction a particular policy will turn the dial they immediately harden their positions, hurl insults and question each other's motives.

I think modern liberals have a tendency to react to the mythos of classical economic liberalism a la Adam Smith. The idea that an economy can self-regulate and serve liberal ends in doing so has been clearly disproven by history. Free market used to be a liberal idea but is now championed mainly by conservatives for that reason.

The reality is that a market's ability to self-regulate is quite narrow. It does exist, but only in the context of ensuring product quality and affordable price, and even that only if full disclosure and adequate competition are ensured. Self-regulation will not serve to ensure high wages, good working conditions, or other labor needs, nor will it suffice to protect the environment or to husband resources, nor even to ensure product quality and safety where the data are too complex or obscure to permit full disclosure, as in the case of food safety, medicinal drugs, or car safety.

An economy must respond to chaotic stimuli from consumer choices. For this reason, a decentralized system (i.e. a free market) is more efficient for the narrow purpose of allocating resources to meet consumer demand than a centralized system. We do not want to replace the market with central planning for that purpose -- this is another thing that's been proven by history to be ineffective. But aside from that, it's hard to see how we can have "too much" regulation.

Bad or wrong regulation is a different subject.

[QUOTE=independent;278768]..."They're the natural reaction to illegitimate government. " ...
I am curious as to what you would consider legitimate government. The US citizens have frequent opportunities to vote. I participate and often do not like the results, but the people did vote and I am stuck with the results.
-But illegitimate?

Originally Posted by independent

..."They're the natural reaction to illegitimate government. "

Originally Posted by radind

I am curious as to what you would consider legitimate government. The US citizens have frequent opportunities to vote. I participate and often do not like the results, but the people did vote and I am stuck with the results.
-But illegitimate?

I wouldn't be too surprised by a proposal from some of our anarchists that 'legitimate government' is an oxymoron.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but what I'm doing here (and anywhere else where I have these sorts of conversations) relates directly to independent's post about Empire. There are many liberals and libertarians who share views about civil liberties and foreign policy who do not work together because of their differences on economic issues. The supporters of Empire are united, the opposition is not.

So, what I've been doing, partly as a personal journey, is getting at the underlying common values and trying to reconcile those economic differences. What I've found is that these supposedly intractable differences are really a matter of habit and aren't nearly as big of a hurdle as one might think.

Granted, there are still going to be libertarians like HM's unnamed deregulation advocate and liberals like, er . . . HM that are very attached to the New Deal era divide that separates liberals from libertarians.

I'm liking the exchange between you and Brian. I'd be pleased if you elaborated more on the not so intractable economic differences. Attempts to communicate with the other anarcho libertarians does give the impression that the differences are intractable.

'Empire' is a bit of a hot button word. I think I'm with you in effect, though.

I'd suggest that foreign intervention, like economic intervention, ought not to be simplified into a simple dial that can be tweaked to less, tweaked to more, or pegged to none. One should look at each proposed intervention independently, with a standards applied such as 'all other methods tried first' and 'only if absolutely necessary.' I believe it is in everyone's but the tyrants interests to reduce the impact of failed states, but no one should underestimate how difficult and expensive it can be to modify a culture at gunpoint. It is not a trivial exercise.

Originally Posted by independent

Hyperbole? Let's take a look at reality. The reality created in our name, with our money, for our "common good."
....

This is not an abberation. This is not all Bush's fault.

This is not a legitimate government or the "will of the people." This is how thugs run an empire.

Forget your apologetic delusions. Or keep preaching to your choir - it doesn't really matter because the past has already been written and the future doesn't belong to you.

Thank God that not only anarchists find these things disgusting because as you point out -

Is there a plan to implement anarchy? Please don't tell me about absurd...

Of course there's no plan. What are we going to do, run for office and force our ideas on everyone? Run propaganda campaigns to convince everyone to think like us?

No. Liberty and anarchy aren't plans or platforms or systems.

They're the natural reaction to illegitimate government. They're an observation about the direction technology and evolution have been driving humans toward. Its an awareness of the shifting political trends and the failure of imperial homogeny. It looks at humanity and says: "I see more good than bad - and most of the bad is seeking power over another's free will."

- because typically, after the disgust, today's anarchists don't do much other than click their collective heels together and hope their magical utopia will just appear. It takes others to make something ACTUALLY happen, to pursue and terminate these idiocies and criminality - sometimes at great cost.

When it comes to discourse with an anarchist, I think that's what gets to those who recognize some sort of government is always going to be with us and one has to fight within that context in order to get good things done or to keep bad things from being done.

Its just a little too damn easy to sit back and just carp about government as the root of all evil.

Originally Posted by playwrite

- because typically, after the disgust, today's anarchists don't do much other than click their collective heels together and hope their magical utopia will just appear. It takes others to make something ACTUALLY happen, to pursue and terminate these idiocies and criminality - sometimes at great cost.

When it comes to discourse with an anarchist, I think that's what gets to those who recognize some sort of government is always going to be with us and one has to fight within that context in order to get good things done or to keep bad things from being done.

Is it really anarchists in general, or just many of those on this board? I don't much visit other political sites.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

The libertarian stubbornly clung to the idea that deregulation never happened. The proof is that we still have some government regulations over things having to do with the economy.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. Most libertarians tend to look at the so-called deregulation as it occurred within a context of State capitalism; that is, there was a transfer of State-granted power from one illegitimate entity to another. The move toward a free market* was illusory.

*I know haymarket likes to flip out at definitions, but the term free market is pretty clearly used incorrectly by conservatives (edit: and liberals).

Matt - I realize that the discussion I was referring to did not happen here and you have to rely on my account of it, but honestly, that was the position of the libertarian. It was not an oversimplification.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

from Independent

"illegitimate government".... a perfect and most timely illustration of the over the top hyperbole and meaningless usage of words which are intended to have the same reaction as crying fire in a crowded theater.

Seriously, dude, you don't need a dictionary to figure out what independent is trying to say. He thinks that the United States government is currently illegitimate. It is more than (in the words of Brian Rush) "just plain bad," as it lacks the moral justification for its current existence.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, the natural reaction to government that we judge to be "illegitimate" (or, more accurately, just plain bad) is to implement better government.

This only works if better government is legitimate. This conceptual anarchist would dispute that, but I'd certainly prefer better government to worse government.

Let me amend that: this is the natural reaction of grown-ups, who are aware that government is needed, equally aware that it can go sour, and thus in conclusion aware that at times matters need to be corrected.

Anarchy may well be a natural reaction among children who haven't learned that lesson yet, or who insist on denying it despite all evidence of reality.

*Sigh*

Statism is a tendency that is inherently childish. People desperately cling to the idea that there can be such thing as legitimate command and subordination, and what's more, that they (provided they are not Presidents or Senators) are the ones who are rightfully in that subordinate, obedient position. Such children actively deny that they can manage themselves without overseers and regulate their own lives. In America, statists latch onto the blanket of tax, war, and inflation-funded welfare, security, etc. while ignoring the plights of others (namely foreigners) whose suffering funds their continuing prosperity.

(See how easy that was? Now can we get back to the real debate?)

(And yes, Americans tend to only look at the consequences of policies as if America wasn't a rapacious empire. I don't think there is anything childish about cursing the whole damn system and pushing for radical change.)

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Matt - I realize that the discussion I was referring to did not happen here and you have to rely on my account of it, but honestly, that was the position of the libertarian. It was not an oversimplification.

If your account is accurate, (and this is why I'm skeptical) then your libertarian would appear to deny that there can be such a thing as actual deregulation if there is not total deregulation. But this is clearly false. I'd say most forms of what has historically been called deregulation actually wasn't, but I can easily imagine government pulling back in some areas and having the effect be de-regulatory. It just tends not to happen.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

This only works if better government is legitimate. This conceptual anarchist would dispute that, but I'd certainly prefer better government to worse government.

You must certainly recognize that yours is a minority opinion, Matt. I was referring to the natural impulse of most people. Most people recognize that government is necessary. Thus, if the government incurs criticism for its behavior, the natural impulse is not to do away with it, but to replace it with a better government.

I would add that the use of the word "illegitimate" to describe such things as the Iraq war or the Vietnam war (from the pictures in Independent's post) is a misuse of language. The legitimacy of the U.S. government comes from popular support. Unfortunately, both the Iraq war and the Vietnam war had popular support in their early stages. Stupid, wrong-headed, immoral, and against American ideals as I believe they should be conceived, those wars were/are. Illegitimate, they were/are not.

Statism is a tendency that is inherently childish.

Matt, you're never going to get anywhere with that. To deny reality is childish. To cling to what one wants, in the face of what must be, is childish. Government must be. The state must be. Force and coercion must be. Even in a hunter-gatherer band that has no need of a formal state, informal means of coercion are still applied to make sure everyone does his/her job and that order is kept. In groups too large for everyone to know everyone else personally, formal government of some kind is required, and in any society as large as a city-state, that formal government must take the form of a state.

To object to this on the grounds that one doesn't like the idea of being in a subordinate position is, in effect, to throw a temper-tantrum.

Now, that certainly doesn't mean we must accept the state as it currently exists. It most decidedly doesn't mean that matters cannot be improved. But it does mean that abolishing the state is not an option that can work in the real world. This is so obvious that it has always amazed me anyone can ever deny it, and the only way I can see that anyone manages to, is through the natural human tendency to believe what one wants instead of what is manifestly and obviously true. And that tendency is, although not confined to children, inherently childish.

Matt
I do think that was his position - a decrease in government regulation is not deregulation because some regulation still persists. Over and over again people attempted to explain that the popular term 'deregulation' meant a decrease in government regulation - thus 'deregulation' was a shorthand term. But it did not good to explain that.

from Matt on Fruitcake

Seriously, dude, you don't need a dictionary to figure out what independent is trying to say. He thinks that the United States government is currently illegitimate. It is more than (in the words of Brian Rush) "just plain bad," as it lacks the moral justification for its current existence.

Then let him say it then.

And let him define what he means by "illegitimate".

And let him support his opinion with facts, evidence and analysis.

And let him defend himself against shoddy posting techniques which fail to do any of these things.

It's Libertarians with attitudes like this that make me hate them:

Telling her mother that she wanted to come to the aid of a library under attack, 11-year-old Sydney Sabbagha stood at the podium before the Oak Brook village board.

"I used to go to the library knowing there were people there to help me find a book. Now there is no one to help me," Sydney said solemnly. "It will never be the same without the people you fired."

Sydney nestled back into her seat, but that didn't stop 69-year-old criminal attorney Constantine "Connie" Xinos from boldly putting her in her place.

"Those who come up here with tears in their eyes talking about the library, put your money where your mouth is," Xinos shot back. He told Sydney and others who spoke against the layoffs of the three full-time staffers (including the head librarian and children's librarian) and two part-timers to stop "whining" and raise the money themselves.

"I don't care that you guys miss the librarian, and she was nice, and she helped you find books," Xinos told them.

"Don't cry crocodile tears about people who are making $100,000 a year wiping tables and putting the books back on the shelves," Xinos smirked, apparently referencing the fired head librarian, who has advanced degrees and made $98,676 a year. He said Oak Brook had to "stop indulging people in their hobbies" and "their little, personal, private wants."

Sydney was upset and "her little friend was in tears" after Xinos spoke at the meeting last week, says mom Hope Sabbagha.

"I wanted that kid to lose sleep that night," a grinning Xinos says Wednesday, as he invites me for a nearly two-hour interview in his Mercedes-Benz in the gated Oak Brook community where he lives. "This is the real world and the lesson, you folks who brought your kids here, is if you want something, pay for it."

Xinos, who unsuccessfully sued to stop the building of the new library, which opened in 2002, sits on one side of the issue. He lost his election bid to be a village board member, but has been president of his home association since 1983 and worked to elect board members who agree with him about the library.

On the other side sits Barbara Benezra, the longtime president of the Friends of the Oak Brook Public Library, who considers the library "my third child."

"This is the heart of the village," Benezra says as she tours the library and surrounding gardens under a sign sporting a Cicero quotation reading, "If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need."

"We don't have a grocery store," Benezra says. "We have this."

While Benezra acknowledges the need for some budget cuts at the library, given the recession, she says, "There's always been a faction of this town that's been anti-library."

The librarians, who stereotypically remain hushed for this story, obviously feel a bit threatened. They have turned to the Teamsters for some labor help.

Teamster librarians in Oak Brook? Mercy.

"We get good contracts for all kinds of professionals," says Brian Rainville, executive director of Teamsters Joint Council 25, which oversees 100,000 Chicago-area Teamsters, from pharmacists to zoo keepers.

"They have given us petitions," Village Manager David Niemeyer says of the Teamsters. "Assuming they do become certified, we'll have to negotiate with them."

Other village employees are unionized and the village works out contracts with them.

"Everybody thinks Oak Brook is rich and has all kinds of resources, but we don't," Niemeyer says. "Oak Brook has very low taxes and that's a point of pride in this town."

Begun as a volunteer effort in 1961 with donated books, the library occupied a small space in village hall until it moved into an old school two years later. It stayed there until the village built the new library.

The library is a village department funded by the general fund, same as the police, fire department and public works. It has no taxing power. Its budget comes from the village, and much of that money comes from sales tax, as there is no property tax. And sales at the mall and other businesses are down.

"We're probably going through what a lot of towns are going through," Niemeyer says of the budget cuts. "None of these things are easy."

It's not complicated for Xinos.

"You may like the library, but when you call 9-1-1, you want a policeman or a fireman before someone to tell you where the books are in the library," says the man who has talked of privatizing, outsourcing or even closing the library.

"I understand that my philosophy is conservative," Xinos says, adding that government just needs to catch bad guys, put out fires, fix the streets and make sure buildings are sturdy.

He campaigned, successfully, against a plan to bring subsidized housing for seniors into town by declaring, "I don't want to live next to poor people. I don't want poor people in my town."

A poor kid who grew up in Berwyn and worked in his dad's cafeteria in Chicago, Xinos went to law school and served in the Marines. Xinos says he speaks for Oak Brook's view of the Teamsters when he says, "Nobody here likes those kind of people."

Xinos, who says he never had children in part because he wasn't sure he'd be able to support them, sprinkles the F-word throughout his conversations. He dismisses a recent library event involving dogs with a blunt three-word rant in which he bookends swear words around the word "that."

That attitude doesn't represent the silent majority in Oak Brook, who support the library, Benezra says.

"There's been no discussion on the village board about closing the library," Niemeyer notes. "There is great pride in our library. We have an outstanding library."

What the library will look like in the 2010 budget depends on Xinos, Benezra, Teamsters, librarians, the village board and the people of Oak Brook.

This Xinos freak can got to hell!

Odin - if this Xinos idiot wants to go to hell, fine. What I object to is his making a hell on earth for others not as fortunate as he is. The good news in that article was that he lost when he ran for a position as a village board member. I have long felt that real libertarians generally do not make both good candidates for public office or public officials. Its like putting somebody who hates and campaigns against the eating of meat in charge of the kitchen at a steakhouse.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I think modern liberals have a tendency to react to the mythos of classical economic liberalism a la Adam Smith.

Certainly.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The idea that an economy can self-regulate and serve liberal ends in doing so has been clearly disproven by history.

I would amend this to say that the typical capitalist economy has shown itself to be incapable of doing so.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Self-regulation will not serve to ensure high wages, good working conditions, or other labor needs, nor will it suffice to protect the environment or to husband resources, nor even to ensure product quality and safety where the data are too complex or obscure to permit full disclosure, as in the case of food safety, medicinal drugs, or car safety.

At least some of these issues could be addressed by a market process. For example, if the corporate form were weakened, it would make self-employment more viable which in turn would make low wages and poor working conditions extremely difficult to maintain. Environmental protection could be achieved by, for example, extending the concept of riparian water rights into air quality.

I guess you could refer to a properly functioning body of civil law as more or better regulation. But, alas, then it would be liberals, not libertarians, who were departing from the common definition of a term. Regulation is presently used to refer to rules set and enforced by some sort of government agency, divorced from the rest of the legal system.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We do not want to replace the market with central planning for that purpose -- this is another thing that's been proven by history to be ineffective. But aside from that, it's hard to see how we can have "too much" regulation.

Bad or wrong regulation is a different subject.

The concern inherent in the Intervention Dial concept is that if you have a lot of rules, the number of bad ones will almost certainly be greater. But, this too is misleading. I think the process by which rules are formed and enforced will have a much greater impact, long term, on whether the rules have flaws. Thus, the reason to disfavor regulatory agencies is not because they're making lots of rules but because their centralized and often unaccountable nature makes them more likely to make bad rules. That's why I favor emphasizing and reinvigorating civil law which has the benefits of case-by-case flexibility, citizen input via juries and the learning effect gained from case precedent.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I would amend this to say that the typical capitalist economy has shown itself to be incapable of doing so.

While that's obviously true, there are reasons inherent in a competitive system to believe that a major departure from the typical capitalist economy would also not be able to do that. More below.

At least some of these issues could be addressed by a market process. For example, if the corporate form were weakened, it would make self-employment more viable which in turn would make low wages and poor working conditions extremely difficult to maintain.

Historically, the loss of viable self-employment occurred because of improved methods of agriculture and industry, although it was facilitated by government action. Self-employment when that was the norm consisted of small family farming, small independent manufacturing (blacksmiths, potters, furniture makers, weavers, etc.), and small service businesses such as doctors, lawyers, etc.

In manufacturing, division of labor as in Adam Smith's classic example of the pin factory multiplied output (augmented further by powered machinery when that came along) with the result that independent small manufacturers could not compete. There was a time when all furniture was hand-made. Today, almost none is. That's not primarily the result of state action through legal structures such as corporate law, although obviously that, the Enclosure Acts in Britain, etc. all contributed. It's primarily the result of technological progress rendering sole-operator manufacturing obsolete.

In farming, much the same sort of thing happened with farm machinery replacing human labor and rendering farming capital-intensive. Family farms cannot compete with big agribusiness except in specialized niches.

The service sector is the only one where small-scale self-employment remains viable. Whether I stay in insurance or become a writer, I'm likely to end my life self-employed that way, although I'm not at present.

Because of all this, I don't think there is any simple legal/governmental way to restore self-employment as the norm. It might happen through further automation progress, eliminating manufacturing jobs as farming jobs have been eliminated and driving almost everyone into some sort of service work. However, if the privileges of capital ownership are not curtailed in some way, that transition could make UNemployment, rather than self-employment, the norm. (And then of course the economy would totally crash because maldistribution of wealth would be even worse than it is now.) In any case, we're not there yet; manufacturing jobs have been exported rather than eliminated.

Certainly there is no way to go back to what existed before.

Regulation is presently used to refer to rules set and enforced by some sort of government agency, divorced from the rest of the legal system.

Correct; but the problem of using the legal system/resolution of conflicts to resolve the problem -- I'm taking you to mean the civil legal system rather than criminal law -- is that in many cases there is no competitive interest that is hurt worse by environmental irresponsibility than anyone else. A factory belching out toxins into the air hurts the factory owner and his family every bit as much as it does the other people living in the area, but the factory owner gets the benefit of this action in lowered costs/increased profits, so he's motivated to do it anyway. The whole community might have standing to sue the factory owner, but what one person does? And if the whole community is doing it, then in effect you have criminal law. (Regulation is basically a subset of criminal law. It doesn't have the same protections of rights and presumption of innocence as criminal law because it also doesn't have the same penalties, and it can be appealed to the legal system.) This is even more clearly true when what you're talking about is not something obvious and whack-in-your-face like polluted air that turns the trees black and that you can smell, but something like fish depletion or global warming.

Fish depletion is a perfect example of what I'm talking about and how competition can hurt an economy, not just help it. Overfishing reduces future yields for everyone, including the fisherman doing it. But there's still a competitive incentive to overfish, because if you don't do it and the other guy does, he'll have more fish to sell this year and either undercut your prices or have more capital to invest next year when it's harder to get the same yield with the same equipment. Overfishing is a smart decision by one fisherman in competition with others, even though it's a very dumb decision by all fishermen. And so regulation is necessary to preserve the resource.

Now I'll agree that there are some instances where husbandry would be helped by privatizing/individualizing certain things, e.g. the forestry industry. The practice of the government owning forests and leasing them to timber companies encourages unsustainable forestry practices of a type you don't see on privately-owned timber land. But this can only go so far, and mostly it would serve to correct really stupid and venal practices now in place.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Matt, you're never going to get anywhere with that. To deny reality is childish. To cling to what one wants, in the face of what must be, is childish. Government must be. The state must be. Force and coercion must be. Even in a hunter-gatherer band that has no need of a formal state, informal means of coercion are still applied to make sure everyone does his/her job and that order is kept. In groups too large for everyone to know everyone else personally, formal government of some kind is required, and in any society as large as a city-state, that formal government must take the form of a state.

Well, my point was calling the other position childish (even if it's true!) isn't going to get us anywhere. Personally, I found it aggravating.

But I still haven't understood why you seem so convinced that the State must be if a complex society is to function reasonably well. If it were so obvious (as you state below), I would hope that I could recognize my error after some illumination.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Seriously, dude, you don't need a dictionary to figure out what independent is trying to say. He thinks that the United States government is currently illegitimate. It is more than (in the words of Brian Rush) "just plain bad," as it lacks the moral justification for its current existence.

The Congress and Senate of the United States are popularly elected. Are you claiming that popular elections in and of themselves are illegitimate or that these elections have become illegitimate (perhaps due to Diebold-style electronic systems or somesuch)?

Statism is a tendency that is inherently childish. People desperately cling to the idea that there can be such thing as legitimate command and subordination, and what's more, that they (provided they are not Presidents or Senators) are the ones who are rightfully in that subordinate, obedient position.

How can you go through life without being in a situation where you are legitimately subordinate to someone? You were subordinate to your parents, other adults in your neighborhood (assuming they gave a shit), your teachers, your bosses, etc.

Such children actively deny that they can manage themselves without overseers and regulate their own lives.

Some people can't manage their own affairs, whether you like it or not, due to mental and physical disability. The compassionate thing for anyone to do is to step in and take charge. Use some friggin' common sense.

In America, statists latch onto the blanket of tax, war, and inflation-funded welfare, security, etc. while ignoring the plights of others (namely foreigners) whose suffering funds their continuing prosperity.

You're only partially right here, and that's what's so infuriating. I don't care about being taxed. It is not particularly onerous to me to pay money into the commons. I care about what the money is used for.

(And yes, Americans tend to only look at the consequences of policies as if America wasn't a rapacious empire. I don't think there is anything childish about cursing the whole damn system and pushing for radical change.)

It is naive to expect that real social needs are going to be taken care of to any significant extent without some level of taxation.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Well, my point was calling the other position childish (even if it's true!) isn't going to get us anywhere. Personally, I found it aggravating.

All right, point taken.

But I still haven't understood why you seem so convinced that the State must be if a complex society is to function reasonably well.

I've tried to explain this before. It comes down to the fact that at least a large minority, and perhaps a majority, of people would be assholes if they thought they could get away with it. Thus, every human society has to have coercive restraints to keep those people who would otherwise be assholes aware that they can't get away with it.

That's just part of the human condition, but in a small, simple society the coercive restraints can be handled by something less formal than a state properly so called. A big man, patriarch, council of elders, or spiritual leader get most people to follow them through whatever characteristics the band admires -- intelligence, vision, spiritual insight, charisma, physical prowess, or some combination -- and under his/her/their direction the band enforces the rules. That's not a state, but it DOES have the main characteristic that you seem to dislike about a state, namely its coercive nature and enforced authority/subservience. Yet without it, people who want to be assholes would think they could get away with and thus would do it.

A state per se is only required when a society reaches a certain level of complexity in which each person doesn't personally know everyone else. Or maybe a little beyond that, depending on how you define "state." Is a tribal government a state? Usually it's not considered one, although it's more formal than what you find in a small hunter-gatherer band.

Cities, on the other hand, always have states. They have to, because the informal "let's follow John because he's big, strong, and smart" won't work when too many people don't know John from Adam. So there has to be some mechanism whereby perfect strangers can be persuaded that John's rulership is legitimate. What that mechanism is has historically varied a lot. "John should be king because his father Bill was king." "John should be consul because the noble council all voted that he should be consul." "John should be president because we held an election and he won."

And of course societies bigger than cities also need states. A state is the formalization of the coercive structure that has always existed informally in even the most primitive human society.

So I guess when you say "Why do you say a state is necessary?" I have to ask for clarification. Are you asking why a coercive/authoritarian structure of some kind is needed in human societies, or are you asking why large and complex human societies need to formalize that coercive/authoritarian structure as a state?

However, I think I've answered both questions here.

from Matt

But I still haven't understood why you seem so convinced that the State must be if a complex society is to function reasonably well. If it were so obvious (as you state below), I would hope that I could recognize my error after some illumination.

You believe because you want to believe. No amount of "illumination" is going to change or alter that belief if you still want to cling to it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That's just part of the human condition, but in a small, simple society the coercive restraints can be handled by something less formal than a state properly so called. A big man, patriarch, council of elders, or spiritual leader get most people to follow them through whatever characteristics the band admires -- intelligence, vision, spiritual insight, charisma, physical prowess, or some combination -- and under his/her/their direction the band enforces the rules. That's not a state, but it DOES have the main characteristic that you seem to dislike about a state, namely its coercive nature and enforced authority/subservience. Yet without it, people who want to be (deleted expletives) would think they could get away with and thus would do it...

Good post, Brian.

I'll add that the above broad structure is part of human nature. Man, among other things, forms groups, defends territories, selects leaders and enforces rules. Such genetic tendencies are broad and subject to much variation. Horse nomads, for example, don't generally have permanent territories as most cultures would understand them. Still, certain behaviors were cost effective during pre-history.

Ours isn't the only possible balance of emotions. One could propose another race that has no urge to select leaders, that has no urge to use force to defend territories or resources, that does not form groups, etc... Fish and birds form schools without any particular fish being the leader. Many species avoid conflict through speed or camouflage rather than forming defensive groups and wielding weapons in defense.

But it doesn't make sense to expect humans to stand idle when the rules are being broken, territories trespassed upon, or resources seized. Some representative of the People is apt to show up and explain the rules, and he is apt to have a bunch of people standing behind them, and there might be weapons present or available if necessary. I also wouldn't expect the rules to be always fair. If he is a Nazi and you are a Jew, the same rules won't apply to everybody. Man has a tendency to treat those from other groups very poorly.

Now, I would support rules that attempt to minimize coercion. The rules change over the centuries, and one might easily believe they are improving. Not all ideas proposed by the libertarians should be summarily rejected.

But, using Brian's formal terminology, humans are programmed to be (deleted expletives), and thus are and ought to be programmed to restrain (deleted expletives).

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Some people can't manage their own affairs, whether you like it or not, due to mental and physical disability. The compassionate thing for anyone to do is to step in and take charge. Use some friggin' common sense.

True, but most people can. It is offensive for someone to step in and take charge when their intervention is unnecessary. This can cause far greater damage, since if you treat people like children, they tend to act like children.

The anarchist observes that all states use force against far more than just the miscreants in society and thus it does a poor job of achieving its intended goal. Now, some states are clearly better than others and it seems that the more say that people have in governance the better the outcomes are. As a state gets more "voluntary" or "democratic" it not only gets less oppressive, it becomes more like the ideal envisioned by anarchists.

Maybe we can never get all the way there -- where force is wielded only against the wicked -- but that's definitely a worthy goal.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's primarily the result of technological progress rendering sole-operator manufacturing obsolete.

Keep in mind that the form new technology has taken is partly shaped by the institutions that fund their development. If centralization is subsidized, then capital goods will tend to be larger as well and those larger systems will be "efficient" for the institutional environment they occupy. Also, new technologies (especially 3D printing) are allowing for much smaller manufacturers, faster retooling, etc. The trend away from sole-operators is not necessarily permanent and is probably just a brief episode in the history of industry.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The whole community might have standing to sue the factory owner, but what one person does? And if the whole community is doing it, then in effect you have criminal law.

How about class action suits?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Fish depletion is a perfect example of what I'm talking about and how competition can hurt an economy, not just help it.

There are many clear examples of private fisheries conservation. Lobster fishing in the New England area is largely self-regulated. Resource depletion is the primary reason that you create property rights and in the case of access to a commons, the property right is conditional -- you are limited to actions that do not impede the access of others.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Now I'll agree that there are some instances where husbandry would be helped by privatizing/individualizing certain things, e.g. the forestry industry. The practice of the government owning forests and leasing them to timber companies encourages unsustainable forestry practices of a type you don't see on privately-owned timber land. But this can only go so far, and mostly it would serve to correct really stupid and venal practices now in place.

This is an example I would have given myself. It seems to me that a lot of discussion of resource management gets hung up on the public/private distinction and there is a lot of ideological attachment to one or the other. It's also irrelevant, since the really important distinction is individual versus collective organization. Both are optimal in particular circumstances and not in others. Unfortunately, many people (including a lot of libertarians) conflate collective organization with state-run.

For example, there are a lot of cases in fisheries management where parceling up the sea as if it were farmland would either lead to overfishing (if the plots were too small) or privileged access (if the plots were too large). The better system involves defining when and where people can fish, having docks refuse to buy fish that are too young, etc. In other words, having rules founded in the common interests of all those accessing the resource may be more effective than individualized ownership. Such an agreement can be reached, and managed by, the fishermen themselves. A legal system is needed to help enforce their agreement but there is no need for a state agency and many reasons to fear that a government agency could stray from their common interest.