from pbrower

Maybe Corrections/penology would be a good new thread -- and we might get some experts interested.

Good idea. I would be happy to join in.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

The thread was shut down for abusive profanity according to the webmaster. You were the guilty party. If you disagree with that it should be easy for you to look over the thread and show which parties were more guilty using abusive profanity that you were.

It was shut down for profanity and vitriol. I'm not crazy about collective punishment. We lost the active red - blue thread. While there was a lot of junk on that thread, there were still some interesting conversations going on around the profane and vitriolic posts.

I'm not too worried about you and the other the small d democrats going profane. (Well... I'm am happy that 'miscreants' and 'jerks' seem to have replaced (expletive deleted) as a technical term in this conversation.) Still, could everybody watch the vitriol? If the troll hypothesis is correct, vitriol would be a reward rather than a punishment for being a miscreant acting outside of the rules and social norms. While I disagree with the anarcho liberarians, there is a place on the boards for this thread. Wouldn't want to lose this one too.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This is more true of complex regulation. One of the most effective forms of regulation and also one of the simplest is confiscatory taxation on the very rich. Libertarians usually oppose taxation because they see it as theft. But taxation of the very wealthy is not theft in the sense that libertarians care about.

To see this one needs to consider what is money/wealth? For most people money has four broad applications that make it desirable: (1) security (2) freedom, (3) fun (4) status.

Money provides security because if you have enough of it, you don't have to worry about getting sick (you can pay the medical bills) or losing your job (you can live on the interest) or other financial mishaps of life.

Money can provide freedom because you can hire someone else to do tasks you don't want to do, freeing up your time to do what you want.

Fun and status are self explanatory.

The first three of these become saturated if you have enough money and so cease to have meaning. If you have enough money you will be covered against all mishaps and more money will gain you no more security. Similarly at some point you will be able to hire someone to do everything in your life you don't want to do and you have all of our time free time, if that is what you want. In this case, more money will not increase your freedom. The same is true of fun. There is only so much time and only so much fun you want to have. Once you have enough money to afford it all, more money will not grant you more fun.

So all that is left is status. For the very rich, the only value of money is for status. As Ted Turner put it, money is how we keep score.

But score is not absolute. What is better, to have 70 points in a basketball game when the other team has 100, or to have 7 points in a baseball game when the other team has 5? Most people would say the latter is better because with 7 points you are winning, whereas with 70 points you are losing.

And so we have it. Is Larry Ellison better off with $30 billion to Bill Gates' fifty, or with 5 billion to Bill's $3 billion? Larry is better off (i.e. he wins) whenever Bill has less than Larry, regardless of the absolute amount Larry actually has.

So if you pass confiscatory taxation on the very rich in an even handed fashion so that you do not affect their rank order, you will have taken nothing from them in terms of the enjoyment of their property. That is, their pursuit of happiness (the term Jefferson chose as a synonym for property in the Declaration of Independence) is unaffected.

That is, if one defines property as the "wherewithal with which one seeks the good life" taxation of the very rich takes from them no property at all and so does not constitute theft in the same way as does taxation of the non-rich.

There is a caveat. Money/wealth/property is also power, particularly in a capitalist society. There is no saturation for power, more power is always better than les--for those who desire power.

Thus there is a fifth use for wealth, that correlates with wealth with no limit. Taxation of the very rich does reduce their power. That is, taxation of the very rich is theft of their power, that is, their ability to subjugate/enslave other men.

But libertarians are by their very nature, not particularly sympathetic to others' need to dominate, so why the distaste for taxation on the very rich?

I have some objections:

First, this argument exists in total isolation from any question of how income distribution comes about. The logic of the welfare state and progressive taxation is actually remarkably conservative, in that it tends to take income distribution as a given and then modifies to some "better" distribution. Alas, it's hard to come up with a coherent description of why a certain distribution is better without also arriving at a critique of how the current distribution came about. In the end, the logic of progressivism seems to be more about the desire of the wealthy to keep from being lynched than any real attempt to make economic relationships equitable.

That being said, the really amusing thing about this argument is that it not only justifies taxation of "status wealth" it implicitly denies the justice of taxing any other wealth. By this logic, a truly progressive tax code would be a 100% tax on income over a certain very high level (probably in excess of $250K a year) and maybe a small head tax on every else. Such a tax code wouldn't generate nearly as much revenue and moreover would be so politically unfeasible, you might as well push for things like IP reform and ending corporate personhood since those reforms would actually mitigate the formation of large fortunes in the first place. If you're going to advocate an uphill battle, at least strike at the root of the problem.

Also, the relationship between high income and coercion, while a positive correlation, is not perfectly regular. Some criminals are very much in the security zone, yet derive their income wholly from coercion. Some people gain wealth well into the fun and status range but whose reliance on privilege is entirely indirect. The reason that redistribution makes people unhappy is that many people with high incomes aren't fully aware of how much benefit from the state they enjoy.

So, ultimately, I'm not enthusiastic about progressive taxation because it's poor strategy. As can be readily seen from recent history, progressive tax systems cause the upper middle class to align politically with the very rich. Breaking that political link, where professionals and small businessmen are driven to protect the privilege of the elite, requires adopting language and policies that don't provoke hostility among them.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Matt, it comes down to a few questions. Would the stateless society be one in which a coercive mechanism applies to keep people from being assholes?

All societies, anarchic and not, have coercive mechanisms to maintain peace and prosperity.

If yes, then a different question follows. One reason why complex societies require states (i.e., formal coercive structures as opposed to informal ones) is because when you impersonalize coercion it becomes more dangerous and potentially unjust. A state has mechanisms built into it to try to prevent that or at least reduce it. How would you prevent your stateless coercive structure from becoming a tyranny?

I'm not sure why you think that the tendency in anarchy is toward tyranny in the first place. Historically speaking, statelessness often emerges from civil war, government failure, economic collapse, etc., so it's not surprising that you fail to get desirable results. These forms of anarchy are often transitional periods on the road to someone else taking power. If anarchism is to be somewhat successful, then one of two things probably would have to happen in the early days after the fall of the State: 1) People who actually desire power would be unable to establish their monopoly of force for whatever reason; and 2) People would actively reject the supposed need for a ruler. Somalia would be an example of the first; anarchist Spain would be an example of the second.

If the world is trending toward political decentralization, then there are going to be more and more examples of anarchism that is functional and is not characterized by extreme violence. If there is some stabilization, then I do not think the tendency is toward tyranny because there are various forces that regulate the balance of power -- namely us. There are a lot of market anarchists who have written extensively on how market processes (provided there is a rational value input from the vast majority, i.e. peace and prosperity) actively resist the slide into cartelization, tyranny, and despotism. Social anarchists tend to focus almost exclusively on these cultural values, thinking that it will become apparent that a "functional" anarchist "system" is so obviously better than a "functional" state system that falling back into statism isn't a real possibility.

If you don't think they're OK, then I don't see your thinking as remotely realistic, because those sorts of arrangements have prevailed in every stateless society that has been stable.

What? I'm making a normative claim, so it doesn't matter if these societies have historically prevailed.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

(Much worthy stuff said in this post, but reposting it here at length doesn't seem necessary. Thus... snip.)

Any improvement is worthwhile. It's difficult to predict when that total anarchist revolution will happen. Until then, I'd like weed to be legal.

I'm enough of a believer in turning theory to think that revolutionary values shifts are not easy to implement anywhere, not just under the American system. The firmness with which people cling to their values on these boards is a symptom of human nature.

If an anarchist revolution will happen, it would be at an awakening, or more likely a crisis. The new libertarian values being proposed would have to be fairly clearly highly relevant to address the most pressing problem the culture faces at the time of the awakening.

Since anarchist values were not a big feature of the last awakening, it isn't surprising that getting them implemented this crisis would be unlikely to impossible.

Where I'm at, what is done or not done during the remainder of the current crisis will shape the next awakening. The crisis ending policies shape the rigidly enforced new normal of the high. (If you don't like coercion, I suspect you aren't going to care for the high. Highs tend to be rather rigid in locking down the new normal.) The obvious flaws the new prophets see while they are growing up in the rigid high will shape the awakening, which will in turn shape the following crisis. It is too soon to my eyes to predict what these flaws might be. I shall of course guess anyway.

Obama to date is working with Wall Street more than he is seeking a thorough balance of power shift that would favor Main Street. If this continues, libertarianism could plausibly be a contending value set come the awakening. On the other hand, I'm not seeing the ecological perspective being pushed firmly yet, either. Lack of resources, global warming and other ecological issues might seem more important to the next generation of prophets.

Thus, I see two plausible major dialectics, without excluding the possibility of others. The first is the eternal conflict between the ruling elites and the common man. Libertarians, marxists and small 'd' democrats might all in their own way advocate for the common man, but the theories the diverse theories and values implied by these world views will lead to different proposed solutions.

The other dialectic might be between utilizing resources now to get the most pleasant short term life style as opposed to establishing sustainable long term use of resources. Historically, I see greed as having a perpetual advantage over responsibility. By the time we approach the next awakening, however, Malthus might not be so easy to ignore.

The two dialectics do not seem incompatible. One might combine them under a theme of responsible and equitable resource utilization. I anticipate a conservative faction that would want to maintain irresponsible life styles opposing a progressive faction that would advocate for the common man and / or the long term.

It might not be until well into the high that we can see which set of problems, which dialectic, economic or ecological, will more blatantly require action. One of them might become central to the values of the new awakening. The other might or might not merge as also being important. There were certainly multiple related issues addressed in the last awakening.

I remain dubious about the natural right to not be coerced. Again, I perceive man as a social animal. Men form groups that select leaders, make rules and defend territories. In these things he is not different from many other animals, notably other pack hunters. I perceive the supposedly natural right to not be coerced as being unnatural. Pack hunters require teamwork, discipline and a solid resource base. Modern man requires the same things. Societies that reject such things are not apt to be able to compete with those who maintain them. Any social structure derived from an assumption that denies that these things are central and important is apt to be inhuman. Idealistic assumptions do not always lead to stable societies.

Further, both the elite / common dialectic and the immediate use / sustainable use dialectic involve a human tendency to hoard and utilize resources for individual and group use. A theory of human society that doesn't account for humans forming possessive coercive groups just wouldn't address the problems before us.

But to the extent that some anarchist might propose meaningful practical implementable steps to advocate for the common man over the elites, as you do on occasion, I'm good with it.

In some states, you might even get your pot.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I remain dubious about the natural right to not be coerced.

To clarify, I think I said we have a natural right to not be aggressed against. It's the statists who are assigning this coercion stuff to anarchists.

Again, I perceive man as a social animal. Men form groups that select leaders, make rules and defend territories. In these things he is not different from many other animals, notably other pack hunters. I perceive the supposedly natural right to not be coerced as being unnatural. Pack hunters require teamwork, discipline and a solid resource base. Modern man requires the same things. Societies that reject such things are not apt to be able to compete with those who maintain them. Any social structure derived from an assumption that denies that these things are central and important is apt to be inhuman. Idealistic assumptions do not always lead to stable societies.

Humans do a lot of things; some good, some bad -- after all, we are rational agents. (And please don't take that the wrong way. I'm describing cognitive capabilities when I use the word rational, not what we actually do.) Fortunately, that rationality equips us with a moral sense and freedom of choice, which is why we may, and ought to, reject aggression. At the risk of repeating myself, you have to be very careful when describing human action as natural or unnatural.

But to the extent that some anarchist might propose meaningful practical implementable steps to advocate for the common man over the elites, as you do on occasion, I'm good with it.

In some states, you might even get your pot.

Like I said, most of that stuff is off the table, so I actually think it's less practical than working outside the state.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

All societies, anarchic and not, have coercive mechanisms to maintain peace and prosperity.

Very well, then we run into my second question of how your stateless society would prevent those coercive mechanisms from being abused in an unjust manner. I know that you see states as committing precisely this offense, and they sometimes do, but at least there are rules to try to keep them from doing so and it's reasonable to believe that those rules do reduce the incidence of injustice. A stateless society, if indeed it does include coercive mechanisms to maintain peace and prosperity, would lack those rules and be more unjust. In fact, it's hard to see how to distinguish it from a dictatorship.

I'm not sure why you think that the tendency in anarchy is toward tyranny in the first place. Historically speaking, statelessness often emerges from civil war, government failure, economic collapse, etc., so it's not surprising that you fail to get desirable results.

Actually those are the only incidences of statelessness that we have in a civilized setting. As they are the only examples we have to go on, I reasoned from them by induction. If you want a theoretical explanation for why I believe that anarchy leads to tyranny, here's what I can give you:

1) Absence of an effective state in a civilized setting leads to abuses by private power.

2) Abuses by private power move people to support the reestablishment of a state.

3) More often than not, the reestablishment of a state occurs through the arise of a charistmatic Big Man who gains a following and uses it to impose his rule by force. This is, after all, the simplest way to establish a state and the one people generally resort to in an emergency.

Somalia would be an example of the first; anarchist Spain would be an example of the second.

Somalia is an example of chaos, and if it remains in a stateless condition it is simply because it has devolved into localized rule by warlords. I don't think it is anything worth emulating. I have no knowledge of what you're referring to as "anarchist Spain." When was Spain without a state? Please clarify this.

If the world is trending toward political decentralization, then there are going to be more and more examples of anarchism that is functional and is not characterized by extreme violence.

One would be sufficient to meet that criterion, as there are no such examples to date. I also would dispute your premise. I don't think the world is trending towards political decentralization at all; if anything, I see it as trending the other direction, towards international and eventually global governance.

Social anarchists tend to focus almost exclusively on these cultural values, thinking that it will become apparent that a "functional" anarchist "system" is so obviously better than a "functional" state system that falling back into statism isn't a real possibility.

There are no examples of a "functional" anarchy that I'm aware of. If you think that Somalia qualifies as "functional," then all I can say is, no thanks! Perhaps you can clarify this, too.

What? I'm making a normative claim, so it doesn't matter if these societies have historically prevailed.

Of course it does. You must in the end draw everything back to the real world, because even the clearest theoretical reasoning may be based on flawed assumptions. We cannot know everything, and so cannot rely on reason without checking the results against reality.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Somalia is an example of chaos, and if it remains in a stateless condition it is simply because it has devolved into localized rule by warlords. I don't think it is anything worth emulating. I have no knowledge of what you're referring to as "anarchist Spain." When was Spain without a state? Please clarify this.

I believe he was referring to some communities that openly called themselves anarchist during the Spanish Civil War. I consider this to be a time when normal government had been dissolved by a war emergency. Thus, until there was a victor, there were natural pockets of lawlessness, some of which weren't all that miserable.

Still, I don't think many would want to start a civil war in order to enable small anarchist communities, and the Spanish anarchist communities got absorbed into the new state as soon as the conflict ended. They wouldn't scale up. They couldn't last.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

There are no examples of a "functional" anarchy that I'm aware of. If you think that Somalia qualifies as "functional," then all I can say is, no thanks! Perhaps you can clarify this, too.

You might want to browse Wiki's List of anarchist communities. It's as good a place to start talking about what has existed, where it came from, and why it failed to spread or came to an end.

I would accept Iceland and early Rhode Island as plausible examples of functional anarchy, but they were fairly small communities with shared values and not too much ethnic or economic diversity. I don't believe they could have been scaled up. There are also some plausible examples of small communities that existed within the protection of a larger states that tolerated and protected them. Again, I don't know how to scale such examples to handle larger more complex societies.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Of course it does. You must in the end draw everything back to the real world, because even the clearest theoretical reasoning may be based on flawed assumptions. We cannot know everything, and so cannot rely on reason without checking the results against reality.

I would second this. Best of luck.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Spanish anarchist communities got absorbed into the new state as soon as the conflict ended. They wouldn't scale up. They couldn't last.

Take a walk around Barcelona and tell me the influence isn't still there Or walk around Bilbao and tell me they've fully given in to the centralized Spanish state.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In a lawless environment, the miscreant dominates, not because most people are miscreants, but because being a miscreant conveys competitive advantages that law is designed to counter.

There's that counter-historical asserting again!

This is a more generalized version of the rule, easily observed in history, that business sinks to the level of depravity the law allows.

You will note that you try to take a condition where people will sink to the level of depravity privileged by the prevailing laws as if it were somehow indicative of people's behavior in the absence of such privilege.
Do you see how that doesn't follow?

In fact, throughout the history of persons, one finds that the competitive advantage goes to the cooperative. That's why civilization arose and persists to this day -- it out-competed the alternatives.

Originally Posted by Odin

As opposed to the ideological fantasy that everyone will act ethically if the evil, corrupting boogyman of the state were gone?

Whose fantasy is that? I've never run into anyone so blind as to think that people under any system would be angels. So again (or still...), whoever you're arguing against, it isn't us...

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Humans do a lot of things; some good, some bad -- after all, we are rational agents. (And please don't take that the wrong way. I'm describing cognitive capabilities when I use the word rational, not what we actually do.) Fortunately, that rationality equips us with a moral sense and freedom of choice, which is why we may, and ought to, reject aggression. At the risk of repeating myself, you have to be very careful when describing human action as natural or unnatural.

My perspective on humanity comes from works such as The Hunting Hypothesis, The Territorial Imperative, On Aggression and On Killing.

While these titles suggest a portrayal of man as a pretty sick species, in fact they generally dwell at great length on the emotional checks on all these behaviors. There is a balance in nature between a creature proving itself able to compete against members of its own species, and restraining from doing so. Excessive violence is not a survival trait. Species with the capability of violence generally have balancing instincts which restrain the use of violence.

As a liberal during the work up to to the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, I proposed that war should be used only as a last resort, when all other means have proven futile. This is entirely compatible with my understanding of animal instinct with respect to violence. Before two big male animals bash at each other striving for territory or breeding opportunities, they will generally put on displays showing off their size, strength, ability to make loud noise, etc. If one of the animals can put on a more effective display, there would be no violence. Aggression without restraint would not be passed down to future generations. The dead and badly injured don't breed.

A pack of animals confronting another pack fighting over territory faces similar problems of risk and opportunity. It is cost effective to control territory. It is not cost effective to use lethal force when it is not necessary. A tendency to weaken the pack without real need is not a survival trait. Giving up the territory required to sustain the pack isn't a survival trait either.

Thus, I have a different perspective on reason, emotion and morality than those coming from a Philosophical perspective. I agree one should be careful when describing human behavior as natural or unnatural. To me, this means one should study natural behavior a bit before expressing opinions on what natural behavior might consist of. Man is among many animals which have instincts or emotions which induce 'moral' behavior. To a great degree, the more deadly the animal, the more often an animal is apt to engage in conflict with its own species, the stronger the 'moral' instincts have to be. If man is a moral animal, it is because his nature is also shaped from a long history of engaging in deadly coercive acts.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

There's that counter-historical asserting again!

Really? Share with us, please, the history that you are claiming I'm asserting to the contrary of.

You will note that you try to take a condition where people will sink to the level of depravity privileged by the prevailing laws as if it were somehow indicative of people's behavior in the absence of such privilege.
Do you see how that doesn't follow?

I do not. The only way it could fail to follow, is if zero were somehow qualitatively (rather than just quantitatively) different from all other numbers. Reducing the prevailing laws to some level still greater than zero permits more depravity. Why should we not expect that reducing the laws to zero would permit all depravity physically possible?

In fact, throughout the history of persons, one finds that the competitive advantage goes to the cooperative. That's why civilization arose and persists to this day -- it out-competed the alternatives.

Civilization did so through the mechanism of the state -- or at least, there is no counter-example. The success of cooperation did not arise spontaneously; the cooperative enacted coercive structures to forbid anti-social competition. Or at least some anti-social competition; alas, the process has never been perfect. In the absence of such coercive structures, partial or total, it's as I said: ruthlessness conveys competitive advantage.

Even packs of wolves have clear structure and hierarchy. Complexity mandates some structure, and whether it comes with rigid rules or ad hoc improvisation it precludes anarchy. Whether the hunters rely upon brute force and three-inch canine razors or such devices as spears and arrows, one weaker hunter cannot dispatch a buffalo alone, whether the hunter is lupine or human.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

One Gilded Age in America was one too many.

Other than perhaps fruitcake, no one here is advocating a return to that era.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

During the Guilded Age, there was an interpretation of the Constitution that alleged that Congress could not infringe upon private citizens signing any contract they please. This was interpreted to make any attempts at reforming the economy unconstitutional. Some anarchists (not you Kurt) seem to propose that all economic law should go away, which would essentially duplicate the Gilded Age environment in many respects. If so, the reforms of the New Deal era including the economic controls that subdued boom bust economies would go away. Use of private armies such as the old Pinkerton Agency might again define labor relationships.

Actually Bob, that description of the Gilded Age (where government had a neutral or hands off relation to the market) isn't accurate. The corporate form already existed, patent law already existed, exceptions to common law regarding pollution already existed, restrictions on the formation of labor unions existed, subsidized transportation existed, there were land giveaways and labor market distortions due to institutional racism. In short, libertarianism does not makes sense as, and shouldn't be viewed as, an attempt to return to some previous golden age.

Not that there aren't a lot of Constitutional Fetishists out there who think that all was fine and dandy until Lincoln/TR/FDR (pick one) came along . . . but that seems to be a dying view in libertarian circles. This belief is vestigial, a taint picked up from allying with conservatives for too long.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

You might want to browse Wiki's List of anarchist communities. It's as good a place to start talking about what has existed, where it came from, and why it failed to spread or came to an end.

Thanks. I did browse the list. Several things to comment:

1) One should not confuse economic collectivism, sexual equality, sexual liberation, or democracy with anarchy. The Wiki article sometimes seemed to be making that confusion.

2) With the exception of the Spanish communities, all of those listed seem to be precivilized or protocivilized rather than civilized, or else small enclaves within civilizations that are functionally equivalent to a protocivilized society. States as such are not required for life in precivilized or even protocivilized communities; I have never claimed otherwise.

3) It's unclear to me whether the allegedly anarchist Spanish communities during the Civil War were actually anarchic. There was no clear Spanish state as such, granted, but there seem to have been governments over regions that formed while the factions were fighting it out over who was to govern Spain as a whole. "However, some express disapproval at the methods of the anarchists, claiming that they executed those who disagreed with them." If that claim is true, then this represents a classic example of despotism forming out of statelessness. That this particular despotism seems to have pursued a radically egalitarian agenda doesn't make it any less despotic.

In short, I don't see anything in that list to persuade me that anarchy can work in a civilized setting.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Thanks. I did browse the list. Several things to comment:... (Snip)

In short, I don't see anything in that list to persuade me that anarchy can work in a civilized setting.

I tend to agree with you across the board. I'd accept your labels of 'precivilized or protocivilized' for places like early Iceland or early Rhode Island. I'd accept that such small homogenious groups can exist for a time without many of the features of the formal state. However, such examples seem to turn into states when one tries to scale them up. With the exception of Iceland they don't seem very stable.

I too am dubious about benevolent anarchy in the middle of the Spanish Civil War. As there was a war going on, there would have been a need for organization and discipline. I would have expected some sort of military structure that would have had to care about logistics and supply for civilian and military alike. At any rate, I doubt anyone would want to start planning for a future utopian anarchy based on the model of Spain in the late 1930s.

A similar argument might be made for the pirate states. That's warlord government with an approximation of military discipline. Pirates don't generally recognize any right to be free from aggression, so they don't make a great example of utopian anarchy.

Kurt:

You listed a number of institutions in your reply to Bob that, while they have obvious negative effects, also serve desirable purposes. Arguably, they are not the best mechanism for serving those purposes, but that raises the question of what they should be replaced by. Let's take them one by one. Please note that these are not rhetorical questions! I often agree with you about the unpleasant side-effects of these institutions, with really only one exception, and in some cases completely agree with no quibbles (and hence have not listed those), but where we partially agree the subject of replacement institutions becomes relevant.

The corporate form

This is a way to encourage investment in wealth-creation by reducing risk. As Ambrose Bierce put it, it's "an ingenious device to allow individual profit without individual responsibility." In the case of publicly-traded corporations, it's also a way to raise investment capital. Absent the corporate form, investment would be discouraged by comparison and the result would be a (relatively) depressed economy. If we agree that "individual profit without individual responsibility" is a net harm, what other mechanism would replace the lost investment capital?

patent law

The functionality of this is obvious: it encourages invention by guaranteeing a temporarily high level of reward to the inventor. Without it, there would be less incentive to achieve technical innovations and so progress would be slowed. Even if we see this as an overall boon (which I don't), it would still be a competitive deficit as long as other countries used patent law. What mechanism should replace patent law for the purpose of encouraging invention?

(Side note: this is really separate from a discussion of the abuse of patent law in which employers force employees to sign away their rights in any inventions created while working for the employer. Although that's a worthy subject of discussion, too.)

subsidized transportation

By facilitating nationwide trade, this encourages wealth creation overall. It also subsidizes at public expense something that results in a public good: availability of goods from other parts of the country, and individual travel. While I do understand that it encourages large-scale enterprise and so the concentration of wealth, it seems to me that lack of it would discourage these things mainly by depressing the economy, which strikes me as a poor trade.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Actually Bob, that description of the Gilded Age (where government had a neutral or hands off relation to the market) isn't accurate. The corporate form already existed, patent law already existed, exceptions to common law regarding pollution already existed, restrictions on the formation of labor unions existed, subsidized transportation existed, there were land giveaways and labor market distortions due to institutional racism. In short, libertarianism does not makes sense as, and shouldn't be viewed as, an attempt to return to some previous golden age.

During the Gilded Age, the US Supreme Court seemed to act as much like a legislature as a court. If a justice was appointed to the court, he was expected to push the agenda of the party that appointed him rather than strictly implement the Constitution. Yes, to some degree that still happens today, but during the Gilded Age it was very blatant.

Thus, a progressive will assert that the Supreme Court struck down many laws during the Gilded Age that would have been of great benefit to the worker. A libertarian or anarchists could assert that the Supreme Court allowed to stand many laws favorable to the industrial elites. Neither assertion would be wrong. The two assertions would not be in conflict.

I would suggest that there are on the books some laws that favor the working man, and some that favor the elites. I believe many liberals, libertarians, anarchists and even marxists would favor tilting the scales more towards the common man, and away from the ruling elites. If that would be accepted as a common goal, perhaps some pro ruling elite laws might be purged, while some pro working man laws might be kept or strengthened.

There seem to be two approaches to anarcho libertarianism. One starts with the status quo and proposes incremental changes. The other waits for the revolution to happen, at which point the state spontaneously vanishes to be replaced by utopia. I can deal with the incremental change approach. I can sympathize with a great many of the proposed incremental changes.

I can also understand how frustrated y'all might get by the incremental approach. Anarchist values are entirely in conflict with the modern main line culture. Given democracy, it won't be fun to bang repeatedly into a stone wall.

When I'm wearing my liberal hat, anarcho libertarians make me very nervous. They have allied with conservatives in the recent past. Their philosophy has meshed with the small government less regulation mantra of the unraveling era Republicans. I saw small government less regulation unraveling era Republicans relabel themselves as anarchists or libertarians when Voodoo Economics crashed and burned. Thus, I am more than a little paranoid about Voodoo economics being restored under the name of a new party or philosophy. Some libertarians were natural allies of the unraveling era Republicans, seemingly favoring the ruling elites over the common man. This taint makes me suspicious.

I get nervous about the all-in all-or-nothing idealistic revolutionary form of anarchism. There are good laws and bad laws. I'd kill the bad and keep the good. It's not like there is a single vector, where more laws or bad laws would be favorable or unfavorable. You have to look at things on a law by law basis. There is no single dial to be turned.

Progressives have from their perspective done a lot with government as a tool. An anarchist daydream about throwing it all away will look like a nightmare to a liberal. It doesn't much matter that there is absolutely zero chance of the daydream coming true in the foreseeable future. It still seems like a nightmare. Repeating the daydream aloud is not apt to win friends and influence people.

Thus, yah, I'd still feel more comfortable with a more incremental approach, where you might keep the good while killing the bad. And, yes, I know, the incremental approach isn't going anywhere any time soon. Then again, the revolution isn't starting tomorrow either.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

It is theft because they are the rightful owners of such property -- and they may use it however they please.

So you say. Who made you God?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

It was shut down for profanity and vitriol. I'm not crazy about collective punishment. We lost the active red - blue thread. While there was a lot of junk on that thread, there were still some interesting conversations going on around the profane and vitriolic posts.

I'm not too worried about you and the other the small d democrats going profane. (Well... I'm am happy that 'miscreants' and 'jerks' seem to have replaced (expletive deleted) as a technical term in this conversation.) Still, could everybody watch the vitriol? If the troll hypothesis is correct, vitriol would be a reward rather than a punishment for being a miscreant acting outside of the rules and social norms. While I disagree with the anarcho liberarians, there is a place on the boards for this thread. Wouldn't want to lose this one too.

I agree with Bob. This is a great thread. I strongly suggest that people ignore the trolling (hiding the posts does help!) and stay on topic.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

So you say. Who made you God?

I don't follow..

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Two libertarian objections to taxation on the very rich:

1) Taxation is theft,* and theft is immoral. This deontological principle trumps potential consequences of heavily taxing the rich.
2) Taxes fund the government, which is illegitimate, and this government commits atrocities at an alarming rate.

*It is theft because they are the rightful owners of such property -- and they may use it however they please. One caveat: it may be (not incorrectly, IMO) argued that existing property titles of the very rich are illegitimate, but I don't think this seriously damages my argument.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

So you say. Who made you God?

I'll second Mikebert's challenge. I quite believe you capable of creating an internally consistent theory of property, but if you want to assert that your theory is uniquely correct to the extent of having disproved all other theories of property, I'd like to see some sort of formal proof.

The libertarian argument about theft - when it applies to income - always ignores or sidesteps the reality that a person lives in a society of people and was only able to earn that money because of others. No man is an island entire unto himself.... and if you don't like the consequences of that what you need to get your own island and support it yourself or with people of like mind.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Thanks. I did browse the list. Several things to comment:

1) One should not confuse economic collectivism, sexual equality, sexual liberation, or democracy with anarchy. The Wiki article sometimes seemed to be making that confusion.

It was self-described anarchists who were most vocal about these issues in the 19th and early 20th century. What better, immediate, way to undermine the inherited patriarchy? Really though, anarchism or libertarianism is just an extreme form of liberalism, and its relative to the society it exists in. Yesterday's anarchist is today's conservative liberal (that's fun to say).

(historical aside: The word libertarian was actually first used in a political sense by an anarcho-communist, and it was in an 1857 letter defending radical feminism and attacking private profits.)

Many modern self-described anarchists are anarcho-syndicalists. They would replace the state and corporations with direction from democratic labor unions. Everyone involved in a particular economic activity would also be democratically involved with the management of it, and sectors would negotiate directly as conflicts arise. Its probably the most "thought out" version, but there's plenty of room to argue among self-described libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and anarcho-syndicalists. I think its especially problematic in a world where a $300 computer can function as productive economic capital.

I personally think that social-liberalism has been corrupted by materialism. Where living standards were once seen as a pre-requisite to liberty, many modern so-libs seem to see liberty in conflict with general wealth and welfare.

I'd like to see the liber back in liberal. Then we can talk about money and social welfare programs.

2) With the exception of the Spanish communities, all of those listed seem to be precivilized or protocivilized rather than civilized, or else small enclaves within civilizations that are functionally equivalent to a protocivilized society. States as such are not required for life in precivilized or even protocivilized communities; I have never claimed otherwise.

There are currents and veins of anarchism running through western societies, but no, nothing that resembles an idealistic utopia matching anarchist philosophy... Or communist philosophy, or social-democratic philosophy, whatever. Political philosophy has never, and probably will never, match reality. That doesn't stop us from creating them and becoming attached to them, and it doesn't stop them from influencing the course of societies across time.

3) It's unclear to me whether the allegedly anarchist Spanish communities during the Civil War were actually anarchic. There was no clear Spanish state as such, granted, but there seem to have been governments over regions that formed while the factions were fighting it out over who was to govern Spain as a whole. "However, some express disapproval at the methods of the anarchists, claiming that they executed those who disagreed with them." If that claim is true, then this represents a classic example of despotism forming out of statelessness. That this particular despotism seems to have pursued a radically egalitarian agenda doesn't make it any less despotic.

There were definitely specific bands organized under an anarchist banner. Yes, they were radically egalitarian, and they were also at war with what they saw as a foreign, fascist, and theocratic invader. Orwell signed up with an anti-Stalinist communist party, but the various parties/armies often cooperated against the fascists when they're not fighting each other. In chapter 8, Orwell muses that he should have joined the anarchists instead.

In short, I don't see anything in that list to persuade me that anarchy can work in a civilized setting.

And I don't see anything suggesting that limitation invalidates a political philosophy. Like I said, we're not going to run propaganda campaigns, start wars, or try to impose our government on you. We will work on radically improving the rights and liberties of individuals - with or without help from the supposedly liberal party.