Originally Posted by Justin '77

I defy you to find a single example of any of those things happening (on any scale) without the mutually-intelligible communication that grammar enables.

I can't find any of those things happening on any scale without the human digestive system operating, either. That doesn't mean the disgestive system is responsible for them being done.

We are talking about governing systems. Language may be a necessary condition for a governing system (or it may not; other social primates don't have languages), but it is not a sufficient one. The point is that a formal government -- a state -- is necessary to do this on any scale larger than a forager-hunter band. The existence of English, or any other language, is (obviously) not a refutation of this claim.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We are talking about governing systems. Language may be a necessary condition for a governing system (or it may not; other social primates don't have languages), but it is not a sufficient one. The point is that a formal government -- a state -- is necessary to do this on any scale larger than a forager-hunter band. The existence of English, or any other language, is (obviously) not a refutation of this claim.

Actually, the assertion you made was that, " informal control/cooperation systems aren't unstable on a large scale, they just plain don't work at all, period. On a large scale, no such systems exist or operate..."

Language is one of many examples that immediately come to mind of just such nonexistent/nonoperational systems.

Now, if you wanted to argue -- as you seem to be doing with the digestive system (which, by the way, is a slight, but significant definition-shift in the concept 'system') -- that language itself does not do anything, that would be a legitimate point.
Of course, I would turn right around and point out that systems of governance don't do anything, either. No system does anything. Systems are merely frameworks in which things get done by the people or groups of people that use them. And, contra your assertions, it is the informal systems which have the true resilience -- likely because, unlike the formal ones, they are infinitely (at least relatively speaking) adaptable and located constantly right on the level of feedback and reaction.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Language is one of many examples that immediately come to mind of just such nonexistent/nonoperational systems.

Actually, your use of it as such an example proves either that you don't know how to use the language in question, or that you don't know how to do so honestly.

This is ridiculous, Justin. I refuse to flatter it with any further discussion. If you want to continue, offer something that deserves to be taken at least halfway seriously.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Perhaps you mean that the methods of coercion have become less crude over time, less physical and more monetary, and without the gruesome torture punishments of bygone epochs or, in many cases, without capital punishment at all? But that doesn't make things less coercive. What matters about a penalty is how effective it is at shaping behavior, not how gruesome and terrifying it is.

I think it does make things less coercive. For example, having habeas corpus makes it much more likely that one can avoid unjust punishment. That is but one example of a definite decrease in coercive power. In many cases, there is an inverse relationship between the effectiveness of a penalty and it's gruesomeness.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Nor do I see social welfare systems breaking down. Why do you say that's happening?

Particular parts of our social welfare system are experiencing escalating costs, but that's not the biggest issue. The financial system is probably most important, given how centralized it is -- and it has become even less competitive as a result of the bailouts. The global financial system has the trappings of a market system, but has many command features that are coming to dominate it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Also, in regard to your last sentence above: informal control/cooperation systems aren't unstable on a large scale, they just plain don't work at all, period.

Justin has made a decent counterargument to this. At the very least, this statement is too strong.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

On a large scale, no such systems exist or operate, as they depend on personal contact and people knowing each other.

Ah, but not everyone has to know everyone else in a network, they just have to know the people they directly connect to. So, a network can theoretically contain an infinite number of people. Lack of trust is the reason violent shortcuts are instituted. As technological and social development increases our ability to gauge trust and rate people's reliability, that lack of trust will diminish and the perceived need for coercive measures will diminish.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I think it does make things less coercive. For example, having habeas corpus makes it much more likely that one can avoid unjust punishment. That is but one example of a definite decrease in coercive power.

Let's examine what's meant by the word "coercive." It seems to me that you and I are not using it in quite the same way. What I mean by "coercion" is the shaping of behavior by the use of punishments to deter undesired behavior. (Sometimes reward can also be coercive but set that aside for now; we're talking criminal law so we're talking punishment.)

There's nothing in there about whether the punishment is just or unjust. A system of perfect justice would be better and more humane in a number of ways than a system of arbitrary despotic whim, but no less coercive. As long as the system is using punishment to deter undesired behavior, it is coercive.

In many cases, there is an inverse relationship between the effectiveness of a penalty and it's gruesomeness.

I agree. Or I think I agree. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on both our parts, though.

Anyway, the point I was making is this. The Roman Republic punished treason by permanent exile. Elizabethan England punished the same crime by hanging, drawing, and quartering. Hanging, drawing, and quartering is a much more severe and awful penalty than exile, but exile is still a penalty, and so both nations were attempting (equally) to coerce people into not committing treason.

Are you talking about social welfare or the financial system? They are not the same thing and should not be confused.

Justin has made a decent counterargument to this.

Justin made an absurd counterargument to this. Sorry, but he's refuted nothing.

At the very least, this statement is too strong.

I don't think it is. Informal systems of control don't exist except over small groups of people who all know one another personally. They do not work at all in any context the size of a city or larger. Even over a tribe they require some degree of formalization.

We still use such systems of control over many groups within the nation. For example, we have an informal system of control over this discussion board. There is the authority of Craig, and also the ability of people to request changes in behavior from others. There is no formal government as such. Similar informal systems work in families, in groups of friends, in clubs organized around an interest, in churches, and so on. All of these are very much like the governing structures that used to exist in forager-hunter bands. That level of governance still exists and still operates, but because we now operate collectively at levels much larger than this, we must also have a state -- not to replace the informal band-level governance but to supplement it.

Ah, but not everyone has to know everyone else in a network, they just have to know the people they directly connect to.

Even a network requires coercive structures to prevent abuse. The Internet, for example, is subject to overarching criminal law as regards fraud, identity theft, etc. precisely because it is too large to trust all participants.

As technological and social development increases our ability to gauge trust and rate people's reliability, that lack of trust will diminish and the perceived need for coercive measures will diminish.

I see no sign that anything of the sort is happening even incrementally.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, your use of it as such an example proves either that you don't know how to use the language in question, or that you don't know how to do so honestly.

This is ridiculous, Justin. I refuse to flatter it with any further discussion. If you want to continue, offer something that deserves to be taken at least halfway seriously.

Incorrect. He could also be freely choosing not to do so honestly.

There might also be a values lock involved, where acknowledging your world view would force him to reevaluate his. Many are totally unable to reevaluate their own world view, or at least will contort logic, evidence and even grammar before really thinking through whether their way of viewing the world works.

I'd bet on the values lock. Diverting the conversation from issues at the center of his perspective would seem like an effective tactic.

Whatever. Probably not a good idea to discuss Justin's motivations. It remains the case that asserting that we don't need government because people are able to talk is beyond preposterous. Talk about your reality disconnect . . .

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Informal systems of control don't exist except over small groups of people who all know one another personally. They do not work at all in any context the size of a city or larger.

So, you've chosen to simply ignore the counter-example? Very Boomerish of you

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This is ridiculous, Justin. I refuse to flatter it with any further discussion. If you want to continue, offer something that deserves to be taken at least halfway seriously.

Redefining one's context to exclude contrary arguments isn't really a healthy tactic. The fact remains that, as I pointed out above, your claim to the inherent inferiority of informal systems in large groups is solidly demolished by any number of examples of truly long-running successful informal extremely large-scale systems. And the fact that no formal systems even approach the success of those informals is just icing on the cake.

...asserting that we don't need government because people are able to talk is beyond preposterous...

Actually, I'm not the one who asserted the necessity (or lack thereof) of government as being inherently tied to the stability of one type of system. That's been the statists' argument here. I just pointed out that, even were one to accept the logic of that argument to be legitimate, the facts do not support the oft-repeated premise underlying it -- that formal systems arise because informal systems cannot work. In fact, the larger the scale, the more likely it seems to be that only a system with an increasing degree of informal-ness will succeed...

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I don't think it is. Informal systems of control don't exist except over small groups of people who all know one another personally. They do not work at all in any context the size of a city or larger. Even over a tribe they require some degree of formalization.

We still use such systems of control over many groups within the nation. For example, we have an informal system of control over this discussion board. There is the authority of Craig, and also the ability of people to request changes in behavior from others. There is no formal government as such. Similar informal systems work in families, in groups of friends, in clubs organized around an interest, in churches, and so on. All of these are very much like the governing structures that used to exist in forager-hunter bands. That level of governance still exists and still operates, but because we now operate collectively at levels much larger than this, we must also have a state -- not to replace the informal band-level governance but to supplement it.

We have been distinguishing between informal and formal states as if the degree of rigid structure is the determining factor. Looking at Craig's role of the internet forum moderator, one might see that pure size rather than the nature of the controls is a factor. The T4T forum has a modest size population of active posters. Craig can know them. If he decides to exile someone from the community, odds are he pretty well knows the exile's role in the community.

Can the same degree of knowledge and community exist on a forum run by a major corporation that encourages discussion on a wide variety of issues where the contributers come and go? I don't think so. At least, when I go swimming in the big ponds, the style of policing doesn't seem anywhere near as nuanced or understanding as Craig generally manages. Sometimes there are more rigid rules that are enforced with far less leniency or understanding. Sometimes there is anarchy in the chaotic sense, where there are no enforced standards of decency or decorum. If an enforcer is constantly dealing with people with widely divergent values and no sense of community, the enforcer is less a father trying to make his much loved children behave, and more a professional coercer defending the rules while having no sympathy for the perp.

This illustrates how it might not be the formality of the coercive mechanism but the size of the community alone becomes a problem. All forum moderators have pretty much the same technical options after all. However, in a larger community where not everyone knows everyone else... the style of enforcement often becomes different.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

We have been distinguishing between informal and formal states as if the degree of rigid structure is the determining factor.

No. Structure need not be rigid. The difference between an informal democracy exercised at the band level and the system for electing officials of the U.S. Government is that the latter consists of defined, formal procedures and written law. You need coercive systems regardless of the size of the group (unless the group is selected so as not to need them). A small group however doesn't need the same degree of formality.

Can the same degree of knowledge and community exist on a forum run by a major corporation that encourages discussion on a wide variety of issues where the contributers come and go? I don't think so.

I think you're right, and a more formal system of controls is probably needed on any such endeavor.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

So, you've chosen to simply ignore the counter-example? Very Boomerish of you

There's nothing to ignore. There is no counter-example. All that's been offered is a blatant absurdity. I'll engage you again when you start making sense. I know you're capable of it.

Boomerish? I'm a Boomer. What do you expect? You're still being ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Redefining one's context to exclude contrary arguments isn't really a healthy tactic. The fact remains that, as I pointed out above, your claim to the inherent inferiority of informal systems in large groups is solidly demolished by any number of examples of truly long-running successful informal extremely large-scale systems. And the fact that no formal systems even approach the success of those informals is just icing on the cake..

Really? A while back a lot of us on the 'statist' side were trying really hard go get some examples of successful anarchist communities. We eventually got a link to Wiki's List of Anarchist communities. A lot of them might be disqualified as examples to be followed. Some such as those in Spain during the civil war existed only because the state was suspended by strife. Some such as the pirate alliances clearly used coercion. They were criminal bands more than utopias. Some were tiny protest communities or communes that existed within the structure of an existing state.

The two I found as being good examples of anarchy in being were Iceland and Rhode Island. Rhode Island formalized into a state after a very short time. Both Iceland and Rhode Island were also isolated from competition with states. The Rhode Island native population had been decimated by disease. There were no strong hostile neighbors. Iceland was surrounded by a lot of very cold ocean.

I have been using Iceland and Rhode Island as examples of successful anarchies in spite of this. If you believe there are more such examples, I'd be pleased to hear of them.

I don't know about the other 'statists,' but the definition of a society 'working' might be the same one Brian proposed for 'legitimacy.' The community is able to keep an effective monopoly on use of force, and the bulk of other states recognize it. This likely wouldn't seem like a fair definition to you. I'm open to other criteria.

Still, the bulk of the world would be governed by 'legitimate' states under Brian's definition. I would measure the relative success of states against anarchic systems by that standard. It seems fairly clear that the states are winning at the moment, at least by that standard. I'd be curious as to what standard you would set that would support the success of informal systems not working under the shadow and protection of the formal systems.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Actually, I'm not the one who asserted the necessity (or lack thereof) of government as being inherently tied to the stability of one type of system. That's been the statists' argument here. I just pointed out that, even were one to accept the logic of that argument to be legitimate, the facts do not support the oft-repeated premise underlying it -- that formal systems arise because informal systems cannot work. In fact, the larger the scale, the more likely it seems to be that only a system with an increasing degree of informal-ness will succeed...

There are many many types of systems of government. Dividing the set of all ways that humans organize themselves into your way and everything else is kind of arbitrary. I would distinguish between hunter gatherer tribes, classical kingdoms, modern industrial democracies, with hope that we are still advancing towards something new. Within these broad categories, there is lots of room for variation. One might differentiate as Brian has between ancient agricultural kingdoms and trade oriented republics. One might distinguish in modern time between communist, fascist and democratic forms. Throwing all of the above together into one 'statist' clump doesn't reflect much in the way of nuance. It seems more a convenient way of attributing the flaws of one sort of society on another. It is a convenient structure for creating strawman arguments.

In addition to asking for successful anarcies, I have been asking for the sorts of incremental change that might be made to existing governments that might move societies in a direction more acceptable to the anarchists. I haven't been satisfied with the results. I do not see the existing states as perfect. I don't like coercion either. I see the current systems as illustrating how elites rule in the interests of the elites, rather than the people. I'd be pleased by practical suggestions that would help tug humanity towards a less coercive way of life, but the need I see most is for the People to have more ability to coerce the elites.

Thus, if mankind is truly drifting in the direction of less formal communities, I'd like a review of examples? Asserting something is so is one thing. Illustrating how it is so would be more satisfactory.

We are clearly not in the best of all possible worlds. Change is required and hopefully inevitable. However, the fact that we are not in the best of all possible world does not lead to the conclusion that the world that you imagine will be either better or possible.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Whatever. Probably not a good idea to discuss Justin's motivations. It remains the case that asserting that we don't need government because people are able to talk is beyond preposterous. Talk about your reality disconnect . . .

Oh, that's why you've responded in such a hostile manner to that argument. I was wondering what the deal with that was.

Let's break down the point:
1) Language has rules that people largely follow despite a lack of formal enforcement
2) Most languages encompass far more speakers than could possibly ever know each other
3) Therefore it's not true that rules cannot bind large numbers of people without formal enforcement

Now, that still leaves open the question as to whether governance can lack strong enforcement. Justin does not appear to be claiming that language proves that anarchy can work, rather he's just disproving your claim that rules binding large numbers of people require formal enforcement. (I.e. he's not proving his claim, he's falsifying yours.)

You might argue that language is different because people want to be able to communicate. However, people also want to be secure in their persons and possessions. You might counter that one could do the latter by being the toughest guy around. Sure, but -- key point here -- at that point you're no longer arguing that anarchic organization is categorically impossible, you are arguing that governance has special features that require violence to come into the picture. That's why I said your claim was too strongly worded.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Whatever. Probably not a good idea to discuss Justin's motivations. It remains the case that asserting that we don't need government because people are able to talk is beyond preposterous. Talk about your reality disconnect . . .

Yes, it is likely not best to talk of other poster's motivations. Still, you started it. ™

Still, values lock is a large part of the lack of communication. Few people are able to step outside of their own way of looking at the world. In conversations such as this one, this can result in weirdness as the two groups attempt to force their views of reality on each other. Understanding the nature of the weirdness might be as necessary to communicating as grammar.

On the global warming thread, there was an inability by some to accept the evidence of the peer reviewed scientific press. Here, I am having trouble inserting the empirical perspective of writers like Aubrey, Lorentz, and Grossman. My world view is at core empirical. One learns from observations of the world. Any theory we create that cannot be confirmed by observation or experiment is at best dubious. Communicating with people who are totally committed frameworks of logic that exist outside of the realm of empirical conformation is difficult for me. Generally, communicating with people with alien mind patterns is not a trivial exercise.

Yes. He was being preposterous... by your standards and mine. He makes a habit of it, and is not alone. To me, T4T theory is about how values and world views change over time. New values are proposed in the awakening, society adjusts to them in the crisis, while the new values are set in stone in the high. Truly understanding cyclical theory might require an understanding of how and why individuals seem preposterous and irrational to one another. That is at the core of why communications fails in the unraveling and crisis, why violence and other forms of coercion are so often required.

It is one thing to dismiss as irrational and unimportant the royalist belief in the divine right of kings, or the slave owner's willingness to risk his life for state's rights. It is another thing to be able to communicate with a modern libertarian or anarchist. All such conversations would be apt to include values locks. It's just that it is easier to find libertarians these days than royalists or slave owners.

At the same time it is the libertarians and anarchists who can perhaps most easily see the flaws in modern society. Blindly thinking that what has been will continue to be is a values lock problem too. Alas, I'm not content with just identifying the flaw. That's the easy part. Solutions? Much harder. As with Marx, I can sympathize easily with the flaws in modern society the anarchists and libertarians see. As with Marx, I am most dubious about the proposed solutions. It is fortunate that they have another generation or two before the next awakening. They have that much time to refine their message. At the rate they are going, they will need more time than that.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Also, in regard to your last sentence above: informal control/cooperation systems aren't unstable on a large scale, they just plain don't work at all, period. On a large scale, no such systems exist or operate, as they depend on personal contact and people knowing each other. A formal state emerged (by stages) because of this. That states can become unstable is true, but they remain better on a large scale than informal systems because they exist.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Gzzrblfrgh Wakkwakk5 Prsstgfsk'k'k&

...oh, do you only understand what I'm saying when I do it in english? That is, when I use an informal system with reach wider than any existing (or past) formal system? One which is both voluntary and participatory, and which utterly lacks the standardized monopoly adjudication and enforcement systems without which you and Bob (among others) keep asserting no system with over a handful of participants can possibly exist? The one that, in addition to out-sizing, has out-lasted each and every type of formal system?
Too bad no such thing can possibly exist, huh...

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Oh, that's why you've responded in such a hostile manner to that argument. I was wondering what the deal with that was.

Let's break down the point:
1) Language has rules that people largely follow despite a lack of formal enforcement
2) Most languages encompass far more speakers than could possibly ever know each other
3) Therefore it's not true that rules cannot bind large numbers of people without formal enforcement

Now, that still leaves open the question as to whether governance can lack strong enforcement. Justin does not appear to be claiming that language proves that anarchy can work, rather he's just disproving your claim that rules binding large numbers of people require formal enforcement. (I.e. he's not proving his claim, he's falsifying yours.)

You might argue that language is different because people want to be able to communicate. However, people also want to be secure in their persons and possessions. You might counter that one could do the latter by being the toughest guy around. Sure, but -- key point here -- at that point you're no longer arguing that anarchic organization is categorically impossible, you are arguing that governance has special features that require violence to come into the picture. That's why I said your claim was too strongly worded.

It seems to me that Brian's claim was made of control / cooperation systems, meaning formal states or informal communities, which is the topic of this thread. Justin provided language as a counter example. I would say language is a communications system rather than a control / cooperation system. It does not seem that Justin has clearly disproved Brian's claim. It does not seem that Justin's counter example is in any way relevant to Brian's claim.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

It seems to me that Brian's claim was made of control / cooperation systems, meaning formal states or informal communities, which is the topic of this thread. Justin provided language as a counter example. I would say language is a communications system rather than a control / cooperation system. It does not seem that Justin has clearly disproved Brian's claim. It does not seem that Justin's counter example is in any way relevant to Brian's claim.

That's hair-splitting. Language has rules and people follow them; they cooperate for purposes of communication. Brian did not specifically restrict his claim in this way, therefore my argument that it was too strong stands.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

That's hair-splitting. Language has rules and people follow them; they cooperate for purposes of communication. Brian did not specifically restrict his claim in this way, therefore my argument that it was too strong stands.

Brian? Could you clarify whether your claim about control / cooperation systems was meant to include languages? At a guess, as you have ridiculed that as preposterous, the answer would be no?

In which case, Justin and Kurt would be attacking a strawman position you never meant to assert?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Brian? Could you clarify whether your claim about control / cooperation systems was meant to include languages?

In order for the claim to not include languages would require a proviso to be added to the claim. That's why I said the claim was too broad.

Actually . . . I just read a later post where he specifically uses the word control, not social order or cooperation in general. That is sufficiently narrow to not be obviously false, and is probably the narrow sense in which Brian intended in the first place.

For me, that resolves the language dispute. More in my next post.

Leaving aside the dispute about language . . .

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Let's examine what's meant by the word "coercive." It seems to me that you and I are not using it in quite the same way. What I mean by "coercion" is the shaping of behavior by the use of punishments to deter undesired behavior. (Sometimes reward can also be coercive but set that aside for now; we're talking criminal law so we're talking punishment.)

There's nothing in there about whether the punishment is just or unjust. A system of perfect justice would be better and more humane in a number of ways than a system of arbitrary despotic whim, but no less coercive. As long as the system is using punishment to deter undesired behavior, it is coercive.

We are using it differently. Using your definition, anarchism does not advocate a society without coercion. I'm not sure what word you would prefer be used instead of coercion, nor can I suggest one off-hand.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I agree. Or I think I agree. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on both our parts, though.

Not really. If this inverse relationship weren't frequently true than all increases in liberty would be immediately followed by chaos and re-imposition of harsh controls. That many increases in liberty have stuck, suggests this is not merely wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Are you talking about social welfare or the financial system? They are not the same thing and should not be confused.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I don't think it is. Informal systems of control don't exist except over small groups of people who all know one another personally. They do not work at all in any context the size of a city or larger. Even over a tribe they require some degree of formalization.

By system of control, I presume you mean a situation where a person within the group who acts in a disapproved manner will face retaliation by others within that group. (As a corollary, the violator must be aware that this retaliation will occur. Obviously, if they don't know, the violator won't restrain their behavior to avoid retaliation, i.e. they wont be controlled.) It is also plainly obvious that the more people within a system of control the more formal the system.

However, the objections leveled against the state are not an attack on how formal it is. Rather these objections are justice considerations. For any system of control, there are numerous questions that can affect how just it is:

* Under what circumstances can one enter or leave the system of control?
* Who within the system is allowed to administer retaliation?
* How are disapproved behaviors determined?

The anarchist argument essentially points out the various ways in which states fail to answer these questions in a manner consistent with our small scale sense of justice. The anarchist is frequently accused of objecting to control systems in general, but this is a confusion borne both of bad terminology on the anarchist side and a failure of imagination on the statist side. As I mentioned up-thread, it is entirely possible that any sufficiently advanced government is indistinguishable from anarchy.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

{Informal} governance still exists and still operates, but because we now operate collectively at levels much larger than this, we must also have a state -- not to replace the informal band-level governance but to supplement it.

However, the state does frequently replace or damage those functions anyway which is something which should be discouraged.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I see no sign that {diminished coercion} is happening even incrementally.

That would follow from your definition of coercion. Let me try to phrase my claim without using that term.

Really, what I'm arguing is that our ability to construct social systems whose large scale interactions conform to our sense of justice is increasing. Alas, the human sense of justice evolved for relatively small groups of people and we haven't been particularly successful in scaling it up so far.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

However, the objections leveled against the state are not an attack on how formal it is. Rather these objections are justice considerations. For any system of control, there are numerous questions that can affect how just it is:

* Under what circumstances can one enter or leave the system of control?
* Who within the system is allowed to administer retaliation?
* How are disapproved behaviors determined?

The anarchist argument essentially points out the various ways in which states fail to answer these questions in a manner consistent with our small scale sense of justice. The anarchist is frequently accused of objecting to control systems in general, but this is a confusion borne both of bad terminology on the anarchist side and a failure of imagination on the statist side. As I mentioned up-thread, it is entirely possible that any sufficiently advanced government is indistinguishable from anarchy.

I did note the crimson phrase when you used it in a prior post. It reminded me of a science fiction phrase, "any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic." Alas, the followers of any sort of social system or government style might think "advanced" means something different. I would like to see more justice. I don't know that my approach towards approaching justice would much resemble anarchy.

Obviously, different states answer your three questions differently. The right to leave and return to one's own country is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the right to enter any country is not. A democracy typically has the legislative branch defining the crimes, with the executive branch enforcing and judicial branch judging. Messy. Definitely formal. Facing the council of elders across a hunting band's campfire might have its advantages and disadvantages. It would depend on the elders. Some think having rule of law rather than rule of men a good thing.

Are those answers for your three questions acceptable to you? If you have a demand for justice, do you have a definition of what justice is, objective enough that a nation aspiring to be just has a target to shoot at? Obviously, defining what justice is would be a controversial work in progress. I think the authors of the Universal Declaration were taking a stab at it. Are the anarchists formal and unified enough to have a similar document? Like pornography, is it harder to define justice than to recognize injustice when you see it?

For me, one of the big problems with existing justice is ruling elites setting up the laws in a way to favor the ruling elites. Not a trivial problem.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Actually . . . I just read a later post where he specifically uses the word control, not social order or cooperation in general. That is sufficiently narrow to not be obviously false, and is probably the narrow sense in which Brian intended in the first place.

I have been using the word 'community' to describe a group small enough that no formal structure would be required, such that the community wouldn't and shouldn't be counted as a state. Early Iceland and Rhode Island have been the two examples I've been using. I read Brian's phrase "informal control/cooperation systems" to mean the same thing. His claim as I understand it was that small anarchist communities like Iceland and Rhode Island can't be scaled up.

Your statement that "the human sense of justice evolved for relatively small groups of people and we haven't been particularly successful in scaling it up so far" seems to say something similar, though you are clearly expressing more hope for the future than Brian's "informal control/cooperation systems aren't unstable on a large scale, they just plain don't work at all, period".

I would like to have hope for the future. "Scaling it up" would be a nice goal. I don't know that it will be at all easy for the very reason you mentioned.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

That's hair-splitting.

It is NOT hair-splitting. We're talking about governing systems -- not just any old systems with rules. Language is not government. The existence of language on a large scale is not a counterexample.

This is totally obvious, self-evident, and common-sense. I cannot BELIEVE that Justin is actually STUPID enough to believe otherwise; he isn't stupid in fact, therefore I don't think he DOES believe it.

Which means he's being dishonest, which I can't respect.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Using your definition, anarchism does not advocate a society without coercion.

OK, but that gets back to the three questions I asked Matt quite a while back. One is "Do you advocate a society without coercion?" The answer to this determines what question is asked next. Since you have answered "No," the next question is, "What system do you advocate to apply coercion on a large scale so as to replace the state? And in what sense would whatever this system is, not BE a state?"

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Social welfare generally consists of the provision of services such as health care by the state at a socialized cost, or the direct transfer of wealth from wealthier to poorer people. The financial system consists of currency, banks, etc. They are completely different systems. You asserted that social welfare was breaking down, I asked why you believed that, and you responded with statements about the financial system. The financial system IS breaking down which is the immediate reason we're in the mess we're in (although not the underlying cause). I see no reason to think social welfare is breaking down, though.

By system of control, I presume you mean a situation where a person within the group who acts in a disapproved manner will face retaliation by others within that group. (As a corollary, the violator must be aware that this retaliation will occur. Obviously, if they don't know, the violator won't restrain their behavior to avoid retaliation, i.e. they wont be controlled.) It is also plainly obvious that the more people within a system of control the more formal the system.

Exactly.

The anarchist argument essentially points out the various ways in which states fail to answer these questions in a manner consistent with our small scale sense of justice. The anarchist is frequently accused of objecting to control systems in general, but this is a confusion borne both of bad terminology on the anarchist side and a failure of imagination on the statist side. As I mentioned up-thread, it is entirely possible that any sufficiently advanced government is indistinguishable from anarchy.

If that's true, then what is being advocated is not anarchy by definition. Why not call for an improved version of the state which does a better job of administering justice? Nobody is going to object to that except the corrupt. I certainly cannot say that the state in its current form can't be improved -- jeez, no self-defined progressive would EVER say that; being a progressive implies to the contrary. But the anarchist position seems to me to be that the state cannot be reformed and must instead be abolished.

Really, what I'm arguing is that our ability to construct social systems whose large scale interactions conform to our sense of justice is increasing. Alas, the human sense of justice evolved for relatively small groups of people and we haven't been particularly successful in scaling it up so far.

As you point out, though, we've approached success more and more.

I'm not sure I entirely agree in any case. A civilized, state-governed society is in many respects an improvement over precivilized, stateless life even in the state's primitive stages. However well a band's informal justice system worked within the band itself (which surely varied from band to band), it didn't work worth a damn when members of one band encountered members of another. The normal system of "justice" in precivilized times was the personal vendetta or feud. The death toll was horrific, outstripping the violence of civilized times even when you factor in (as you should) the state-sponsored violence, especially civilized war, that ratcheted up in civilized times.

But there's no denying (and no desire to deny) that states have exhibited some degree of corruption from the beginning and still do -- too often they serve the interests of the privileged rather than of society as a whole. As it impacts anarchism (and libertarianism to a lesser degree), this gives rise to two questions:

1) Can civilization exist without a state?

2) Can the state be rendered incorrupt?

The answer to question 1 is, I would say, a clear and obvious "no." The answer to #2 is that corruption probably can't be completely eliminated but things can be improved a great deal.

What anarchists (and, to a lesser degree, libertarians) seem to me to have done, is to answer the second question in the negative, and because of this insist through wishful-thinking that the answer to the first MUST be in the affirmative. Unfortunately, it's not.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I just pointed out that, even were one to accept the logic of that argument to be legitimate, the facts do not support the oft-repeated premise underlying it -- that formal systems arise because informal systems cannot work. In fact, the larger the scale, the more likely it seems to be that only a system with an increasing degree of informal-ness will succeed...

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It is NOT hair-splitting. We're talking about governing systems -- not just any old systems with rules. Language is not government. The existence of language on a large scale is not a counterexample.

This is totally obvious, self-evident, and common-sense. I cannot BELIEVE that Justin is actually STUPID enough to believe otherwise; he isn't stupid in fact, therefore I don't think he DOES believe it.

Which means he's being dishonest, which I can't respect.

I'm a little more willing to give Justin the benefit of the doubt. A little. Not much. Just a little.

Wiki has a List of Soverign States. It is a rather long list. It also has a list of languages, an even longer list. I'll suggest that the vast majority of humans are associated with (are subjects of, citizens of or whatever) at least one formal state. I'll suggest that the vast majority of humans speak at least one language.

However, there is no one to one correspondence between languages and states. There are languages that are spoken in multiple states, and states where multiple languages are spoken.

From this, it might be possible to imply that humans in the current situation on this planet tend towards informal language and formal governance.

Wiki also has a List of Anarchist Communities. It is a shorter list. Many communities on that list were small, and no longer exist. One cannot assert that under current conditions, man tends to form anarchist communities.

Thus, given the data available, given the current circumstances, man tends overwhelmingly to use informal language structures and formal states. Thus, what one learns about the formality of language structures shouldn't be expected to tell us a lot about states. If one studies language, one shouldn't really expect any conclusions to apply to states.

***

One might propose that publishing a dictionary places a formal structure on language. One might propose that large states, large populations, and commerce spread over large areas make controls such as dictionaries and mean nuns wielding highly coersive rulers might count as formal. Professional writers also generally encounter professional editors who maintain standards in a way that might or might not be considered formal.

I'd suggest this level of coercion and enforcement of rules is much less formal than governance. I'm not really out to make a last stand on the issue of languages being as formal as states.

Yet, if I see one of my posts on this formum with a grammar or spelling problem, I do hit edit. I don't entirely respect poorly written posts, and thus try to get my own posts right. Not following The Rules of language does loose one status.

I'd still think language ought to be considered informal, but more formal than it once was in the time before the printing press.

Bob, the simplest way of dispensing with the entire nonsensical "point" is to make an appropriate substitution in Jefferson's line about how the fact a man believes in many gods or in none neither picks his pocket nor breaks his leg. The same is true of people who do not follow rules of grammar, spelling, or syntax. Hence the complete lack of need to have rules backed by coercion in this area.

Just the same, it's obvious that many people DO break rules of grammar, spelling, or syntax, so that if it were the case that this sort of malfeasance did pick people's pockets or break people's legs, the current state of anarchy in regard to language would be intolerable, and the fact that many people DO follow the rules would not protect us from the harm done by those who don't.