No government leads to people forming organizations...?
eventually leading to people forming organizations that might try to take resources from people?
thus leading to government?
Punishing criminals properly prevents statism.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
E. R. Olovetto: Punishing criminals properly prevents statism.
I guess what I'm saying is...what if a group of thugs got to gether had alot of firearms and started to try to steal some resources from others....
what if it turned into a huge group...a huge group of outlaw guerillas....
this could lead to a small protective government formed among the people....
this is probably how most governments got formed in the first place, no?
i dont know how often groups of people formed agreements to act in a way that wouldnt constitute a government.
if germans who fled the romans that ended up in northern portugal just said that field yours, this field mine....if nasty romans come we fight together, agree??...unga munga ok.
i wouldnt be surprised if there were instances of peacful coexistors around and then a travelling occupying govt comes along, kills the natives and violal!....we have government.
i guess if you consider statism (whatever you mean by that) criminal, yes.
but i dont know if you are equipped to determine what 'properly' is.
if you are personally being agressed against i guess you would take measures that seem necessary to you....i doubt you could go and determine that for others though.
It's the lack of a culture that promotes the individual's welfare as the highest good and self-responsibility that promotes the existence and growth of government. Until such a culture begins to form on Earth all attempts to nullify the State will be at best marginalized, at worse its parties murdered.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
33n119w: i dont know how often groups of people formed agreements to act in a way that wouldnt constitute a government. if germans who fled the romans that ended up in northern portugal just said that field yours, this field mine....if nasty romans come we fight together, agree??...unga munga ok. i wouldnt be surprised if there were instances of peacful coexistors around and then a travelling occupying govt comes along, kills the natives and violal!....we have government.
thats a good point....
there might be small governments that form to fight off other war bent governments....
"It's the lack of a culture that promotes the individual's welfare as the highest good and self-responsibility that promotes the existence and growth of government. Until such a culture begins to form on Earth all attempts to nullify the State will be at best marginalized, at worse its parties murdered."
i dont know. if you have a common language and dress and communicate ...i would consider that culture...and it very well may put the individuals welfare as the highest good.
"that field you...this field me, etc here, have some haggis...then leave"
self responsibility may take various forms not necessarily leading to a govt...except over oneself.
"attempts to nullify the State will be at best marginalized, at worse its parties murdered."
my view then would be to murder back as necessary and at the right time.
The question misses the point that free markets are always superior to statism, especially when it comes to reducing crime and serving justice. Statism becoming anachronistic is going to be a big part of there actually being a free market, so the question seems like a red herring to me. The conditions that make statism possible now will be practically non-existent in a highly decentralized, high technological (virtual reality and nanotechnology for all), highly networked free market of the future.
free paradigm blog ::: free paradigm on youtube
demosthenes: The question misses the point that free markets are always superior to statism, especially when it comes to reducing crime and serving justice. Statism becoming anachronistic is going to be a big part of there actually being a free market, so the question seems like a red herring to me. The conditions that make statism possible now will be practically non-existent in a highly decentralized, high technological (virtual reality and nanotechnology for all), highly networked free market of the future.
I understand that no government would be better than gov....
but, there might be people gathering together wheterh to protect themselves or whatever, that you might need to partake with...adn they might want to form a small "government"....and it starts out just taking donations....and then it becomes more mandatory....
maybe thats the human condition....if enough people are liviing together, government will eventualyl form....
limitgov: I understand that no government would be better than gov.... but, there might be people gathering together wheterh to protect themselves or whatever, that you might need to partake with...adn they might want to form a small "government"....and it starts out just taking donations....and then it becomes more mandatory.... maybe thats the human condition....if enough people are liviing together, government will eventualyl form....
If there will be no broad consensus with respect to which group or organization should be legitimately recognized as a government, then it will be extremely difficult for any particular self-proclaimed government to compel and enforce its decrees. Its activity would most likely be recognized as criminal.
limitgov, boldfaced text added: I guess what I'm saying is...what if a group of thugs got to gether had alot of firearms and started to try to steal some resources from others.... what if it turned into a huge group...a huge group of outlaw guerillas.... this could lead to a small protective government formed among the people.... this is probably how most governments got formed in the first place, no?
The essence of the state is that the population considers that it exists to be legitimate or necessary. The institution which you are describing does not seem to be an institution seeking to acquire such an image.
Lysander Spooner, "No Treason": But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
limitgov:maybe thats the human condition....if enough people are liviing together, government will eventualyl form....
Or maybe the formation of Government on Earth is a purely random outcome. Can you rule that out? Perhaps if we could go back and "do it again" things would turn out differently and we would all be living in a world characterized as ancap. How can you ever know? The problem here is that we do not have any alternate realities to look at to compare to what is happening here, which would then serve as a measuring stick for our analysis. So instead we have to satisfy ourselves with a priori reasoning. But if it is indeed random, what good is a priori reasoning?
Jorge A. Medina: limitgov:maybe thats the human condition....if enough people are liviing together, government will eventualyl form.... Or maybe the formation of Government on Earth is a purely random outcome. Can you rule that out? Perhaps if we could go back and "do it again" things would turn out differently and we would all be living in a world characterized as ancap. How can you ever know? The problem here is that we do not have any alternate realities to look at to compare to what is happening here, which would then serve as a measuring stick for our analysis. So instead we have to satisfy ourselves with a priori reasoning. But if it is indeed random, what good is a priori reasoning?
random, really? just this one reality?
Yeah, we only have this one reality to go by. And if we look back, people always form governments...
over and over again.....
limitgov: Yeah, we only have this one reality to go by. And if we look back, people always form governments... over and over again.....
Did all these incidences of formation of government occur in a vacuum relative to each other? If so, then perhaps you are right.
limitgov: demosthenes: The question misses the point that free markets are always superior to statism, especially when it comes to reducing crime and serving justice. Statism becoming anachronistic is going to be a big part of there actually being a free market, so the question seems like a red herring to me. The conditions that make statism possible now will be practically non-existent in a highly decentralized, high technological (virtual reality and nanotechnology for all), highly networked free market of the future. I understand that no government would be better than gov.... but, there might be people gathering together wheterh to protect themselves or whatever, that you might need to partake with...adn they might want to form a small "government"....and it starts out just taking donations....and then it becomes more mandatory.... maybe thats the human condition....if enough people are liviing together, government will eventualyl form....
You're confusing simple coercion (crime) with legitimized coercion (government). Also, you seem to believe that any organized defense entails legitimized coercion. A government is always a tiny minority of the population it governs. It is not the government's superior force that gives it power, since the people always have more force than the government does. The government's power derives from the moral legitimacy of its monopoly on law and force. So long as the public believes (moral belief) that government alone should have the privilege of producing law and security, the government is unassailable.
And, yes, the existence of even one government, especially a democratic government, is a threat to freedom everywhere. Hoppe says something to the effect that, in a private law society, crime insurance agencies would charge higher premiums in areas that are next to government-controlled territory. He reasons that government employees would likely be categorized, for crime insurance purposes, the same as other criminals... it would be difficult for a government employee to live in a decent neighborhood in free territory because no one would want to be neighbors with him because their premiums would go up.
What's amazing is that Somalia's recent history has really borne this conception out. In the aftermath of the collapse of the Barre regime, warlords took control of Somalia. The US tried to "correct" this "problem", through UN agency, via our involvement there during the early 90's. We got run out on a rail by Aidid culminating in our withdrawal after the tragic Black Hawk Down incident. For some time during the 90's, UN intervention in Somalia was extremely limited and the Somali economy began to heal, with education rates and nourishment increasing at an extremely rapid pace (check out PT Leeson's paper on this, Better Off Stateless). In 2006, Ethiopia, then, tried to invade but they were repelled. This resulted in a splintering of the ICU, and the new proto-governmental group called al-Shabaab.
The most recent battles over Mogadishu have been the result of -- surprise surprise! -- the attempt to impose a "real state" on Somalia from above, by the miserably underfunded AU and its "AMISOM" troops, mostly rerun Ethiopians who got their butts kicked out last time they tried to invade. After months of not being paid, some of the AMISOM soldiers have sold their weapons to buy food, which should give you an idea of the level of willpower the AU has in this mission. The al-Shabaab and other ICU groups smell blood in the water and the AU's meddling in Somalia has created a "capture the flag" atmosphere in Somalia... each group maneuvering itself to be in the best position to project governmental power if and when a government is "created" - aka "imposed" - in Somalia. But most remarkable is that the Somalis have treated the UN/AU's "Transitional Federal Government" as a mortal threat rather than buying into the benign administrative cloak with which the TFG has tried to wrap itself. One TFG emissary to the UN said (paraphrase), "They are trying to kill this baby in the cradle. al-Shabaab knows that if this thing takes hold it will become a government and they want to prevent that from happening." But, of course, it is the local al-Shabaab - not the AU's Ethiopian troops protecting a tiny garrison in Mogadishu called the "Transitional Federal Government" - who are solely to blame for the killing of innocents in Mogadishu. I'm not saying al-Shabaab gets a cart blanche by virtue of being local... if al-Shabaab kills innocents, that is as immoral as anyone else killing innocents. But al-Shabaab has a perfectly sound justification for going to war against the TFG... it's a baby government!
Clayton -
after the tragic Black Hawk Down incident.
was this as tragic as the babies pulled from incubators in kuwait?
you're confusing simple coercion (crime) with legitimized coercion (government).
i dunno....making the cherokee foot it across several "sates" sounds pretty simple and not necessarily legit.
I’m afraid we’re still far from having a praxeologicaly valid knowledge of the creation of the State, hence its functioning. We know paxeologicaly what consequences it has on the healthy economy, but not much more. Mises himself said that, besides economics, other fields of praxeology, whci would include political theory, are almost unchartered. I can only discern Hoppe’s attack on democracy as the only noteworthy ste in that direction since Mises himself (Rothbard, Spooner, etc, with all their titanic merits, seem like making election speeches when talking about the State, not science). So, as I said some time before in here, I really believe that sooner will anarchy be achieved by trail-and-error or perhaps mere accident, than we’ll know praxeologicaly how to achieve it.
What is praxeology?
limitgov:What is praxeology?
The study of action. Read "Human Action".
ClaytonB, bold added by AJ:A government is always a tiny minority of the population it governs. It is not the government's superior force that gives it power, since the people always have more force than the government does. The government's power derives from the moral legitimacy of its monopoly on law and force. So long as the public believes (moral belief or belief that they will be better off that way) that government alone should have the privilege of producing law and security, the government is unassailable.
Good points, and I think this is the final answer. Convince enough people not to force others into supporting the monopoly on law and force, and the State monopoly must surely dissolve.
Why anarchy fails
The million-dollar question: how to?
AJ: ClaytonB, bold added by AJ:A government is always a tiny minority of the population it governs. It is not the government's superior force that gives it power, since the people always have more force than the government does. The government's power derives from the moral legitimacy of its monopoly on law and force. So long as the public believes (moral belief or belief that they will be better off that way) that government alone should have the privilege of producing law and security, the government is unassailable. Good points, and I think this is the final answer. Convince enough people not to force others into supporting the monopoly on law and force, and the State monopoly must surely dissolve.
Exactly. This is why it is so important to understand the social mechanisms by which society enslaves itself. It is not enough to point at the State and say, "It must be torn down!" because it is your fellows slaves, serfs of the state, exploited by it, who will be the first to jump its defense and call for your incarceration or whatever. To make real progress towards freedom, we must analyze and exposit the self-enslavement of society. If even 50%, maybe even as little as 25% of the public had read, understood and assented to the ideas presented by Etienne de la Boetie in his epic Politics of Obedience, no state could exist. No one could dream of imposing a tyranny on such a public. So, it really is a battle of ideas with very material consequences.
The tactical approach of the Ron Pauls and Lew Rockwells - as indispensable as they are as the "front lines shock troops" for spreading the message of freedom - in itself is deficient and can only have a hope of success in conjunction with the long-term siege of the court intellectuals that dominate the academic establishment and the message of individual empowerment to escape the would-be feudal society that our "betters" in business and government would impose on us, if unopposed. I am of the opinion that the single most subversive action any individual can take is what Guido Hulsmann in an online article (sorry, don't remember the title) called "originary secession", the act of simply declaring yourself sovereign in your own mind and ever only obeying the state out of prudence and self-interest, never out of a sense of duty or moral obligation. To me, that is the real goal... get people around the world (the US, at present, is a basket case, I don't have much hope of real progress within US borders, at least, not for the next decade or so) to mentally emancipate themselves and only ever obey their governments out of a sense of prudence. Pay your taxes for the same reason you'd pay protection fees to the local gangster... not because you believe they are really owed, but because you know they will break your legs and hurt your family if you do not.
And I think the most fertile ground for this is societies who have recently lived under naked tyranny - Somalia, Ivory Coast, former parts of the USSR, etc. Those who have recently lived under naked tyranny understand that the trappings of government are just so many stage props. The badge, the uniform, the flag, the seal, the judical and clerical robes... they are childish, primitive fnords intended to short-circuit reason in favor of groupthink.
ClaytonB:Exactly. This is why it is so important to understand the social mechanisms by which society enslaves itself. It is not enough to point at the State and say, "It must be torn down!" because it is your fellows slaves, serfs of the state, exploited by it, who will be the first to jump its defense and call for your incarceration or whatever. To make real progress towards freedom, we must analyze and exposit the self-enslavement of society. If even 50%, maybe even as little as 25% of the public had read, understood and assented to the ideas presented by Etienne de la Boetie in his epic Politics of Obedience, no state could exist. No one could dream of imposing a tyranny on such a public. So, it really is a battle of ideas with very material consequences.
Very much so. One idea is to get people thinking in terms of allowing others to opt out of government, introducing the ideas via a multi-step process. First, maybe try to get the notion of a "right* to opt out of some aspects of government" on the table, out in public debate. Without any political action, the idea could still end up being raised during discussions and even during elections.
Adam Knott has suggested starting with the most benign issues first, which would at least get the idea of "opting out" in the public consciousness. For instance, a certain group of people might advocate for the right to work for less than the minimum wage (just amongst themselves, in their community - could be an online community). Once the precedent has been established, a subtle reframe has been pulled off, allowing for the notion of "opting out" to pop up in debates at the most inopportune times (for Statists that is).
Right now the biggest problem is that libertarian ideas aren't even on the table, so to speak. The libertarian party tries to lower taxes as such, but this is just quantitative wrangling, not the paradigm shift that is required.
Moreover, lowering taxes significantly faces huge obstacles and doesn't change any paradigms, but getting a concession on opting out of some tiny thing faces what seem to be only minor obstacles and it does change the paradigm. It seems it would get people to re-think the whole idea that everyone must be bound by every last law in the territory. Better still, the idea seems appealing to liberals and progressives, who could use it on civil liberties issues. It might just occur to them, gently as can be, that "coercive charity" is an oxymoron - because the argument is not so in-your-face but more an end run around their usual way of thinking.
*Like "right to a trial" this isn't a positive right but merely a rephrasing of one aspect of the right not to be coerced (i.e., the NAP).
Educating the masses right? Debating small issues and illuminating many. My good friends, reasoning is not the way to go with children, neither do you reason with you employees on the way you run your business. The reason I simple: it is a fact of life that there a clear demarcation line among humans, separating those that can get abstract ideas, and those who can’t.
Do you really think that if people could get the very simple fact that the State is criminal in nature, they wouldn’t have by now? Every time I listen to people conversating on politics, they almost always go like “politicians never cared for us”, “they’re just a bunch of thieves”, and so on. There’s hardly anyone who has an untainted opinion about the State, and if you look close enough, you’d be surprised by how strongly repelled by the State people are ( of course they won't reveal this much in a "dynamic" debate with an anarchist, but on small talk betrays their true thoughts).
STILL they won’t turn libertarian if introduced to Mises or Rothbard, because saying that things are bad is something, but lacking an alternative mean that one has to endure things as they are. To the mind of the mass-man, where abstract ideas and creativity do not exactly thrive, in his mind only the State exists. Mise and Rothbard look like wackos. After all, the State is all he ever knew, and so did his father, and his father’s father.
If we want anarchy, let us liberate ourselves of illusions as to the “power of ideas” and see the truth as it is: people are going to flock to anarchy ONLY when it is handed over to them in silver plate, just like investors turn to an entrepreneur only after he shows them solid sale figures.
How, than, to create anarchy with only a bunch of like-minded people? I believe that if the brilliant minds of this forum set themselves to think of ways to do this, at the very least a couple will come out with original and practically feasible ideas. And at least one will be lucky enough to get to try his. But first we have to see that nothing can be done by begging others to follow us.
Merlin:Do you really think that if people could get the very simple fact that the State is criminal in nature, they wouldn’t have by now?
There are a whole lot of very intelligent believers in Statism, even among people who study politics for a living.
Merlin:it is a fact of life that there a clear demarcation line among humans, separating those that can get abstract ideas, and those who can’t. ... If we want anarchy, let us liberate ourselves of illusions as to the “power of ideas” and see the truth as it is
No, no, no. Think about why people believe what they believe: their parents, their teachers, their pastors, their smart friends, and their trusted news anchors told them so. Why do these trusted sources of information tell them that? Because they listen to "the experts." How do the experts come to the positions they hold? The experts actually can understand abstract ideas.
--
Besides, the idea of "opting out" isn't any more abstract than the idea of voting itself.
I don't think it is lack of government that gives room for government to arise internally. Though it does invite them from being imposed from outside.
Governments being formed from within I think is mostly due to dysfunctional civil societies (general deficiency of trust and also ethics in society) and unequal distribution of guns. If only the rich can afford to engage in military defence for instance like in the middle ages this will make other people surrender there liberty to them in return for protection. Eventually the lord might start imposing restrictions on opting-out of this arrangement and that will be a government.
The question is what breaks down civil society and cause also cause inequality in the first place and the answer to booth is government. This means that governments create a self-sustaining cycle. If a government should fall it will leave behind the best environment a new government can wish for.
How the first governments popped up in the first place is more difficult to answer. I would guess it was often from groups finding other groups with less military capacity then themselves and deciding to enslave them. This oppression of external groups then spreads to oppress the own group as the organisation becomes more powerful. Combined probably with the existence of external military treats that forces the community to work more closely together and pay less regard to individual rights. Even if people do this sacrifice voluntarily at first there is a great risk it creates an institution that is difficult to break free from when the treat is over, especially if they are already in the business of enslaving others.
This regime would probably have to get more lenient after the treat is over. Tyrannies formed during war generally don't last long once the wars are gone. But as long as they keep the perceived cost of having them around lower then the perceived cost of getting rid of them though could stick around...
Escaping Leviathan - regardless of public opinion
"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx
The power of ideas is not illusion. It is called APPEAL.
Håkan Kindström Arnoldson:The question is what breaks down civil society and cause also cause inequality in the first place and the answer to booth is government.
I like what you said about governments creating self-sustaining cycles but the above sentence does not sound right to me. Is this not a circular argument? If government causes break downs and inequality, what break downs and inequality caused government? If you are looking for a governmental regression theorem, I am not sure this works.
Håkan Kindström Arnoldson:How the first governments popped up in the first place is more difficult to answer. I would guess it was often from groups finding other groups with less military capacity then themselves and deciding to enslave them.
My guess is that government arose naturally/logically out of nuclear family units as they competed for natural resources. Ultimately the strategy of forming alliances was discovered and not to long thereafter, viola, critical mass was achieved--coercive government was born.
I am not convinced, however, that it must necessarily/deterministically be so. As Murray Rothbard once pointed out (I paraphrase) history does not proceed in a strictly linear fashion. It does seem to generally move forward, but sometimes it goes backwards and even sideways. We can see this in the evolution of the science of economics, for example. In my mind this implies there is a certain amount of randomness built into the nature of reality and I think it is potentially useful to be aware of that.
limitgov: No government leads to people forming organizations...? eventually leading to people forming organizations that might try to take resources from people? thus leading to government?
What about the health analogy? Health is never perfect, that is, there is always some virus, bakteria or internal malfunction threatening the function of our bodies. Unless we are not hampered by them we consider ourself healthy, no?
Now the government is made up of people that choose to be on the parasitic side of life, i.e. they do not produce but take away the production of others to survive. In health terms society is always infected with parasits. I agree that those parasites do bad things to society, as viruses and bakteria do to an individuals health. If it gets to much you need to see a doc, that is someone who knows how to cope with your illness. But you wouldn't say, because those viruses that make me ill will eventually make me ill in the future again, I do not think treating illnesses make sense.
Such a thought would come close to Keynes's " In the long run we are all dead".
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
Jorge A. Medina: I like what you said about governments creating self-sustaining cycles but the above sentence does not sound right to me. Is this not a circular argument? If government causes break downs and inequality, what break downs and inequality caused government? If you are looking for a governmental regression theorem, I am not sure this works.
Yes this is true. It can explain why revolutions and civil wars just replace government with another one and why they are so difficult to get rid of. But not really the ultimate origins of government. Mainly I think the problem is the trust deficiency that follows a regime where bribes and such has been rampart. It is very difficult to form any voluntary associations in such a society so it defaults to barbarism.
I speculated on that in the second part of my post, I don't have an answer here but I do believe that similar conditions can arise out of situations where there has been no government. It is just alot less likely, but it only have to happen once and we are stuck in the cycle...
The reasons similar conditions could occur without government more condensed expressed could be:
Basically voluntary tribal associations starting to exercise power over weaker tribes in the area. External treats (from other humans or natural) creating a concentration of power in the community in order to make defence more efficient.Undeveloped societies are greatly restricted geographically which is troublesome for creating enough competition in protection services ... also concentrating power.
Yes, I agree this is probably how the basic institution that becomes government is formed. But I believe some kind of shock is required to make it morph from just being the administration of a voluntary community everyone abides by voluntarily for the benefits it provides to go to the point to where opting-out becomes impossible and it is a government.
I agree it doesn't always have to be like this. Technically the methods government use to stay in power have varied radically (they switch between brute force, propaganda, fraud and bribes in various forms), this indicates that things happen all the time that counteract governments and then it stands to reason that eventually they will fail to adapt.
It also has to do with technology when weapons are very expensive it is difficult. The knights for instance could easily maintain there monopoly cause they where the only ones who could afford armour. Then came rifling which got rid of them, in Europe which was already highly unequal in wealth this allowed Kings to centralise power around themselves cause they could afford to hire the most soldiers. But in America I think rifling played a large part in making it possible for the colonists to organise there society in such a decentralised way. (disregarding here it was also useful in being able to wipe out the natives and colonise at all)
To Håkan Kindström Arnoldson:
Yes and it is worth noting tangentially that while coercive government is not ubiquitous throughout history, voluntary government is. Most of what we see around us is the free market, or we would all presumably be dead. That always gives me hope.
Salud
nhaag:What about the health analogy?
This an excellent point and I agree with you but it does not address the question about whether coercive government is inevitable. If I am mis-reading the thread, please correct me and I will bow out.
Jorge A. Medina: nhaag:What about the health analogy? This an excellent point and I agree with you but it does not address the question about whether coercive government is inevitable. If I am mis-reading the thread, please correct me and I will bow out.
I am actuall not sure it is inevitable, like a disease might not be inevitable, yet, if it is not, what follows? Give up liberalism as useless? Or use the known cures and search for better ones. I think the latter is the way we cope with health issues usually,no?
I tend to think, that the appearance of a coercive government might inevitable at times, at least as long as there will be humans that opt for the parasitic side of life. You can take hygienic precaustions, i.e. educate, convice, compell them to choose the "good" side, but at the end of the day they got to choose.
nhaag:I am actuall not sure it is inevitable, like a disease might not be inevitable, yet, if it is not, what follows?
I am on your side. Let's definitely NOT give up liberalism!
nhaag:I tend to think, that the appearance of a coercive government might inevitable at times, at least as long as there will be humans that opt for the parasitic side of life.
Does the existence of something prove its inevitability?
nhaag: What about the health analogy? Health is never perfect, that is, there is always some virus, bakteria or internal malfunction threatening the function of our bodies. Unless we are not hampered by them we consider ourself healthy, no? Now the government is made up of people that choose to be on the parasitic side of life, i.e. they do not produce but take away the production of others to survive. In health terms society is always infected with parasits. I agree that those parasites do bad things to society, as viruses and bakteria do to an individuals health. If it gets to much you need to see a doc, that is someone who knows how to cope with your illness. But you wouldn't say, because those viruses that make me ill will eventually make me ill in the future again, I do not think treating illnesses make sense. Such a thought would come close to Keynes's " In the long run we are all dead".
An almost perfect analogy. I might only add that even if some kind of disease is inevitable right now, it doesn’t mean that evolution won’t give us someone that is immune. In analogy, only because the government could have been inevitable up to now, in our days with such a great mobility of people, mixing of different gene pools, communication and cheap defensive technologies, perhaps somewhere a society that is immune to government is already evolving. Let us not forget, societies evolve much faster than people.
AJ:There are a whole lot of very intelligent believers in Statism, even among people who study politics for a living.
Granted. With them arguments will work, and “conversion” is indeed I viable strategy. Just don’t’; except to convert 1) everyone, 2) those with a capable mind but beyond a certain age and 3) those with a capable mind and of a productive age but dependent for some time on the government for their livelihood (i.e. academics). Neither of these guys shall ever get it.
AJ: Think about why people believe what they believe: their parents, their teachers, their pastors, their smart friends, and their trusted news anchors told them so. Why do these trusted sources of information tell them that? Because they listen to "the experts." How do the experts come to the positions they hold? The experts actually can understand abstract ideas. -- Besides, the idea of "opting out" isn't any more abstract than the idea of voting itself.
Think about why people believe what they believe: their parents, their teachers, their pastors, their smart friends, and their trusted news anchors told them so. Why do these trusted sources of information tell them that? Because they listen to "the experts." How do the experts come to the positions they hold? The experts actually can understand abstract ideas. -- Besides, the idea of "opting out" isn't any more abstract than the idea of voting itself.
Think about why people believe what they believe: their parents, their teachers, their pastors, their smart friends, and their trusted news anchors told them so. Why do these trusted sources of information tell them that? Because they listen to "the experts." How do the experts come to the positions they hold? The experts actually can understand abstract ideas.
Suppose we’re in anarchic Ireland, Iceland or even in 1920’s northern Albania. The State is a foreign concept to your community. Now you, having spent ten years of study in, say, Constantinople or Germany, you armed with your invincible believe in Statism, seek to convert them. Many professors like you also start converting people. Do you think they’ll follow you? Let me furnish an example in recent history.
The region of Mirdite is a small aggregation of tribes in northern Albania, and during the Ottoman occupation of the country they never agreed to either pay taxes or submit to outside justice, preferring their own (incredibly complex) customary law. After 1920, when Albania had an independent, centralized government, (headed by a genius, I might say) and the inhabitants of Mirdite where asked to pay taxes as “now that Albanian is independent, not paying taxes would amount to treason”, they plainly refused. Notwithstanding all the “expert opinion” and massive propaganda that was thrown at them, notwithstanding the fact that many sons where actually working for the government back in the capital, they refused to take the bait. It took a communist regime and its unheard of repressive measures to beat them into submission.
My point is such: people do not buy the lies of the government because they buy what “opinion molders” tell them. I submit that that the very 80% of people that can’t get abstract ideas, cannot understand statist propaganda either, and see no point, deep down, in voting (again, they will difficulty admit this). They vote only because they know of no alternative, not because they believe statist fables. Deep down, theirs is a very rational behavior: if you can’t see an alternative, take what you have, no matter how wrong it seems. Education has nothing to do with it.
To broaden the question.
Evil is inevitable. So should we stop fighting evil and just give in? Hardly.
Means are more important then ends.
No. State building requires concerted effort.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...