To answer a frequent question such as "why wouldn't a gang take over" it is necessary to have a clear idea not only of what force is but what power is, a disequilibrium of force. Power comes in three classes of increasing disequilibrium.
The first class of power is a force equilibrium between two individuals or groups of individuals. It is also known as freedom. In a force equilibrium, both sides have the ability to injure each other without any defensive measure being able to neutralize such an action. In other words, both sides are vulnerable to each other's force. Thus any attempt to aggress on the other results in a loss as the other retaliates. This is the kind of equilibrium that characterizes, for example, two men stranded on a deserted island. It is also the equilibrium that characterized the nuclear standoff between the US and the SU. Neither side could use its nuclear arsenal on the other without being destroyed, thus victory, the end sought by war, was impossible.
The second class of power is a force disequilibrium where one side has the power to destroy anything that the other side possesses without retaliation. This is the form of power that the U.S. military has traditionally cultivated. Once intelligence has been obtained as to a valid target, the U.S. Air Force can strike this target and obliterate it. The power to destroy allows limited exploitation and threats to take effect as the fear of destruction coerces weaker parties into surrendering part of their wealth. There is a limit to how many threats will be accepted before the prospect of loss through destruction becomes preferable.
The ultimate power is a force disequilibrium where one side has the power to take whole anything the other side possesses without retaliation. This is typically the power that states wield over their own people. An example of such power is a nationalization. A state which is so motivated can take everything that any single subject owns, up to even his body.
In this case, how is ultimate power created and maintained? Through egalitarianism. By destroying or co-opting every institution capable of wielding force at a scale larger than the individual, the state preserves the most extreme force disequilibrium possible, where only the individual can strike back, usually at the loss of his life. Some states even go further as dispossess individuals of arms, thus making themselves even less vulnerable to a retaliation. Despite that, the state does suffer the occasional "lone nut" suicide attack by people who have nothing left to lose. Rarely is enough harm done to compel a change of policy. (One exception was the masterfully executed September 11 terror attack.)
If one wants to re-establish freedom and an equilibrium of force, how would he proceed? Obviously, attempting to make oneself invulnerable to the state is hopeless, as both the Soviet Union and the United States failed to do so at the peak of their power. Instead, any organization seeking freedom should structure itself to maximally exploit the state's vulnerability by striking back against violation of rights with equivalent force. This means that the "standoff fortress" type of situation where survivalists entrench themselves into a compound is hopeless, since the state can take as much time as necessary to amass overwhelming force against it. What could be successful in this case is to surrender the fortress and escape to fight another day, while forcing the state to surrender one of its own assets in retaliation. After enough of these counterattacks succeeded, the state would have to cease its repression of the organization. This is largely what the Mexican drug cartels have achieved in Mexico by executing government officials tasked with destroying them, and bribing those who are inclined to remaining alive. This has forced the Mexican state to employ against them the only state organ that has never engaged the cartels, the Navy Marines. Mexican Marines can be seen wearing ski masks in operations to conceal their identity and prevent retaliation.
In a society where the state can no longer succeed in preserving its extreme disequilibrium of force, it is obvious that no other organization can recreate such a situation, no matter how wealthy. It will always be vulnerable to a retaliation if it attempts to wield power on others.
You only have power over a man so long as he still has something to take. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything, he becomes free again. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger:To answer a frequent question such as "why wouldn't a gang take over" it is necessary to have a clear idea not only of what force is but what power is, a disequilibrium of force.
While power and retaliation enter into it, I don't think that's the whole explanation. I also believe part of it is the perceived legitimacy of the organization. Government as we know it is largely perceived as legitimate by most people, however flawed it may be. But in an anarchic society, a criminal gang, no matter how much power they have, would not automatically be considered legitimate by people, thus giving it another obstacle towards truly taking over society. Such an organization would face opposition that governents generally do not because of its illegitimacy.
A more frustrating part of dealing with "why wouldn't a gang take over" are the people who can't seem to understand the difference between PDA's and criminal gangs. The more I think about it, the more I think that "PDA" is simply a shortcut term, and that real PDA's wouldn't actually exist, or more likely, they would be small firms that simply contracted and organized with arbitrators, private security, investigators, insurance companies, and other such already existing firms to carry out necessary functions.
A significant point in understanding "PDA's" is an understanding of where law comes from, as that strongly impacts how it is enforced. If we're talking about common or customary law instead of legislation, we bypass a whole host of silly and unreasonable laws that we currently have in our society.
macsnafu: While power and retaliation enter into it, I don't think that's the whole explanation. I also believe part of it is the perceived legitimacy of the organization. Government as we know it is largely perceived as legitimate by most people, however flawed it may be. But in an anarchic society, a criminal gang, no matter how much power they have, would not automatically be considered legitimate by people, thus giving it another obstacle towards truly taking over society. Such an organization would face opposition that governents generally do not because of its illegitimacy.
What kind of opposition?
If someone comes up to me on the street and yells "you're illegitimate!" that doesn't slow me down one iota.
Stranger: macsnafu: While power and retaliation enter into it, I don't think that's the whole explanation. I also believe part of it is the perceived legitimacy of the organization. Government as we know it is largely perceived as legitimate by most people, however flawed it may be. But in an anarchic society, a criminal gang, no matter how much power they have, would not automatically be considered legitimate by people, thus giving it another obstacle towards truly taking over society. Such an organization would face opposition that governents generally do not because of its illegitimacy. What kind of opposition? If someone comes up to me on the street and yells "you're illegitimate!" that doesn't slow me down one iota.
Punishing criminals does though. The whole sense of legitimacy is shown by that we use different words for two groups that both operate in essentially the same manner.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Stranger:What kind of opposition?
All kinds of opposition, from actual fighting, to open resistance to secret resistance. Even someone who gives in to what he perceives to be the superior force of a criminal won't do so cheerfully and willingly, as if he is performing some patriotic service or duty, and is more likely to seek to escape the coercion than say, the average citizen seeks to escape government taxation and regulation.
macsnafu: All kinds of opposition, from actual fighting, to open resistance to secret resistance. Even someone who gives in to what he perceives to be the superior force of a criminal won't do so cheerfully and willingly, as if he is performing some patriotic service or duty, and is more likely to seek to escape the coercion than say, the average citizen seeks to escape government taxation and regulation.
Right, but the question here is why should the criminal care about that?
Interesting analysis, Stranger.
This is why I find it strange that some, if not most, Libertarians were anti US armament during the Cold War. It's true that we would all be better off without statism. But as long as we have statism, it must take some measures in defense. In a sense, the armament put the world in a state of equilibrium where a world war would be unthinkable to either side.
Stranger:Right, but the question here is why should the criminal care about that?
Is this a trick question? Because it makes the criminal's job harder. Even if he succeeds, he faces the continual threat of having that success undermined or overturned. I guess I don't see what you're looking for. Both factors, power and legitimacy, have tipping points that would be hard to overcome in an anarchic society.
von Vodka: Interesting analysis, Stranger. This is why I find it strange that some, if not most, Libertarians were anti US armament during the Cold War. It's true that we would all be better off without statism. But as long as we have statism, it must take some measures in defense. In a sense, the armament put the world in a state of equilibrium where a world war would be unthinkable to either side.
There is armament and there is armament. A nuclear arsenal does not work against a nuclear arsenal, but against countries that do not have one it is fairly intimidating. If on top of that you are getting dozens of aircraft carriers and tank divisions, this is beyond just defensive.
macsnafu: Is this a trick question? Because it makes the criminal's job harder. Even if he succeeds, he faces the continual threat of having that success undermined or overturned.
Is this a trick question? Because it makes the criminal's job harder. Even if he succeeds, he faces the continual threat of having that success undermined or overturned.
By what? What is going to undermine or overturn him?