I was reading Murphy's piece, Would the Warlords Take Over, and am thinking they very well might. Under anarchy, groups could arise that see no problem with forcing others to do what they want. In fact, such groups may become dominant. In fact, isn't this the definition of the State? Isn't this how it arises?
Isn't the current State nothing more than a nasty, dominant group lording it's power over others? Is this really any different than an anarchical system gone awry? Isn't this evidence against the viability of anarchy--evidence that people have a natural tendency toward control and theft, and that this tendency works like gravity, pulling society from anarchy into the State?
In other words, if so many people see no problem with stealing from and controlling others, society will naturally move from anarchy to the State. So the State is not really the problem, but a symptom.
It seems to me that a "State" in which the majority valued freedom and responsibiltiy would not be a State at all, and anarchy in which the majority cared not for freedom would become a State.
Indeed, the fact states exist today is an anarchic market outcome as at some point there was anarchy.
It seems to me that developments in both military and communication technology have explanatory power in the long term evolution of the state. These technologies define how much harm the bad guys can do, and how easily the good guys can see it coming.
This is why I am very bullish on the semantic web as a solution to gradually replace the state.
It also seems that technology (especially of weapons) enables the minimum size of the dominant group. Maybe some day one man will be able to gain enough power to subdue the rest.
Carroll Quigley has a theory that the technical and organizational ability to use dominant weapon systems determines the level of centralization of power. i.e. Armored knights were expensive to train and maintain, so they gave an advantage to kings against their subjects. Then when firearms came on the scene, which were relatively cheap and easy to operate, it became harder for centralized authorities to consolidate their power and ushered in a more liberal, individualist age. Then when tanks, planes, and later nuclear weapons began to dominate, the balance swung back towards the state. I don't necessarily agree with the theory, but it is interesting.
Interesting. I think de la Boetie neglected this idea. I obey the State, not because I want to be a slave, but because I know resistance is futile. Ming the Merciless may get my obedience, even if he were the only member of the State, if only his power were great enough.
Interesting. Quigley's The Evolution of Civilizations is now on my reading list - thanks for the mention.
So basically, once we get laser weapons the balance should swing back to individuality? Makes sense to me.
Two things:
1) Guns, tanks and planes still require human operation, and generally, the more powerful the machine, the more sophisticated to operate and thus the more specialization is required of the user. How many members of the 'ruling class' actually know how to properly use a gun, much less a tank or plane? It is still, ultimately, ideology that animates these weapons.
2) Generally, the more powerful the weapon, the more sophisticated and lengthy is its creation. Most anyone could find the materials and construct a spear or a bow; no individual could fashion himself a gun or a tank or an atomic bomb. No man, then, can oppress an entire society alone.
The proliferation of ABC weapons will indeed lead to such a scenario. Which is why I believe that a physical NAP (freedom as property, only violation after physical damage) is unsustainable in a world with globally huge but individually small negative externalities such as a random idiot building atomic bombs in his basement for fun.
I believe in a praxeologocial NAP (property as "means of action") so each community will hav different ideas about where freedoms conflict and how they get prioritized*, with in the case of ABC weapons the community being global and the execution via the semantic web. In some cases you will thus see freedom before (physical) property.
* For example, consider:
A. Copyright of signature as an expression of one's body as a "means of action".
B. Freedom to exactly copy another person's signature with one's pen and ink on any contract.
I would prefer to live in a community where A is considered more important than B, until I see better alternatives for contract making.
In essence this is very much like what Friedman describes in Machinery of Freedom, but I thus believe there is an Austrian basis for that kind of thinking too, for those willing to see that physical NAP is a personal ethic, while praxeological NAP is the real libertarian process.
I wrote a Wikipedia article on the praxeological NAP here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_van_Dun
But there already (much) better technological alternatives (i.e., digital signatures), so...
^^ The same goes for use of digital signatures, the principle remains. There's also nothing obectively wrong with people preferring the non-digital signatures. Thanks for pointing out though.
There's nothing wrong with people preferring whatever they prefer ... until they start advocating violence to make their preferences possible. E.g., if you're going to start pointing guns at people to enforce a "signature copyright", you lose. But with cryptographic signatures, you can have your cake and eat it.
William Green: Isn't the current State nothing more than a nasty, dominant group lording it's power over others?
Isn't the current State nothing more than a nasty, dominant group lording it's power over others?
Yes and no. No, because State gained a legitimacy in societie's eyes. No criminal gang has such an ideological power as the State. So I am very skeptical about "warlords" taking over the world or any big area.. Who gonna believe their legitimacy? Of course, they can scare some people, but what if majority of people had guns? I think the reason is in the human mind, not in weaponary or toher external objects.
Today the State has power because people give that power to the State, and not because the State has nukes or tanks or military.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Yes violence is suboptimal indeed. I'm discussing voluntarely giving up (physical) freedom for praxeological sake. So people can give up freedom (and at any time reclaim it), just as they can go and live in anarcho-communistic communes and leave if they stop liking it.