I read and heard some arguments (from Brainpolice for example) that an an-cap society would lead to neo feudalism.
I'm interested in what the folks over here in this forum have to say. Care to share you thoughts or refutation?
Cheers!
*shrugs*
One of Mises Institute's finest, William L. Anderson, put it quite nicely when he said, "There are no utopias, not even libertarian ones."
I am not an "ancap". I just believe it's necessary to know what are the flaws of any kind of public action. Do I want to offer a solution? No, I am not a political activist.
There is no such thing as an ancap society, because ancap by itself does not refer to any particular set of values. There's Christian societies, Muslim societies, Shi'ia societies, tribal societies, and other kinds of systems where people are raised under firm authority of old values. Social democratic, nationalist, and communist societies also idealize a particular kind of person and use strict education system to make you into that person. Capitalism does not require you to believe anything.
Whatever I know of ancapism is that it simply states that insurance and reinsurance supporting contractual protection should be used to prevent overproduction or underproduction of security and vigilance. Such an arrangement could easily be implemented in the modern world without usurping any functioning system, and I don't see how that forces feudalism onto anybody.
Feudalism was a security arrangement based on barter, where smaller lords plead their services as fighters to bigger lords in return for protection of their own lands. It did not allow for a division of labor in security beyond the lords retaining paid warriors to secure their personal estates.
These paid warriors were eventually replaced with regiments hired by lords, which were then merged into centralized militaries where nobles retained the pretense of being the owners of their regiments until the purchase of commissions was abolished and the military fully centralized.
More than likely in ancaptopia most large capitalist organizations would keep a substantial security staff (as they do now) which would be available for war in cases of emergency, but general security would still be purchased under cash-based contracts.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
I think a bit of historical background is in order.
Germanic tribes rebelled against the Roman Empire and conquered large sections of it. Typically the military commanders that they had elected were considered to be the new owners of the conquered territories. Of course, they couldn't manage all of it, given the technology of the day, so they rented portions of the conquered land (fiefdoms) to fellow tribesmen. These tribesmen could then rent portions of their fiefdoms to other tribesmen, and so on. With renting the land came certain obligations, such as regular rent payments and the promise of defensive loyalty. The monarchs retained de facto ownership of all the land, but directly possessed and managed only a relatively small part of it (the royal demesne). This, in essence, was feudalism.
A somewhat similar state of affairs could arise under anarcho-capitalism. In some areas, all land could come to be owned by a minority, who then rent out parts of it to other people, and so on. Only the minority of people in such areas are landowners, while the rest are tenants. However, the tenants would retain the freedom to move and rent elsewhere.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
If I had to venture a guess, I would say the idea is more about the concentration of wealth and power into fewer hands, making the population beholden to the lord or capitalist for their livelihood. And not so much about the security aspects of it.
Whether or not it's true, I know not. But I would think that's what the argument is about.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
This is sort of what I have refered to in such an argument. The problem I see is that even the freedom to move and rent elsewhere seems to become a rather superficial freedom if at the end of the day it amounts to saying that you have to submit to the absolute dominion of some land owner or another, even if you nominally have a choice among geographic regions. In short, this risks repeating the "love it or leave it" argument and I don't think it works in this context either. I fail to see how a so-called "private city" that is owned by either an individual or some organization, with concentrated power, isn't a defacto monarchy (in the individual case) or oligarchy (in the organizational case) and functions much like a state. I call it "neo-fuedalism" because the picture resembles a cambrian explosion of totalitarian mini-states in which the "rent" may as well be called a "tax".
If the owners are renting the land would they be willing to sell at the right price? It seems that once the said owners have gained control of the land they are the permanent owners of the land and they will only rent the land.
I read and heard some arguments (from Brainpolice for example) that an an-cap society would lead to neo feudalism. I'm interested in what the folks over here in this forum have to say. Care to share you thoughts or refutation?
I think a more interesting question than whether or not Ancap leads to neo-feudalism, is whether neo-feudalism is likely to be better or worse than the current political systems (including those outside of the "developed countries"). Brainpolice, what have you?
I call it "neo-fuedalism" because the picture resembles a cambrian explosion of totalitarian mini-states in which the "rent" may as well be called a "tax".
Why would the mini-states be more totalitarian than current nation-states (especially when they would be operating under greater competition for customer/serfs)? Why wouldn't we get a bunch of little Singapores instead of mini-USSRs?
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
The more I think about it, the more I think that tyranny, in itself, is not the root problem of social ills. Hence, liberty is not the ultimate solution to social ills. The root problem is the widespread toleration of moral (and hence, legal) double-standards. In other words, the world's religions have it basically right: society sucks because people are widely immoral. The trouble is that religion is also often an enabler of this immorality.
Clayton -
The root problem is the widespread toleration of moral (and hence, legal) double-standards.
Are you getting at the "its not stealing when the state does it", "it isn't murder if they are wearing uniforms", kind of double standards or something else?
In an-cap you have three choices, love it, leave it, or buy and change it. You can pool resources and start your own city anyplace and anytime you want.
In democracy you can:
Love it
Leave it
or buy it and change it
So, what's the difference?
In democracy you can: Love it Leave it or buy it and change it So, what's the difference?
The difference is that people can force a mandate through a vote that limits your options and doesn't necessarily allow the above 3. Of course, this is in the context of libertarian property rights. I suppose in a democracy, we could vote to kill 20% of the population and that would be OK because it was democratically decided, to hell with property rights or self-ownership.
In democracy, there is no permanent title. Your neighbors can always take your property away. This creates a disincentive to "own" and an incentive to use the political means to take someone elses property. The final stages of democracy are a race to the bottom.
Brainpolice:I fail to see how a so-called "private city" that is owned by either an individual or some organization, with concentrated power, isn't a defacto monarchy (in the individual case) or oligarchy (in the organizational case) and functions much like a state. I call it "neo-fuedalism" because the picture resembles a cambrian explosion of totalitarian mini-states in which the "rent" may as well be called a "tax".
What would be an alternative? I ask, because we already have this condition right now, except there are mega states which suppress mini states, and monarchy (individual authority) is for all intents and purposes, a relic.
You can't actually buy cities in democracy. They are not on the capital market.
Precisely. Now apply that to "Only we may decide what the law is" and you get the drift.
There might be more Medieval Times restaurants.
I was under the impression that the contemporary view is that the traditional understanding of “feudalism” is dubious. It was basically the 16th century's misunderstanding of what society was like in 12th century, which was then reinforced by people like Marx.
Susan Reynolds book Fiefs and Vassals is considered an important work in this area. From the Amazon.com description:
Reynolds demonstrates convincingly that the ideas of fiefs and vassalage as currently understood, far from being the central structural elements of medieval social and economic relations, are a conceptual lens through which historians have focused the details of medieval life. This lens, according to Reynolds, distorts more than it clarifies. With the lens removed, the realities of medieval life will have the chance to appear as they really are: more various, more individual, more complex, and perhaps richer than has previously been supposed.
I'm not an expert in medieval history, but if this is true then it seems questionable to suggest that an anarcho-capitalist society will develop into some kind of new feudalism since “feudalism”, as is commonly interpreted, may have never existed. And, if it has never existed then fears that it will come into existence need to be supported by more than an appeal to questionable historical record.
It would be like arguing against the development of artificial intelligence because of what happened in the movie Terminator. It could a fun topic to speculate on with friends over a beer, but shouldn't be the object of serious consideration without the proper evidence.
Total deposit: 2¢
Thank god.
I think it has the potential to be worse in the context of a specific fiefdom.
I haven't argued that they inherently would be more totalitarian than current nation-states. But the point is that this scheme is completely compatible with totalitarianism, and there is nothing about localism or small geographic regions that is inherently more free than larger ones. There is such thing as local tyranny that is just as bad as an nation-state. And the idea of competition for political power seems to miss the underlying issues with political power in the first place. I don't want to make authoritarian control over people a "service" that different organizations compete to provide, as I take issue with authoritarian control as such.
You can't actually buy cities in democracy. They are not on the capital market. Thank god.
Vulgar anti-capitalism.
Vulgar anti-capitalism.
More like sanity.
Could mutualists gather together to purchase some land (or a city ;) )and live in a desired "mutualist world"? You know what I'm sayin'?
You can't actually buy cities in democracy.
Well... not outright. You can still buy votes and political favors. :p
No, the sovereign would still take their property in return for services they probably don't want and regulate their behavior, so it wouldn't be a real test of mutualism as an organizing principle of society.
Brainpolice:This is sort of what I have refered to in such an argument. The problem I see is that even the freedom to move and rent elsewhere seems to become a rather superficial freedom if at the end of the day it amounts to saying that you have to submit to the absolute dominion of some land owner or another, even if you nominally have a choice among geographic regions. In short, this risks repeating the "love it or leave it" argument and I don't think it works in this context either. I fail to see how a so-called "private city" that is owned by either an individual or some organization, with concentrated power, isn't a defacto monarchy (in the individual case) or oligarchy (in the organizational case) and functions much like a state. I call it "neo-fuedalism" because the picture resembles a cambrian explosion of totalitarian mini-states in which the "rent" may as well be called a "tax".
I definitely see your point. Owning real estate doesn't mean owning (in effect) the people who happen to live there. Any legal system that concludes otherwise is inherently totalitarian, as far as I can tell.
Presumably, rental agreements would be contractual, just like they are in most cases today. But you seem to be afraid of a situation where there's an extreme imbalance between a (relatively) small elite who own all land and landless masses. If such a situation were to arise, then I'd say the cause is already lost, because it could easily turn into a situation where the world is once again ruled over by states. The question in my mind is how likely that situation can arise in the absence of the state. Furthermore, are there any aggravating or mitigating factors.
Unlike Stranger, I don't think that cities or other political entities will be ownable in stateless societies. Such societies, being apolitical by definition, simply won't have such entities.
Clayton: The more I think about it, the more I think that tyranny, in itself, is not the root problem of social ills. Hence, liberty is not the ultimate solution to social ills. The root problem is the widespread toleration of moral (and hence, legal) double-standards. In other words, the world's religions have it basically right: society sucks because people are widely immoral. The trouble is that religion is also often an enabler of this immorality.
Perfectly stated. Amin!
But you seem to be afraid of a situation where there's an extreme imbalance between a (relatively) small elite who own all land and landless masses. If such a situation were to arise, then I'd say the cause is already lost, because it could easily turn into a situation where the world is once again ruled over by states.
The very fact that you recognize that this in and of itself is potentially dangerous sets you apart from many ancaps as far as I can tell. I'm not sure if people really realize how the land question relates to individual freedom.
The question in my mind is how likely that situation can arise in the absence of the state. Furthermore, are there any aggravating or mitigating factors.
To me, the real implied question is what a stateless society could possibly mean. In my view, a stateless society is politically aterritorial, which is why I find some of the less-nuanced positions about land that float around in these circles to be in tension with anarchism. Quite simply, I don't think one can even sensibly talk about an "absence of the state" in a politically territorial situation. The state never went away, it just changes hands and some lines were redrawn.
Brainpolice:The very fact that you recognize that this in and of itself is potentially dangerous sets you apart from many ancaps as far as I can tell. I'm not sure if people really realize how the land question relates to individual freedom.
Thanks, I think. :P
Brainpolice:To me, the real implied question is what a stateless society could possibly mean. In my view, a stateless society is politically aterritorial, which is why I find some of the less-nuanced positions about land that float around in these circles to be in tension with anarchism. Quite simply, I don't think one can even sensibly talk about an "absence of the state" in a politically territorial situation. The state never went away, it just changes hands and some lines were redrawn.
Do you think private ownership of land per se implies political territoriality?
No, but I do think that specific norms justifying private ownership of land, norms which I consider too absolutist or that place no restraints on the kind of power that can be excersized over other people within a land-chunk, implies political territoriality or otherwise legitimizes infringements on people's personal autonomy, thereby being compatible with authoritarianism. To a certain extent, I think that what many neo-lockeans focus on (such as "just asquisition" via homesteading) is at best necessary but insufficient to actually produce or cohere with anything that could be called a "free society".
If you understood economic marginalism, you would see that this fear is irrational. Landlords will compete for tenants at the margin, and thus rules will tend to become less restrictive and more attractive over time.
Economic marginalism has nothing to say pro or con about such ethical considerations, nor does it prove a priori that these scenarios cannot devolve into something very incompatible with libertarianism.
"Value-free" economics is insufficient to form a complete and fully coherant political theory.
From my POV, your statement translates to "archons will compete for citizens at the margin", something I have no interest in. You just frame it in more economic terms.
Brainpolice:No, but I do think that specific norms justifying private ownership of land, norms which I consider too absolutist or that place no restraints on the kind of power that can be excersized over other people within a land-chunk, implies political territoriality or otherwise legitimizes infringements on people's personal autonomy, thereby being compatible with authoritarianism. To a certain extent, I think that what many neo-lockeans focus on (such as "just asquisition" via homesteading) is at best necessary but insufficient to actually produce or cohere with anything that could be called a "free society".
How do you define "power"?
Since I consider people to own themselves, following the Non-Aggression Principle would mean that I must not (threaten to) violate their self-ownership in the absence of any (threat of) violation of my own by them, even when they're on the land that I own. However, this doesn't seem to conflict with "just acquisition" via homesteading. What do you think?