In a few articles and lectures (mainly the ones on warlords taking over and on economies of scale), Robert Murphy asserts something like this (from what I understand):
You cannot have any warlords who don't have support of the people. No matter how many soldiers they have, if the majority of the population (and that includes the soldiers) doesn't support them tacitly, the warlords won't be in power. Now, under anarcho-capitalism, you would have rogue warlords who abuse their power and good protection agencies that would use their power properly. Since the population would support the latter, why would we assume that warlords would take over if they couldn't take over even under monarchy, with no free-market competition, unless they had support of the populace?
But can't one argue against this that, for instance, in N. Korea, the Dear Leader has the support of the military because he feeds them even as the rest of the population starves. The population doesn't have the power to confront the military -- and their powerlessness doesn't imply tacit consent.
At the same time, in S. Korea there is democracy where human rights are respected to a greater degree. I don't think it's because the societies are different (or at least were different at the outset). It's just S. Koreans happened to be lucky.
Pretty much the same situation can be described in many other places. Eastern Europe during the Cold War. E. Germany. China today. Etc. The people do not support the people in power, but they are afraid to die, so they don't protest.
You may have somewhat of an argument there, but I don't think North Korea is a very good example. I think a large part of the reason you don't see any resistence by the people is that they are indoctrinated to the point of brainwashing. From birth you are basically immersed in the idea that this guy is basically God. And it's bad enough when you are raised with an idea by your parents...imagine the power when you are raised in an entire culture that exudes such a strong insistence. You literally can't go anywhere without pictures of this guy that require reverence. Hell they even have alters to him in their homes. And of course everyone's seen the videos of the school children singing his praises.
Granted, one can never really know how much of the public displays are just for show so that their allegience isn't questioned, but one escaped refugee even recounted how they didn't even think he urinates.
I think you can't underestimate the power of indoctrination.
All the rest of your examples aren't any better...your whole point is to allege that the people don't resist...but last time I checked, the Wall came down...and with everyday Germans hacking away with sledgehammers to boot. And I'm not sure what you think about China, but it is not the "iron fist" totalitarian state it sounds like you're making it out to be....
"the reality is that China is far from monolithic: authority is widely dispersed simply because the country is too big, too complex, and too rambunctious to be effectively run from a central location. The coastal cities are bastions of liberality, while the inland provinces – to say nothing of China’s "wild West" – are more conservative, and historically resistant to Beijing’s edicts..."
And what's more...you haven't heard of something called the "Arab Spring"? Where is all this docile and silent acceptance of centralized dictators?
Machiavelli talks about the dynamic of popular support versus noble support at length in Chapter 9 of The Prince:
A principality is created either by the people or by the nobles, accordingly as one or other of them has the opportunity; for the nobles, seeing they cannot withstand the people, begin to cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and they make him a prince, so that under his shadow they can give vent to their ambitions. The people, finding they cannot resist the nobles, also cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and make him a prince so as to be defended by his authority. He who obtains sovereignty by the assistance of the nobles maintains himself with more difficulty than he who comes to it by the aid of the people, because the former finds himself with many around him who consider themselves his equals, and because of this he can neither rule nor manage them to his liking. But he who reaches sovereignty by popular favour finds himself alone, and has none around him, or few, who are not prepared to obey him. Besides this, one cannot by fair dealing, and without injury to others, satisfy the nobles, but you can satisfy the people, for their object is more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress, whilst the former only desire not to be oppressed. It is to be added also that a prince can never secure himself against a hostile people, because of their being too many, whilst from the nobles he can secure himself, as they are few in number. The worst that a prince may expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned by them; but from hostile nobles he has not only to fear abandonment, but also that they will rise against him; for they, being in these affairs more far-seeing and astute, always come forward in time to save themselves, and to obtain favours from him whom they expect to prevail. Further, the prince is compelled to live always with the same people, but he can do well without the same nobles, being able to make and unmake them daily, and to give or take away authority when it pleases him. Therefore, to make this point clearer, I say that the nobles ought to be looked at mainly in two ways: that is to say, they either shape their course in such a way as binds them entirely to your fortune, or they do not. Those who so bind themselves, and are not rapacious, ought to be honoured and loved; those who do not bind themselves may be dealt with in two ways; they may fail to do this through pusillanimity and a natural want of courage, in which case you ought to make use of them, especially of those who are of good counsel; and thus, whilst in prosperity you honour yourself, in adversity you have not to fear them. But when for their own ambitious ends they shun binding themselves, it is a token that they are giving more thought to themselves than to you, and a prince ought to guard against such, and to fear them as if they were open enemies, because in adversity they always help to ruin him. Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him. But one who, in opposition to the people, becomes a prince by the favour of the nobles, ought, above everything, to seek to win the people over to himself, and this he may easily do if he takes them under his protection. Because men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted to him than if he had been raised to the principality by their favours; and the prince can win their affections in many ways, but as these vary according to the circumstances one cannot give fixed rules, so I omit them; but, I repeat, it is necessary for a prince to have the people friendly, otherwise he has no security in adversity.
accordingly as one or other of them has the opportunity; for the nobles, seeing they cannot withstand the people, begin to cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and they make him a prince, so that under his shadow they can give vent to their ambitions. The people, finding they cannot resist the nobles, also cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and make him a prince so as to be defended by his authority. He who obtains sovereignty by the assistance of the nobles maintains himself with more difficulty than he who comes to it by the aid of the people, because the former finds himself with many around him who consider themselves his equals, and because of this he can neither rule nor manage them to his liking. But he who reaches sovereignty by popular favour finds himself alone, and has none around him, or few, who are not prepared to obey him.
Besides this, one cannot by fair dealing, and without injury to others, satisfy the nobles, but you can satisfy the people, for their object is more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress, whilst the former only desire not to be oppressed. It is to be added also that a prince can never secure himself against a hostile people, because of their being too many, whilst from the nobles he can secure himself, as they are few in number. The worst that a prince may expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned by them; but from hostile nobles he has not only to fear abandonment, but also that they will rise against him; for they, being in these affairs more far-seeing and astute, always come forward in time to save themselves, and to obtain favours from him whom they expect to prevail. Further, the prince is compelled to live always with the same people, but he can do well without the same nobles, being able to make and unmake them daily, and to give or take away authority when it pleases him.
Therefore, to make this point clearer, I say that the nobles ought to be looked at mainly in two ways: that is to say, they either shape their course in such a way as binds them entirely to your fortune, or they do not. Those who so bind themselves, and are not rapacious, ought to be honoured and loved; those who do not bind themselves may be dealt with in two ways; they may fail to do this through pusillanimity and a natural want of courage, in which case you ought to make use of them, especially of those who are of good counsel; and thus, whilst in prosperity you honour yourself, in adversity you have not to fear them. But when for their own ambitious ends they shun binding themselves, it is a token that they are giving more thought to themselves than to you, and a prince ought to guard against such, and to fear them as if they were open enemies, because in adversity they always help to ruin him.
Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him. But one who, in opposition to the people, becomes a prince by the favour of the nobles, ought, above everything, to seek to win the people over to himself, and this he may easily do if he takes them under his protection. Because men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted to him than if he had been raised to the principality by their favours; and the prince can win their affections in many ways, but as these vary according to the circumstances one cannot give fixed rules, so I omit them; but, I repeat, it is necessary for a prince to have the people
friendly, otherwise he has no security in adversity.
So, popular support is not necessary if you have a coalition of nobility who are all cooperating in oppression. The fact that the people outnumber the nobles is no matter so long as the nobles are better armed and better organized (which is axiomatic).
Of course, the nobles are parasites so the implicit "support" of the people is required in the sense that everybody doesn't just sit down and refuse to produce at all until they are rid of the parasite (who will die as a result of the source of his sustenance being removed). Of course, there are many parasites in nature and they will kill the host should the host refuse to gather sustenance rather than release it from its hold. I think this is the model under which the State operates and it shows that the people and the nobles are locked into a "game of chicken" ... but one where the nobles never swerve and the people always do.
You can have warlords (nobility) who don't have the support of the people. Rothbard and de la Boetie point out that all the people need to do is withdraw their assent; this is easily said but impossible in practice because of the way in which the State has hijacked - parasitically - the healthy, necessary and ineradicable aspects of society.
Government bonds are a wonderful illustration of this. The central bank buys truckloads of government bonds. Unfortunately, so do many private citizens. Part of the central bank's defense against a "populist default" is the threat that defaulting on all government bonds would hurt all those private investors. If you want to take down the parasite by direct force (termination of all government bonds), you will hurt many of the very people you are supposed to be delivering.
Clayton -
To expand on JJ's point about North Korea
This is really one of the central discussions in political thought, at least for radicals who want to see drastic shifts in the way things work.
How much power do ideas really have? The answer seems to me to be "quite a bit."
But there is another question, central to the biological debate which I am becoming increasingly more interested in which is: how much power to genes really have?
Another way of asking it is: how much influence do our genes have over which ideas interest us and which ones do not?
How much oppression can people tolerate?
Clayton describes state agents as parasites. Perhaps they are. But what's interesting is that their supposed hosts do not see their relationships as parasitic but something approaching mutualism.
Is that just brainwashing? I'm not sure, I'm trying to answer that question currently.
bloomj31:Is that just brainwashing?
That's definitely an interesting question, so I'm glad to see you discovered the current psychology thread. I'm inclined to believe it largely is. We can't know for sure if genes play no role, but I find it hard to believe they are anywhere near as important as the surrounding culture, at least in this respect.
If the acceptance of such a parasite were genetically ingrained, I really doubt you'd see so much resistance (not only now, but throughout history). Other evidence is the personal accounts of refugees like those of North Korea. The stories they tell about their feelings now that they have "tasted freedom" and the like, suggest that if anything, there is a genetic predisoposition to the liberty. Indeed one may contend that this is just sample selection bias, and that if there were a genetic componant at play, such people who are out of the country to tell such tales would likely be out of the country because of such genes in the first place.
But if you listen to what they say about the things they used to believe, and how they went along with it just like everyone else, and believed he was an all-kind Dear Leader, and that everything good they had, was because of him, it points to them being just as accepting of the parasite as anyone else. You'll find that for most of these escapees, they have some extreme and dramatic event in their life that they can point to that triggered their interest in fleeing...Kim had their family murdered, or they were put in a concentration camp, or whatever. They believed he was a Dear Leader until the truth was shoved into their face and not just affected them personally, but literally changed their life. It was in these moments that their opinion changed and their view of the relationship with the dictator became one of resentment.
Even one young guy who was literally born in a concentration camp...as in, he knew of nothing else...only had to hear stories of the kind of meals a new inmate had before he was put in the camp, and he began to have a fire lit inside himself.
The State is not "maybe" parasitic and its parasitism doesn't depend on how people "see it". The tribal elders who sat around all day telling stories and eating with the rest of the tribe that had been out hunting were also parasites - well more symbiotic, to be precise, in that we can definitely see how they contributed to the success of the young hunters, etc. Anyway, the point is that parasitism is a matter of resources. Resources are produced by the people and much of those resources are consumed by the State. So, the State is a parasite.
Genes are bad news for any kind of parasitism because genes that permit themselves to be parasitically plundered are at a reproductive disadvantage versus genes that do not. This is where I think the whole thing gets really twisted... the law, religion and culture in general all play a role in attempting to remap the reproductive incentives to favor those who "do their duty" "pay their fair share" and away from those who do not (the "criminal" underclass, the poor, black marketeers, etc.) So, the cultural memes are attempting to distort the fabric of reality in order to make something that should not persist (susceptibility to parasitic infestation should be bred out), persist.
Where people get "nervous" and don't like to have the discussion is the extent to which this process is consciously understood and guided by those at the pinnacles of power, that is, the Elites. I think it just pegs most people's creep-O-meters. Watching a Stephen King movie or an Unsolved Mysteries special on a decades-old serial killing spree is about as much creepiness as they can handle. Contemplating the possibility that the Vatican or Hollywood or the monarchy or CIA might be self-aware enough to actually realize that they are the beneficiaries of memetic effects and then taking active steps to reinforce and enhance those effects I think just blows 99.999% of people's minds. Sorry, just can't go there. That's just too flippin' creepy. It has been aptly called the Unspeakable.
Edited to add: And I think this is where the David Icke/UFOs effect sets in. It's a form of psychological denial. A person might wander inadvertently down the path of the Unspeakable to the confrontation of the reality that there are awesome forces at work in the social order - forces so powerful they cannot be controlled by governments or armies. This is a shock to the primitive brain which generally believes in central-planning. But the shocks don't stop there - these social forces are not completely unaffected by human machination, those in positions of influence can "turn the knobs" so-to-speak, enhancing or dissuading ideas in the culture. The thought that our "elders" would be so avaricious, so treacherous as to employ the most subversive imaginable means to "raid" and pillage us themselves - the very people that we are trusting to protect us and look out for our long-run tribal interests - is too much to handle. "Does not Compute." Therefore, Lizards and Aliens must be infesting the planet. Because no real human being could actually do what it is plain that our leaders are doing to us. That's unthinkable, unspeakable.
Clayton:Resources are produced by the people and much of those resources are consumed by the State. So, the State is a parasite.
Except I actually get stuff back from the government that I like. So am I getting a benefit from the parasite? Does that mean the government is still a parasite?
You will probably say: yes but you could get those things without the parasite.
Yes, I probably could, but I can get them from the "parasite" too and I don't even have to worry about funding them myself so why get rid of the "parasite?"
It seems to me that government can be a shepherd. Is that because my genes are telling me that or because memes are telling me that? Hard to know don't you think?
Perhaps some people, like libertarians, are more genetically predisposed towards liberty whereas others, such as myself, are less so.
Perhaps it is not a one or a zero but a continuum where I am somewhat less disposed to liberty than most people on this site but more disposed to liberty than some other people I've met.
It goes back to scale. I think it's undeniable that tribal elders played an integral role in human society. But the modern version of the "elders" is unrecognizable. I posted a link to the famous John Edwards haircut issue to illustrate the point that Aristippus made - the bases for our liking or disliking of political leaders could not be more unrelated to anything that matters even if we tried to construct the most absurd imaginable political system. IOW, our political systems are basically as absurd as anything you could care to imagine.
So yes, genes, memes, cultural circumstances are telling your brain that the government is doing nice things for you and so you should be OK with the "symbiotic" relationship you are in with them just like your ancestors were OK with the symbiotic relationship whereby the tribal elders kept eating the day's kill, many years after they had last contributed anything to the actual hunting.
This I strongly doubt. I think that we're all inherently self-oriented. This is the central complain of the socialists and communists. They want to rewrite human nature because they believe that it is culture which inculcates self-interest and that, by simply changing the culture, they can alter self-interest itself.
LOL
The atheists are fond of saying we're all born atheists. This is actually false! (EP tells us that religious belief is actually a culturally-universal phenomenon.) What is true is that we are all born little libertarians. The circumstances under which we are raised teach us the set of social customs (what kinds of gifts, bribes, etc. we are expected to give, and to whom) that we will need to successfully navigate the social landscape. But I believe that Mowgli or Tarzan, for example, would be hardcore libertarians. Being left to whatever is hard-coded in the brain, I think the human being would resort to maximum possible self-interest. It is only social norms which soften this and induce us to abrogate our interests in deference to others.
Clayton have you ever trained to fight?
I think there are two parasites, like there are two kinds of governments:
There are foreign parasites, which are like invading armies. Over time, they can even incorporate themselves into the body. Some say that's how we got the mitochondria.
Then there are home-grown parasite: cancer tumors. Interestingly enough, cancer is in our genes, although anti-cancer genes are also a part of the genome.
Which brings me back to the topic: I always get the feeling that there is something missing from the anarchy discussion -- the fact that most governments exist with the tacit consent of the governed. Or, perhaps, not consent (as Lysander Spooner demonstrates), but tolerance. We say that natural monopolies cannot exist, but there is one kind that can and does: the governments. The vast majority of people are brainwashed about the government's positive role in our lives. Whenever I express anarchist (or even minarchist) ideas to my friends or family, they look at me like I just proposed child sacrifice to Baal as a way to get out of financial crisis.
So, isn't anarchists' reasoning sort of circular: anarchy will work only when people are not brainwashable, i.e., when they are anarchist. She'll be coming 'round the mountain when she comes.
Am I missing a step here?
But I believe that Mowgli or Tarzan, for example, would be hardcore libertarians.
There is a scene in one of the books, where Tarzan beat up French police officers who have attacked him (it's not their fault, as both Tarzan and the officers have been set up). Next day, he goes to the police precinct and apologizes, explaining that he grew up in the forest. (Yes, I read Tarzan books growing up. In Russian. :) )
@bloomj: No. I've taken boxing and Judo but was never interested in competing.
@ John James:
But how did the brainwashing happen? Weren't the N. Koreans and the S. Koreans basically the same people? Is the difference between them cultural, or is the difference that some were lucky to be brainwashed/occupied by facist jerks, while some were occupied by a more benevolent government?
N. Koreans were brainwashed, Soviets were brainwashed, Chinese were brainwashed. And Czechs, Poles, and Hungarians were occupied by force. The Czechs protested, but then the Soviets sent in the tanks.
Why shouldn't the same story happen every single time there is anarchy? Isn't that basically how all governments arose: you had a group of chieftains, whom you were free to choose or not as your "protection providers", and then all of a sudden, you have a king with nearly absolute power? It happened gradually or it happened suddenly. So, why won't some warlord brainwash the rest of the population successfully?
(I am thinking of Apple and Facebook here. :) )
I just proposed child sacrifice to Baal as a way to get out of financial crisis.
ROFL! I am beginning to like you more and more! If only I could count the number of times I've gotten that look....
So, isn't anarchists' reasoning sort of circular: anarchy will work only when people are not brainwashable, i.e., when they are anarchist. She'll be coming 'round the mountain when she does.
Well, susceptibility to social arrangements which are not mutually beneficial is part of human nature. But I doubt very strongly that Nature designed us to be ruled over by imperial Romanesque masters in some far-flung capital like Washington, DC and to have the majority of our productive energies sapped away to fund the Ivy League education of the only children of mid-level Washington bureaucrats or simply squandered through suffocating regulations.
The particular features of the modern State are every bit as real and accidental as the nature of cancers. But I keep pointing out that Nature severely punishes genes which allow themselves to be exploited by other organisms. Specifically, it passes a Darwinian death sentence on them - no gene propagation for you. I think the present social order is doomed for this reason. The level of depredation is patently self-defeating. The people who reproduce will be those who are the net recipients of State largesse or have found a way to avoid State expropriation. The compliant middle-class - with its one- or two-child families - is already sentenced to population collapse. The model metrosexual man with his she-beast wife and their only child will not be determining the genetic makeup of the next generation.
So, no, we're never going to be "non-brainwashable" but I don't think we need to be. I think the social order has to re-align itself to where there is less total exploitation going on. Exploitation is itself exploited by Nature. The more exploitation there is, the more Nature is going to be handing out Darwinian death-sentences. Our genes will probably change over time very gradually in response but in the short-run our culture is going to have to undergo very massive changes. There will have to be a resurgence of ideas that reinforce property rights. This doesn't have to happen at the individual level. Remember, community leaders can protect many people under their umbrella, people who don't actually understand exactly what their leader is doing right, only that they are better off with him than without him.
So, in one scenario which I can envision, we have a global collapse of the fiscal house-of-cards and the EU/US/UK/etc. experience a Soviet-style collapse into a patchwork of smaller political units. The leaders that emerge in these smaller units will effectively be reducing the absolute levels of exploitation compared to what went before, even though they have no less will to exploit their subjects and even though their subjects do not understand how or why they are less exploited. Two leaders of neighboring territories will be able to exploit their subjects less in sum than if they were to merge into a single political unit over the entire territory. This is because economic incentives - including the flight of capital and skilled, educated population - force them each to abridge their inherent will to exploit but there is no "crossing the border to escape" once the two are united. In political "science", the effect that political disaggregation has on taxation is termed the "race to the bottom." And that's precisely what I want to see, a race to the bottom in tax rates.