I've heard the argument many times over that free-marketers neglect the fact that a stateless society could not exist in the long run because of our human nature. Inevitably, they say, the people's voluntary associations will eventually devolve back into a monolithic state as we have today and we will simply be stuck back inside the belly of the leviathan.
People, they say, need authoritative structure and security, and they will run back to the state in the long run because it offers the illusion of both.
A corollary to this argument is that, since people are power hungry by nature, they will violently capitalize on one-another in a stateless society and form a state all over again to their personal benefit.
Responses?
Who are these people making this argument?
I find that arguments like this are usually employed by those who can no longer reject anti-statism on real grounds and so they try to pull our the impossibility card using human nature. Human nature is vague as hell and practically non-existant, at least on a macro "this specifically must exist' level. The fact that democracies have proved as stable as they are is evidence that almost any social system is possible.
Are they assuming that anarchy can work great in the short-term?
If so, they need to explain how the long term would differ...
if not, they have not bothered to understand market theory, and so they are basically pulling the wool over your eyes, by appealling to the long-term, when they really don't have 'long term', in their analysis.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
My initial reaction to such a hypothesis is:
"Fine. So let all those that wish to under the authority of the state be in such a condition. Myself, and possibly the majority of other libertarians, simply wish to be left alone, because we wish not to live under a state and it's violent society, even if we are the radicals of the so-called theory of humans desiring "structure" and "authority." The issue then would seem that those that see the state as inevitable cannot stand the thought of a some people being free, because they couldn't be conscripted (enslaved), taxed (plundered), or targeted for assassination by said state legitimately, unless that state had laws like the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA to even worse extremes. But then, are these people that clamor for "structure" and "authority" really clamoring for such a state where they have no freedom and the state has absolute authority over all things arbitrarily? I doubt it; thus, their argument is nothing more than clamoring for a zero-liberty society."
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
I find that arguments like this are usually employed by those who can no longer reject anti-statism on real grounds and so they try to pull our the impossibility card using human nature.
... and they probably find that a laughable, and not in the least bit ironic, statement coming from a defender of a socio-political organization that has arguably never existed in the entire history of the planet. Since the state has always existed in some form or another of violent authority, it's not off base to argue that it might be inevitable. And, in my opinion, it's something anarcho capitalists might want to take more seriously than endless pondering about how the murderer of a homeless drug addicted thief would be 'punished' by the market when the murder took place in a none homesteaded area where no arbitration agency had prior jurisdiction and no contracts were in force, and the guy's mother happened to be a popular lady who made canned hams in another area...
Or put another way, dealing with reality as opposed to endlessly and ever more complicated hypotheticals might go a good long way to making real progress. And the reality is that at least back to the begining of recorded history there was some kind of state that made a living bashing people and forcing them to do stuff for other people. It does seem to be inherrent in human nature that some people would prefer to achieve by force what they could achieve through persuasion. Anyone who has seen the smug satisfaction on one of these busybody's faces when they get a neighbor in trouble for breaking some minor zonming ordinance or some other such nonsense knows this.
"... and they probably find that a laughable, and not in the least bit ironic, statement coming from a defender of a socio-political organization that has arguably never existed in the entire history of the planet.?"
So then they wouldn't have any argument. An argument from inevitability is laughable since every system was at one point new. The people who reject anarchism on these grounds of semi-empiricist non-thought are the ones who would have been monarchists who would have rejected constitutional democracy in 1776, or the aristocrates who would have condemned the possibility of capitalism and the industrial revolution in the early part of the 18th century.
Arguments like this aren't based on any logical evidence and can ironically be disproven historically if one uses the same logic.
@nirgrahamUK
Well, someone who would make this argument would almost certainly think that anarchy is not a viable option for any length of time. The type of person would attributes the last 300 years of human progress to the state for finally allowing humanity to thrive, in spite of that pesky thing called capitalism.
As a political science professor I had said once, "Ferrari's are amazing machines. In a state of anarchy there would be no reason or way for them to exist; property would be unprotected and society would be unable to maintain its amazing level of stability and cohesion without the protection and guidance of the state."
There are mind-numbingly closed minded people out there masquerading as intellectuals.
@ Neodoxy
Good point. But as the kind sir with the bodybuilding avatar mentioned, there always has been a state. Not to say that there always has to be. But, much like many Marxists advocate socialism not entirely in line with his beliefs, I think that anarcho-capitalism could be regarded as the "final stage" of humanity, and we much progress through the tiers, minarchy being the only one that has a current real-world potential for application.
I have no idea who in the world would be saying that humanity was historically threatened by capitalism. It's a widely known fact that even Marx had admiration for the capabilities of the system, and less widely known but still known that capitalism in any coherent form has only really been around for about three hundred years and in a very small part of the world for much of that.
As for the property thing, it all comes down to your worldview. If anarchy=no defense of property rights, then you're correct in condemning anarchy. As soon as you've heard of anarcho-capitalism, then either your argument has to get a whole lot more complicated, or you're lying.
If humans are naturally inclined to have a state, then why do many often find groups that oppose the state, or are very critical of its policies? If the state was absolutely necessary for our survival then why must it extract its wealth by using force against others. If we are all naturally inclined to love the state and ador it, why cant the state get our money through voluntary means?
That means that we are not naturally inclined to have a state, or ALL humans would accept it.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Willy Truth:Well, someone who would make this argument would almost certainly think that anarchy is not a viable option for any length of time.
Therefore, those people are pro strate? Because if they are, then they voluntarily accept the state; which is to say that they accept the state as a voluntary PDA, which is to say, with regards to them and the state, that they are in a state of anarchy (pun intended).
The type of person would attributes the last 300 years of human progress to the state for finally allowing humanity to thrive, in spite of that pesky thing called capitalism. As a political science professor I had said once, "Ferrari's are amazing machines. In a state of anarchy there would be no reason or way for them to exist; property would be unprotected and society would be unable to maintain its amazing level of stability and cohesion without the protection and guidance of the state."
To your professor: so, it's okay to rape a woman it if satisfies society?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
As much as I'd like to accept that argument, I don't think that line of reasoning works:
I think it's pretty accepted that humans are naturally inclined to reproduce; yet not every human accepts/wants/chooses to reproduce. Yet I don't think this means that we aren't inclined to reproduce. Same goes with the state.
@Daniel Muffinburg
PDA is private defense agency?
And I don't get your rape analogy, please explain lol
So maybe its not human nature to reproduce.
If its human nature to reproduce why do people use condoms, all kinds of birth control methods, and even resort to abortion if needed?
As far as his woman raping analogy, private properrty would be protected in an anarcho capitalist society. You can defend yourself (self ownership, self defense), or you can hire someone to protect you and your property. Your professor seems to think that anarchist-capitalist systems abolish private property, which clearly they do not.
The same reason people intentionally eat less food (an animal kingdom no-no) and go on diets: choice.
And it's true that conscious choice makes human behavior completely erratic, and that's what gives rise to praxeology.
Yet, I think to say that it is not in our nature to reproduce is a bit deluded. And if you just don't like the phrase "in our nature" perhaps it could replaced by "as evidenced by all human history heretofore".
But, whatever. It's semantics
But you just nailed the coffin (didn't you?).
It is in man's nature to act, as well as to choose. And the state simply eliminates choice (albeit gradually, but nonetheless a state will eventually need to squash all liberty to continue).
Therefore, because man acts naturally and chooses naturally (this can just be rephrased as man is naturally free), it is in man's nature to be averse to a state and to be inclined to liberty.
C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So then they wouldn't have any argument. An argument from inevitability is laughable since every system was at one point new.
I agree, and that is the main argument against state inevitability that I use. However, inevitability is a plausible argument because if being a dick is inherent to human nature, and there's no way to bread it out of us...
The people who reject anarchism on these grounds of semi-empiricist non-thought are the ones who would have been monarchists who would have rejected constitutional democracy in 1776, or the aristocrates who would have condemned the possibility of capitalism and the industrial revolution in the early part of the 18th century. Arguments like this aren't based on any logical evidence and can ironically be disproven historically if one uses the same logic.
Or one could also argue that while the forms of government have changed superficially, we have always been under some form of oligarchal or monarchal rule. And in that light, the inevitability of the state becomes more plausible. Also in your original post you stated you wanted a 'real' argument against anarchism. That it has never existed once in known history might not be the most logically pure argument, but for practical purposes it holds water. Especially if people offer a plausible reason as to why it has never existed.
If humans are naturally inclined to have a state, then why do many often find groups that oppose the state, or are very critical of its policies? If the state was absolutely necessary for our survival then why must it extract its wealth by using force against others. If we are all naturally inclined to love the state and ador it, why cant the state get our money through voluntary means? That means that we are not naturally inclined to have a state, or ALL humans would accept it.
Incorrect. All animals including humans demonstrate extreme and everage behaviors which can oftem seem contradictory. Just because every wolf can't be the Alpha and routinely challenges that wolf in that status doesn't mean the basic pack hierarchy is unnatural. There is nothing in nature, or religion that I know but I'm admittedly not an expert on the subject, that dictates human behavior need be consistent.
@ phi est aureum & kelvin_silva
While it's true that the state fundamentally eliminates choice, I'm speaking about a more elemental level of nature: do you have a "choice" of whether or not to go to sleep? Yes, in a sense. You can choose to not go to sleep during class.
However, try to "choose" not to sleep for more than a couple days, then your "choice"--if it can even still be called that when you pass out from exhaustion--becomes overwhelmingly influenced by internal factors that have been set by millenia of evolution and genetic programming. We are programmed to eat, have sex, and maximize our self interest. A subset of maximizing that interest would be to form hierarchies, at least in my opinion, and that seems to often manifest into a state.
Xarhx,
The fact that people are destined to be "dicks" is not sufficient evidence that we need a state. We know for a fact that people on the whole and by and large can be convinced not to use force against their fellow men if there is the threat of forceful retaliation should they choose to do so. If this was not the case then either totalitarianism would be the only viable social system, or no social system would be viable. Under the system of anarchism preferred around here there are still social institutions which will use force against people who enact force against others, with this said it also has natural checks governing its power, so that even if "dicks" gain control of the institutions governing the use of force, the people who they are attempting to opress can fight back and stop them.
I agree that if one were to combine the fact that the state has always existed with a reason why it has never existed, then so long as the two do not contradict one another, then you might have an argument, but the fact is that every single argument as to why anarchism cannot exist has been dealt with in one form or another. If this happens then the fact that the state has always existed is left alone and without explanation, so it cannot be used by reasoning by any except a historicist, who has plenty of methodological problems to deal with first.
Hey fun discussion guys. I spend a fair amount of time thinking about these things.
Some thoughts.
Some political solution must exist in the society. Meaning that disputes are real existing social occurences, and whether the mechanism for resolving it is a formal institution, informal behaviors, or ad-hoc on the spot one time interaction, a resolution will happen. So the idea of blissful, communal, utopian existence is a chimera, an imaginary illusion that cannot be found because it require existence to be something other than what it actually is.
The justice ideal in any political/legal process is predicated on fair an unbiased application of the law. However, in the real world, the application of law is in fact a human process. The letter of the law is applied using the standards and values that the underlying social community espouses. And of course I don't mean collectively, I simply mean that common memes across individuals will tend to provide a basis for a "sense of what just means", for that community.
However, though unbiased application of law sounds good in theory, it does not happen in the real world. Every human will have their own biases. Each litigant in a process will seek his own ends, through his own arguments, in spite of larger societal implications. And unequal distribution of wealth and influence will impact decision making also.
Another point, we tend to be conservative in proposing and experimenting with new processes, in particular when there is an existing system in place, that provides solution for a problem domain.
Those with the most wealth and power, will provide substantial inertial and active friction or resistance to changes to social institutions that they understand and can manipulate to satisfy their own ends.
I think these pieces taken together point to why the state exists, and in fact why it was inevitable.
But I'd like to introduce one additional piece, that is unique in human history. Instant access to information, and the higher and growing ration of intellectual labor to manual labor.
Those two pieces provide a more educated and more aware population. I am not arguing that your average blogger, poster, and facebook opiner are more intelligent and educated than our history's intellectual elites. I am saying that more of them are able to participate and become skilled at rhetoric, critical thinking, dialogue, argument, etc.
This new increase in connectedness and information focus provides, IMHO, the possibiltiy for sites and discussions like the mises community here, and this discussion we are having. For all the many sites and discussions that are inane and fruitless "sound and fury", there are going to be the rare but significant discussions and sites that will actually move social thought and technology forward in useful and powerful ways.
How does this affect the original premise of "The State is an Inevitability"? We've already seen from Libertarianism, Austrian Economics, Anarchism in the 1800s, anarcho-capitalism, voluntaryism, agorism, etc. A huge increase in social thought about self-organizing social order. As an aside, I think we ought to remember that the State is in fact one of these.
Now, to bring it full circle, here's my contention, and I have reasons for thinking it's so. I don't think awareness, connectedness and advancement in social theory and technology will provide a clear near-term path to complete privitization and the domination of market DRO's and Insurance agencies. However, I think we may be able to recover the city-state experiments of the early US, the former Greek Empire, and Europe/Central Asia in the early to middle 1000s. The scientific thinking and the mobility of capital, the rise of trade, and later of industrialization are the drivers that have put human civilization in the place it is now.
Decentralization of larger "National/Global" political affiliation to competing City-States is probably the near-term realistic political technology that can be recovered, and serve to bridge the way to market DRO's, and true liberal capitalism. I think the reason is that the global availability of information, and the huge increase in social engineering experiments can act to bring down centralized use of force, and once this has happened, will serve as a huge impediment to new efforts to centralize power.
As an aside, I think we've all seen how hard it is for propoganda to survive. The "enlightened middle" on many social and political issues is growing. It is becoming more and more difficult to control the flow of information through rhetoric from single or low-density information sources (like newpaper and mainstream media). This in turn makes it very difficult to mobilize public sentiment for aggressive intervention, and even moreso, makes it damn near impossible to sustain and fund it.
We're winning, and it's not going to stop, we just need to figure out safe and effective ways to continue to eat away at the intellectual foundations of centralized aggressive power; It must topple. However, we need to do so in ways that don't undermine our efforts. It's the catastrophic, polarizing events that provide the tipping point pressure to allow massive centralized efforts. 9-11 was a boon for the US Govt, in the short term, a huge boon to radical islam in it's stated goal of accelerating the economic downfall of Western Civilizations, and a huge bust for the US population, we have to suffer through it.
But these same types of events can be used to tip authoritative grasping in the opposite direction. They're coming we need to be prepared. Keep learning and educating your fellow man, we'll get there.
Xarxh- You're right. I was a little hesitant when i wrote that :means that we are not naturally inclined to have a state, or ALL humans would accept it. "
I must think of another argument.
The fact that people are destined to be "dicks" is not sufficient evidence that we need a state.
We know for a fact that people on the whole and by and large can be convinced not to use force against their fellow men if there is the threat of forceful retaliation should they choose to do so. If this was not the case then either totalitarianism would be the only viable social system, or no social system would be viable.
but the fact is that every single argument as to why anarchism cannot exist has been dealt with in one form or another.
If someone comes to kill you, or rape, forcibly establish power over you, would you just let them do it to you because humans are naturally inclined to power?
If you and your family was chillin outside and another family conquered your family and established a state, would it be ok to be content with the state just because humans are naturally inclined to power?
Humans are naturally social beings, we want to cooperate with each other in harmony and peace, etc, etc, but the state as we see it, causes many problems, it kills through war, takes away wealth through taxation, and causes even greater disharmony, so how can one possibly think that the state is needed to provide social order and structure?
For anarchism to be possible in the future people have to have demonstrated some inclination for at least leaving each other alone. So far through the entire history of the planet there has always been a dedicated core of humans who seem to want to rule over all the others. They want to hurt people. They want to steal rather than create. They want to wage war and commit mass murder rather live and let live. And as long as such people exist, and as long as the left side of the bell curve exists to enable them, when does anarchism ever become possible, and how does the state become anything but inevitable?
That's well said.
Unless we are utopians, we need to recognize that there will always be an aggressive minority happy to parasitize the rest of society, and there will always be a not-too-bright and highly gullible majority to fill the role of the former's unwitting pawns. These groups will always exist and always be as they are. If a free society cannot exist given these conditions, then a free society cannot exist.
how can one possibly think that the state is needed to provide social order and structure?
And how is the argument "people are dicks" any more indicative of this exactly?
"If all those arguments have been dealt with as you say, then either not enough people have heard those rebuttals,"
Because sooo many people have heard of anarcho-capitalism. And out of those sooo many people have really looked into it instead of dismissing the subject because of some ridiculous excuse.
"In either case all you're doing is raising the possibility that anarchism might develop at some point in the future, which is fundamentally no different than the historical inevitability argument for socialism and communism."
You realize the way that you phrase this contradicts what you're saying right? Marxists argue that communism is an inevitability, I've never known an anarcho-capitalist to argue this (although I'm sure they're out there). An understanding of individualism destroys most beliefs in historical inevitability that doesn't deal with praxeological or physical laws.
"you may argue for a future anarcho capitalism, but you will have to change a whole lot of people into anarcho capitalism men before that happens."
Correct sir. That's what a lot of people around here are trying to do, or help do on whatever small scale we can do so.
"It seems your statement only holds true if "dealt with" is limited to a very narrow hypothetical perfectly constructed logospace which allows no human element. "
What?
"The question remains that if "every single argument as to why anarchism cannot exist has been dealt with," then where the fuck is the anarchism?"
I should think that this one would be pretty obvious. A huge number of people have ignored the debate, some disagree that it has been solved, and most importantly the fact is that the overwhelming masses have never heard of intelligable anarchism.
"So, congratulations. As soon as you find the planet Vulcan you can land there, lay out your perfectly formed argument, and paradise will ensue."
Thanks. I have my best scouters looking for it now.
"Here on planet Earth, which is populated by human beings who have a tendency to want a central authority on some issues in my experience, you haven't "dealth with" anything."
An argument being dealt with in a logical manner and being practically discredited is not the same thing as changing the mind of the public. If this were the case then all dictatorships would instantly cease to exist and would be replaced by democracies.
"And they may hear your arguments, agree they are perfectly constructed and non contradictory, and thank you for enlightening them, and then try you for treason and hang you."
For some reason I don't think that I'm worried about that one happening.
"For anarchism to be possible in the future people have to have demonstrated some inclination for at least leaving each other alone."
Most people show this inclination every hour of every day.
"So far through the entire history of the planet there has always been a dedicated core of humans who seem to want to rule over all the others. They want to hurt people."
So? That means nothing if popular opinion turned against them. And most people who want to hurt others for the sake of doing so are kept under control in one way or another.
"when does anarchism ever become possible, and how does the state become anything but inevitable?"
The minute that popular opinon turns against the state then statism can no longer continue to exist unless it is directly totalitarian. What you are describing does not make the state inevitable, it makes the state inevitable so long as those conditions prevail, in which case it would not be, from a temporal aspect, inevitable, only an inevitability in the definite past which is exactly why it occurred.
@Neodoxy
In your estimation, is a free society possible or reasonably likely if a large majority of people are incapable (by ability or inclination) of following the debate?
People don't need to be able to follow "the debate" that is the real nitty gritty of the matter or even the real debate at all. Just as if you talked to the average liberal or conservative about something as simple as aggregate demand they're probably not going to know what the hell you're talking about, they're probably going to have very different and very definite ideas about the causes of the recession and the effects of stimulus, even though they're so uninformed about the actual "real" economic debate that has to be engaged in to justify or condemn stimulus spending that they could be said to have no really relevant opinion at all.
In short the majority needs to have something to either bring them over to libertarianism, no matter what it is, slogans, the conversion of influential people, or intelligent arguments, or they have to shut up and exit the political realm entirely. If this does not happen then the free society will not come about in the absence of secession or nation formation of some sort.
I agree, but the problem is that the majority is uninterested in substantial argument and refuses to allow critical thinking into their lives. Too many people--hell, this even happened to me today--still simply think that if you're not a Democrat or Republican, you're wasting your energy because you're a "dreamer".
This is why Ron Paul destroys everyone in debates but is regarded as a fringe candidate--he refuses to boil his argument down to stupid, cliche talking points like everyone else, and then the news media will throw around the ideas of the "gold standard" and "End the Fed" like they're the innane ramblings of an old kook. I was guilty of believing it as recently as 5 years ago.
As stated earlier, maybe the advent of the Internet and the phenomenon of instant information and communication will continue to aid the cause of libertarianism. But even then, I don't know if Anarcho-Capitalism will be catching on anytime soon.
Thought moves slowly and then in spurts. We can't say what the future will hold, but the fact is that libertarianism is becoming increasingly mainstream, no matter how slowly, and our numbers are growing, no matter how small these numbers may be growing. We cannot know what the future will hold. Anarchy could be two decades away or maybe it will never come about at all. Both are perfectly within the realm of possibility.
I will state it again, because I don't think this argument has been properly addressed (at least not yet here). My apologies if it has and I have somehow missed it.
Minarchist: For anarchism to be possible in the future people have to have demonstrated some inclination for at least leaving each other alone. So far through the entire history of the planet there has always been a dedicated core of humans who seem to want to rule over all the others. They want to hurt people. They want to steal rather than create. They want to wage war and commit mass murder rather live and let live. And as long as such people exist, and as long as the left side of the bell curve exists to enable them, when does anarchism ever become possible, and how does the state become anything but inevitable? That's well said. Unless we are utopians, we need to recognize that there will always be an aggressive minority happy to parasitize the rest of society, and there will always be a not-too-bright and highly gullible majority to fill the role of the former's unwitting pawns. These groups will always exist and always be as they are. If a free society cannot exist given these conditions, then a free society cannot exist.
This is where praxeology has something to say. If the goal of action is to use a means to an end, then nothing about aggressive, violent, or theiving behavior conflicts in anyway with that description of human action. (autocorrect, tried to turn humen into hymen..., ugh...)
There may or may not be varying degrees of instinctive internal friction to using aggressive action against other human beings, or even against other living beings. Theft is not performed because people don't respect property, theft is performed because the thief perceives this means as to a specific end, to be worth the risks incurred by acting in such a way.
Social technology (law, norms, and institutions that arise to support and enable the various types of cooperative and conflicting social action) is the tool by which we alter the risks of various social behaviors in a community, or socially connected group. So, altering risks to engaging in productive efforts, involves coming up with norms around scarce resources and right of use. These norms will increase the risks to taking the productive means and ends of individuals by defining social responses to such actions (theft). On the other hand they decrease the risks of having one's productive efforts taken, thus increasing the likelihood of gaining direct benefit from such production.
The problem is technical solutions can creep into our social institutions and our social norms (laws and unwritten rules) that serve segments of the population to the opposite effect. They can encourage or legitimize theft, and therefore increase risks associated with production. They can legitimize the aggression of one segment of the population, and thus subjugate another segment to violence, increasing tensions between groups, and reducing the time preference of the members of groups that are under constant or random/chaotic threats.
Social theory, dialog, the memes that inhabit the members of social groups, and the institutions and processes by which we engage in social action are constantly and incestuously evolving. But those evolutionary pressures will tend to produce "fitter" solutions in each area. Theory, memes, institutions, processes. Our job is to continue to propose better theory (praxeology), memes, and technical solutions. Our job is to point out significant errors in theory, memes, and technical solutions.
At the end of the day, biased political solutions to property issues will result in side effects that are harmful. Those side effects will end up crushing the state. But unless the narrative explaining the failures is accurate, we're going to end up replacing them with the same solutions.
Again, so to summarize, social tech alters risks. The side effects of bad policy and institutions will necessarily cause them to self-destruct. The narrative about the failure forms the basis of the solution that replaces a failing system. We have to control the narrative, or at least alter it. Ron Paul has been doing this well.
Phi,
Simply because man is inclined towards action and action necessitates freedom does not mean that in the absence of freedom that there is some factor which would put an end to this limitation on freedom. That is to say we know that man always acts, but why is it that something which inhibited his actions would necessarily have to go away?
Furthermore action means a lot of things, as does liberty, you could make the case that in the statist society the average individual would have more liberty, and that his actions would be more pro-state. If individuals decide that the state is in their own self interest then they will act to ensure the state's continual existence.
Neodoxy,
I didn't quite understand what you were saying. Why must the thing inhibiting action and choice (the state) necessarily go away? I hypothesize for two main reasons. One is that truth, reason, and knowledge will spread out, no matter at what rate, because information and ideas aren't really "destroyable." Two is that the state must must continually inhibit actions and choices of man, man will always, at some point, no matter how long it takes, be forced to act and booze what the state has outlawed, and this will be the failure of the state. It is during these times, in fact, that truth spreads quickest, I think. But again, I really was unclear on what your first sentence was saying.
And xahrx,
"What if human nature is such that this shift in popular opinion will never happen? Then the state is inevitable." Indeed. But this is nearly a tautology, but there is value in it. The value is, as I said, that the question is whether truth, reason, and knowledge will or won't spread.
Phi est aureum: I will state it again, because I don't think this argument has been properly addressed (at least not yet here). My apologies if it has and I have somehow missed it. Man is inclined to act. Action requires choice. Choice requires freedom. I want to nitpick here, but to specific effect. 1. Man acts, it isn't something he likes to do, or tends to do. It happens, there's no possibility that it doesn't happen. It's not a desire, it's a fact of reality. 2. To act IS to choose, from available options. It doesn't "need" choice, like I need, but may not have air. It IS choice. To act is to do one thing and forsake doing other things. Ok, with that in mind, let's look at freedom from two realms. One is what I consider to be a praxeological freedom; the other is freedom from the negative social response when we believe it's not fair. So from a praxeological point of view, you pick what you do. That's freedom at the individual level. We all have it, we have it completely. What we can't avoid is that we can pick the action, but we can't pick the results. That's the uncertainty inherent in action. Theory and Technology are the tools we use to mitigate uncertainty in action. Theory and technology broaden the range of possible actions that we can engage in by giving us a means by which to guage the consequences of actions we might choose and by presenting a catalog of possibilities which we might not have thought of creatively in isolation. Freedom in a social context is a different beast. The freedom that I have as an acting man, however, must be considered not just on whether or not I'm able to do it when I bring that action into a social environment, and the bottom line is there are things I can do, that other individuals would reasonably wish to prevent, regardless of whether or not it's "right" to prevent some action I might choose. For example, I might imagine striking you with a stick in the head. I can do it, it's an action, I control my body, what's the problem? Here what we're looking for is norms/laws (technical solutions and theory) that help us raise the costs (make it unprofitable) for certain behaviors, and lowers the costs (make it more profitable) for other behaviors. Phi: Liberty and state are practically diametrically opposed. Therefore, man is inclined to liberty, not to state-authority. Therefore, the state is not an ultimate inevitability, but, in my opinion, a transitional phase between our true nature before there was any state (liberty) to one of returning back to an understanding that we are, in fact, free. Given my description (and praxeologically sound description) of the nature of social norms and rules, now we're simply arguing about the form such things take. The state is simply a term for a specific technical solution to the formalization of social norms that increase the risks and costs of some behaviors, and reduce the risks and costs of preferred behaviors. But the generic emergent phenomena which necessarily happens is that the social group will produce some technical solution to encourage some behaviors and discourage other behaviors. Now, when you then say "Man is inclined to liberty." For himself, YES! For the other man? Not necessarily. When you say that the state is transitional, I agree, in that the technical solutions to these problems do evolve, at the micro and macro level. But if you say that the need for some technical solution is transitory, I disagree. We will always produce mechanisms for governing social interaction. (Governing in the sense of complex dynamic systems, not the authoritarian government sense). I think what we're saying is that imagining and ideal state of man, is not about perfecting freedom, but optimizing the way a society governs social action. The question then becomes, what is ideal, and to what ends does that ideal aim? Personally, I pick, maximizing choice, minimizing interference, theft, assault, whatever trends toward, theory that is true, technology that enables men to pursue his ends, maximizes health and wealth possibilities for the maximum number of humans, and decreases the friction in a society that makes it hard for a man to change his economic and social status. Phi: This argument isn't making the case that man is inclined to have no property rights, no respect for customs and societal norms (which develop properly alongside respect for property rights), etc. This would be the "anarchy" that most people shy away from without understanding what free market advocates mean when they say a free society would be anarcho-capitalistic. I would say, yes, man is inclined to have customs and societal norms, a respect for life and property rights p others, etc. And because man is inclined to these things, he is inclined to voluntarily choose this type of society over one that lacks these things. That is, given the choice, he will CHOOSE to ACT in accordance with these values, and society begins to develop. The state moves society backwards, in that it attempts to reverse the ability of man to choose to act in ways that he is naturally inclined to. I hate to say it, but though I believe there are some instinctive drives towards community, the things you say above are in fact, mostly technical solutions, not necessary conditions. The customs and norms that exist, to the extent they do, survive and thrive because of the direct beneficial effects they have on society. Societies that don't respect life and property, devolve and fall away. One cannot say that "given the choice, man will choose to act in accordance with these values". Society develops regardless, and it can only support so much aggressive interference. But for some reason it can support some. The future of social technology requires us to understand how to raise the costs of certain behaviors, and lower the costs of others. We can win the "can't we all just get along" argument all day wrong. No one is going to argue about the "Golden Rule." The excuse to use the stick and thus discard freedom and fairness and tolerance succeeds through very specific ways, and we have to understand those too. The lack of a stick to discourage theft and violence is not a realistic possibility. WE have to figure out how to make it's use extremely expensive. Government as we experience it keeps finding out ways to externalize the costs for those actions, pushing the costs from the people who do it, onto someone else who can't prevent it. Phi: Yes, there are people that choose to try to rule over others, to plunder the masses, and to install themselves and their buddies into newly established seats of power that restrict further the liberty of man. But if more people understood the teachings (and virtues) of liberty and voluntary interaction, then how much respect would "rulers" be able to garnish? If they were not regarded as having proper authority, they would have no authority whatsoever, indeed. The teachings of liberty and voluntary interaction are logicaly sound. But we can't forget the need to understand the dynamics of power and aggression on the other side of the coin. There are two ways to increase the costs of aggression, voluntary action (avoid trading interacting with the aggressor), and aggression that imposes negative effects on the aggressor. Voluntary cost increases are things like credit reports, angie's list, ratings on eBay, shunning in quaker communities. But there may still be a role for aggressive redress of wrongs. Maybe not. I wouldn't want to throw out the concept of any legitimate use of force to get restitution. I'm not sure that "rulers" is a bad concept in theory, maybe it's just that we enable them when they claim some "right to use force". We will always have aristocratic figures. We will always have respected elders, and esteemed judges, and sports heroes, and great statesmen. The question is how do we make the costs of aggression high for them too? Yes a lack of "respect" would help. But are there ways to create more bite, they need the consequences of their actions to come back on them directly. That's a meme we should push. No matter how good their goals were, we have to connect them to the destruction they cause. Someone will always be entrusted with some level of authority, even if it's just by reputation and trust, and not through some militarily enforced "right of [insert name of authoritarian position]". phi: The question, then, is not whether the state is an inevitability (as I believe logic demonstrates), but rather, which is inevitable: the spreading of or the destruction of knowledge? I believe the spread of truth, reason, and knowledge is inevitable, by the mere definition and nature of these things.
Phi: Liberty and state are practically diametrically opposed. Therefore, man is inclined to liberty, not to state-authority. Therefore, the state is not an ultimate inevitability, but, in my opinion, a transitional phase between our true nature before there was any state (liberty) to one of returning back to an understanding that we are, in fact, free.
Phi: This argument isn't making the case that man is inclined to have no property rights, no respect for customs and societal norms (which develop properly alongside respect for property rights), etc. This would be the "anarchy" that most people shy away from without understanding what free market advocates mean when they say a free society would be anarcho-capitalistic. I would say, yes, man is inclined to have customs and societal norms, a respect for life and property rights p others, etc. And because man is inclined to these things, he is inclined to voluntarily choose this type of society over one that lacks these things. That is, given the choice, he will CHOOSE to ACT in accordance with these values, and society begins to develop. The state moves society backwards, in that it attempts to reverse the ability of man to choose to act in ways that he is naturally inclined to.
Phi: Yes, there are people that choose to try to rule over others, to plunder the masses, and to install themselves and their buddies into newly established seats of power that restrict further the liberty of man. But if more people understood the teachings (and virtues) of liberty and voluntary interaction, then how much respect would "rulers" be able to garnish? If they were not regarded as having proper authority, they would have no authority whatsoever, indeed.
phi: The question, then, is not whether the state is an inevitability (as I believe logic demonstrates), but rather, which is inevitable: the spreading of or the destruction of knowledge? I believe the spread of truth, reason, and knowledge is inevitable, by the mere definition and nature of these things.
This reasoning I'm completely behind. Love it. Our job then is clarity, quality, and explanation. Narrative, categories, etc. But I hope that the things I said above, are in fact this. The spread of truth, reason, and knowledge. We can't just say "Man hit, man bad!" I think we need to get deeper into the weeds and bring praxeology in with us. In explaining how things manage to be the way they are, and how the different motivations and behaviors arise out of the natural nature of acting man, perhaps we'll find clues to changes needed in theory and technology in the social (economic and political) space.
Obviously, I think we will mostly agree here, that the Austrian School has provided a praxeology of economics(theory) that is light-years ahead of any other school of economic thinking. But is the political theory also that good? Economics gives us part of what we need to explain the systems that exist and the side effects on cooperative action. But I don't think our theory is sufficient on the political side, to explain the dynamics of power and conflict, such that we can methodically and effectively explain existing political behaviors.
Xahrx,
As for your question, I was under the impression that you didn't go into "for the sake of argument" hypotheticals. In this instance, I'm not going to. Sure, you're right that if people cannot accept anarchism then it will never occur, but there is nothing to indicate this and that's what the issue should be here ultimately, whether or not this is the case, now are you trying to prove this or not? Because the fact is that it's wrong, people have believed so many different things in different places that the spread and majoritarian domination by any ideology is possible.
As for other things that you said:
1. Violence in and of itself is an end with only a very small portion of humanity. These people are much less likely to end up in public office and are much more likely to end up in law enforcement and the military if they are likely to end up in public employment at all. Where in developed countries do you see people causing direct harm to others? The only universal case you can argue this would be law enforcement in cases of abuse by police. The only other arguable place would be the military, but plenty of places in Europe haven't even seen active duty in a while, of if so it's been very limited both in scale and temporally, so they're doing a pretty piss poor job of hurting people. In either case the fact is that they're not exactly doing anything to prevent the anarchist revolution or to cause much harm to others on an administrative level.
2. I never claimed that a logical argument will be adopted, merely that one couldn't argue against its practicality without being wrong or talking about its actual adoption, which is not certain either way.
3. Your point that people press for laws which would alter the behavior of others is irrelevant because it is so rare to find people who actually dedicate a large amount of their lives around politics, let alone ones which are strictly "prohibition" laws, instead of ones which are supposed to increase the efficiency of the economy itself. Most people don't care much about politics, they may want laws, but for the most part in their personal lives they're perfectly peaceful.
4. Why in the world would people who just want to cause harm the one in political control? What are the chances that all the traits necessary to get into political office would be more in line with those who want to cause harm than those who want to do good? Especially when the state is seen as one of the primary tools for good mankind has at his disposal and policies which are usually enacted are usually widely supported? No, the vast majority of people who just want to cause harm, and these people are rare, are thrown into jail if they ever act on their tendencies or they act in passive aggressive ways in their own lives. The man who wants to cause pain and who could get off on this through indirect political pressure is rare and far between. As for the kind that wants to directly see his pain caused, there are far too few wars in most democracies for this to be a widespread phenomenon.