David B,
First of all, I'd just love to say I love reading your posts. You almost always do a stellar job explaining your positions and reasoning. Just a thank you for your contributions!
Now, on to your post. I mostly see what you're saying, and mostly agree as well. My biggest concerns come in the beginning. Yes, man acts. It is a fact. But I'm confused as to why action must be a choice. For an extreme hypothetical, suppose you are placed in a concrete box that is literally big enough to hold your standing body. There is nothing you can do besides stand there. Do we mean that you act (or choose) by standing there, even when there is no possible alternative? To make the connection between this extreme hypothetical and the real world, consider the direction the authoritarian state must move in, regardless of the rate at which it moves. The authoritarian state must continually restrict choices, and in theory, approaches a limit, so to speak, of zero choices for its subjects. That is, it needs it's subjects to eventually fall in line with its planning, and the only way it can accomplish this is by reducing the number of alternatives available.
Of course, as far as I know at least, no state have ever achieved this, the true molding of man into the perfect citizen with no radicals. What I theorize happens is that as the number of choices diminishes (choices that many would make if made possible or available), a sort of "pressure" builds up. This "pressure" can be alleviated in several ways: foreign war, rallying of nationalistic feelings, revolution, among others. Of course, these alleviations of this "pressure" are what tend to lead to the demise of the state itself. That is, when the state increases its internal "pressure" by restricting peaceful, voluntary interactions, it increases the likelihood of the state's destruction during a necessary release of "pressure." Since the state (and of course, I say state as meaning the authoritarian state) must restrict choices, it dooms itself. The underlying cause of this doom is, I am hypothesizing, the fact that man is inclined to be free and seek peaceful, voluntary interactions.
I totally agree that more work needs to be done on political praxeology and the theory of conflict and power, and many Austrian-minded folks could be well-suited for such an endeavor.
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.
@Phi est aureum
The difference between being confined to a box where you cannot move and the state's threats is that you can still choose in the latter case. You have no choice but to stand in this box you have constructed, but you always have a choice to obey or not obey the commands of the state.
I do understand this. I simply am hypothesizing that the eventual goal of the state is to essentially put all of it's subjects into a theoretical "box" where there are no alternatives. That's what I mean when I say the state attempts to move to a limit of zero choices. That is, a society where there is only one type of healthcare available, one type of employer, etc. these being through the state. Of course, the only way this could be achieved would be by destroying ideas and knowledge of alternatives. And of course, I'm theorizing that destroying truth and knowledge is not really possible.
There are always alternatives, though I can certainly see why the state would want to limit the options available. Don't forget the black market. The more products the state bans, the more products enter the black market.
Again, yes, there are alternatives and the black market, among other alternatives. However I don't think this counters what I was saying. In fact, alternatives and black markets exist because the truth and knowledge exist. As in, the black market for cannabis exists because: there is demand for it and there are those with the knowledge and will to provide the supply. This can only be wiped out if the knowledge is destroyed, but I theorize this to be impossible. That's what I'm saying... the state attempts to reach the limit of zero choice, but mathematically, the limit can never be reached. Instead, pressure builds to increase alternative and peaceful, voluntary interactions.
Phi est aureum: David B, First of all, I'd just love to say I love reading your posts. You almost always do a stellar job explaining your positions and reasoning. Just a thank you for your contributions! Now, on to your post. I mostly see what you're saying, and mostly agree as well. My biggest concerns come in the beginning. Yes, man acts. It is a fact. But I'm confused as to why action must be a choice.
Now, on to your post. I mostly see what you're saying, and mostly agree as well. My biggest concerns come in the beginning. Yes, man acts. It is a fact. But I'm confused as to why action must be a choice.
I've always understood from Mises, that at a minimum doing a specific thing, or not doing it qualifies as choice. Because in the action you are attempting to substitute one future for another future.
Phi: For an extreme hypothetical, suppose you are placed in a concrete box that is literally big enough to hold your standing body. There is nothing you can do besides stand there. Do we mean that you act (or choose) by standing there, even when there is no possible alternative?
For an extreme hypothetical, suppose you are placed in a concrete box that is literally big enough to hold your standing body. There is nothing you can do besides stand there. Do we mean that you act (or choose) by standing there, even when there is no possible alternative?
I love these kind of thought experiments, because they are extremely interesting. I agree, that moving the physical body to the attainment of ends, becomes literally impossible. However, even in such a position, I dare say a man would be hard-pressed to not find his mind wandering to different thoughts. Not directing them is even a hard thing to do. I've tried, I do meditation at times, and even the effort to let go of the interaction (almost like a conversation) of the self and the stream of consciousness, is in and of itself an effort to an end.
But yes, this is an extreme example of the types of 'action bottlenecks' that man seeks to avoid. I think we all know that claustrophobic feeling of getting boxed into binary no-win situations. I think there's may be some strong hardwiring to provide strong emotional stimulus to avoid such situations. Be that as it may, it's interesting.
phi:To make the connection between this extreme hypothetical and the real world, consider the direction the authoritarian state must move in, regardless of the rate at which it moves. The authoritarian state must continually restrict choices, and in theory, approaches a limit, so to speak, of zero choices for its subjects. That is, it needs it's subjects to eventually fall in line with its planning, and the only way it can accomplish this is by reducing the number of alternatives available.
I like this analogy, as I think it's an apt one. There's one other factor I'd bring in, it's not just restricting of one choice, that's not the motive of the political action, it's the protection of someone else from risk. That's the false god that needs to be slain. My analogy is this, as a parent, my job is to raise a my child to the point where he can go out and make adult choices whose full weight he can bear the consequences of, both good an bad. As a parent, I will use false consequences, in order to reinforce certain behaviors before the child is capable of the full adult rational and critical thinking necessary to make these decisions without running into individually existential risks. Like running across the street, lying to friends, teasing, the social benefits of sharing and social interaction, etc. However, those guiderails have to slowly slip away, and his critical thinking has to develop and mine has to fall away. He's gotta learn the hard way.
Sometimes this parental action isn't for the child's interest, but for the parent's interest. "Quiet down, I'm trying to think." "Not now, I'm busy..." etc. At this point the parents behavior is about not simply keeping the child alive, but getting him out of your way. There may be times and reasons. My boys have to be quiet when I'm on a conference call. I need my job, and the respect and confidence of my peers is important to that end. However, capricious application of rules leads to confused, resentful and ill-equipped young adults with a hard road to walk.
When the government does the equivalent (think drug laws, or drunk driving laws) they insert capricious interference, with the natural order that reality and rational thinking men would provide. We need strong critical thinkers, savvy consumers, street-wise entreprenuers. Not gullible, weak, unimaginative, petulant, resentful, hypocritical, entitled brats. But that's what the smothering mothering of well-intentioned busy-bodies creates when it gains legitimacy in legislation.
Phi: Of course, as far as I know at least, no state have ever achieved this, the true molding of man into the perfect citizen with no radicals. What I theorize happens is that as the number of choices diminishes (choices that many would make if made possible or available), a sort of "pressure" builds up.
Of course, as far as I know at least, no state have ever achieved this, the true molding of man into the perfect citizen with no radicals. What I theorize happens is that as the number of choices diminishes (choices that many would make if made possible or available), a sort of "pressure" builds up.
I almost think every home is a microcosm of the transition from authoritarian control to freedom and independence. We ought to learn from that example, and copy the familial behaviors that work to achieve that transition for it's children in a healthy way.
Phi: This "pressure" can be alleviated in several ways: foreign war, rallying of nationalistic feelings, revolution, among others. Of course, these alleviations of this "pressure" are what tend to lead to the demise of the state itself. That is, when the state increases its internal "pressure" by restricting peaceful, voluntary interactions, it increases the likelihood of the state's destruction during a necessary release of "pressure." Since the state (and of course, I say state as meaning the authoritarian state) must restrict choices, it dooms itself. The underlying cause of this doom is, I am hypothesizing, the fact that man is inclined to be free and seek peaceful, voluntary interactions.
This "pressure" can be alleviated in several ways: foreign war, rallying of nationalistic feelings, revolution, among others. Of course, these alleviations of this "pressure" are what tend to lead to the demise of the state itself. That is, when the state increases its internal "pressure" by restricting peaceful, voluntary interactions, it increases the likelihood of the state's destruction during a necessary release of "pressure." Since the state (and of course, I say state as meaning the authoritarian state) must restrict choices, it dooms itself. The underlying cause of this doom is, I am hypothesizing, the fact that man is inclined to be free and seek peaceful, voluntary interactions.
Instead of coddling and controlling the citizenry, I'd rather see a state that takes a sink or swim approach. We need mentally strong and formidable free thinkers. They are huge assets to any society. And yes, I believe increasing pressure is put up with to a point, and then you see a massive scale reaction. What the tipping point is in today's world? I don't know. But there sure are a lot built up pressure in the system. Something's gonna happen. We need better political theory so we can analyze political technology, both proposed and existing.
Phi: I totally agree that more work needs to be done on political praxeology and the theory of conflict and power, and many Austrian-minded folks could be well-suited for such an endeavor.
Amen, Charge! I think a lot's been done already on the technology side already, Natural Property Rights theory, DROs, Private Property solutions to externalities (pollution, etc). But also, at a higher level with the writings of many people Nozick, Thoreau, Spooner, Rothbard, Hoppe, etc. But I think the theory of conflict is missing, and whatever categories fall out of it naturally.
The other night, I was starting to put together some propositional logic statements that describe action, and then look at diagramming different scenarios. Including conflict, choice, exchange, time preference, things like that. Neat, but not sure how useful. First I have to teach myself the different tools out there for these kind of formal logic expression.
@gotlucky : "The difference between being confined to a box where you cannot move and the state's threats is that you can still choose in the latter case."
I love that point, and it's a good one. I think of the state more as a pressure cooker. They keep trying to open valves, but someone else ends up finding otherways to make the fire hotter, or to close off avenues of escape. Sadly, things can actually get a lot worse than they are in the US, historically it's happened. However, in the end, the pressure cooker explodes, if the tension keeps building, and this is I think the point you are making. We can only conform to a point. My main concern is for the intellectual health (economic and political) of the polity. Thank god for homeschooling, let's get them a proper theory of conflict with which to educate their children, not just a proper theory of economics.
Phi est aureum: I do understand this. I simply am hypothesizing that the eventual goal of the state is to essentially put all of it's subjects into a theoretical "box" where there are no alternatives. That's what I mean when I say the state attempts to move to a limit of zero choices. That is, a society where there is only one type of healthcare available, one type of employer, etc. these being through the state. Of course, the only way this could be achieved would be by destroying ideas and knowledge of alternatives. And of course, I'm theorizing that destroying truth and knowledge is not really possible. I would agree with this, except I'd word it differently. The eventual consequence of the intervention is an emergent phenomena. The pressure of the "box" is created by the well-intentioned, and mal-intentioned, actions of millions of individual despots through all 3 branches of modern govt, and into the "busy-bodies" of the citizenry. I don't think the intention is to actually, remove freedom. In each individual act, the teacher's union striking for more pay. Feeding hungry children at school. Police interfering in families, arresting people for drug use, judges legislating from the bench, federal govt taking power from states to abolish slavery. In each little tiny interference and violation of the underlying assumption of self-determination (and self-responsibility) the box is unintentionally closed in, and the pressure builds. It's an unintended consequence, but as the "legitimacy" of such capricious and short-sighted interference becomes commonplace, the intellectual landscape is adapting and these types of behavior gain momentum. We're at a point now, however where the backlash is building yet again. It can't continue. I sure hope we're smarter now. The phoenix that rises from the ashes of these mega-states (empires), will be a direct result of the intellectual landscape in place, and the distribution of real wealth and power when the conflagration consumes the existing institutions. In some ways, I wonder if we aren't just still going throught a 400 year cycle of european empire. It might just be taking a really long time to work through and discard mercantilism. We might still be trying to digest all that was entailed and followed from the Rights of Man, and the trail blazed by the still fledgling economic science that began to gain steam with Adam Smith's the Wealth of Nations. We put slight variations of Aristocratic societies on top of us again. Marxism was yet another interesting experiment, but it again had no choice but to put despotic leaders on top of the mega-state. Liberalism and Capitalism are still nascent technologies in spite of their impact on modern society. Social democracies are another experiment we're currently destroying the world with. In the end, the healthiest political technology we've seen implemented is what might be termed confederations of free city-states. Meaning privately (or relatively so) owned local government, and free trade and movement treaties between these entities. Social democracies are arising out of this naturally occuring order, and the uber-wealthy (which can't reasonably exist under a true free market.) are still finding ways to gain, hold, and consolidate power through bad intellectualism and propoganda from threats created by them. The most insidious intellectual falsehood currently being perpetuated, is that the government is the servant and protector of the population, and that they and they alone can fight the evil-doers, whether overseas or at home ("robber barons"). In the end it's the same argument, and the same people pulling the strings. We might also be wise to pay attention to other emergent behaviors that are self-organizing. We might learn important lessons from them. How does a population of ants work togehter? I'm not interested in the mindlessness of their behavior, but more interested in the ways group behaviors change based on the propogation of signals (pheromones for them). In our case, it would be interesting to watch how ideas and narratives travel through our social groups and change the underlying landscape; it changes the way we organize and interact with each other. My desire to push back toward the city state experiment, is to increase the experimentation and the competition between different types of political organization. Just like we get out of capitalist organiztion of economic life. | Post Points: 35
As I see it, I don't think a state is needed for any of the things you supposed and said in the OP's first paragraph, but agree with the latter that a libertarian state is needed so that statists cannot simply sprout a state in a stateless region and join with the easily convinced masses to begin aggressing via something like democracy.
If you could make a libertarian state without any of the features we hate, basically devoid of state aggression, that may be a good thing. But is a libertarian state possible, that is the real question.
I do not believe that it is in "our nature" to want a state.
I do believe it is in "our nature" to do what is best for us (meaning I do what is best for me according to my own standards of what is "best").
The state can influence what we deem "good" for us in some ways.
For example, I know very few people who like paying taxes. I cannot actually think of one person who is totally fine with every tax he pays. Occasionally, you will find someone who doesn't mind paying some taxes, but only if he believes paying the taxes benefits him directly (building of a highway near his home that makes getting to work faster, thus increasing his productivity, thus making him more money). This is empirical evidence against man's supposed desire for a state.
Logically and praxeologically speaking, you could say that man likes to pay taxes because it is preferable to jail. But, in and of himself, most men prefer not to pay it. Take the highway example I gave above. I believe that if this man knew with 100% certainty that if he did not pay his taxes he would not be caught, he would not pay his taxes because if he did, he would essentially be doing so out of charity for the state. Unless he believes that being charitable to the state will bring him closest to achieving his ends, he will not give because this will be counter-productive to his ends.
The existence of the state is predicated on two things: first, taxes. Second, for taxes to be attained, the state must persuade the majority of people that the existence and collection of the tax makes each individual in the majority better off, at least until it has the power to force each individual to do whatever it wants, regardless of an individual's approval or perceived benefit. Initially though, both of these conditions must be met. Eventually, only the first must be met.
The better question: is it in man's "nature" to think that he is more likely to achieve his ends with the state than without it? If the answer is "yes", then anarchy has no chance. If the answer is "no", then once achieved, no one can hold onto power for long, as man's nature will be more powerful than any regime can possibly control. I believe the latter is the right answer. No regime ever does maintain control, and it is usually lost when it pushes back on man too much.
As for the assertion that the state has always existed: this assertion defies all logic. The state had a beginning, as all things do. Read Hasnas' Obviousness of Anarchy and Anarchy is inescapable. Not even the state can escape anarchy. In fact, within the state it is anarchy. Kind of a political unmoved mover argument. Go far enough up the chain of command and there is a guy on top without a leash.
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
The Texas Trigger: I do not believe that it is in "our nature" to want a state... This is empirical evidence against man's supposed desire for a state.
I do not believe that it is in "our nature" to want a state... This is empirical evidence against man's supposed desire for a state.
Doesn't this assume that all states must inherently levy taxes? Certainly a libertarian state would not levy taxes, as it would consider that an unjust obligation.
The Texas Trigger:The existence of the state is predicated on two things: first, taxes.
Okay. Why? A tax-less state is not unimaginable. Could we get some elucidation on this.
The Texas Trigger:Second, for taxes to be attained, the state must persuade the majority of people that the existence and collection of the tax makes each individual in the majority better off, at least until it has the power to force each individual to do whatever it wants
In practice it seems to be always the latter that makes taxation possible. Taxes were built on war necessity, at least in the US, then on so-called 'class warfare'.
The Texas Trigger:The better question: is it in man's "nature" to think that he is more likely to achieve his ends with the state than without it? If the answer is "yes", then anarchy has no chance.
Well, you've got a real problem. Because it is in man's nature to realize that he's more likely to achieve his ends given cooperation, and that is the role the state ends up providing. The state is forced on people via their need for social cooperation.
I don't think this means anarchy has no chance necessarily, if autarchy is a viable concept, that is if a libertarian state can be forged.
The Texas Trigger:As for the assertion that the state has always existed: this assertion defies all logic. The state had a beginning, as all things do. Read Hasnas' Obviousness of Anarchy and Anarchy is inescapable. Not even the state can escape anarchy. In fact, within the state it is anarchy. Kind of a political unmoved mover argument. Go far enough up the chain of command and there is a guy on top without a leash.
The real problem is the lack of available land. If we had land, libertarians long since would've moved away from states and begun their own thing.
Since we live in a world where all land has been claimed by states, libertarians have tended to focus on societal change.
However, there's always seasteading, and space-colonizing. Which, long run, seem to me much more promising than societal change, even in the US.
nirgrahamUK: 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.
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.
I think we who understand anarchy would be able to live in an anarchy with relatively little need for adjustment. But the average person who is not interested in politics at all would face culture shock.
Anarchy has never caught on as a political system because to even know that it is better requires each person to be educated and go through a series of logical deductions; the cost of becoming an anarchist is non-zero, both in time, thought, and money.
This basically dooms actual anarchies to being small but highly educated societies peopled by ideological partisans. Which is fine. So why aren't there any such small anarch communities operating successfully today? Either because of the land issue I mentioned previously, or...?
If you instituted a free society as a minimalist state, you could bring in masses of people who have no great interest in politics, and get them living in a free society with a minimum amount of political education. Because it is a free society, they'd realize over time that their political choices actually matter in such a society, at last have incentive to actually become educated, and in time you get a culture of liberty from which you might, might be able to form a mass culture of actual anarchy.
The cultural problem is one I want to address with a sort of anarchy on training wheels via autarchy, but that doesn't mean that I'm willing to compromise the values of libertarianism. There would be no state aggression. Only one possible form of free association already solidified into a working system for the masses, from which all branching is possible.
In short, it would subvert all other states by showing people that a mass state is possible without taxes, without aggression, without state owned industries, and by that proclaim that indeed the emperor has no clothes.
Willy Truth: @ 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.
@ 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.
This is essentially the heart of my thought on it. I would like to see the whole world reject arbitrary authority and move to anarchy, but I'm not satisfied with anything less than societal change on a wide scale. I think minarchy, if done right and in line with libertarian ideals (not what most of you would assume someone means when they say minarchy) could be a bridge to an eventual mass anarchy.
And my efforts currently are directed towards building a political theory of what such a minarchy would look like, one that could subvert the current concept of the nation state towards anarchy.
kelvin_silva: 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 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?
It's not that people are naturally inclined towards a state, but that they are naturally inclined towards social cooperation. Often this means following the leader. And when the leader becomes a despot, now you have a king and onward to further statism with time.
Anarchy may be the best form of social cooperation, but we cannot deny that anarchy is indeed a form of social cooperation. It is a paradoxical one, one that says the individual is better off when allowed to make all of his own choices over his own property.
kelvin_silva:If the state was absolutely necessary for our survival then why must it extract its wealth by using force against others.
A libertarian state would not extract wealth by force. I think it's actually an important thing to create a state that does not extract wealth, to show that it's possible, can be done, and is viable. Such could spark mass dissatisfaction with government structures the world over, leading to rapid and dramatic change towards libertarianism, which I'm pretty sure is what the vast majority of us on this board want and would love to see happen in our lifetimes.
kelvin_silva:If we are all naturally inclined to love the state and ador it, why cant the state get our money through voluntary means?
It could indeed, which is the founding concept of autarchy, a state predicated on voluntaryism.
Willy Truth:We are programmed to eat, have sex, and maximize our self interest.
This is actually where the state would enter human nature. Because it can be in the self-interest of someone to repress others for personal gain. Basically all evil involves win-lose transactions. As voluntaryists we reject all such win-lose transactions as innately immoral and seek to build a society explicitly on win-win market transactions.
Willy Truth: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.
Not hierarchies per se, but rather cooperation--primarily in the form of specialization of work. Hierarchies are not inherent to specialization and social cooperation, as everyone could be self-employed in different fields. Hierarchies, in the form of business organizations let's say, are a result of cooperation in the same field, since some will be better or worse, or have more capital or less, or more or less knowledge in an area. Thus you end up with teacher and student, investor and worker, etc., cooperating towards the same end. It's still cooperation.
xahrx:If all those arguments [against libertarianism] have been dealt with as you say, then either not enough people have heard those rebuttals, not enough who have heard believe, or they have heard and believe and just don't care.
Generally they don't care and have not heard, correct. Hoppe i think it was points out that the cost of educating yourself on political issues is not non-zero, and because most people in a democracy (with one vote once a year or so) or a totalitarianism (no votes ever) know that they, as one person, have very little control or influence, they have almost no incentive to educate themselves on these issues.
The solution seems simple to me then. Create a minarch society where each person's individual decisions have almost total control over their political situation. This is what I want to create in autarchy. This gives each person rather massive incentive to become politically informed and to research what sort of political system they'd prefer to live under, in an environment where the cost of political experimentation is near or at zero.
xahrx:Socialism is hindered by the calculation problem and the incentive problem. Anarcho capitalism doesn't have the calculation issue, it does have the incentive issue because what people believe is in their interests is fundamentally a subjective judgement, and subjectively up until now they have favored the state and violence for getting what they need in many cases. So just as the socialist needs to create the new socialist man, 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.
I think autarchy solves the incentive problem. And I'm going to test the idea by launching it in the real world, as a seasteading society.
xahrx: 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?
Neodoxy: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
From a libertarian point of view, given that aggression (force, as he said) is inherent to democracy, politicians are perpetrators of mass aggression against entire societies, forcing their collective decisions on untold millions and on propert they don't own, and thereby the chief criminals in the world today.
(In any case, to be precise, violence is not morally wrong. It takes violence to perform surgery, but surgery is not aggression but voluntary. Violenece as a term is therefore morally neutral. It's when violence is paired with aggressive coercion, contravening voluntary choice of the person it's directed against, that it is immoral. Therefore we should prefer the term 'aggression' or 'invasion' when speaking about the thing that we object to in state and criminal action.)
Neodoxy: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.
Do you think this makes them more statist or less statist? It makes them more statist by default, as they typically don't have a commitment to a moral principle like the NAP or any philosophy of property rights. They thereby more easily fall for arguments of the statists, and statist rationale, just as someone uneducated in economics can be fooled or at least confused by the false-reasoning of the broken-window fallacy (which professional politicians still tout!).
Neodoxy: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?
It's the ones who end up causing harm as a result of trying to legislate goodness that end up doing the most harm. Eg: the 2008 market crash caused by gov intervention and force in the loan market and the idea that everyone should have a house regardless of ability to pay. It's those trying to do good that I fear the most :P
David B:the healthiest political technology we've seen implemented is what might be termed confederations of free city-states. Meaning privately (or relatively so) owned local government, and free trade and movement treaties between these entities.
Agreed, my proposal for autarchy includes creation of charter cities, analogous to city-states of old, as the basic social unit of society.
David B:My desire to push back toward the city state experiment, is to increase the experimentation and the competition between different types of political organization. Just like we get out of capitalist organiztion of economic life.
I have the same goal. As was said before, anarchs and statists can live side by side, it's the statists who seek to get rid of the anarchs.
Therefore, my conception of autarchy holds as the highest political value voluntaryism. And if someone wanted to setup a charter-city as, say, a communist dictatorship, they could, but they would have to obtain and keep people in that system purely by voluntary choice.
It is designed to allow people with a certain ideology to group together easily, exclude others of unlike ideology, and allow the results to fall squarely on the heads of those whom believe in the ideas of that city, and no one else, and to make it easy to leave the sinking ship :P
Thus you would have regions of pure ideology, and we'll see thereby where citizens would voluntarily choose to live. I wager it would be in the free places.
Also, redistribution would be impossible without coercion, so such a libertarian society immediately short-circuits any attempt at Bismarckian politics.
And since the political form is open-ended, people would have incentive to educate themselves politically because they can live under any extreme they want with a simple choice. No one needs to picket or try to change some political process single-handedly. Simply start a new city-state that reflects your ideals and see if anyone joins you.
Man is inclined to act. Action requires choice. Choice requires freedom. Liberty and state are practically diametrically opposed. Therefore, man is inclined to liberty, not to state-authority.
And I would say this is incorrect, because my ability to act only requires my personal freedom, not yours. In fact, my ability to act and choose may be enhanced by your loss of freedom. Hence, the state, and its modus operandi of screwing some people for the benefit of others.
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.
Violence in and of itself is an end with only a very small portion of humanity.
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.
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.
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?
xahrx,
Yes, your ability to act requires only your personal freedom. But you have missed the entire point of my argument. The state tends to limit freedom of most of its subjects (maybe some are given preferential government treatment and the extra freedom that comes with it). And since man is free, because he makes choices, because he acts, the state is against human nature. Therefore, unless the majority of man is averse to man's nature (but by definition of man's nature, this is not the case), the state is not an inevitability. Your personal freedom v. others' lack of freedom does nothing to attempt an answer of the question of the state and it's alleged inevitability.
The state tends to limit freedom of most of its subjects (maybe some are given preferential government treatment and the extra freedom that comes with it).
And since man is free, because he makes choices, because he acts, the state is against human nature.
Your personal freedom v. others' lack of freedom does nothing to attempt an answer of the question of the state and it's alleged inevitability.
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. But that's where the supposed benefits of anarchism, and the historical prevelance of the state, work against your claim. If anarchism would truly offer so many benefits to so many people, why have people historically chosen or at least tolerated the state in some form? We've had a few thousand years to figure this shit out at this point. It's not unreasonable to suggest that there's something inherrent in our nature that leads to this conclusion. Hey, didn't I already explain this? It's not inherent in our nature specifically, but there is a real clear explanation for it's existence. 1. Reality resists us. 2. Learning the rules of nature (think physical sciences), allows us to make sense of and predict how specific actions will affect reality. 3. Any action is speculation as it operates into an uncertain future. 4. Theory and technology allows us to reduce uncertainty about the future. 5. Man in his behaviors is even more uncertain and unpredictable. 6. We seek certainty in our social interactions, as they are external reality to each man also. 7. Laws and norms about acceptable behavior provide a higher level of certainty within the sphere of social action. That's the source. It's inevitable that 7 will appear, the question however is what form will it take, and whether or not the current state forms are indeed the only possible forms for those solutions to take place. xahrx: I would say you are off on this, because whether or not human nature would or could support such a system has to be inherrent to its logical consistency and feasability. Otherwise you could dream up any system and as long it was logically consistent, it gets a pass. And also specifically to anarcho capitalism, in its modern form and in the form I think you address it, it is heavily dependent on a praxeological view of the world. You can't base a socio political system on human action without also addressing human nature. A positive economic analysis need not go beyond human action, a socio political analysis does. Whoa, careful. Theory is the substrate that explains the gameboard and the rules of the game, it explains the pieces and how they move and are related to each other. The content of a specific game played out is history and technology. If the gameboard includes humans, the actions are intentional, and one must assume so in order to understand what's happening. So let's put theory on the left, and technology on the right... Physics -> Electronics Biology -> Agriculture Epistemology -> Specific Theories... Praxeology -> capitalism, marxism, liberalism, communism. Now you're implying that there is something about human nature that isn't in praxeology. This is true. Praxeology doesn't explain hunger, love, lust, anger. It doesn't explain how the mind forms categories and learns. However, human nature such as it is, CANNOT violate the rules we know from praxeology. Now, a science (theory) of politics, would necessarily provide a basis for understanding the political phenomena that we see in reality. It would enable analysis and predictive modeling. Existing political phenomena can be viewed as technological solutions to risks and uncertainty that arise in social interaction. But to say emphatically that new political technology isn't possible, is quite frankly myopic. In fact, in looking at anyother field of science, we find constant progress in technology. Old processes still work, but I don't find myself plowing a field with a horse and a plow. We use much more advanced technical solutions. So, unless you think you already have a sound political science, that explains the mechanisms that give rise to the institutions we see, I don't think you're in a place to say what technical solutions could work or not. At best, I think it's possible to rightly say, that if an anarcho-capitalist society can't be achieved based on current technology. This is the equivalent of saying that based on current technology we can't create a sustainable habitat on the moon, or based on current technology we can't create a faster than light engine for space travel. Now, you are right that technical solutions in the political sphere must comprehend and account for the realities of human nature. But contrary to what you said, the same is true for economic technical solutions. xahrx: 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. Not to be insulting, but have you ever been involved in politics to any degree, on the local or national level? Because I have, since birth my family was heavily political, locally and for a short time nationally. We actually go an all paid invite to Bush I's innauguration for all the fundraising my parents did. There emphatically are such people. They are not rare, they are just mostly disassociated with normal people. 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? Haven't you read Hayek and how and why the worst rise to the top in politics? Or Isabel Patterson on the humanitarian with the guillotine? Psychotics can and do rise to the top in politics, and they are enabled by people who are assuredly good but also seriously misguided as to how to do good for others. So, what I'm hearing is that you also recognize the issue that political solutions seek to address, and that the problem is the very type of people that we need to be concerned with, the ones constantly looking for ways to "game the system" to get rules in their favor, are the same people who gravitate into the institutions that implement our political technology. I agree wholeheartedly. So my question to you is how do we develop political technology that provides better feedback correction to mitigate this damage? First, start with good theory. The ideal ecosystem for advancement of any technology is competition. So one of the technologies we need is technology to help move the system toward competition. Social change takes time, it usually takes a lot of time, things don't happen overnight. Even when they appear to, they were building underneath the surface for a long time. Think of a volcano eruption. Understanding how these things work in the social sphere starts with good theory. Proposing and implementing alternative technical solutions also requires good theory. | Post Points: 5
xahrx: I would say you are off on this, because whether or not human nature would or could support such a system has to be inherrent to its logical consistency and feasability. Otherwise you could dream up any system and as long it was logically consistent, it gets a pass. And also specifically to anarcho capitalism, in its modern form and in the form I think you address it, it is heavily dependent on a praxeological view of the world. You can't base a socio political system on human action without also addressing human nature. A positive economic analysis need not go beyond human action, a socio political analysis does.
xahrx: 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. Not to be insulting, but have you ever been involved in politics to any degree, on the local or national level? Because I have, since birth my family was heavily political, locally and for a short time nationally. We actually go an all paid invite to Bush I's innauguration for all the fundraising my parents did. There emphatically are such people. They are not rare, they are just mostly disassociated with normal people. 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? Haven't you read Hayek and how and why the worst rise to the top in politics? Or Isabel Patterson on the humanitarian with the guillotine? Psychotics can and do rise to the top in politics, and they are enabled by people who are assuredly good but also seriously misguided as to how to do good for others.
The only state people desire is the customs and norms that exist in society. When I say the state is not inevitable nor in human nature, I don't mean society norms likes respecting property rights and not tolerating murder. I'm talking about the state that extracts wealth by force and spends it on projects that are not useful (though maybe well-intentioned). I guess what I mean to say is that it is against human nature to not be free. There are always cases where man acts and sacrifices some freedom in an attempt to find a means to some end. He does act, that is. But the nature of the state, as I'm speaking of it, is to continually move to maximum control over its subjects, or approaching a limit of zero liberty. This is what the issue of the state is, in that it necessarily must move toward this end, and it is not in human nature to have zero liberty.
Again, I'm not speaking of social cooperation in general, or norms and customs, or an "ideal" autarchist or minarchist society. I'm speaking of the authoritarian state, the state that extracts wealth and holds the legal monopoly on the use of force...
@OP, I wouldn't say that the state, particularly the state as we know it today, is inevitable.
I would say that there are certain evolved features of human nature which make states possible and that they can't easily be changed. Perhaps through extensive education (or gene tampering in the future) they can be controlled or repressed but my inclination is to believe that they'll always be there in some form or another.
History seems to indicate that the actions of the peaceful majority can be made to matter much less than the actions of the aggressive minority. This appears to be because the peaceful majority is generally peaceful and trusting and cooperative. They generally avoid conflict and basically trust other people. This makes them vulnerable to exploitation.
I think that as long as there are aggressive individuals who are willing to hurt others to get what they want and as long as the peaceful majority remains too scared to do anything about it most of the time, there will always be the risk of hierarchical power structures forming. So the state may not be inevitable it doesn't appear to be easily avoided either.
Anemone-
What would be the role of a libertarian state?
“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
kelvin_silva: Anemone- What would be the role of a libertarian state?
Primarily to enshrine libertarian legal principles in a founding document as highest law of the land, especially in enshrining voluntaryism as the highest political ideal. Rothbard in Ethics of Liberty lays down the foundation for a theory of libertarian legal jurisprudence and punishment.
Though courts would be free market, they'd be expected to first agree to the founding document before becoming part of that free society, thus making it voluntary and explicit, and secondly to adjudicate and operate along the lines laid out therein, which if they failed to do they could be sued for an aggression of their own.
Secondly, to create something like a social contract, a statement of values, for people to rally under or exclude others thereby, including the statists who might try to form a legal order in what they'd perceive to be the absence of one.
This is exactly what happened when the US Constitution was proposed, in the absence of a statist government, the statists got together and pushed one through by subterfuge and trickery. Today, with an actual theory of libertarianims, that would be much harder to do.
By contrast this state would be confederal, and actually enshrine secession into its founding document. Such a state would lay down free-association training wheels. It would recognize city-states, but have no power to stop their formation or dissolution, and only the obligation to investigate and sue them should they violate voluntaryism.
Technically any form of association in a libertarian society is possible, and this would be one form, that of a confederal governemnt and city-states, but it's a fairly good one in theory.
This state would also aver any right to make law, placing that in the hands of the people as privately made law or privately adopted law, allowing people to group together naturally, ad hoc, into units where they agree on the laws most important to them and will live thus.
By this, you'd form what is technically a state, but a state removed of the things of which libertarians object. A state formed precisely for the purpose of making it impossible for statism to grow in that society, making expicitly illegal all the tricks of the statists, such as democracy, government owned courts and police and military, and enshrining into law the rights and theory of libertarian law by which a free society can best thrive.
It would be a statement of and realization of libertarianism.
And, what I think is especially good about it, is that by enshrining secession and allowing city-states to be ideologically pure and low-entry, to remove the idea of permanent borders on cities and allow them to flux with the property boundaries of their members, you can very easily create pure anarcho-capitalist regions without any structure whatsoever, if that's your thing.
Just secede from the confed with a simple declaration, don't declare a new city-state charter, and continue living on your land as a sovereign. Such a state would defend your right to do so.
Such a state makes room for anarcho-capitalism and makes possible a large scale movement towards it.
By dispensing with democracy, you remove the greatest statist tool that has ever been developed.
It's important that we de-legitimize democracy, because right now it has maaaassive credibility, and it does not deserve it. A single glance at Egypt today should prove that to anyone, where democracy has apparently now produced a new dictator.
One could have made that very same argument about democracy not too long ago and that didn't stop people from arguing for democracy. You also seem to be tripping over yourself. You've been pressing this whole time about how human nature doesn't tend towards a positive result and therefore even if anarchism was the "right" answer it wouldn't come about. I agree with this, so of course there's no reason why human behavior would naturally tend towards a positive result on such a macroscopic scale. For the first 5,000 years or so of human organization the common individual was intellectually brain dead either because of childhood abuse, malnourishment, poor education, and the things that were seen as important. This is why there was so little general intellectual development throughout this whole time period and even less political evolution. Anyone advocating anything would likely fall into this argument, someone trying to develop scientific research could be confronted with "well there's never been X development, there must be something which makes it inevitable". It's all bullshit.
Also, just because something inherent in our nature causes something to happen doesn't mean that something is inevitable, that is to say just because something is a tendency doesn't mean it's inevitable. Men have a tendency to want to rape every woman who they think is attractive. This does not happen, although much to do with rape is explained by this urge.
What?
"I would say you are off on this, because whether or not human nature would or could support such a system has to be inherent to its logical consistency and feasibility"
But in the quoted section we weren't talking about human nature, merely whether or not it would be adopted. This depends as much upon institutional and social psychology as much as anything else, but this isn't what we were talking about. If you could show that if I clapped my hand and the anarchist society came to be, that the state would revert eventually no matter what, then the state would be an inevitability and the argument would be false. However, showing that the argument would never be adopted in our current system is also irrelevant to the practical nature of the system itself, merely how important it is for coming about, now either show what in human nature would cause anarchism to never be adopted or drop this line of reasoning.
"We actually go an all paid invite to Bush I's innauguration for all the fundraising my parents did. There emphatically are such people. They are not rare, they are just mostly disassociated with normal people."
Lol that's kind of cool. Anyway, I can't comment, that's anecdotal evidence the likes of which I've never heard anywhere else, and anyway I don't understand why the marginal benefit from being a small part of such an organization would spur one to action.
"Haven't you read Hayek and how and why the worst rise to the top in politics?"
I was under the impression that Hayek's work explained how the most manipulative and power hungry got into powerful position in politics, not whether these people wanted to cause harm to others, just the most selfish.
Anemone- So with this libertarian state, al it does is prevent other kinds of states from arising, you said that the libertarian authority would provide a charter for private courts to agree with, but what if there is a statist takeover, would the libertarian authority play a role in defending the homeland, or shall we have to resort to using privvate defense agencies(like in the normal anarcho capitalist system)?
Who would enforce the decrees on the libertarian piece of paper state?
People that want to be statists are fine within an anarcho capitalist system, but as we have pointed out, the problem is that the statists want to take over others that arent statists. This is were private defense agencies would come in.
Also i think that before a libertarian society can be founded, we must educate others first on this type of topic/new political technology whatever you want to call it.
How did constitutionalist governments arise? People became more educated about it, and saw that it was good better than a monarchy, george washington, thomas jefferson, and various others motivated the populace to become more aware, and fight for their new system .
How did totalitarian systems arise? People trusted their government and lent them all their liberties in return for safety or protection of the homeland (a dictatorship cannot last if the people hate the dictator.).
So how will an anarcho capitalist system arise? Id envision that people will get sick of too much taxation, the current statist governments will collapse on themselves, and when shit hits the fan, people will start waking up and learning about these issues.
kelvin_silva:Anemone- So with this libertarian state, al it does is prevent other kinds of states from arising, you said that the libertarian authority would provide a charter for private courts to agree with, but what if there is a statist takeover, would the libertarian authority play a role in defending the homeland, or shall we have to resort to using privvate defense agencies(like in the normal anarcho capitalist system)?
Since, in a libertarian poolitical system, any compulsion is off the board, there could be no such thing as taxation, conscription, or compulsory military service, the method of defense is naturally a question.
My answer is to provide a mechanism for large-scale cooperation that also preserves voluntaryism.
Rather than taxation, I will the founding doc will outline how to handle this: ad hoc groups shall receive voluntary monetary subscriptions to accomplish whatever various goals, as the people themselves decide, for any large-scale problem. So, to apply this theory to your scenario of a foreign aggressive invasion, those concerned enough to support monetarily a defensive effort should subscribe to whomever's plan of defense that they think most reasonable, and in the same way people should follow the person they think most capable to effect the defense.
It was in this same way that George Washington raised an army, and largely financed it on his own, and people followed him because he already had expertise in warfare.
So, this all devolves to using private defense agencies even in warfare as you suggest.
In the same way, people could subscribe to an architect's plan to build a bridge. The idea of ad hoc + voluntary subscription in effect replaces the role of the politician in current political society. This is likely what people would do in an ancap region anyway, but by writing it into a founding document you create a culture that reinforces that choice and discounts the idea of a statist solution--indeed makes a statist solution illegal and marks it thereby as immoral, which it is.
kelvin_silva:Who would enforce the decrees on the libertarian piece of paper state?
To enter this society you'd have to accept the founding doc. So, everyone's chosen it like a sort of social contract. Many living and business arrangements within the society would be predicated on acceptance of the founding doc by all members so as to have law to agree upon up-front in case of disagreement.
This would happen in ancap too, but this provides a common overarching basis for a large-scale society rather than each various business and other arrangement having to restate the same principles over and over again.
If someone breaks some part of the arrangement, then standard ancap concepts of enforcement and prosecution apply. The law-breaker would be notified that they're being prosecuted and invited to defend themselves at a free court. And if convicted the person for whom the judgment goes now has the ability to legitimately enforce the law against the other in the form of recompense and the like.
kelvin_silva:People that want to be statists are fine within an anarcho capitalist system, but as we have pointed out, the problem is that the statists want to take over others that arent statists. This is were private defense agencies would come in.
Agreed.
By creating charter cities and allowing ideologically pure regions I think the statists would group together, and what's more important, the non-statists would be able to exclude the statists from their spheres of influence.
Most people won't realize this consequence immediately, but it makes most statism impossible. If voluntaryism is the law of the law, and you cannot force taxtion, that's it for redistributionist policies. Without redistribution there cannot be the modern ability to capture voters via largesse, and everything changes. By having private law be the sole means of law production, there's no place for lobbyist or others to benefit by forcing laws on everyone else because they cannot. Laws can be adopted or dismissed at will.
The probable outcome is a society of rapid and various experimentation in a hundred areas, and if we're right, it should settle into a stable form very close to ancap, though perhaps still something we can't quite imagine until it actually appears in reality.
kelvin_silva:Also i think that before a libertarian society can be founded, we must educate others first on this type of topic/new political technology whatever you want to call it.
As Hoppe points out, political education is costly. I know a lot of people in libertarian circles on banking on political education. But libertarianism requires a long process of not only education but integration from many various fields, especially economics, which is still considered the 'dismal science.'
There arose for me a new question: do people need to understand libertarianism to live in a free society?
I don't think they do. I think they could begin living in a free society, drawn to its obvious benefits, and subsume into a culture of libertarianism over time and come to adopt the principoles and corollaries of a free society by cultural osmosis.
Let me explain: the American colonists before the founding of the US republic lived in what I'd call very close to a system of libertarianism. The rule over them was so distant and so weak that they effectively had no ruler. But because they did actually think they were within a legal order, that is they considered themselves to be british citizens, any statist impulse was checked by the knowledge that they'd have to first start a war with Britain.
I think we could attract masses of people to a free society on the basis first of all of a stable monetary policy. We'd probably use gold or some crypto-currency, and there'd be no monkeying in finance. Secondly, and this is a huge one: zero taxation. People have a certain standard of living today, but if you moved to a libertarian state your standard of living essentially doubles overnight (since most people are being taxed to the tune of ~50% the world over, at least 1st world.)
When I tell people about this idea, I mean regular people not even those who've greatly studied political theory, they get it right away, no taxation, no one forcing laws on you, take control of your life, it's exciting to people who don't know the first thing about politics.
kelvin_silva:How did constitutionalist governments arise? People became more educated about it, and saw that it was good better than a monarchy, george washington, thomas jefferson, and various others motivated the populace to become more aware, and fight for their new system.
Is that really how it came about? It seems to me that a core of intellectual elites within the US came up with a new theory of political organization and then fought to make it happen. The populace had virtually no say, in fact the latter constitution was forced on practically everyone. It is thereby ultimately illegitimate.
A libertarian would be the first legitimate society every created, for each person in that society would have agreed to its principles upon entering, and children too at reaching adulthood would have to choose.
kelvin_silva:How did totalitarian systems arise? People trusted their government and lent them all their liberties in return for safety or protection of the homeland (a dictatorship cannot last if the people hate the dictator.).
Generally dictatorships arise from the accumulation of military power in a region. You're right that legitimacy among the general population is an issue, but there have been plenty of hated dictators that lasted decades, because they had a core of the population who benefitted by their rule who protected them and controlled military power. Saddam Hussein would be a good example.
kelvin_silva:So how will an anarcho capitalist system arise? Id envision that people will get sick of too much taxation, the current statist governments will collapse on themselves, and when shit hits the fan, people will start waking up and learning about these issues.
As Hoppe points out, the average person realizes that they get to vote once a year or so, and that their individual vote has practically zero effect on any election. Therefore they have virtually no incentive to get educated about political issues.
The idea of autarchy flips that on its head entirely, because if you can foot-vote into any ideologically pure charter city you'd like, they your individual vote completely controls your political situation, and now you have massive incentive to educate yourself. In fact I think people would be intensely interested and excited in such a situation.
So, I think the opposite is true. People living in an autarchy will educate themselves. We have virutally no chance of educating them beforehand, within the present system.