Merlin:For Heaven’s sake man, when people hear Rothbard agreeing that Sicily has been “near anarchy” for hundreds of years we loose any shred of credibility in the eyes of the unitiated. What I would think if I where them: “Good Lord, I certainly prefer Hong Kong, which became a global city out of a village in less than 30 years, to Sicily. All hail minarchy!” Without a decent explanation of why anarchy has sucked so much (by our standards) until now, we’ll never get many people on board.
A good question is also how the rest of that market-anarchistic society would react, since coming to the invaded guys aid (for something else then money) would be kind of collectivistic (nationalism, patriotism, tribalism, racism or whatever).
Merlin: Agreed. But than we could say so of Europe in the XII century: everyone was making his own food, so why did cities arise? There is clearly something amis here.
Agreed. But than we could say so of Europe in the XII century: everyone was making his own food, so why did cities arise? There is clearly something amis here.
Because that's what they wanted. Stop being a progressive. On one hand you idealise the North Albanian communities of extended families as the original pristine anarchists. And on the other hand you treat them as defects in need of re-education. If they are content in their independent but modest lives then that is how they want to be. It does not mean anything beyond that. It does not mean that 'the state has so far outdone' anarchy. There is no 'outdoing'. We are not for anarchy because it means prosperity or progress or whatever. We are for anarchy because we want people to be free. What they do with that freedom is their own thing. Stop bringing into the picture value judgements where skyscrapers are the yardstick to judge achievement by and treating it as some sort of a defect if there are people who want to use their freedom not to run around in a rat race chasing money but to live on their hilltops and shower without using shampoo.
Plus your thesis that for the division of labour to arise formation of a state was necessary first is just obviously false. Division of labour had to occur in the state of anarchy because division of labour is necessary for the state to appear in the first place. A primitive society where everyone is of the same profession is simply too poor to support parasites like kings. Only after you have a division of labour it even becomes possible to make a living as a full time robber.
This is exactly why your Northern Albanian clansmen have stayed anarchic until this day. They are too poor to make it worthwhile for anyone to economically exploit them.
Marko: Because that's what they wanted. Stop being a progressive. On one hand you idealise the North Albanian communities of extended families as the original pristine anarchists. And on the other hand you treat them as defects in need of re-education. If they are content in their independent but modest lives then that is how they want to be. It does not mean anything beyond that. It does not mean that 'the state has so far outdone' anarchy. There is no 'outdoing'. We are not for anarchy because it means prosperity or progress or whatever. We are for anarchy because we want people to be free. What they do with that freedom is their own thing. Stop bringing into the picture value judgements where skyscrapers are the yardstick to judge achievement by and treating it as some sort of a defect if there are people who want to use their freedom not to run around in a rat race chasing money but to live on their hilltops and shower without using shampoo.
I fully agree with you, but I'm afraid you misunderstood me. What I meant is:
a) due to the structure of individual preferences in tribal societies, anarchic societies have been poor from a materialistic point of view.
b) most people who just can’t get logical thought and are unwilling to go past “show me an example” argument will take these anarchistic societies as failures, not understanding that they are extremelly successful taking preferences into consideration, but simply equating statelessness with material poverty. We all know the looks we get when we cite as examples of anarchy Somalia and medieval Ireland.
c) in almost every case when there are very wide differences among individual “breaking points” (conceding the point ofmy analysis) anarchy is unstable: only the emergence of the state will enable those with higher breaking points to exploit the dormant productivity of individuals with low breaking points. Every other divergence between preferences can be addressed with trade: differences in preference “ceilings” cannot, by their very nature, be addressed with trade, hence, they will be addressed with war and exploitation. I don’t see any way around that.
d) Thus, at any given time here are either no major differences in individual breaking points (what I believe to be the case in the West) and the state is either dying or inexistent, or else such differences exist and the State is alive and kicking. So, we know that every time a state exists it will outdo anarchy, no mater how immoral that might be from out point of view. It will just happen.
That was my point.
Marko: Plus your thesis that for the division of labour to arise formation of a state was necessary first is just obviously false. Division of labour had to occur in the state of anarchy because division of labour is necessary for the state to appear in the first place. A primitive society where everyone is of the same profession is simply too poor to support parasites like kings. Only after you have a division of labour it even becomes possible to make a living as a full time robber. This is exactly why your Northern Albanian clansmen have stayed anarchic until this day. They are too poor to make it worthwhile for anyone to economically exploit them.
This is a very interesting insight. I shall ponder that seriously.
What comes to mind right now is that considering the first kings to be parasites would not appear a very realistic approximation: Hoppe make sit clear that kings could only have emerged as gifted individuals, enjoying wide respect in the community. A parasite would have never been able to impose his rule. So it is indeed true that a society without division of labor could not support parasites, but it would also appear true that originally the State was not parasitic as it is now to us. Nevertheless you point deserves a much fuller answer.
Correlation doesn't equal causation. The most numerous herds of zebras are to be found in areas where there are the most lions. But this does not mean lions are good for zebras. It just means lions go where the zebras are.
It so happens that prosperity greatly improves the chances for a state to arise. The more accumulated wealth around you the nearer you are to a realization that you could live exclusively by the means of marauding. This is why you had the state arise first in at the time the most advanced and prosperous region of the world - Mesopotamia. The conditions for it to appear were much better for it there.
So when you have the state gobble up all the best real-estate in the world you should not act surprised when regions under a state outperform anarchic regions. You don't seriously expect Indians in the Amazonian jungle to emerge more advanced than the folks from the fertile crescent even if the latter have to drag around a ball on a chain.
Marko: Correlation doesn't equal causation. The most numerous herds of zebras are to be found in areas where there are the most lions. But this does not mean lions are good for zebras. It just means lions go where the zebras are. It so happens that prosperity greatly improves the chances for a state to arise. The more accumulated wealth around you the nearer you are to a realization that you could live exclusively by the means of marauding. This is why you had the state arise first in at the time the most advanced and prosperous region of the world - Mesopotamia. The conditions for it to appear were much better for it there. So when you have the state gobble up all the best real-estate in the world you should not act surprised when regions under a state outperform anarchic regions. You don't seriously expect Indians in the Amazonian jungle to emerge more advanced than the folks from the fertile crescent even if the latter have to drag around a ball on a chain.
But this (correct) line of though establishes only that states can only emerge in somewhat prosperous communities. It does not mean that states must emerge in such communities. All the contrary, by following Misesian tenets it would appear that the state is the stupidest pastime that a prosperous community can invest in: following Misesian tenets societies that adopted states should have been erased form the face of the earth due to capital consumption, and hence famine, war and social unrest.
So, following a single Misesian line of thought, we would except 1) that very few societies adopt the state (by accident) and that 2) those perish due to the internal structure of statist societies or at the very leas 3) are outperformed by anarchistic societies. There should be no state at all nowadays, or at most only backward African societies would sport one.
Yet history show very clearly that every society that had a meaningful amount of division of labor had a state. Only tribes resisted statehood. I certainly agree that correlation is far from being causation, but still doing away with 8000 year of undisputed human history would not sit well for us: it only detracts point to our analysis. Seriously, am I the only one who finds major incongruences between praxeology and human history?
This thread is only my modest attempt to establish a causal, not correlational, connection between rich societies and states. Of course a decent attempt would require me reading every major anthropological book around, and tehn generalizing form those. In practice I’ve only read “our” articles about Ireland and Iceland, Somalia and my dear, dear Albanian tribes. It is certainly a big jump to push a general theory form four cases, but I feel that this theory cannot be entirely done away with.
"8000 year of undisputed human history" meaning your "undisputed" opinion. From my observation of history, the "causation" of the state is correlated with the arrival of the soldier. Eventually reinforced by the mercenary.
Curius Dentatus: "8000 year of undisputed human history" meaning your "undisputed" opinion. From my observation of history, the "causation" of the state is correlated with the arrival of the soldier. Eventually reinforced by the mercenary.
We can play with words as much as we like, yet the fact remains: every time that a society has been able to progress beyond tribalism, a state was there. And every time an anarchic society met a statist one, the anarchic society was swept away. It is unwise for us to close our eyes toward this track record, simply saying that “causation is not correlation” or “states had big armies” (insurgency anyone?). We must explain this track record, else we stand little chance of convincing the majority of people to our point of view.
So if anyone has a single counter-example of a non-tribal anarchist society (beside the political/business elite, I know them), or a stable., developed anarchist society please do tell.
Merlin: But this (correct) line of though establishes only that states can only emerge in somewhat prosperous communities. It does not mean that states must emerge in such communities. All the contrary, by following Misesian tenets it would appear that the state is the stupidest pastime that a prosperous community can invest in: following Misesian tenets societies that adopted states should have been erased form the face of the earth due to capital consumption, and hence famine, war and social unrest.
Nonsense. What we know is that a region which falls prey to a state will develop more slowly than if it had not fallen prey to it and will periodically but needlessly fall into crisis situations. The inescapable consequence of being erased from the face of the Earth is not something we know it is merely a vivid fantasy of yours. (Albeit I can observe that today there are certainly no Sumerian, Babylonian or Akkadian societies around and that the rest of us live in a world under permanent danger of nuclear annihilation.)
Merlin: So, following a single Misesian line of thought, we would except 1) that very few societies adopt the state (by accident) and that 2) those perish due to the internal structure of statist societies or at the very leas 3) are outperformed by anarchistic societies. There should be no state at all nowadays, or at most only backward African societies would sport one.
Nonsense. Disparate regions can not be compared in this way. State is only one of many factors deciding at what pace the society is going to advance. Nobody has ever claimed it is the factor which can outweigh other factors combined or individually. We only claim it is a factor which has a serious detrimental effect proportionate to the size of this state.
We don't need to offer Iceland as a an example of a region which was world leader in any field of achievement. It is enough that we can offer it as example of a region which did enormously well considering it was an isolated, inhospitable and sparsely populated island settled by people from what was at the time a relatively unsophisticated culture.
Merlin: And every time an anarchic society met a statist one, the anarchic society was swept away.
And every time an anarchic society met a statist one, the anarchic society was swept away.
How about you name some examples?
Merlin: So if anyone has a single counter-example of a non-tribal anarchist society (beside the political/business elite, I know them), or a stable, developed anarchist society please do tell.
So if anyone has a single counter-example of a non-tribal anarchist society (beside the political/business elite, I know them), or a stable, developed anarchist society please do tell.
That is like asking to provide you with an example of a society on which the decisive influence was exerted by philosophical Anarchists. Anarchism has existed as a rounded ideology for only some 40 years. You will forgive us if in this short time we have not jet been able to convince any societies of the merit of our argument.
Marko:Nobody has ever claimed it is the factor which can outweigh other factors combined or individually. We only claim it is a factor which has a serious detrimental effect proportionate to the size of this state.
Very well, allow me to rephrase than: what one earth could non-tribal societies around the world, from Mesoamerican civilization, to fluvial empires, monarchies, republics, land states, sea city-states, deeply religious societies, less religious societies, caucasian, negroid, mongoloid civilizations, every conceivable mixing of population over 8000 years, what do all these societies have in common? What is that factor, besides the state, that somehow binds them all, allowing them to outdo their anarchistic counterparts? What was this “plus factor: tat you postulate? If such an other factor, or complex of factors, can be easily found, even presupposed, than I will seriously weight this theory I put forward here against he alternative.
Do not misunderstand me: I’m not advocating the state, neither am I saying that the state bring about development. I’m only saying that, given the initial structure of individual preferences, what we consider material prosperity brought about by that same factor that brings up the state. So, prosperity and the state are both caused by the same factor, but not by one-another.
Marko: We don't need to offer Iceland as a an example of a region which was world leader in any field of achievement. It is enough that we can offer it as example of a region which did enormously well considering it was an isolated, inhospitable and sparsely populated island settled by people from what was at the time a relatively unsophisticated culture.
Which, unlike Ireland, which the English at least took the trouble of fighting for seven centuries, switches to statism all by itself. Someone you introduce to anarchy will be asking this: why, than, Iceland switched, without any invasion, to a State? How would you answer?
Marko:How about you name some examples?
Ireland got “owned” by the English. The Gauls got “owned” by the Romans. The Illyrians got “owned” by the Romans. The village communities in Mesopotamia, Egypt, China and India (the famous Aryan hordes) got “owned” by local city-states. God only know how many tribes where “owned” by the European colonialists during the last half of the XIX century. Should I go on
Marko: That is like asking to provide you with an example of a society on which the decisive influence was exerted by philosophical Anarchists. Anarchism has existed as a rounded ideology for only some 40 years. You will forgive us if in this short time we have not jet been able to convince any societies of the merit of our argument.
You are right: it is only now that a logical anarchist movement has emerged, and only now will ancap get a chance.
Yet you could go one step further and ask: why is the movement only 40 years old? Why did only Mises think of praxeology, although the basic facts where easily observable back in greek city-states, and the brain weren’t lacking? Shortly, why we get these ideas only now?
I believe this is simple: only recently did the Misesian assumption that people prefer “more to less” become universally valid in the west, and only nowadays is it becoming true for a majority on earth: only now we can think in terms of praxeology instead of mercantilism and shamanism, and only now we can envision what an anarcho-capitalistic society could work. All I’m doing here is ask: why only now?
Merlin: Ireland got “owned” by the English. The Gauls got “owned” by the Romans. The Illyrians got “owned” by the Romans. The village communities in Mesopotamia, Egypt, China and India (the famous Aryan hordes) got “owned” by local city-states. God only know how many tribes where “owned” by the European colonialists during the last half of the XIX century. Should I go on?
Ireland got “owned” by the English. The Gauls got “owned” by the Romans. The Illyrians got “owned” by the Romans. The village communities in Mesopotamia, Egypt, China and India (the famous Aryan hordes) got “owned” by local city-states. God only know how many tribes where “owned” by the European colonialists during the last half of the XIX century. Should I go on?
I'm afraid your examples are no good.
Yes the Irish fell to a Norman invasion but you will notice so did England. In fact it took Normans longer to (nominally) conquer Ireland than it had taken them to conquer England. And once "conquered" Ireland had managed to preserve far more freedoms than England did. This despite the fact England was larger and more populous. So if anything it is statist England which "got owned" - by the Normans. Showing just the opposite of what you claim - that anarchic region has a better shot at defending itself than a statist region would.
Other non-vague examples you mention haven't a connection to anarchism. The Gauls and the Illyrians did not live in anarchic societies. They were organised in what van Creveld calls "tribes with rulers" or "chiefdoms". When Illyria fell it was ruled by a queen - Teuta. Not exactly an anarchy.You''ll have to do better than this.
Marko: I'm afraid your examples are no good. Yes the Irish fell to a Norman invasion but you will notice so did England. In fact it took Normans longer to (nominally) conquer Ireland than it had taken them to conquer England. And once "conquered" Ireland had managed to preserve far more freedoms than England did. This despite the fact England was larger and more populous. So if anything it is statist England which "got owned" - by the Normans. Showing just the opposite of what you claim - that anarchic region has a better shot at defending itself than a statist region would.
Which bring up the question: “why where the Irish much less numerous than what than amounted to the English, if anarchy is superior?” Both societies had time to evolve in their respective paths: England under statism, Ireland under anarchy. Yet, by the end of the day, Ireland was conquered just as statist England had been, even if it had time to further revolve even when England fell to the temporary chaos of war. Actually, taking in consideration that so many tribes warred over what is now England, with Celts, Welsh, Norses, Normans, Jutes, Angles, Saxons and God only knows what else, while no war at all erupted in Ireland (as far as I know), and still Ireland was unpopulated (compared with England) would seem to clearly point that, unless we can figure out some balancing consideration that helped England evolve do fast, given the circumstances, tribal anarchism is a very stable yet static system (and that is true). Would you disagree?
Marko:The Gauls and the Illyrians did not live in anarchic societies. They were organised in what van Creveld calls "tribes with rulers" or "chiefdoms".
My family has a naturally recognized head. Does this make my family a statist unit?
Of course tribes had chieftains, and of course “the iron law” of oligarchy applies to anarchic tribes just as it does to any other agglomeration of humans: yet these leaders where naturally acknowledged and could be kicked out at any time. Even Irish tribes had “kings”, which’s authority was entirely voluntary (”natural”). So, we should not confuse the normal stratification of individuals that occurs naturally, with a violently held monopoly: if by ‘anarchy’ one means egalitarianism, there is no such society to be found. Good lord, my soccer team will select a captain to carry out ''negotiations'' in the field.
Merlin: Marko:The Gauls and the Illyrians did not live in anarchic societies. They were organised in what van Creveld calls "tribes with rulers" or "chiefdoms". My family has a naturally recognized head. Does this make my family a statist unit? Of course tribes had chieftains, and of course “the iron law” of oligarchy applies to anarchic tribes just as it does to any other agglomeration of humans: yet these leaders where naturally acknowledged and could be kicked out at any time. Even Irish tribes had “kings”, which’s authority was entirely voluntary (”natural”). So, we should not confuse the normal stratification of individuals that occurs naturally, with a violently held monopoly: if by ‘anarchy’ one means egalitarianism, there is no such society to be found. Good lord, my soccer team will select a captain to carry out ''negotiations'' in the field.
You are talking out of your arse. Chiefdom is not a voluntary organisation.
Very well, I see you are quite uninterested in the discussion, as I’m surely uninterested in getting talked to in such fashion. That would be enough.
Are you insinuating that a strong central state overcomes the weaker state? How about the Mongol Empire? Did this nomadic tribe have a strong state? Nevertheless as Marko postulated, Liberty is a new concept. The division between bureaucracy vs tyrants was recent in human history. I'll go as far as to imply that the first villager(s) (who had wealth to lose) who was influential (or subsidized a leader) acquired the wealth to amass and pay soldiers.Under this circumstance I disagree with your stance that the state appeared before wealth.
Curius Dentatus: Are you insinuating that a strong central state overcomes the weaker state? How about the Mongol Empire? Did this nomadic tribe have a strong state?
Are you insinuating that a strong central state overcomes the weaker state? How about the Mongol Empire? Did this nomadic tribe have a strong state?
Yes, the Mongol invasion is certainly an instance of a very loosely organized commonwealth, over the “statelessness” of which we can debate for quite some time, which managed to overcome so many states (but many more tribal cultures along the way, I'm afraid). The same goes for turkik tribes, barbarian inversions and many, may other instances. Some explanation is indeed due, but I cannot provide it for the time being.
As for liberty being a new concept, again we must ask ourselves why is that liberty is such a new concept (in the west, in China it is way older).
You can't have a discussion with someone who is comfortable lecturing you on something they don't know. If you don't know what tribes with rulers are all you need to do is to ask for Creveld's .pdf, not assume you already know all there is to know. It doesn't look like you are arguing in good faith either. While you militantly assert Illyrians are comparable to a soccer team you on the other hand choose to doubt the statelesness of the similarly organised Mongols when the argument is turned around against you. Mongols were indeed not anarchic, but if Illyrians were a soccer team, then Mongols were a bunch of people waiting at a bus stop.
Marko: You can't have a discussion with someone who is comfortable lecturing you on something they don't know. If you don't know what tribes with rulers are all you need to do is to ask for Creveld's .pdf, not assume you already know all there is to know. It doesn't look like you are arguing in good faith either. While you militantly assert Illyrians are comparable to a soccer team you on the other hand choose to doubt the statelesness of the similarly organised Mongols when the argument is turned around against you. Mongols were indeed not anarchic, but if Illyrians were a soccer team, then Mongols were a bunch of people waiting at a bus stop.
On the Mongols I said that their being under a state-ish formation could be discussed, just as it could be discussed for every tribe you like, specifically Gauls and Illyrians in our conversation. Discussing such things is precisely what this thread is about (as weel as my personal field of interest).
What I do not accept though is absolute (and very childish) statements such as “tribes where a state and everyone who disagrees is an asshole”. I believe I tried to back my every post with at least some scant evidence, whereas you confine yourself with attacking me for daring to disagree. Hope I was somewhat clear.
Let me be clearer myself. You were lecturing me on something you clearly don't have a clue on. I don't appreciate that. There was no kicking out a ruler of a chiefdom, you can't just make stuff up.
I didn't say tribes were states. Don't put words into my mouth. I said tribes with rulers are not examples of anarchies. I said nothing about tribes without rulers.
Marko:You were lecturing me on something you clearly don't have a clue on. I don't appreciate that. There was no kicking out a ruler of a chiefdom, you can't just make stuff up.
Did irish tribes have chieftains? (don’t make me look for a quote) Did they, per chance, have a frigin’ King? Yes! Why than, we consider medieval Ireland to be anarchy? Could it possibly be because such chieftains where only the naturally acknowledged leaders of their communities and just as the King himself, could be deposed should they fail to deliver?
Could I know this to be true form Albanian tribes, where, to this day, heads of families are easily deposed by the family council should they “bring dishonour”? Does this seem like a “monopoly the use of force” to you? Could it be that you’re simply projecting clichés of tribal cultures into you analysis, not only refusing to even consider the fact that chieftains are but natural leaders and could do violence to no one without general consent, but also denouncing anyone who could hold this view as “clearly not having a clue”?
Marko:I didn't say tribes were states.
If “there was no kicking out a ruler of a chiefdom” and such ‘rulers’ did clearly wield some power, than tribes where states. There either is a generally acknowledged monopoly of violence, or there isn’t. I see no middle ground here.
Marko:I said nothing about tribes without rulers.
A society in which the iron rule of oligarchy doesn’t apply?! That’s utopia. But please, do prove me wrong by providing examples.
You don't seem to be able to comprehend that there are differences between tribes. Creveld specifically identifies two categories one of which is anarchic and the other which we would recognise as a primitive state.
So in place of bringing up points which were never new to me you should probably get the .pdf I uploaded and linked and read up on the distinction between tribes which are ruled and tribes which are merely led for yourself, seeing how you claim these matters are an interest of yours.
Marko: You don't seem to be able to comprehend that there are differences between tribes. Creveld specifically identifies two categories one of which is anarchic and the other which we would recognise as a primitive state. So in place of bringing up points which were never new to me you should probably get the .pdf I uploaded and linked and read up on the distinction between tribes which are ruled and tribes which are merely led for yourself, seeing how you claim these matters are an interest of yours.
I actually am. Thanks for that, looks very interesting up to now.
Commenting on what I’ve read up to now (past the “chiefdom” vs. ‘leaderless tribes” part, I can only say that what he considers “chiefdoms” could more accurately considered as original Hoppean monarchies.
He makes it very clear (around page 23, if I remember correctly) that “chiefs” rule only over what was considered to be their property: they asked for rest (“tribute”) for tilling the soil or hunting on their estates, and asked to be respected: certainly seems no state to me.
So, I’d rather say that the line he draws between “leaderless” and “ruled” tribal societies is not at all to be seen in the use of the monopoly of force, but rather on the emergence of private property in land in the later societies. So, I would still contend that Gauls, Illyrians and Mongols (to name a few) lived under anarchy.
JonBostwick makes some good points - see quote below.
Anarcho Capitalism has anarchy and full private property. Both the Northern Albanians and Hong Kong are close but different.
The Northern Albanians have anarchy and communal/family property without private property. Obviously its contradiction causes some violent conflict. Northern Albanians presumably take minimal advantage of trade to get guns and other tools.
A place like Hong Kong has private property with a state. Here too there is a contradiction, but the state is minimal so progress is quite rapid and it is a magnet for people who want to get rich.
The Northern Albanians have rules in place to make it hard to accumulate wealth. My guess is that this demotivates anyone seeking wealth. It definitely would be interesting to know what exactly those rules are that prevent a herdsman from opening up new land and increasing his herd. It could be the unavailability of land. Or alternatively one could practice more intensive agriculture. But there might be rules and customs against being different. I would think in any society there will be a few enterprising types who would accumulate wealth if they could.
Anarcho Capitalism has some success examples. Pennsylvania for a while had no state. There are examples where state power was so low it was practically anarchy. Certainly those state with minimal government grow wealthier over time leading to the paradox is increased government. (A state getting 10% of a large economy is a bigger government than one getting 50% of a small economy.)
I'm not very satisfied with the origins of the Anarcho-Communalists as particularly 'natural.' It seems in a way they made it part way to the concept of private property but didn't take the next leap, in fact they have laws to prevent it. Institutions are hard to change. There's a us/them mentality. Us = family and them community and Them = everyone else. Interaction is thwarted. The benefit of them not going private property is that it did keep a balance of power. There's no one dominant family. The absence of rough equality might be a fear. Hard to say. I think we don't have enough information from your post.
JonBostwick: Merlin:Mises made assumptions when erecting the building of praxeology, assumptions that seem perfectly sensible. Positive time-preferences, non-utility of work, human action and longing for a better life. Making such assumptions we’d end up with the economic and social dynamics that Austrian scholars often point out. But perhaps, people have not always wanted a better life. You have misread Mises. He said that people seek to replace a less desirable situation with a more desirable one. No where did he add that people prefer work over leisure, in fact, he said the opposite. Why has this society not developed? You've given the answer yourself, it lacks concrete conception of individual property. These people do not possess a different nature than other. They operate under those institutions just as we would expect them to. Why have these people not sought out better institutions? Its actually not unusual or hard to comprehend, poverty and despotism have been the norms of human existence since as far back as history reaches. Liberty and Progress have been the exception. This is behind the "paradox of imperialism", that nations with the most liberal domestic institutions take on the most aggressive foreign policies.It is these nations that are able to generate the wealth required to subjugate others. (The examples are endless, the USA of 70 years ago, 19th century Europe in general but especially England, Greek and Roman empires).
Merlin:Mises made assumptions when erecting the building of praxeology, assumptions that seem perfectly sensible. Positive time-preferences, non-utility of work, human action and longing for a better life. Making such assumptions we’d end up with the economic and social dynamics that Austrian scholars often point out. But perhaps, people have not always wanted a better life.
You have misread Mises. He said that people seek to replace a less desirable situation with a more desirable one. No where did he add that people prefer work over leisure, in fact, he said the opposite.
Why has this society not developed? You've given the answer yourself, it lacks concrete conception of individual property. These people do not possess a different nature than other. They operate under those institutions just as we would expect them to.
Why have these people not sought out better institutions? Its actually not unusual or hard to comprehend, poverty and despotism have been the norms of human existence since as far back as history reaches. Liberty and Progress have been the exception.
This is behind the "paradox of imperialism", that nations with the most liberal domestic institutions take on the most aggressive foreign policies.It is these nations that are able to generate the wealth required to subjugate others. (The examples are endless, the USA of 70 years ago, 19th century Europe in general but especially England, Greek and Roman empires).
I agree with you. I must add that the whole idea was to show that utility-maximization as per Mises (“people always prefer more to less”) does not yield the practical societies seen in tribes (nor does it, more generally, fit the observed world history too well). Almost everything is inexplicable by Misesian standards. In an other rather long post above I’ve also expanded the analysis to further specify what I mean. There I also discuss your idea that a general aversion to change and social rigidity might be the root driving force of these societies.
nanos gigantum humeris insidentes
I don't quite agree here -
Merlin: I agree with you. I must add that the whole idea was to show that utility-maximization as per Mises (“people always prefer more to less”) does not yield the practical societies seen in tribes (nor does it, more generally, fit the observed world history too well). Almost everything is inexplicable by Misesian standards.
I agree with you. I must add that the whole idea was to show that utility-maximization as per Mises (“people always prefer more to less”) does not yield the practical societies seen in tribes (nor does it, more generally, fit the observed world history too well). Almost everything is inexplicable by Misesian standards.
If the cost of more wealth is too high people will not prefer to give up their valuable leisure time. There are likely social and legal hurdles. Again it would take a more in depth analysis of the Albanian society you talk about - what happens if someone tries to get a bigger house, produce more, etc. Also if the people are already working a fair amount, giving up additional marginal leisure time would be of course perceived as higher cost. Given the level of economic development, lack of other enterprising people etc. there may be few evident gains from additional labor. While we know hard work and capital accumulation pays off in the end, few people really do it. We'd rather get the highest paying work that takes advantage of other people's capital accumulation.
Anders Mikkelsen: If the cost of more wealth is too high people will not prefer to give up their valuable leisure time. There are likely social and legal hurdles. Again it would take a more in depth analysis of the Albanian society you talk about - what happens if someone tries to get a bigger house, produce more, etc. Also if the people are already working a fair amount, giving up additional marginal leisure time would be of course perceived as higher cost. Given the level of economic development, lack of other enterprising people etc. there may be few evident gains from additional labor. While we know hard work and capital accumulation pays off in the end, few people really do it. We'd rather get the highest paying work that takes advantage of other people's capital accumulation.
As Anders elaborated. Bastiat elaborates further in one of his treatise( The name eludes me). Basically, when a situation arises that it becomes facile to plunder rather than living the cultural norm, due to the fact that it has become onerous beyond relief, people shall shall plunder, vice versa. Which becomes intertwine with his (Bastiat's) treatise of Law, Government, Money, etc,etc,etc.
Curius Dentatus:As Anders elaborated. Bastiat elaborates further in one of his treatise( The name eludes me). Basically, when a situation arises that it becomes facile to plunder rather than living the cultural norm, due to the fact that it has become onerous beyond relief, people shall shall plunder, vice versa. Which becomes intertwine with his (Bastiat's) treatise of Law, Government, Money, etc,etc,etc.
I was thinking in this case in terms of working hard vs. enjoying leisure. Most people make money by working and not by deploying their capital, or rather their talents are the capital they deploy.
I agree with you. I must add that the whole idea was to show that utility-maximization as per Mises (“people always prefer more to less”)
In terms of satisfying their preferences, not necessarily the accumulation of goods.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Glad to se the thread is still alive.
Now about the points you raise.
Anders, I certainly agree that the treatment I give is far from being exhaustive and a much more thorough analysis of tribal societies in general is needed to put forth such a theory, but right now I have absolutely no time for that, and this is just meant to be an exchange of ideas not that much of an ‘academic’ thread.
Now, if one as talking of isolated villages, I’d certainly agree with you that the profits to be had by saving, if done by one guy alone, would hardly match the cost of lost leisure. Yet we must understand that these are villages that do trade, sporadically and when hard pressed, with nearby cities. So, without working a second more, and by just specializing in ‘cash crops’ and selling more in the city, they would increase they standard by much; its just that simple. Why don’t they? Why social pressure against a too big house and too much wealth is so great? The road to a better living is there, its already practiced sporadically and its basically cost-less, and still they have refused, form at least 1500 years, to go past subsistence.
Curius, plunder is the farthest thing form anyone’s mind in these societies. I’d submit that these villages have been among the most crime-free area of the continent. When conflict arise they are settled swiftly, and in the crushing majority of cases, by monetary compensation. Some more series ones are settled by ostracism and the most serious one by allowing the victim to kill the perpetrator. What should be noticed is that, even when crime arises, it almost always (and certainly in all cases I know) results in no profit whatsoever. At most what you’ll “achieve” is to make it out of the village with your family (leaving your every belongings behind) in time before you’re shot after trying to steal a few more square meters of land. Its indeed what we’d expect of an anarchic society: peaceful. What’ sod is only that they refuse to increase they standard of living.
John, I again submit the case of trade to counter that. By simply specializing in cash crops, and trading with the city, they’d increase their standard of living by much without working more. So, the “high time preferences” explanation is untenable (due to other reasons too, which I outline in the link in my previous post).
Merlin:Why don’t they? Why social pressure against a too big house and too much wealth is so great?
I'm confused by this. Is there some sort of pressure or coercion in the background? Or are the people all genuinely not interested in increasing their material standard of living. I've never seen these villages either so that would be interesting to know if they live in modest places or more like hovels.
Whatever the values of individuals in a society there's plenty of evidence that Anarchy is the best solution.
Anders Mikkelsen:I'm confused by this. Is there some sort of pressure or coercion in the background? Or are the people all genuinely not interested in increasing their material standard of living.
There’s no coercion whatsoever. No one will shoot you if you big mega-house, they’ll just ostracize you. Social pressure is all that’s needed to do it. and of course social pressure only works because the vast majority (if the term is apt for such small communities) do not really prefer a “better” life.
Anders Mikkelsen:I've never seen these villages either so that would be interesting to know if they live in modest places or more like hovels.
They’re a “poored-up” version of the typical German village. But poverty would not be the first to strike the casual observer. These people are so damn proud that they all look like dukes having a bad time.
Anders Mikkelsen: Whatever the values of individuals in a society there's plenty of evidence that Anarchy is the best solution.
I fully agree. Look at these villages: anarchy gave them all they ever wanted; a static, paucent life, a peaceful community. And without disbursing a single penny! Imagine what an anarchic society would be if made up people who actually longed for more material wealth. It would put Dubai to shame!
But, alas, anarchy could be unsustainable whenever ‘breaking points” diverge too much. In these cases there is this big differential in what use could people make of they property, and use they actually make of it. The only way to tap on all those unused resources is to tax. I’m growing increasingly convinced that there is no way around that.
So who cares if they don't make use of unused resources?
Merlin:But, alas, anarchy could be unsustainable whenever ‘breaking points” diverge too much. In these cases there is this big differential in what use could people make of they property, and use they actually make of it. The only way to tap on all those unused resources is to tax. I’m growing increasingly convinced that there is no way around that.
No reason to force lazy people in to slavery.
I would say too that clearly the albanian's aren't really free if they force people out who get wealthier. On the other hand they're clearly relatively well off and probably could easily do more.
Anders Mikkelsen: So who cares if they don't make use of unused resources? Merlin:But, alas, anarchy could be unsustainable whenever ‘breaking points” diverge too much. In these cases there is this big differential in what use could people make of they property, and use they actually make of it. The only way to tap on all those unused resources is to tax. I’m growing increasingly convinced that there is no way around that. No reason to force lazy people in to slavery. I would say too that clearly the albanian's aren't really free if they force people out who get wealthier. On the other hand they're clearly relatively well off and probably could easily do more.
Please, do not assume that I’m holding the state to be moral. It is not. It’s a wretched thing, a criminal playground. No one has the right to force other people to choose a given life-style. But unfortunately that is not the case in the real world. Nor can it ever be, under any system.
The beauty of the free market is precisely that assuming a continuous longing for a better life, no one loses: my gain is also you gain. Resorting to violence in this scenario is foolish. But let us try to see that the market is peaceful not because it’s moral (it is) but because in it being peacefull maximizes everyone’s utility. If we could think of an instance in which morality actually clashes with long-run utility, rest assure that violence will be chosen. Morality is just merry words.
Mises saw that very clearly. Not only did he rely entirely on self-interest to push his praxeology, without ever speaking of ‘morality, but more specifically and more than once he brought the instance of some backward African country, which’s inhabitants where living in subsidence due to oppressive governent measures (I don’t agree: there is no decent government in Africa).
Now, Europeans would gain much if these African where allowed to flourish, as the market in toto would grow. Thus theyr self-interest drives them to attack the country and institute a freer regime. It might not be moral to attack a country on these grounds but Mises saw clearly that morality had nothing to do with this instance: here morality runs counter to long-run utility, hence it subordinates itself to the latter.
The very same thing happens with the State. In a market, if I value cars most and TVs least, and you value TVs most and cars far less, a simple transaction will allow us to ”trade away” our preference differential.
But that cannot happen with breaking points. Breaking point differentials cannot, by definition, be settled by the free market. In this case utility does run counter to the NAP: the NAP will be subdued. That is precisely how I believe the state originated and still runs.
We can argue about whether the concept of “breaking points” is viable, but I believe that arguing about which takes precedence, morality or utility, would be foolish.
I don't really see what your argument is here.
I do know the parts where mises thought people would have to be dragged kicking and screaming in to the economy.
One should note that these days of course there's no instituting a freer regime. First off who without sin can throw the first stone? Second contemporary indigenous cultures, and I understand this is particularly true in the balkans, would love nothing more than to fight the invader until the invader leaves or the home team is all killed. So you're looking at genocide, making a desert and calling it peace, or a big waste of time.
Cultural change has to happen internally, and trade and media has the best corroding influence.
These days too the big value is in the people - build a hong kong and they will come and be rich. If their village is too restrictive people emigrating is the solution, the people in the village are the most valuable resource.
You did well to bring up Mises. He of course did not say that people had to be coerced to produce (but countries had to!?) , but that was because he was assuming, my whole point indeed, that people always and inherently prefer more to less. Making that concession, the state is meaningless. Even if by some major luck (as Hoppe maintains) it would have sprang up somewhere, it would have long perished due to competition from anarchic societies. We would know no such thing as a state nowadays. But that is not the case.
When Mises wrote the vats majority of people in the west did actually prefer more to less, and his analysis held well. Even today, if somehow only Western Europe, Japan, Australia and North America are left around, or movement of people is effectively zeroed with the rest of the world, than these areas would become anarchic. About that I’m sure.
But other areas of the world are not 100% full of people who prefer more to lees. They “have” to be dragged kicking and screaming into the market economy. There is a reason massively unprofitable colonial empires where set up by Europeans and semi-colonial regimes still survive in Africa.
I truly wished that there where some other way to get around diverging breaking points (or rather, I’d wish that diverging breaking points where no issue at all and people could just put the NAP before utility). I wish that the media and sheer neighbourhooding with rich societies would work.
But think about it: if there where some way in which African tribes (to name only one instance) where to be persuaded non-violently to join the market, the brits would not have had expensive troops up there. They let go Canada and Australia very willingly, because paying troops to get what mere free trade would give them was stupid.
Of course that is not absolute: perhaps there is some other way. But it has to be something which has not been tried for eight millennia. I myself believe there is no answer: the vast majority of the world will have to join a market economy for the state to loose its function.
PS: but you raise a very good point. Perhaps one could build an anarchic society for some people, and perhaps, the others seeing that these guys prosper and live freely, will be convinced to join too. That would appear to be a much more sensible route that killing the entire state at once. This is what I personally am working on (insurance business).