I absolutely agree. A polycentric order is the only sensible solution. While it's certainly not perfect, it minimizes the risk. The monocentric system actually creates a blockade to further 3rd parties addressing the problem. In other words, it limits the amount of possible 3rd party arbiters. At least in the polycentric order it is possible for a 3rd party to resolve the issue without creating a state in and of itself, since there are more options in the general atmosphere of competition.
Brainpolice:If there is a need for a monopolist on final decision-making within a given territory, and there are multiple institutions like this controlling different territories, then they would be in a state of anarchy with respect to eachother
Nothing wrong with this so far...
Brainpolice:and we would therefore require an even higher monopolistic institution to keep them in check. Hence, the logic of the Randian position naturally should lead one to propose a global government
...but now we jump the rails. This does not follow because to the individual, there are diminishing returns to the utility of multiple layers of government (at least at some point).
Let's think this through from the beginning. I am a monopolist on final decision-making in my home. My household is in a state of anarchy in respect to other families. I require (or rather, see the value in and voluntarily seek) a higher monopolistic institution to keep things in check. I participate in the creation of a community board to arbitrate disputes. But now my community is in a state of anarchy with respect to other communities. It may be that I see the value in and voluntarily seek an even higher monopolistic institution to keep things in check, but it also may not be. In practical terms I agree with the theory that the city (or "polis") is the largest functional institution that makes sense for mankind. I don't see how it matters much if cities are in a state of anarchy with respect to each other, or what kind of benefit an individual could get from a state that he can't get from a city. But in any case, the point is that because of the diminishing returns on the utility of multiple layers of government to the individual, a global government is not the logical outcome of the Randian position.
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
Brainpolice:Even if a given institution does not have the power of taxation but still initiates force in order to maintain a territorial monopoly, hence restricting competition by blocking entry to the market, it is still a state.
Yes, but we don't have luxury of simply pondering the best system and then waving our magic wand and seeing it implemented. We cannot avoid dealing with the fact that we currently alreadly live with a state that exercises both coercive taxation and a territorial monopoly. Persuading people to sanction a system of voluntary taxation while retaining the territorial monopoly most certainly does retain a "state". But it is a state of vastly reduced powers. It will not be able to abuse its territorial monopoly to the same degree under voluntary funding as it would under coercive funding.
Once we live with a state which gathers its funds persuasively, then it's a much easier transition to a market anarchy. The state can allow competition in some areas where it previously held a monopoly, itself participating as a low-cost option for the poor (as it will be bolstered by voluntary contributions, aka charity).
maxpot46: .... Once we live with a state which gathers its funds persuasively, then it's a much easier transition to a market anarchy. The state can allow competition in some areas where it previously held a monopoly, itself participating as a low-cost option for the poor (as it will be bolstered by voluntary contributions, aka charity).
.... Once we live with a state which gathers its funds persuasively, then it's a much easier transition to a market anarchy. The state can allow competition in some areas where it previously held a monopoly, itself participating as a low-cost option for the poor (as it will be bolstered by voluntary contributions, aka charity).
We can either have a theoretical discussion on which system would be just, right and good or we can discuss what we can actually do about the current system.
Those are two wildly different topics.
You proposed government doesnt get any more right or just only because we today happen to have a system that is a lot worse. Also minarchy is as wacky and impossible as anarchy from a practical position of what system we can actually move towards today. So you argument is flawed placed under the other topic there too...
Escaping Leviathan - regardless of public opinion
"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx
Zeddicus:We can either have a theoretical discussion on which system would be just, right and good or we can discuss what we can actually do about the current system.
The topic is neither which system is just, right and good, or what we can do about the current system. It's whether anarchy could work in human society. My view is that it can't work if human society is unable to implement it from the current state of affairs.
Zeddicus:Also minarchy is as wacky and impossible as anarchy from a practical position of what system we can actually move towards today.
Grounds?
Surely you recognize the distinction between the question of how to bring about anarchy and, once anarchy has been established, whether or not it is a just or practical or sustainable way of doing things. This thread is about the latter, not a question of libertarian strategy. The fact that pure anarchism doesn't currently exist is not really a substantive argument against it anymore than the fact that chattel slavery was a seemingly normal precedent in America throughout much of the 19th century is a substantive argument against slavery abolition or the fact that a geocentric model of the solar system was once a common social convention disproves the heliocentric model.
maxpot46:The topic is neither which system is just, right and good, or what we can do about the current system. It's whether anarchy could work in human society. My view is that it can't work if human society is unable to implement it from the current state of affairs.
A lot of stuff is impossible to implement on a large-scale in the forseable future, that does however not make it impossible...(not only social-economic systems. it goes for technology and stuff to, it's not necessarily impossible to for instance build a fusion reactor with a net-power output at a resonable price just because no-one have figured out how to implement it yet).
It's like saying that because no-one have built a road from A to B that means B doesn't exist.
maxpot46:Grounds?
People frown there noses and think you are a wacky extremisit just as much if you argue for minarchy as anarchy. At least in my experience arguing for a very limited state havn't been able to rase any additional sympathies.
It is really more the other way around. If you speak about limited government they have heard something about it before and think they know what you are talking about so they stop listening instantly. If you talk about anarchy (without mentioning the actual word) you might however be lucky enough to spark some interest because it is unfamilar. This can give you enought time to explain to someone who is actually listening to make them see this is not just some crazy idea, but a well though-out system.
Both are still impossibilities to argue in any form av mainsteam media though. Since you will almost never get enough time to appear as something else then a crazy extremisit.
Ego, you say you've read the book, but I get the distinct impression that you either glossed over what Rothbard said about courts or ignored it totally.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Brainpolice: You're brazenly lying about your system: in the case that neither party can agree upon a court system, at least one individual will be forced into using a particular court system against his/her will. Otherwise, the (allegedly) guilty party can't punished. Firstly, your assumption does not logically follow. You ignore the possibility that no trial will occur at all and the case will not be further persued. It does not logically follow from a stalemate that initiating force is the only possibility.
You're brazenly lying about your system: in the case that neither party can agree upon a court system, at least one individual will be forced into using a particular court system against his/her will. Otherwise, the (allegedly) guilty party can't punished.
Firstly, your assumption does not logically follow. You ignore the possibility that no trial will occur at all and the case will not be further persued. It does not logically follow from a stalemate that initiating force is the only possibility.
You're both missing the possibility that the wronged party will act without a trial. You're both misundestanding the purpose of trials. You're both assuming a statist view of what a trial is for.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
Actually part of my point was precisely that it's possible that people will act without a trial - that there doesn't necessarily have to be one.
Brainpolice: Actually part of my point was precisely that it's possible that people will act without a trial - that there doesn't necessarily have to be one.
My apologies, then. I missed that. Ego's central strawman, that both Geoffrey and I have pointed out, is that a trial is necessary to act. You seemed to be conceding it.
The statist view of trials is that the purpose is to prevent people taking the law into their own hands - that there is no legitimate action without a trial. Anarchy starts with the assumption that the law is already in their own hands - and completely legitimately so. Trials are just a way to reduce the cost of enforcement to both parties, and, quite secondarily, to reduce the possibility of third-party costs.
Ego:You're brazenly lying about your system: in the case that neither party can agree upon a court system, at least one individual will be forced into using a particular court system against his/her will. Otherwise, the (allegedly) guilty party can't punished.
Yes, and the problem with me or my insurance company forcing a theif to return my property is what exactly?
We always have the right to do that, courts have nothing to do with it.Courts only come in to play when booth parties want the conflict mediated in the first place.
One valid point against implementing anarchy is that as long as most of the rest of the world is controlled by governments it will have a few serious issues. Sex tourism, well that is more of a inconvinence. But manufacturing of hard drugs (inviting the US Marines), issuing passports, the protection of citizen abroad and extreditions will be some serious problems not easily solved without having some form of fake government.
~
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
This also raises an important question for Ego. Ego, what happens if someone has a dispute with your default court itself? What, if any, third-party arbiter can he and the default court turn to in order to resolve their dispute? Is the default court the final arbiter of last resort, in which case there is no third-party arbiter to whom they can turn and the default court will have to decide its own case (in which it can't possibly be impartial)? Or can they turn to one of the other competing service providers? But if they can do this, what if they can't agree on a third-party arbiter for their dispute? Who can they turn to? Surely not the default court for it is a party to the dispute and we've already noted a problem with it deciding its own case. But if not the default court, then it looks like we've back to the alleged problem you see with a polycentric legal system. The only difference is that the alleged problem has been pushed back a step, but you've added an organization that actively violates rights as a matter of institutional policy, not to speak of all the other problems we've noted with it being a monopolist.
What happens when an individual has a problem with a ruling under your system? Even Rothbard stuttered on that one:
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals
"Socially accepted"?
Your anger at me implies that you think my system somehow violates the free decisions of individuals. It doesn't violate a single free decision. If you can name one free decision that it violates, I'll change my mind. My system only kicks in when individuals are unable to come to a free decision (and you stated that would rarely happen, so I don't see what your fuss is about!).
What is being proposed as an alternative to your statist, monopolistic model is that the total lack of the initiation of force or coercion, while you continually propose a singular institution with the exclusive right to initiate force or coercion - I.E. a state.
Under your system, there is no lack of force or coercion. While I propose a fallback court, Geoffrey proposes vigilantism:
Or no court at all. You do know the difference between vigilantism and one party forcing the other into court, don't you?
If the fallback court is a violation of rights (and I don't think it is), vigilantism certainly is a violation of rights.
The actual legal system I am proposing does not institutionalize rights-violations; yours does. That makes yours not simply unfair but unjust (and this is leaving aside other arguments I've made against systems such as yours).
I should add: you keep hammering me on my definition of a state: any organization that initiates the use of force. The whole monopoly business is useless: there have been hundreds thousands of times throughout history (including now) where two coercive organizations claim control over the same territory; that doesn't make them either one of them less evil than if the other weren't there. A better definition is to focus on what's truly evil: the initiating of force.
Zeddicus: We can either have a theoretical discussion on which system would be just, right and good or we can discuss what we can actually do about the current system. Those are two wildly different topics.
Indeed they are, but they are closely related.
Deciding on how to get from where we are to where we want to be requires a clear idea of where we want to be.
In deciding where one wants to be, a careful look at the options, choosing carefully between all of the potential options is wise.
Getting the most information available about the different possibilities is useful in that choice.
To work toward a goal that cannot exist, a goal that will be very different from what you thought it would be, is tragic. Ask any Bolshevik.
To know what to do about the present system, a clear view of the system you want to move towards is essential.
You proposed government doesnt get any more right or just only because we today happen to have a system that is a lot worse.
Any step away from worse is 'better', but if there isn't a clear understanding of the end result, 'better' can easily become 'worse than before'. Let's avoid that, shall we?
Also minarchy is as wacky and impossible as anarchy from a practical position of what system we can actually move towards today. So you argument is flawed placed under the other topic there too...
Under current conditions, any step away from Statism seems impractical - Statism is so pervasive. In 1776, any thought of a worldwide ban on slavery doubtless seemed impractical, too. Someone at that time praising the glories of a government that would teach all the children, control all of the businesses, feed all of the people, and cure all of the ills wouldn't have been seen as impractical - it'd have been absurd. Less than 230 years later, where do we find ourselves? Take a long enough view, and anything is possible.
The Nanny State did not grow overnight, or in a single, decisive act - it grew slowly, in bits and pieces. I expect that the Freedom state (of being, if it's anarchy) will grow in much the same way - gradually, step by step.
It's unrealistic to think that you can walk into the woods for 1 hour, but walk back out in 5 minutes. It's gonna be a long journey back out - especially since we've never been entirely out.
To know which way to walk, an understanding of where we want to end up is useful. To walk more quickly and effectively, walking in the same direction is helpful.
Examining the options seems like a good first step to me.
Danno
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
Ego:vigilantism certainly is a violation of rights.
Anarchism says it's not.
Any further argment against anarchist methods on the grounds that they violate rights via vigilantism is nothing but a strawman and need not be considered.
And, I for one, am not taking the Rothbardian argument as quoted above. Unless the context changes the apparent meaning of it, he was wrong.
If you have a rebelious attachment to the word "vigilantism", how is my system not "vigilantism" on the part of the fallback court? Think about it.
Ego: If you have a rebelious attachment to the word "vigilantism", how is my system not "vigilantism" on the part of the fallback court? Think about it.
What do you mean by 'rebellious attachment'? Why do you put vigilantism in scare quotes? These words - vigilantism, legal system, state, etc. - have definite meanings. Your fallback court is part of a proposed legal system, by definition it cannot be construed as a vigilante organization. Think about it.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
Your system proposes vigilantism as the legal solution when neither party can agree. How is that not part of the legal system? That's why I used quotes.
You, Brainpolice, and that guy with the long name are too caught up in labels (and whether a given label is good or evil); think about the concepts instead.
Ego: I should add: you keep hammering me on my definition of a state: any organization that initiates the use of force. The whole monopoly business is useless: there have been hundreds thousands of times throughout history (including now) where two coercive organizations claim control over the same territory; that doesn't make them either one of them less evil than if the other weren't there. A better definition is to focus on what's truly evil: the initiating of force.
Sigh. Read the definition! A state is an organization that claims a territorial monopoly over the legal use of force and ultimate decision-making. We don't accept your idiosyncratic definition.
Ego: Your system proposes vigilantism as the legal solution when neither party can agree. How is that not part of the legal system? That's why I used quotes.
False. I do not propose vigilantism as a legal solution when neither party can agree. By definition vigilantism is outside the law. How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in?
Ego:You, Brainpolice, and that guy with the long name are too caught up in labels (and whether a given label is good or evil); think about the concepts instead.
This objection makes no sense. We are thinking about the concepts involved. You keep using them improperly.
What happens when two parties can't agree upon a court? You can't say, "vigilantism", and then say, "oh, but I don't endorse it...".
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Ego: I should add: you keep hammering me on my definition of a state: any organization that initiates the use of force. The whole monopoly business is useless: there have been hundreds thousands of times throughout history (including now) where two coercive organizations claim control over the same territory; that doesn't make them either one of them less evil than if the other weren't there. A better definition is to focus on what's truly evil: the initiating of force. Sigh. Read the definition! A state is an organization that claims a territorial monopoly over the legal use of force and ultimate decision-making. We don't accept your idiosyncratic definition.
Ego: False. I do not propose vigilantism as a legal solution when neither party can agree. By definition vigilantism is outside the law. How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in? What happens when two parties can't agree upon a court? You can't say, "vigilantism", and then say, "oh, but I don't endorse it...".
I gave you three possibilities for what can happen if two parties can't agree on a court. I very well can say that one of them might be vigilantism and I very well can say that I don't endorse it. It's not part of the legal system, and no legal system is immune to some people choosing to go outside it and attempt vigilante justice (not even yours).
If you are going to ignore our arguments and simply repeat this question and your own arguments as if they haven't already been addressed, then there is no point continuing this discussion with you.
I've had enough of your sniveling.
Ego:Why is that any better (and ultimately, any different) than multiple organizations and/or individuals doing the same thing?
What do yo mean 'better'?
I think you still fail to understand what a state is if you ask how a state is any different from multiple organizations or individuals doing the same thing.
Whenever an organization decides that it's going to initiate force and fight back against those who try to stop it, it's essentially no different from your definition of "state". I doubt I'm the only anarchist who recognizes the distinction of the "state" from other organizations is arbitrary (and is usually employed by leftists).
I'm getting very tired of this forum software... I think my response should be appearing shortly.
I won't be able to respond for a few days, but I'll leave the following as my last words: my proposal is no different than your proposal; I don't understand where your venom is coming from.
Under your proposal, what happens when the accused refuses to agree upon a court system with the accuser?
Either...
If you can explain to me how that's different from my system, and if you could also explain how my system violates or prevents any free decisions (as I noted in a previous post), then I'll agree with you.
Danno:
That is all true. However what I was countering was that the notion that anarchy would be impossible because atm we can't get there from here or because we need to move thru minarchy first. That notion has no relevance what so ever on wheter anarchy can actually work or not.
Ego:some organization is going to come along and force the accused into something (and possibly fight with other organizations who want to do the same)
Yes, people do have a right to use force against criminals. There is no problem with forcing someone who have harmed me to be put on trial in the court i choose.The fact that I might let him have a say on in which court to use at all is simply a curtesy I am offering. In the hope that this will reduce the cost of getting my compensation from this criminal and insure me against any misjudgment in what has happened on my part.
Ego: Your system proposes vigilantism as the legal solution when neither party can agree. How is that not part of the legal system? In anarchy, there is no 'legal system' as such - depends on what contracts you sign. Nor would vigilantism be against any law, unless it initiated agression. Lemme join in with the chorus, Ego - 'twas a great first book you read (and yes - very libertarian, or at least fellow traveler), but you're going to need to understand more of the basic concepts if you're gonna understand what they're talking about here. I've been readin' the stuff off and on for decades, and they leave me in the dust fairly frequently, because not much of my study has been recent. Danno The avatar graphic text: "Are you coming to bed?" "No, this is important" "What?" "Someone is wrong on the internet." | Post Points: 35
Your system proposes vigilantism as the legal solution when neither party can agree. How is that not part of the legal system?
In anarchy, there is no 'legal system' as such - depends on what contracts you sign. Nor would vigilantism be against any law, unless it initiated agression.
Lemme join in with the chorus, Ego - 'twas a great first book you read (and yes - very libertarian, or at least fellow traveler), but you're going to need to understand more of the basic concepts if you're gonna understand what they're talking about here. I've been readin' the stuff off and on for decades, and they leave me in the dust fairly frequently, because not much of my study has been recent.
Zeddicus: That is all true. However what I was countering was that the notion that anarchy would be impossible because atm we can't get there from here or because we need to move thru minarchy first. That notion has no relevance what so ever on wheter anarchy can actually work or not.
We can't get there tomorrow, but if there's no way to get from here to there, anarchy may as well be a census taker on the head of a pin, counting the dancers.
That we can't do it tomorrow, or that it's never been done, is no proof it wouldn't work. When someone can come up with a tactic to deal with every conceivable contingency, and nobody can find a weakness or flaw, it becomes reasonable to believe that it could work, and it's time to get serious about planning a way to move in that direction.
Pretty much like the USA in 1776 - that was all theoretical, too - it'd never been done that way. Had more of the populace, or the leaders, shared the vision, it may have worked. Now we know what pitfalls must be avoided, and that's a plus.
Danno:In anarchy, there is no 'legal system' as such - depends on what contracts you sign. Nor would vigilantism be against any law, unless it initiated agression.
By legal system we anarchists just mean the polycentric legal order with its many overlapping jurisdictions and individuals and organizations acting as providers of various legal and security services.
Danno, I was incorrect in saying he proposed that as the legal solution; he simply proposed that it would happen. My later posts address this perfectly.
Zeddicus:However what I was countering was that the notion that anarchy would be impossible because atm we can't get there from here or because we need to move thru minarchy first.
I didn't make this claim... my comment was meant to imply that the practical matters of implementation were related to the topic and not derailing the thread.
No, I hold anarchy to be impossible because it's far too frightening for most personality types. Personally I think like, and share the values of, an anarchist, but as a political strategist I think minarchy is the best we can hope for. I mean, is anyone else profoundly unimpressed by the lack of progress Agorism has made over the last 30 years?
Zeddicus:in my experience arguing for a very limited state havn't been able to rase any additional sympathies.
In my experience, I have been quite persuasive and am responsible for several converts. Of course, I'm no Ron Paul... yet. But there seems to be more support for a limited state than for anarchy.