A few statements which I imagine are fairly non-controversial:
1) Superlative value-creation skill and ambition are naturally relatively rare traits (see Hayek et al.)
2) Covetousness/jealousy are naturally relatively common traits
3) People judge the quality of their lifestyle by way of subjective comparison with others
Anarchy results in a decidedly non-egalitarian distribution of lifestyle quality because of the non-state-distorted effects of 1). Even though I believe the quality of life for all people would be greater as a result of anarchy than under a state, isn't the relatively concentrated distribution of wealth which results from anarchy a possible root of it's own destruction because of 2) and 3)? That is to say, aren't those in the lower three lifestyle quartiles of an anarchy that much more susceptible to statist arguments which always seem to appeal to a jealous desire for wealth redistribution? And this despite their probably objectively better status under anarchy?
I forget where I read it, and I've searched in vain, but I recently read a quote which illustrated that people are often sold on statism with the argument that they'll be part of the beneficiaries who receive the stolen loot.
The notable investment manager Howard Marks said in the 70s he came across this:
When the English factory worker sees the boss drive out in his Rolls Royce, he says, “I’d like to put a bomb under that car.” But when the American worker sees the boss drive out in his Cadillac, he says, “I’m going to own a car like that some day."
Is the latter perspective sustainable, or do we always tend towards the former?
How many envious employees actually put bombs under their boss's cars?
Even if they don't, such a mindset leads to disastrous consequences when these jealous workers are wooed by the siren song of the state.
You might want to check Envy by Helmut Schoeck, which explores exactly what its topic says - and comes to some unpleasant conclusions. One of them is, that every society needs to overcome envy to some meaningful degree to enjoy economical growth.
(He actually also studies the useful properties of envy, which is natural and unavoidable - problems arise if there's too much of it. Really recommend this book if you are intherested in the topic.)
Mises Wiki | Economic Resources and Books (search engine)
I personally tend toward a less violent version of the former which goes something like "I wish I could take that car without any consequences."
"Is the latter perspective sustainable, or do we always tend towards the former?"
do you include yourself in the 'we'?
"I personally tend toward a less violent version of the former which goes something like "I wish I could take that car without any consequences."
as a member of the 'we'...i guess, i dont even think that.
do you try to take cars to see if there are consequences?
if the car was unowned though, i dont guess it would matter much.
poppies:1) Superlative value-creation skill and ambition are naturally relatively rare traits (see Hayek et al.)
poppies:Anarchy results in a decidedly non-egalitarian distribution of lifestyle quality because of the non-state-distorted effects of 1).
You're assuming that the effects of state distortion are toward egalitarianism. Why? Because that's what politicians tell you? Just because the state tries to redistribute wealth doesn't mean it succeeds. State action distorts in precisely the opposite direction by giving elites leverage (through the political process) that they wouldn't have had otherwise: lobbying, patents, corporate personhood, licensing requirements, and other anti-competitive laws.
There is no way that a monopolistic institution can make everyone more equal without destroying itself at the same time.
Why anarchy fails
Anonymous: "Is the latter perspective sustainable, or do we always tend towards the former?" do you include yourself in the 'we'?
Yes, Mr. Methodological Individualism, I do, since I'm human, also. ;)
My question can be restated thusly: do humans, myself included, have an innate trait of covetousness which is common and strong enough to thwart attempts to sustain anarchy? My own natural covetousness probably would be destructive in this fashion, had I not been exposed to enough education about liberty. And since I tend toward anarchy even though I'm in a statist society, I may be in the great minority behaviorally.
Whoa, friend, your pony's a little too fast. I think state actions tend toward non-egalitarian situations just as you do, you've misread me. It doesn't matter if this is the case, however, if statists successfully sell enough people on the idea that they can deliver egalitarian results, which was part of my point.
To clarify, my last post was in reply to AJ, apparently the quote button didn't work for me.
I believe states don't distribute wealth any more evenly than anarchy, but they are based on a management of perceptions that they do, which is important in considerations of sustainability. For instance, in the U.S., the "one party with two heads" approach commonly keeps the populace fooled into thinking "these guys are awful, let's bring in the other guys" instead of realizing that all politicians have fundamental conflicts of interest and are inherently violent.
poppies:Even if they don't, such a mindset leads to disastrous consequences when these jealous workers are wooed by the siren song of the state.
We know that for sure... in an anarchist society of all places?
Angurse: poppies:Even if they don't, such a mindset leads to disastrous consequences when these jealous workers are wooed by the siren song of the state. We know that for sure... in an anarchist society of all places?
I suppose that's a good point, but historically there seems to be good reason to assume that large masses of people surrounded by a minority of much more wealthy individuals are prone to violently try to "equalize" things.
poppies: Angurse: poppies:Even if they don't, such a mindset leads to disastrous consequences when these jealous workers are wooed by the siren song of the state. We know that for sure... in an anarchist society of all places? I suppose that's a good point, but historically there seems to be good reason to assume that large masses of people surrounded by a minority of much more wealthy individuals are prone to violently try to "equalize" things.
Even when the wealthy individuals have acquired their wealth justly?
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
Envy tends to materialise when people don't think the rich are rich because they deserve it. As is the case in the current system. Which is why a proper understanding of economics is important to sustaining any society. In the end some people need to get over the notion that the world owes them anything. This goes as much for a commune as it does for a market order. Remove wealth and there's still other domains (wherein competition is now more intense as criteria of success extant in capitalist orders are now removed) to compete in, like looks, success with the other/same sex &c., barring utter and complete equalisation (annihilation of the individual.)
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
There is no such event in history.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Jon Irenicus: Envy tends to materialise when people don't think the rich are rich because they deserve it. As is the case in the current system. Which is why a proper understanding of economics is important to sustaining any society. In the end some people need to get over the notion that the world owes them anything. This goes as much for a commune as it does for a market order. Remove wealth and there's still other domains (wherein competition is now more intense as criteria of success extant in capitalist orders are now removed) to compete in, like looks, success with the other/same sex &c., barring utter and complete equalisation (annihilation of the individual.)
Your point, and trulib's as well, makes a lot of sense. Here's hoping widespread proper understanding of economics comes to fruition soon.
Stranger: poppies: Angurse: poppies:Even if they don't, such a mindset leads to disastrous consequences when these jealous workers are wooed by the siren song of the state. We know that for sure... in an anarchist society of all places? I suppose that's a good point, but historically there seems to be good reason to assume that large masses of people surrounded by a minority of much more wealthy individuals are prone to violently try to "equalize" things. There is no such event in history.
I'm confident your interpretation of the French revolution would back up such a bold universal statement, and I'm confident I would differ from said interpretation.
The French revolution was a bourgeois-intellectual revolution. The poor peasants sided with the church and the nobility, and some of them were massacred for it.
Jon Irenicus: Envy tends to materialise when people don't think the rich are rich because they deserve it. As is the case in the current system.
Envy tends to materialise when people don't think the rich are rich because they deserve it. As is the case in the current system.
Yes, much of the envy is created by corporatism which creates the undeserving rich. It would be a much smaller problem in a just system.
Poppies, it seems your concern assumes that large collections of wealth would be sustainable in an anarchistic arrangement. As AJ pointed out, with out the grants of privilege backed by the force of the government, a wealth accumulating system faced with constantly defending its acquired wealth from endless competitors could only grow to a certain size before it would be faced with diminishing returns from further expansion. As Jeffery Tucker pointed out in his lecture "The Evils of Intellectual Property", the completely unchecked market will constantly "drive all profits to zero" with invention/innovation the only check.
Jackson LaRose: Poppies, it seems your concern assumes that large collections of wealth would be sustainable in an anarchistic arrangement. As AJ pointed out, with out the grants of privilege backed by the force of the government, a wealth accumulating system faced with constantly defending its acquired wealth from endless competitors could only grow to a certain size before it would be faced with diminishing returns from further expansion. As Jeffery Tucker pointed out in his lecture "The Evils of Intellectual Property", the completely unchecked market will constantly "drive all profits to zero" with invention/innovation the only check.
That's really a great point. This is why it's so valuable to post in this forum, being able to access the aggregate thoughts of so many who have worked through these issues is a great benefit.
There is an important distinction between “want” and “demand”. Lets assume that Paul sees that John is much wealthier than he is, and rightly so; he shall probably want to eliminate part of this difference.
Yet, can he move from “want” to “demand”? Shall the costs he’ll face make up for whatever psychic gains he wishes to make? Can he rally enough “pauls” to his cause? Does he even have the stomach to admit to himself this loathing of John, let alone act upon such an urge? Normally I’d except the “lower quartiles” of the population, under anarchy as under statism, to be pretty much spineless beings, unable to truly organize anything. And it is these guys that would create a redistributive State?!
Perhaps than someone uses this latent anger towards the rich to his purposes, thus organizing the otherwise spineless masses. But will this gifted leader be foolish enough not to see that by redistributing wealth he only destroys his trade partners? Or that only he, as the new leader, can become the next target of the mob? Can intelligence and stupidity be so much intertwined in a single human?
Finally, I’d say that redistributive States are a recent development, whereas every State at its very beginning had no redistributive function at all, just a pretty much even tax collection operation, Should envy drive the State, we’d expect Social Security to have been implemented in Babylon, not XIX century Germany.
History shows that States are creations of a few, not of the masses.
Thus, it is a good point you raise and no definitive answer can be given. Yet, everything would seem to work against the possibility of envy-driven state creation.