"But there is huge difference between "anarchy" between states and the type of anarchy advocated by anarcho-capitalists"
So how far down can you break up these territorial monopolies and still maintain "order"? Or in other words, what is the minimum size for a State before you declare Anarchy?
Monaco: Its area is just under 2 km² with an estimated population of almost 33,000.
It's comprised of wards numbered above. Can I break those up and declare sovereignty also? Can I then go even smaller? Tell me when to stop before we cross over to Anarchy.
What a nonsensical question. There is no secession movement in Monaco, so it is moot.
Not necessarily. Two states can disagree and then go to war. If one of them wins, you might call them the 'final decision maker'. This is no different from interpersonal anarchy where the buff guy wins every time.
Good point. Therefore, a minarchist must admit that if he could push a magic button, he would create a world minarchist state to eliminate these types of disputes. If I could magically create a worldwide protectorate, then I would. Unfortunately, the chances of this happening are zilch.
Isn't it consistent for an individual to be a state?
Yes. That's why the individual right to secession is so important.
The Monarchy of Snowflake: Population 1?
That has a nice ring to it. How's life there?
Snowflake wrote the following post at Sun, May 30 2010 10:47 PM: Minarchists have a problem with anarchy between people, so for consistency, they must also have a problem with anarchy between states. This is why the OP says minarchy implies world government.
Snowflake wrote the following post at Sun, May 30 2010 10:47 PM:
Minarchists have a problem with anarchy between people, so for consistency, they must also have a problem with anarchy between states. This is why the OP says minarchy implies world government.
Thanks for clarification :)
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
LeeO:That has a nice ring to it. How's life there?
what is the minimum size for a State before you declare Anarchy?
Point taken. Individuals have the right to secede and form their own "state." But this does not mean you have to declare anarchy.
I am defining the state differently, as "an orgainization authorized by people to use force on their behalf." Most anarchists believe that this type of organization must exist to protect people and property, but they insist that defense must be private. I have argued above that private defense organizations would act like a state, so why not just set up a state to protect life, liberty, and property? In the context of the real world, an anarcho-capitalist territory would be vulnerable to invasion from a territory with a coercive government. The free territory would then fall under coercive rule. Under a protectorate, there would be a standing army to defend against such an invasion and preserve freedom.
LeeO:I am defining the state differently, as "an orgainization authorized by people to use force on their behalf.
Your definition of government makes the kinds of aggressive institutions we see today not governments, because most of them are not authorized by their citizens. If you want to define government this way, fine. You'll only be playing semantic tricks on your opponent.
"so why not just set up a state to protect life, liberty, and property? "
So why not just set up a territorial monopoly over healthcare? Or schools? or food, water, shoes, steel, don't forget the banks, money, etc,.....
Seriously, how does it follow that since anarchist think that defense agencies would be in demand, that a State is beneficial?
"I have argued above that private defense organizations would act like a state"
Either it's State or it's not. You can't say it's not a State but it will act like one. Either a private defense agency will be financed by the voluntary consent of the buying public, or by extortion and coercion in which case you are no longer talking about private defense agencies but about criminal organizations.
" In the context of the real world, an anarcho-capitalist territory would be vulnerable to invasion from a territory with a coercive government."
On the contrary! A totally decentralized system would be extremely difficult to defeat. Who do you attack? There is no King or a central authority that you must conquer and subdue. Since defense, infrastructure, utilities, etc.. are not under a central authority, those things cannot simply be taken over under the control of a single foreign invader. The invaders would literally have to subdue every individual in the free territory.
I would say that the incentive to attack such a free society would be extremely low in the first place. Not only because of the above, but also because there is no political machine with an army that can provoke its neighbors.
DD5:I would say that the incentive to attack such a free society would be extremely low in the first place. Not only because of the above, but also because there is no political machine with an army that can provoke its neighbors.
And if this organization derives revenues non-aggressively, and only acts in self defense, this is what we call a PDA, or private defense agency.
I am saying that it's possible for a state to derive it's revunue non-agressively and be limited to defense. I call this type of state a protectorate.
I differentiate between "state" and "government." A government governs, which implies positive action and the initiation of force. So all the governments today are still governments, or aggressive states. A protectorate, on the other hand, is not a government. It does not govern because it only uses force defensively. So, governments and protectorates are two different types of states, one using force positively and one using force negatively.
So far, humans have only ever had governments. The closest thing to a protectorate we've had was the United States republic. It had tons of flaws from the beginning, but worked pretty well for 100 years or so before being converted into a fully coercive government in the late 1800s. I don't think there has ever been a system of anarchy that lasted this long or resulted in this much freedom.
Keep in mind that I'm thinking in terms of the nature of power in the real world. Throughout history, the masses have always been led by a tiny group of elites, about 3% of the population or so. This is not likely to change, since the vast majority of people just aren't interested and follow the trend, even if that means being subservient to government. After the American Revolution, the elites decided for the first time to place limits on their own power, and the result was the Constitution of the United States. Right now, the elites in power are only interested in maintaining and expanding their control. The solution is to get a new group of elites in power who will go one step further than the Founding Fathers of America and successfully limit the state to the protection of life, liberty, and property. Unlike the governments of today, a protectorate would be authorized by every citizen wishing to participate.
"Therefore, a minarchist must admit that if he could push a magic button, he would create a world minarchist state to eliminate these types of disputes. If I could magically create a worldwide protectorate, then I would. Unfortunately, the chances of this happening are zilch."
Oh great... and that world minarchist state - naturally results in a tyrannical one world government. Awesome.
Ya'll need to read this What We Mean By Decentralization - Lew Rockwell
Furthermore, it'd be even worse - because one of the very last possibilities that hinder states, is the ability to leave / walk out, "vote with your feet". States don't like it when their slaves try leave - see; Soviet Union.. also see modern day United States, who have the IRS and exact same situation.
Thus, when there is no where else to leave to... (ahh hell no).
LeeO:I am saying that it's possible for a state to derive it's revunue non-agressively and be limited to defense. I call this type of state a protectorate.
LeeO:A protectorate, on the other hand, is not a government. It does not govern because it only uses force defensively. So, governments and protectorates are two different types of states, one using force positively and one using force negatively.
"I differentiate between "state" and "government." A government governs, which implies positive action and the initiation of force. So all the governments today are still governments, or aggressive states. A protectorate, on the other hand, is not a government. It does not govern because it only uses force defensively. So, governments and protectorates are two different types of states, one using force positively and one using force negatively."
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/05/03/the-nature-of-the-state-and-why-libertarians-hate-it/
"Now, given this understanding of the state, it is quite clear why libertarians hate the state. We libertarians are proponents of human liberty and freedom and individual rights. And we recognize that aggression is the only way to violate rights. We thus condemn aggression as criminal and unjust. We oppose not only private crime, but also institutionalized crime (see my What It Means to be an Anarcho-Capitalist and What Libertarianism Is). If there is an agency that commits institutionalized aggression then we oppose it because it commits aggression. The state just is “the agency that commits institutionalized aggression.” (Incidentally, the concept of the state in international law is this: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.)
When the state is defined in this manner, then the various debates among minarchists and anarchists about whether “government” is libertarian or not become purely semantic (see, e.g. my post Machanarchy). If by “government” the minarchist means a (small) state, then it is criminal and unlibertarian. If by “government” they mean merely the non-state institutions of law and justice in a free society, then we are not opposed to it because such institutions are not inherently aggressive. In other words, when minarchists talk about government, the question is not how we classify it or what the best words are for state, government, etc., semantically: but rather: the question is: does the “government” that “minarchists” (?) favor engage in institutionalized aggression, or not? If not, it’s not a state, and it’s not unlibertarian. If it does, it’s merely a type of state."
"After the American Revolution, the elites decided for the first time to place limits on their own power, and the result was the Constitution of the United States."
No they didn't. They decided to increase their power via a coup d'etat. I mean it was literally called: The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
So much for that, huh? They went against the popular will off the day. They, were meant to meet and amend the AoC, delegates were sent to do just that. Instead - they completely through out the AoC. They centralized power and made themself rulers.
"successfully limit the state to the protection of life, liberty, and property."
This is impossible and as such, utopian. Never in the history of the world - has a group, who have been given a monopoly on power and ultimate descision making, ever remain limited. I'd love for you to prove otherwise.
Ultimately, it's time to put down G. Edward Griffin (who is great on the elites etc.) and to pick up someone who actually understands political philosophy in a greater depth.
It would require the aggressive use of force of force to set up these monopolies. I don't think it would require aggression to set up a protectorate. You would just have to make sure that participation was voluntary and that funds were acquired without coercive taxation.
The only type of state I am advocating is a protectorate. Since it is a voluntary organization limited to the defense of life, liberty, and property, a protectorate is very similar to a PDA. Even if a police agency or fire deparment were private, it would still end up serving the public just like a state. The alternative would be that policemen and firemen would only help paying customers, leaving non-members to get mugged or burn to death, which doesn't make sense.
A protectorate would be financed by the voluntary consent of the public, and it would also be a state. States don't have to be coercive governments, even though they always have been in the past.
On the contrary! A totally decentralized system would be extremely difficult to defeat.
It would be difficult to capture a territory with no organized military force?
Who do you attack?
All the unorganized people with handguns and the separate PDAs.
There is no King or a central authority that you must conquer and subdue.
All the better. He would probably have lots of organized defense around him.
Since defense, infrastructure, utilities, etc.. are not under a central authority, those things cannot simply be taken over under the control of a single foreign invader.
This is true, but it would be easy to take them over one by one and then merge them all under a central authority.
The invaders would literally have to subdue every individual in the free territory.
Nope, just enough people so that the rest give up and submit to the guy with the huge army.
Coercive governments are always looking to expand their territory, whether they are provoked or not. In fact, they often manufacture a fake "provokation" to justify going to war. It would be easy to demonize the members of the free society as violent anarchists, stage a false-flag attack, and then invade with the public's support.
"I am saying that it's possible for a state to derive it's revunue non-agressively and be limited to defense. "
How would it secure its territorial monopoly without aggression?
What about somebody who withdraws his "voluntary" support from this government and wishes to buy defense services from somebody else?
You see, there is no way that you can have a non-aggressive State.
How would it secure its territorial monopoly without aggression? What about somebody who withdraws his "voluntary" support from this government and wishes to buy defense services from somebody else?
A protectorate would not have a territorial monopoly. People could withdraw their support and seek defense from a private agency, although most would be convinced of the benefit of joining the newly established state. It's not like people aren't already used to the idea of having an army, police, and firemen to protect them.
"All the unorganized people with handguns and the separate PDAs"
It's really not as easy as you think to conquer a given amount of territory and occupy it. It practically impossible when you don't have a central command that you can just wipe out or have them surrender so that the coercive apparatus of the previous government can just be taken over by the conquerers. That's how it's always been done. You can't just go house to house and disarm the citizens. A free society would be armed to its teeth. Trust me, no military, no matter how large and sophisticated could conquer that.
Besides, who's to say that the free society could not arm itself in self -defense if such a threat was real? Property owners have every incentive to protect their property. I don't know why you just assume that a free society is tantamount to a bunch of sitting ducks.
"A protectorate would not have a territorial monopoly. People could withdraw their support and seek defense from a private agency, although most would be convinced of the benefit of joining the newly established state."
Listen, then I don't know what we're arguing about here. Your "protectorate" is a private defense agency. I don't know why you think it is not. If it is funded by voluntary contributions and it holds no legal territorial monopoly, then it is a private defense agency.
Oh so a state is....?
An organization using force on the behalf of its citizens.
Obviously, every state that now exists also uses this force aggressively at the expense of its citizens, but this need not always be the case. The America state had many problems, but it allowed human freedom to flourish more than in any other society throughout history.
Whenever people delegate the use of force, there is a risk involved. A private defense agency could attract predators and become coercive. Then it is a criminal organization, just like a coercive government.
"A private defense agency could attract predators and become coercive. Then it is a criminal organization, just like a coercive government.
No, not every criminal organization automatically qualifies as a government. A private defense agency that turned criminal doesn't become a State unless it managed to gain popular support for its statist agenda. Otherwise, it's just another criminal gang which has to be dealt with as in any other society, except that I would expect that PDFs would offer a much greater defense against precisely such threats.
Awwwwww, maaaaaan! That's cold! (I was wondering when someone would realize I'm parroting Mr. Griffin).
I wouldn't be here right now if it weren't for GEG's brilliant political philosophy and communication ability. More importantly, I think he has hit on a great strategy to achieve liberty in the real world, given the elites who rule us. It seems like the only solution anarcho-capitalists have is to sit around waiting for everyone to agree with them and the government to collapse Etienne de La Boetie style. This just doesn't do it for me yet. Anarchy seems like more of a utopian dream than another attempt to limit the state. And the most likely scenario right now seems to be perpetual world totalitarianism, if the elites continue to get their way. Putting semantics aside, I really really really really really don't want that to happen.
"It seems like the only solution anarcho-capitalists have is to sit around waiting for everyone to agree with them and the government to collapse Etienne de La Boetie style. "
First, why are ancaps sitting around as oppose to people like you that are doing what exactly?
Second, you sound really confused. I explained to you before that what you are advocating for as your ideal is in fact, an ancap society. Are you trying to fool yourself or something.
Well, I have no experience leading a conquering army, do you? It seems to me logically that if your opponent has no commander in the first place, they might be easier to defeat. You wouldn't have to go house to house - even a stateless society would have large centers of power to target, I think. And thinking realistically, if a free society ever sprung up it probably wouldn't be that big to begin with. How would it grow without being conquered first? Or will entire countries just collapse into anarchy? This seems unlikely. When the USSR collapsed, for example, there were plenty of leaders willing to step in and set up new governments.
Would they have the incentive to study military strategy and organize into voluntary militias? Seems like they would have to.
First, why are ancaps sitting around as oppose to people like you that are doing what exactly? Second, you sound really confused. I explained to you before that what you are advocating for as your ideal is in fact, an ancap society. Are you trying to fool yourself or something.
I am sitting around doing nothing, so I should not have accused ancaps of doing so. I am sorry. My point is that ancaps generally advocate education from outside the system, rather that going into politics and other power centers to take the system back from collectivists. They think the system is inherently evil and will collapse eventually.
Yes, my ideal is an ancap society, but I realize this is just an ideal. In reality, there will always be people leading the masses. It's just a matter of what type of leaders. Right now our leaders stink, so maybe ancaps should consider becoming leaders within the system, not just educating people outside of it.
Going to bed. Will start a new thread on this topic. Thanks for the debate!
"Awwwwww, maaaaaan! That's cold! (I was wondering when someone would realize I'm parroting Mr. Griffin)."
No, what's cold is you ignoring everything of substance in my post & only responding to that.
Question your premises, because they are wrong. When you go make that new thread, or better yet - do it here, address my post thanks.
I think a Constitutional Republic based a free market would be more realistic than a a anarcho-capitalist society. A stepping stone at least.
"I think a Constitutional Republic based a free market would be more realistic than a a anarcho-capitalist society. A stepping stone at least."
And why on earth would you think that? "Based on a free market"? But not actually a free market? Limited government is utopian. And as such it is impractical, and unrealistic. What is so hard to understand?
Because minarchist's want a small government that's accountable and accessible. One world government would be completely detached from those that it governs, and as such, will have free rein to abuse its powers and expand. Never mind the fact that competition amongst states is a very efficient condition and serves as a check on oppressive political systems. So again, minarchist's want small and decentralized governments that are able to defend their citizens and provide courts of law. Inter-state competition, an informed public, and political accountability are all necessary conditions.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Conza88- Very interesting article. The reason I support a "state" is that markets come from property rights. If there are no property rights, then a market is impossible. This means that a pre-market entity needs to create property rights in order to create a market. I am not saying that groups of people can not informally maintain property rights between themselves, but in the context of global civilization, I am not sure a mass society could coherently come up with a uniform system of ownership. That being said, this pre-market entity would be a group of scholars and guy-with-guns who would codify property rights and enforce them. So by the standard "the agency that commits institutionalized aggression", I do not think what I call a state does this.
You might say that it aggresses in order to maintain a monopoly. This is not so , as there is no legitimate reason to challenge this monopoly. If someone wants to protect property rights apart from the government, they can do so, but their actions must always conform to the standards set down by the government, so as to prevent vigilantism. So for instance, Joe-Bobs police force can go and arrest a man for committing murder, and try him in court, as long as they respect his rights (fair trial etc.) If they just hang him though, Joe-Bobs police force will be decommissioned and everyone who took part in the crime arrested.
"The reason I support a "state" is that markets come from property rights. If there are no property rights, then a market is impossible. This means that a pre-market entity needs to create property rights in order to create a market."
Nope. And how convoluted. I take it you mean private property rights? You're also going to have to spell out that glaring non sequitur for me.
What Libertarianism Is - Kinsella
...
What of property rights, then? Is this what differentiates libertarianism from other political philosophies — that we favor property rights, and all others do not? Surely such a claim is untenable.
After all, a property right is simply the exclusive right to control a scarce resource.[4] Property rights specify which persons own — that is, have the right to control — various scarce resources in a given region or jurisdiction. Yet everyone and every political theory advance some theory of property. None of the various forms of socialism deny property rights; each version will specify an owner for every scarce resource.[5] If the state nationalizes an industry, it is asserting ownership of these means of production. If the state taxes you, it is implicitly asserting ownership of the funds taken. If my land is transferred to a private developer by eminent domain statutes, the developer is now the owner. If the law allows a recipient of racial discrimination to sue his employer for a sum of money, he is the owner of the money.[6]
Protection of and respect for property rights is thus not unique to libertarianism. What is distinctive about libertarianism is its particular property assignment rules: its view concerning who is the owner of each contestable resource, and how to determine this.
No, what's cold is you ignoring everything of substance in my post & only responding to that. Question your premises, because they are wrong. When you go make that new thread, or better yet - do it here, address my post thanks.
I am sorry I didn't respond to your posts. DD5 and Snowflake responded to some of my statements, so I began discussions with them. You were the third person to respond to me. Then I noticed your statement about Mr. Griffin and had an emotional response, since he has had a huge influence on me and I have a lot of respect for him. In my opinion, he has a very deep understanding of political philosophy.
Also, to be honest, I am a newbie who is somewhat intimidated by your brand of fiery debate. You are not afraid to to tell people flat out that they are wrong, which is a good thing. But it is intimidating, since I have not engaged in much debate of political philosophy.
I will respond to your posts before starting a new thread.
Conza88:
I agree completely with that passage by Kinsella. But there is a condition: "When the state is defined in this manner." G. Edward Griffin defines the state differently. Here is an exchange between myself and Mr. Griffin:
Mr. Griffin (this statement was not directed at me, but was posted on his website):
"The problem still remains that there must be some form of organized coercion in defense of life, liberty, and property. Like you, I would prefer that it be done by private institutions, but the state could do the same thing, provided it is limited by charter to a defensive function and further provided that the citizenry remains forever alert to the danger of the erosion of such a restraint."
Me: "If you would prefer that defense be organized by private institutions, they why do you conclude that it must be organized by the state?"
Mr. Griffin:
"I did not mean to give the impression that it MUST be organized by the state. However, my judgment is that it always WILL be. Why? Because if it is organized privately, it will not be long before the private defense organization will BECOME the state. In the final analysis, that is a pretty good definition of a state: An organization authorized by the citizens to use coercion on their behalf. Even if we insist that it is private, it will act as the state."
Where does Griffin define the state at all ?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
No they didn't.
So there are no limits on state power in the Constitution?
They decided to increase their power via a coup d'etat.
True, the power of the ruling elite did increase with the Constitution vs. the AoC. But their power was still limited.
They went against the popular will off the day.
The ruling elite of the American colonies created the popular will of the day. By articulating the principles of individual freedom and natural rights, they motivated thousands of soldiers to risk their lives on the battlefield. Once the Revolutionary War was won, the elites had the power to establish whatever sort of rule they wanted. Obviously, the conservative economic interests of the federalists heavily influenced the Constitution, which was bad. The Constitution was a hugely flawed document. But it embodied many classical liberal principles and set up a system where freedom was allowed to flourish more than in any other period or location in human history. It is no accident that America became a land of unmatched prosperity. I, for one, feel extremely lucky that I was born in a country with a libertarian heritage, however flawed and imperfect that heritage is. Rather than bashing our Founding Fathers, I seek to acknowledge their positive and negative contributions, and learn from their mistakes.
They, were meant to meet and amend the AoC, delegates were sent to do just that. Instead - they completely through out the AoC. They centralized power and made themself rulers.
It is not surprising that the economic interests of the ruling elite won the day. But they didn't earn a comprehensive victory. Thanks to people like Jefferson, the Constitution still severely limited state power and included a Bill of Rights to protect individual liberty.
I cannot prove otherwise. But here is another reality we must face: There will always be a group with power leading the masses. This has been the case throughout history, and the trend is not likely to change. Given this reality, how can freedom be achieved? I believe our Founding Fathers provided a model that involved limiting state power. I do not think that anarcho-capitalists have such a historical model to point to.
Kinsella writes in What it Means to be an Anarcho-Capitalist: "Anarchists don’t (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved – I for one don’t think it will."
I believe that freedom must be achieved if we are to avoid descending into perpetual serfdom and a world totalitarian state. If anarchy cannot be achieved, then what does one do to fight tyranny? G. Edward Griffin proposes an alternative that I believe is worth considering.
"In the final analysis, that is a pretty good definition of a state: An organization authorized by the citizens to use coercion on their behalf."
so a private bodyguard is a state?
No, but an organization of private bodygaurds will become a state, according to Griffin.
He said it was a "pretty good" definition, not a perfect one. Rather than an ironclad definition, I think it is a useful way of thinking about the nature of organized defense. Since everyone agrees that organized defense must exist, it is a central function of the state. Unsurprisingly, the state has always acted more like the mafia than a defensive security organization. But Griffin argues that the state can function exactly like a private bodyguard would, provided it is limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property. He calls this type of state a protectorate.
Here's another (hypothetical) way to think about it:
A bunch of libertarians move to San Francisco, become influential in city government, and successfully declare the city's independence from California and the United States. After secession, they realize immediately that there is a serious threat of invasion in order to bring them back under the rule of California or the Federal government. They also realize that open immigration into the city threatens the freedom of those already in it. Therefore, they organize an armed patrol to secure the borders around the city. They explain to the people the importance of this patrol, and nearly everyone in the city voluntarily decides to help fund it. Is the patrol a private defense agency? No. Therefore, it is a type of non-ceorcive state. It is a protectorate.
>>Is the patrol a private defense agency? No.
errr.. .yes.
But it is an organization established by the political leaders of the city to defend the public from invasion. Like a standing army. That doesn't seem private to me.