Has anyone here read it? I think it would make for fascinating discussion in a forum like this. For instance, is the market-state he foresees as inevitable really a precursor to a libertarian society?
He seems to lament the loss of "nation-state values" like reverence of sacrifice, esteem of political achievement, loyalty etc. His solution is to preserve them through other institutions and organizations. Again, even though I disagree about the nature of some of these values (definitely not owed or necessarily attached to the nation-state) or the very value of some (political achievement? please!), he basically is telling us that we must learn to live with a transition to more libertarian societies, or "market-states" as he calls them.
I also happen to find this the only possible and realistic transition to such a society, since any overnight adoption would be unfeasible. First because of security concerns. Yes, an undefended libertarian United States could and probably would be attacked from many sides by outside states not having adopted, or even able to adopt a libertarian system. Look at Russia, they have the chance to be more democratic, but instead willfully accept a Czar-like Putin because he symbolizes stability. Even if he didn't have oil money to shower the people with, he'd still be more popular than more liberal alternatives.
What about Iraq? Could they live in a libertarian, stateless society? You could argue that it'd be more natural for them to organize as they see fit rather than have a state incorporate them all. But what would happen when one part of this society would be left with just some sandy piece of land and no oil on it? Would they not want to assert control over their oil-rich neighbours? And if they were drawn into conflict and lost , wouldn't the oil-rich, better equipped militias of these neighbours want to subjugate them so as to secure their society? If they won, how libertarian is a society that was won by the sword?
I'd be interested to read your views on this.
Here are two appearances of Bobbitt-Both are roughly the same presentation (The first is apparently just prior to the invasion of Iraq, while the second is from April, 2007)
http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=3387
http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/events/2007-04-12-philipBobbitt.jsp
whitespiral:I also happen to find this the only possible and realistic transition to such a society, since any overnight adoption would be unfeasible. First because of security concerns. Yes, an undefended libertarian United States could and probably would be attacked from many sides by outside states not having adopted, or even able to adopt a libertarian system. Look at Russia, they have the chance to be more democratic, but instead willfully accept a Czar-like Putin because he symbolizes stability. Even if he didn't have oil money to shower the people with, he'd still be more popular than more liberal alternatives.
Don't believe the propaganda about Putin. He is the most liberal and democratic ruler Russia has had since Kerensky, and his reforms, which include a flat tax and the instauration of Habeas Corpus, have revolutionized Russia. Russian industry is booming (whole assembly lines are being shipped from suburban Detroit to Russian provinces) and in some areas industrial wages have doubled in the last two years. See http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11996 and http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HF08Ag01.html and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301833_pf.html
The question to ask is not "would they" but "does it pay?" Does it pay to attack someone who has oil instead of buying it from him? The answer is that unless there is a government in place that embargoes the trade in oil, it is always more profitable to trade instead of aggressing. Rothbard argues this when he compares the different praxeological categories of interpersonal action in MES.
The second question you ask is whether it pays to subjugate others, and once again it is evident that subjugation is much more costly than cooperation.
So the obvious question that follows from these two answers is why this ever takes place at all. So long as people do not recognize the benefits of cooperation over subjugation, and willingly subject themselves to a state, the state can externalize the costs of aggression upon them and gain from its aggression. The best defense against this is to turn liberty into a weapon. Threaten to undermine the legitimacy of an aggressor state by arming its subject population against it.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
First off, I'm surprised you take the position you do about Putin. His economic successes are a direct result of the price of oi. Nothing more. Do you really think that such a concentrated and statist approach to economics would work so well without something seriously in their favour. Take that away from them and they will collapse. And I don't care if the price of oil is the fair market price.It's too volatile and too narrow an instrument to base a whole economy on.
With regard to your position about trading rather than fighting, tell that to all nations who went to war over economic reasons. Tell to Kuwait that Iraw was just this close to trading with you guys but they just so happened to like your beaches too. Tell to SE Asia that Japan was just about to set up trade relations with you when in the end, they just wanted to go sailing too.
Aren't relations between states also governed by such incentives, that frequently just break down? Hasn't the fallacy of how interconnectedness guarantees peace broken down enough yet? Why would it work better between libertarian and statist entities?
With regard to Rothbard's assertion about guerilla warfare being a massive deterent to a Soviet Russia contemplating on attacking a libertarian US. Yeah right....Like this little piece of wisdom stopped the US from attacking Iraq.
whitespiral: First off, I'm surprised you take the position you do about Putin. His economic successes are a direct result of the price of oi. Nothing more. Do you really think that such a concentrated and statist approach to economics would work so well without something seriously in their favour. Take that away from them and they will collapse. And I don't care if the price of oil is the fair market price.It's too volatile and too narrow an instrument to base a whole economy on.
The idea that Russia's economic miracle is entirely due to oil is also propaganda intended to delegitimize the economic reforms that occurred under Putin. Oil has nothing to do with it. There are countries with plentiful oil where unemployment hovers around 40% (Algeria comes to mind). The unemployment rate in Moscow is one quarter of one percent. When was the last time this happened in any western country? Russia's economic miracle is industry-driven, much like China's, which is Putin's model.
There are more private businesses and more foreign corporations in Russia than ever before. There is more freedom in Russia than ever before. As such, Russia is stronger nationally than ever before, and this drives the neoconservative elites who wanted it destroyed completely mad.
You need to know only one thing about Putin to understand the situation. At the same time that he was granting Habeas Corpus, Bush was taking it away. Who are you going to trust?
With regard to your position about trading rather than fighting, tell that to all nations who went to war over economic reasons. Tell to Kuwait that Iraw was just this close to trading with you guys but they just so happened to like your beaches too. Tell to SE Asia that Japan was just about to set up trade relations with you when in the end, they just wanted to go sailing too. Aren't relations between states also governed by such incentives, that frequently just break down? Hasn't the fallacy of how interconnectedness guarantees peace broken down enough yet? Why would it work better between libertarian and statist entities?With regard to Rothbard's assertion about guerilla warfare being a massive deterent to a Soviet Russia contemplating on attacking a libertarian US. Yeah right....Like this little piece of wisdom stopped the US from attacking Iraq.
Mises wrote a lot on the consequences of mercantilism on the peace between states. The fact is that Iraq was a mercantilist state. Its oil was a monopoly of the government. (So was Koweit's.) As such it exposed itself to profitable aggression. As Mises said only unlimited liberalism can safeguard world peace.
With regard to Putin, I'll be sure to do more research and look for what you said...
With regard to Mises' position on world peace, I certainly agree with him that universal liberalism could safeguard peace. The trouble is etting there. LWhat hapopn when you have a mix of liberal "states", mercantilist semi-dictatorships, theocratical-socialist, neo-socialist, stalinist and a whole mix of other nice and not-so-nice combinations. Can a fully liberal society survive among them? Especially if that liberal society is the ex-US, don't you think the first thing that would happen is regional wars breaking out and the promise of liberalism in those places seeming even more distant?
What about the capacity of a society to act "responsibly" without regulation and authority? Germany I believe is doing experiments with removing all traffic signals and lights in some villages, supposedly with good success. What do you think would happen in Turkey, India, China, Iraq, or even Spain, Italy and Greece if you did something like that?
Doesn't a decentralized system need very capable individual nodes in order to function? Doesn't that mean more education (Not just the kind you get in school)?
I guess where I'm getting at is...Don't states need to be nurtured to "adulthood" before they're set out into the wild? Don't they have to go through a transitory period of more government and regulation, before these facets are completely removed?
Sticking also the topic's title, Bobbitt describes history as a fundamental driver of law and strategy. The vast majority of human civilization has never lived under a stateless system, without some form of authority, centralized or decentralized. Can it really live under such a radical new order? Or more accurately, will it ever allow it to happen, or always cling to the (false) security that the state provides?
whitespiral: With regard to Mises' position on world peace, I certainly agree with him that universal liberalism could safeguard peace. The trouble is etting there. LWhat hapopn when you have a mix of liberal "states", mercantilist semi-dictatorships, theocratical-socialist, neo-socialist, stalinist and a whole mix of other nice and not-so-nice combinations. Can a fully liberal society survive among them? Especially if that liberal society is the ex-US, don't you think the first thing that would happen is regional wars breaking out and the promise of liberalism in those places seeming even more distant?
Why should that happen? Look at the history of Switzerland for how a purely defensive strategy of war can safeguard peace even when everything is going to hell regionally.
I believe you are speaking of Hans Monderman. His system relies on very strict rules of driving, for example yielding the right, in order to establish proper function. It shows how social concensus over rules can create safety and order. But that is still a form of regulation. It is still requiring some behavior and excluding other behavior.
The idea of liberty is not to oppose regulation. It is to ask who regulates what and by what right.
The vast majority of society is composed of people who will obey authority, the natural elites in the Hoppean sense, without question. There is no amount of education that can liberate them, and if you are to believe Nock, very few people are actually educable. People seek authority and security. To provide this is as noble a career as any other. The problem is not the existence of authority but the monopoly of authority. And so if the natural elites decide that the monopoly of authority is over, and they will now compete over authority, the people will follow and obey that law unquestioningly.
Stranger:Look at the history of Switzerland for how a purely defensive strategy of war can safeguard peace even when everything is going to hell regionally.
Look at the history of Switzerland for how a purely defensive strategy of war can safeguard peace even when everything is going to hell regionally.
hmm. i'm no expert on swiss history, but i think there's a lot of patriotic folklore about how the fascists left switzerland well alone in ww2 thanks to all those swiss army knives and bicycled citizen-soldiers. i think the truth is more likely to have been the banking facilities that were convenient to all the warring parties. if the germans weren't fazed by opening a russian front, it beggars belief that switzerland's defences acted as a deterrent.
newson:i'm no expert on swiss history, but i think there's a lot of patriotic folklore about how the fascists left switzerland well alone in ww2 thanks to all those swiss army knives and bicycled citizen-soldiers. i think the truth is more likely to have been the banking facilities that were convenient to all the warring parties. if the germans weren't fazed by opening a russian front, it beggars belief that switzerland's defences acted as a deterrent.
I suggest you review this article (Reason, Oct 1998) - it makes the case that the argument you are raising is fallacious:
How the Swiss kept their freedom in World War II
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
interesting and enlightening article, though it also stated that serendipity was a big factor - something always cropped up before hitler could get around to invading. on balance, though, i think you're right.
newson: interesting and enlightening article, though it also stated that serendipity was a big factor - something always cropped up before hitler could get around to invading. on balance, though, i think you're right.
Of course, questions like these are, in the end. impossible to answer absolutely definitively. But as in this case, the oft-quoted conventional wisdom can be shown to be lacking when the historical facts are researched in sufficient depth. That's the real problem - unexamined assumptions that have been inculcated into us without our explicit acceptance. The first step toward truth is to identify them - then to subject them to reasoned analysis. Sometimes, we will wind up at the same place, but often, we won't. Makes for richer debates, and a more nuanced (and arguably therefore accurate) view of the world, methinks.