Political Theory

Re: The purpose of government

Spideynw — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:12:14 GMT

Fred Furash:

While I agree that in most cases, countries that do not meddle have far fewer enemies, you have to understand the psychology of states in competition with a free society. Firstly, while the free society may not pose any direct threat, it does actually provide an example of an entire society working without government, and doing so much better than other statist countries. Most statist rulers would simply not stand for that, since most of their arguments depend on the idea that freedom doesn't work. When proven wrong, they would do all in their power to supress the free society, if only to preserve the status quo in theirs. So in essence, a free society is a threat to the status quo of statism.

Secondly, statists may invade precisely because that society is a beacon of wealth! Remember, unlike entrepreneurs, governments always think in the short term (policy myopia). They might not even realise that it is in their interest to have long term trade agreements with the free society, they might just want to pillage the wealth, either literally as military loot, or take over the country and tax it (not understanding the harmful effects of taxation, or again, not caring for the long term).

Thirdly, a free society would not be generating enormous wealth for other countries, for the simple reason that no state capitalism can compete with the free market, and so they will invariably resort to protectionism, suffocating trade. Perhaps they will even use embargoes, saying that the competitive prices offered by that country are "unfair". You all know the excuses for protectionism, and if what we have today is a lot, in the presence of a free society there would be much more of it.

The world follows the example of the wealthiest society. As such, other societies would see the wealth generated in a free society and would start following the example set. This is how it works today. As such, there is no evidence that any statist society would attack a free society. A leader may want to crush the example. But the people would not follow. Again, it takes a lot to get people to kill others.

To your second point, what ruler wants to invade a country full of people with weapons? Again, in the U.S., where we have a right to bear arms, there are individuals that have their own artillery.

To your third point, there may be countries that refuse to trade with a free society, but it could not last long as they would see how everyone else is benefiting where they are losing.

Re: The purpose of government

Jon Irenicus — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:05:48 GMT

Bizarre. I'd been taught that there's a clear cut distinction between the two.

Re: The purpose of government

Paul — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:55:33 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

Paul, autarky means self-sufficiency, whereas autarchy means self-rule.

-Jon

Yes, I know that's what you're claiming, but there is no such clear distinction in standard English - see http://dictionary.com/browse/autarchy (dictionary.com: 3. AUTARKY; American Heritage Dictionary: n. variant of autarky and au·tar·ky or au·tar·chy - a policy of national self-sufficiency, ...; WordNet: autarchy noun 1. economic independence as a national policy [syn: autarky]; Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary: Au"tar*chy\, n. [Gr. ? independence; a'yto`s self + 'arkei^n to be sufficient.] Self-sufficiency. [Obs.]) - no dictionary gives "self-rule" as a definition, only "absolute rule" - i.e., despotism, dictatorship. You're redefining the terms - with good basis, but it doesn't solve any problem "anarchy" suffers (at least the political definition of "anarchy" is in the dictionary, even if it's conflated with the vulgar "chaos" definition)

Re: The purpose of government

Jon Irenicus — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:24:33 GMT

Paul, autarky means self-sufficiency, whereas autarchy means self-rule.

-Jon

Re: The purpose of government

Solredime — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:47:04 GMT

Spideynw:

There is no reason to believe anyone would want to invade a free society. First of all, the free society would be producing so much wealth for the rest of the world, that no one would want to harm that golden goose egg. Second of all, and more likely, people would just simply have absolutely no reason to do so. There is absolutely no threat from a free society. Lastly, who would want to invade a free society, where everyone has their own weapons for defense. Even in this country, as stated in another thread, there are people who have their own artillery weapons.

The reasons the United States has "enemies" is because the government of the United States mingles in the affairs of other countries. If the United States simply brought all its troops home, quit giving out foreign aid, canceled all treaties, and opened up free trade to the world, the United States would almost immediately cease to have "enemies", and as such, all threats would almost immediatly disappear.

While I agree that in most cases, countries that do not meddle have far fewer enemies, you have to understand the psychology of states in competition with a free society. Firstly, while the free society may not pose any direct threat, it does actually provide an example of an entire society working without government, and doing so much better than other statist countries. Most statist rulers would simply not stand for that, since most of their arguments depend on the idea that freedom doesn't work. When proven wrong, they would do all in their power to supress the free society, if only to preserve the status quo in theirs. So in essence, a free society is a threat to the status quo of statism.

Secondly, statists may invade precisely because that society is a beacon of wealth! Remember, unlike entrepreneurs, governments always think in the short term (policy myopia). They might not even realise that it is in their interest to have long term trade agreements with the free society, they might just want to pillage the wealth, either literally as military loot, or take over the country and tax it (not understanding the harmful effects of taxation, or again, not caring for the long term).

Thirdly, a free society would not be generating enormous wealth for other countries, for the simple reason that no state capitalism can compete with the free market, and so they will invariably resort to protectionism, suffocating trade. Perhaps they will even use embargoes, saying that the competitive prices offered by that country are "unfair". You all know the excuses for protectionism, and if what we have today is a lot, in the presence of a free society there would be much more of it.

Re: The purpose of government

Paul — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:25:15 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

I think the problem is that English renders the two words identical in terms of pronunciation, whereas in Greek it differs (although not too significantly.) The 'ch' in Greek is not pronounced as the English 'k'.

No, the problem is it's the same word - just variant spellings (there are two Greek words mixed up in there, but the English words are not distinct).

(And yes it is; 'k' in English is not a single sound - it can be aspirated as in Greek χ or unaspirated as in Greek κ - compare "key" vs. "ski" - but English speakers don't usually distinguish between them)

Re: The purpose of government

Jon Irenicus — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:43:32 GMT

Even its meaning, self-rule, is incredibly ambiguous. I take anarchism to be a negative, the absence of coercive authority. Autarchy seems to denote a much more positive notion of governance.

Re: The purpose of government

maxpot46 — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:39:44 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

I think the problem is that English renders the two words identical in terms of pronunciation, whereas in Greek it differs (although not too significantly.) The 'ch' in Greek is not pronounced as the English 'k'.

Still, I hope he's made his point that use of the term, while technically correct, is confusing. In fact, after quickly checking a couple of on-line dictionaries, I see only the "national economic independence" definition for both spellings. What exactly is the meaning you have in mind for which spelling?

Re: The purpose of government

Jon Irenicus — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:32:53 GMT

I think the problem is that English renders the two words identical in terms of pronunciation, whereas in Greek it differs (although not too significantly.) The 'ch' in Greek is not pronounced as the English 'k'.

Re: The purpose of government

Niccolò — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:23:51 GMT

Paul:

Bank Run:

macsnafu:
And I'm not sure it's an improvement over other terms.

Perhaps this is just a bunch of quacking over terms. Understanding terms and where they come from, helps the rationality of argument.

I am sticking with the terms I find to be most constructive like, contractual society, laissez-faire, self-rule/autarchism.

But autarchism is a term usually applied to states that want to keep all production internal - grow their own food, manufacture their own cars, etc., etc...and of dictators. If you think "anarchism" is going to be misunderstood ....!

You're thinking of Autarky, not Autarchy.

Greek is a weird language...

Re: The purpose of government

Paul — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:47:20 GMT

Bank Run:

macsnafu:
And I'm not sure it's an improvement over other terms.

Perhaps this is just a bunch of quacking over terms. Understanding terms and where they come from, helps the rationality of argument.

I am sticking with the terms I find to be most constructive like, contractual society, laissez-faire, self-rule/autarchism.

But autarchism is a term usually applied to states that want to keep all production internal - grow their own food, manufacture their own cars, etc., etc...and of dictators. If you think "anarchism" is going to be misunderstood ....!

Re: The purpose of government

Paul — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:16:06 GMT

Spideynw:

Another fabulous post by an anarchist. Again, this is not a discussion about whether or not we should have a government. Please open your own thread if you would like to discuss whether or not we should have a government. This thread assumes there is reason to have a government, and is asking what that purpose should be.

"If black is white, are roses still red?"

"But black isn't white"

"This is not a discussion about whether or not black is white. This thread assumes black is white and is asking whether roses are red."

Re: The purpose of government

Jon Irenicus — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:30:46 GMT

Hmmm fair enough, I'll give it a look. My principle worry concerns governments using dirty tactics to undermine an anarchist society. If that could be dealt with, it'd be pretty fantastic. Why the italicization of book names by the way? Standard citation procedure?

Re: The purpose of government

Inquisitor — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:40:47 GMT

Yes, I think reading The Myth of National Defence will bring you around. ;)

Re: The purpose of government

Spideynw — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:23:27 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

My sole concern, as stated elsewhere, regards national defence. I'm curious to see how anarchist societies would deal with aggressive, subversive foreign states. For the time being I favour something of a subscribed government.

Hmm, seems my original response was lost. Let me try again.

Why would anyone want to invade a free society? Most of them would have guns. Some people in the United States have their own artillery. Not only that, but why would you want to attack your golden goose egg? A free society would be trading with the world, with no trade barriers. This can only serve to create wealth for the world.

The only reason the United States has enemies is because the government meddles in the affairs of others and restricts trade. If the United States brought all of the troops home, quit giving foreign aid, ended all treaties, and ended trade restrictions, the United States would almost immediately have no enemies. Think about it.

I myself do not think that a free society would provide any standing armies. It would simply be a waste of money.