Political Theory

Re: In Anarchy...

macsnafu — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:19:42 GMT

nazgulnarsil:

in anarchy what stops everything from being exactly the same as it is now? powerful factions gain control of ever larger pieces of land until everyone is living under one of them. under anarchy the collectivists eventually win.

Has someone directly answered your question? I didn't see it, although there have certainly been indirect answers.

You're thinking that anarchy is some sort of free-for-all, and thus, whoever gains the most power wins. But the most important point of market anarchy or anarcho-capitalism is a rejection of coercive authority. If we manage to achieve an anarchistic system in the first place, it will be because a significant number of people, if not a majority of people will recognize this and thus reject coercion as a legitimate means to social and economic goals.

In such an anarchy, then, no state will be considered legitimate, and no power grabs will be considered legitimate--people would forcibly reject such power grabs in exchange for voluntary market processes and third party mediation and arbitration. They would set up non-coercive systems of rights protection and justice.

Realistically, some people will still try anyway, but without a legitimate power base, i.e. a government, to work with, the costs of taking and maintaining power cannot be socialized onto a large financial base (i.e. taxes), thus making it difficult and expensive to to build and maintain a power base from scratch in a society that doesn't recognize it as legitimate. Add in the normal problems that those who have power are always subject to the threat of others who also want that power, the likelihood of an increasing concentration of power in anarchy approaches nil, and is much more likely to be temporary, unstable, and dissipate instead of getting stronger.

Re: In Anarchy...

Juan — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:19:55 GMT

Byzantine:
Not everyone shares your view of what you have a right to do and whether or not they are criminals.

No kidding.

So you either must come up with the money to pay these people to put up with your front yard orgies, or have a bigger, badder PDA than they have.

But that doesn't follow. PDAs in a free society will by definition 'enforce' individual rights. This bigger-badder-PDA-thing sounds like private warfare to me, not private enforcement of individual rights.

Of course, the more likely outcome is the people who don't mind front yard orgies will have their community, and the people who won't tolerate front yard orgies will have theirs.

Probably so. Still a front yard orgy is not a crime but trying to stop it using force is.

If this scenario worries you in that you may find there's no market for protection of your front yard orgies,

Again you believe that rights exist only if there's a 'market' for protecting them. Funny you whine about democracy because your views seem to be based on what majorities want or not.

Re: In Anarchy...

Brainpolice — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:25:11 GMT

liberty student:

Brainpolice:
That claim is nonsense, and if true, legitimizes all states under libertarian reasoning (it's voluntary - RIGHT?).

I don't believe it is nonsense, and I don't think your conclusion is correct.

Byzantine is saying, if I understand him correctly, that the masses haven't revolted, and in fact, keep voting. It's not that it voluntary, it's majority. If people wanted anarchism in the majority, we would probably have it. The notion of the slavemaster on top by force or command, is a fallacy. The slavemaster is on top, because people do not recognize that they are slaves. They call him President or Prime Minister or King or Director or such. But he is there because at one point recently, even today, people want him there.

A few practical points against political democracy, if I may:

1. Modern so-called "democracy" isn't usually purely majoritarianian, given that it most often reduces to numerical majorities for chunky districts or states and more than half the population doesn't usually vote to begin with, and the electoral college can nullify the popular vote.

2. Even given such numerical majority numbers, the choices are pre-selected for us in what is most often a two or three party system. We go through a primary process in which the choices are whittled down to two main contenders.

3. Even given the existance of political parties, the political parties, to the extent that they are in power, ultimately still represent different segments of the same oligarchy, with a degree of interconnectivity and interdependance.

4. The decision-making power is not direct, it is entirely transfered to an individual or a bureaucracy, who then goes on to have arbitrary decision-making power over everyone in the society or territorial dominion.

5. The institutional incentives of the state are self-perpetuating and there is no way for the politician or bureaucrat to efficiently allocate resources for the purpose of meeting people's demands even if they wanted to.

6. Everyone who is subject to the political system is effected and must bear the risks and costs necessary to maintain the state apparatus, regaurdless of their degree of largely illusory input into the system.

I think it's important to keep in mind that democracy ultimately reduces to the illusion of control or representation, and the fact that the state relies partially on civil obedience and ideology does not mean that it isn't a fundamentally parasitic institution.

Re: In Anarchy...

liberty student — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:20:09 GMT

Nitroadict:
I hardly see how either one of them must be exclusively correct, given the examples of both in our state (i.e. both "The citizens are not to blame for Slavery being perpetuated" & "The citizens are to blame for not realizing Slavery is being perpetuated").

That's a little different.

I've come to realize that I hold a different view on consent. I haven't tested it completely yet.

Re: In Anarchy...

Juan — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:06:53 GMT

Byzantine:
Thus, if you assert a right to host an orgy on your front yard, you will have to pay for protection from people who don't think you have such a right, either by buying them off or hiring a PDA with more guns than them.

I have the right to use my property in any way I see fit as long as I don't aggress against others -- that's what a free society entails. If my neighbors don't like my orgies they can try to sabotage them using voluntary means but as soon as they use violent means they become criminals.

Byzantine:
Recall that virtually all the ruling monarchies were overthrown by democratic majorities.

Monarchies were overthrown by their own breathtaking stupidity and corruption.

Re: In Anarchy...

Brainpolice — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:04:49 GMT

GilesStratton:

BP, are you going to admit you've not read de La Boetie, or that you you have selective memory?

I have read La Boetie. I think some of you are putting your own spin on him in the process of interpretation, because by no means do I conclude from reading La Boetie that the masses are actually represented by their political systems, the conclusion is that political systems are partially dependant on civil obedience, which is partially dependant on the perpetuation of ideology. These are two different matters entirely. It by no means necessarily follows from the fact that people are civily obedient that they actually purposefully or ideologically support the political system as a whole, or that the political system is genuinely representative of their demands and preferances. Clearly, voluntary market mechanisms are what genuinely reflect a society's demands, not political systems. Political systems are chunky one-size-fits-all schemes, even in so-called "democracy".

Re: In Anarchy...

Nitroadict — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:01:47 GMT

liberty student:

Brainpolice:
That claim is nonsense, and if true, legitimizes all states under libertarian reasoning (it's voluntary - RIGHT?).

I don't believe it is nonsense, and I don't think your conclusion is correct.

Byzantine is saying, if I understand him correctly, that the masses haven't revolted, and in fact, keep voting. It's not that it voluntary, it's majority. If people wanted anarchism in the majority, we would probably have it. The notion of the slavemaster on top by force or command, is a fallacy. The slavemaster is on top, because people do not recognize that they are slaves. They call him President or Prime Minister or King or Director or such. But he is there because at one point recently, even today, people want him there.

I hardly see how either one of them must be exclusively correct, given the examples of both in our state (i.e. both "The citizens are not to blame for Slavery being perpetuated" & "The citizens are to blame for not realizing Slavery is being perpetuated").

Additionally, both points helps clarify required strategy in the broader picture.

Re: In Anarchy...

hayekianxyz — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:56:49 GMT

BP, are you going to admit you've not read de La Boetie, or that you you have selective memory?

Re: In Anarchy...

liberty student — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:54:30 GMT

Brainpolice:
That claim is nonsense, and if true, legitimizes all states under libertarian reasoning (it's voluntary - RIGHT?).

I don't believe it is nonsense, and I don't think your conclusion is correct.

Byzantine is saying, if I understand him correctly, that the masses haven't revolted, and in fact, keep voting. It's not that it voluntary, it's majority. If people wanted anarchism in the majority, we would probably have it. The notion of the slavemaster on top by force or command, is a fallacy. The slavemaster is on top, because people do not recognize that they are slaves. They call him President or Prime Minister or King or Director or such. But he is there because at one point recently, even today, people want him there.

Re: In Anarchy...

Brainpolice — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:46:51 GMT

Byzantine:

Brainpolice:
Why you fail to see this and insist on acting as if the current system is somehow actually representative of the masses is beyond me.

The current system exists because the masses want it. If they didn't, we would have a different system. Recall that virtually all the ruling monarchies were overthrown by democratic majorities.

That claim is nonsense, and if true, legitimizes all states under libertarian reasoning (it's voluntary - RIGHT?).

Surely you are not so ignorant as to not realize that political systems take on a life of their own, isolated from the will of their subjects? No state system is actually representative of the public in any accurate sense, even if it gives itself a "democratic" flavoring. All state systems, including so-called democracies, are ultimately controlled by oligarchies. I am not represented by democacy, and neither are those who think they are. Those who actually control the democracies (oligarchies, not "the people" as such), for all intents and purposes, can make whatever decisions they like once in power, regaurdless of the public. The public does not implicitly endorse whatever the state does just because the state calls itself a "democracy" and offers slim pickins from what it originally stole to the commoners as bait.

You need to redirect your hatred towards the state, not towards the fleeced masses.

Re: In Anarchy...

Brainpolice — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:39:47 GMT

Byzantine:

Brainpolice:
Where you get the illusion that currently existing political democracy actually is bottom up is beyond me,

Because morons elect morons. Does that help?

No, it doesn't help. In political democracy, the actual meaningful decision-making power is still held by an exclusive oligarchy. There is nothing bottom-up about it, policies are still set from the top-down by an elite and only certain moneyed interest groups have direct access to meaningful patronage with them. It doesn't matter if people elect them, the people don't actually have meaningful decision-making power. Why you fail to see this and insist on acting as if the current system is somehow actually representative of the masses is beyond me. I think the problem is that you tend to approach currently existing democracies as if they actually function as a means of public control and scrutiny. They don't.

A public education system that Leaves No Child Behind, regardless of the fact that many of them are stupid and violent?

The public education system is run by bureaucracies. There is nothing bottom-up about it.

Democratic government that asserts that every idiot with a pulse deserves a say?

Are you ignorant enough to actually think the people do have a meaningful say? Seriously, you should know better.

Tenured professors who say rap is music just like Bach is music?

What does this have to do with anything (other than your personal preferance for music, which is irrelevant)?

I mean, really, where could I possibly get the idea that the currently existing political democracy is actually bottom up.

Because you should very well know that public control in a so-called democracy is illusory! Democracy is just an ideological tenet to achieve legitimacy by fooling the people into thinking that they are in control of things. Unfortunately, you've actually bought into the bullshit that it actually is publicly controlled, only you approach it from the perspective of a conservative hatred for the commoners. Come on, you should know better than to accept the assumption that the public actually controls things in our political systems. Just because a political system has elections and a small elite of so-called representatives doesn't mean that people have any meaningful decision-making power over policy.