Discussion of Anarchism

[Traitorfish]

If you are advocating a course of action, and that action has a strong possibility of harmful consequences, then you have a responsibility. This decentralization you say they advocate has a higher chance of bringing despots to power than bringing about liberty. You cannot ignore that consequence when advocating for it.

Presumably they don't regard that as the likely outcome of the fulfilment of their program.

This isn't just ama. All of the small government people arguing for state's rights keep ignoring is that most of the states have never been big on liberty.

I don't think that "the small government people" represent a reasonably homogeneous group.

That may be true in the cases of a small number of people. However for most people the government is the collective banding together for mutual protection.

What's the basis for that claim? Cynical as I may be, it sounds a bit ahistorical, as if the State was, per the Jefferson ideal, abolished and re-established every couple of decades, rather than representing an altogether more venerable continuity, one that almost invariably pre-dates the birth of any individuals which you describe as its voluntary constituents.

To try to, at least. Up to the extent that such was possible.

Why do you think this is the case?

 

[SG-17]

It was the agreement of the allies to focus on Germany as they were the greater threat. Japan simply didn't have the materials needed to materially threaten our coasts.

I'd like to expand on this. FDR was planing with Churchill since at least late 1940 to secure Britain against invasion and protect British interests in North Africa (the Suez Canal). Once Hitler turned on Stalin in June of 1941, Stalin demanded a second front be opened. While Stalin wanted a European front, the information that FDR received from his diplomat-spy Robert Murphy and pressure from Churchill made FDR choose a revised Super-Gymnast plan to attack Germany, Italy, and uncooperative Vichy French in North Africa in Operation Torch. This was in the works all before Pearl Harbor.

FDR's Civilian Conservation Corps was basically an army boot-camp that prepared hundreds of thousands of men to join the military when the peacetime draft was instituted and when the war finally broke out for America.

 

[amadeus]

MODERATION REQUEST: please break off the posts starting from here to here. It's valuable discussion, but not meant for this thread. Thanks.

 

[Cutlass]

Presumably they don't regard that as the likely outcome of the fulfilment of their program.

Well that's really not my problem. But if a person has a completely unrealistic worldview and is trying to have a policy that would force others to live under it, then we have a responsibility to point out what we think the outcome is really going to be.

Greenspan didn't see the melting down of the global economy as the likely outcome of his program. But he wasn't right. And people thought he was one of the smartest guys around. Same with the Wall St leaders. And the political leaders that backed them.

I don't think that "the small government people" represent a reasonably homogeneous group.

Certainly not. And people should consider the motivations of the people who want the same things that they do when deciding if they really want those things.

Because the people who want the most personal liberty and freedom from others want to get it in the same way as those people who want to do the most harm to others and prevent the most personal freedom. Clearly one group or the other is dead wrong.

What's the basis for that claim? Cynical as I may be, it sounds a bit ahistorical, as if the State was, per the Jefferson ideal, abolished and re-established every couple of decades, rather than representing an altogether more venerable continuity, one that almost invariably pre-dates the birth of any individuals which you describe as its voluntary constituents.

Well, it is something that people inherit, rather than choose themselves. But what of those people who find themselves essentially without a government? What do the most of them promptly do? They form a government. That tends to happen more than trying to live without one.

The other factor to keep in mind is that a great many people are always asking the government to do things. If they didn't want a government, then why resort to it for so many issues?

Why do you think this is the case?

The alternative is to resort to violence right away in just about all conflicts.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well that's really not my problem. But if a person has a completely unrealistic worldview and is trying to have a policy that would force others to live under it, then we have a responsibility to point out what we think the outcome is really going to be.

Greenspan didn't see the melting down of the global economy as the likely outcome of his program. But he wasn't right. And people thought he was one of the smartest guys around. Same with the Wall St leaders. And the political leaders that backed them.

Ok. What does that have to do with the right to secession? Which was I thought what we were talking about.

Certainly not. And people should consider the motivations of the people who want the same things that they do when deciding if they really want those things.

Because the people who want the most personal liberty and freedom from others want to get it in the same way as those people who want to do the most harm to others and prevent the most personal freedom. Clearly one group or the other is dead wrong.

Do they? I can't say that Amadeus and the Koch Brothers strike me as seeing exactly eye to eye, even if they might share a policy proposal or two.

Well, it is something that people inherit, rather than choose themselves.

Can that be considered a free contract, then? Isn't there a reason that we cancel debts on the death of the debtor, rather than obliging his descendent to participate in a bargain for which they never volunteered?

But what of those people who find themselves essentially without a government? What do the most of them promptly do? They form a government. That tends to happen more than trying to live without one.

What do you mean by "government"? On the face of it, that can refer to anything from a village council to the British Raj, so all you're really saying there is that people tend to pursue some form of collective self-organisation. There's no obvious progression from that to the state as such.

The other factor to keep in mind is that a great many people are always asking the government to do things. If they didn't want a government, then why resort to it for so many issues?

Because if they try to do deal with it themselves, the government will send men with big sticks to hit them until they stop? Is kind of the obvious answer.

The alternative is to resort to violence right away in just about all conflicts.

How so? It seems to me that there is a lot of room between working through the system until the very end, and grabbing yer boomstick at the first sign of trouble. Liberals are generally quite enamoured with Ghandi for his non-violence, but he didn't sit in the first camp any more than the second.

 

[Cutlass]

Ok. What does that have to do with the right to secession? Which was I thought what we were talking about.

Secession in and of itself cannot be separated from the justification for it. There may be valid secessions, but in doing so both the reasoning and the methods have to be acceptable.

Do they? I can't say that Amadeus and the Koch Brothers strike me as seeing exactly eye to eye, even if they might share a policy proposal or two.

Can that be considered a free contract, then? Isn't there a reason that we cancel debts on the death of the debtor, rather than obliging his descendent to participate in a bargain for which they never volunteered?

Jefferson suggested rewriting the Constitution every generation or so because he didn't foresee evolution of law under the Constitution as it existed at his time. But the law does evolve with the generations. So each generation is making the government to suit itself. Up to a point, and with conflict in the political process.

What do you mean by "government"? On the face of it, that can refer to anything from a village council to the British Raj, so all you're really saying there is that people tend to pursue some form of collective self-organisation. There's no obvious progression from that to the state as such.

This is the same old semantics that we cannot find common ground on What else can I say?

Because if they try to do deal with it themselves, the government will send men with big sticks to hit them until they stop? Is kind of the obvious answer.

Not at all. Most conflicts are conflicts of non governmental people and non governmental organizations. The government sets the rules by which these conflicts are resolved. If the government did not do so, then the private sector would be sending men with big sticks to hit the others until the situation was resolved.

There is less actual violence with government than without it.

How so? It seems to me that there is a lot of room between working through the system until the very end, and grabbing yer boomstick at the first sign of trouble. Liberals are generally quite enamoured with Ghandi for his non-violence, but he didn't sit in the first camp any more than the second.

There may be some successful non violent ways of dispute. But it's rare enough so that it shouldn't be counted on.

 

[ori]

MODERATION REQUEST: please break off the posts starting from here to here. It's valuable discussion, but not meant for this thread. Thanks.

Moderator Action: Done, I hope I got the right ones

 

[Abegweit]

Not in the sense of Proudhon, Bakunin, or Kropotkin. The traditonal anarchists consider themselves anti-capitalist, which I of course am not. I'm starting to think Rothbard shouldn't have used the "anarcho" prefix when talking about stateless, free-market capitalism.

I think it's exactly the opposite. The error is the attempt to change the meaning of the word capitalism - which always meant the system of power and property enforced by state power that we currently have. The term was largely invented by the socialists and should have been left alone.

Capitalism invokes images of scumbags like Geithner and Soros who rig a system so that only insiders can profit and make billions off it. Almost as bad, it conflates them with people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet who made their money through genuine creation of value.

This is why I prefer to call myself a free market anarchist. What word would you choose instead of anarchist anyway?

 

[Leoreth]

Almost as bad, it conflates them with people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet who made their money through genuine creation of value.

This is ... debatable.

 

[Abegweit]

This is ... debatable.

Tell me why you didn't bold Warren Buffet? They made their money the same way - turning around failing companies. Could it be because Buffet is a liberal?

 

[Cutlass]

Tell me why you didn't bold Warren Buffet? They made their money the same way - turning around failing companies. Could it be because Buffet is a liberal?

Actually they didn't make their money the same way. Not even actually all that similar. Buffet improved companies, many decent already, some with problems that could be overcome with a different approach. But he bought companies for long term investments and so worked to maximize their long term soundness.

Romney on the other hand bought companies, stripped out the good and saddled them with huge debts that resulted in the loss of many good jobs. He also helped fund companies that created crappy jobs. What he did not do was save and improve existing businesses.

 

[Leoreth]

I didn't bold Buffett because honestly, I don't know enough about his history to want to be entangled in a discussion about it.

 

[Lone Wolf]

No worries, if Romney wins the elections, he'll become the head of the evil government, and it will be okay to bash him. But until he becomes a President, he is deserving of praise, since business, is, by definition, good. Makes you wonder why successful businessmen, who are all such decent and great people, run for government offices and sponsor various election campaigns.

I don't really care about Buffet, or Romney, for that matter, one way or other. It's kinda weird to see them contrasted so much. Both are same socio-economic type, neither had been particularly unique.

And remember: if a state secedes from a state, you get two states

 

[Abegweit]

Oh, they're both evil because of their politics. No question about that. But I find little to choose between the one who wants to be Head Thief and the one that simply supports the current Thief.

Both are evil.

 

[Abegweit]

Actually they didn't make their money the same way. Not even actually all that similar. Buffet improved companies, many decent already, some with problems that could be overcome with a different approach. But he bought companies for long term investments and so worked to maximize their long term soundness.

Romney on the other hand bought companies, stripped out the good and saddled them with huge debts that resulted in the loss of many good jobs. He also helped fund companies that created crappy jobs. What he did not do was save and improve existing businesses.

This is just nonsense. You cannot make money the way you describe. It's can't be done. Why would anyone sell a company if it was "strippable" in the way you paint it? There is no such thing as stripping anyway. It's a word made up by the anti-market left to describe the process of improving efficiency in a company, which is exactly what both Buffet and Romney did.

Buffet doesn't get targeted because of his politics. There is no other difference between them. BTW, I watched that horrible anti-market video put out by the Grinch campaign. It was mostly a bunch of union thugs complaining about the end of their gravy train. Despicable.

 

[Integral]

Question: my understanding of capitalism is that it rests, in part, on enforceable contracts. Who enforces the contracts in an anarchist, capitalist society?

 

[Abegweit]

The free market is quite capable up coming up with mechanisms to enforce contracts and has done repeatedly throughout history. It still does today.

For example, in Medieval Europe the state was unable to enforce contracts between merchants because there were many small Kingdoms and the merchants moved between them. Enforcing contracts wasn't really considered to be a function of government anyway.

So the merchants developed their own court and their own body of law, called the Law Merchant, for use across the continent. There was no mechanism of enforcement but in practice everyone obeyed a judicial ruling. No one would deal with someone who refused to obey. Ostracism is a very powerful mechanism for enforcement of the law - and especially of contracts.

This mechanism is still used in the diamond-cutting industry today and would likely be used everywhere if the state hadn't arrogated the law to itself. It did the same thing to the Common Law earlier.

 

[Traitorfish]

Secession in and of itself cannot be separated from the justification for it. There may be valid secessions, but in doing so both the reasoning and the methods have to be acceptable.

What bearing do you think this claim has on the what I've taken to calling the "Rainsborough principle", that "every Man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own Consent to put himself under that Government"?

Amadeus would come under the heading of "people who want the most personal liberty and freedom from others", while the Koch Brothers would come under the heading of "people who want to do the most harm to others and prevent the most personal freedom". You say that they "want to get it in the same way", but I don't think that's entirely accurate: Amadeus, at least, take his criticism of the state interventionism to its logical conclusion by opposing the state as such, while the Kochs and their sort are invariably as enthusiastic proponents of the state as the most ardent Stalinist when it comes to their property. That is no small distinction.

Jefferson suggested rewriting the Constitution every generation or so because he didn't foresee evolution of law under the Constitution as it existed at his time. But the law does evolve with the generations. So each generation is making the government to suit itself. Up to a point, and with conflict in the political process.

A fair point, but the fact that the individual can to a limited extent renegotiate his relationship to the state doesn't mean that it's a fully voluntary relationship. Just because some vague, amorphous "People" or "Nation" can modify constitutional law does not in itself imply that the individual as an individual is free from coercion.

This is the same old semantics that we cannot find common ground on What else can I say?

This is a matter of theory, not semantics. You say that people naturally pursue some form of government, and I agree insofar as they pursue some sort of social organisation, but you take to imply in itself a natural tendency towards the formation of States- which for purposes of convenience we can define in Weberian terms, as an entity claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given territory- which is far more tenuous a claim. There are plenty of documented instances of people actively rejecting the state, and you could go so far as to say that the entire history of communal-peasant societies consists of trying to keep it at arms length. It's only in certain historical contexts that people find themselves depending on the state, that is, in contexts in which states already exist and in which peoples social being- that is, the means by which they collectively reproduce their society- is irrevocably bound up with them. And, without treading to heavily on all the standard examples (Pennsylvania, 1776; Paris, 1871; Barcelona, 1936, etc.), it's not at all self-evident that the man in the street will march steadily towards the centralised republic rather than simply altering his social being in such a manner as to render the state non-essential.

Not at all. Most conflicts are conflicts of non governmental people and non governmental organizations. The government sets the rules by which these conflicts are resolved. If the government did not do so, then the private sector would be sending men with big sticks to hit the others until the situation was resolved.

There is less actual violence with government than without it.

Well, you're arguing from a comparison between our world and a hypothetical stateless world, but what's the nature of that world? If it's simply one in which every member of the state apparatus spontaenously quite their jobs and went to live as crab fishermen on Fiji, then, yes, you'd probably be right: violence would sky-rocket. But what does that tell us? That the state is necessary right now? Of course it is- things have been deliberately constructed to make that the case! But that doesn't tell us anything what is possible in the future. By way of analogy, it would be equally accurate to say that the feudal baron was necessary a thousand years ago, and yet nobody today would defend the feudal system, nor were people back then wholly unwilling to challenge the status of the baron, contrived necessity and all.

There may be some successful non violent ways of dispute. But it's rare enough so that it shouldn't be counted on.

My point was that Gandhi didn't pursue his goals through the framework offered to him by the British Empire, but instead challenged the framework itself. Would you say that he was wrong to do so, even though his means were non-violent?

 

[Lone Wolf]

and you could go so far as to say that the entire history of communal-peasant societies consists of trying to keep it at arms length.

Communal-peasant societies? Sounds like they need some good injection of free market.
Meaning, it's a good example of anti-statism, but not that good example of anarcho-capitalism.

My primary beef with anarcho-capitalism is it proposing a strong distinction between "business" and "government" that, I feel, doesn't exist to the degree they postulate it. Historically, there are many cases of them not only conflicting, but also intertwining and cooperating. When, during the Indian Famines, the British Government refused to provide food to the Indians, because it would disrupt the market prices on wheat, was the "government" or "the market" responsible? When a weapons manufacturer lobbies for a war, can "business" said to be responsible for the war, or are the warring governments solely responsible ones here?

 

[Abegweit]

My primary beef with anarcho-capitalism is it proposing a strong distinction between "business" and "government" that, I feel, doesn't exist to the degree they postulate it. Historically, there are many cases of them not only conflicting, but also intertwining and cooperating. When, during the Indian Famines, the British Government refused to provide food to the Indians, because it would disrupt the market prices on wheat, was the "government" or "the market" responsible? When a weapons manufacturer lobbies for a war, can "business" said to be responsible for the war, or are the warring governments solely responsible ones here?

Anarcho-capitalists agree completely with you on this proposition. Business, in particular big business, repeatedly conspires with the state against the rest of us. In fact, it's the norm, not the exception. I don't know where you got this idea that they disagree.

The anarcho-capitalist position is that government is the enabler. Without the coercive power of the state, businesses could never do any of these things. Among others things, it is fundamentally wrong to say that merchants of war have anything to do with the free market. Their very existence is dependant on state power.

Similarly, the market had nothing to do with the refusal to supply food to Indians. Business and government may well have colluded to do this (I don't know the story but it's certainly plausible). If they did, then it was by violent interference with the operations of the free market. Some of the beneficiaries of such interference are often private individuals, true. But the method used is invariably state violence and state coercion.

Without state coercion, people would have been able to get their food. BTW, famines are every and always caused by state action, whether it be theft or war. One of the few benefits of modern democracy is that it seems to have abolished famines. People just don't accept this kind of violence in democracies so it doesn't happen.