Anarchy Revisited (WARNING: long post ahead)

Economics Economics Questions
61

On the Mongols I said that their being under a state-ish formation could be discussed, just as it could be discussed for every tribe you like, specifically Gauls and Illyrians in our conversation. Discussing such things is precisely what this thread is about (as weel as my personal field of interest).

What I do not accept though is absolute (and very childish) statements such as “tribes where a state and everyone who disagrees is an asshole”. I believe I tried to back my every post with at least some scant evidence, whereas you confine yourself with attacking me for daring to disagree. Hope I was somewhat clear.

62

Let me be clearer myself. You were lecturing me on something you clearly don’t have a clue on. I don’t appreciate that. There was no kicking out a ruler of a chiefdom, you can’t just make stuff up.

I didn’t say tribes were states. Don’t put words into my mouth. I said tribes with rulers are not examples of anarchies. I said nothing about tribes without rulers.

63

Did irish tribes have chieftains? (don’t make me look for a quote) Did they, per chance, have a frigin’ King? Yes! Why than, we consider medieval to be anarchy? Could it possibly be because such chieftains where only the naturally acknowledged leaders of their communities and just as the King himself, could be deposed should they fail to deliver?

Could I know this to be true form Albanian tribes, where, to this day, heads of families are easily deposed by the family council should they “bring dishonour”? Does this seem like a “monopoly the use of force” to you? Could it be that you’re simply projecting clichés of tribal cultures into you analysis, not only refusing to even consider the fact that chieftains are but natural leaders and could do violence to no one without general consent, but also denouncing anyone who could hold this view as “clearly not having a clue”?

If “there was no kicking out a ruler of a chiefdom” and such ‘rulers’ did clearly wield some power, than tribes where states. There either is a generally acknowledged monopoly of violence, or there isn’t. I see no middle ground here.

64

A society in which the iron rule of oligarchy doesn’t apply?! That’s utopia. But please, do prove me wrong by providing examples.

65

You don’t seem to be able to comprehend that there are differences between tribes. Creveld specifically identifies two categories one of which is anarchic and the other which we would recognise as a primitive state.

So in place of bringing up points which were never new to me you should probably get the .pdf I uploaded and linked and read up on the distinction between tribes which are ruled and tribes which are merely led for yourself, seeing how you claim these matters are an interest of yours.

66

I actually am. Thanks for that, looks very interesting up to now.

Commenting on what I’ve read up to now (past the “chiefdom” vs. ‘leaderless tribes” part, I can only say that what he considers “chiefdoms” could more accurately considered as original Hoppean monarchies.

He makes it very clear (around page 23, if I remember correctly) that “chiefs” rule only over what was considered to be their property: they asked for rest (“tribute”) for tilling the soil or hunting on their estates, and asked to be respected: certainly seems no state to me.

So, I’d rather say that the line he draws between “leaderless” and “ruled” tribal societies is not at all to be seen in the use of the monopoly of force, but rather on the emergence of private property in land in the later societies. So, I would still contend that Gauls, Illyrians and Mongols (to name a few) lived under anarchy.

67

JonBostwick makes some good points - see quote below.

Anarcho Capitalism has anarchy and full private property. Both the Northern Albanians and Hong Kong are close but different.

The Northern Albanians have anarchy and communal/family property without private property. Obviously its contradiction causes some violent conflict. Northern Albanians presumably take minimal advantage of trade to get guns and other tools.

A place like Hong Kong has private property with a state. Here too there is a contradiction, but the state is minimal so progress is quite rapid and it is a magnet for people who want to get rich.

The Northern Albanians have rules in place to make it hard to accumulate wealth. My guess is that this demotivates anyone seeking wealth. It definitely would be interesting to know what exactly those rules are that prevent a herdsman from opening up new land and increasing his herd. It could be the unavailability of land. Or alternatively one could practice more intensive agriculture. But there might be rules and customs against being different. I would think in any society there will be a few enterprising types who would accumulate wealth if they could.

Anarcho Capitalism has some success examples. Pennsylvania for a while had no state. There are examples where state power was so low it was practically anarchy. Certainly those state with minimal government grow wealthier over time leading to the paradox is increased government. (A state getting 10% of a large economy is a bigger government than one getting 50% of a small economy.)

I’m not very satisfied with the origins of the Anarcho-Communalists as particularly ‘natural.’ It seems in a way they made it part way to the concept of private property but didn’t take the next leap, in fact they have laws to prevent it. Institutions are hard to change. There’s a us/them mentality. Us = family and them community and Them = everyone else. Interaction is thwarted. The benefit of them not going private property is that it did keep a balance of power. There’s no one dominant family. The absence of rough equality might be a fear. Hard to say. I think we don’t have enough information from your post.

68

I agree with you. I must add that the whole idea was to show that utility-maximization as per Mises (“people always prefer more to less”) does not yield the practical societies seen in tribes (nor does it, more generally, fit the observed world history too well). Almost everything is inexplicable by Misesian standards. In an other rather long post above I’ve also expanded the analysis to further specify what I mean. There I also discuss your idea that a general aversion to change and social rigidity might be the root driving force of these societies.

69

nanos gigantum humeris insidentes

70

I don’t quite agree here -

If the cost of more wealth is too high people will not prefer to give up their valuable leisure time. There are likely social and legal hurdles. Again it would take a more in depth analysis of the Albanian society you talk about - what happens if someone tries to get a bigger house, produce more, etc. Also if the people are already working a fair amount, giving up additional marginal leisure time would be of course perceived as higher cost. Given the level of economic development, lack of other enterprising people etc. there may be few evident gains from additional labor. While we know hard work and capital accumulation pays off in the end, few people really do it. We’d rather get the highest paying work that takes advantage of other people’s capital accumulation.

71

As Anders elaborated. Bastiat elaborates further in one of his treatise( The name eludes me). Basically, when a situation arises that it becomes facile to plunder rather than living the cultural norm, due to the fact that it has become onerous beyond relief, people shall shall plunder, vice versa. Which becomes intertwine with his (Bastiat’s) treatise of Law, Government, Money, etc,etc,etc.

72

I was thinking in this case in terms of working hard vs. enjoying leisure. Most people make money by working and not by deploying their capital, or rather their talents are the capital they deploy.

73

In terms of satisfying their preferences, not necessarily the accumulation of goods.

74

Glad to se the thread is still alive.

Now about the points you raise.

Anders, I certainly agree that the treatment I give is far from being exhaustive and a much more thorough analysis of tribal societies in general is needed to put forth such a theory, but right now I have absolutely no time for that, and this is just meant to be an exchange of ideas not that much of an ‘academic’ thread.

Now, if one as talking of isolated villages, I’d certainly agree with you that the profits to be had by saving, if done by one guy alone, would hardly match the cost of lost leisure. Yet we must understand that these are villages that do trade, sporadically and when hard pressed, with nearby cities. So, without working a second more, and by just specializing in ‘cash crops’ and selling more in the city, they would increase they standard by much; its just that simple. Why don’t they? Why social pressure against a too big house and too much wealth is so great? The road to a better living is there, its already practiced sporadically and its basically cost-less, and still they have refused, form at least 1500 years, to go past subsistence.

Curius, plunder is the farthest thing form anyone’s mind in these societies. I’d submit that these villages have been among the most crime-free area of the continent. When conflict arise they are settled swiftly, and in the crushing majority of cases, by monetary compensation. Some more series ones are settled by ostracism and the most serious one by allowing the victim to kill the perpetrator. What should be noticed is that, even when crime arises, it almost always (and certainly in all cases I know) results in no profit whatsoever. At most what you’ll “achieve” is to make it out of the village with your family (leaving your every belongings behind) in time before you’re shot after trying to steal a few more square meters of land. Its indeed what we’d expect of an anarchic society: peaceful. What’ sod is only that they refuse to increase they standard of living.

John, I again submit the case of trade to counter that. By simply specializing in cash crops, and trading with the city, they’d increase their standard of living by much without working more. So, the “high time preferences” explanation is untenable (due to other reasons too, which I outline in the link in my previous post).

75

I’m confused by this. Is there some sort of pressure or coercion in the background? Or are the people all genuinely not interested in increasing their material standard of living. I’ve never seen these villages either so that would be interesting to know if they live in modest places or more like hovels.

Whatever the values of individuals in a society there’s plenty of evidence that Anarchy is the best solution.

76

There’s no coercion whatsoever. No one will shoot you if you big mega-house, they’ll just ostracize you. Social pressure is all that’s needed to do it. and of course social pressure only works because the vast majority (if the term is apt for such small communities) do not really prefer a “better” life.

Whatever the values of individuals in a society there’s plenty of evidence that Anarchy is the best solution.

[/quote]

I fully agree. Look at these villages: anarchy gave them all they ever wanted; a static, paucent life, a peaceful community. And without disbursing a single penny! Imagine what an anarchic society would be if made up people who actually longed for more material wealth. It would put to shame!

But, alas, anarchy could be unsustainable whenever ‘breaking points” diverge too much. In these cases there is this big differential in what use could people make of they property, and use they actually make of it. The only way to tap on all those unused resources is to tax. I’m growing increasingly convinced that there is no way around that.

77

So who cares if they don’t make use of unused resources?

No reason to force lazy people in to slavery.

I would say too that clearly the albanian’s aren’t really free if they force people out who get wealthier. On the other hand they’re clearly relatively well off and probably could easily do more.

78

Please, do not assume that I’m holding the state to be moral. It is not. It’s a wretched thing, a criminal playground. No one has the right to force other people to choose a given life-style. But unfortunately that is not the case in the real world. Nor can it ever be, under any system.

The beauty of the free market is precisely that assuming a continuous longing for a better life, no one loses: my gain is also you gain. Resorting to violence in this scenario is foolish. But let us try to see that the market is peaceful not because it’s moral (it is) but because in it being peacefull maximizes everyone’s utility. If we could think of an instance in which morality actually clashes with long-run utility, rest assure that violence will be chosen. Morality is just merry words.

Mises saw that very clearly. Not only did he rely entirely on self-interest to push his praxeology, without ever speaking of ‘morality, but more specifically and more than once he brought the instance of some backward African country, which’s inhabitants where living in subsidence due to oppressive governent measures (I don’t agree: there is no decent government in Africa).

Now, Europeans would gain much if these African where allowed to flourish, as the market in toto would grow. Thus theyr self-interest drives them to attack the country and institute a freer regime. It might not be moral to attack a country on these grounds but Mises saw clearly that morality had nothing to do with this instance: here morality runs counter to long-run utility, hence it subordinates itself to the latter.

The very same thing happens with the State. In a market, if I value cars most and TVs least, and you value TVs most and cars far less, a simple transaction will allow us to ”trade away” our preference differential.

But that cannot happen with breaking points. Breaking point differentials cannot, by definition, be settled by the free market. In this case utility does run counter to the NAP: the NAP will be subdued. That is precisely how I believe the state originated and still runs.

We can argue about whether the concept of “breaking points” is viable, but I believe that arguing about which takes precedence, morality or utility, would be foolish.

79

I don’t really see what your argument is here.

I do know the parts where mises thought people would have to be dragged kicking and screaming in to the economy.

One should note that these days of course there’s no instituting a freer regime. First off who without sin can throw the first stone? Second contemporary indigenous cultures, and I understand this is particularly true in the balkans, would love nothing more than to fight the invader until the invader leaves or the home team is all killed. So you’re looking at genocide, making a desert and calling it peace, or a big waste of time.

Cultural change has to happen internally, and trade and media has the best corroding influence.

These days too the big value is in the people - build a hong kong and they will come and be rich. If their village is too restrictive people emigrating is the solution, the people in the village are the most valuable resource.

80

You did well to bring up Mises. He of course did not say that people had to be coerced to produce (but countries had to!?) , but that was because he was assuming, my whole point indeed, that people always and inherently prefer more to less. Making that concession, the state is meaningless. Even if by some major luck (as Hoppe maintains) it would have sprang up somewhere, it would have long perished due to competition from anarchic societies. We would know no such thing as a state nowadays. But that is not the case.

When Mises wrote the vats majority of people in the west did actually prefer more to less, and his analysis held well. Even today, if somehow only Western Europe, Japan, Australia and North America are left around, or movement of people is effectively zeroed with the rest of the world, than these areas would become anarchic. About that I’m sure.

But other areas of the world are not 100% full of people who prefer more to lees. They “have” to be dragged kicking and screaming into the market economy. There is a reason massively unprofitable colonial empires where set up by Europeans and semi-colonial regimes still survive in Africa.

I truly wished that there where some other way to get around diverging breaking points (or rather, I’d wish that diverging breaking points where no issue at all and people could just put the NAP before utility). I wish that the media and sheer neighbourhooding with rich societies would work.

But think about it: if there where some way in which African tribes (to name only one instance) where to be persuaded non-violently to join the market, the brits would not have had expensive troops up there. They let go Canada and Australia very willingly, because paying troops to get what mere free trade would give them was stupid.

Of course that is not absolute: perhaps there is some other way. But it has to be something which has not been tried for eight millennia. I myself believe there is no answer: the vast majority of the world will have to join a market economy for the state to loose its function.

PS: but you raise a very good point. Perhaps one could build an anarchic society for some people, and perhaps, the others seeing that these guys prosper and live freely, will be convinced to join too. That would appear to be a much more sensible route that killing the entire state at once. This is what I personally am working on (insurance business).