I absolutely agree. A polycentric order is the only sensible solution. While it’s certainly not perfect, it minimizes the risk. The monocentric system actually creates a blockade to further 3rd parties addressing the problem. In other words, it limits the amount of possible 3rd party arbiters. At least in the polycentric order it is possible for a 3rd party to resolve the issue without creating a state in and of itself, since there are more options in the general atmosphere of competition.
Nothing wrong with this so far…
…but now we jump the rails. This does not follow because to the individual, there are diminishing returns to the utility of multiple layers of government (at least at some point).
Let’s think this through from the beginning. I am a monopolist on final decision-making in my home. My household is in a state of anarchy in respect to other families. I require (or rather, see the value in and voluntarily seek) a higher monopolistic institution to keep things in check. I participate in the creation of a community board to arbitrate disputes. But now my community is in a state of anarchy with respect to other communities. It may be that I see the value in and voluntarily seek an even higher monopolistic institution to keep things in check, but it also may not be. In practical terms I agree with the theory that the city (or “polis”) is the largest functional institution that makes sense for mankind. I don’t see how it matters much if cities are in a state of anarchy with respect to each other, or what kind of benefit an individual could get from a state that he can’t get from a city. But in any case, the point is that because of the diminishing returns on the utility of multiple layers of government to the individual, a global government is not the logical outcome of the Randian position.
Yes, but we don’t have luxury of simply pondering the best system and then waving our magic wand and seeing it implemented. We cannot avoid dealing with the fact that we currently alreadly live with a state that exercises both coercive taxation and a territorial monopoly. Persuading people to sanction a system of voluntary taxation while retaining the territorial monopoly most certainly does retain a “state”. But it is a state of vastly reduced powers. It will not be able to abuse its territorial monopoly to the same degree under voluntary funding as it would under coercive funding.
Once we live with a state which gathers its funds persuasively, then it’s a much easier transition to a market anarchy. The state can allow competition in some areas where it previously held a monopoly, itself participating as a low-cost option for the poor (as it will be bolstered by voluntary contributions, aka charity).
We can either have a theoretical discussion on which system would be just, right and good or we can discuss what we can actually do about the current system.
Those are two wildly different topics.
You proposed government doesnt get any more right or just only because we today happen to have a system that is a lot worse. Also minarchy is as wacky and impossible as anarchy from a practical position of what system we can actually move towards today. So you argument is flawed placed under the other topic there too…
The topic is neither which system is just, right and good, or what we can do about the current system. It’s whether anarchy could work in human society. My view is that it can’t work if human society is unable to implement it from the current state of affairs.
Grounds?
Surely you recognize the distinction between the question of how to bring about anarchy and, once anarchy has been established, whether or not it is a just or practical or sustainable way of doing things. This thread is about the latter, not a question of libertarian strategy. The fact that pure anarchism doesn’t currently exist is not really a substantive argument against it anymore than the fact that chattel slavery was a seemingly normal precedent in America throughout much of the 19th century is a substantive argument against slavery abolition or the fact that a geocentric model of the solar system was once a common social convention disproves the heliocentric model.
A lot of stuff is impossible to implement on a large-scale in the forseable future, that does however not make it impossible…
(not only social-economic systems. it goes for technology and stuff to, it’s not necessarily impossible to for instance build a fusion reactor with a net-power output at a resonable price just because no-one have figured out how to implement it yet).
It’s like saying that because no-one have built a road from A to B that means B doesn’t exist.
People frown there noses and think you are a wacky extremisit just as much if you argue for minarchy as anarchy. At least in my experience arguing for a very limited state havn’t been able to rase any additional sympathies.
It is really more the other way around. If you speak about limited government they have heard something about it before and think they know what you are talking about so they stop listening instantly.
If you talk about anarchy (without mentioning the actual word) you might however be lucky enough to spark some interest because it is unfamilar. This can give you enought time to explain to someone who is actually listening to make them see this is not just some crazy idea, but a well though-out system.
Both are still impossibilities to argue in any form av mainsteam media though. Since you will almost never get enough time to appear as something else then a crazy extremisit.
Ego, you say you’ve read the book, but I get the distinct impression that you either glossed over what Rothbard said about courts or ignored it totally.
-Jon
You’re both missing the possibility that the wronged party will act without a trial. You’re both misundestanding the purpose of trials. You’re both assuming a statist view of what a trial is for.
Actually part of my point was precisely that it’s possible that people will act without a trial - that there doesn’t necessarily have to be one.
My apologies, then. I missed that. Ego’s central strawman, that both Geoffrey and I have pointed out, is that a trial is necessary to act. You seemed to be conceding it.
The statist view of trials is that the purpose is to prevent people taking the law into their own hands - that there is no legitimate action without a trial. Anarchy starts with the assumption that the law is already in their own hands - and completely legitimately so. Trials are just a way to reduce the cost of enforcement to both parties, and, quite secondarily, to reduce the possibility of third-party costs.
Yes, and the problem with me or my insurance company forcing a theif to return my property is what exactly?
We always have the right to do that, courts have nothing to do with it.
Courts only come in to play when booth parties want the conflict mediated in the first place.
One valid point against implementing anarchy is that as long as most of the rest of the world is controlled by governments it will have a few serious issues. Sex tourism, well that is more of a inconvinence. But manufacturing of hard drugs (inviting the US Marines), issuing passports, the protection of citizen abroad and extreditions will be some serious problems not easily solved without having some form of fake government.
~
~
What happens when an individual has a problem with a ruling under your system? Even Rothbard stuttered on that one:
“Socially accepted”? [;)]
Your anger at me implies that you think my system somehow violates the free decisions of individuals. It doesn’t violate a single free decision. If you can name one free decision that it violates, I’ll change my mind. My system only kicks in when individuals are unable to come to a free decision (and you stated that would rarely happen, so I don’t see what your fuss is about!).
Under your system, there is no lack of force or coercion. While I propose a fallback court, Geoffrey proposes vigilantism:
If the fallback court is a violation of rights (and I don’t think it is), vigilantism certainly is a violation of rights.
Does a system of leftist-anarchy not “institutionalize” rights violations just because they don’t have a single organization called “the state”? Does that mean that it’s only “unfair”, not “unjust”? It doesn’t matter whether you have something called “the state”, a violation of rights is a violation of rights.
~
I should add: you keep hammering me on my definition of a state: any organization that initiates the use of force. The whole monopoly business is useless: there have been hundreds thousands of times throughout history (including now) where two coercive organizations claim control over the same territory; that doesn’t make them either one of them less evil than if the other weren’t there. A better definition is to focus on what’s truly evil: the initiating of force.
Indeed they are, but they are closely related.
Deciding on how to get from where we are to where we want to be requires a clear idea of where we want to be.
In deciding where one wants to be, a careful look at the options, choosing carefully between all of the potential options is wise.
Getting the most information available about the different possibilities is useful in that choice.
To work toward a goal that cannot exist, a goal that will be very different from what you thought it would be, is tragic. Ask any Bolshevik.
To know what to do about the present system, a clear view of the system you want to move towards is essential.
Any step away from worse is ‘better’, but if there isn’t a clear understanding of the end result, ‘better’ can easily become ‘worse than before’. Let’s avoid that, shall we?
Under current conditions, any step away from Statism seems impractical - Statism is so pervasive. In 1776, any thought of a worldwide ban on slavery doubtless seemed impractical, too. Someone at that time praising the glories of a government that would teach all the children, control all of the businesses, feed all of the people, and cure all of the ills wouldn’t have been seen as impractical - it’d have been absurd. Less than 230 years later, where do we find ourselves? Take a long enough view, and anything is possible.
The Nanny State did not grow overnight, or in a single, decisive act - it grew slowly, in bits and pieces. I expect that the Freedom state (of being, if it’s anarchy) will grow in much the same way - gradually, step by step.
It’s unrealistic to think that you can walk into the woods for 1 hour, but walk back out in 5 minutes. It’s gonna be a long journey back out - especially since we’ve never been entirely out.
To know which way to walk, an understanding of where we want to end up is useful. To walk more quickly and effectively, walking in the same direction is helpful.
Examining the options seems like a good first step to me.
Danno
Anarchism says it’s not.
Any further argment against anarchist methods on the grounds that they violate rights via vigilantism is nothing but a strawman and need not be considered.
And, I for one, am not taking the Rothbardian argument as quoted above. Unless the context changes the apparent meaning of it, he was wrong.
If you have a rebelious attachment to the word “vigilantism”, how is my system not “vigilantism” on the part of the fallback court? Think about it. [:)]