I already refuted this silly point and my point was ignored.
Money.
Not evidence.
My history books also cover a lot about what happens in state-less space-times. None of it is pretty, especially if you’ve lived through some of it.
That’s a picnic in the park. I wasn’t even referring to the US.
How does that even follow? How do you explain gangs in state-less and LAW-less territories then? How is illegality in any way associated with power’s self-reinforcing tendency to grow? Your argument simply doesn’t make sense.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Mine, in return, is that this was quite condescending on your part.
Z.
Kindly list these so-called times.
Yeah, by a state which is seen as legitimate. Not by a private entity, which is precisely my point.
It is enough to convince me you are a disingenious loser. I am out of this.
Prove it.
Z.
No, you have to prove that it is.
Good, you’re half-way there. What’s your money being exchanged for when you enter into a contract to use the other trading party’s men and guns? The product you’re buying is POWER, and sellers of power are nothing like sellers of shoes or apples.
Z.
If you’re referring to ancient times, it can be argued that humanity was once in a position that rendered it very vulnerable to the state/violence. In the modern era, security is much better and cheaper, and will continue to develop along these lines.
If you’re referring to modern examples you’ll have to point them out… most modern stateless societies are coming out of terrible terrible conditions, like Somalia or Argentina.
Actually I would say that the internet is the strongest example of a modern anarchy. Hackers and viruses constitute aggression and anti-virus/web browsers offer security at competitive prices (zero w adds). Private lawmakers on forums and websites determine what kinds of things fly on their property.
Not compared to what you’re used to. In either case, the majority of war-ridden African countries are messed up in part because the UN has told people to rely on their governments rather than self defense for security. Between debt slavery and a history of state-warfare, it is no wonder the entire region is messed up. The G20 will continue to ensure that the third world stays in hell. These countries are not evidence of the failure of anarchism.
Similarly the wealth and power of the west was built upon colonialism/slavery, and more recently upon debt slavery and state-sponsored-terrorism. This is not evidence that states produce prosperity, but that mass thievery and murder are good for you if you can get away with them. If you look at humanity as a whole, the state has been an utter and complete failure, worse than virtually any conceivable anarchism.
See above. You’ll need to throw a specific example out if you want a response.
Well making something illegal creates a black market, and markets tend to grow. Actually this is my best guess at what you’re trying to say, I couldn’t make much sense of it.
But it’s not. You’re confusing politics with defense. Don’t do that.
Sorry, but no. YOU have to prove that your proposed change is better than (or at worst equal to) the status-quo.
Z.
Evidence is in the eye of the believer. Whatever example may be pointed out to you will have its own particular “extenuating circumstances”.
Humanity as a whole has also flourished and prospered in nothing BUT a state form. The fact that humanity has repeatedly converged to points of stability in the form of STATES while ALL stateless situations have been utterly unstable and short-lived chaos (until they stabilize into some form of a STATE) should at least give you SOME doubt about the validity of your conjecture.
Black markets are not necessary for gangs and turf-wars. Gangs can flourish perfectly fine where laws (thus illegality and “black markets”) are non-existent. In fact, they love it there.
Let me clarify my position. Power is not just another product/service amenable to FREE trading like shoes, apples, or carpet-cleaning. A free market in power is an oxymoron. Assume the following situation: There are four merchants sitting at your dinner table offering you their wares: M1 sells apples. M2 sells shoes. M3 sells carpet-cleaning. M4 sells power/“protection”. Each of them have a truck-full of their product parked at the street in front of your house. M1 has a truck-load of apples for sale. M2 has a truck-load of shoes for sale. M3 has a truck-full of carpet-cleaners ready for work. M4 has a truck-full of men with guns ready to act. Here’s a question for you: For which ONE of the four offerings a bigger supply (bigger truck with more wares) translates into a HIGHER price for you to pay? (And please think before responding that you can always go to a cheaper guy with a smaller truck-load of men. You know full well why.)
The English dictionary is full of nouns representing concepts/objects that are not amenable to being traded in free markets: color, sadness, joy, distance, air, etc. I believe that POWER and LAW are just a couple more from that list. You believe that they aren’t and that’s where we differ.
Z.
This quote from Spideynw seems relevant:
“Power is not being able to kill someone. Power is being able to kill someone and then convince everyone that it was OK. Power is not about being able to steal from someone, but about stealing from someone and then convincing everyone that it was OK. Government is one big sales pitch. It is all about confusion and disinformation. Governments can only do as much as the general populace will allow it to do.”
Sorry, but no. YOU Have to prove that the status quo of institutionalized monopoly is the right way. You have to prove that initiating force is proper.
This is a very narrow sighted statement. It’s like stating a slave has lived a good life because his master gave him some leeway.
Man has flourished and prospered NOT because it co-existed with the state. It existed and flourished ONLY because the state ALLOWED a level of ANARCHY to exist. History irrefutably proves that the more anarchy(economic freedom) that existed the more prosperous humanity became. In contrast, The less anarchy there was, more state, the more stagnant humanity became.
Your narrowminded statement seems to advocate things like socialism and fascism. Had I read no other statement from you the quote above would leave me to believe that you were a collectivist and believed that more state would equate to a wealthier economy.
Zoo animals flourished and prospered while in the confines of the zoo. Slaves flourished and prospered under the control of a benevolent slaveowner. Therefore slavery is acceptable. Is that what your arguing?
Ahuh. Well you didn’t address any of my examples, so I’ll take this as a cop-out. You’re basically saying that anyone can believe anything about anything and that’s okay. So just ignore my analysis of Argentina, Somalia, the internet etc etc out the window at your convenience.
Only until very recently. You have about 5900 years of state slavery and poverty and maybe the last hundred years where stuff has gotten a lot better for a small minority of humans. If it weren’t for the minarchist government and open borders of the United States, the world might still be a completely crappy place for everyone.
I wasn’t talking about the inevitability of the state where you quoted me. I was saying that the state is a failure, not that it wasn’t self propagating. In fact I’d say that the majority of states are at least a couple of hundred years old, and I was arguing that while states in the past had been inevitable due to poor communication, imbalances of power etc, that we have more hope than ever to form an anarchist community. Hoppe and friends have some very articulate arguments on micro-secession. Stranger has a link to the thread in his signature.
Note that you failed to address my analysis of why “we” have it so good, which is that our states are violently parasitic on the natural resources of the third world. To paraphrase my conclusion: The status quo isn’t evidence that states work, its evidence that if your state is a murdering thieving warmongering f*ck, you can live just fine on the backs of 10x as many people.
I’m sure you’ll agree that its harder for people to get away with “bad stuff” if there’s more security around. There are already more private security guards than police in the US. What do you think about the State now? I can tell you what Hobbes would have to think: That every state is a complete failure and should be overthrown because its does not even try to prevent anything close to all violence.
You’re just trying to repackage the argument that might will make right in the free market, that some people will buy tons and tons of security and lord their POWER over everyone else. This argument has been addressed elsewhere. The long and short of it is, that whatever dumb imaginary scenarios you can dream up where one guy buys tons of power and kills everyone, there is still a better chance of you surviving in the free market than if he were the state because you can at least potentially fight back. Fighting the state is the biggest no-no I can think of.
Well thats because they are all conceptual, but you can buy things that lead to concepts. You can buy red ink to lead to red. Alcohol to lead to sadness. Air to get you… air… because you can buy air since its a physical tangible thing… You can buy guns for power and make rules for law.
Why on earth did you think this analysis would work? If the market cannot provide POWER and LAW then by what twist of logic does the state do it?
There’s no politics in anarchy. Your reply constituted of merely renaming “power” into “defense”. Don’t do that.
Z
That’s why you shouldn’t have even addressed it outside of the discussed context. The rest of your post is punching a ghost that’s not there. Or “strawman” as I see it popularly being used here.
Z.
It is settled then!
Please don’t put words in my mouth. “Evidence is in the eye of the believer” because each side is free to conjecture whether correlation, in fact, represents CAUSATION. I could as easily state (which I do) that “terrible terrible situations” (being highly correlated with stateless conditions) are in fact CAUSED by statelessness. I, however, don’t call your refusal to address and acknowledge my conjecture a “cop out”.
That’s all fine and good. It’s still a “Trust me, this time it will be different” argument. And if a society is indeed established to resemble your conjecture – and the pin manages to stay straight for longer that a second – I would seriously consider joining.
I agree that this has been going on all throughout human history. Again, for you that is evidence about the state. For me, that is evidence about human nature. Since humans have pretty much done everything (good and bad) in state-based structures, how do we separate which part is responsible for what?
There’s nothing dumb and imaginary about power’s self-reinforcing tendency to grow toward a monopoly. It’s NOT in weaker gang’s (or PDAs) self-interest to fight with a stronger gang. They profit MUCH more by joining forces with the stronger. The more powerful your counter-party is in a deal the less “free” the deal/market becomes. And please, don’t bring up societal ostracism as a counter-balancing force as that’s plain ridiculous.
Intelligent people centuries over have pondered this phenomenon. Humans have heuristically – through trial and error – tested ways to rain in and control power so society can be productive and flourish. So far, the (heuristically and evolutionarily derived) answer has been (and still is) to have the power and laws reflect the values and wishes of a stable majority in each society. This majority is usually of critical size as to be able to rein in the power if it gets too much out of hand. So far, that has been the ONLY set-up that has worked.
Voting and laws reflecting the will and values of a critical majority of the population is the ONLY stabilizing (and counter balancing) force – the “goo” that keeps the pin standing. Free markets in POWER and LAW are too violent for the former, and plain oxymoronic for the latter. The number of games of chess played (deals done) in a society is proportional to the level of agreement as to what the chess rules are. Without uniform chess rules our game of chess would be over before it has even started.
Z.