“How are these advantages? They are more likely to turn your population against your state and in favor of the enemy.”
War is of necessity a struggle of who can muster the most compulsory power to overcome ones opponent. Therefore the one who can muster the most of his manpower efficently will maximize his chances of winning. The compulsion of USSR seemed more than adequate to defeate the Whites in the Civil War and the Nazi’s in WWII.
“You fundamentally misunderstand the analogy. The state can tax its own citizens, but not the citizens of other states. Just like individuals can act as one unit (the arms and legs cooperate to run and climb) and households work towards a common end, so can states (more or less, such as fighting wars or maintaining sovereignty). Think of states as individuals or households, and the superstate as the state. If the states can prevent the formation of the superstate, then it should be possible for households to prevent the formation of a state. All it takes is the right balance of power created by adherence to certain norms of behavior. I don’t pretend to know exactly the form these norms would take.”
I think I do understand it. You are right nations cannot tax people from other nations, but voluntary societies can tax no one. A relevant distinciton. Also I believe there is a power threashold that comes a voluntary society cannot achieve necessary for defense which a compuslory one can. A voluntary society such as a household can compel no one to fight and as such has a high probability of loosing to a nation that can compel everyone (not really everyone since the nations economy would collapse, but as many as can be replaced with out causing the economy to collaspe).
The problem is that war is not a market transaction and as such different rules apply. Force is the final arbiter in war. The idea of a totally volutnary army is unsound. Armies by definition are compulsory. Even if you join as a volunter the commanding officer must exercize compulsion to maintain order such as shooting deserters or utlizing corporal punishment against malifactors. The Boers and the US Militia show the very limited value of a volunteer force, yet even these forces used compulsion to maintain order. In the case of Boers it was the British who used compulsion more effectivley and overcame the undisciplined Boers, all be it at a high cost, and its was the disciplined (coereced) continentals who beat the British at York town with the discplined French ubder Rochambeau. In short any army needs discipline and military discipline demands compulsion and compulsion is inimical at least in theory with anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism and mutualism. I just do not believe that theory or history provides this balance of power visa-vie voluntary societies vs. compulsory societies necessary for an anarcho society of any kind to survive this kind of contest.
I still think you are missing what I’m trying to get at.
Scenario One:
Imagine that there are n number of [states] in the world. The [states] have no [superstate] to enforce agreements between them, but are able to avoid battle with eachother most of the time and often trade peacefully. Also, the [states] are able to prevent the emergence of a [superstate], since any [state] that becomes too powerful (and has a decent shot at forming a [superstate]) is met with opposition by ad hoc associations of other [states].
We know that Scenario One isn’t improbable based on the current state of the world.
Scenario Two:
Imagine that there are n number of [individuals] in the world. The [individuals] have no [state] to enforce agreements between them, but are able to avoid battle with eachother most of the time and often trade peacefully. Also, the [individuals] are able to prevent the emergence of a [state], since any [individual] that becomes too powerful (and has a decent shot at forming a [state]) is met with opposition by ad hoc associations of other [individuals].
Scenario One and Scenario Two share many structural similarities and Scenario One isn’t improbable, so it is reasonable to assume that Scenario Two isn’t improbable.
I hope that makes the analogy more clear than it was before.
Note: A super state would essentially be a one-world-government.
So, how exactly would you determine whether you are looking at a society rather than a state? How do you know when one side has lost and the other side has won?
“Scenario One and Scenario Two share many structural similarities and Scenario One isn’t improbable, so it is reasonable to assume that Scenario Two isn’t improbable.”
It is possible that we both missunderstand eachother, but I personally believe that the anarcho-society is sufficently different than the state to make the analogy weak. At this point I must respectfully disent on this position.
“There are certainly examples of much more radically decentralized cultures defending themselves against a more centralized foreign government.”
I do not doubt that decentralized states can defend themselves from bigger states many examples come to mind: the Silla vs. the Tang; the Finnish vs. the USSR; the Robert Bruce vs. the English; Vietnamese vs, the Yuan Dynasty. Yet the question is “how decentralized can one become before one is unable to adequatly defend oneself?” The problem is not that decentralized states can defend themselves, but at what point does one become so decentralized that one cannot defend anyone or thing?
“So, how exactly would you determine whether you are looking at a society rather than a state? How do you know when one side has lost and the other side has won?”
Good question. Well states are also societies as well. But I guess given the discussion on anarchy I will uses Hoppe’s distinciton. With anarchy and statism are both societies one is voluntary (anarchy) and the other is compulsory (the state). If a state were to invade an anarcho state a declaration of victory would depend on various factors to numerous to detail here. Suffice it to say victory could be rather easy as in the case of the Bolsheviks vs. the Black Anarchists (1918-1921) and the Republican Spanish vs. the Anarcho-Syndicalists (1936-1939), but it could be quite difficult as in the case of the Bolsheviks and the Central Asian Muslims (1920-1936) or the the US Seminole wars. In an absolute sense the anarcho-society would be defeated if one of three conditions were met: 1) its people are exterminated, 2) its factories are nationalized or 3) a combination of point (2) and the fact that the people cease resistance for fear of (1).
I actually think that the more decentralized a society gets, the harder it is for the centralized state to wield power over them. With a very centralized state, you attack and replace those in power, and you are now in power. In a decentralized state, there is no existing power structure to take control of. It would be near impossible for a state to enforce their power over an anarchic society.
See chapter 3: The State, in Rothbard’s “For a New Liberty”
Republican Spain was the anarco-syndicalists and it was clearly a state. It was one part of the regular army fighting another part. I’m sure they weren’t buying ammo based on collections from donation boxes. They just pillaged factories.
I might agree with you if Ireland was an anarcho-society, but I do not believe it was. Ireland had kings under a high king. The high king had limited power to be sure, but monarchy is not anarchy.
The claim that there was a High-King of Ireland is a myth. Read some Daniel Binchy or this for starters. And monarchy could be considered anarchy if its voluntary.
"The claim that there was a High-King of Ireland is a myth. Read some Daniel Binchy or this for starters. And monarchy could be considered anarchy if its voluntary. "
What exactly are you saying? Are you saying 1) that Ireland was an anarcho-society, or 2) that monarchy can be voluntary or 3) that Ireland was a voluntary anarcho-monarchy?
“The claim that there was a High-King of Ireland is a myth.”
Are you saying: 1) that a high king with total sovereignty over Irelnad never existed, or 2) that a high king with limited sovereignty of Ireland never existed or 3) that there never was a High King at all.
Of course a stateless society is very different than a state society, but I’m not even comparing stateless societies to societies with states. I am comparing individuals to states, and states to superstates. In the second scenario I replaced all of the [individuals] with [states], and all the [states] with [superstates]. Nowhere in my argument did I replace [states] with [anarchy]. Is he the only one that isn’t getting the analogy or am I having a problem communicating?
“The ancient israelites in their time without a king, with the judges?”
Before I answer this for a society to be an anarchy (I man any anarchy ancap, mutualist or syndicalist) must it be committed to the principle of non-aggression or not?
“Of course a stateless society is very different than a state society, but I’m not even comparing stateless societies to societies with states. I am comparing individuals to states, and states to superstates. In the second scenario I replaced all of the [individuals] with [states], and all the [states] with [superstates]. Nowhere in my argument did I replace [states] with [anarchy]. Is he the only one that isn’t getting the analogy or am I having a problem communicating?”
Before I respond I want to try to recapitulate your argument. Are you saying that X can repel Y. In case (1) X is a state and (Y) is a super-state and in case (2) the anarcho-society is (x) and the state is (Y). If I constructed your argument correctly I would say that the fundamental similarites of the state and the superstate are, to use a humorous example, like apples. They are like objects, the anarcho-society is like an orange. It is unlike the other two examples. My problem is that when you use the state (apple) to substitue for X in the first argument vs. the superstate and the anarcho-society (orange) vs. the state in the second argument you are comparing apples and oranges. No joke intended.
I also do not aggree that nations live peacefully together most of the time. They usually fight each other. This Pax Americana from 1945 till the present is too short a time to extrapolate any general principle, if you are indeed doing this. Maybe you are not.
Are you saying 1) that Ireland was an anarcho-society, or 2) that monarchy can be voluntary or 3) that Ireland was a voluntary anarcho-monarchy?
Yes, yes, possibly (depends on how you want to define monarchy)
that a high king with total sovereignty over Irelnad never existed, or 2) that a high king with limited sovereignty of Ireland never existed or 3) that there never was a High King at all.
So you aggree that there were kings of Ireland say in Ulser; Munster; etc and that a limited rule by a high king was sometimes exercized. If this is what you are saying I never intended to say anything differently.
No, you have already erred in your reconstruction of my argument. I never once compared a state to an anarchist society, but to a person. I don’t understand why you keep interpreting my argument in that way. Did I confuse anyone else besides Turin with the way I explained it? If so, please speak up.
Apparently I can’t communicate worth a damn. Perhaps Jasay can fare better.