“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.”
Is this better. 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 individual(s) are (x) and the state is (Y). If this is correct I apology my obtuseness, but online conversation can be at times unclear.
This is getting closer, but I would amend it to say that the presence of n number of X can (possibly) prevent the presence of Y. X = (individual, state) and Y = (state, superstate). Also, n>1 or else a superstate would already be present.
“This is getting closer, but I would amend it to say that the presence of n number of X can (possibly) prevent the presence of Y. X = (individual, state) and Y = (state, superstate). Also, n>1 or else a superstate would already be present.”
I read your previous post and now I think am able to get closer to your analogy. Is this closer still. The individuals and housholds (the n number equivalent to X) live in peace and trade, but if threated by a hostile state can acting in collective action repell it as, this is similar to the fact that states in relationship to each other live in peace and trade and could ban together to resist a super state.
The individuals and households don’t live in peace and trade all the time, but sometimes do battle (there are times when people assault or steal from each other). The same for the states (they sometimes pillage and war against each other). But the majority of time, there is peace (between individual persons and individual states). I don’t know exactly what norms the states follow to prevent a superstate from forming, but they seem to work. Whatever norms they are, in principle, individuals should be able to mimic them or analogous ones (but to prevent the formation of states in a world of anarchy).
“I don’t know what mechanism the states use to prevent a superstate from forming, but it works. Whatever it is, in principle, individuals should be able to do it (but to prevent the formation of states in a world of anarchy).”
Does not the perponderance of states actually show that the mechanism here described is workabe for a state visa-vie a supertate, but not individuals and households visa-vie a state. For if this mecahnism held in your second case would we not see more individualist and household communities independent of states? The implication being we do not.
Not unless the individuals have already adopted those norms of behavior (whatever they may be) that allow the states to prevent the emergence of a superstate. If they did and the states remained for a significant period of time, then that would count as a refutation of my argument.
“Not unless they have already adopted those norms of behavior. If they did and the states remained for a long period of time, then that would be a refutation of my argument.”
By the “they” you mean individuals and household communities (I will refere to this combination as IH for short)? And by “adopting norms of behavior” your mean these IH we have today might not have embraced this principle that states use vs. the superstate and therefore is not of necessity a refutation of your position, but did not the IH’s of the migratory people in prehistory try to resit the creation of the state and fail?
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?
The question can not be answered. It is really up to individuals functioning within their own culture at their own time to make that calculation.
What can be stated are the facts of the advantages of decentralization over a given period of time. After that it is up to the actors to concern themselves with what level decentralization can occur.
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.
Yes. The point was simply that an Irish “king” wasn’t the same as, say, an English king. As the kings could be removed if said ruling wasn’t favoured by his tuath.
“Yes. The point was simply that an Irish “king” wasn’t the same as, say, an English king. As the kings could be removed if said ruling wasn’t favoured by his tuath.”
I never insinuated that the ‘kings’ of Ireland were of the same nature as the ‘kings’ of england, but the King of England had less perogatives than the king of france who had less perogatives than say the Sultan of Baghad or the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. Kings and their power are on a compendium, but I do not believe that because the king cound be removed by his tuath, the system you describe seems very similar to the Holy Roman Empire between 1100-1800 yet that system was not an anachy. I just believe that how ever limited the king was in Ireland, he was not so limited as to slip from being a leader of a state, however tenative, to a represantative in an anarcho-society.
I just believe that how ever limited the king was in Ireland, he was not so limited as to slip from being a leader of a state, however tenative, to a represantative in an anarcho-society.
As far as I can gather, you simply have an odd view of what constitutes “anarchy.” Your defining line between state and anarchy doesn’t seem to be the same as us Mises folk. As, to me, anarchy has nothing to do with a sliding scale of prerogatives but rather the source of authority.
Whether they tried or not is irrelevant, unless they tried by adopting the norms of behavior that states follow in order to prevent the emergence of superstates. Just because it is possible to stay in the state of nature doesn’t mean that anyone who tries it will succeed using any tactics whatsoever. My argument only shows that it is possible to preserve anarchy, not that states cannot arise.
“My argument only shows that it is possible to preserve anarchy, not that states cannot arise.”
The point I was trying to make was in a previous remark you stated*: “If they did and the states remained for a significant period of time, then that would count as a refutation of my argument.”* Well doesn’t the failure of any viable individualist or household societies today showed that either the IH’s were never able to utilize this principle or if they did they failed to prevent state formation?
Is there an example in all of historicy of an anarchistic society in the defense against an agressive state commiting a single serious military blunder?
Because we know of numerous collossal blunders of vast, centralised, buerocratic armies.
"Is there an example in all of historicy of an anarchistic society in the defense against an agressive state commiting a single serious military blunder?’
Yes not using conscription, if they had they might still be around. They did not and hence were overcome by those who did. Think Russian Anarchists.
Answering a different assertion: It is not fair to say that it is impossible to create a minarchist state, because it inevitaly devolves into tyranny, so will the anarcho-society if it is not conquered. And as far as minarchist states goes Switzerland is pretty good.
No, this is a fallacy. Even if we would accept that concription bolster defence and can be the difference between victory and defeat, that would for such an example only mean that the anarchists in question valued non instituting conscription higher than giving themselves and edge. So the outcome that came about was preferable to them than the alternative you suggest, and it would have been a blunder to go with your proposal because it would bring about a less satisfactory condition than the one in their power to pay witness to.
“No, this is a fallacy. Even if we would accept that concription bolster defence and can be the difference between victory and defeat, that would for such an example only mean that the anarchists in question valued non instituting conscription higher than giving themselves and edge. So the outcome that came about was preferable to them than the alternative you suggest, and it would have been a blunder to go with your proposal because it would bring about a less satisfactory condition than the one in their power to pay witness to.”
This is not a fallacy. No formal or informal violation of logic has occured. If they under valued conscription enough that they were conquered and reduced to slavery. Their ‘blunder’ would be for seeking total freedom and in the end only antaining total slavery. If this society was conquered and reduced to servituded than it was not a desireble outcome.
I did not claim it was a desirable outcome. I said that what you propose is even less desirable.
Wars are not fought for their own sake, but to bring about a certain outcome. Now this outcome must be very important, or else you would not fight to bring it about, but it is not necessarily the most important thing to the fighters at all. More than likely there are other things which are even more important to the people waging the than what they seek to bring about with their participation in the war.
If it was discovered that killing your children was advantagous for winning a war most people would still not kill their children. They may value what they are fighting for, but they value a situation where they are not the murderers of their own children even more. Therefore it would have been a blunder for them to kill their children even if it did result in their winning a war.
If you value a lollypop over a bubblegum, it is a blunder to exchange the said lollypop for a bubblegum. It is as simple to that.