A few statements which I imagine are fairly non-controversial:
Superlative value-creation skill and ambition are naturally relatively rare traits (see Hayek et al.)
Covetousness/jealousy are naturally relatively common traits
People judge the quality of their lifestyle by way of subjective comparison with others
Anarchy results in a decidedly non-egalitarian distribution of lifestyle quality because of the non-state-distorted effects of 1). Even though I believe the quality of life for all people would be greater as a result of anarchy than under a state, isn’t the relatively concentrated distribution of wealth which results from anarchy a possible root of it’s own destruction because of 2) and 3)? That is to say, aren’t those in the lower three lifestyle quartiles of an anarchy that much more susceptible to statist arguments which always seem to appeal to a jealous desire for wealth redistribution? And this despite their probably objectively better status under anarchy?
I forget where I read it, and I’ve searched in vain, but I recently read a quote which illustrated that people are often sold on statism with the argument that they’ll be part of the beneficiaries who receive the stolen loot.
The notable investment manager Howard Marks said in the 70s he came across this:
Is the latter perspective sustainable, or do we always tend towards the former?
You might want to check Envy by Helmut Schoeck, which explores exactly what its topic says - and comes to some unpleasant conclusions. One of them is, that every society needs to overcome envy to some meaningful degree to enjoy economical growth.
(He actually also studies the useful properties of envy, which is natural and unavoidable - problems arise if there’s too much of it. Really recommend this book if you are intherested in the topic.)
You’re assuming that the effects of state distortion are toward egalitarianism. Why? Because that’s what politicians tell you? Just because the state tries to redistribute wealth doesn’t mean it succeeds. State action distorts in precisely the opposite direction by giving elites leverage (through the political process) that they wouldn’t have had otherwise: lobbying, patents, corporate personhood, licensing requirements, and other anti-competitive laws.
There is no way that a monopolistic institution can make everyone more equal without destroying itself at the same time.
Yes, Mr. Methodological Individualism, I do, since I’m human, also.
My question can be restated thusly: do humans, myself included, have an innate trait of covetousness which is common and strong enough to thwart attempts to sustain anarchy? My own natural covetousness probably would be destructive in this fashion, had I not been exposed to enough education about liberty. And since I tend toward anarchy even though I’m in a statist society, I may be in the great minority behaviorally.
Whoa, friend, your pony’s a little too fast. I think state actions tend toward non-egalitarian situations just as you do, you’ve misread me. It doesn’t matter if this is the case, however, if statists successfully sell enough people on the idea that they can deliver egalitarian results, which was part of my point.
To clarify, my last post was in reply to AJ, apparently the quote button didn’t work for me.
I believe states don’t distribute wealth any more evenly than anarchy, but they are based on a management of perceptions that they do, which is important in considerations of sustainability. For instance, in the U.S., the “one party with two heads” approach commonly keeps the populace fooled into thinking “these guys are awful, let’s bring in the other guys” instead of realizing that all politicians have fundamental conflicts of interest and are inherently violent.
I suppose that’s a good point, but historically there seems to be good reason to assume that large masses of people surrounded by a minority of much more wealthy individuals are prone to violently try to “equalize” things.
Envy tends to materialise when people don’t think the rich are rich because they deserve it. As is the case in the current system. Which is why a proper understanding of economics is important to sustaining any society. In the end some people need to get over the notion that the world owes them anything. This goes as much for a commune as it does for a market order. Remove wealth and there’s still other domains (wherein competition is now more intense as criteria of success extant in capitalist orders are now removed) to compete in, like looks, success with the other/same sex &c., barring utter and complete equalisation (annihilation of the individual.)
I’m confident your interpretation of the French revolution would back up such a bold universal statement, and I’m confident I would differ from said interpretation.
The French revolution was a bourgeois-intellectual revolution. The poor peasants sided with the church and the nobility, and some of them were massacred for it.
