http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2011/09/zero-sum-plunder-gives-way-to-positive-sum-trade.html
Have you tried testing this hypothesis before? Don’t.
We’re non-coercive.
Let me quote Hoppe at length:
In commenting on this argument [Hobbesian Myth], there is little use in quarreling over whether man is as bad and wolf-like as Hobbes supposes, except to note that Hobbes’s thesis obviously cannot mean that man is driven only and exclusively by aggressive instincts. If this were the case, mankind would have died out long ago. The fact that he did not demonstrates that man also possesses reason and is capable of constraining his natural impulses. The quarrel is only with the Hobbesian solution. Given man’s nature as a rational animal, is the proposed solution to the problem of insecurity an improvement? Can the institution of a state reduce aggressive behavior and promote peaceful cooperation, and thus provide for better private security and protection? The difficulties with Hobbes’s argument are obvious. For one, regardless of how bad men are, S [the State] —whether king, dictator, or elected president— is still one of them. Man’s nature is not transformed upon becoming S. Yet how can there be better protection for A and B [private citizens], if S must tax them in order to provide it? Is there not a contradiction within the very construction of S as an expropriating property protector? In fact, is this not exactly what is also—and more appropriately—referred to as a protection racket? To be sure, S will make peace between A and B but only so that he himself in turn can rob both of them more profitably. Surely S is better protected, but the more he is protected, the less A and B are protected from attacks by S. Collective security, it would seem, is not better than private security. Rather, it is the private security of the state, S, achieved through the expropriation, i.e., the economic disarmament, of its subjects. Further, statists from Thomas Hobbes to James Buchanan have argued that a protective state S would come about as the result of some sort of “constitutional” contract. Yet, who in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one’s protector to determine unilaterally—and irrevocably—the sum that the protected must pay for his protection; and the fact is, no one ever has!
As Wheylous pointed out, you are conflating non-aggression and non-violence. As far as eschewing the political means, it hardly follows that those who eschew the political means are necessarily disempowered. All power is ultimately private, anyway. The political means is simply one (corrupt) method of building private power through plunder and enslavement. It hardly represents the only way or even the best way (production and exchange, building private capital, etc.) to accumulate power.
On that we certainly agree. The entire history of the State is whipping up the envy of the mob combined with the use of the bludgeon by thugs and bullies to intimidate, marginalize and enslave natural elites.
Clayton -
NAA, I caution against linking that article:
The first was a process of pacification: the transition from the anarchy of the hunting, gathering and horticultural societies in which our species spent most of its evolutionary history to the first agricultural civilizations, with cities and governments, starting about 5,000 years ago.
Assumption that anarchy is chaos and that state is peace.
social theorists like Hobbes and Rousseau speculated from their armchairs
Armchair thinking has gotten a bad rap.
Political scientists point instead to the growth of democracy, trade and international organizations—all of which, the statistical evidence shows, reduce the likelihood of conflict
They probably do reduce violence, but be careful not to think they are the only things which reduce violence. Plus, I am sure the statistical data is quite poor. But thumbs up for the trade part.
Finally, the postwar era has seen a cascade of “rights revolutions”—a growing revulsion against aggression on smaller scales
Ah, if libertarians had their way, what a “rights revolution” we’d have. A very peaceful one… 
The most obvious of these pacifying forces has been the state, with its monopoly on the legitimate use of force
Aaaaand back to square one.
I think he does neglect the 100+ million dead from Communism.
And I guess that’s why I should read articles before linking them…
I thought the title seemed spot on, and I usually trust Coordination Problem (they’re an Austrin Econ blog, in case you’re unaware), but you’re right, the conslusion was utter crap.
Edit: Kinsella has an interesting insight (taken from the comments section)
“It seems to me Pinker’s point about the state is a bit confused, but is somewhat compatible with anarcho-libertarian ideas: the development of some institutional legal systems that are more or less effective at prohibiting private interpersonal crime and violence may help achieve the effect he is getting at, even if it could be done better with a minimal state or no state. Although he does not explain, as far as I can see, why 1870 or whatever finally saw a dramatic improvement in such institutions.”
I would say that I agree that interpersonal violence has declined (as opposed to state violence), yet I must catch myself, as I know precious little about interpersonal crime before, well, the present day. Claiming to know such facts may be quite presumptuous (and even claiming that this is presumptuous itself may be presumptuous; ah, you see the problems of not knowing things?)
Pinker is both right and wrong in very complex ways. As far as the claims about the danger of dying due to violence in times past, we have to hedge the numbers with very large bands of uncertainty because we just don’t really have very good records. Pinker is a liberal - in the true sense of the word - and so he tends to hold to the view that things are getting progressively better and better.
I’m fairly cynical on this point, I think too much is made of it and it is a point that can serve the interests of the status quo (we just keep making things get better and better!) as it can the interests of the masses. I think that the progressive narrative of history ignores the negative feedback effects, the active attempts of the Establishment to subvert progress and turn it to reinforcing the status quo. So we’re healthier and more productive… but if the vast majority of our gross product is being diverted to support the parasitic class, then we are just healthier, more productive slaves. Nothing has really improved. It is completely possible that things can be “getting better and better” on very restricted metrics (life expectancy, fertility rate, productivity, etc.) while the material benefits of these improvements are not being enjoyed by the vast majority of people.
Nevertheless, I think that the process of evolution is immensely more powerful than any human or human organization and cannot be thwarted. No matter how clever they are, and now matter how hard they try to subvert the process of human improvement, the gears of nature will eventually grind all such efforts to dust. The calculation problem is a two-edged sword. The knowledge and intelligence of the masses vastly outweighs the knowledge and intelligence of the Elites and, slowly but surely, this must result in a breaking down of the advantages and privileges that the Elites enjoy over the masses.
Clayton -
Pinker is infering that democracy and the nation state are responsible for the decline in deaths and violence of mankind.
While doing this he conveniently ignores the ‘total war’ deaths of civilians during the 20th century. You could easily add 30-40 million deaths into this period and it would become the most bloodthirsty in mans history. So much for democracy civilizing us.
It is just more statist nonsense.
Someone on the co-cordination blog posted this, which was exactly what I was thinking while reading Pinkers glorification of our modern era of democracy.
Furthermore, why did Pinker not include the tens of millions who died in some of the most vicious and deadly examples of 20th century warfare? In his discussion of ‘our most peaceful age’, he makes no mention of the Rape of Nanking, the entire Pacific theater of WWII (including the detonation of two nuclear bombs over Japan), the Khmer Rogue and Pol Pot’s killing fields in Cambodia, several consecutive decades-longs wars in Vietnam (against the Japanese, French, and Americans), the Chinese revolution and civil war, the India/Pakistan separation and subsequent wars, or the Korean war. None of these many millions are included in his assessment of 20th century (male) war fatalities." - Sex at Dawn pg. 334
Well, all of this was caused by progressivism and as such constitutes a regression from the improvement that Pinker is talking about.
Democracy has a tendency against external war (i.e. war between states) since it is far more profitable and less risky for politicians, bureaucrats and other rent-seekers to make one-sided aggression against the subjects of the state. Democracy enables this war to remain one-sided due to the mythologies of elections and representative government which result in the subjects erroneously believing they can achieve their goals through these non-violent channels.
When democracies do make war, it is generally against non-democracies for purposes of self-aggrandisement, both for the political figures involved and as propaganda for the concept of democracy. It must be realised, however, that democracy - like all forms of socialism - is a constant war of all against all. A world of democratic states simply means more internal war against the state’s subjects and less in-fighting amongst states. It seems to be the case that so long as the subjects hold to the mythologies of elections and representative government and refuse to resist the state with violence, internal wars generally produces less casualties than external wars.
I think it’s misleading to say that (Western-style) democracies hardly ever go to war with on another, because for much of their history, they have been under the hegemony of the United States.
That’s true. I do think, though, that the use of democracy as war propaganda is an effective means for the democratic state to seize ever more power from its subjects while increasing its empire. There are many other kinds of war propaganda that could be used towards this end, of course.
What do you mean by “the use of democracy as war propaganda”?
Sorry, that was unclear. I mean the state using the supposed need to force other peoples into democracy as a pretext for foreign intervention.
I understand now, thanks. 
Yes, it is an effective means of propaganda… for people who “believe in democracy”.
I wish Hoppe was right when he states that mankind can be swayed by rational peaceful coexistance, but sadly logic and history suggest otherwise.
Try offering Hoppe’s worldview to the clueless societal parasites protesting in Greece, Manhattan and Washington. You would be tar and feathered and sent packing in short order. In many statist societies you would be imprisoned, tortured and murdered.
Hoppe’s view is of what he wants reality to be, not what really exists.
The only statement you made that is correct is this one:
The entire history of the State is whipping up the envy of the mob combined with the use of the bludgeon by thugs and bullies to intimidate, marginalize and enslave natural elites. – Clayton
Your right on this point, and my point was that the anarchist can’t overcome this insidious threat by handicapping itself with non-aggressive policies.
I do not fully agree with you because rights are not actions but what you just described includes all of your actions.
If all of the actions are consensual or if none of the actors violate the non-aggression principle, then the concept of rights is moot and the motivation behind your actions are largely irrelevent. In common parlance, a RIGHT is distinguished from what you just described specifically because of the implicit assumption that you have a moral prerogative to use physical force to get what you want or to enforce your demands.
You are probably right.
I did not say that. I said rights are non-concepts and I say that because our use of the term either hides our meaning or confuses the hell out of a lot of well-meaning libertarians as evidenced by centuries of Natural Rights nonsense talk or other philosophers who are struggling with accepting morality.
For someone who claims to be logical and non-statist, you seem to have little understanding of logic (at best) and a highly statist view of history.
More arguments from ignorance from someone who claims to be logical. Like John James is fond of saying, you should see my big surprised face.
Are you yet again conflating “non-aggressive” with “non-violent”? Something tells me you are.
But in case you actually aren’t, then you would have us commit aggressive violence against what you call “statists”. The irony there is that, in so doing, we would simply become statists ourselves.
Tell me, how often do you yourself engage in aggression? I mean, if it’s such a good idea all the time, why do you ever interact with anyone peacefully?
Tell me, how often do you yourself engage in aggression? I mean, if it’s such a good idea all the time, why do you ever interact with anyone peacefully? – autolykos
I stopped responding to your replies because you constantly engaged in strawman arguments and personal insults.
Please produce the post in which I stated that aggression is ‘a good idea all the time’.
Are you yet again conflating “non-aggressive” with “non-violent”? Something tells me you are. – autolykos
No, when I cite coercion, I mean aggression. I am aware of the fact that many anarchists reject aggression, that is one of the reasons why they are marginalized throughout history. Greece, Rome, Great Britain, the United States and many other great powers use both aggression and self-defense to gain and hold power.
But in case you actually aren’t, then you would have us commit aggressive violence against what you call “statists”. The irony there is that, in so doing, we would simply become statists ourselves. – autolycos
The irony is that you can’t gain power against statists by rejecting the very means that they use to gain and hold power.
How has your non-aggression thing been working dude ? Fool hardy that anarchists will only resort to violence when it is too late to be of consequence.
How many anarchist regions free from statist control are there in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa ?
Oh yes, your great lynchpin argument of Somalia. I forgot, Somalia is the great anarchist paradise that wins the argument for anarchy.
And if coercion and hard power were not effective, then why are the US and China, both practioners of hard power projection, the globe’s most powerful nations ?