What gives the state some greater, natural, “by the order of the way the universe works” right to license cops?
Why can’t the state license doctors or scientists? Doctors seem like a pretty vital thing to make sure is kept well-cleaned of ignorant fools seeking a shiny penny. Why not have the state regulate them?
Why must there exist a sole enforcer of law? How would the law be enforced on said sole enforcer, if he broke it? Given your reservations about human nature, how do you justify giving any group of humans the exclusive power to create or enforce something as important as the law? As Milton Friedman put it: “Where in the world do you find these angels to organize society for us?” (after 1m30s below)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RWsx1X8PV_A
And I’m still confused by your contradiction. You told Wheylous:
The real capacity to bring decisive force against a potential aggressor is the surest prevention of aggression.
And yet, you prefer that each of the ten men on the island keep their guns – assuring that none of them has real capacity to bring decisive force against another. Yet again, when we move the scenario to higher level of human organization, you propose that ten families, ten villages, ten neighborhoods, ten territories, and/or ten states on an island must give up property (money) in order to establish a sole law-enforcer with “a real capacity to bring decisive force against a potential aggressor”. Which is it, must ten human entities submit themselves to a sole enforcer or must they not?
z1235
Why must there exist a sole enforcer of law? How would the law be enforced on said sole enforcer, if he broke it? Given your reservations about human nature, how do you justify giving any group of humans the exclusive power to create or enforce something as important as the law?
It isn’t that there must exist one; it’s that real people choose to have one, because the alternative is vulnerable lawlessness–a stalemate at gunpoint–given real human nature. If said sole enforcer broke the law, all the others still have their guns, so he may outdraw a few, but not most. Again, I don’t trust the stability of a society based upon a sunny view of human nature–one where voluntary, non-aggressive people live in productive peace and harmony. The system I describe is the least bad alternative, given real human nature.
you propose that ten families, ten villages, ten neighborhoods, ten territories, and/or ten states on an island must give up property (money) in order to establish a sole law-enforcer with “a real capacity to bring decisive force against a potential aggressor”. Which is it, must ten human entities submit themselves to a sole enforcer or must they not?
I propose that they want to submit; and so long as they enjoy the protection of their rights through law enforcement and the military, then they ought to be forced to contribute to both. Otherwise, they can take their chances on their own, taking the risk that the group they left behind will start to get ideas about whether to let the odd man out keep eating off the same coconut trees.
ummm, they totally do. Why do you think healthcare is sooo expensive and moribund?
Malachi
Wrong forum.
What about the 200 entities (countries) on an island called Earth? How do they manage to co-exist without submitting to a sole enforcer (world government, world police, world military)? Why doesn’t an infinitely more powerful France attack/annex/enslave a weaker yet rich Singapore and appropriate its wealth/productivity for its own benefit?
So ten people and 200 countries can somewhow manage to co-exist without submitting to a sole enforcer with overwhelming power, but all human entities in between can not? Why?
I regret to inform you that your post is inappropriate for this forum. Thank you for attempting to contribute.
z1235
So ten people and 200 countries can somewhow manage to co-exist without submitting to a sole enforcer with overwhelming power, but all human entities in between can not? Why?
Remember, my argument is that the ten people on the island, given a normal distribution of human traits, would submit to a sole enforcer. Their only alternative is to watch their own backs constantly–or separate into a few armed groups, I suppose, which would be the same as separate states and still require defense against the others and of order within. But either way, it’s a stalemate at gunpoint; no progress can be made, because they never get past the first hurdle of sociey–the establishment of enforceable law. Look at third-world and underdeveloped countries, where law enforcement is non-existent or subject to private bribery as examples of the alternative. No industry forms, because they haven’t even progressed past the first stages of civilization.
Nations are the ten people with their guns. They coexist without a universal law enforcer because each has already grabbed enough natural resources (coconuts) to last a long time; and each has developed a military, through forced contribution, to hold onto those resources.
Who is submitting to whom when they all have equal capacity for aggression/defense against/from another (a gun)?
Why not ten separate groups, each comprised of a man with a gun? How is two groups more special, likely, neccesary, or desirable than ten? And why must the two groups be arranged “as separate states” (with compulsion and coercion) and not as voluntary (market) entities (i.e. firms)?
How do 200 countries manage to co-exist, trade, and flourish under division of labor without establishment of enforcable law (world constitution, military, police)?
The correlation between (1) the existence of an enforcer with overwhelming power and (2) prosperity is non-existent (plenty of counter-factual examples), and even if it was, it would not imply causation between them.
I don’t see how resource allocation is relevant. So Singapore has enough coconuts to last them a long time (without trading with others), and it has enough of a military to fend off an attacking/enslaving France? The “forced contribution” is a non-sequitur – how each entity acquired its capacity to aggress/defend (i.e. how the ten islanders got their guns) is irrelevant.
z1235
Who is submitting to whom when they all have equal capacity for aggression/defense against/from another (a gun)?
They all submit to rules(law), a calm arbiter of disputes(court), and an enforcer of rules and rulings(police/quickdraw). Upon ceding a fraction of their individual self-determination, they gain the freedom to let down their guards. If this were an unusually rough bunch of castaways, this system would not work. If this were an unusually nice bunch, it might not be necessary, as you would prefer–and I, too. I’m using a run-of-the-mill mix of humanity. And such a motley crew is not even close to ancap ready, let alone on a deserted island.
Why not ten separate groups, each comprised of a man with a gun? How is two groups more special, likely, neccesary, or desirable than ten? And why must the two groups be arranged “as separate states” (with compulsion and coercion) and not as voluntary (market) entities (i.e. firms)?
I honestly don’t quite understand the second question. If it’s every man for himself, and a normal range of personalities, there will likely be good reason not to let down one’s guard–a high likelihood that at least one man be a dangerous character; that two or more will form a secret alliance; that conflict over limited coconuts will lead to all-out "war,"etc. The two groups might not be arranged as separate “states.” Maybe one group is comprised of people of your ilk, who only agree as necessary, after much discussion–so if a member doesn’t feel like picking coconuts or standing guard, he doesn’t have to. The other group uses my system. Now the coconuts are running low; and because my group has taken steps to force its members to contribute to the survival of all, who do you suppose will have the upper hand?
How do 200 countries manage to co-exist, trade, and flourish under division of labor without establishment of enforcable law (world constitution, military, police)?
The military might of the largest states has put them all in a stalemate. The smaller countries depend upon the larger for protection; and the larger tax their people to build up their militaries. Trade is a price exacted by the larger countries from the smaller ones for that protection. And a rough international law is guaranteed by the larger nations (the quickdraw/police).
The correlation between (1) the existence of an enforcer with overwhelming power and (2) prosperity is non-existent (plenty of counter-factual examples), and even if it was, it would not imply causation between them.
Name one counterfactual example of a prosperous society without an enforcer of law.
I don’t see how resource allocation is relevant.
If there were unlimited resources everywhere, no one would need to fight for survival. All exchanges could and probably would be voluntary. If survival itself depends upon securing control of limited natural resources–which it has throughout all of history–and such control cannot be maintained absent a limited state system–which it couldn’t be throughout history–primarily in the form of a combined defense against competing collectives; then individual rights must be partially subsumed by a state system–only to the extent necessary for ensuring life itself.
Daryl, not much profit is left for me in this discussion. Hopefully I provided some food for further thought on your part. Nice chatting.
z1235
Likewise. Thanks for a good debate.
No. I suggest you be just as precise about terminology.
And what do states consist of? They consist of people. You could say that they also consist of institutions and so forth, but those only exist in the people’s minds - they have no will or force of their own.
So since states consist of people, it sounds like the term “ownership” is quite applicable here. Let me ask you again: do you believe that land and natural resources (at the very least) are owned by states? Why or why not?
Why are you suddenly trying to limit the scope of discussion to a single state called (ironically) “the United States of America”? You’re changing the context - between “human nature” and the US Constitution - and I’m not sure you’re even realizing it.
Explain to me why you think law must be monopolized.
So now it sounds like you’re claiming - implicitly, I might add - that law cannot exist without a state. Can you support this claim? Also, can you explain what you think human nature is?
On another note, this sounds like the Hobbesian argument all over again. That argument is a false dilemma. Hobbes equated an armed stalemate or standoff with war. I, for one, fail to see how the absence of conflict is nevertheless still conflict.
Regardless, do you think it’s possible for real people to choose to not have a law monopolist?
Good, this is progress. Because it looks like you’re conceding that a stateless society would be fine, except for the fact that there are other states out there that could prey on it.
Indeed, it may be that an argument for statelessness is necessarily an argument for a global statelessness. Perhaps we cannot do it halfway. That is a debate in itself, but if you’ve gotten this far, great.
AJ
Good, this is progress. Because it looks like you’re conceding that a stateless society would be fine, except for the fact that there are other states out there that could prey on it.
Indeed, it may be that an argument for statelessness is necessarily an argument for a global statelessness. Perhaps we cannot do it halfway. That is a debate in itself, but if you’ve gotten this far, great.
You’ve misjudged me all along. I’d love to live in an all-voluntary society–if human nature allowed for it. Of course free choice is always better than coercion. My argument all along has been that that necessary global statelessness is a fairy tale, so long as human nature remains so deeply flawed. That talking about what an ancap society would believe about this or that begs the question of how one gets to there from here. I call it playing with intellectual dolls, pretend play. And even if humans became more enlightened and light of heart, the Earth’s limited resources wouldn’t last forever; and the populations of the Earth would flourish right along with trade, presumably. The only hope to preserve that way of life and freedom would be to accelerate technology to a point where the limited natural resources could be stretched much further, or were not necessary at all. But I don’t use that as an argument against progress itself, only against pretend progress.
DLD, you ignored the question about Singapore - a very valid one.
Plus, Somalia has been doing better without a state than with one. Given the “reality” of human nature, as you like to say, doesn’t this show that at least at times it’s better to not have a state?
Wheylous
DLD, you ignored the question about Singapore - a very valid one.
I didn’t understand his point about Singapore and France. Singapore could be taken over by China at any time, or France, for that matter. Singapore forces its citizens to join the military. Skim this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Armed_Forces
Plus, Somalia has been doing better without a state than with one. Given the “reality” of human nature, as you like to say, doesn’t this show that at least at times it’s better to not have a state?
The Somalis have been stuck trying to defend their “freedom” from hostile, controlling, statist elements both within and outside their territory for decades now. This is a reflection of the sad but real state of human nature.
And yet they’re doing better than they were with a state, correct?