Retopper's anti-anarchism thread

Economics Political Theory
21

Live-free,

all of them, including the future USA that will see a dramatic reduction in the size and scope of government which is possible under our dynamic political framework of a Constitutional Federal Republic.

No doubt, we have seen an undesirable and unsustainable increase in the intrusion of government in many facets of private life since the 1930’s – however I believe that 2008 will be the high water mark for hyper-statism in the USA.

to paraphrase Churchill, 2010 will usher in the end of the beginning of overblown statism in the West. greece, spain, portugal, ireland, California, Michigan, Illinois, et al has shown that the welfare state is dying.

22

Dondoolee,

Western democracies have the highest GDP per capita of all nations → so?

they have not waged war on each other, hence they are peaceful to like minded states, → myth, read some hoppe

yet they have demonstrated the ability to aggressively and effectively defend themselves from predatory autocratic nations → so?

THey have high rates of immigration, hence they are a desired place to live. → so?

They have had peaceful transfers of power. → yeah so?

They have relatively impartial and fair judiciaries. → right! prove this one to me

including the an-cap fantasy which has no example to compare to classical liberal states. → because it doesn’t exist it can’t…is that really your argument?

23

classic liberal sates have thrived…in the future?

ok im going to bed, good night!

24

Michael,

Well said.

25

Your question assumes we can neatly divide society into that which is “anarchist” on the one hand and that which is “non-anarchist” on the other hand. It’s not that easy. Before we can talk about anarchy, we first need to talk about what government is. A government, in the Weberian/Hoppean tradition, is an organization which operates a territorial monopoly of law and security (in that order). The essence of this organization is the maintenance of a dual legal standard, that is, two sets of laws. In natural order society, there is only one law to which everyone is subject. In statist society (society where governments exist), there is one set of laws for agents of the state and another set of laws for everyone else.

Government in itself is not the problem, government is a symptom of a deeper problem, a social sickness. That sickness is the belief that there ought to be legalized hypocrisy. There ought to be individuals in society permitted to break the rules that everyone else is required to abide by. This is, of course, a superstition. There is no rational basis for such a belief. There is no justifiable action which requires that certain individuals be subject to “special” rules, that is, exempt from the laws that apply to everyone else.

Without a legal double-standard, taxation becomes impossible. Without taxation, there is no government. Taxation is a logically necessary condition for the existence of government.

To get back to your question - why are “anarchist societies” incapable of surviving - I think you are thinking about the issue incorrectly. What we really need to be asking is why are humans so amenable to blatant legal double standards, especially regarding certain familiar sets of behavior - law, national defense, vices, etc.? I am not sure what the answer to this question is. I think Hoppe answers it in part by noting that people want to avoid their financial obligations and overestimate their ability to escape these obligations through participating in a coercive political machine that voids contractual obligations in an “egalitarian” manner, that is, by giving partiality in legal disputes (whether through statutory law or judicial activism) to those who are apparently poorer over those who are apparently richer. The rich, in turn, defend themselves by buying lawyers and lobbyists, ultimately turning the juggernaut of the state to its natural use, expropriation of the politically alienated masses by the politically connected elites.

The idea of rightful government is an childish delusion. “Archy” only exists in your mind so far as you believe in it. If you obey statutory law out of a sense of moral duty rather than a mere prudential calculation of your own interests, you are brainwashed by the system, you are in the Matrix. Law predates the perversion of dual-law (government) and law in the natural order (unitary, competitive, market law) is both morally compelling and prudential. Anyone can see that murder is immoral, illegal and punishable. No one can reasonably explain why I have a legal duty to pay taxes.

Clayton -

26

Michael, read myth of national defence. available for free. let me know what you think!

27

I disagree with your definition of the sickness. I consider the disease fear (of death) and a belief someone or something else can make you safe.

A minor disagreement.

28

“state can be limited and rolled back within a Constitutional framework, a Federal republic.”

Not within our constitutional framework. I mean look at the growth of power just under the commerce clause.

BTW, I think Clayton is right, the foundation of the state is a dual legal standard. Some people are allowed to do very violent things and most are not.

29

But I don’t think it makes any sense to diagnose fear of death as a sickness of society… how could it be any other way? Humans are biological organisms and, like all biological organisms capable of feeling, we have a strongly evolved fear of death that keeps us alive long enough to propagate our genes.

It will always be the case that few people can stomach life-or-death confrontations. An even smaller number of people relish them (these ones tend to become boxers, MMA fighters, hardcore criminals, special forces, backwoods survivalists, and so on). Those that are good at violence are the natural elites of violence… not to be confused with the much larger (and more important) class of natural elites. It seems that you’re saying that all - or at least most - individuals in society must be violence-elites, that is, people who can stomach the thought of a violent confrontation, or society cannot be free.

Clayton -

30

This sucker is going to end. The only variable is whether it is going to be a peaceful or violent human evolution. Peaceful people that do not live in fear are only going to take so much poop before they decide to defend themselves.

I have zero inclination to fight in order to save an aristocracy. However when the inevitable happens and the proverbial crapola hits the fanola, if alive I will fight like hell to set the aristocracy and statism back as many centuries as possible.

31

This is the essence of government, generally, not just feudal government.

This is still on my “to-study” list, but I still have yet to see a historical exposition on exactly what was so bad about life in feudal society. I’m not saying that feudal governments were not coercive monopolists of security, but my understanding is that feudal lords by-and-large did not exercise a monopoly on law, especially in legal disputes not involving themselves. In fact, from the fall of the Roman empire until the dawn of the modern era, law in Europe was pretty roughly and approximation of natural order, except in disputes between peasants and nobles or the wealthy. If I wrote a contract promising to pay X on date Y, you could haul my ass to court and I’d be SOL if I hadn’t paid X by date Y unless you were a peasant and I was a lord or wealthy merchant, in which case, you might be SOL. Solution: Avoid doing business with those who can screw you over in court. That’s called “enforcement of contract and private property rights.”

As Hoppe likes to say, there is nothing about a natural order society that presupposes that men are angels. In fact, quite the opposite, it is statist society that presupposes that at least some men are angels imbued with supernatural goodness, capable of completely suspending their natural impulse to act in their own interest. Natural order society does not presuppose a suspension of violent conflict or pursuit of self-interest. It presupposes a suspension of belief in the dual-legal standard of government and suspension of belief in collectively-funded defense.

Except by government itself, of course.

Been there, done that.

Clayton -

32

What can I say… I think Yoda pegged it:

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

The opposite of that could be:

Courage leads to peace, peace leads to love, love leads to happiness.

33

Just keep your money out of the bond market, that’s my advice to you. People with superstitious belief in the viability of democratic governance will all lose their shirts when they find out that sovereign default is possible, even for the largest, richest, most powerful governments in the world.

Clayton -

34

Yes, in 2010 there is almost no hope of ending government. But keep in mind in 1710 there was almost no hope of ending slavery. And yet there are virtually no slaves for hundreds of miles from my home. Hopefully in a few hundred years I can say the same of governments.

35

Michael (not J. Green) - You’ve said very little of interest. Anarchists do not envision a society in which there is no conflict or violence - such would be like envisioning an economy in which scarcity is no concern (which some people out there do seem to think is plausible). Free market scholars tend to focus their thought on just how law and order forms absent the state. You say that it is the government’s duty “to ensure that a person’s right to life, liberty and property cannot be infrindged,” but as Gustave de Molinari asked, why is the provision of security best served by a monopolist, when economic theory tells us that competition outperforms monopoly? The belief is not that people will only act cooperatively and never coercively, but that people will act cooperatively and voluntarily to suppress and resolve violent conflicts.

How can we call it the best method when it is inherently ridiculous? What kind of constitution can bind the state? You may as well say, “The best method to jail undesirables is to throw them in a cage of their own design, locked by a key that remains in their possession.”

As for Rettoper’s belief that modern welfare states will roll themselves back: It’s certainly possible, but I don’t find it likely. Something must be done eventually, as the modern system is not sustainable, but it is horrendously difficult for a democratic government to shrink itself in any meaningful way. Again, it’s possible, but I think it is more likely to end… not so civilly.

36

Anarchist societies have existed around the world since the beginning. Plus you advocate for the constitution which was shoved unto the people who were fine with the articles of confederation. Constitutions are never ratified by the people and that includes here. The document is a despotic document that forces people to accept this government under threat of force. Governments are just gangs that take over b/c people are too unwilling or too naive to prevent and stop these gangs from gaining power.

The only reason a purely anarcho-capitalist society hasn’t come into being is because A)Ancap theory was never really a solid theory till rothbard and B) Ancaps really only believe in peaceful protest and have never really organized to create a large peaceful movement.

37

Clayton,

Of course individuals, in all of their glorified differences and presuppositions, will have “class consciousness”-enough to maintain a coercionless society under NAP and with private property? Like money, archies are only real so long as they are recognized. Thank you for your postmodern assessment of reality, i.e. the Matrix or false reality at least to you, but history really does show that (now we’re making sweeping generalizations but you started it) that people invest in a leadership class by choice. And to the state by choice. Of course they lose sovereignty in the short-term roundabout examination of historical statism and fuedalism, but generally speaking states, lords and dictators racously, yet eventually, are dispensed of by the great biological mechanism called death. So from this point of view, what’s the point of even trying to articulate anarchism and inspire the masses?

Future generations are young, and naive, and invest their hopes in a new set of leaders and states. Like you said, archies are only real so long as they are recognized. Naivity ensures their existence!

I’m just not convinced that your argument, soaked in postmodernistic polylogism (which Ludwig points out in Human Action is a blatantly wrong way to analyze society - which I agree with) is really a substantial reply to measuring anarchy’s feasibility. This completely ignores universal truths about the course of humanity’s existence and the choices they have made consistently throughout existence on the role of government and of leaders.

38

The same can be said for land ownership by the way.

39

And to the state by choice

They don’t see alternatives, “cognitivist”. We’re just preparing for the collapse of democratic regimes, as Mises anticipated the failures of the more blatant forms of socialism. When the system fails, utterly “unlibertarian” people will be finding solutions to the problems we’re faced with.

40

The same can be said for land ownership by the way.

Because you say so, scineram? Land ownership is an extension of self-ownership. If you really believe in neither, please jump off a bridge because I tell you to.