You asked if a society without coercion is possible. I equate that to the existence of society without central government.
Problems existing in society is not what was at question. Even in a libertarian society problems arise. The difference is how conflicts are dealt with. Since I am a libertarian, anarchist leaning, I won’t argue with you over the benefits of a libertarian problem solving culture.
That said my point was that many people take a stand point that government has always existed and that human life cannot sustain itself in the absence of. Some people seem to think that government came before people. I am trying to point out that this is not so.
Of course it will. When you defend yourself against an attacker, you’re using COERCION to do it.
So I have to ask you: why do you have such a warped definition of coercion? You’re like the idiot leftist who thinks that just saying “property is defended by violence” somehow means that property is invalid. Get a clue, Max.
Because the state isn’t subject to punishment or restitution when they commit violence against you or me. This is the Monopoly part. Choosing not to participate or attemting to defend oneself against the state results in violence against you or me. And again there is no punishment or restitution when they commit this violence.
No individual or group of individuals in any other situation has this ability. Call it a corporation or a theif or a mafia… Cal it anything you like, it still isn’t a state.
The State violently seizes its territorial monopoly of ultimate jurisdiction. Of course, as Boétie shows, in the long run the State rests on public opinion and the acquiescence of the masses (which is not consent, because it is acquiescence to the threat of coercion).
The difference is that under anarchy there is no institutionalized source of coercion. As Rothbard writes: “I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual.”
I think Maxliberty is onto something here but is trying to express it in the wrong way. We are indeed living in anarchy. I think Maxliberty is trying to show this but in the least accessible manner possible.
We have to realize that positing the existance of something like a state is merely helpful to promote inaction and stifle a creative thought process.
I am also coming to the belief that there is no such thing as a monopoly. I may outline why later when I have fully thought it through.
free trade is simply market trading free of government price controls, any predictions as to what would happen withou government price controls are simply predictions.
The point I am making is that you give special signficance to this thing called the “state”. You are waiting for the state to end so anarchy can exist. It is reasonable then to want to understand what is the state and how will we know when it ceases to exist? I do not see the difference between the robber in the street and the state other than one is stronger than the other but the net effect is the same. If the state ceased to exist but you were robbed everyday by the local street gang and they extorted your business for protection money would you still be in anarchy? It would seem by your definition and the consensus on this thread that this would still be a state and in fact the only definition that is consistent for you is any individual or group that uses force to make you do something that you would not otherwise do. So for your “anarchy” to exist there would have to be no crime, because one individual criminal could in effect be the state.
Wouldn’t you consider the Taliban fighting the US governement and killing US soldiers a form of punishment against the state?
I don’t have a problem you saying that the state/criminals have a monopoly over you, it is when you include everyone else that is the problem. I think it is pretty clear that criminals don’t have monopoly over everybody.
This would mean any criminal that isn’t brought to justice is a state. So this at times may include the mafia or warlords or all kinds of groups out there.
Legal as determined by whom? Isn’t that the point? If it is up to the individual to determine what is legal then you are in anarchy now. If you want to allow someone else to determine what is legal for you then you will always be under the state.
Once you accept the basic truth, that the state is no different than any other criminal group then you realize that you have to free yourself. You by definition can not be freed by those who want you to be a slave.
The first and only step needed is to say these words…“I am free”
This is exactly the point. The legal system under anarchy says if you coerce you pay. The first coercer pays, the second coerces him to pay. The second coercer is valid. A State is the first coercer; therefore a criminal under anarchy. Not like what we have now. A good way to ensure that this principle is abided by, is to ensure everyone has access to arms rather than restricting said access to a specially trained group of protectors.
Anarchy cannot be a legal system, as it assumes there is a single code of law. Rather, anarchy seems more to me to be about a general will or belief of the people at large (political philosophy) that motivates common people to seek direct and market-supplied means to prevent those who desire a monopolistic institution of coercion from successfully maintaining such an institution.
The US may be trying, but hasn’t gotten there yet. Or maybe it has; either way my point stands. Or did you not notice that before you started replying?
Within government territories, I would say that the government significantly determines the terms on which everyone may have access to force: gun laws are the terms, and if you break them you are taking a significant risk. That’s why criminals can make big money - they’re taking big risks. Moreover, individuals and voluntary groups are hardly allowed heavy weaponry like nukes anywhere in the world.
If the “government” does not have enough power to significantly determine the terms on which people may have access to force, I would say it is not a State, because another group can then - by hypothesis above - take over without significant opposition.