In a Lost-like scenario, a bunch of guys ending up on a deserted island, would the State be established naturally among them? If so, when and why?
The same question could be applied to a typical “Zombie apocalypse” or other like situations.
I think it would be established only after a couple of generations.
No; Ron Paul explains why.
You pose an interesting question. Personally, I come from the far left and used marxism as an analytical tool of the world we live in, that is, until I stumbled on the austrian school of thought. I buy everything from the view on fractional reserve banking, business cycles, gold standard, federal banks and so on but I think I am not alone in trying to come to terms with a society without a state or government and when questioning liberals, I mostly get served vitriol rather than substance.
The Lost-scenario could equally well be set in the past when man evolved as a social being. It is very hard, if not impossible to find any culture, group of people who hasn’t organised themselves by way of creating a governing superstructure of sorts. I have seen “natural state” being used as an argument, implying that governments and states are not natural to man. One has to ask why man in that case always has organised in unnatural ways. In fact, in every situation people face in life there are rules that govern our interaction, may they be informal or formal.
Is it a question of level of organisation? Are the rules that govern a bridge club, for instance, more acceptable than rules being implemented by wise elders in a tribe? At what level does formal rules, formed above the individual, become evil? What is supposed to replace governments and democracies in a liberal world? What about division of natural resources, for instance, how is that supposed to work?
I have no problem accepting that governments and states of today are overwhelmingly corrupt and sometimes even evil. The main reason for this in my opinion is that they have made themselves subject to corruption by entering the economic sphere.
With regards to the Lost-scenario; Yes, I believe a governing structure would soon be formed, call it a state or a committe.
It depends on how the tools are violence are initially distributed. In Lost there is already gun-control and a monopoly on the guns (at least there was when i stopped watching). I think it was Sayer that had hidden away all the guns, the only thing stopping a government from rising in that situation is the fact Sayer can’t recruit any solders cause no one likes him. So there is no one to use the guns to oppress everyone else.
Such a small community can probably only sustain one corporation for arbitration and policing which means that it essentially will have a state. Though it may very well allow people to opt-out and there are places to move that isn’t under the control of anyone where people that want to be left alone could go.
A larger community would give rise to multiple law and policing organisations and be more likely to maintain anarchy without any sort of ideological convictions to make it so involved.
No, because government contradicts human nature.
But seriously, it depends on public opinion, and what people actually do.
Actually I thought Lost showed exactly how naturally elites compete for the arbitration of disputes. Sometimes people go to Jack, sometimes to Locke, sometimes to Sawyer, and so on…
Welcome!
It is a process.
Order is natural. I don’t think anyone here opposes order, but many will question the premise that government creates order. On the contrary, I believe that government is one attempt at order, but it is not necessary for order, nor does it emerge from nothing to create order.
First, Austrians generally are methodological individualists, not collectivists, so talking about “man” in the aggregate really doesn’t tell us a lot about purposeful individual action. While mankind has organized in unnatural ways, I’m not sure every slave signed up to organize under slavery.
Penetrating questions. Right to the heart of the matter. I wish I had an essay or two come to mind to offer you, but maybe someone else will come along with something. To understand organization, we have to first understand cooperation/trade.
This essay has been a big help to many of us, http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
All activity is economic. Governments are corrupt for many reasons, but the primary one is that they are based on a myth of limited powers. When you (the government) are the arbiter of what is limited and what is not, you will expand your powers over time with looser and looser interpretations.
Also by Hasnas on this topic (full article here, and another perspective in my sig):
Governments usually rise from the predatory minority. In the few cases it doesn’t will soon become it.
Any process of trial and error done by the peaceful individuals is completely shut down when government has been established, they can no longer test any solutions relating to security cause that has been outlawed.
Most people are risk-adverse, and conflict inspires the greatest risk of all- to one’s life. Hence why most people are non-confrontational. In most cases the desired outcome of arbitrated compromise is for restitution and/or compensation of the “injured” party, rather than retribution.
In terms of arbitrating disputes, humans have usually found specific methods of fulfilling this need without the requirement of a State body. Typically, it is a cultural or religiously-inspired process. E.G. clan or tribal arbitration in many of the so-called “uncivilized” portions of the world which use external 3rd parties.
An example in the modern world I can think of is that, in the betting industry in England, the bookmakers lay out their terms and conditions to all partaking betters. Among the outlining of the rules and regulations of placing bets, these terms and conditions typically reserve full rights to the bookmakers to void bets and refuse payment whenever they so wish.
Naturally, in the event of a dispute or refusal of payment, the customer would be negatively-impacted by this fact and this, in turn, would inevitably harm the business of bet making in the long.
So all the major bookmaking firms in the UK consensually agree to abide by all rulings made in the event of disputes by IBAS, an independent arbitration service. Some of their rulings go against the bookmakers’ positions and some do not, but by agreeing to always follow IBAS’s conclusions for restitution (and wavering the right to void), bookmakers and customers can resolve issues in a fair and compromising way. This method also helps inspire customer confidence in placing bets and, thus, is mutually beneficial.
Notice that no government agency or government-monopolized legal system is necessary for this process.
To conclude, I will leave you with the words of Mises himself. Simply replace the word “socialism” with “government” and the quote stands well.
“If a man says socialism, or planning, he always has in view his own brand of socialism, his own plan. Thus planning does not in fact mean preparedness to cooperate peacefully. It means conflict.” - Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government
Well people, I must confide I’ve never found myself satisfied with existing explanations of the rise of the State. They all seem artificial and just made up; unfortunately I also lack better ideas. Yet, until we can fully account of the emergence of the State we’ll never understand how to defeat it. I truly believe that sooner will anarchy be achieved by trial and error than we’ll know how the State truly emerges.
Statism emerges from the the egoism of humans. In the past, greedy men would justify their authority by proclaiming divinity or divine ordination. Today, rulers need only cite their self-imagined elitism to give credence to their power.
Human society is patriarchal because of our evolutionary predecessors. Look at the great apes of today: most of them will live in specific groups, ruled by patriarchs, and their lives will be embroiled by, not only the needs of survival, but violence and upheaval among themselves for plethoras of reasons; a primary one being the pursuit of dominance.
Although we are not animals, we can still be animalistic.
See the second link in my sig (EDIT: nevermind, you already saw it).
The emergence of the state is really a simple matter of economic incentives just like everything else. If the expected cost of oppressing the people is lower then the expected gain well then they will be oppressed. This cost can be greatly reduced by using manipulation and gun control or just by having superior technology.
Any group capable of enslaving or exterminating another group at low or no cost will probably do so. The only solution is for everyone to have loads of guns.
I’m afraid that only explains half of the thing: why would rulers want to build a State. And I fully agree on that one. My point of content is how can the ruled agree to such madness. That I can’t explain.
That would mean that the State can be build against the will of its subjects. I think that isn’t the case for no matter how many technologically advanced and/or strictly monopolized armaments a State possesses, no state can survive without the crushing majority of its people bowing to its will. So the question remains: how could people bow to the State back than?
Sacrificing freedom for temporary safety, step by step.
Why don’t you study historical examples and look for patterns? There are many recent examples of stateless societies becoming societies restricted by a state. Either where an expansionist state expanded into a stateless region of for our purpose perhaps more helpfully where a stateless society briefly emerged following a successful revolt only for a new, different state to spring up over it. Even a place like Iraq was de facto stateless immediately following the 2003 invasion.
States emerge quicker nowadays because the idea of a state is so readily accepted, but I would be surprised if the mechanics of how it builds itself up are any different.
True, stateless societies are very hard to maintain, and states almost always spring up immediately (although I’d like to see whether e generation born in anarchy would readily accept a State). But still neither of these “modern” patterns can explain how did the state initially emerge, in (almost) every known society. I’m sure there is something gross we’re missing.
Is it, then, inevitable?
As per you original question, the state can only emerge where there exists division of labour. If society is not wealthy enough to feed full time cloth-makers and the like then it is not wealthy enough to feed full time robbers and brigands. Thus primitive societies are by default anarchic.
In other words state presumes taxation. Where there is nothing to tax there is no state.