Libertas est Veritas:My main concern is whether or not an anarchist society will inevitably lead to the formation of one or more states.
If you look at the one example in existance today you will find that the 'ineviatable' drive to form a State is an external influence lead by the US/UN. They seem to be perfectly happy without having a central government and taking care of disputes in the 'old way'.
But the very fact that a functioning stateless society is in existence is a threat to all the other governments because people might wake up and see that they really don't need a central authority to have a pretty good life. I'd say the people who are most afraid are the corrupt politicians in the neighboring countries that look at Somalia and fear that this is their fate. Word gets out that the Somalis have a better standard of living because they don't have to support a political class that sucks the life out of any entrepreneurial activities and the non-state may spread throughout Africa like a virus and none of the ruling elite want that including the Western leaders who initially established the states throughout the African continent willy-nilly because of their empire building efforts.
Fascination stuff, Somali anarchy... there's a few other real good studies on the subject floating around including one that describes their justice system in detail, I need to start indexing these things one of these days so I don't keep losing them like I always tend to do.
Anonymous Coward:Fascination stuff, Somali anarchy
Libertas est Veritas: I'm not an expert on Somalia, but my understanding is that it isn't really anarchist, but more of a collection of several small tribal states/territories. What will prevent these from forming into proper states themselves?
I guess it all depends on how you define anarchy.
Power tends towards monopoly, not markets. If you don't create power, you're safe.
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
Knight_of_BAAWA:Goverments, by definition, are extra-market entities. By foisting their "services" upon the populace, they destroy the very concept of a market.
Libertas est Veritas:But you can't call a state a monopoly and then conveniently categorize it as "extra-market", as if it doesn't matter in the discussion. My main concern is whether or not an anarchist society will inevitably lead to the formation of one or more states.
I don't see your problem with calling a state a monopoly and extra-market. The state is not based upon trade; it is based upon force. Further, I don't see any necessary link between the fact that states foist their "services" upon the citizens and that markets would naturally become monopolistic. If you could elaborate some on this, I'd be grateful.
Knight_of_BAAWA:I don't see your problem with calling a state a monopoly and extra-market. The state is not based upon trade; it is based upon force. Further, I don't see any necessary link between the fact that states foist their "services" upon the citizens and that markets would naturally become monopolistic. If you could elaborate some on this, I'd be grateful.
Libertas est Veritas:Because arbitration requires force. Even in an anarchist society you need defense agencies that use force. What prevents these agencies from becoming local monopolies on force?
Their own clients' rights to produce their own security.
Libertas est Veritas: Because arbitration requires force. Even in an anarchist society you need defense agencies that use force. What prevents these agencies from becoming local monopolies on force? And what could break that monopoly? The present situation seems to indicate that competition against localized monopolies on force is almost impossible. Granted, they have tanks and airplanes and in many cases, the population is completely disarmed, but I still don't understand how a stateless society can be preserved.
Because a PDA cannot force you to remain it's client. A PDA that begins to become heavy handed would begin losing customers and would soon be out of business. Assuming, say, a small city used one particular PDA for their protection service -- that is EVERYONE in that city used them. We could then assume the PDA is starting to think it has the ability to make up rules and laws for everyone. The problem for that PDA is that in a stateless society people can always take their business elsewhere. If the PDA tried to force people to stay with them (perhaps even taxing them) then it is likely that competing businesses would be established to compete with them. Customers would leave the former PDA for the new ones that have been established and it goes out of business.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
kingmonkey:Customers would leave the former PDA for the new ones that have been established and it goes out of business.
Libertas est Veritas: But why isn't this happening now? Why aren't PDAs being established to compete with states? Is it because the states have economies of scale in their favor?
There are all kinds of security companies that offer protections domestically and abroad. Do you mean courts of law? There might be some dispute services -- a lot of people resolve their stuff talking with a layer instead of going to court -- but those decisions couldn't be enforced. In Britan, a lot of islams would like to have jihad courts. But you'd have the police at your leg, if you emprisioned someone if they steal or you cut his hand or something.
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
Btw, as I understand it, economies of scale is when you can reduce the fixed cost of your products because of how big you are. The state isn't an economy of scale: taxing almost 50% of people's word, they simply have a big pool of resources they can use as they please.
This is a relatively new idea. I believe that 10-20 years from now, there will be PDAs that are competitve with government.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.