http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd8YFXCKe6g
Each successive part is found the "video response" section.
I find this critique pretty interesting, and he brings up a good point: Who would you rather be in charge of dealing with an accusation that you're a rapist or a murderer, your local police department that has some semblence of rules and regulations that it must follow, in regards to due process, and "innocent 'til proven guilty," or a lynchin' mob made up the enraged friends/family of the person who has accused you of the crime.
What are your thoughts? I'm rather new to market anarchy, so I'm not sure if this sounds stupid or not. Thanks in advance for any help on this subject.
I'd rather have my own mob on my own side to balance out the lynchin' mob, which would mean this would have to be resolved in an orderly, impartial trial.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
This is actually completely unrelated to the topic, but it's something that just popped into my head, and I'd rather not make an entirely new thread about it. I've been considering market anarchy for a while now, but this seems like an insurmountable problem.
Is not the state a creation of the free market? At some point in time, there was anarchy, and then there was a state. Governments obtained power through various ways, violence, claiming divinity, promising a better life, etc. The point is not how they gained power, but that they did gain power, by whatever means. It logically follows, then, that governments are perfectly reasonable byproducts of a free market.
So, what's to stop another state from arising out of an anarchist society?
nibbler491: So, what's to stop another state from arising out of an anarchist society?
You.
Short answer - nothing. If all states vanished tomorrow, people would try to form new ones. For instance, the Kingdom of Spain vanishes, so the Basque nationalists immediately form their long awaited state of their own.
I am still not convinced we can ever get to the point of a world with no states, anywhere.
Semper Fidelis
A free market court. Not the mafia/government or a lynching mob.
And no, the state is not a "creation" of the market. It is the imposition by a group of morons on a group of innocents, until those innocents are so stupid as to accept their oppressor as their benefactor.
To darkness I condemn you...
You would agree that we are all entirely free people, in the sense that we can do whatever we want, at least to the extent that the laws of physics allow us, correct? Of course, what we choose to do is limited by threats of violence, violence itself, moral codes, etc. What I'm saying is, did government not arise from a world where everyone had freedom? Free people chose to create a government(whether it was for their own personal gain or because they believed it was the best system), and then they supported this creation through whatever means they deemed necessary(force, indoctrination, convincing people of its necessity, etc.). Conversely, the people voluntarily chose to obey this government. Why they chose to do this is of course has to do with praxeology and the axiom of human action. They decided that accepting this government was better than the alternatives(resistance). So, in essence, government arose through the voluntary actions of free people(as I pointed out in the beginning of this post, all people are completely free to do as they wish, they just might be disuaded from doing what they wish because of the consequences). Government can only exist by the consent of the governed. I'm not talking about morality here(that government should only exist by the consent of the governed), but that it's not actually possible for a government to operate without its constiuents consenting(Again, as I've pointed out over and over, people do voluntarily agree to the goverment, whether it's because they're afraid, or because they believe it's legitimate is besides the point. The fact of the matter is, they consent. Period).
I've sort of been hanging in the pergutory between minarchism and anarchism(leaning towards anarchism), so I would much appreciate if someone could refute my objection to anarchy so that I could continue along my path. :)
nibbler491:You would agree that we are all entirely free people, in the sense that we can do whatever we want, at least to the extent that the laws of physics allow us, correct?
Sure, but this has nothing to do with freedom. It is just a fact of nature that we can do all that we are physically able to do.
nibbler491:What I'm saying is, did government not arise from a world where everyone had freedom? Free people chose to create a government(whether it was for their own personal gain or because they believed it was the best system), and then they supported this creation through whatever means they deemed necessary(force, indoctrination, convincing people of its necessity, etc.).
Free people using force against other free people makes no sense. What you are saying is, effectively: Some people are more free than others. The more free people use force against the less free in order to create a government. How can we possibly define freedom and hold that it is a matter of degree (i.e. more or less)? Mind you, I'm not asking from a moral point of view, merely from a semantical point of view.
In any case, you assertion that "Free people chose to create a government" is quite simply wrong from a historical point of view. I would recommend Franz Oppenheimer's The State (HTML). You will be astounded how wrong ideas of social contracts are as explanations for the emergence of states.
nibbler491:Conversely, the people voluntarily chose to obey this government. Why they chose to do this is of course has to do with praxeology and the axiom of human action. They decided that accepting this government was better than the alternatives(resistance).
You use the term voluntary dangerously loosely. By this logic totalitarian regimes is "voluntary".
nibbler491:So, in essence, government arose through the voluntary actions of free people(as I pointed out in the beginning of this post, all people are completely free to do as they wish, they just might be disuaded from doing what they wish because of the consequences).
You have just arrived at your initial proposition. It is no trick to arrive at a conclusion identical to a premise.
nibbler491:Government can only exist by the consent of the governed. I'm not talking about morality here(that government should only exist by the consent of the governed), but that it's not actually possible for a government to operate without its constiuents consenting
Have you ever heard about feudalism? slavery?
nibbler491:(Again, as I've pointed out over and over, people do voluntarily agree to the goverment, whether it's because they're afraid, or because they believe it's legitimate is besides the point. The fact of the matter is, they consent. Period).
Again you use the term voluntary in complete disregard to its proper meaning. I suppose you mean: "People accept government either because they are afraid, or because they believe it is legitimate. " But then we can identify a part of the people accepting government because they are afraid. Thus they don't actually consent to government; they are forced to accept government.
Notice that I have invoked no moral arguments against you!
At one point in history, a society was anarchistic, and then through whatever series of events became archic, or established a government, then can't government arise from anarchy?
So this, is essentially my question:
Can't an anarchist society degenerate into a statist society, just as it has done in the past?
Basically, are governments inevitable?
nibbler491:Can't an anarchist society degenerate into a statist society, just as it has done in the past?
Yes.
nibbler491:Basically, are governments inevitable?
Probably.
nibbler491:Can't an anarchist society degenerate into a statist society, just as it has done in the past? Basically, are governments inevitable?
corpus delicti:Notice that I have invoked no moral arguments against you!
You did if this is an argument against the state. Nor did I voluntarily consent to respect your property, I was threatened with overwhelming force. Yet I sense you have no problem with property.
Let's see. I'm accused of being a rapist by my neighbor. My neighbor's hired police agency wants to punish me. My hired police agency wants to protect me from false accusations. Both have an interest in preventing wild criminals from running around and killing their customers. Both also have an interest in not starting a war over this accusation, since that would be a great waste of resources. So these two police agencies agree to settle this issue in court. The police agencies hire a private court that has been shown to be fair, which in turn hires a professional, objective jury versed in the law. You are then tried to see if you are guilty or not.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
nibbler491: At one point in history, a society was anarchistic, and then through whatever series of events became archic, or established a government, then can't government arise from anarchy? So this, is essentially my question: Can't an anarchist society degenerate into a statist society, just as it has done in the past? Basically, are governments inevitable?
Of course an anarchist society can develop a government. But why would you allow that? You are a free man, with your own will. Will you let another government submit you to its will?
If you believe government is inevitable, then it will be.
What I'm saying is, did government not arise from a world where everyone had freedom?
That is horribly vague. It's possible some people imposed their rule on others. Why should this be seen as a market for anything?
nibbler491: I've sort of been hanging in the pergutory between minarchism and anarchism(leaning towards anarchism), so I would much appreciate if someone could refute my objection to anarchy so that I could continue along my path. :)
I know exactly where you are coming from. I was hungup on going full out for anarchism, because I had some nagging questions. Surely, everyone resolves this issue differently, but for me, I had come to the conclusion that even if I did not know how everything would work in an anarchist society, I thought it had a higher morality, and that I also knew that minarchism was a dead end, that only leads back to full blown statism.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
scineram:You did if this is an argument against the state.
A chronology of how states have come about cannot be an argument for or against the state. Franz Oppenheimer didn't seem to be in favour of dismantling it. He was a kind of social liberal. This doesn't take anything away from the facts cited in his book, The State. Few states, if any, have come about because free people have agreed to form a government. Nibbler491 can assert the converse view all he wants, but this doesn't make it true. He is making the exact same mistake as Rousseau once did in his treatise The Social Contract.
Regarding my own view of the state, I'm against it, but why is that even relevant in this context?
scineram:Nor did I voluntarily consent to respect your property, I was threatened with overwhelming force. Yet I sense you have no problem with property.
What was your purpose in writing this? I don't know what you are getting at I'm afraid.
Maybe I misunderstood your post. You said the state was not voluntary. I thought you were trying to argue against the state.
scineram: Maybe I misunderstood your post. You said the state was not voluntary. I thought you were trying to argue against the state.
But it isn't voluntary. How would you define voluntary? If a minority wouldn't want the state it would still be there nonetheless. Secession is illegal everywhere in case you didn't know. Thus the notion that it is the consent of the people that keeps government in power is false. It might be true for the consent of the majority of people, but not for all.
Again, I'm not arguing for or against the state.
The state isn't inevitable any more than the idea of a flat earth is inevitable. People learn things, and teach them to their progeny, and so the race remembers. If our race ever achieves a stateless society, given our present knowledge of why the state is a bad idea, I don't believe people will ever be fooled into accepting the state again.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap