Humans originated in a state of anarchy, that is, without centralized power. Monopolies on force eventually emerged and took on the structure of "states" of various types in order to legitimatize their monopolies in the eyes of the people, so that they could retain their monopoly powers. Now a critic of anarchy would say, "Anarchy has failed before. In fact it has failed everywhere, all across the world, because there are no lasting anarchist societies today. So why would we expect anarchy to work now?"It's tempting to counter this by bringing up Somalia, but that is a very weak case since it has only been around for a short while. It's a little better to counter with the fact that countries are in anarchy with respect to each other, but that argument is not nearly incisive or comprehensive enough. Even if we win that debate decisively, all we'll have to show for it is the weak assertion that "anarchy can work in certain cases." We'll still not really have touched on the basic issue: "Why did individual anarchy fail before, and how can we assert that it will be different this time?" After all, in anarchy nothing can be decreed; in the end, the chips will fall where they may, as determined by consumer preferences on the market. The first time, those consumer preferences led to monopoly and statism. We cannot escape or wiggle around this objection. We must attack it head on.Below is my attempt at taking this bull by the horns. First a note on terminology: I use the word "anarchy" in its original meaning of "society without a leader," from the Greek "an-" (without) + "arkhos" (leader). "Anarchy" does NOT mean "without laws."Also note that "anarcho-capitalism," "market anarchy," etc. are simply theories about how a society would most successfully organize itself under anarchy. Once we achieve anarchy we have no control over how society organizes itself. All we can do is educate, for example, that people should beware of monopolies on violence, and should embrace the free market - or show the same by example.I now offer four major driving forces that stabilize society by moving it toward the "market anarchy" that AnCaps theorize would be the most stable and successful type of social structure.
Interconnectedness, Decentralization, Education, Advancement (IDEA)
I suggest that increases in these four forces are what can and will enable stable anarchy versus the failed anarchies of the past (which were only high in decentralization, but low in the other three).
That is,Interconnectedness of individuals and institutions (economic relationships, contractual agreements, etc.)Decentralization of power (the very definition of anarchy)Education and enlightenment of the people (especially in political economy)Advancement of economic prosperity and technology (in a word, civilization)INTERCONNECTEDNESS of individuals and institutions is at the heart of many of the arguments for PDAs, private courts, etc. We can see that the more economically interconnected countries become, the less they tend to fight each other (hence the saying, "if goods don't cross borders, troops will"). The same is clearly true for private security and adjudication providers, who will have every incentive to cooperate rather than act violently. The underlying factor is how interconnected their interests are. If their interests we not so intertwined they would have much less reason to avoid open violence. Factors raising the level of personal and institutional interconnectivity include:
DECENTRALIZATION of power is the very essence of anarchy: no leaders or rulers, no monopolies on force. This is both the goal and a means toward the goal, because if centralized power tends towards centralization ever more quickly, then increasingly decentralized power must for the same reason tend toward more and more suppression of centralization (monopolization). In other words, the more decentralized power is, the weaker the forces toward centralization tend to become. As I mentioned above, decentralization is the one factor that was higher back when humans originated. Thus it was anarchy, but without the other stabilizing forces.EDUCATION levels (and human knowledge itself) are far far higher - despite the ill effects of the Dept. of Education - than they were back in ancient history when the most anarchies failed. Education is probably now our most important role; if enough people understood what we do, we'd have AnCap very soon indeed. Other than that, education contributes in important ways to many other factors mentioned here, such as entrepreneurship. We are now, more than at any other time in modern history, in a strong position to destroy the old paternalistic superstitions that we need States, divinely-inspire despots, or "genius leaders" to watch over us. This superstition is indeed deeply ingrained in our language and culture, but we can shake it out of people with a little common sense and clarification of the statist bias inherent in much of our language.
ADVANCEMENT of economic prosperity and technology not only tends to strongly drive the above forces of interconnectedness and education, it also raises people's overall standard of living, reducing resource-based disputes and such. The retrogressions of statism, Keynesianism, and central banking notwithstanding, civilization is far more advanced now, and hence in a far better position to maintain anarchy for reasons too numerous to list. In some other threads, I noted that the development of privacy technologies and the Internet could blaze the most expedient path to microsecession. [Edit: Harry Felker notes the development of individual weaponry, which I think is a major key. "Right to bear arms" doesn't mean much when the strongest weapons are sticks and stones.]
Finally, as a clarifying thought exercise, imagine we're in a cyber-classroom centuries in the future, long after a stable anarchy has been achieved and society has reached levels of peace and prosperity unimaginable to us. We're listening to a biologist or historian taking about the history of statism. He takes a much simpler, more scientific/objective view of the issue than we do, saying,"Well it's simple. Entities can be organized in either top-down or bottom-up structures. "Top-down is clearly impractical for humans, because it is in human nature that power corrupts to the extent to which that power is absolute. It was only their lingering statist superstitions that kept the ancient humans from seeing this obvious truth, or knowing it yet dogmatically ignoring it in Orwellian doublethink fashion. If we consider other entities for which this is not the case, something like minarchy may well succeed in the long term, but human nature utterly precludes it. For humans, totalitarianism and/or collapse was the inevitable result of minarchy and all other statism."Having eliminated top-down organization categorically, we are left only with bottom-up. Now here is the key point: the way in which entities will organize bottom-up depends on their qualities and the conditions they face. For humans, that means their human nature and the tendencies they have developed/learned in their lives, coupled with their current circumstances (resource availability, etc.). "Back in the Stone Age, people didn't learn much, and their circumstances were bleak, so bottom-up organization failed. Human nature does not change, but the other factors did, and pretty soon bottom-up organization became viable. As humans advanced, anarchy became more and more viable until its superiority was so overwhelmingly obvious that the old statist superstitions were finally abandoned and we truly began to reach for the stars.
"I know you're all baffled as to why this superstition was allowed to persist for so long, even after the scientific revolution. This is a more complicated matter, but it's illuminating to first note the parallels between statism and the flat-earthism we studied last week..."
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
AJ:Now a critic of anarchy would say, "Anarchy has failed before. In fact it has failed everywhere, all across the world, because there are no lasting anarchist societies today. So why would we expect anarchy to work now?"
My answer is individual weapons are better....
No one will nuke a land of people they are looking ot occupy, we saw how well that does not work....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Ooh, you're right. Guns and such are a huge factor. Edited to mention that under "Advancement."
Actually, every society, no matter its political organization, need some public consent, at least a pasive and tacit one. For example, in democracy, we should not get weapons and kill the president.Check this
Very nice, I will refer to this in future discussions.
To darkness I condemn you...
AJ: "I know you're all baffled as to why this superstition was allowed to persist for so long, even after the scientific revolution. This is a more complicated matter, but it's illuminating to first note the parallels between statism and the flat-earthism we studied last week..."
I loved it!
Excellent Post!
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
Due to never being able to take away self ownership we always live in anarchy. The question you are asking is why does a people that always have the right of self determination choose to slave to the central powers that be. I can tell you why I don't take up arms right now against the state, because the state moves in gradual steps. If the state tried to become totalitarian in one step me and many others would take up arms. But when they pass a 1 cent tax on ammo, its not worth risking my life for. Let me further clarify and say that if I knew that everyone would stand with me against a 1 cent tax I would do it. So I guess the real problem is that coordinated individual action is hard without a centralized structure.
twistedbydsign99: But when they pass a 1 cent tax on ammo, its not worth risking my life for. Let me further clarify and say that if I knew that everyone would stand with me against a 1 cent tax I would do it. So I guess the real problem is that coordinated individual action is hard without a centralized structure.
But when they pass a 1 cent tax on ammo, its not worth risking my life for. Let me further clarify and say that if I knew that everyone would stand with me against a 1 cent tax I would do it. So I guess the real problem is that coordinated individual action is hard without a centralized structure.
You are right! This is why "withdrawing support and the government tumbles" is easier said then done!
What would happen if we tried to organize a peaceful revolution for example? The state of course would not allow it. It would smoke it out before it even got off the ground.
.
DD5:You are right! This is why "withdrawing support and the government tumbles" is easier said then done!
It is best done by example, bit by bit...
For example, I am awaiting tobacco seed, after I have my first couple of harvets, I will no longer need to purchase tobacco thus withdrawing support from the government...
I need a vehicle to get me to the other smokers, but the few I had reached out to had expressed interest....
AJ: Ooh, you're right. Guns and such are a huge factor. Edited to mention that under "Advancement."
I would also like to note the other point I made....
People are generally worried about a full scale military invasion of the United States with all the bombs as stuff...
The US is the #1 in grain supply for the global market....
Conquest in spite of starvation is not logical...
(Not to mention that Bill Clinton sold the chinese our nuke capability to hit anywhere on Earth, so the only country we have to worry about is China) This is a little reminder to the Iran will nuke us crowd, Iran cannot fire a nuke at the United States, hell Korea can't either, with any hope of hitting, even if they had an ICBM....
I've also posted in other threads about this, and my theory revolves around a few points:
All these factors, I think, used to limit the role of the market in society, thereby hampering its regulatory (in a sense) role.
I think it's very important to discuss such things, congrats for bringing this up.
Great post AJ. I'd like to read more about the transition from anarchy to statism - can you recommend any reading material? I know Hoppe covers the transition from monarchy to democracy, but do you know anyone who covers the transition from anarchy to feudalism to monarchy?
Truth and Liberty
"No army can stop an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
Truth and Liberty:Great post AJ. I'd like to read more about the transition from anarchy to statism - can you recommend any reading material? I know Hoppe covers the transition from monarchy to democracy, but do you know anyone who covers the transition from anarchy to feudalism to monarchy?
I second that request.
Truth and Liberty: Great post AJ. I'd like to read more about the transition from anarchy to statism - can you recommend any reading material? I know Hoppe covers the transition from monarchy to democracy, but do you know anyone who covers the transition from anarchy to feudalism to monarchy?
Hoppe does.
The cycle goes like this. In the beginning there is self-defense. In order to improve their security humans enter into protection relationships with noblemen. Noblemen obtain a monopoly on this relationship and become kings. Kings abuse their monopoly until this monopoly is replaced with some form of common monopoly (a republic). Common monopoly becomes totally irrational and ruins the civilization unless the kingdom can be restored before all traces of the ancien régime have been destroyed. Collapsed civilization returns to self-defense and proto-monarchy (feudalism).
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Here's the relevant section. For the lazy folks, the italicized section is the most direct answer (bold and italics are mine).
Hoppe: Now how does a State originate? While this is generally, and I think intentionally, confused, it should be made clear right from the outset that law and order, or protection of property, and State law, and State order, and State protection are not one and the same thing; they are not identical things. Just as property and social cooperation based on the division of labor are natural, so the human desire to have one's property protected against natural and social disasters, such as crime, is a completely natural desire. And in order to satisfy this desire, there is first and foremost self-protection. Precaution, insurance (individual or cooperative), vigilance, self-defense, and punishment. And let there be absolutely no doubt as to the effectiveness of a protection system based on peoples willingness to defend themselves. This is how law and order was maintained for most of the time for most of mankind. In every village, even up to this day, law and order is basically maintained in this way. The American Wild West, which was not exactly "wild" as compared to the current situation, that's the way law and order was maintained, by people being willing to defend themselves. Moreover, the division of labor will then naturally affect the production of security and protection services. The higher standards of living grow, the more people will, besides relying on self-defense measures, also want to partake in the advantages of the division of labor, and attach themselves for protection to a specializes protector, to providers of law and order, justice, and protection. And naturally, every person will look for this particular task to persons or institutions who have something to protect themselves — who have the means to assure effective protection and have a reputation as just and impartial judges. In every society of more than the most minimal degree of complexity, there will quickly emerge specific individuals, who on account of having property to defend, having a good reputation and so forth, will assume the role of judges and peacemakers and protectors. And again, every single village up to this day, every small community, and even the Wild West of course, illustrate the truth of this conclusion. Protection is also possible without a State. This should be absolutely obvious, but in an age of statist obfuscation and confusion, it is increasingly necessary to emphasize this elementary and yet as we will see, very dangerous insight. The decisive step in diverting human history from its natural course — the original sin of mankind, so to speak — occurs with the monopolization of the provision of protection, defense, security, and order: the monopolization of these tasks by a single one of these initially numerous protectors at the exclusion of all others. A protection monopoly exists once a single agency or a single person can effectively insist that everyone on a given territory must exclusively come to him for justice and protection. That is, that no one can rely exclusively or solely on self-defense, or attach himself for protection to somebody else. Once this monopoly is reached, then funding of this protector is no longer entirely voluntary, but in part becomes compulsory. And, as standard Austrian economics predicts, once there is no longer free entry into the business of property protection, or any other business for that matter, the price of protection will rise, and the quality of protection will fall. The monopolist will become increasingly less of a protector of our property, and increasingly more a protection racket, or even a systematic exploiter of property owners. He will become an aggressor against and a destroyer of the people and their property that he was initially supposed to protect. Now what is easily described in abstract terms (monopoly) is in practice a painstaking and lengthy task. How can anyone get away with barring all other protectors from competition? And why would the people and especially the excluded other potential peacemakers and judges allow such a thing to happen, that one individual monopolizes this service? Now the answer regarding the original of the State is in detail very complicated, but in its general structure is very easy to recognize. First, every state, that is every monopolistic protection agency, must begin, or can only originate on an extremely small territorial level, such as a village. It is practically inconceivable that a world State, or a protection monopoly encompassing the entire world population could come into existence from scratch. The second thing we have to notice is that not just anyone can reach even reach a local protection monopoly. Rather, the local protection monopolists are initially members of the natural social elite. That is, they are initially accomplished and acknowledged members of society. They were also, before they reached the position of a monopolist, previously chosen voluntarily as protectors. Only as established and recognized elites, whose authority is essentially voluntary, is it possible for them to make this decisive step toward monopolization and get away with it. That is to say, every initial local government or state originates in the form of personal or private lordships or of princely rule. No one would entrust just anyone with the maintenance of law, order, and justice, and in particular if this person or agency had a monopoly for this particular task. Instead, people would look for protection obviously from someone known, and known to be a knowledgeable person, and only such a person, a noble or an aristocrat, can possibly attain a monopoly position initially. Historically, by the way, if one looks at modern or ancient history, States everywhere are basically first princely States, and only later do they become democratic States. And even though it is true that States must begin only locally and usually as princely States, it still took hundreds of years before anything resembling the modern State came into existence. The Impossibility of Limited Government Now, once the protection monopoly is in place, a logic of its own is set in motion. Every monopolist takes advantage of his position. The price of protection will go up, and more importantly, the content of the law, that is the product quality, will be altered to the advantage of the monopolist and at the expense of others. Justice will be perverted, and the protector becomes increasingly an exploiter and an expropriator. More specifically, as the result of the territorial monopolization of protection, two tendencies are generated. First, a tendency towards the extensification of exploitation, and second, a tendency towards the intensification of exploitation. Originally local institutions, States have an inherent tendency, driven by self-interest, of wanting more income rather than less — toward territorial expansion. The more subjects a State protects — or rather exploits — the better it is. The competition between States — that is, territorial monopolists — is an eliminative competition: either I am the monopolist or you are the monopolist of ripping people off. Moreover, with numerous States, people can easily move with their feet. However, a loss of population from the point of view of the State, is a bothersome problem. Hence, States almost automatically come into conflict with each other, and one way of solving this conflict, from a statist viewpoint, is territorial expansion: either by means of war or intermarriage, and sometimes by outright purchase. Ultimately, this tendency would come to a halt only with the establishment of a one-world single state. The second tendency is the intensification of exploitation. Extensifying exploitation — ripping people off — of a State monopoly, implies in and of itself an intensification, because the smaller the number of competing states — that is, the larger the State territories become — the less are the opportunities of voting with one's feet. And under the scenario of a world State, wherever one goes, the tax and regulation structure is the same. That is, with the threat of immigration gone, monopolistic exploitation will naturally increase — that is to say, the price of protection will rise, and the quality will fall.
Now how does a State originate? While this is generally, and I think intentionally, confused, it should be made clear right from the outset that law and order, or protection of property, and State law, and State order, and State protection are not one and the same thing; they are not identical things. Just as property and social cooperation based on the division of labor are natural, so the human desire to have one's property protected against natural and social disasters, such as crime, is a completely natural desire. And in order to satisfy this desire, there is first and foremost self-protection. Precaution, insurance (individual or cooperative), vigilance, self-defense, and punishment.
And let there be absolutely no doubt as to the effectiveness of a protection system based on peoples willingness to defend themselves. This is how law and order was maintained for most of the time for most of mankind. In every village, even up to this day, law and order is basically maintained in this way. The American Wild West, which was not exactly "wild" as compared to the current situation, that's the way law and order was maintained, by people being willing to defend themselves.
Moreover, the division of labor will then naturally affect the production of security and protection services. The higher standards of living grow, the more people will, besides relying on self-defense measures, also want to partake in the advantages of the division of labor, and attach themselves for protection to a specializes protector, to providers of law and order, justice, and protection. And naturally, every person will look for this particular task to persons or institutions who have something to protect themselves — who have the means to assure effective protection and have a reputation as just and impartial judges. In every society of more than the most minimal degree of complexity, there will quickly emerge specific individuals, who on account of having property to defend, having a good reputation and so forth, will assume the role of judges and peacemakers and protectors. And again, every single village up to this day, every small community, and even the Wild West of course, illustrate the truth of this conclusion.
Protection is also possible without a State. This should be absolutely obvious, but in an age of statist obfuscation and confusion, it is increasingly necessary to emphasize this elementary and yet as we will see, very dangerous insight. The decisive step in diverting human history from its natural course — the original sin of mankind, so to speak — occurs with the monopolization of the provision of protection, defense, security, and order: the monopolization of these tasks by a single one of these initially numerous protectors at the exclusion of all others. A protection monopoly exists once a single agency or a single person can effectively insist that everyone on a given territory must exclusively come to him for justice and protection. That is, that no one can rely exclusively or solely on self-defense, or attach himself for protection to somebody else. Once this monopoly is reached, then funding of this protector is no longer entirely voluntary, but in part becomes compulsory.
And, as standard Austrian economics predicts, once there is no longer free entry into the business of property protection, or any other business for that matter, the price of protection will rise, and the quality of protection will fall. The monopolist will become increasingly less of a protector of our property, and increasingly more a protection racket, or even a systematic exploiter of property owners. He will become an aggressor against and a destroyer of the people and their property that he was initially supposed to protect.
Now what is easily described in abstract terms (monopoly) is in practice a painstaking and lengthy task. How can anyone get away with barring all other protectors from competition? And why would the people and especially the excluded other potential peacemakers and judges allow such a thing to happen, that one individual monopolizes this service? Now the answer regarding the original of the State is in detail very complicated, but in its general structure is very easy to recognize.
First, every state, that is every monopolistic protection agency, must begin, or can only originate on an extremely small territorial level, such as a village. It is practically inconceivable that a world State, or a protection monopoly encompassing the entire world population could come into existence from scratch.
The second thing we have to notice is that not just anyone can reach even reach a local protection monopoly. Rather, the local protection monopolists are initially members of the natural social elite. That is, they are initially accomplished and acknowledged members of society. They were also, before they reached the position of a monopolist, previously chosen voluntarily as protectors. Only as established and recognized elites, whose authority is essentially voluntary, is it possible for them to make this decisive step toward monopolization and get away with it.
That is to say, every initial local government or state originates in the form of personal or private lordships or of princely rule. No one would entrust just anyone with the maintenance of law, order, and justice, and in particular if this person or agency had a monopoly for this particular task. Instead, people would look for protection obviously from someone known, and known to be a knowledgeable person, and only such a person, a noble or an aristocrat, can possibly attain a monopoly position initially.
Historically, by the way, if one looks at modern or ancient history, States everywhere are basically first princely States, and only later do they become democratic States. And even though it is true that States must begin only locally and usually as princely States, it still took hundreds of years before anything resembling the modern State came into existence.
The Impossibility of Limited Government
Now, once the protection monopoly is in place, a logic of its own is set in motion. Every monopolist takes advantage of his position. The price of protection will go up, and more importantly, the content of the law, that is the product quality, will be altered to the advantage of the monopolist and at the expense of others. Justice will be perverted, and the protector becomes increasingly an exploiter and an expropriator. More specifically, as the result of the territorial monopolization of protection, two tendencies are generated. First, a tendency towards the extensification of exploitation, and second, a tendency towards the intensification of exploitation.
Originally local institutions, States have an inherent tendency, driven by self-interest, of wanting more income rather than less — toward territorial expansion. The more subjects a State protects — or rather exploits — the better it is. The competition between States — that is, territorial monopolists — is an eliminative competition: either I am the monopolist or you are the monopolist of ripping people off.
Moreover, with numerous States, people can easily move with their feet. However, a loss of population from the point of view of the State, is a bothersome problem. Hence, States almost automatically come into conflict with each other, and one way of solving this conflict, from a statist viewpoint, is territorial expansion: either by means of war or intermarriage, and sometimes by outright purchase. Ultimately, this tendency would come to a halt only with the establishment of a one-world single state.
The second tendency is the intensification of exploitation. Extensifying exploitation — ripping people off — of a State monopoly, implies in and of itself an intensification, because the smaller the number of competing states — that is, the larger the State territories become — the less are the opportunities of voting with one's feet. And under the scenario of a world State, wherever one goes, the tax and regulation structure is the same. That is, with the threat of immigration gone, monopolistic exploitation will naturally increase — that is to say, the price of protection will rise, and the quality will fall.
The bolded text implies to me that a strong disrust of elites would also help a society maintain a stable anarchy. From this view, advances in science may not be all good(?) I'll have to ponder this some more.
ROFL
"Despite progressive policies like the DoE, etc civilization is more literate and advanced than it ever has been by far."
THats funny
I believe anarchy has potential but because of the way the human mind works it could never happen. Anarchy is simply, as was noted in the original post, no leaders. That's all, no one has more power than anyone else. This could work, we could still have police, judges, and all of those things but they way they do things would have to be strictly regulated by the people. My theory on how it could work is to let the people vote on anything. I say have 25 major laws in the country. Each state comes up with one and the people vote. Whichever 25 have the most votes are the laws. Also states can have their own laws. I also believe that if a judge or a police officer, or anybody that could possibly have enough power to abuse it, the people will vote to decide whether that person is prosecuted or not. I honestly believe it has potential to work if the human mind evolved and was able to deal with no people forcing them to do whatever they want. But unfortunately that's the way the human mind works, no matter what anyone may tell you.
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