Government is Anarchy

Reply

Sage Posted: Mon, Nov 23 2009 11:07 AM

rated by 0 users

Minarchists argue that society without government would be chaos. But the arguments they give against anarchy seem to apply with equal force against government.

For instance, minarchists claim that without government to enforce rules and regulations over citizens, people would have incentives to defect and hence social cooperation would be impossible.

But this argument also applies to government: after all, there is no government to enforce rules and regulations over politicians within the government. In other words, government itself is a society without government. So if the minarchist argument works, it would also show that politicians would be in a war of all against all, and hence government would fall into chaos.

Another minarchist argument is that without a government, private protection agencies would battle, and society would degenerate into gang warfare.

But how is government a solution? After all, there is no government to prevent warfare between the police and the military. Since government itself is an anarchy, the minarchist argument entails that the police and military must be in constant conflict, and that government too would degenerate into gang warfare.

Minarchists also claim that without government, there is no final arbiter to ensure that disputes are settled, and hence few disputes would ever get resolved, leading to endless conflict over rights, crimes, property titles, etc.

But this objection also applies to government. After all, there is no governmental final arbiter to adjudicate disputes among bureaucrats and politicians. According to the minarchist, bureaucrats and politicians will be in constant litigation, and couldn't perform their task of protecting rights.

Thus, any argument against anarchy also counts as an argument against government, because government is an anarchy.

For more, see Cuzan and Long.

Reply

Andrew Cain replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 11:15 AM

rated by 0 users

Perhaps a better statement would be 'Government is disorder' from Anselme Bellegarrigue's work The World's First Anarchist Manifesto. If you align anarchy with the incorrect premise that it is chaos then you will have individuals simply say 'Ok then it is a question of which chaos I prefer. I like government chaos rather than anarchic chaos'

Reply

Saan replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 11:28 AM

rated by 0 users

Sage:

But this argument also applies to government: after all, there is no government to enforce rules and regulations over politicians within the government. In other words, government itself is a society without government.

This is true.  Within the government it is really panarchy.  Try getting bullets from the supply sgt. after a firefight.  You better be ready to trade those stolen resources and wield your influence. 

You:  I need ammo we got in a fight and shot up 506 rounds.

Supply Sgt: I can't release those rounds without O5 approval.

You:  I got a case of gatorade.

Suplly Sgt:  Here's a box of 840 rds.

Reply

Andrew Cain replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 11:42 AM

rated by 0 users

Saan:

You:  I need ammo we got in a fight and shot up 506 rounds.

Supply Sgt: I can't release those rounds without O5 approval.

You:  I got a case of gatorade.

Suplly Sgt:  Here's a box of 840 rds.

Ah yes, the quartermaster. The black market dealer of the military. Where you in the air force or navy? We called our guy the S-5

Reply

Sage replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 11:45 AM

rated by 0 users

Laughing Man:

If you align anarchy with the incorrect premise that it is chaos then you will have individuals simply say 'Ok then it is a question of which chaos I prefer. I like government chaos rather than anarchic chaos'

Yeah. The point is that the simplistic Hobbesian view that social cooperation is impossible without government is blatantly wrong. The question now is not whether ordered anarchy is possible, but whether it is desirable. And once the question is put in terms of comparative institutions, anarchy looks promising: the incentives of market democracy are more reliable than those of political democracy.

Reply

AJ replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 12:00 PM

rated by 0 users

Sage:

For instance, minarchists claim that without government to enforce rules and regulations over citizens, people would have incentives to defect and hence social cooperation would be impossible.

But this argument also applies to government: after all, there is no government to enforce rules and regulations over politicians within the government. In other words, government itself is a society without government. So if the minarchist argument works, it would also show that politicians would be in a war of all against all, and hence government would fall into chaos.

If a bureaucrat attacks another bureaucrat, the same police and courts that would try normal citizens don't get involved? At least to some extent? And isn't there a hierarchy of command? Checks and balances? I'm not following the main thrust of this argument.

How about if we narrow it just to Congress? All their little committees and majority leaders and whips or whatever they're called. Still, if one rep attacks another rep, doesn't it go to trial (at least sometimes)?

Reply

Sage replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 12:05 PM

rated by 0 users

AJ:

If a bureaucrat attacks another bureaucrat, the same police and courts that would try normal citizens don't get involved? At least to some extent? And isn't there a hierarchy of command? Checks and balances? I'm not following the main thrust of this argument.

How about if we narrow it just to Congress? All their little committees and majority leaders and whips or whatever they're called. Still, if one rep attacks another rep, doesn't it go to trial (at least sometimes)?

The point is that they're cooperating under anarchy, which is what minarchists (and other statists) claim is impossible.

So if checks and balances and reputational effects can secure social order under governmental anarchy, why can't they do the same under market anarchy?

Reply

AJ replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 12:10 PM

rated by 0 users

Well, how is it anarchy if there is still one final arbiter for disputes (the courts in the case of a fight between congress-critters)?

Reply

Stranger replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 12:14 PM

rated by 0 users

AJ:

Well, how is it anarchy if there is still one final arbiter for disputes (the courts in the case of a fight between congress-critters)?

The ability of the government to prevent rogue elements from dishing out their own justice is limited by the government's own pretense of being a monopoly, hence the survival of "organized crime" throughout history, and even more so the more repressive the government's attempt to control them.

There's always someone else to turn to.

Reply

AJ replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 12:18 PM

rated by 0 users

Thanks. I'm not fully sure I understand what you mean. Where can I learn more about this? (Read the Cuzan, skimmed the Long, still wondering - what about the pluralism that we supposedly have in the US?)

Reply

Saan replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 12:23 PM

rated by 0 users

Laughing Man:

Saan:

You:  I need ammo we got in a fight and shot up 506 rounds.

Supply Sgt: I can't release those rounds without O5 approval.

You:  I got a case of gatorade.

Suplly Sgt:  Here's a box of 840 rds.

Ah yes, the quartermaster. The black market dealer of the military. Where you in the air force or navy? We called our guy the S-5

I was a sapper. U.S Army.

Reply

Sage replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 12:59 PM

rated by 0 users

AJ:

Well, how is it anarchy if there is still one final arbiter for disputes (the courts in the case of a fight between congress-critters)?

There is no final arbiter, in the sense of an arbiter that is imposed on the politicians. If you say that the army forces them into court, then what about disputes between generals? Ultimately you have to get to some point where people cooperate voluntarily, without a government forcing them too.

Again, the point is that if cooperation is possible under governmental anarchy, it's possible under market anarchy.

Reply

AJ replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 1:55 PM

rated by 0 users

From Congress to the army, to the generals, to the commander-in-chief, right? It seems there is still a hierarchical system with a final arbiter in that case, at least ostensibly. In terms of "anarchy = no monopoly" government doesn't seem an anarchy, except for maybe certain parts of it vis a vis certain other parts (but which?). Perhaps the idea in the OP is premised on a slightly different definition?

Reply

Saan replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 3:41 PM

rated by 0 users

AJ:

From Congress to the army, to the generals, to the commander-in-chief, right? It seems there is still a hierarchical system with a final arbiter in that case, at least ostensibly. In terms of "anarchy = no monopoly" government doesn't seem an anarchy, except for maybe certain parts of it vis a vis certain other parts (but which?). Perhaps the idea in the OP is premised on a slightly different definition?

The system is too big.  It is heavily decentralized as far as functioning is concerned.  The various agents within the apparatus of government operate on a market anarchy principle, they just use stolen goods.  Cooperation is key to advancing wealth within the confines of the treasury.  The reason it can be considered an anarchy is because most government agents are immune to the laws they break, and if not can easily get a judge to grant the immunity.  They are allowed market freedom to distribute the goods they have confiscated amongst themselves.

Reply

AJ replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 4:48 PM

rated by 0 users

Well I believe they are immune to certain laws, but all laws? A treasury department bureaucrat may be able to get away with embezzlement, but if he were to murder another bureaucrat there would be jail time I assume (although we'll probably find some exceptions, coverups, etc.).

Reply

wilderness replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 4:56 PM

rated by 0 users

well if you are on the "inside" you probably could get away with murder.  from what I understand, for instance, the emails hacked at the climate center are still being propagandized by the media as something not affirmed to have actually happened.  meanwhile the scientists at the center have come out and stated they were hacked and somebody took their emails.  the propaganda war.  which side will win in the battle of ideas.  1984's war is peace or A is A.

Reply

JAlanKatz replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 5:01 PM

rated by 0 users

AJ:

Well I believe they are immune to certain laws, but all laws? A treasury department bureaucrat may be able to get away with embezzlement, but if he were to murder another bureaucrat there would be jail time I assume (although we'll probably find some exceptions, coverups, etc.).

Who arrests him and who puts him in jail?  The police arrest him and bring him to trial - now, if spontaneous order can't exist, why do they bring him to trial?  The law says they have to - so what?  There's no one to make them follow the law - they are the arm of the law.  Why don't they just take the arrested people home as slaves? 

Now, maybe there really is no such thing as spontaneous order, and such things do happen more often than we're led to believe.  In that case, the case for anarchy is apparently undermined, until you ask the obvious question - how does having a government fix that problem? 

If a person is found not guilty, 99% of the time they go away and go home.  Why do the jailers listen to the judges?  The judge can be said to be an arbiter, but what if they disagree with the judge?  By the way, there are examples where this fails - Abraham Lincoln comes to mind.  What happened there?  The marshals refused orders from their boss because they willingly held that judge's decisions should be followed.  This is spontaneous order. 

Cheney shoots lawyers, we know that.  Still, soldiers do not fail to do whatever they want because they think Dick Cheney will shoot them.  The question is not who says what should be done, but what makes it actually happen.

Now, you can say that in all of these cases, we'll just call in the military.  Why does it come when called?

Reply

TelfordUS replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 7:06 PM

rated by 0 users

Sage:

Government is anarchy.

My brain exploded

Reply

Conza88 replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 7:19 PM

rated by 0 users

TelfordUS:

Sage:

Government is anarchy.

My brain exploded

lol this may be helpful... makes the same point I believe.

Reply

wilderness replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 7:24 PM

rated by 0 users

TelfordUS:

Sage:

Government is anarchy.

My brain exploded

when the government is understood as being individuals like everyone else, then it boils down to how those individuals act and they are a sophiscated aggressive bunch those government thugs.

Reply

teuch replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 8:07 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

TelfordUS:

Sage:

Government is anarchy.

My brain exploded

when the government is understood as being individuals like everyone else, then it boils down to how those individuals act and they are a sophiscated aggressive bunch those government thugs.

Except that in an anarchy individuals to act as free agents, more or less.

But state power, unlike in the market, is a zero-sum game. IF one group gains power another will lose it.

Within government they need to either be a part of a patronage system (as in China) allied to one of the warring internal factions that head up a powerful department (as in Russia) or committed to a political faction or 'cause' (as in most social democracies).

At the very top, public servants (ha!) and politicians have to be very, very careful as there is always another factions/clan waiting in the wings to pounce.

Reply

Sieben replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 8:13 PM

rated by 0 users

The youtube video is not very good. It is very layman and doesn't explain ideas very well.

The DROs section was particularly narrow sighted... his vision of what DROs would look like should at least conform to historical and/or current implementations.

Reply

wilderness replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 8:28 PM

rated by 0 users

teuch:

wilderness:

when the government is understood as being individuals like everyone else, then it boils down to how those individuals act and they are a sophiscated aggressive bunch those government thugs.

Except that in an anarchy individuals to act as free agents, more or less.

Anarchy doesn't pretend to be utopian.  Criminals like liberty oriented people each exist.

teuch:

But state power, unlike in the market, is a zero-sum game. IF one group gains power another will lose it.

That defines criminality.

teuch:

Within government they need to either be a part of a patronage system (as in China) allied to one of the warring internal factions that head up a powerful department (as in Russia) or committed to a political faction or 'cause' (as in most social democracies).

The size and orientation of criminal enterprises vary.

Reply

ama gi replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 8:41 PM

rated by 0 users

For me, the argument that "in anarchy, everybody would kill everybody" is so ridiculous, it's not even worth a rebuttal.

Moving on.....

Reply

teuch replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 9:03 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

teuch:

Within government they need to either be a part of a patronage system (as in China) allied to one of the warring internal factions that head up a powerful department (as in Russia) or committed to a political faction or 'cause' (as in most social democracies).

The size and orientation of criminal enterprises vary.

Except that in an anarchist society, there would be a greater freedom of association, even among criminals, and except in the most extreme cases they still have the option of not being criminals anymore.

Government is much more vertically oriented, much harder to get out of because of the $$$ and other perks. It ends up looking more like a system of warring tribes, fighting to entrench themselves at all levels of state power. IT cannot be said to resemble an anarchy in any way.

Reply

Sage replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 9:33 PM

rated by 0 users

AJ:

Where can I learn more about this? (Read the Cuzan, skimmed the Long, still wondering - what about the pluralism that we supposedly have in the US?)

Check out Geoffrey Plauché's paper "On the Social Contract and the Persistence of Anarchy."

JAlanKatz:

The law says they have to - so what?  There's no one to make them follow the law - they are the arm of the law.  Why don't they just take the arrested people home as slaves?

That's a good question to ask minarchists: What makes the police follow the law?

Or basically any variant on "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

teuch:

Government is much more vertically oriented, much harder to get out of because of the $$$ and other perks. It ends up looking more like a system of warring tribes, fighting to entrench themselves at all levels of state power. IT cannot be said to resemble an anarchy in any way.

If you define anarchy as society without government, then yes, government is an anarchy.

Reply

wilderness replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 9:38 PM

rated by 0 users

teuch:

Except that in an anarchist society, there would be a greater freedom of association, even among criminals, and except in the most extreme cases they still have the option of not being criminals anymore.

How does a person that coerces or a group of people that coerce simply leave?  There are extant gangs now that don't let their members leave.  I don't understand how you came to that conclusion.  How do people that want to coerce power over another (or groups of them) suddenly find greater freedom only because the largest gang on the block, ie government isn't around anymore?

teuch:

 

Government is much more vertically oriented, much harder to get out of because of the $$ and other perks.

I think I see what you mean now.  I think I'm agreeing with you.  Government being the biggest gang does mean that without one society is left with smaller ones.

teuch:

 

 It ends up looking more like a system of warring tribes, fighting to entrench themselves at all levels of state power. IT cannot be said to resemble an anarchy in any way.

I'm saying that I think the government is a rogue PDA and that the natural order is extant.  It so happens to be that in the current nature of events a large sophisticated gang had emerged centuries ago and currently upon this landmass here one called the U.S. government is welding it's coercive power currently.  For instance, if I could muster together a well-armed PDA and refused to stop cooperating with the government on all fronts then I would be tapping into a market that is potential.  It is like a potential good on the shelf during the holiday season or when Apple is coming out with a new IPod.  The market is present for some people.  It so happens that the U.S. government has a monopoly on the free market currently when it comes to PDA's except to the point of individual self-defense but that is threatened everyday by the government.  The market is here.  It always takes individuals that have the skill and enterprise to develop anything in the market.  Then there needs to be the demand.  I know of many people that are demanding this aspect of the market.  Many people want to freely buy into self-defense.  The U.S. government can stick around.  No need for I nor it to come into conflict.  I would most definitely peacefully co-exist with the U.S. government.  It is up to the government if it will either aggress against me or not cause I know I will not initiate the aggression.  That's what I'm basically talking about.

What I am saying recognizes that there is a government.  It is coercive.  I don't deny that it exists.  I find the government to be a sophisticated criminal gang.  One that has been allowed to grow by the consent of many people for far too long.  I see the government an expanison of any backalley thuddery gang that has been able to grow in power and coercion.  There are many kinds of gangs and some may even be attempts to oppose the government and if they are just then I wouldn't label them as a gang but in actually - liberty oriented people.

I am for peace and will never initiate aggression.  That's important to share.  I don't want what I wrote to be taken out of context by any government do-gooders.

Reply

wilderness replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 9:56 PM

rated by 0 users

Sage:

If you define anarchy as society without government, then yes, government is an anarchy.

yes.  who governs the government.

Reply

teuch replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 9:59 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

How does a person that coerces or a group of people that coerce simply leave?  There are extant gangs now that don't let their members leave.  I don't understand how you came to that conclusion.  How do people that want to coerce power over another (or groups of them) suddenly find greater freedom only because the largest gang on the block, ie government isn't around anymore?

I agree that there are some groups that initiate force against those who try and leave. But petty criminals, vandals, while collar, etc usually work in very loose knit groups or on their own. In government, the kingpin of the executive branch has (in theory if not practice) total control over the entire apparatus.

wilderness:

I think I see what you mean now.  I think I'm agreeing with you.  Government being the biggest gang does mean that without one society is left with smaller ones.

There would possibly still be smaller gangs in an anarchist society, but I would think that anarchy would reduce the incentive to gang in the first place. Gangs tend to form as a defense mechanism against the state, as a 'protection racket' for criminals. But that is by-the-by in the context of this discussion.

I agree pretty much with the rest of what you say, except to repeat I believe internally the government does not resemble an anarchy.

Reply

teuch replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 10:03 PM

rated by 0 users

Sage:

If you define anarchy as society without government, then yes, government is an anarchy.

It is more like the disputed territories described in Nineteen Eighty-Four: constantly being conquered and reconquered by warring powers, passing back and forth between Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia.

Reply

wilderness replied on Mon, Nov 23 2009 10:19 PM

rated by 0 users

teuch:

wilderness:

How does a person that coerces or a group of people that coerce simply leave?  There are extant gangs now that don't let their members leave.  I don't understand how you came to that conclusion.  How do people that want to coerce power over another (or groups of them) suddenly find greater freedom only because the largest gang on the block, ie government isn't around anymore?

I agree that there are some groups that initiate force against those who try and leave. But petty criminals, vandals, while collar, etc usually work in very loose knit groups or on their own. In government, the kingpin of the executive branch has (in theory if not practice) total control over the entire apparatus.

A lot goes on in the government that the President doesn't directly oversee.  It's too big of an operation.  That's why now there are czars, but traditionally cabinent members and different branches in the government.  They each have their own agenda.  The president along with others, for instance the military, hold more sway than others and may jump in and overturn certain decisions.  I understand that.  But so can the mightest criminal in the might makes right world of theirs.  And the President of the U.S. isn't the only decision maker.  There are other countries and corporate cronies, etc... that are definitely involved in policy making.

teuch:

 

wilderness:

I think I see what you mean now.  I think I'm agreeing with you.  Government being the biggest gang does mean that without one society is left with smaller ones.

There would possibly still be smaller gangs in an anarchist society, but I would think that anarchy would reduce the incentive to gang in the first place.

I agree. 

teuch:

 Gangs tend to form as a defense mechanism against the state, as a 'protection racket' for criminals. But that is by-the-by in the context of this discussion.

I agree pretty much with the rest of what you say, except to repeat I believe internally the government does not resemble an anarchy.

I guess if that's the same as saying internally criminality isn't liberty - then I definitely agree.