Split from UAE port deal: statism vs. anarchism

[Hogeye]

This thread has been split from the UAE port deal thread. Please continue only the statism derailment here and only the port deal discussion there.

-- Sav, Politics moderator
___________________________________

But we, the United States, did create the rulers we have now.

?? I sure a hell didn't create Bush, or any other ruler. If you mean that those foolish enough to condone the State by voting bear some moral culpability, then I agree. But their culpability is miniscule compared to the rulers and the goons who carry out the rulers' violence.

We should not try to absolve ourselves of blame for allowing Bush to ascend to power by passing it off as "THEY."

Here I strongly disagree. Normal (non-ruling) Americans should not accept blame for the immoral conduct of the ruling elites. That's simply a way to divert blame from the actual perpetrators. If you convince the dumb masses that everybody did it, then no one can be held responsible. This whole "we are the government" thing is a way for rulers to shirk moral culpability. Accepting responsibility for things you didn't do and didn't approve of is a cop-out - it is being too cowardly and self-deluded to accept the fact that rulers (not everybody in general) made the decisions and are responsible for the mass-murders in Iraq, etc.

We all need to do more to make our country better.

Yes, and one thing we can do to make our country better is to do more to destroy the State. Our country, our geographical region, is one thing; the institution that rules us, the organization of legitimized plunder, is another. (One Orwellianism is the rulers' attempt to equate "country", "nation", and "State." Politicians like to exploit man's social "hard-wiring" - the residual evolved esprit-de-corps of the inbred super-families of the hunter-gatherer period - for nefarious purposes.) My country is Ozarkia. One way I try to make my country better is by doing all I can to destroy the aura of legitimacy of the State.

We also cannot condone stupid behavior (handing over our ports to supporters of our enemies) because we have done stupid or evil (and I go with evil) things ourselves.

"We" have not done evil; the USEmpire's rulers have. The ports may be run by enemies of the US ruling elite, not enemies of you or I or most American people. Barbara, you are not, I repeat not, part of the Bush ruling junto. Please don't fall for the slave "we". You did not shoot rockets into civilian neighborhoods in Fallula - hired "milfare" murderers did it on the orders of US ruling assholes.

[Doug]

Yes, and one thing we can do to make our country better is to do more to destroy the State. Our country, our geographical region, is one thing; the institution that rules us, the organization of legitimized plunder, is another.

DOUG
Destroying the state would make things far worse, not better. We need the state for contracts, safety, and to organize public works. If the US government disappeared, we'd be overrun by other countries in a jiffy, public roads and other public works would be severely curtailed, and the rule of law would probably be out the window. Just look at other states that have collapsed. That's what happened in Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, and so on and so on.

And if you don't like legalized "plunder," and by that I gather you mean taxes, We give a portion to the government for its operations. This year I have the biggest tax bill my family has ever had, and I'm not complaining a bit. Quit acting like a Republican, holding on to your money.

My country is Ozarkia.

DOUG
Interesting. And what planet are you on?

[Hogeye]

We need the state for contracts, safety, and to organize public works.

History shows quite clearly that these three services can be provided voluntarily, i.e. without a State. And being voluntary, they can be provided more morally without a State.

If the US government disappeared, we'd be overrun by other countries in a jiffy...

Gosh, you really buy the rulers' paranoia thing!

This year I have the biggest tax bill my family has ever had, and I'm not complaining a bit.

I'm so happy you've done your bit to fund mass-murder in Iraq. (sarcasm)

Don't worry - we anarchists will leave you free to serve any master you like. Just don't send your statist goons to rob us.

Hogeye> My country is Ozarkia.

DOUG> Interesting. And what planet are you on?

The one with the Ozark plateau in the middle of the North American continent. But I suspect you are forgetting the difference between a country and a State. The former is geographical; the latter political. Learn the difference, so you don't fall for this Orwellian language trick of politicians and statists.

[Doug]

We need the state for contracts, safety, and to organize public works.

History shows quite clearly that these three services can be provided voluntarily, i.e. without a State. And being voluntary, they can be provided more morally without a State.

DOUG
Historically, this is not so.
a. You can't show evidence that groups who contributed voluntarily to public works got much of anything done. History shows that this just does not work. When I asked you for examples before, you only had some reference so vague we couldn't even check it out.
b. In cases in which governments have collapsed and people had to provide infrastructure for themselves at their own expense (Bosnia, Iraq (early on), remote parts of Turkey after the earthquake, etc.) it was an unmitigated disaster.

If the US government disappeared, we'd be overrun by other countries in a jiffy...

Gosh, you really buy the rulers' paranoia thing!

DOUG
I really read history!

This year I have the biggest tax bill my family has ever had, and I'm not complaining a bit.

I'm so happy you've done your bit to fund mass-murder in Iraq. (sarcasm)

DOUG
I opposed the Iraq war and the re-election of Bush. (As well as his "election" the first time.) But I live in a republic. I cannot withhold my tax money simply because I disagree with how it is being used. Sufficient numbers of idiots agree with the insane and immoral war so that it is public policy.

Don't worry - we anarchists will leave you free to serve any master you like. Just don't send your statist goons to rob us.

DOUG
I don't have any statist goons. And what in the world makes you think the lack of a state would mean a lack of goons? Warlords in Columbia, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Burma, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo appeared after the states their failed.

from wikipedia, "failed state"
===========
In recent years various political commentators have labelled many countries as failed states, including Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Colombia and Georgia.

The term is also used in the sense of a state that has been rendered ineffective (i.e., has nominal military/police control over its territory only in the sense of having no armed opposition groups directly challenging state authority; in short, the "no news is good news" approach) and is not able to enforce its laws uniformly because of high crime rates, extreme high-level corruption, an extensive informal market, impenetrable bureaucracy, judicial ineffectiveness, military interference in politics, cultural situations in which traditional leaders wield more power than the state over a certain area but do not compete with the state, or a number of other factors. West African countries including Cameroon, Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone are often mentioned in this category.

================
DOUG
Warlords and their goons appear when a state fails. It would happen here too. That would be worse than what we have now.

Hogeye> My country is Ozarkia.

DOUG> Interesting. And what planet are you on?

The one with the Ozark plateau in the middle of the North American continent. But I suspect you are forgetting the difference between a country and a State. The former is geographical; the latter political. Learn the difference, so you don't fall for this Orwellian language trick of politicians and statists.

DOUG
There is no country of Ozarkia, and no state of Ozarkia.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Just a quick question Hogeye. In your anarcho-capitalist best case situation wouldn't there need to be some kind of organization/power whatever to keep people from organizing into collectivist statist groups again? Some kind of organization/power to monitor and keep the anarchist situation in place? And wouldn't this then devolve into a similar situation with the organization/power becoming the state?

It seems that without somekind of anarcho-capitalist enforcement group humans naturally and repeatedly and without exception (as far as I know) keep going back to some variation of the tribal society collective.

D.

[Hogeye]

You can't show evidence that groups who contributed voluntarily to public works got much of anything done.

In a free society, most of what we today in a statist society call "public works" would be private. I'm not sure what particular services you mean, Doug, when you say "public works," nor can I imagine why you think voluntary mutual aid didn't get "much of anything done." Let's take an obvious example: roads.

The best way to understand the notion of private roads is to examine America's own era of private turnpikes. In 1821, there were over 4,000 miles of private roadway in the state of New York. Between 1792 and 1840, some 230 New England turnpike companies built and operated 3,800 miles of roads. It was private enterprise that really got the "show on the road" in America. - Private highways: A solution whose time has come (again)?

Doug, maybe you didn't know that the first libraries, fire departments, street lighting, etc. in the US were done privately and voluntarily funded. Read e.g. about Ben Franklin for examples of this in early Philadelphia. We've already discussed examples of private law, so I won't repeat that here.

Maybe you haven't noticed all the restaurants and hotels that provide services to the public. Is "public works" simply a code word for services the State has taken over and monopolized? That seems to be the way most people use the term. If this is what you mean, then in a free society the "public works" will become private services.

In cases in which governments have collapsed and people had to provide infrastructure for themselves at their own expense (Bosnia, Iraq (early on), remote parts of Turkey after the earthquake, etc.) it was an unmitigated disaster.

That's like looking at starving Jews released from Nazi concentration camps and concluding that freedom for Jews doesn't work. Obviously, one should blame the failed States (and the former Nazi regime) for these bad consequences, not the newly found freedom.

Instead of looking at the aftermath of failed States, one should look at stable stateless societies to evaluate the merits of statelessness. Would you like to look at Celtic Ireland? Classical "Thing" Iceland? Albemarle? Rhode Island in the 1600s? Holy Experiment Pennsylvania? Here's an article about the latter three examples: The Origins of Individualist Anarchism in America by Murray N. Rothbard.

Doug> If the US government disappeared, we'd be overrun by other countries in a jiffy...

Hogeye> Gosh, you really buy the rulers' paranoia thing!

Doug> I really read history!

You must be amazed by e.g. Switzerland, Hong Kong, and Costa Rica. Perhaps you should consider factors such as free trade and private ownership of firearms (rather than large standing armies and massive military spending) as peacekeeping factors.

I cannot withhold my tax money simply because I disagree with how it is being used.

Right (wink, wink.) No one has ever underreported or hidden income. Using cash or e-gold, which leaves no paper trail, is impossible. Guerrilla capitalism and the underground (free) economy does not exist.

There is no country of Ozarkia, and no state of Ozarkia.

You deny the existence of the Ozarks??? I agree that there is no Ozark State.

In your anarcho-capitalist best case situation wouldn't there need to be some kind of organization/power whatever to keep people from organizing into collectivist statist groups again?

No - those who wish to form a State are free to do so, just as those who wish to sell themselves into slavery are free to do so. (Technically, one should probably refer to the 'foreign policy' of anarchist societies as 'panarchy.')

Now if you are saying that people accustomed to being ruled are unlikely to stay stateless for long, I agree. That's why revolutions don't work (and why imposing democracy doesn't work.) But history indicates that a society that has "evolved" into statelessness is quite stable, and quite resistant to statism. Cf: William Penn's attempt to impose government over the Pennsylvania Quakers.

David Friedman looks at it as a public goods problem. In a statist society, good law is a public good and bad (special interest) law is a private good. Thus states tend to get bad law. Anyone who wants anarchy has the standard public goods problem to overcome: the benefits of statelessness accrue to many, whether they work for it or not. OTOH the benefits of statism are focused on e.g. munitions makers, oil producers, piss-testers, and the ruling elite, so they're quite willing to pay the price and score the rewards. Thus, statism is rather stable - generally unable to overcome this public goods problem. For a stateless society, we get the dual case: the authoritarian who wants to create a State has the public goods problem. The "benefits" of a State are general and dispersed, with many freeloaders; the benefits of statelessness are private benefits. As it was for the Quakers, who in their right mind would want to follow orders, regulations, pay taxes, get conscripted, and so on?

So in theory, which history confirms, society has two possible equilibriums: statism and anarchy. It is analogous to the double equilibrium of driving on a road, i.e. driving on the right or the left. Once one equilibrium is reached, it's really hard to get to the other equilibrium without getting smashed.

Perhaps thinking in terms of tribal collectives puts you on the wrong track. I suggest that you think in terms of polycentric law, where you can see all kinds of (non-primitive) examples of multiple legal systems without territorial monopolies. Here's a list of links: Against Politics Polycentric Law links. The dominance of monopoly statist law is actually a relatively new phenomena in human history, connected with the rise of the modern State (largely due to the gunpowder weapon/ printing press tech revolution) starting around 1500.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Celtic Ireland, which did have a governmental system, had privately maintained roads - via the law that ordered tuatha owning land keep the roads clear during times of war and in the season of the horse races. Celtic Ireland was pounded for 250 years straight by the Norsemen going aviking (some of whom liked the climate of Ireland better than Norway and settled, creating the cities of Ireland - Celts didn't do cities) and what was left of the Celtic social and governmental structure was destroyed by the successive incursions of the British Army. So even if Celtic Ireland was the free-market anarchy you keep saying it was (and it wasn't), it was displaced by a totalitarian structure over a thousand years ago.

[Hogeye]

No society or culture is permanent, whether statist or stateless, from the ultra-statist Roman Empire to quasi-anarchist Thing Iceland they all fall eventually. Thus, we talk about stability, not permanence. We might note that Thing Iceland lasted twice as long as the United State of America. And Celtic Ireland went without a State (but not without a government in the weak sense, I agree) for, what, eight centuries or so?

I agree that, without a State, Ireland resisted many invasions and kept on keeping on. Those that think it takes a State to provide defense should take note.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

The Celts military was not the army unit as we know it today, but they most assuredly did have one - the king was the military leader, among other things - and of the several things Celts were noted for, mercenaries were high on the list. If that's your difference between state and government (possession of a military), you're out on the Celts.

[Doug]

The best way to understand the notion of private roads is to examine America's own era of private turnpikes. In 1821, there were over 4,000 miles of private roadway in the state of New York. Between 1792 and 1840, some 230 New England turnpike companies built and operated 3,800 miles of roads. It was private enterprise that really got the "show on the road" in America. - Private highways: A solution whose time has come (again)?

DOUG
Until well into the 20th century, most roads were terrible and pretty much just muddy, dirty, narrow paths. Until the 1930's with the interstate highway system underway, travelling in the US for a long distance was a miserable affair. Don't think for a minute that those "roads" for horses from 1792 to 1840 were anything to brag about. You want dirt roads again?

Doug, maybe you didn't know that the first libraries, fire departments, street lighting, etc. in the US were done privately and voluntarily funded. Read e.g. about Ben Franklin for examples of this in early Philadelphia. We've already discussed examples of private law, so I won't repeat that here.

And maybe you've noticed that those things, like roads, were not done well on a large scale until the US goverment got into the act.

[Doug]

Instead of looking at the aftermath of failed States, one should look at stable stateless societies to evaluate the merits of statelessness. Would you like to look at Celtic Ireland?

DOUG
What Celtic Ireland? They had kings and a definite system of government.

The Celtic culture of the La Tene civilisation - named after a Celtic site in Switzerland - reached Ireland around the 2nd century BC.

Celtic Ireland was not unified politically, only by culture and language. The country was divided into about 150 miniature kingdoms, each called a tuath. A minor king ruled a tuath, subject to a more powerful king who ruled a group of tuatha, who was in turn subject to one of the five provincial kings. This political situation was very fluid, with constant shifts in power among the most important contenders.

Celtic Ireland had a simple agrarian economy. No coins were used and the unit of exchange was the cow. People lived on individual farms and there were no towns. Society was rigidly stratified into classes and was regulated by the Brehon Laws, an elaborate code of legislation based largely on the concepts of the tuath as the political unit and the fine, or extended family, as the social unit.

From:
http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/informatio ... people.asp

DOUG
You want to start using the cow as the monetary unit for "Ozarkia"?

[And by the way, you are aware that the railroad system in the US was quite limited until the government gave away huge amounts of land for the railroads to use?]

[Hogeye]

Hogeye> Doug, maybe you didn't know that the first libraries, fire departments, street lighting, etc. in the US were done privately and voluntarily funded. Read e.g. about Ben Franklin for examples of this in early Philadelphia. We've already discussed examples of private law, so I won't repeat that here.

Doug> And maybe you've noticed that those things, like roads, were not done well on a large scale until the US goverment got into the act.

Yes, I have noticed that the US has subsidized automobiles, resulting in much pollution, various wars, inefficient transportation, and massive increases in government power. I would have preferred the market, rather than rulers, to determine the most efficient forms of transportation. I strongly suspect that the market would have resulted in relatively more trains and fewer cars, more mass transportation, and definitely less foreign military intervention. Please beware of historicism - the fallacious notion that the way things worked out must be the best.

What Celtic Ireland? They had kings and a definite system of government.

We've already covered this. Celtic Ireland had a government in the Nockian sense that there was a legal system. However, Celtic Ireland did not have a State - people could switch governments. Barbara verified this earlier. The "kings" had no legislative power - they were basically militia commanders. Since most people use the word "government" in the stronger sense to mean "state," the standard way to say this is 'Celtic Ireland had no government.' As Barbara indicates, there were some constraints on switching, so Celtic Ireland was not a perfect anarchy. One might call it a quasi-anarchist society.

You want to start using the cow as the monetary unit for "Ozarkia"?

No, I prefer silver rounds.
Some prefer hemp, as in parts of colonial America, but cannabis is not sufficiently homogeneous in quality to be good money IMO.

And by the way, you are aware that the railroad system in the US was quite limited until the government gave away huge amounts of land for the railroads to use?

Yes I'm familiar with the history of USAmerican railroads. They were quite competitive back east until the tyrant Lincoln paid off his corporate sponsors with massive subsidies and land grants. These subsidized railroads were notoriously corrupt and inefficient, generally built without regard to grade or potential products to transport, but with great regard for capturing govt subsidies and land. The govt subsidies effectively eliminated competition, so the crony corporations acted accordingly. This led to the mushrooming of govt intervention, i.e. anti-trust laws and such. When trucking finally became competitive with railroads, instead of scrapping the unjust "victimless crime" anti-trust laws, they mired the trucking industry in the same body of unholy regulations.