Delete the State: A Challenge to Minarchists
Aeon Skoble's excellent book poses a fundamental challenge to minimal-state libertarians. All libertarians take freedom to be the highest political value and oppose coercion. Why, then, do some libertarians reject anarchism? Under anarchism, people freely choose their own protection agency; but the minarchist variety of libertarianism forbids them to do so, so long as they remain on the territory controlled by the minimal state. How can libertarians justify coercing people in this way? FULL ARTICLE
Comments (55)
Ken
I'm coming to this question from the point of view of an "interested layman" (actually I'm more than that in terms of interest, but I think it's a fair description of my level of knowledge). It strikes me that the minarchist argument is based on the Hobbesian fear, although not in the specific manifestation that, uh, manifested to me as I read the article.
I think it boils down to this: There will be a state anyway. It will first take the form of an organized criminal gang that will attempt to subjugate everyone else, one or a handful at a time. Even in anarchy, these people will exist. I think there is something in human nature that occasionally goes horribly awry and produces a sociopath, and something rather more common that produces people who like to follow a leader of charisma, provided the reward is sufficient.
The minarchist state, then, is a sort of firebreak, put up by those who mistrust force against those who really like it.
In the longer run, those who mistrust force are replaced by those who sort of like it, and they in turn by those who really like it, until you wake up one day and it's April 21, 2009. Alas, Babylon.
My view: I hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator (or their inherent nature, if you prefer) with certain unalienable rights, and that among these rights are life, liberty, and property. I further believe that, pursuant to the above, no man has the inherent right to coerce another. But I also believe that those who would try will always be with us. I don't pretend to know for sure what to do about that, but I'm willing to listen.
Published: April 21, 2009 10:06 AM
Bruce Varughese
anarchy will lead to factions, which will lead to minarchy
Published: April 21, 2009 10:13 AM
Michael A. Clem
Assertions are inevitable, but is aggression?
Published: April 21, 2009 10:20 AM
geoih
Again, another waste of blog space attacking the people that aren't anachist enough. It's like listening to Lilliputians argue about which end of the egg to break first.
Published: April 21, 2009 10:24 AM
Michael A. Clem
Darn, hit "submit" too soon. Maybe if we don't buy into the "legitimacy" of any group having power over the others, then the ready acceptance of minarchy no longer exists. It's not that some people won't always try to initiate force against others, but there's nothing inevitable about most people accepting the legitimacy of such claims. That's the real turning point towards anarchism.
Published: April 21, 2009 10:25 AM
Daniel
We have to remember, or at least the minarchist have to remember, that when an-caps argue against minarchy, the an-caps are arguing against a state-ish minarchy, not a minarchy that is formed voluntarily. I see this confusion a lot. The same way an owner of a condo complex could have a homeowners association or, for that matter, you could think of an apartment complex owner providing "national" defense, a court system, and a "police force" for his apartment complex as a minarchy. Always apply the non-aggression anxiom.
Published: April 21, 2009 10:40 AM
Ken
Well, Michael, perhaps I misunderstand you but it's no intention of mine to accept the legitimacy of the minarchist argument. I merely intended to state it to the extent of my ability.
If the counterargument is that a stateless society is at least equally equipped to deal with aggression by an organized criminal gang, well, heck yeah, I'd prefer it.
As I think about it further, neither a stateless society nor a minarchy (nor a totalitarian "ocracy" of whatever flavor) can guarantee that Black Bart and his boys (or the Big I Ranch) won't burn any individual's farmstead down with his wife and kids in it in order to lay holt of his bottomland or really good artesian well or whatever he has that someone else wants and ain't willin' to meet the homesteader's price for.
Published: April 21, 2009 11:01 AM
MG
As a minarchist, I concede that you are right. A stateless society is better than a small state. However, being European and presenting myself as an anarchist will achieve nothing. If I present myself as a minarchist atleast I have an audience to educate in the ideas of liberty. My view is that we first need to move to a minarchist state. When that situation is reached, I'll gladly accept the anarchist position and will try to strive for a ancap society.
What I do think is not good for the course of liberty, is that anarcho capitalists and minarchists will attack eachother for their ideas. If that happens we will achieve nothing. We have to recognise that we share the same dream and the same ideas, while the implementation of them might differ 10% or something. Let's direct our energy against the statists instead. That way both groups can be happy.
Published: April 21, 2009 11:41 AM
Curt Howland
Ken, that's one of the things that seems to evade much of the arguments pro- and anti-, that no matter what system is in place there will be bad people.
Personally, I don't want to provide an institution of coercion for bad people to infiltrate.
Published: April 21, 2009 11:42 AM
BioTube
The argument that a gang of marauders will come along is powerful in advocating a state capable of organizing a defense; getting around it is difficult(local militias would need to coordinate).
However, there are other issues to seem to fall most naturally to the state; specifically, courts and registries. The first issue is fairly obvious: if I subscribe to a law that says that throwing smog into your neighbor's air is illegal and my neighbor subscribes to one that says it ain't, what happens? What if I'm tried for a crime in a court that's always trial-by-judge if I subscribe to one that's always trial-by-jury? These issues can be worked out, true, but they are useful arguments for a minimal government since the issues only occur on an international basis and have already been worked out in that scope.
Registries, on the other hand, have a centralizing tendency: births, marriages, divorces, etc are not easily tracked in a distributed format - and companies obviously would stick to a single registry(or as few as possible) for deciding benefits due to costs.
This is not to say that these issues cannot be worked out, but that many people see no reason to change what works(and militaries, courts and registries do tend to work fairly well - most of the problems that exist(incompetent generals, miscarriages of justice, lost paperwork) would exist in a private system as well).
Published: April 21, 2009 11:48 AM
Phil David
Speaking to myself, I tend to take te pragmatic approach. In my view, most people would have trouble accepting anarchy. Perhaps it is hobbesian fear, but it's far easier to sell a minimal state.
Published: April 21, 2009 12:05 PM
Inquisitor
Read Rand, read Hoppe. Though the former was a minarchist, she does demonstrate the bankruptcy of statist arguments (esp. the "what about the poor!" crap), including her own. Hoppe demolishes the "economics" and social theory behind statism.
Published: April 21, 2009 12:47 PM
8
We have anarchism today—it's called international relations.
Published: April 21, 2009 2:07 PM
Sovy Kurosei
Taking a look at history in Somalia and Afghanistan it isn't the people that choose their own protection agency but the "protection agency" that chooses the people.
Sad, but a fact of life I'm afraid.
Published: April 21, 2009 2:29 PM
I Hate Government
Minarchism is like trusting a repentant thieve to guard the bank vault. Or like trusting a murderer as your bodyguard.
Security and protection of property is precisely the function for which government is NOT worthy of trust.
At the moment government is trusted with security and protection of private property and protection of individuals etc. This is the moment the government has all what it needs to grow further and further without check.
A home owner with his gun is far better for protecting his home than a police officer patrolling the whole city.
Cops are usless and the government is useless.
Sorry but we DON'T need thieves and murderers to "protect" us and "guard" our wealth.
Published: April 21, 2009 2:36 PM
Josepe Bonnano
Government is basically a "protection" racket.
Published: April 21, 2009 2:40 PM
Gil
You talk tough IHG but could you really defend yourself when the chips are down? What if you attacked, not by some snivelling wimp with a spoon, but a hardcore gang who aren't going to kindly submit to any 'private protection agency' let alone any 'private arbitration agency' let alone take any notice of a 'private verdict'? If you're so hardcore why not provide your own 'private hardcore protection' to various ships in international waters where you can't charged for engaging your style of 'hardcore justice' to pirates? Or, if you're on your own private ship being set upon by pirates in international waters would you be glad to be in 'no mans land/sea' and do whatever you like to defend yourself or are you going to cringe because if you lose to these pirates, they aren't going to stand trial because they are in no one territory?
Published: April 21, 2009 6:36 PM
Nick
Anarcho-capitalism is a fine ideal to have, just stay away from Ron Paul political activism with that dogma.
Published: April 21, 2009 7:03 PM
Nuke Gray
My '-ocracy' is called Parocracy. 'Para' can mean near, beyond, and -ocracy means type of state or government, so Parocratists want a life outside the state. Possession should determine jurisdiction.
As for minarchism, humans grow up in groups, as part of families, and extended kin. Our genes favour this, since loners would die out early. Small communities are the norm for us, not rugged individualism.
In terms of practicality, roads have always proven a good way to get to markets, for trading with others. If someone owns the roads, they can control exchanges on it. Why not have this under the control of those who use the roads, whose properties are next to them? Turn local governments into corporations open to all who will pay for the chance to be a voting citizen.
And to keep such small governments honest, all citizens should take turns as a part of the government, two weeks as a street patrol enforcing laws, and two weeks as the government. A government by militia, in turns, should be more manageable than most. (If one militia group tried to become an oligarchy, they would be outnumbered by all the other militias.)
Minarchic arguments galore!
Published: April 21, 2009 7:53 PM
locknroll
The only things we need government for is defense of the country, property taxes (for defense) and to settle disputes. What I don't get is why some people think we don't need government at all. Of course the government can't be trusted. That goes without saying. However getting rid of government ironically makes you the government. And believe me you and your neighbor will have quite the difference of opinion. And when you do whoever wins will make sure that you do as they say.
Published: April 21, 2009 9:08 PM
Inquisitor
"You talk tough IHG but could you really defend yourself when the chips are down? What if you attacked, not by some snivelling wimp with a spoon, but a hardcore gang who aren't going to kindly submit to any 'private protection agency' let alone any 'private arbitration agency' let alone take any notice of a 'private verdict'?"
Yeah, I'm sure you know all about it blah blah blah. Why do they submit to a government? If they do, it's because it can back its decisions by force. So can a PDA. Oh noes. There goes another argument. The question should always be "OK, but what's the government going to do?" Really? Nothing but mess it up.
Published: April 21, 2009 9:24 PM
P.M.Lawrence
"Under anarchism, people freely choose their own protection agency...".
No! No! No!
That is just another kind of minarchism. It says "choose an agency". Anarchists would allow choosing an agency, making other kinds of arrangements to get it (i.e. using agents such as relatives but not having distinct agency institutions), doing it personally, or even (for those who preferred) doing without. That last could actually make sense for people who rationally decided that it made more sense to go for flight rather than fight, taking their stuff with them but having more of it from not paying for fight.
Published: April 21, 2009 9:35 PM
newson
to sovy kurosei:
if the comparison is made between monopoly power exercised by the north korean or cuban state, and the fragmented power exercised by competing warlords in somalia, i think the latter is preferable.
at least somalians can move location, so there is the option of choosing one's oppressor.
Published: April 21, 2009 9:39 PM
David Gordon
P.M. Lawrence is perfectly right that under anarchism, some people might not join a protection agency. But I do not suggest otherwise. The contrast I intended is between minarchists, who allow only one protection agency for each territory, and anarchists, who allow competing agencies. If someone said, "In a free election, you can vote for the candidate of your choice", would Mr. Lawrence take him to be endorsing compulsory voting?
Published: April 21, 2009 9:59 PM
Gil
That's right Inquistor - if you don't have a government then you're on your own. It's your land, you are sovereign, however it's up to you to repel any and all invaders. You can hire the services of a protection agency, you could go it alone or you could live with your family in a rough&ready kindred militia. However, if the said forms of protection can't cut the mustard then you're stuffed. Without the government you're as stuffed as you would be if you a-happily sailing in international waters and get attacked by pirates.
Published: April 22, 2009 12:24 AM
Gil
That's right Inquistor - if you don't have a government then you're on your own. It's your land, you are sovereign, however it's up to you to repel any and all invaders. You can hire the services of a protection agency, you could go it alone or you could live with your family in a rough&ready kindred militia. However, if the said forms of protection can't cut the mustard then you're stuffed. Without the government you're as stuffed as you would be if you a-happily sailing in international waters and get attacked by pirates.
Published: April 22, 2009 12:27 AM
Geoffrey Transom
There is a paradigmatic difference between minarchism (a State) and anarchy. In anarchy one could reasonably have the (genuinely free, voluntary) choice of dispute resolution organisation (DRO, in the well-thought out view of Stefan Molyneux). relations between DROs would likewise proceed on the basis of agreements (like international extradition agreements that exist today between nation-states).
Minarchism, on the other hand, implies the existence of an organism having the right to extort its funding from inhabitants in its area of control.
That is, people who want no truck with the State and its grubby little minions, are forced (under threat of death) to fund the State.
And as we all know, the State exists to further the aims of the State; it attracts the sort of people who like power, and within a generation we would be back having wars with wide-area bombing of civilian targets.
There is one solution to the State - it is to degrade the operational effectiveness of the the goons that form the armed-threat wing of the state. This has to be done by killing (or maiming) enough of them to get the remainder to change their behaviour: this can of course be outsourced.
You might like to think there's another way, but there isn't - leastways, there is no other way that is remotely as efficient. The State exists as a response by the sociopath class to the eventual public dissatisfaction with theocracy and feudalism, both of which were exploitative mechanisms of control based on armed force (and fraud). The only thing the State understands is force (and its twin - fraud).
At every turn toward Liberty, the parasites will try to place road blocks (control of the internet being the latest - the equivalent of the Church trying to stop vernacular translations of the Bible).
Fortunately, when it comes to our mechanism for ending the State, we do not have to resort to the anti-Cathar "Caedite Eos"; we need only kill enough of them to make their colleagues rethink their employment options. [All such violence is 'defensive' since State predations contains within them the implied 'pay taxes or die' threat of violence].
Without its paid thugs and assassins, the State would fall apart in a week. People who still wished to, could participate in a voluntary association that elected its leadership, but whose control extended only to those who participated. The first year that such a 'government' tried to run a deficit, its user base would evaporate (since they - and only they - would be 'on the hook' for the debt: the ability to thieve from those who opted out would not be possible).
If someone can show me how an anarchist society would ever produce a battleship or a cruise missile, or prosecute a wide-area bombing campaign that targeted civilian infrastructure, then I will reconsider minarchy. War is the health of the State, and I contend that ONLY states can fight wars on any scale worth calling a 'war'. And War is far more of a threat to prosperity and life, than the potential of bands of marauders (and subsequent problems of enforcement between voluntaryist DROs) under anarchy.
Politicians (and their hireling thugs) have to start getting killed in ways that send a message to their colleagues. Fortunately, on FreeNet there is already a mechanism that organises this: a 'prediction market' for assassination and maiming - to date it has operated mostly in Moldova, Ukraine, Zimbabwe and Thailand, but it is successful in getting internal security apparatchiks to stand down long enough to destabilise governments.
Sometimes liberty-enhancing solutions are hard, and they have unsavoury aspects (the Parish Spike solution for reducing the road toll is perfect, but would never pass a vote due to idiotic squeamishness... likewise the "prediction market" version of politics).
You don't reason with non-symbiotic parasites; you eliminate them.
Cheerio
GT
Published: April 22, 2009 12:59 AM
Vanmind
I've always preferred the roll-off-the-tongue quality of the term "Eliminate the State."
Published: April 22, 2009 1:03 AM
Inquisitor
"That's right Inquistor - if you don't have a government then you're on your own. It's your land, you are sovereign, however it's up to you to repel any and all invaders. You can hire the services of a protection agency, you could go it alone or you could live with your family in a rough&ready kindred militia. However, if the said forms of protection can't cut the mustard then you're stuffed. Without the government you're as stuffed as you would be if you a-happily sailing in international waters and get attacked by pirates."
How weak. The government fails repeatedly to offer protection (extension of the calculation argument, really) and I am now to worry about the event that some thugs won't take a PDA seriously? They will once it gives them cause to... Perhaps it is the government that is often seen as a joke, or even in bed with the criminals...
Published: April 22, 2009 5:07 AM
Gil
"fails repeatedly . . ." - Inquisitor
How so? How is the U.S.A. still standing if it'sthat incompetent? What is interesting is the way you badmouth government and that's pretty much it. What of "how can the government be dismantled in reality?" Seriously. And what of the aftermath?
Suppose G. Transom's idea works and you turn on the TV one day seeing a bloodbath in the White House and likewise State Parliaments and feel good that there's no governments (it'd be safe to presume Local Governments would probably politely self-dissolve as they have the least power). Wow, no more laws, no more rules and regulations! However, the crime rates are going to go through the roof as there's no formal law enforcement. It'd be a case of making sure you had the armaments ahead of time. Then what?
"The market will provide . . ." In other words, the survivors will have to figure that problem out. Chances are it'd be a privatised form of lingering private martial law in the aftermath of the Collapse Of Government. Considering roving violent gangs will try to get what they can, they'll eventually crush DIY lone landowners and larger landowners will find themselves coaleascing into a rough&ready gated HOA. They'll work out some rough&ready rules and have screening processes for newcomers. Those who don't have private land will rent from those who do and if they don't like they can leave the gated community and try their luck in the feral lands between other HOAs. If private landowners find that many-a-renter prefers to abide by onerous rent&rules because the feral land between other HOAs is pretty much a death sentence then it's all come full circle and you're back to city-states. The only way this would be an improvement over the current situation is that the landowners would be 'legitimate' because they privately 'homesteaded' their land'.
Published: April 22, 2009 6:20 AM
Raja
Besides the obvious contradictions in the minarchist position and the clearly selective application of economic theory, the easiest reason to see the flaw in the argument is to understand that the only reason states exist is because the subjects have been deluded into believing the state is moral. States simply cannot survive long term with public support. If a private protection agency were to force its will on society because it became too large and powerful, everyone in society would recognize its illegitimacy and oppose it. It may survive for a little while, but eventually it will collapse absent the support of the people.
Published: April 22, 2009 8:08 AM
P.M.Lawrence
David Gordon agrees that I am 'perfectly right that under anarchism, some people might not join a protection agency. But I do not suggest otherwise... If someone said, "In a free election, you can vote for the candidate of your choice", would Mr. Lawrence take him to be endorsing compulsory voting?'
No, of course not - but I would if someone said, "In a free election, you vote for the candidate of your choice", without the "can", in a context that implied that action had to be taken. That is pretty much how politicians describe voting here in Australia, where voting is compulsory. When there is freedom as to which but not as to whether, freedom is so circumscribed that it can easily be rigged and made vacuous.
And that is how I read the statement "Under anarchism, people freely choose their own protection agency" as written - freedom as to which but not as to whether, particularly as "protection agency" is likely to end up meaning just what the riggers decide. That may not be what was intended, but it describes a situation in which 100% of people choose some protection agency or other and have no alternative but to do so. It's what I have against Stefan Molyneux's descriptions too, incidentally; he writes of corporations as protection agencies without admitting any alternatives. Perhaps it's just a failure of communication, but nevertheless what was described was drawing from a limited deck.
Geoffrey Transom's analysis is reminiscent of how Michael Collins chose many (not all) of his urban terrorism targets in the 1920s - go for the small men who implemented and gave effect to the state but were too numerous and exposed to guard (see also Che Guevara's "minuet" tactic). Gil, like many others, only sees the state offering targets in the form of its high profile representatives and reads Geoffrey Transom's analysis in the light of that misunderstanding.
Published: April 22, 2009 8:39 AM
P.M.Lawrence
Raja wrote "States simply cannot survive long term with [without, surely?] public support. If a private protection agency were to force its will on society because it became too large and powerful, everyone in society would recognize its illegitimacy and oppose it. It may survive for a little while, but eventually it will collapse absent the support of the people."
Regrettably, that is not true, for two reasons:-
- Unless other constraints apply, the state can get rid of the people and restock later. The Normans were perfectly willing and able to cut the population of England from two million to one in the "Wasting of the North", because they preferred ruling all of a depopulated country to none of the whole population. The Ottomans similarly depopulated and restocked Byzantine lands until there was no Byzantium left and they changed gears to dominate the surviving minority with their new population. Ditto for the Spanish Reconquista.
- Human psychology has an appeasement mode in which many go into a form of denial that makes them accept what is done to them as just rather than recognise its bitterness. Once this happens on any scale it is only necessary to eliminate or repress the rest, as the American rebels did to the Loyalists.
That is to say, the people can be changed, either in their attitudes or physically. In recent decades, perhaps even for a century and a half, other constraints have prevented this, but there is no enduring law of nature stopping it.
Published: April 22, 2009 8:56 AM
David Gordon
P.M. Lawrence raises a good point. It would have been better to write, "Under anarchism, people can choose their own protection agency". It hadn't occurred to me to the statement might be read in the way that Mr. Lawrence took it. Perhaps if, like him, I lived in a country with compulsory voting, I would have been more sensitive to this ambiguity.
Published: April 22, 2009 8:57 AM
I Hate Governments
Gil,
"How so? How is the U.S.A. still standing if it'sthat incompetent?"
The U.S.A is standing on one foot and rapidly losing balance !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Panarin
None of this would have happened if we have elected Ron Paul for president and upheld the constitution !
Published: April 22, 2009 9:24 AM
Peter Surda
@Sovy Kurosei
> Taking a look at history in Somalia and Afghanistan it
> isn't the people that choose their own protection agency
> but the "protection agency" that chooses the people.
From practical point of view, in both countries it appears like the choice is between competing warlords and sharia law. I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that the competition is the worse of those two. With regards to the anarchism vs. minarchism, if the history of those countries somehow invalidates anarchy, it logically also invalidates minarchy.
Published: April 22, 2009 9:56 AM
Raja
PM Lawrence -
Your point about the Normans and the Ottomans is noted. I was thinking more about modern times, though. Do you think your historical examples extend well to modern possibilities of anarcho-capitalism? Surely even people in the middle ages resisted -- or, at least, attempted to resist -- illegitimate rule, even if they were not always successful. With modern warfare, nuclear weapons, and credible threats on the lives of the rulers, resistance, I would imagine would be far more effective. Look at the example of India. Under a clearly identifiable and _recognizably_ illegitimate ruling power (the British) the Indians persisted in their struggle despite massive odds. However, now, under a highly _obfuscated_ yet _equally illegitimate_ ruling power (the Indian government) the Indians obediently suffer their slavery. Surely the difference should be acknowledged.
I am of the opinion that protection agencies may be able to suppress the public, but they cannot overcome their opinion. Eventually the makeshift state must fail. I think Hoppe shares my views: mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf
Btw, for any minarchists out there, I highly recommend this article.
Published: April 22, 2009 10:55 AM
Michael A. Clem
Gil points out the need for more education and understanding on anarchism, lest people who are all too ready to initiate force will try to "replace" the government that they deem as legitimate.
As I already said, the turning point occurs when most people refuse to accept the legitimacy of some people having power over others. When that happens, none of your horror stories are inevitable, as people turn to private third party mediation and arbitration to work out differences, much as many businesses already do, because government courts offer slow and untrustworthy results. On a related note, check out Merchant Law. On a more basic note, consider the origins and workings of things like language (who controls that?) and money (government took over control of money only after society started using it).
Common law was used by American and English society and was only eventually taken over by the English King or adopted by American state and local governments (much to our detriment, because common law is a process, not a static set of laws). Thus, I can add that a better understanding of the nature of law, and why government legislation isn't really law, is necessary for anarchism to work.
Finally, a switch to private law and arbitration means that the actual economic costs of law enforcement become realized and internalized, no more special interest groups socializing their pet peeves on the rest of society (War on Drugs, anybody?).
Knee-jerk reactions like Gil's simply indicate that more education is needed to understand and realize the true basis of civilized society--minarchism fails to go all the way to the roots of the problem.
Published: April 22, 2009 1:29 PM
P.M.Lawrence
David Gordon writes 'It would have been better to write, "Under anarchism, people can choose their own protection agency"'.
Even that only allows people to choose agencies to act for them, and could be interpreted as "...must choose their own protection agency". It would have been better still to write "Under anarchism, people can choose their own form of protection, if any".
In looking at computer documentation that claims to be for user friendly software I have found it to be useful to change "can" etc. to "must" mentally and see if it is still an accurate description. If it is, e.g. if it becomes "...must use a mouse..." etc., then it's not user friendly after all.
# Raja writes "Do you think your historical examples extend well to modern possibilities of anarcho-capitalism? Surely even people in the middle ages resisted -- or, at least, attempted to resist -- illegitimate rule, even if they were not always successful. With modern warfare, nuclear weapons, and credible threats on the lives of the rulers, resistance, I would imagine would be far more effective."
Why would it be? The only thing that stops ethnic cleansing from working even today is outside constraint. And democracies are always incrementally "electing a new people" by funnelling in immigrants who change the voter base, without getting existing voters' consent (it's an analogue of agency costs in corporations, with managers altering the stock holder base by diluting the equity).
"Look at the example of India. Under a clearly identifiable and _recognizably_ illegitimate ruling power (the British) the Indians persisted in their struggle despite massive odds":-
- It was not obviously illegitimate but was widely accepted at the time, right up until the end. People were applying their existing norms, which had adapted to accommodating and accepting outside rulers - and then assimilating them - over several waves. I have read contemporary accounts that object on the grounds that assimilation wasn't happening (it had been, until steam ships increased the link to the home country).
- They didn't persist. Rather, a later movement emerged and restarted resistance, just as in Ireland.
- It didn't prevail anyway, but if anything delayed Dominion status. What it succeeded in doing was being in place to take the reins when other causes ended British rule (much like Soekarno in the Dutch East Indies). It then indulged in historical revisionism. Unfortunately Indian culture allows a lot of self-legitimating revisionism, what with its tendency to go for appearances over actual facts.
That's why "I am of the opinion that protection agencies may be able to suppress the public, but they cannot overcome their opinion" is missing the point. They don't have to overcome any opinion, they only have to get rid of the opinion holders and retain any that change their opinions, bringing in others as necessary. Consider the opinions of natives in the USA or Argentina: the former, those that are left, are accepting - and there are effectively none of the latter at all, only descendants of immigrants.
Published: April 22, 2009 7:08 PM
Nuke Gray
Prime Minister Lawrence is wrong on one point- there is a fine for not turning up at the voting booth. You can, however, not vote, by keeping the voting slip blank and handing that in. Many of us australians hate the thought and practice of compulsory voting, but no party offers the policy of ending it. I think the rationale is that opinion polls give some certainty to the parties, even if the news is bad.
AS FOR a downside to an anarcho-capitalist world, we saw what might happen without a state in the world of computers. How do you stop someone from just taking over? What is to stop a 'Security Firm' from becoming the Microsoft of Anarchtopia?
And no-one commented on my suggestion of any government function being taken over as community service by all citizens! To paraphrase Starship Troopers 'Community Service is the duty of Citizenship!' Since Citizenship would be a choice, one could also live outside the state.
Published: April 22, 2009 8:01 PM
P.M.Lawrence
Nuke Gray, you haven't familiarised yourself with the legislation about Australian compulsory voting. The law actually does make it compulsory; it is not sufficient merely to turn up and not vote, according to the law. It is just that the law also requires secret voting, which makes it impossible to police that particular violation of the law. But you can still get in trouble for advocating it...
Published: April 23, 2009 1:44 AM
AMAI
"Minarchism, on the other hand, implies the existence of an organism having the right to extort its funding from inhabitants in its area of control."
It's unfortunate that you don't allow for the possibility that a "state/government" which is limited in scope to issues of defense against the initiation of force would also be limited such that it cannot resort to the initiation of force in order to fund itself. Ergo, the law itself would operate to make government rely on voluntary payments made by people who use the services, or want to be able to use the services.
Without such a mechanism available, what stops a PDA from ripping you off? Or to put it another way, what do you do when PDA1 rips you off? Do you simply hire PDA2 to attack PDA1 on your behalf? Do you hire Court1 to rule in your favor, only to find PDA1 has gone to Court2 and gotten a ruling in its favor?
The anarchy route strikes me as simply trading in one tyrant ("The State") for another (the local gang of "protection agencies.") It's not really about Individual Rights, or the recognition that no one has the right to initiate force. It's really a step backwards to the time before the big bad State took over. And I'm not disagreeing that the State is big AND bad. It is a legalized criminal in effect.
But getting rid of government completely isn't going to solve the problems. What does need to change is the scope of government's power. Repeal all taxation laws, and all the legislation interfering in business, production and trade. Put government into its proper place and make it just as subject to the law forbidding initiation of force as everyone else, and then let's see what happens.
Published: April 23, 2009 12:42 PM
David Gordon
I agree with P.M. Lawrence that under anarchism, you are not compelled to choose to be protected by a protection agency: you are free to make other arrangements or none at all. I also think it is important to avoid writing in a way that can be misunderstood. That said, I don't find at all plausible his readings of my sentences. "Under anarchism, you choose your own protection agency" does not, to my mind, suggest "but you must choose some agency or other"; much less does "you can choose an agency" do so. To judge from he says about his computer example, I suspect that Mr. Lawrence has non-standard linguistic intuitions about the meaning of "can". At any rate, they certainly differ from mine. I'd be inclined to say that, normally, "you can use a mouse" does not need the disambiguating "but you need not" to preclude "you must use a mouse."
Understanding a sentence presupposes background context. If this point is ignored, it is usually possible to conjure up an ambiguity. Let us take, e.g., Mr. Lawrence's "Under anarchism, people can choose their own form of protection, if any". Should we read this as meaning that you can pick at most only one form of protection, i.e., that you cannot mix forms of protection?
Published: April 23, 2009 1:28 PM
Michael A. Clem
AMAI, you raise but fail to answer an important question: how do you define government? Without the power of taxation, without the ability to monopolize law enforcement and judicial services (at the very least), then how can such an organization be called a government? Without such powers, the organization becomes a de facto PDA, because it is not in a position to prevent competitors from entering the market.
Take the US Postal Service, for example. If the USPS were fully funded through voluntary means, AND anyone could deliver first class mail, The USPS would just be another private mail service, regardless of its name.
Published: April 23, 2009 1:32 PM
David Gordon
"from he says about his computer example, I suspect that Mr. Lawrence has non-standard linguistic "
should be
"from what he says about his computer example, I suspect that Mr. Lawrence has non-standard linguistic"
Sorry
Published: April 23, 2009 1:38 PM
P.M.Lawrence
No, DG, that's not where my concern is coming from at all. Just think back to all the slippery interpretations that have been fobbed off on people in the past, when dealing with this area, i.e. political stuff. Think "people's democracy", or whatever.
When you use a form of words like "Under anarchism, you choose your own protection agency" you are leaving it wide open for others to come back at you and say "You have not chosen a protection agency! We will register you by default for our scheme! Opt out? Do it yourself? Get your brother in law to do it? That's not choosing an agency!" More than anything, I'm put in mind of superannuation schemes and the like (I'm trying to get my money out of one now, before it's all gone).
It's not a matter of what sensible people would mean or understand, it's a matter of what is covered by the range. If that range includes minarchism, it will not deliver anarchism - because there are those that will make it their business to deliver that or worse. In this area, ambiguity should be read with the worst possible construction, because it is those others that will be doing the construing. That's very different from you using a mouse your way.
Published: April 23, 2009 7:42 PM
blanconnier
Here is again the poor delusional, conman, Geoffrey Transom.
This guy is nothing like an anarchist. He is just a coward and parasit who doesn't want to admit it. He is a liar and the most desgusting guy you can possibly meet.
For those who would like to know who EXACTLY is Transom, I have, as his previous landlord ( he never paid the rent) a lot of evidences. A LOT!!!
Regards
DB
Published: May 23, 2009 11:20 PM
P.M.Lawrence
Blanconnier, I have met Geoffrey Transom in person on a number of occasions. Your description does not match what I observed.
Published: May 24, 2009 3:44 AM
blanconnier
P.M.Lawrence
Well, there is nothing I can do for you if you don't want to know...we kept EVERYTHING ( emails, Judgement, Police Reports, bills he never paid, pics of our house he damaged on purpose, posts on internet, testimonies from other persons who were tricked from him...).
I know what I am talking about.
Good luck with him !
DB
Published: May 24, 2009 11:29 AM
P.M.Lawrence
Blanconnier, by all means state what you know and provide evidence. Just remember that claiming that you have all that is one thing, actually giving it is another. For my part, I have confined myself to stating my own observations. If you have more, go for it - but if not, that was merely gratuitous.
Published: May 24, 2009 7:42 PM
P.M.Lawrence
Blanconnier, I have already heard something of Geoffrey Transom's residency problems and of what happened to his girlfriend's career, from his end. I am certainly not providing my email address out in the open here. If you give yours I will email you, or you can follow the link to my site and work out my email address from the way it is concealed there.
Published: May 25, 2009 2:16 AM
blanconnier
We are sure he put himself as a victim ( like usual)... We are still waiting for the 8,000 euros he is condamned to pay by the Civil Court Judgement
Since I don't know what is your relationship with him, I have good reasons to be very careful. When he had our email adress, he sent me threats, insults, ... He stole all our personal papers, sent diffamatory emails to our employer, here, in Los Angeles.
One advice: don't be so trustful with what he told you...
Hoping you don't share his point of view on this matter, you can also check out his post on Stormfront.org ( his pseudo is ModernBrutus).
Regards
DB
Published: May 25, 2009 2:43 AM
Geofffrey Transom
@Blanconnier,
You really ought to start your defamations a bit earlier - waiting a whole month before appending your bile to a post will reduce your audience.
I've said it before, and I will say it again: people like you should not be employed in roles that permit interaction with children.
I liked the 'Reichstag fire' quality of the post to StormFront. Good use of anonymising proxies, too.
GT
Published: May 25, 2009 5:06 PM
blanconnier
Hi P.M. Lawrence and everyone interested
Once again, EVERYTHING is available for those who wants to make up their own opinion about Transom. Is a Court Judgement a defamation ? Are unpaid bills defamations ? Are defamations emails to our employer... defamations? Are Police Reports defamations ? Are pics.from a Police Officer describing our house after Transom & Varney left defamations ? Are Transom's posts on marketrant.blogspot.com ( check them out from december 2007 and august 2008 - disgusting...) defamations ?
We say: HE stole some of our goods, HE damaged on purpose our house, HE stole ( and destroy ?) all our personal papers, HE never paid the rent, HE lied constantly about his tenant situation, HE insulted me and threated me, HE ripped off everyone,- even the vet.( who took care of his cats) he played to be honest with-, ( we kept all his unpaid bills). HE got convocated at the local Police Office for anti-semitism and Holocaust denial. HE never paid what the Court Judgement demanded.
HE is wanted by French Administration and French Companies for fraud.
HE is a conman, a parasit, a coward, a liar.
I DARE him to show anything dishonnest from our side. I DARE him to show any evidence that what I said above are lies. Guess what... ?
DB
Published: May 25, 2009 7:52 PM
P.M.Lawrence
Blanconnier, I don't see any evidence at all from you, not references to hard copy documents like court cases, no reference numbers and/or titles for proceedings, not even links to internet sources. It is for you to provide evidence, not for anyone else to provide counter-evidence - unless and until you have something more solid to support your assertions. As, when and if you offer that, then and only then should anyone else offer material in rebuttal.
Published: May 25, 2009 8:53 PM