Think world wars would be prevented if had anarchy?

[noblegas]

If there were no central form of government, do you think wars liked we had in the 20th century would be prevented or not occur very often? The more I think about, the more it makes sense to me; Think about it. Most of the participants involved in those major wars like WW1 , WW2, and the Vietnam war were drawn into those conflicts because to some degree, their country's government forced them to participate in those wars , whether their participation was beneficial for the individual or not and/or directly inflicted them or not; The conflicts did not directly affect most of the soldiers participating in whatever war was going on; Therefore, unnecessary manslaughter occurred on a vast scale; Alternative scenario: If we were in anarchical society where people hired their own source of protection rather than rely on a centralized police force everybody had to rely on, I think most conflicts would be local and not global and therefore mass slaughter would not ensue ; For example if person A had a dispute with person B about a source of petroleum popping out of the ground in who's territory , the conflict would be only between person A and person B, not person C, D, E, and every other letter not directly involved;

[russ_watters]

Well I suppose if there were no nations, there would be no organized warfare. But with anarchy everyone would constantly be at war with their neighbors!

What's the difference between 20 million killed in a single war and 20 million killed in local fighting?

Also, how much would it cost to hire someone to protect me? Heck, how would I make that money in the first place?! What if two of my neighbors got together and hired twice as much "protection" as me?

Anarchy as a system of government is naive daydreaming at best.

[noblegas]

Well I suppose if there were no nations, there would be no organized warfare. But with anarchy everyone would constantly be at war with their neighbors!

What's the difference between 20 million killed in a single war and 20 million killed in local fighting?

Also, how much would it cost to hire someone to protect me? Heck, how would I make that money in the first place?! What if two of my neighbors got together and hired twice as much "protection" as me?

Anarchy as a system of government is naive daydreaming at best.

Hey,don't tossed this ideology in the trashcan so quickly. I bet to the feudal serfs of Medieval Europe , political ideologies like a constitutional republic, property rights and individual liberty was a pipedream at best; I don't think everyone would constantly be at war because most people would not be fighting over the same conflicts , since most people would not be arguing over what petroleum reservoir is in whose territory because it does not affect them because its not in their territory; I say conflicts will range from minor conflicts to serious conflicts, depending on the region and the temperament of the individuals, , but never would you be coerced into fighting in a war that has nothing to do with you and there wouldn't be a seemingly omnipotent aggressor because people would not be coerced into financing the state; Like most of the commodities we buy food, shoes, cars, video games , the free-market will give you the option of choosing a police force who will provide the best services for your protection;prices would be decided by the market, whether the trade would be barter,i.e. providing a place for your protector to sleep in exchange for protection or providing service for some exchange of currency;

[CRGreathouse]

I would expect that the yearly deaths from combat would be at least ten times worse than during World War II, at least until the population reduction from starvation took its toll.

[noblegas]

I would expect that the yearly deaths from combat would be at least ten times worse than during World War II, at least until the population reduction from starvation took its toll.

How do you know the death toll will rise 10x as much than during world war II? Do you have any statistics or even anecdotes to back up such claims? I am not trying to imply that anarchial societies would be utopias, I just think the death toll will not be as high as it currently has been for the past 100 years because masses of people would not likely support one state that would give that state powers that are potentially destructive to humanity. I don't think anarchy has been tested in many countries like communism has been tested and failed in every country it was tried in; In some parts of the world like Ireland, they've managed to live in a stateless region for a 1000 years before they were conquered by the British http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities#Gaelic_Ireland_.2865 0-1650.29
and it was somewhat civilized, with people who owned property; In pre-columbia America, I know neighboring tribes would clash with each other if one perceived the their opponent as intruding upon their territory , but I don't think the death tolls were as high as during WW2; Iceland was another region where anarchy even formed their police force via the free market;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities#Icelandic_Commonweal th_.28930_to_1262.29

[russ_watters]

Hey,don't tossed this ideology in the trashcan so quickly. I bet to the feudal serfs of Medieval Europe , political ideologies like a constitutional republic, property rights and individual liberty was a pipedream at best...
Well a republic would make more sense to a feudal person than anarcy: they already evolved passed anarchy! You're probably 10,000 years behind on this one!

You might want to read Hobbes' "Leviathan" for some in depth treatment of the problems of anarchy: Chapter XIII is an exposition "Of the Natural Condition of Mankind, as concerning their Felicity, and Misery" and contains the famous quotation describing life in the state of war of every man against every man:

“ the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short ”

Hobbes finds three basic causes of the conflict in this state of nature: competition, diffidence and glory, The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. His first law of nature is that that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. In the state of nature, every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body but the second law is that, in order to secure the advantages of peace, that a man be willing, when others are so too… to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)


Like most of the commodities we buy food, shoes, cars, video games , the free-market will give you the option of choosing a police force who will provide the best services for your protection;prices would be decided by the market.... You're really not thinking this through. All of those things are complicated. It requires an organized society to create a car or a video game. If there are 100,000 people working for a car company, doing what the car company tells them to, being protected by the car company's police force and fire department, using the car company's currency to buy goods, guess what: that's a government!

And since the car company has a lot of money, they can also afford to hire the biggest "security force". So what's to stop them from taking over the video game company, the shoe company and the farms?

[russ_watters]

How do you know the death toll will rise 10x as much than during world war II? Do you have any statistics or even anecdotes to back up such claims? Sure - how about the average life expectancy from the time when there was anarchy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Lifespan_variation_over_time

Consider the possibility that the primary difference between humans today and humans 10,000 years ago that enabled everything we know of about modern life is governent. Government is the enabler of all of our advancement. It is why we don't still live in caves and die by age 30.
I don't think anarchy has been tested in many countries like communism has been tested and failed in every country it was tried in... Anarchy was the way people lived for tens of thousands of years. In some parts of the world like Ireland, they've managed to live in a stateless region for a 1000 years before they were conquered by the British... Note that they weren't entirely free from government. Note also that what probably kept them from being conquered by a more organized society was the English Channel.

[Vanadium 50]

I'm still trying to figure out what 1000 years Noblegas is talking about.

England conquered Ireland in 1603. This took almost a century; Henry VIII decided to conquer it in 1536. Between 1168 and 1536, Ireland was ruled by the Normans, although their conquest was never entirely complete. If it was "stateless", it was so only because the conquerors had not completely pacified the territory. From 400-1168, Ireland was, like much of Europe, divided into small kingdoms. Before 400 or so, there's very little written history of Ireland - most comes from commentary by others, like the Romans.

[noblegas]

I'm still trying to figure out what 1000 years Noblegas is talking about.

England conquered Ireland in 1603. This took almost a century; Henry VIII decided to conquer it in 1536. Between 1168 and 1536, Ireland was ruled by the Normans, although their conquest was never entirely complete. If it was "stateless", it was so only because the conquerors had not completely pacified the territory. From 400-1168, Ireland was, like much of Europe, divided into small kingdoms. Before 400 or so, there's very little written history of Ireland - most comes from commentary by others, like the Romans.

Yes; you are right; I was wrong; I misread the article; I thought gaelic ireland was purely an anarchial society; I must confessed that I did not really have a general understanding of ireland's history before I've created this thread and only access an article from wikipedia on ancient Ireland . But as you've stated . various kingdoms and tribes existed throughout ancient europe, and much of the ancient world,; I was only stating that a more centralized state will lead to more violence and destruction; Take the Roman empire for example, much of western europe, southern asia and northern africa was conquered by the romans through violence, but despite all its might it was never able to go beyond those conquered territories because it didn't have enough people to finance its regime; fast forward to the Britain in the 1600- 1800s , a nation-state ,not a city state like ancient rome and therefore is more centralized for it has more occupants who will finance Britain's empire; Unlike rome, who had colonies near its vicinity, Britain has colonies on both american continents, colonies in Africa ,Asia and Africa, colonies in Ireland; Violence obviously ensue before these regions became colonies of Britain; Conclusion; the more centralized a state is, the more potential it possess to bring violence to far away lands and nearbylands;

[noblegas]

Sure - how about the average life expectancy from the time when there was anarchy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Lifespan_variation_over_time


Consider the possibility that the primary difference between humans today and humans 10,000 years ago that enabled everything we know of about modern life is governent. Government is the enabler of all of our advancement. It is why we don't still live in caves and die by age 30.
Anarchy was the way people lived for tens of thousands of years. Note that they weren't entirely free from government. Note also that what probably kept them from being conquered by a more organized society was the English Channel.

Life expectancy was low because we did not have any advancements in medicine, it has nothing to do with the types of government people have adopted; Life-expectancy was low in centralized societies too; And there aren't written accounts of the life expectancy of societies that did not have a written record history of their life expectancy so one cannot come to the conclusion that little to no governance of people equals low -life expectancy rates; From looking at recorded history, even as societies have transitioned from city-states to nation-states over the course of recorded history, it looks like the life expectancy rates pretty much remained stagnate up until the industial revolution; The industrial revolution was responsible for the improvement of the quality of life , not the accumulation of power; I suggest you read the Capitalist manifesto by andrew bernstein; He does a pretty good job of highlighting the life-expectancy rates of people before the pre-industrial revolution vs the life-expectancy rates of people after and during the inudstrial revolution;

[cristo]

Life expectancy was low because we did not have any advancements in medicine, it has nothing to do with the types of government people have adopted

But how would advancements in medicine have happened if there weren't a government. Where do you think the money comes from to support advancement in medicine (say)?

[noblegas]

You're really not thinking this through. All of those things are complicated. It requires an organized society to create a car or a video game. If there are 100,000 people working for a car company, doing what the car company tells them to, being protected by the car company's police force and fire department, using the car company's currency to buy goods, guess what: that's a government!

And since the car company has a lot of money, they can also afford to hire the biggest "security force". So what's to stop them from taking over the video game company, the shoe company and the farms?

Yes but nobody would be coerced into financing the car company just like we are now coerced into financing some nation's military; People could possibly have a myriad of choices in decided what car company they wished to do business with; I highly doubt the car company become as powerful as a nation to a degree where they are able just forced their customers to invade another territory to destroyed a rival car company; I will read that article by Levianthian but I suggest you also read an article by Murray Rothbard; He makes a good case for a stateless society; http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

[Astronuc]

There seems to be a preponderance for humans to form groups (village, clan, tribe, nation, . . .), and there seems to be a tendency for some individuals to become leaders of those groups. And some of those leaders like to lead the group they control to assert control over other groups or at least take the possessions (land or resources) of the other groups.

Large scale war seemed to be an inevitability of the tendency to form larger groups combined with the apparent inherent violence for some portion of those groups.

[noblegas]

But how would advancements in medicine have happened if there weren't a government. Where do you think the money comes from to support advancement in medicine (say)?

Many advances were made in communications ,flight,spaceflight, transportation, innovations in electricity by private hands; innovations in hygiene and sanitation were also made by private hands;For example, at lambert pharmeceutical company, Joseph lambert created listerine; Chris and edward scott invented indoor plumbing;William colgate invented toothpaste; james gamble participated in the business of manufauturing soap; All of these innovations were done by private hand, not direction from some czar or some pope; This information can be found in Andrew bernstein book, the capitalist manifesto(Berstein, andrew, the capitalistic manifesto 2005 pp. 114-119)

[russ_watters]

Many advances were made in communications ,flight,spaceflight, transportation, innovations in electricity by private hands; innovations in hygiene and sanitation were also made by private hands;For example, at lambert pharmeceutical company, Joseph lambert created listerine; Chris and edward scott invented indoor plumbing;William colgate invented toothpaste; james gamble participated in the business of manufauturing soap; All of these innovations were done by private hand, not direction from some czar or some pope; This information can be found in Andrew bernstein book, the capitalist manifesto(Berstein, andrew, the capitalistic manifesto 2005 pp. 114-119) Besides government money paying for most of those (you're flat wrong about most of them, btw*), advancements that do happen in the private sector are still only possible because of government.

*Communications - 90% government. The phone companies are government sponsored monopolies and cell phones are military/space technology.
Flight - invented by private inventors, but virtually all advancement of flight technology was government funded.
Spaceflight - duh.
Transportation - Rome's most lasting mark on history was her roads. Without roads, all other land transportation advances are useless.
Electricity - 90% government. The government sponsored monopolies built and control the electrical grid.
Sanitation/Hygeine - 98% government. The advances aren't what matters. What matters is that the government builds the swers and runs the fresh water. Sanitation is perhaps the most important advancement that enables modern society to exist. I highly doubt the car company become as powerful as a nation to a degree where they are able just forced their customers to invade another territory to destroyed a rival car company... Not their customers, their employees. Again, a car company that employs 100,000 people is a government. Whether they choose to invade and take over their neighbors (they would - that's what companies do) isn't really relevant to the fact that the car company is a government! nobody would be coerced into financing the car company... If the car company is the only government around, they most certainly can coerce you into financing them. You want electricity and water and police? You'll have to buy it from them. And, of course...you want a car...?

[russ_watters]

....I suggest you also read an article by Murray Rothbard; He makes a good case for a stateless society; http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html I'll have a look, but just fyi, no serious political scientist believes such things. If there can be such a thing as "political crackpoterry", anarchism is it. Anarchism is basically just naive daydreaming.

[Integral]

If there were no central form of government, do you think wars liked we had in the 20th century would be prevented or not occur very often? The more I think about, the more it makes sense to me; Think about it. Most of the participants involved in those major wars like WW1 , WW2, and the Vietnam war were drawn into those conflicts because to some degree, their country's government forced them to participate in those wars , whether their participation was beneficial for the individual or not and/or directly inflicted them or not; The conflicts did not directly affect most of the soldiers participating in whatever war was going on; Therefore, unnecessary manslaughter occurred on a vast scale; Alternative scenario: If we were in anarchical society where people hired their own source of protection rather than rely on a centralized police force everybody had to rely on, I think most conflicts would be local and not global and therefore mass slaughter would not ensue ; For example if person A had a dispute with person B about a source of petroleum popping out of the ground in who's territory , the conflict would be only between person A and person B, not person C, D, E, and every other letter not directly involved;

Absolutely, for the reasons already expressed in this thread, without big government there would be no BIG wars. However, history shows that it would not be the end of war. War would, as was historically true, be between local tribes or villages. In some ways this would make war a fact of life everyday for everybody. Is that really what you want?

[noblegas]

Besides government money paying for most of those (you're flat wrong about most of them, btw*), advancements that do happen in the private sector are still only possible because of government.
*Communications - 90% government. The phone companies are government sponsored monopolies and cell phones are military/space technology.

If the government continued to have a complete monopoly over the phone industry, advances would not have been made in phone technology ; We've all still would of had black phones and would have still been asking an operator to connect us to another line; Its when the government loosing its grip on the phone industry , real innovations in phones begin to occur; If the government continue to loosing its grip on the phone industry, more innovations will continue to occur;


Flight - invented by private inventors, but virtually all advancement of flight technology was government funded."
Spaceflight - duh.

Just because the government is responsible for spawning the spaceflight industry , doesn't mean it it is the only sole entity that can make advances in space flight; If private individuals were allowed to create spacecraft for business purposes in a more lenient fashion than they can now and the government didn't have a monopoly in the spaceflight industry, I predict that many more significant advances would have been made in spaceflight at a faster rate the advances in spaceflight provided by the US government;. The US post office is the provider for most people in the US , but that doesn't mean there are alternative mail carriers could not exists , look at the service fedex provides; The US military is responsible for spawning the internet and the mainframe computer, but most of the advances made in those two respective fields like the idea that a computer could be use for personal use ,webcam, ethernet , laser printing,google,P2P technology ,came from the minds of private individuals and private companies;


Transportation - Rome's most lasting mark on history was her roads. Without roads, all other land transportation advances are useless.
Electricity - 90% government. The government sponsored monopolies built and control the electrical grid.
Sanitation/Hygeine - 98% government. The advances aren't what matters. What matters is that the government builds the swers and runs the fresh water. Sanitation is perhaps the most important advancement that enables modern society to exist.

Listerine was not created by the government; Toothpaste was not created by the government; The inexpensive soap was not made by the government ; In addition, shampoo, toilet paper were not created by any government regime; I think its absurd to say advances in sanitation would not have been made had the government have not gotten involve; I liked to remind you that in the mid-1800's , capitalism was at its earlier stages and so of course advances in sanitation, hygeine and working condition would not be made right away; Those problems existed prior to the industrial revolution, when the government had full control over society and the economy. If it was the government and not capitalism that helped make advances in sanitation and hygeine , Then why weren't innovations made in such areas prior to the 1800's ? ; Why is pollution such a big problem in countries where the government has plays a larger role in its economy more so than countries with freer economies?
http://environment.about.com/od/pollution/a/top_10_polluted.htm
Not their customers, their employees. Again, a car company that employs 100,000 people is a government. Whether they choose to invade and take over their neighbors (they would - that's what companies do) isn't really relevant to the fact that the car company is a government!

If the car company is the only government around, they most certainly can coerce you into financing them. You want electricity and water and police? You'll have to buy it from them. And, of course...you want a car...? Again the car company can't theoretically be the only car company around if someone comes around who is better can offer cars cheaply and better quality made, people will flocked to that car company, just like Henry ford did in the late 1800's/early 1900's; No one would be forced to do business with that car company nor will that car company received any subsidies/loans from the government that give him economic advantages over his competitors; The US military would not be as powerful as it is now if it didn't contract out to private companies that manfactured airplanes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_United_States#Arm y_Signal_Corps.2C_August_2.2C_1909_to_April_6.2C_1 917

[noblegas]

Absolutely, for the reasons already expressed in this thread, without big government there would be no BIG wars. However, history shows that it would not be the end of war. War would, as was historically true, be between local tribes or villages. In some ways this would make war a fact of life everyday for everybody. Is that really what you want?

I wasn't trying to imply in my OP that war would end nor was I trying to insinuate that we would live in a utopia society if anarchy was the dominant form of government; I said individuals in a more decentralized society who are not directly involved in conflicts of neighbors far away would not have to be dragged into wars that don't concern them ; In centralized states, We were involved in two world wars , even though the conflicts that precipitated those world wars did not involved most individuals participating in those two major wars; You think the people in the colonies of the British empire would have volunteered to fight for Britain in ww1 if Britain did not have the power to basically coerced the peoples of its colonies to participate in WW1?

[noblegas]

political crackpoterry", anarchism Why do you think anarchy is 'political crockery' as you call it? It is just an a political ideology no different from other political ideologies , like laissez faire capitalism,libertarianism communism, and feminism.(yes feminism); Feminism was basically non-existent in most parts of the world ; what if someone said said'hey feminism is non-existent, best not exert any effort to make feminism a reality',women(at least in western societies) would not have been granted the same rights and privileges men were granted; People who support anarchy only want full sovereignty over their lives and not be forced to submit to the desired of a larger body like the state; People should not give up on an ideology so easily just because it has not worked well in one circumstance;

[cesiumfrog]

I think Russ's lapse was that instead of citing homicide rate (which is uniformly decreasing significantly through history and compared to primitive societies -- see Steven Pinker at TED (http://ted.com)) he used an indirect proxy (since part of the life expectancy really is due to sanitation, and the question of what caused that discovery isn't relevant to deciding governance systems for now that knowledge already exists).

The basic problem with anarchy is that someone has to judge what is fair. Disagreements will innocently arise when one person's assumed partner is romanced by someone else (is it the hippies or the puritans that decide whether a punishable crime has occured?), or when someone is blamed for a poorly-witnessed (possibly accidental) death, or when someone realises that your appropriating vital organs would save their life (or prolong their health). If the person that could field the most enforcers is automatically going to win, then that person is now a feudal governor. (Even if you disagree with some laws, at least a priori compulsory consistent governance offers the stability for progress.)

[noblegas]

I'll have a look, but just fyi, no serious political scientist believes such things. If there can be such a thing as "political crackpoterry", anarchism is it. Anarchism is basically just naive daydreaming.

noam chomsky, isn't well respected? I read a poll a number of years ago that most political science professors vote democratic; So I expect that most political scientists will favor an ideology closer to socialism/statism; Besides, political science isn't a science like physics or biology; It doesn't apply the scientific method for their would be social laws and theories analogous to Einstein theory of general relativity and Newton Law of gravitation. What ideology will work for a society is mainly subjective, not objective;

[negitron]

There seems to be a preponderance for humans to form groups....

I rarely do this unless I find it particularly grating: the word you wanted here is propensity.

Sorry. Carry on.

[CRGreathouse]

I wasn't trying to imply in my OP that war would end nor was I trying to insinuate that we would live in a utopia society if anarchy was the dominant form of government; I said individuals in a more decentralized society who are not directly involved in conflicts of neighbors far away would not have to be dragged into wars that don't concern them

Agreed. They'd be too busy fighting for their daily survival to fight people from far off, in general. Maybe you'd get raiding parties going to different cities to loot, but not much more than that.

Of course it's not a large step from an organized raiding party to a feudal society, so that might spell the end of anarchy per se.

[Vanadium 50]

Noblegas, before using the Roman empire as an example of, to quote a movie, "the violence inherent in the system", you mighty want to look up "Pax Romana". In fact, you might want to contrast the Roman Empire during the 1st and 2nd century with the period of anarchy in the 3rd.

And while Chomsky is a respected linguist, that doesn't make him a political scientist.

[Astronuc]

I rarely do this unless I find it particularly grating: the word you wanted here is propensity.

Sorry. Carry on.
Thanks for the correction. I was thinking of the preponderance of social groups that developed throughout history, so it's actually more than just a natural inclination.

[Astronuc]

With respect to the OP, I just happen to be researching the history of Lancshire and Yorkshire as part of my research into my ancestry. I just started reading John Walton's Lancashire: A Social History, 1558 - 1939. He describes Lancanshire of the 1500's as the poorest of counties, with the other 4 northern neighbor not much better.

"The limited number of substantial gentry families was reflected in the paucity of Justices of the Peace - only 24 for the whole county in 1564, despite administrative problems - and in the prevailing tendency to intermarriage within a narrow cousinhood of leading families. Even this county élite had an unenviable reputation for violence, parochalism and sexual laxity. Disputes were still be settled by pitched battles between bands of armed retainers, probably to a greater extent than in the rest of England (excepting the northern borders and not including Wales), and a surviving tradition of child marriages, with property and terretorial considerations uppermost, not doubt help to encourage the proliferation of mistresses, concubines and children . . . . " [p. 14]

Lanchashire was pretty anarchic. If you had something of value, someone was likely to take it. Whoever mustered the larger force was the likely winner in a dispute. This seems an inevitable situation - when one looks back 2000 years before that to the warring tribes/clans. Just look at the Picts (Caledonii) or Brigantes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonii
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigantes

Then along came the Vikings, Angles and Saxons, Normans, . . . . and the rest is violent history.

I also am reading Bernard Lewis's [I]The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years. One sees there much the same behavior - a small groups dominates it's neighbor, and down the road, there is Greek, Roman, Persian, . . . . empires and inevitable large scale wars. Later on the people of the steppes and desert areas got into the fray. Of the people of the steppes, Lewis quotes Ammianus Marcellinus's observation that: "The inhabitants of all the districts are savage and warlike and take such pleasure in war and conflict, that one who loses his life in battle is regarded as happy beyond all others. For those who depart from this life by a natural death they assail with insults, as degenerate and cowardly."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Britain - look at all the different tribes/peoples about 2000 years ago. Some groups just loved to fight, and if one happened to be in the way, one fought or fled, or died. If one fled, one more than likely would have fled into poverty.

[Phrak]

Thanks, Astronuc. That was informative, if not depressing. I've often wondered about this. We are ever so more polite snagging acorns from each other, today.

I wonder how well the history you've given translates across the globe and time to other tribal societies.

This-all begs the question; do people tend to organize no higher than tribes--extended family units, because they have the character to take by force, or do people take by force due to their tribal circumstances--or is it both?

The difference seems to revolve around the single ethic of property rights.

[Astronuc]

There is more to the chapter from which I took the quote. It goes on to talk about the role of the Church and Courts in resolving disputes as opposed to violence. It makes the comment that there was an increase in "lawyers" around the 1540's in Lancashire. It's a fascinating history.

Urban common rights, enclosure and the market: Clitheroe Town Moors, 1764–1802
http://www.bahs.org.uk/51n1a3.pdf

and

Rights of Cowling Freeholders
http://www.cowlingweb.co.uk/local_history/history/rights_of_cowling_freeholders_1927.asp


As for ". . . . individuals in a more decentralized society who are not directly involved in conflicts of neighbors far away would not have to be dragged into wars that don't concern them," most people didn't go to war, but rather it came to them. Just look at the invasions of the Roman Empire by the Visigoths and Ostrogoths, the Huns, then later the Mongols. The Huns actually put pressure on the Goths, Avars and Sarmatians, who pushed into the Roman Empire to get out of the way.


I strongly recommend Lewis's book on the Middle East. It describes the various drives about trade and economics, and politics and imperialism.

[arildno]

Anarchy is an UNSTABLE social state, in that any perturbation of it will propel the social state into something else:

It requires only one individual to wish to bully over others.

If they submit to him, anarchy is destroyed.


If they deliberate together, and agree that they must form a self-help group against outside aggressors, and that each of them must play their role in order for the collectivity to yield effective resistance, then anarchy is destroyed, too.

[noblegas]

Noblegas, before using the Roman empire as an example of, to quote a movie, "the violence inherent in the system", you mighty want to look up "Pax Romana". In fact, you might want to contrast the Roman Empire during the 1st and 2nd century with the period of anarchy in the 3rd.

And while Chomsky is a respected linguist, that doesn't make him a political scientist.

Just because one person did not formally study that subject he is given his opinions in, does not make him not an expert; Nietzsche was never formally trained in philosophy and he is one of the most influential philosophers of all time; In addition, Einstein was a well respected physicist by the tie the basic principles of quantum mechanics were being formulated , but he could never truly accept quantum mechanics, as indicated by his famous "god does not play dice quote"

[arildno]

In addition, Einstein was a well respected physicist by the tie the basic principles of quantum mechanics were being formulated
Eeh?

Einstein was fully competent at the quantum mechanics of his day; ever heard of why Bose-Einstein condensates are called...Bose-EINSTEIN condensates?

What he did not agree with was the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, and wanted to develop a field theory more in line with classical thinking that could derive the results and predictions in QM. he failed at that.


To regard Chomsky as the Einstein within political science is a rather astounding claim on your part..

[TVP45]

The problem with anarchy is not to be found by looking at idealistic or intellectual anarchists but rather at the ordinary person in an anarchical society. We have some instances where people come fairly close to that, though at first it might not seem so. Consider general population in any maximum security prison. There is no government, no accepted religion, no set of external ethics, save the ultimate threat of deadly violence. In such a setting, people are apt to do whatever serves their own survival, needs, or desires. If prisoner A has a box of candy bars, and prisoner B wants those, then it becomes a matter of which prisoner is physically stronger, or wilier, or deadlier. This, in fact, is unstable and leads prisoners to form self-governments (we call these gangs). These gangs look something like small states in that they create internal rules, rules for cooperating or negotiating with other "states", and punishment for those who transgress. The end result is that the only anarchy in prison is among those who are victimized by these gangs.

[CRGreathouse]

In such a setting, people are apt to do whatever serves their own survival, needs, or desires. If prisoner A has a box of candy bars, and prisoner B wants those, then it becomes a matter of which prisoner is physically stronger, or wilier, or deadlier. This, in fact, is unstable and leads prisoners to form self-governments (we call these gangs). These gangs look something like small states in that they create internal rules, rules for cooperating or negotiating with other "states", and punishment for those who transgress. The end result is that the only anarchy in prison is among those who are victimized by these gangs.

I quoted your post to disagree with "unstable", but I see now that we understand the situation the same way.

[eyebeam]

Anarchy is all fun and games until someone steals your bike.

[noblegas]

Eeh?

Einstein was fully competent at the quantum mechanics of his day; ever heard of why Bose-Einstein condensates are called...Bose-EINSTEIN condensates?

What he did not agree with was the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, and wanted to develop a field theory more in line with classical thinking that could derive the results and predictions in QM. he failed at that.


To regard Chomsky as the Einstein within political science is a rather astounding claim on your part..

I never said he was incompetent in quantum mechanics; I am aware that einstein made significant contributions to quantum mechanics; I am saying on a personal level, einstein did not accept quantum mechanics because some of the ideas that sprang from quantum mechanics was so counterintuitive to him;

you are putting words in my mouth; I never said that Chomsky was the Einstein of political science; I was not even making the analogy between einstein and chomsky; I said that experts in a field of study don't always know the direction to take their field of study in; Sometimes outsiders have to steer the field in the right direction; Being an outsider is not an automatic disqualifier to making contributions to a particular field is the claim I was trying to convey;

[arildno]

So Chomsky was steering political science in the right direction by cheering on the mass murders under Pol Pot?

He hasn't learned a thing since then; now he is cheering on various Islam-inspired death cults to do their great work.

[noblegas]

So Chomsky was steering political science in the right direction by cheering on the mass murders under Pol Pot?

He hasn't learned a thing since then; now he is cheering on various Islam-inspired death cults to do their great work.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth; When did I ever say I chomsky was steering political science in the right direction?Never! I probably should have used nietschze in my original example;

[noblegas]

Anarchy is all fun and games until someone steals your bike.

Anarchy means you would live in a less secure society than we currently leave; That means you would just have you will have to look after your property yourself or you would have to hire someone too look after it for you

[arildno]

Again, you are putting words in my mouth; When did I ever say I chomsky was steering political science in the right direction?Never! I probably should have used nietschze in my original example;
Why did you even mention Chomsky???

[noblegas]

Why did you even mention Chomsky???

Because he just happened to be a person who is influential to many people and people take his opinions on political matters seriously and he takes the theory of anarchy into serious consideration;

[eyebeam]

So Chomsky was steering political science in the right direction by cheering on the mass murders under Pol Pot?

He hasn't learned a thing since then; now he is cheering on various Islam-inspired death cults to do their great work.

Please provide a quote with references for Chomsky "cheering on" Pol-Pot/"various Islam-inspired death cults", unless you're just lying.

[Phrak]

Please provide a quote with references for Chomsky "cheering on" Pol-Pot/"various Islam-inspired death cults", unless you're just lying.

Noam Chomsky the linguist?

[WhoWee]

I'll have a look, but just fyi, no serious political scientist believes such things. If there can be such a thing as "political crackpoterry", anarchism is it. Anarchism is basically just naive daydreaming.

A good place to test his ideas may be in the area around Mogadishu, Somalia with the warlords and pirates. I understand there are some enterprising folks there.:uhh:

[russ_watters]

If the government continued to have a complete monopoly over the phone industry, advances would not have been made in phone technology ; We've all still would of had black phones and would have still been asking an operator to connect us to another line; Its when the government loosing its grip on the phone industry , real innovations in phones begin to occur; If the government continue to loosing its grip on the phone industry, more innovations will continue to occur; That's just plain flat-out wrong, as are your other examples. It just didn't happen that way. Just because the government is responsible for spawning the spaceflight industry , doesn't mean it it is the only sole entity that can make advances in space flight; If private individuals were allowed to create spacecraft for business purposes in a more lenient fashion than they can now and the government didn't have a monopoly in the spaceflight industry, I predict that many more significant advances would have been made in spaceflight at a faster rate the advances in spaceflight provided by the US government That one's even worse. The reason space flight is and always has been a government function is cost vs return. The costs are enormous and the potential for profit tiny. The government does not today and never has restricted commercial spaceflight - it (commercial spaceflight) simply didn't happen because there was no way for it to happen. There are some potentials for commercial satellite launching coming, but as far as I know, none of them are ground-up designs. In other words, virtually all of our satellites are launched by ICBMs, developed with military funding. Why? Because it costs too much for a company to develop such technology on their own.

This isn't a forum where you can just say whatever you feel like believing is true. It isn't a wishful thinking or idle speculation forum. Yes, even social sciences must be based in facts and historical examples here. You are saying things that are factually wrong in an effort to support a point that is at best, poorly thought out wishful thinking.

I'm not going to dissect your other examples one by one - they are no better than these. Why do you think anarchy is 'political crockery' as you call it? It is just an a political ideology no different from other political ideologies , like laissez faire capitalism,libertarianism communism... The others aren't just ideologies, but political theories. These are ideas that have been developed through logical thought, put into practice, and tested. What makes crackpottery crackpottery - whether in science or politics or whatever is when an idea is tested and fails and people refuse to accept the failure or try to argue the failure into a success. And doing so requires just plain factually wrong arguments, such as the ones you have provided. noam chomsky, isn't well respected? Noam Chomsky is a political crackpot and is well respected only by other political crackpots. We have another thread going where someone pulled a youtube video to question something he said on it - he flat-out lied about income progress in the US. He does that.

noblegas, you need to start connecting your arguments to reality better. This thread is problematic at best and can only continue if it is based on facts and logic, not idle speculation and wishful thinking.

[russ_watters]

I think Russ's lapse was that instead of citing homicide rate (which is uniformly decreasing significantly through history and compared to primitive societies -- see Steven Pinker at TED (http://ted.com)) he used an indirect proxy (since part of the life expectancy really is due to sanitation, and the question of what caused that discovery isn't relevant to deciding governance systems for now that knowledge already exists). You're right - sanitation largely masks the issue. And it doesn't help that some ancient societies did have better sanitation than others. Still, running water and sewers aren't possible without a highly organized society, whether in the modern world or in Rome or the Aztec empire.

Anyway, I've heard about the murder rate in history being higher, but googling is tough to find facts on this one - do you have any you can cite?

[mheslep]

...Noam Chomsky is a political crackpot and is well respected only by other political crackpots... Edit: already said above by vanadium
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2312911&postcount=25

[noblegas]

That's just plain flat-out wrong, as are your other examples. It just didn't happen that way.

. The US government did not show favoritism towards the bell phone company from 1877-1984? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System, http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-6.html,http://www.telephonymuseum.com/History%201940-today.htm,http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment

FCC allowed businesses to operate the communications lines(http://www.telephonymuseum.com/History%201940-today.htm);

are you just going to flat out deny that individuals not affiliated with any government research institution did not make any contributions that would make the telephone more convenient and cheaper to its consumers and it was only government research? Your going to deny that people like Dr. Cooper from the Motorola company are not pioneers in the mobile phone industry?(http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13725793),http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/
and newer phone innovations like the iphone made by steve jobs http://www.macworld.com/article/54764/2007/01/liveupdate.html;

Here is a website containing a list of innovations in the mobile phone invented by individuals and individuals at private phone companies
http://www.cell-phone-accessories.com/timeline-cell-phones.html
The

Tell me how was the FCC responsible for those two innovations I listed;

The others aren't just ideologies, but political theories. These are ideas that have been developed through logical thought, put into practice, and tested. What makes crackpottery crackpottery - whether in science or politics or whatever is when an idea is tested and fails and people refuse to accept the failure or try to argue the failure into a success. And doing so requires just plain factually wrong arguments, such as the ones you have provided.


I was talking about world wars, not local conflicts between two or more individuals fighting. I acknowledge that conflict will not cease because its in our human nature to be violent but it is also natural to want to have full control over your life and not want anyone else to direct your life; Show me a country where you are not directly responsible for initiating a war , but are financing the war or directly participated in that war ; I advocated anarchy not for utopian reasons but for having complete sovereignty over your life and not being conscripted into a war you did not helped create; How would you addressed those problems in our current society I've pointed out? Would you be for a voluntary war and a voluntary tax that finances a war?

That one's even worse. The reason space flight is and always has been a government function is cost vs return. The costs are enormous and the potential for profit tiny. The government does not today and never has restricted commercial spaceflight - it (commercial spaceflight) simply didn't happen because there was no way for it to happen. There are some potentials for commercial satellite launching coming, but as far as I know, none of them are ground-up designs. In other words, virtually all of our satellites are launched by ICBMs, developed with military funding. Why? Because it costs too much for a company to develop such technology on their own.

This isn't a forum where you can just say whatever you feel like believing is true. It isn't a wishful thinking or idle speculation forum. Yes, even social sciences must be based in facts and historical examples here. You are saying things that are factually wrong in an effort to support a point that is at best, poorly thought out wishful thinking.

I'm not going to dissect your other examples one by one - they are no better than these.

Like spaceflight , Up until 1951, computers used to be used mainly for military and scientific purposes and also used to be very expensive because of the large vacuum tubeshttp://library.thinkquest.org/27629/chronicle/1951.html; The integrate circuit, an essential electronic device was invented simultaneous by http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/kilbyctr/jackbuilt.shtml at Texas instruments and Robert joyce at the William shockley laboratoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Noyce#cite_note-5,http://www.themanbehindthemicrochip.com/; Computers became very cheap when visionaries like Bill gates , paul allen and various other individuals representing various personal computers companies that emerged in the late 1970s saw its wide applicability and commercial value;(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_personal_computers);
None of these great minds invented those devices essential to our modern society under the direction of some government bureaucrat;
Now why couldn't the spaceflight industry go through the same process that the computer industry went through to become a cheap commodity?

[Astronuc]

Now why couldn't the spaceflight industry go through the same process that the computer industry went through to become a cheap commodity? Calculate the energy requirement to lift 1 kg of mass into orbit, say 200 miles above the earth's surface, or even better, to escape velocity at 200 miles above the earth's surface. Then multiply by one's mass, and the mass food, water, oxygen and spacecraft carrying one. Or just assume 100 MT.

Now multiply by the $/J.

Rough estimate is about $10,000/kg to put person and their life support in space. It's not trivial and it takes alot of people and a lot of energy - which cost a lot.

[noblegas]

Calculate the energy requirement to lift 1 kg of mass into orbit, say 200 miles above the earth's surface, or even better, to escape velocity at 200 miles above the earth's surface. Then multiply by one's mass, and the mass food, water, oxygen and spacecraft carrying one. Or just assume 100 MT.

Now multiply by the $/J.

Rough estimate is about $10,000/kg to put person and their life support in space. It's not trivial and it takes alot of people and a lot of energy - which cost a lot.

Have there been any space manufacturing processes implemented to attempt to make the the construction of the space-aircraft less expensive? Or has the construction process and price mode remain mostly unchanged since the dawn of the Space age?

[jackqpublic]

<i>Rough estimate is about $10,000/kg to put person and their life support in space. It's not trivial and it takes alot of people and a lot of energy - which cost a lot.</i>

<p>Those are the costs today. What was the cost of computing back in it's infancy?
<p>Subject space exploration to the same market forces and applications and guess what...innovation will explode (so to speak) and costs will drop.

[jackqpublic]

Those are the costs today. What was the cost of computing back in it's infancy?
Subject space exploration to the same market forces and applications and guess what...innovation will explode (so to speak) and costs will drop.

[mheslep]

Those are the costs today. What was the cost of computing back in it's infancy?
Subject space exploration to the same market forces and applications and guess what...innovation will explode (so to speak) and costs will drop.Different problems. Moving mass up and out of the Earth's gravity well requires a certain amount of energy which is fixed by the laws of physics, as does transportation in general. Increasing the integration while reducing the size of integrated circuit electronics is largely about managing complexity which is bread and butter for engineers.

An analogy in human terms might be reading/language skills versus running. From childhood to adulthood reading and language skills advance by orders or magnitude, indeed one can continue to learn other languages, and we know of savants that can memorize phone books. In other words, these skills are about information. On the other hand, a speedy 12 year old is only ~30% slower than the world's fastest human across 100M (~9.5s), and no savant or diet or even drug cocktail is going to improve on that by orders of magnitude because of the underlying physics.

[Galteeth]

Depends on your definition of anarchy. If you take it as the the total lack of use of coercive force, then by definition, yes.

In regards to the rest of this thread, political discussions tend to run into semantic problems. Strictly speaking, there is only one course human events can take. So any supposition of what "could" or "should" be is, in a sense, naive daydreaming. However, humans operate on the premise of free will, so these discussions still take place. I just find it amusing that some ideas, which are ultimately based on morality (what one thinks should happen) as oppossed to scientific investigation (what's going to happen, independent of it's "right or wrong" qualities) are considered any more fantastical then others.

[Astronuc]

Those are the costs today. What was the cost of computing back in it's infancy?
Subject space exploration to the same market forces and applications and guess what...innovation will explode (so to speak) and costs will drop. The cost of satellite launches has come down somewhat, and part of that is due to better technology. However, the cost of human space flight does not decrease similarly, because it is so capital (infrastructure) and energy intensive. The cost of energy is not decreasing, but increasing, because the demand is increasing and the principal resources are finite in supply.

The cost of building nuclear power plants has increased with the cost of basic materials like steel and concrete, but also the increased cost of specialized technology. Building large engineered systems, e.g., nuclear power plant, aircraft carrier or submarine, large commercial aircraft, high rise office building, . . . is way more complicated than constructing a disposable commodity like a microchip, hard-drive or lightbulb. Furthermore, if a computer chip, hard-drive or lightbulb fails, it is not a life-and-death situation. One simply replaces the failed component. If a spacecraft fails, it could mean the death of the occupants. Human beings are not considered disposable.

Space-craft, especially those which return to the earth's surface, or land on other planet or moon with significant gravity, are some of the most highly engineered systems humankind has devised. They are designed, built and operated by thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians, and they are resource intensive.

For comparison, take the energy required to launch the Space Shuttle on an average mission to the space station (ISS), and then figure out how many miles one could travel in a car at 30 mpg, and figure the cost of the fuel. The add to that the cost of food, water for such a venture. And that does not include taking along the air one breathes (which is free on earth).

But this discussion is way off topic.

The OP asks whether or not 'anarchy' would have prevented world wars.

I heard a discussion about the anarchic state in Somalia. Certainly Somalia is not going to start a world war, but elements of that society are engaged in piracy and kidnapping, and in some cases, their problems are spilling over into neighboring states. If left unchecked, their instability could spread to other parts of the region. The powers to be have to intervene.

[noblegas]

The OP asks whether or not 'anarchy' would have prevented world wars.

I heard a discussion about the anarchic state in Somalia. Certainly Somalia is not going to start a world war, but elements of that society are engaged in piracy and kidnapping, and in some cases, their problems are spilling over into neighboring states. If left unchecked, their instability could spread to other parts of the region. The powers to be have to intervene.

yes, but you have to take into consideration the history of conflict in those regions as well as other variables like finite resources like access to water and rich minerals that might sparked such conflicts. And you should also examine the previous regime that was in place that led to the exploision of violence that would occur in somalia. I looked at briefs periods/instances of anarchy in regions of the world throughout history like the Reign of terror that took place during the french revolution and the briefs periods of anarchy between the october revolution and the formation of the USSR. These periods of anarchy preceded former regimes that were oppressive to there countrymen , whether apathetically or intentionally. Somalia is following the same pattern that Russia and france formerly followed when a regime was toppled;

[arildno]

But to let democracy "evolve" (others would say DEGENERATE) into anarchy is something you wish to happen?

[WhoWee]

yes, but you have to take into consideration the history of conflict in those regions as well as other variables like finite resources like access to water and rich minerals that might sparked such conflicts. And you should also examine the previous regime that was in place that led to the exploision of violence that would occur in somalia. I looked at briefs periods/instances of anarchy in regions of the world throughout history like the Reign of terror that took place during the french revolution and the briefs periods of anarchy between the october revolution and the formation of the USSR. These periods of anarchy preceded former regimes that were oppressive to there countrymen , whether apathetically or intentionally. Somalia is following the same pattern that Russia and france formerly followed when a regime was toppled;

Can you name one place on the planet that hasn't had conflict?

It make sense that oppression would follow anarchy - it restores order (for every action there is...total chaos leads to total control). Once the oppressive control is no longer needed - democracy becomes possible.

Anarchy is a reasonable beginning and cause of conflict, not the answer to avoiding conflict.

[Astronuc]

yes, but you have to take into consideration the history of conflict in those regions as well as other variables like finite resources like access to water and rich minerals that might sparked such conflicts. And you should also examine the previous regime that was in place that led to the exploision of violence that would occur in somalia. I looked at briefs periods/instances of anarchy in regions of the world throughout history like the Reign of terror that took place during the french revolution and the briefs periods of anarchy between the october revolution and the formation of the USSR. These periods of anarchy preceded former regimes that were oppressive to there countrymen , whether apathetically or intentionally. Somalia is following the same pattern that Russia and france formerly followed when a regime was toppled; Please provide an example of an anarchic state that was successful - and everyone was happy, content, well fed, and there was no violence - at least not from within the society.

[noblegas]

But to let democracy "evolve" (others would say DEGENERATE) into anarchy is something you wish to happen?

If you are talking about the US , we don't live in a democracy, we supposedly have constitutional republic as are form government . But in actuality, the creed laid out by the founding fathers is not being practiced very well where the federal government only intervenes in cases where there is an individuals or group of individuals are violating the property rights and liberty's of others. In many instances, the federal government has arrested people for not violating those basic rights; For heavensakes , we are supposedly the freest nation on the planet, yet , our nation has the highest prison population and we have a prison population where almost half of the prisoners are doing time for victimless crimes( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm) and prison population exponential grew coincidally when the war on drug was conceived and implemented into public policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarceration_timeline-clean.svg) even the violence has pretty much declined for the past 25 or so years;(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm); If you did not know the CIA has been responsible for participating acts of violence such as toppling regimes in various countries throughout the Middle East , Asia, and South/central america and reinstalling dictatorships who they believe will protect US interests; Where is it written in the US constitution that we toppled foreign regimes in foreign countries that don't attack ; and Don't get me started on Cointelpro(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro) and Jim Crow(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow);

You see, this are the number of regimes why I am not satisfied with our government currently; Governments may start out with the best of intentions, but history has shown time and time again that government will be corroded over time and political corrosion will eventually create poliltical corruption and many cases , political oppressions;

[noblegas]

Please provide an example of an anarchic state that was successful - and everyone was happy, content, well fed, and there was no violence - at least not from within the society.

I admit, I don't know of any at the top of my head. As I said numerous time already, I wasn't envisioning a utopian society, I was envisioning a society where you had complete control of your life, not the state and a society where you were not dragged into some war or forced to pay for it against your will through conscription/taxation that does not involved you at all. However, do you know of any society/countries ruled by a central government where there was not a tinge of corruption within that government regime and there was no call for any reforms or complete overthrows of the government and people where just content with their government since the formation of centrally controlled society from the far-reaches of a tribe;

[WhoWee]

If you are talking about the US , we don't live in a democracy, we supposedly have constitutional republic as are form government . But in actuality, the creed laid out by the founding fathers is not being practiced very well where the federal government only intervenes in cases where there is an individuals or group of individuals are violating the property rights and liberty's of others. In many instances, the federal government has arrested people for not violating those basic rights; For heavensakes , we are supposedly the freest nation on the planet, yet , our nation has the highest prison population and we have a prison population where almost half of the prisoners are doing time for victimless crimes( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm) and prison population exponential grew coincidally when the war on drug was conceived and implemented into public policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarceration_timeline-clean.svg) even the violence has pretty much declined for the past 25 or so years;(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm); If you did not know the CIA has been responsible for participating acts of violence such as toppling regimes in various countries throughout the Middle East , Asia, and South/central america and reinstalling dictatorships who they believe will protect US interests; Where is it written in the US constitution that we toppled foreign regimes in foreign countries that don't attack ; and Don't get me started on Cointelpro(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro) and Jim Crow(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow);

You see, this are the number of regimes why I am not satisfied with our government currently; Governments may start out with the best of intentions, but history has shown time and time again that government will be corroded over time and political corrosion will eventually create poliltical corruption and many cases , political oppressions;

Your post demonstrates violent offenders as a % of the prison population has risen, and drug offenses are down.

"Percent of sentenced
State inmates
1995 2005
Total 100 % 100 %
Violent 47 53
Property 23 19
Drug 22 20
Public-order 9 8 "

[noblegas]

Your post demonstrates violent offenders as a % of the prison population has risen, and drug offenses are down.

"Percent of sentenced
State inmates
1995 2005
Total 100 % 100 %
Violent 47 53
Property 23 19
Drug 22 20
Public-order 9 8 "


For some reason, my link for homicide rate did not load properly;





http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/Ncsucr2.gif

[Galteeth]

In order for a reasonable discussion on this topic to ensue, you have to pin down a precise definition of anarchy. Very few (if any) anarchists define anarchy in the sense the majority of posters seem to be using the word.

There is a list on wikipedia chronicling societies that have been anarchies under some definitions or had anarchistic features.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

[WhoWee]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

* Main Entry: an·ar·chy
* Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-
* Date: 1539

1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

[Galteeth]

Those dictionary definitions are all somewhat different. Furthermore, they contain terms that are vague. How does one, for example, define government? I could easily argue that Somalia does not qualify as anarchy since its condition is not an absence of government, but rather, an adundance of small competing governments.

Or take authority. The definition of this is argued amongst different anarchist camps, and the meaning one derives will likely determine which "niche" of anarchist one is (assuming one defines oneself as an anarchist). Here is an example of one point of view (inclusive) in regards to definitions of anarchism.

http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part6

And here is the opposite point of view (exclusive).

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append1.html

[noblegas]

Those dictionary definitions are all somewhat different. Furthermore, they contain terms that are vague. How does one, for example, define government? I could easily argue that Somalia does not qualify as anarchy since its condition is not an absence of government, but rather, an adundance of small competing governments.

Or take authority. The definition of this is argued amongst different anarchist camps, and the meaning one derives will likely determine which "niche" of anarchist one is (assuming one defines oneself as an anarchist). Here is an example of one point of view (inclusive) in regards to definitions of anarchism.

http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part6

And here is the opposite point of view (exclusive).

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append1.html

Thats a very good point. Just like the red and white armies after the russian revolution and up until the soviet union , small regimes compete to filled in the vacuum until at least one of them is more successful than all of the other competing regimes; I think this has been one of the main reasons anarchy has not been a successful theory in practice; I think for a true anarchy to exist, then all humans would desired for a system of self-governance and no desired to try to control the lives of there fellow man; But is such mode of thinking possible to carry out in practice? Perhaps we could eliminate are desired to control the lives of other on a conscious and sub-conscious level just like we've eliminated cannabalism throughout most of western society;

[Galteeth]

@noblegas:

I agree, and I'm a self-defined anarchist. I see it more as a personal moral code then an overarching system.

Sort of like how one might think murder is wrong, but acknowledge that murder will still take place.

[WhoWee]

@noblegas:

I agree, and I'm a self-defined anarchist. I see it more as a personal moral code then an overarching system.

Sort of like how one might think murder is wrong, but acknowledge that murder will still take place.

Does a "self-defined anarchist" have a drivers license, license plates, car insurance, social security card, Deed or lease agreement, mortgage, life insurance, debit card, FDIC insured bank accounts, credit cards, draft registration, mailing address, health insurance or public assistance of any type, school loans, diplomas, utility services, shop at grocery stores, or hold a job - have an internet account?

If the "self-defined anarchist" has more than 2 or 3 of the above mentioned, I'd like to read their "definition".

[noblegas]

Does a "self-defined anarchist" have a drivers license, license plates, car insurance, social security card, Deed or lease agreement, mortgage, life insurance, debit card, FDIC insured bank accounts, credit cards, draft registration, mailing address, health insurance or public assistance of any type, school loans, diplomas, utility services, shop at grocery stores, or hold a job - have an internet account?

If the "self-defined anarchist" has more than 2 or 3 of the above mentioned, I'd like to read their "definition".

Why did you include an internet account, health insurance, credit cards and grocery stores in this group? Some of those categories are supplied by private institutions; A person can be an anarchist in the philosophical sense but still live in a world where anarchy is not promoted if he has no choice but to adapt to the given conditions within his environment; There were communists and socialists roaming around in czarist Russia before the Russian revolution ;

[WhoWee]

Why did you include an internet account, health insurance, credit cards and grocery stores in this group? Some of those categories are supplied by private institutions; A person can be an anarchist in the philosophical sense but still live in a world where anarchy is not promoted if he has no choice but to adapt to the given conditions within his environment; There were communists and socialists roaming around in czarist Russia before the Russian revolution ;

Do you honestly believe the internet, the electrical grid, hospital systems, a banking system and a distribution system (trucks and highways) would exist under anarchy?

You sound like Obama telling us that insuring 46,000,000 additional people will save money.

A person who contemplates in a philosophical world often faces difficulties adapting the ideals to the real world.

[Galteeth]

Well WhoWe, to answer your question, I have some of those things. I look at anarchist morality as being roughly equivalent to a philosophy of non-violence. So i try not to use violence or support violence, as much as possible.
There are of course compromises one has to make. I obviously pay some tax. I tend to think of it on a very local scale anyway. (For example, there was a dispute at the gas station the other day where i was severely overcharged, and during the subsequent argument, was assaulted by the attendant. Now, if I had called the police, I probably would have "gotten what I wanted" in so far as my money back, but since it wasn't a life-threatening situation, it seemed immoral to me to resort to violence to solve the problem.)

It seems you are suggesting that any philosophy or morality that is not currently one hundred percent applicable and "pure" in all situations is invalid. One can, for example be an environmentalist who is concerned (morally) about climate change, but still have a carbon footprint. The example of non-violence is probably a bit more absolute, but the definition of "supporting " violence, or institutions that lead to violence, can begin to get a bit abstract and impractical given the reality of a violent society. For example, let's say i buy a product. I am giving money to the company that produced it. Do I suspect that these producers have never used violence (or more specifically state power)? No, i don't and when possible i try to support small business and local prodcution. That said, I'll still eat corn that was grown with government subsidies.

For my own purposes, I tend to focus more on the act (or the immediate threat) of violence as oppossed to its consequences.



As far as your question regarding the internet and such, to me that question basically reduces to "Could the internet exist without violence?" I say of course it could.

Now if you want to start talking about whether violence is the most efficient means to organize society (i.e. you could claim that a society that wasn't organized by violence would never spontaneously produce an internet) we can start discussing objective things instead of moral values.

[WhoWee]

Well WhoWe, to answer your question, I have some of those things. I look at anarchist morality as being roughly equivalent to a philosophy of non-violence. So i try not to use violence or support violence, as much as possible.
There are of course compromises one has to make. I obviously pay some tax. I tend to think of it on a very local scale anyway. (For example, there was a dispute at the gas station the other day where i was severely overcharged, and during the subsequent argument, was assaulted by the attendant. Now, if I had called the police, I probably would have "gotten what I wanted" in so far as my money back, but since it wasn't a life-threatening situation, it seemed immoral to me to resort to violence to solve the problem.)

It seems you are suggesting that any philosophy or morality that is not currently one hundred percent applicable and "pure" in all situations is invalid. One can, for example be an environmentalist who is concerned (morally) about climate change, but still have a carbon footprint. The example of non-violence is probably a bit more absolute, but the definition of "supporting " violence, or institutions that lead to violence, can begin to get a bit abstract and impractical given the reality of a violent society. For example, let's say i buy a product. I am giving money to the company that produced it. Do I suspect that these producers have never used violence (or more specifically state power)? No, i don't and when possible i try to support small business and local prodcution. That said, I'll still eat corn that was grown with government subsidies.

For my own purposes, I tend to focus more on the act (or the immediate threat) of violence as oppossed to its consequences.



As far as your question regarding the internet and such, to me that question basically reduces to "Could the internet exist without violence?" I say of course it could.

Now if you want to start talking about whether violence is the most efficient means to organize society (i.e. you could claim that a society that wasn't organized by violence would never spontaneously produce an internet) we can start discussing objective things instead of moral values.

Your definition of anarchy is non-violence?

Also, calling the Police because you were robbed and assaulted would have been a violent act?

[Galteeth]

Your definition of anarchy is non-violence?

Also, calling the Police because you were robbed and assaulted would have been a violent act?

Yes to both.

On the second one, self-defense is also a violent act, but one I find acceptable. It all comes down to personal value judgements. If someone assaults me, I don't retaliate after the fact.

[WhoWee]

I have another definition for you to consider.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pacifist

* Main Entry: pac·i·fist
* Pronunciation: \ˈpa-sə-fist\
* Variant(s): or pac·i·fis·tic \ˌpa-sə-ˈfis-tik\
* Function: adjective
* Date: 1908

1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of pacifism or pacifists
2 : strongly and actively opposed to conflict and especially war

— pac·i·fis·ti·cal·ly \ˌpa-sə-ˈfis-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

[Galteeth]

I have another definition for you to consider.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pacifist

* Main Entry: pac·i·fist
* Pronunciation: \ˈpa-sə-fist\
* Variant(s): or pac·i·fis·tic \ˌpa-sə-ˈfis-tik\
* Function: adjective
* Date: 1908

1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of pacifism or pacifists
2 : strongly and actively opposed to conflict and especially war

— pac·i·fis·ti·cal·ly \ˌpa-sə-ˈfis-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb


I think the two are closely related.

[mheslep]

I think the two are closely related.Not by definition or in practice.

[Astronuc]

I admit, I don't know of any at the top of my head. As I said numerous time already, I wasn't envisioning a utopian society, I was envisioning a society where you had complete control of your life, not the state and a society where you were not dragged into some war or forced to pay for it against your will through conscription/taxation that does not involved you at all. However, do you know of any society/countries ruled by a central government where there was not a tinge of corruption within that government regime and there was no call for any reforms or complete overthrows of the government and people where just content with their government since the formation of centrally controlled society from the far-reaches of a tribe; I don't know of anyone who is complete control of one's life. Nature can be pretty harsh sometimes.

Perhaps remote tribes in New Guinea, Australia, S. Asia, S. America or Africa might be as close to anarchy as one would find. But many primitive tribes eventually collided over territory or resources.

Humans formed groups for mutual benefit, but then they had to deal with members of the group wanting to dominate. In some cases, elders were sought out to mediate disputes which seem inevitable to human populations. If the elders are simply comfortable to resolve conflicts and nothing more, that's probably as close as one comes to an anarchic society (based on the definition of anarchy inferring the absence of government).

There are also examples of societies in which the group can collectively decide to sanction a member who misbehaves. Is this allowed under the definition of anarchy?

[arildno]

Nah, Astronuc.

Anarchy arrives, in its most beautous form, when each individual becomes a law giver and law enforcer in his own right, especially in wielding sanctioning power against the miscreants of his own designation..

[Astronuc]

Anarchy arrives, in its most beautous form, when each individual becomes a law giver and law enforcer in his own right, especially in wielding sanctioning power against the miscreants of his own designation.. People in the most beautious form do not lie, cheat, steal, or hurt or harm others - but rather are:

Trustworthy,
Loyal,
Helpful,
Friendly,
Courteous,
Kind,
Obedient,
Cheerful,
Thrifty,
Brave,
Clean,
and Reverent.


:biggrin:

[noblegas]

I don't know of anyone who is complete control of one's life. Nature can be pretty harsh sometimes.



It was not my intention to imply that if one living within an absolute free society, one person alone had to gather all the goods and services he considered essential to her survival. Since most natural resources are in finite quantities, some people or groups of people will have easier access to one particular natural resource than other groups of people; I would still advocate free trade under this society; What I don't advocate is coercion, i.e. people being forced to pay for institutions like, healthcare, education, roads, Israel's healthcare , etc especially if they do not considered it essential for their own personal survival; When I say I want a person to have complete control over their own life, I am explicitly talking about being able to have full reign over deciding if you want to be of assistance to a person or if you don't that person to have assistance and them to be completely self-reliant;

Humans formed groups for mutual benefit, but then they had to deal with members of the group wanting to dominate. In some cases, elders were sought out to mediate disputes which seem inevitable to human populations. If the elders are simply comfortable to resolve conflicts and nothing more, that's probably as close as one comes to an anarchic society (based on the definition of anarchy inferring the absence of government).

Totally agree.Only I want humans to form groups naturally to form economic and social relationships and resolve their dispute own their own or have a third party to come in to assist the two persons who are disputing each other. Government today stills acts as that dominate force you are referring to when you were talking about the third party group that wants to take control of the smaller tribe in tribal communities; The government may prevent us from violently attack one another, at least on the surface, but we are still forced to financially support a number of goods and services the government considers "essential" or if you refuse to pay for the services you don't use, you will be arrested for "tax-evasion";

[arildno]

Should it be allowed to coerce a coercer from using coercion in your paradise?

[ViewsofMars]

People in the most beautious form do not lie, cheat, steal, or hurt or harm others - but rather are:

Trustworthy,
Loyal,
Helpful,
Friendly,
Courteous,
Kind,
Obedient,
Cheerful,
Thrifty,
Brave,
Clean,
and Reverent.


:biggrin:

Yes, that is a very nice list. I like it. However the word "obedient" at my age means being responsible for paying the bills on time.(tee hee)

I think a healthy frame of mind does unleash a feeling of hope and power. :smile:

[arildno]

Furthermore, noblegas:

Do you feel a teensy weenie titillation at the prospect of DESTROYING the society actually around you, in order to allow your paradise to flourish?

:smile:

[noblegas]

Furthermore, noblegas:

Do you feel a teensy weenie titillation at the prospect of DESTROYING the society actually around you, in order to allow your paradise to flourish?

:smile:

Again , I NEVER said that the stateless society I am envisioning would be a paradise; Trying to create a paradise is a pipe dream for the obvious reason of the many flaws that are characteristic of the human species,; The only paradise you would be able to create would be a paradise for AI machines that were designed to be morally superior to human beings; I would desire a stateless society , only for the sake of self-governance and for third parties not to be dragged into/ or forced to finance these conflicts that don't pertain to them; (US civil war, WW1, WW2, hundreds years war , vietnam war); Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets; Yes, Lets allow one person to have the potential to destroy and breakdown the society around them,i.e. hitler, mao-zetong, stalin, slaughtering of native americans by the US government(sarcasm) ;

[arildno]

Just cherishing the rare* flower your mindset is, noblegas. :smile:


Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets
Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets
Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets
Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets
Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets
Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets
Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets
Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets





*Due to inherent tendencies towards self-extinction

[noblegas]

Just cherishing the rare* flower your mindset is, noblegas. :smile:















*Due to inherent tendencies towards self-extinction


whats wrong with caring more about liberty than security? Its a personal preference; I think people should be in control of there own safety rather than someone else be in control of your own safety unless you want them to.

[arildno]

Let the Baby Self-Help Brigade form!

Or what about the Granny Guard?

[Astronuc]

It all comes down to can any group of humans get along. I think a lot of people can - certainly when they are friends. But how does one treat strangers?

I'll post later a paragraph I read last night. It's relevant to how societies evolve.

[Astronuc]

Yes, that is a very nice list. I like it. However the word "obedient" at my age means being responsible for paying the bills on time.(tee hee)

I think a healthy frame of mind does unleash a feeling of hope and power. :smile:

I'd replace obedient with 'self-responsibility'.

[WhoWee]

Totally agree.Only I want humans to form groups naturally to form economic and social relationships and resolve their dispute own their own or have a third party to come in to assist the two persons who are disputing each other. Government today stills acts as that dominate force you are referring to when you were talking about the third party group that wants to take control of the smaller tribe in tribal communities; The government may prevent us from violently attack one another, at least on the surface, but we are still forced to financially support a number of goods and services the government considers "essential" or if you refuse to pay for the services you don't use, you will be arrested for "tax-evasion";

Have you ever watched the "Godfather" movies?

[Astronuc]

John K. Walton, A Social History of Lancashire, 1558-1939, Manchester University Press, 1987.
Authority and Conflict, 1660-1770
The accelerating economic and social changes of this transitional period [1660-1770] brought several kinds of response from those who were concerned with, and interested in, the protection of property and the exercise of authority [king, Parliament, Church, nobles, . . . ]. The power of central government remained very limited in practice at the local level, where the institutions which mattered most were often voluntary and informal. The mainenance of order was pursued not only through the official machinery of the civil and criminal law, and the increasingly complex administration of the Poor Law, but also through religious institutions and private charity. Attempts to influence the wage-earning and smallholding classes in ways conducive to social stability [order] were fuelled by humanitarian and religious motives as well as by coercive authoritarianism and fear of disorder; and the drive to order and control complicated and impeded by divisions within the ruling and propertied groups, especially where religious issues became entangled with national politics [a reason the US preferred a separation of church and state]. When challenged from below, however, Lancashire's leaders remained well capable of closing ranks and defending their interests, and threats to authority remained sporadic, geographically isolated and, for the most part, easily contained, except, perhaps, where disturbances were themselves encouraged by sections by the propertied class and directed against their political opponents.


Of course England (and Europe) had a class structure, with royalty and nobles at the top and landless class (and slaves) at the bottom. But locally, much was done on a voluntary basis or personal choice.

With respect to social development, differentiation and specialization play a role in conferring advantages to those who are fortunate (lucky) find themselves in the right specialty or who happen to get the better piece of land with resources (fertile land for agriculture, or water, or resources like salt, coal, iron, copper, timber, . . .] Resources are not distributed equally, and they are not allocated equitably. Often those with greater advantage wanted still more.

Differentiation seems to introduce a hierarchy of privilege.


It is difficult to find a society in which the individual is his/her own master, but perhaps this was the case for some communities on the open prairies of the US plains in the mid-to-late 1800's [ref. Little House on the Prairie]. The husband and wife had to have many skills in order to be self-sufficient. They could, if they desired, to interact with neighbors or not.

[tickle_monste]

Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets;

Personally, if I had all this personal liberty, I would take the liberty of sacrificing said liberty in order to have more security and safety nets for myself, my family, my friends, and everybody in general. In your system, full realization of my personal liberty would be very difficult because of all the people who think there's much more to liberty than security, safety and comfort. I don't want liberty at the expense of those things, and if you try to take those things from me, I will strongly desire to curtail your liberty to do so. If you can come up with a way that I can have this personal liberty AND my comfort and security, that would be pretty cool, but the only way that I'm able to have the pretty decent balance of personal liberty, comfort, and security that I have now is because people aren't generally trying to make a revolution, they're working out the details in order to maintain a certain level of compatibility (and hence comfort and safety) within society, and this comes at the expense of personal liberty. When you've worked out the details, I'll consider your anarchy, but I'm not going to be the one working out the details, because that would be an expense of what's left of my personal liberty after I've given most of it to capitalism, and the probable outcome if the details were to be put into practice would be a significant decrease in my comfort and safety. I'd rather take the personal liberty of getting lost in the comfort and safety of capitalism than getting found in an anarchic society devoid of any promise of these things. In your society, nothing consistent would be done with wrong-doers, such as murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. Consequently, nobody would associate even a relative moral standard to these crimes. I'm glad that we have governments that scare the non-moral individuals amongst us into not committing crime, and for multiple reasons:
1) They would mess with my personal comfort and safety, which are the objectives of my liberty.
2) I despise them for being amoral in the first place, and want them to feel fear and suffer from not being able to fulfill their disgusting desires. These amoral people I speak of only care about themselves, and if it made them feel good and there were no consequences, they would hurt you without remorse. When I do bad, I feel bad; I feel remorse, whether or not I face consequences. If somebody does bad and doesn't feel bad, I feel hate for them, and want them to feel suffering equal at least to that which I feel when I'm remorseful for doing bad myself.
3) If I had all the personal liberty you want me to have, I would probably have killed people by now; amoral people, yes, but people all the same. If I can't be trusted to maintain the value of human life (which I wouldn't if some of that human life were amoral), then I want there to be a system which overrides my personal liberty.
4) If I can't trust myself to maintain the value of human life, I'm not going to trust anyone else individually to maintain the value of human life, and thus have even more reason to want a system to override not just my personal liberty, but the liberty of everyone else as well.
5) If I had all the personal liberty you want me to have, I would probably be working to create the system mentioned in #3 and #4 above.

[noblegas]

John K. Walton, A Social History of Lancashire, 1558-1939, Manchester University Press, 1987.
Authority and Conflict, 1660-1770



Of course England (and Europe) had a class structure, with royalty and nobles at the top and landless class (and slaves) at the bottom. But locally, much was done on a voluntary basis or personal choice.

With respect to social development, differentiation and specialization play a role in conferring advantages to those who are fortunate (lucky) find themselves in the right specialty or who happen to get the better piece of land with resources (fertile land for agriculture, or water, or resources like salt, coal, iron, copper, timber, . . .] Resources are not distributed equally, and they are not allocated equitably. Often those with greater advantage wanted still more.

Differentiation seems to introduce a hierarchy of privilege.


It is difficult to find a society in which the individual is his/her own master, but perhaps this was the case for some communities on the open prairies of the US plains in the mid-to-late 1800's [ref. Little House on the Prairie]. The husband and wife had to have many skills in order to be self-sufficient. They could, if they desired, to interact with neighbors or not.

Technically, open prairies would not have existed if acts were not passed by the US federal government liked the Homestead act and Morrill Act that allowed the settlers and explorers access to land with land grants; So technically, the West was not really a 'wild and open' place ; I don't know what the rest of the article you posted say, but does the author discuss why humans throughout history and today have a propensity to create statist regimes where you have little or no recognition or acknowledgement of human rights like the right to own property or personal liberty by the state as opposed to relatively free societies like the United states and all of western europe;

[Astronuc]

Technically, open prairies would not have existed if acts were not passed by the US federal government liked the Homestead act and Morrill Act that allowed the settlers and explorers access to land with land grants; So technically, the West was not really a 'wild and open' place ; I don't know what the rest of the article you posted say, but does the author discuss why humans throughout history and today have a propensity to create statist regimes where you have little or no recognition or acknowledgement of human rights like the right to own property or personal liberty by the state as opposed to relatively free societies like the United states and all of western europe; One needs to check one's historical facts. The Louisiana purchase was wide open when the US claimed it - even though native peoples lived there. The US government claimed it, but settlers found their way onto the land well before acts of Congress were passed. Read D. Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. Between Lewis and Clark Expedition and the Homestead Act (May 20, 1862), individuals and settlers made their way west from the US and bascially lived wherever they felt like. See - Preemption Act of 1841

or how about - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny - if one was not a US citizen - one had little or no rights with regard to property ownership. Not exactly free.

The society of Lancashire in the 1600's/1700's was no less 'free' than Colonial America (where the King owned the land and granted it to whomever), or the US (the national or state governments owned the land and granted it to whomever, except for land already owned prior the establishment of the US), or all of western Europe, which had to evolve from Principalities, Dutchies and Monarchies (1600's-1800's) into Nation States.

For example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Monarchy_to_Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citize n

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#German_Empire_.281871.E2.80.931918.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany

Or looking back - Charlemagne and the Carolingian Renaissance
http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture20b.html


Humans formed groups/societies - with hierarchical structures - going back to Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonias, Egyptians, Chinese and later Greek, Roman, Byzantine empires up through modern European societies. Outside the borders of the Roman/Byzantine empires were the Celtic/Germanic tribes, Vikings, Turkic tribes, . . . .

Africa had numerous tribes and societies before Europeans entered the picture. South American Indians had highly organized/structured hierarchical societies - Incas, Mayans, Aztecs, Toltecs, . . . . well before Europeans arrived.


A truly 'free' society is the rare exception.

[noblegas]

One needs to check one's historical facts. The Louisiana purchase was wide open when the US claimed it - even though native peoples lived there. The US government claimed it, but settlers found their way onto the land well before acts of Congress were passed. Read D. Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. Between Lewis and Clark Expedition and the Homestead Act (May 20, 1862), individuals and settlers made their way west from the US and bascially lived wherever they felt like. See - Preemption Act of 1841

or how about - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny - if one was not a US citizen - one had little or no rights with regard to property ownership. Not exactly free.

The society of Lancashire in the 1600's/1700's was no less 'free' than Colonial America (where the King owned the land and granted it to whomever), or the US (the national or state governments owned the land and granted it to whomever, except for land already owned prior the establishment of the US), or all of western Europe, which had to evolve from Principalities, Dutchies and Monarchies (1600's-1800's) into Nation States.

For example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Monarchy_to_Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citize n

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#German_Empire_.281871.E2.80.931918.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany

Or looking back - Charlemagne and the Carolingian Renaissance
http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture20b.html


Humans formed groups/societies - with hierarchical structures - going back to Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonias, Egyptians, Chinese and later Greek, Roman, Byzantine empires up through modern European societies. Outside the borders of the Roman/Byzantine empires were the Celtic/Germanic tribes, Vikings, Turkic tribes, . . . .

Africa had numerous tribes and societies before Europeans entered the picture. South American Indians had highly organized/structured hierarchical societies - Incas, Mayans, Aztecs, Toltecs, . . . . well before Europeans arrived.


A truly 'free' society is the rare exception.

I was not disagreeing with you. I said the image of the old wild west that many picture wasn't really wild at all and therefore is a myth; I was saying that the US Homestead act signed by dear old Abe granted land to farmers who did not opposed the US federal government(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_act); Go back and read my post preceding this one

[Galteeth]

It all comes down to can any group of humans get along. I think a lot of people can - certainly when they are friends. But how does one treat strangers?

I'll post later a paragraph I read last night. It's relevant to how societies evolve.

They don't necessarily have to get along perfectly, just agree not to use violence to solve their disputes. It may seem like a pipe dream, but considering how far humanity has progressed over centuries (at least in some places at some times), I think it's possible. Consider the example of slavery. There was a time when the near universal recognition of slavery as a moral evil would have seemed like a pipe dream.

[Astronuc]

I was not disagreeing with you. I said the image of the old wild west that many picture wasn't really wild at all and therefore is a myth; I was saying that the US Homestead act signed by dear old Abe granted land to farmers who did not opposed the US federal government(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_act); Go back and read my post preceding this one But the 'wild west' was indeed wild - perhaps more so in some places than others. European Americans began encroaching on 'Indian Territories' well before any act of Congress granted lands. Some tribes in California were wiped out (ref. Dee Brown, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee)

When the cattle industry developed, there was tension and fighting between people who raised sheep and those who raised cattle. There were land disputes and water disputes.

Cattle rustling and claim jumping were problematic in many territories.

The process of "claim jumping," or obtaining by means at least questionable the lands on which others had made settlement, was in frequent practice in 1867. The person who was "jumped" very frequently was a non-resident, and had simply made a claim as a speculation, intending to pre-empt if there seemed a probability of rapid increase in the value of his land, or to allow a lapse if it suited his convenience. Many of those who built their claim-shanties to hold the land for them until they could return with their families from Missouri or Kansas or even far more distant points, returned to find the claim-house demolished and some new-comer fully settled. Ref: http://www.kancoll.org/books/andreas_ne/richardson/richardson-p2.html#claim

The term 'claim jumping' apparently originated between 1825-1835, somewhere in the western territories, and probably had an association with mining (mostly likely gold and silver).

Look at the case of Johann (John) August Sutter. His land was taken by squatters. He had legally purchased the land in California from the Spanish and Russians, yet the US government did not recognize his claim, but instead recognized the subsequent claims of squatters who were US citizens. And this was before California became a state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_August_Sutter#New_Helvetia et seq.

There were disputes among railroads, one of the most famous being the conflict between the Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe and Denver & Rio Grande railroads, which evolved into gun battles in the Royal Gorge.

[russ_watters]

I don't know what the rest of the article you posted say, but does the author discuss why humans throughout history and today have a propensity to create statist regimes where you have little or no recognition or acknowledgement of human rights like the right to own property or personal liberty by the state as opposed to relatively free societies like the United states and all of western europe; There is a wealth of political theory, philosophy and history discussing/documenting this issue. Though political documents, the magna carta and declaration of independence are also political theory writings discussing the issue. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau discuss the issue. Much of the Federalist Papers are about the issue.

In my opinion, the question as you phrased it is relatively straightforward: people are ambitious and some people more ambitious than others. And ambition goes hand in hand with selfishness. In a society with a large number of people, a few people with high ambition will tend to sieze power by whatever means available. Thus a government must be set up with the specific features for preventing individuals from siezing such power. The problem is that governments like those seen in the west don't typically evolve, they must be created from scratch. Dictators follow dictators - and they don't use violence to come to power then suddenly become benevolent. The social contract theory by the likes of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau on which much of our government is based requires that people get together collectively and construct that contract. But getting to that point is extremely difficult.

You might like "The Prince". Machiavelli wrote it primarily as a manual for aspiring middle-ages dictators, but it provides insight into what drives them. And it may help you understand the flaw in your premise. People like Machiavelli and the middle ages princes he was writing to exist and no amount of wishful thinking about people getting along will make them go away. Rights require protection from such people and only a government strong enough to keep such people from siezing dictatorial power can adequately protect them.

[Phrak]

I swear, I read The Prince, then reread The Prince specifically looking for what motivation Machiavelli should offer the aspiring prince for doing what Machiavelli proscribed.

I found--and to paraphrase, "to be respected by respectable men." Subsequently, I haven't relocated such a proscription, and distrust my memory.

[russ_watters]

I read it in high school and don't remember the "why" or what causes them to have such aspirations. I don't think he was seeking to explore that anyway. But that sounds like something he would say. I don't think he considered princely aspirations at all negative.

I wasn't suggesting the OP read it because it is an acceptable political theory/method (though it is certainly a viable/functional one!), but rather just an insight into how their minds work. Not a lot of murderous dictators sit back and consider 'why am I a murderous dictator?', they just are. Often times, the "why" is just gibberish or rationalizing anyway and not really all that useful.

[mheslep]

I swear, I read The Prince, then reread The Prince specifically looking for what motivation Machiavelli should offer the aspiring prince for doing what Machiavelli proscribed.

I found--and to paraphrase, "to be respected by respectable men." Subsequently, I haven't relocated such a proscription, and distrust my memory.I seriously doubt Machiavelli could be summarized soundly in that way. Machiavelli thought about how to gather and wield power. Respect would only be usable by means of fear. It would have no moral or nobel component - all useless except as PR per Machiavelli.

[CRGreathouse]

I think that Machiavelli is often misconstrued, especially as most people know his writing only secondhand. In addition to the debate about the purpose of his writing (there's a common belief among scholars, probably minority but possibly majority, that he *didn't* support autocratic rule at all; this is well-supported by circumstances but little primary evidence remains), he's usually viewed much too narrowly.

Therefore such as these have great difficulties in consummating their enterprise, for all their dangers are in the ascent, yet with ability they will overcome them; but when these are overcome, and those who envied them their success are exterminated, they will begin to be respected, and they will continue afterward powerful, secure, honored, and happy.

[...]

Coming now to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel.

[...]

From these causes it arose that Marcus, Pertinax, and Alexander, being all men of modest life, lovers of justice, enemies to cruelty, humane, and benignant, came to a sad end except Marcus; he alone lived and died honored, because he had succeeded to the throne by hereditary title, and owed nothing either to the soldiers or the people; and afterward, being possessed of many virtues which made him respected, he always kept both orders in their places whilst he lived, and was neither hated nor despised.

[...]

Leaving Pagolo Guinigi in command at Lucca, Castruccio set out for Rome with six hundred horsemen, where he was received by Enrico with the greatest distinction. In a short time the presence of Castruccio obtained such respect for the emperor that, without bloodshed or violence, good order was restored, chiefly by reason of Castruccio having sent by sea from the country round Pisa large quantities of corn, and thus removed the source of the trouble. When he had chastised some of the Roman leaders, and admonished others, voluntary obedience was rendered to Enrico.

Having said that, I concur that Phrak's remembered phrase sounds out-of-character for the man.

[Astronuc]

I think Machiavelli was primarily interested in ingratiating himself to the mortal powers that were in order to elevate himself and his standard of living.

[mheslep]

... The social contract theory by the likes of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau on which much of our government is based requires that people get together collectively and construct that contract. ...Whoa, you're throwing together a very disparate salad there. Hobbes and Rousseau go together, but not with Locke. Whether one thinks its valid or not today, Hobbes and Rousseau invented that natural state of man line, a pure fiction. They had no anthropology to speak of and simply fabricated it. To control the man in the state of nature they then require society and government. Neither of them have any time for moral behaviour self imposed. Rousseau in particular with regard to morals practised what he preached and was an utterly amoral bastard, a perfect forbearer for the French revolution and the Reign of Terror. The US founders spent most of their time not on how to subdue the natural state of man, though yes that too is part of their construction, but on how to subdue the institution of government created by man. They (Locke, founders) relied on moral codes, heavily Christian influenced, to look after individual behaviour, and believed democratic government had no chance without it.

Jefferson, concerning the consequences of the practice of slavery, a severe moral flaw in the 18th century US:
...And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.--But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one's mind.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s28.html

[mheslep]

I think that Machiavelli is often misconstrued, especially as most people know his writing only secondhand. In addition to the debate about the purpose of his writing (there's a common belief among scholars, probably minority but possibly majority, that he *didn't* support autocratic rule at all; this is well-supported by circumstances but little primary evidence remains), he's usually viewed much too narrowly.



Having said that, I concur that Phrak's remembered phrase sounds out-of-character for the man.I don't know about other evidence to support the Machiavelli-was-not-an-autocrat hypothesis, but I suggest you are mistaken that there's support for this in the Prince in those 'virtue' and 'respect' passages. Virtue was just another ploy to Mac.

For this reason a prince ought to take care that he never lets anything
slip from his lips that is not replete with the above-named five
qualities, that he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether
merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious. There is nothing
more necessary to appear to have than this last quality, inasmuch as men
judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to
everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you. Every one sees
what you appear to be, few really know what you are