View Full Version : Anarchism
SW VandeCarr
Oct3-09, 07:22 PM
Anarchism is the philosophy of a stateless society without a political order. Nevertheless, it seems to be associated with elements of the far Left, not the far Right which has historically been associated with a strong authoritarian state often termed "Fascist". Here's Mussolini's popular description of a fascist state:
http://www.coursework.info/AS_and_A_Level/History/Modern_European_History__1789-1945/Everything_for_the_state__nothing_outsid_L19844.ht ml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_left
On the other hand, the traditional Left generally favors a strong state heavily involved in most aspects of national life as opposed to the laissez faire capitalism with very limited government generally favored by the traditional Right.
It's my understanding that Raul Castro quoted Mussolini (perhaps unknowingly) in the 1960's regarding the above, although he may have used the term "revolution" instead of "state". I've not been able to find a confirmation of this on the net. Perhaps someone else can confirm it. In any case, such a statement would seem be well within the known views of the far Left.
How can anarchists and those of the far Left favoring an all powerful state live under the same banner? Does it make any sense at all? Someone please relieve me of my deep confusion.
russ_watters
Oct4-09, 09:57 AM
I think the apparent contradiction informs about the reality of the anarchist position.
Anarchism is the philosophy of a stateless society without a political order. Nevertheless, it seems to be associated with elements of the far Left, not the far Right which has historically been associated with a strong authoritarian state often termed "Fascist".
On the other hand, the traditional Left generally favors a strong state heavily involved in most aspects of national life as opposed to the laissez faire capitalism with very limited government generally favored by the traditional Right.
How can anarchists and those of the far Left favoring an all powerful state live under the same banner? Does it make any sense at all? Someone please relieve me of my deep confusion.This is just a simple matter of labels in politics being used to mean different things by different people, usually for the purpose of misleading the public about themselves or their opposition. One person's "left-wing" is another's "right-wing". It's common today for the word "liberal" to be used as a synonym for socialist, but classical liberalism is a belief in "laissez faire capitalism." Some use "right-wing extremist" to mean libertarian, while others use it to mean authoritarian.
And it varies by country. In European countries, "liberals" are the ones who believe in (relatively) unregulated free market capitalism.
Then there's the increasingly popular "neocon" which I have not been able to get defined by those using it, and they obviously don't mean "neoconservative" according to the dictionary.
As can be seen in most posts in this forum, this is a major barrier to honest debate. People use words to mean whatever they want them to mean with no regard to what others, or the dictionary, use the same words to mean. We are losing the language.
In particular, it seems that many (on the left?) simply use "left" to mean good, compassionate, etc, and "right" to mean bad, wrong, uncaring, etc. as if they really have no idea that different people have different political beliefs, instead of just different motives and priorities.
There is no specific economic left or right position intrinsic to anarchism. There are right wing anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) and left wing anarchists (anarcho-communists) and a lot of positions in between (anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-mutualist, anarcho-feminism, green anarchism, Christian anarchism and so on).
How can leftist anarchists be logically consistent? Shouldn't they favor a large and powerful state? The answer is that the political spectrum is in this case two dimensional with the x axis being economic left - economic right and the y axis being authoritarian and libertarian. Thus, it is entirely possible to be a social libertarian.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.88&soc=-4.67
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif
Noam Chomsky is an example of this.
On the other hand, the traditional Left generally favors a strong state heavily involved in most aspects of national life
That is not quite true. Historically the left has favoured communal living with small more of less self sufficient communities; e.g. the Israeli Kibbutz is very much a socialist idea (which originally also included communal child rearing etc). Most of the "outside" involvement would come from the community, not the state.
Hence, when it comes to utopias the difference between some forms of socialism and anarchism isn't that great from a practical point of view (although socialist are of course not opposed to the existence of a government that takes care of things at a national and international level).
Edit: Mattara bring up a good points, parts of the "New Right" in the US are actually anarcho-capitalists and some could even be described as anarcho-minimalists (which basically means that they believe that the state should be as small as possible, and essentially only protect ownership and perhaps manage the national defence, everything else should be handled by the private sector, i.e. as deals between individuals).
Anarcho-minimalists are more or less "conventional" anarchist but they have come to their position using "right wing" philosophy (basically extreme individualism)
Anarchism is the philosophy of a stateless society without a political order.
This is an oversimplification. Anarchism is the philosophy of a stateless society without a centralized monopoly of violence. There can certainly be voluntary political order in an anarchist society.
There is no specific economic left or right position intrinsic to anarchism. There are right wing anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) and left wing anarchists (anarcho-communists) and a lot of positions in between (anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-mutualist, anarcho-feminism, green anarchism, Christian anarchism and so on).
Anarcho-communism isn't really a political system, since it involves no political power. It could only exist if "the members of such a society would spontaneously perform all necessary labour because they would recognize the benefits of communal enterprise and mutual aid". Which basically means it can't exist unless every single person in the group agrees to participate voluntarily. Which limits the maximum size to about 2-3 people at most. :tongue:
It also seems to bear no relation to what the word communism normally means, ie complete government control of the economy. Sure it's claimed that such government control is temporary, lasting only until it is rendered unnecessary by each person complying voluntarily. Yeah, like that could ever happen.The answer is that the political spectrum is in this case two dimensional with the x axis being economic left - economic right and the y axis being authoritarian and libertarian.It would seem more consistent to label the x axis as economically authoritarian - economically libertarian and the y axis as socially authoritarian and socially libertarian.
How can leftist anarchists be logically consistent? Shouldn't they favor a large and powerful state? The answer is that the political spectrum is in this case two dimensional with the x axis being economic left - economic right and the y axis being authoritarian and libertarian.
Adding another dimension is a good start. However, two dimensions is in a sense just as artificial as one. Two people who happen to occupy the same spot in the political compass but are diametrically opposed on the church-state divide probably should not be left alone in the same room for any extended period of time.
I think it's an assumption held by many Americans that I have not found in the UK that socialism is associated with an authoritarian state. Also here free market and free society are in no way synonymous as they appear to be in America.
It also seems to bear no relation to what the word communism normally means, ie complete government control of the economy. Sure it's claimed that such government control is temporary, lasting only until it is rendered unnecessary by each person complying voluntarily.
I completely agree -- in this context "communism" merely refers to the idea of common ownership of the means of production.
I think it's an assumption held by many Americans that I have not found in the UK that socialism is associated with an authoritarian state. Also here free market and free society are in no way synonymous as they appear to be in America.Without an authoritarian state, who would enforce the socialism? They're not synonymous, but socialism requires an economic "authority", while free market capitalism does not. In fact its main characteristics are economic liberty and the lack of state "authority".
And many in the U.S. value economic liberty as much as liberty in social issues.
Without an authoritarian state, who would enforce the socialism?
No one.
One of the main assumptions of "classical" socialism is that once the society has reached the stage of true communism (in the original meaning of the world, not Stalin's re-definition) everyone would have their basic needs met and therefore voluntarily participate because it would be in their own best interest. This also implies that that people can be satisfied by having "enough" material possessions; this is one of the main differences between socialism and liberalism (since the latter assumes that we always strive to get richer).
Classical socialism isn't exactly Utopian as such, as far as I know it generally accepts the need for a small police force etc; but that could at least in principle be handled at the local level.
The only "classical" political philosophy that is intrinsically authoritarian is conservatism; all the other philosophies are to some extent "Utopian" in the sense that they assume that people would voluntarily participate if we only had an ideal (meaning theirs) political system.
Only with great scientific and technological advancement and abolishment of religious authority (most modern religions) can anarchism be achieved - is this too strong? After all, anarchy is rather unrealistic in these current times.
Despite the notion of having limited government, I don't think conservatism (in its current state and taking into account that it represents a broad spectrum of values) can ever achieve anarchism and would require a sense of authority (liberalism) in order to do so.
Are there any writers that explain how anarchism can be achieved?
Only with great scientific and technological advancement and abolishment of modern religions can anarchism be achieved - is this too strong?
Despite the notion of having limited government, I don't think conservatism (in its current state and taking into account that it represents a broad spectrum of values) can ever achieve anarchism and would require a sense of authority (liberalism) in order to do so.
Are there any writers that explain how anarchism can be achieved?
There are a few misconceptions here. Firstly, conservatism could NEVER lead to anarchism; the former is -by definition- authoritarian and hierarchical; anarchy is in a sense the opposite to conservatism.
Secondly, conservatism is essentially dead. There are a few parties around that call themselves conservatives (e.g. Torys in the UK, perhaps CDU in Germany) but they are in reality mainly liberal parties with a strong family-values and law-and-order agenda.
Nearly all political parties in the western world are now liberal (and that includes most parties that call themselves "socialists" since they are nearly always social-democrats which favour liberal economic policies).
Thirdly, liberalism is -again by definition- NOT authoritarian. "Small government" is one of the cornerstones of liberalism; conservatives are in general in favour of "whatever works" (including "big government) since they emphasise social stability.
Historically the conservatives were mostly monarchists, I think it is fair to say that Saudi Arabia and similar countries are perhaps as close you can get to the classical conservative "ideal" society today.
Note that conservatism (nor any other ideology expect liberalism) never took off in the US, the southern democrats in the 60s is probably as close as you can get. The people who call themselves "conservatives" in the US are not; the "New Right" in the US is essentially a mixture of classical liberalism with some elements of social conservatism (often with elements of fundamentalism). Both the Democrats and the Republicans are very much liberal parties.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans are very much liberal parties.
If that's the case, why are there several users on this forum who get offended when conservatism is mocked - assuming their republican?
I thought Democrats was synonymus to Liberal and Republican to conservative.
If that's the case, why are there several users on this forum who get offended when conservatism is mocked - assuming their republican?
I thought Democrats was synonymus to Liberal and Republican to conservative.
I have no idea how that happened, presumably this change of the meaning of the words it is something that took off in the media during the rise the the New Right in the early 80s(Moral Majority, Reagan etc). But it is something very specific to the debate in the US, nowhere else.
My guess would be that it has to do with the fact that the New Right were/are socially conservative in the sense that they "oppose change", but that is not directly related to political conservatism. The right wing of the republicans are essentially classical liberals n everything except when it comes to policies relating to the family (and obviously everything that has to do with sex).
Edit: It is perhaps interesting to note that the "sister parties" to the Democrats in Europe are usually parties that call themselves "conservative". The Conservative party here in the UK (Torys) are much closer to Obama than the Republican party, the same is true for e.g. the Swedish conservatives (which are extremely pro-Obama). However, note what I wrote above about these parties not being really conservative anymore (they have been around for a long time, once upon a time they were really conservative parties but have gradually shifted towards liberalism).
No one.
One of the main assumptions of "classical" socialism is that once the society has reached the stage of true communism (in the original meaning of the world, not Stalin's re-definition) everyone would have their basic needs met and therefore voluntarily participate because it would be in their own best interest.The word socialism isn't used to refer to that often today. And I know "true" communism would be stateless, relying on voluntary participation. But of course that takes it out of the realm of a political philosophy and into the realm of wishing everyone would just live a certain way without being forced to. Obviously that can't happen, humans (as a whole) simply would never do that if they have any freedom at all. Even if most wanted to, without the use of force, some would engage in capitalism.
The only "classical" political philosophy that is intrinsically authoritarian is conservatism; all the other philosophies are to some extent "Utopian" in the sense that they assume that people would voluntarily participate if we only had an ideal (meaning theirs) political system.Classical liberalism (free market capitalism) isn't Utopian at all. It relies on voluntary participation, but does not need unanimous, or even majority, participation. It only requires economic liberty (absence of coercion). Groups would be perfectly free to practice voluntary communism, while others are free to engage in free enterprise.
Even in the U.S. in its capitalist heyday, there was never any law against any form of voluntary communism or socialism. There simply is no reason to use force to compel participation, or to prohibit any economic activity except fraud and theft.
"And many in the U.S. value economic liberty as much as liberty in social issues"
The free market idea is basically economic anarchism, and as such carries all of the problems therein. In a pure free market you end up with large corporations monopolising the market and bullying any potential competetors.
"The word socialism isn't used to refer to that often today"
As far as I can tell, the word socialism is mostly used in a derrogetary way in the US. In Europe socialism is not associated with authoritarianism. You should also be aware that liberalism is generally associated with left wing politics in Europe, and so socialist parties are considered more liberal than conservative (more capitalist) parties.
The free market idea is basically economic anarchism, and as such carries all of the problems therein. In a pure free market you end up with large corporations monopolising the market and bullying any potential competetors.
What evidence do you have for that assertion?
It is simply empirically false. Free market forces tends to counteract monopolies and there is an enormous incentive in the free market to fight monopolies.
Well since decide to stop buying coca cola products on moral grounds, I have noticed that in many stores and cafes they are they only soft drinks they stock. As another example in the UK British Telecom are continually being forced to sell under monopoly laws since they have taken over the market. More commonly the monopoly is shared by a few competing companies, as is the case with supermarkets. Supermarkets continually drive local shops out of business, making it very difficult for any small newcomers to enter the market.
There are a few misconceptions here. Firstly, conservatism could NEVER lead to anarchism; the former is -by definition- authoritarian and hierarchical; anarchy is in a sense the opposite to conservatism.
Secondly, conservatism is essentially dead.
I thought the Republican party was based on conservatism.
How can anarchists and those of the far Left favoring an all powerful state live under the same banner? Does it make any sense at all? Someone please relieve me of my deep confusion.
Maybe you should first ask which position is least likely to work? Next, ask what are the similarities?
One potential conclusion might be that an all powerful state, unsustainable on the backs of a very small tax paying base, might collapse under it's own weight and potentially lead to a brief period of anarchy. Under this scenario, wouldn't it be a dependent affiliation, rather than a coexistent relationship?
SW VandeCarr
Oct6-09, 02:00 AM
Maybe you should first ask which position is least likely to work? Next, ask what are the similarities?
One potential conclusion might be that an all powerful state, unsustainable on the backs of a very small tax paying base, might collapse under it's own weight and potentially lead to a brief period of anarchy. Under this scenario, wouldn't it be a dependent affiliation, rather than a coexistent relationship?
IMHO the relationship between the mostly academically based far Left and anarchism is cynical on the part of the far Left. Both have an interest in changing the existing socioeconomic order but only one believes in a strong all powerful state (that doesn't wither away). It's not clear what the mostly young anarchists who show up at G-8 and G-20 meetings really believe in as an alternative to the existing order. At best, some seem to believe in some kind network of small self-governing and largely self-sufficient communities who do a bit of trade with each other and respect each others' "space". Good luck. It might work for a few hardy folks in remote areas, but the model is at least 6000 years out of date as global solution. 6.5 billion people (and growing) need a different prescription.
The "problem" is that we have an existing civilization and a global structure.
If a new land was discovered, outside of the scope of "ownership or control" by any state or person, and populated by a group of like-minded people interested in living in a government-less state with the land and resources equally divided - who knows - it might work - for a while.
The problems would not begin until outside influences to govern approached, outside trade was engaged, more people attempted to join, original members began to expand families and land was re-divided, financing was sought to make capital improvements, or investment in infrastructure was desired. Eventually, they would create an administrative body and require employees. Unless the administrative body was self sufficient - perhaps sell online advice services to the rest of the world - they would need to establish a tax base. That's when things tend to get complicated.
How about looking at actual anarchist societies and how they have worked? That could give an insight into the question here. Take for example anarchist Spain and the Paris commune.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_commune
Well since decide to stop buying coca cola products on moral grounds, I have noticed that in many stores and cafes they are they only soft drinks they stock. As another example in the UK British Telecom are continually being forced to sell under monopoly laws since they have taken over the market. More commonly the monopoly is shared by a few competing companies, as is the case with supermarkets. Supermarkets continually drive local shops out of business, making it very difficult for any small newcomers to enter the market.
Just about every stores where I live, there are many different types of soft drinks, not just coca cola products. There is an enormous incentive for a company to defect from a cartel, because it could then underbid this cartel and steal all of its customers.
It's true that most shops sell more than one soft drink product, but it was only after choosing not to buy coca cola that i realised that quite a few places do only sell that product. There is often incentive for a company to defect, but it is harder for small business to thrive, as they are often bullied by bigger businesses. I have spoken to small store owners who say it would be cheaper for them to actually buy their bread from a big supermarket to sell on than they get it from their regular supplier. I just think that in order for people to really enjoy a "free market", there needs to be measures to ensure that the market isn't completely dominated to the extent that newcomers can't participate.
It's true that most shops sell more than one soft drink product, but it was only after choosing not to buy coca cola that i realised that quite a few places do only sell that product. There is often incentive for a company to defect, but it is harder for small business to thrive, as they are often bullied by bigger businesses. I have spoken to small store owners who say it would be cheaper for them to actually buy their bread from a big supermarket to sell on than they get it from their regular supplier. I just think that in order for people to really enjoy a "free market", there needs to be measures to ensure that the market isn't completely dominated to the extent that newcomers can't participate.
At most, all you have presented is anecdotal evidence. There are counter measures that can be put into place by the market itself to keep companies from establishing monopolies, such as boycotts. Even the supermarkets are dependent on many other segments on the market, such as banks, producers and so on. In fact, it is government intervention that sometimes can make the market less free by helping to establish monopolies by subvension. In Sweden, for instance, dental health care is state run, so this keeps healthy competition for occurring, since a private company cannot compete with "free", leading to a quality loss for the customers and forcing private companies to raise price in order to keep afloat.
What evidence do you have for that assertion?
It is simply empirically false. Free market forces tends to counteract monopolies and there is an enormous incentive in the free market to fight monopolies.
Have any direct evidence to support this? I don't buy free market utopias as if they will balance themselves out. Mostly because history teaches me otherwise.
In the free market system of the 19th & 20th century America bankrupted itself, America nearly destroyed all of its natural resources and nearly polluted itself beyond repair all under the guise of free market capitalism. It wasn't until regulation and laws were put in place to protect not only the people of our nation but the resources of our nation did capitalism (money) recognize the needs of our nation rather then the short term greed (which it still focuss on evident in our recent banking fiascos and mortgage fiascos)
In Europe socialism is not associated with authoritarianism.I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are people unaware of the fact that the economy is controlled by government? Economic authoritarianism is the main distinguishing characteristic of socialism (as it actually exists).
In the free market system of the 19th & 20th century America bankrupted itself, America nearly destroyed all of its natural resources and nearly polluted itself beyond repair all under the guise of free market capitalism.Huh? The U.S. went from absolutely nothing (literally) to the greatest nation in the history of the planet during that (relatively) short time. The rise in the standard of living of most people was nothing short of spectacular and unmatched. How do people get the facts so distorted? It wasn't until the "regulatory" era that other countries started catching up economically.
As far as pollution, are you suggesting that communist and socialist countries didn't pollute at least as much if not more? And natural resources, it was the rise of (capitalist) lumber companies that made it profitable to grow trees for lumber instead of people just cutting them down to build everything without replacing them.
Free market capitalism prevented natural resource depletion by natural incentives (profit) to replenish them, and replenished the previous depletion.
Have any direct evidence to support this? I don't buy free market utopias as if they will balance themselves out. Mostly because history teaches me otherwise.
The fact that the free market works. Look at how big the fail was with government planned market systems in Soviet Russia was, leading to the deaths of more than 100 million people.
A free market society is not a utopia, since it has strict self-regulations.
In the free market system of the 19th & 20th century America bankrupted itself, America nearly destroyed all of its natural resources and nearly polluted itself beyond repair all under the guise of free market capitalism.
I agree, however, all of those was due to government involvement in the free market. "capitalism" in your reply really refers to a government controlled market, not to a free market.
It wasn't until regulation and laws were put in place to protect not only the people of our nation but the resources of our nation did capitalism (money) recognize the needs of our nation rather then the short term greed (which it still focuss on evident in our recent banking fiascos and mortgage fiascos)
No, regulation only made things worse. In fact, the recent banking fiasco was caused by government involvement in raising the taxes for those who earn over a million dollars. Thus, it was pointless to get pay raises because it was all going to be taxed away anyways, so the companies started giving out bonuses, golden handshakes, stocks, options and so on, which made directors focus on artificially inflating short term progress at the sacrifice of long term value investment. It was the government who forces banks to make high risk loans to people they knew where unable to pay back. A bank in a free market system would never ever lend money to people they knew would never pay back, because then the bank would loose profit. Such lending can only arise when governments imposes "anti-discrimination" laws.
It is not free trade and the non-initation of force (that which you called "greed") that destroys the world.
"Look at how big the fail was with government planned market systems in Soviet Russia was, leading to the deaths of more than 100 million people."
Do you know what happened when the American free market economists took over? The economy instantly collapsed, a select group of gangsters took over and bought every thing out from the government, and people took to the streets to sell all of their possessions in order to afford food.
"In Sweden, for instance, dental health care is state run, so this keeps healthy competition for occurring, since a private company cannot compete with "free", leading to a quality loss for the customers and forcing private companies to raise price in order to keep afloat"
What? Sweden has one of the best health care systems in the world, and are well above the US in the Human Development Report.
"Look at how big the fail was with government planned market systems in Soviet Russia was, leading to the deaths of more than 100 million people."
Do you know what happened when the American free market economists took over? The economy instantly collapsed, a select group of gangsters took over and bought every thing out from the government, and people took to the streets to sell all of their possessions in order to afford food.
The United States is not a free market, since it has government intervention. The reason that the economy "instantly collapsed" (Soviet economy had already collapsed), was because of the communist state had already ran everything to the ground, so there was nothing a free market could work on.
How about looking at actual anarchist societies and how they have worked? That could give an insight into the question here. Take for example anarchist Spain and the Paris commune.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_commune
When the factories were "collectivized" in Spain - were the investors in the factories compensated - or were the assets stolen from them?
"Look at how big the fail was with government planned market systems in Soviet Russia was, leading to the deaths of more than 100 million people."
Do you know what happened when the American free market economists took over? The economy instantly collapsed, a select group of gangsters took over and bought every thing out from the government, and people took to the streets to sell all of their possessions in order to afford food.
Are you still talking about Russia? Who EXACTLY were these "gangsters"?
Were they former Russian officials that previously operated the Government departments or an ideological group of "American free market economists"?
Please support your comments this time also.
The free market idea is basically economic anarchism, and as such carries all of the problems therein.Not at all. Libertarianism isn't anarchism. A free market, like a socially free society, requires law and order. Laws against fraud and theft, like laws against murder and robbery, are accepted by economic and social libertarians. Laws restricting honest trade and the right to contract privately, like laws restricting freedom of speech and consensual sex, are not. The difference between anarchism and libertarianism is obvious, and not just a difference in degree.In a pure free market you end up with large corporations monopolising the market and bullying any potential competetors.Huh? Monopolies are impossible in a free market. Every monopoly in U.S. history was enabled by government regulation. And the politicians favoring such regulation, then as today, claimed that they were taking the side of the "people" against big business, instead of the other way around.
And then, like today, they blamed the problems caused by their regulation on the free market, while trying to credit their regulations with the benefits of capitalism. That's the trouble with mixed economies (mix of socialism and capitalism), politicians can easily deceive people to gain power, while those that want to defend liberty are cast as "for the rich".
This is simply the M.O. of power hungry politicians that think it's government's legitimate role to control, change, shape, better, perfect, etc. society in general.
Libertarians believe the legitimate role of government is to protect liberty, not take it.
TheStatutoryApe
Oct7-09, 02:35 AM
Huh? Monopolies are impossible in a free market. Every monopoly in U.S. history was enabled by government regulation.
Standard Oil? Rockefeller and many of the other leaders of the industrial revolution owned monopolies and were the very reason for anti-trust legislation.
"Huh? Monopolies are impossible in a free market. Every monopoly in U.S. history was enabled by government regulation"
The correct term was really oligopoly.
"Not at all. Libertarianism isn't anarchism. A free market, like a socially free society, requires law and order"
Anarchist societies would (should) have order, if not law. Libertarian socialism is used interchangably with anarchism:
"Libertarian socialism (sometimes called socialist anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism[3][4]) is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production"
(From wikipedia)
The distinction really is not at all obvious. Not that all coercive intitutions would be dissolved ie the state.
[2] and sometimes left libertarianism[3][4]) is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production"What would cause "every person to have" those things? Magic? I'm aware of "socialist anarchism", but it's not really a political philosophy, it's just hoping people will all do what is desired voluntarily (without coercion). Obviously that is inconsistent with human nature. Either each person will be coerced, or each person will do what they choose. You just can't have it both ways. Believing that every person will conspire to do what you want without coercion is extreme wishful thinking.
It's like saying my position on abortion is that it should be legal and available, but no one will have one. I'll call it "abortion-free libertarianism".
The distinction really is not at all obvious.The distinction between economic libertarianism and anarchy should be just as obvious as the distinction between social libertarianism and anarchy. Put simply, libertarianism either way is where government only acts to protect liberty.
Standard Oil? Rockefeller and many of the other leaders of the industrial revolution owned monopolies and were the very reason for anti-trust legislation.A perfect example of government regulation enabling a monopoly, then creating more regulation to "fix" the problem caused by the previous regulation.
State regulations were the only reason there was ever such a thing as a "trust". There would be no purpose for a trust in a (perfectly) free market. And anti-trust legislation was to prevent trusts.
Thanks for the great example.
"What would cause "every person to have" those things? Magic? I'm aware of "socialist anarchism", but it's not really a political philosophy, it's just hoping people will all do what is desired voluntarily (without coercion). Obviously that is inconsistent with human nature. Either each person will be coerced, or each person will do what they choose. You just can't have it both ways. Believing that every person will conspire to do what you want without coercion is extreme wishful thinking."
I never advocated this political system, I was just pointing out that the terms libertarian socialism and socialist anarchism are used interchangeably.
"The distinction between economic libertarianism and anarchy should be just as obvious as the distinction between social libertarianism and anarchy."
Right, but there is no obvious distinction between libertarian socialism and anarchy, they are synonymous.
"Put simply, libertarianism either way is where government only acts to protect liberty. "
As the quote from wikipedia showed, libertarian socialists believe "in a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved", ie a stateless society.
TheStatutoryApe
Oct7-09, 10:42 PM
A perfect example of government regulation enabling a monopoly, then creating more regulation to "fix" the problem caused by the previous regulation.
State regulations were the only reason there was ever such a thing as a "trust". There would be no purpose for a trust in a (perfectly) free market. And anti-trust legislation was to prevent trusts.
Thanks for the great example.
A trust is a common law legal device. It has nothing to do with regulation.
A trust is a common law legal device. It has nothing to do with regulation.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Trust
TheStatutoryApe
Oct7-09, 11:21 PM
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Trust
I'm unsure if you are attempting to refute my comment. If you are...
In a common law legal system anything is legal unless there are laws or regulations which limit or prevent it. The only situation under which a law is required to allow something is if it is illegal already or is made indirectly illegal by other laws and the new law will make a distinction in legal definition to make this action exempt from other laws which may otherwise pertain. In other words, to allow the legality of something would be to deregulate it.
The ability to create a trust is not a matter of regulation other than the fact that it is limited by certain laws.
A trust is a common law legal device. It has nothing to do with regulation.The Standard Oil trust wasn't created or enabled by regulations directly, it was created by Standard Oil because regulations made it advantageous for them to do so.
"What would cause "every person to have" those things? Magic? I'm aware of "socialist anarchism", but it's not really a political philosophy, it's just hoping people will all do what is desired voluntarily (without coercion). Obviously that is inconsistent with human nature. Either each person will be coerced, or each person will do what they choose. You just can't have it both ways. Believing that every person will conspire to do what you want without coercion is extreme wishful thinking."
I never advocated this political system, I was just pointing out that the terms libertarian socialism and socialist anarchism are used interchangeably.
"The distinction between economic libertarianism and anarchy should be just as obvious as the distinction between social libertarianism and anarchy."
Right, but there is no obvious distinction between libertarian socialism and anarchy, they are synonymous.
"Put simply, libertarianism either way is where government only acts to protect liberty. "
As the quote from wikipedia showed, libertarian socialists believe "in a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved", ie a stateless society.
I agree that the stated political philosophy is the same between "libertarian socialism" and anarchy. My only disagreement is the conclusion by "libertarian socialists" that in the absence of coercion, people will just all voluntarily choose to participate in something resembling socialism.
I was just making fun of "libertarian socialists", not really disagreeing with you.:smile:
TheStatutoryApe
Oct8-09, 02:48 AM
The Standard Oil trust wasn't created or enabled by regulations directly, it was created by Standard Oil because regulations made it advantageous for them to do so.
So you're saying that since a corporation was hindered by laws designed to prevent monopolies it came up with a way to get around these laws and hence those laws are responsible for the monopoly? What kind of sense does that make?
So you're saying that since a corporation was hindered by laws designed to prevent monopolies it came up with a way to get around these laws and hence those laws are responsible for the monopoly? What kind of sense does that make?No, I didn't say that. The Standard Oil trust was created prior to the anti-trust laws, but after state regulations that made the trust advantageous. Like I said, regulations were created as an attempt to fix problems caused by previous (different) regulations.
There were state laws that tried to limit the size and scale of companies in general, regulations on oil company operations, as well as the simple fact that virtually any government business regulation gives large companies an advantage over smaller companies just because they can better afford it. And the advantage of regulatory hurdles stifling their competitors often greatly outweighs their direct cost to a large company (or a trust created by several companies, like Standard Oil). And the combination of all that (and more) made it very hard (or impossible) for smaller companies to compete. Many gave up and sold their operations to members of the Standard Oil trust just to cut their losses.
Right, but there is no obvious distinction between libertarian socialism and anarchy, they are synonymous.
Yes there is, anarchism would be feminist anarchism, Christian anarchism, green anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, none of which are necessarily socialist in nature. For instance, Chomsky is a libertarian socialist but certainly do not believe in Christian or anarco-capitalism.
I'm unsure if you are attempting to refute my comment.
I'm just adding a definition. There may be someone who is unaware of the use/purpose of business trusts - nothing else.
TheStatutoryApe
Oct8-09, 09:40 AM
Like I said, regulations were created as an attempt to fix problems caused by previous (different) regulations.
And that's what I am saying. The corporate trust was designed as a work around to laws designed to prevent monopolies. Specifically it side stepped a law that did not allow one corporation to own stock in another corporation. Standard Oil was already a monopoly and finding means of side stepping laws designed to prevent monopolies. What you seem to be saying is that the laws which prevented Standard Oil from expanding its monopoly, and which they decided to find a way around, are responsible for them trying to expand their monopoly.
There were state laws that tried to limit the size and scale of companies in general, regulations on oil company operations, as well as the simple fact that virtually any government business regulation gives large companies an advantage over smaller companies just because they can better afford it. And the advantage of regulatory hurdles stifling their competitors often greatly outweighs their direct cost to a large company (or a trust created by several companies, like Standard Oil). And the combination of all that (and more) made it very hard (or impossible) for smaller companies to compete. Many gave up and sold their operations to members of the Standard Oil trust just to cut their losses.
I see, and you don't happen to think that Standard Oil's monopoly had anything to do with their aggressive business tactics such as undercutting and buying out their competition? And it was regulations that made Rockefeller want to make his corporation ever bigger? The desire didn't exist there already. Like the mountain climber he desired to scale the walls of laws and regulations and reach ever higher merely because "it was there"?
Rockefeller didn't succeed for lack of competition, he succeeded because he nailed his competition to the wall.
"Yes there is, anarchism would be feminist anarchism, Christian anarchism, green anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, none of which are necessarily socialist in nature. For instance, Chomsky is a libertarian socialist but certainly do not believe in Christian or anarco-capitalism"
Right. To be more pedantic there is no difference between libertarian socialism and socialist anarchism, which is what originally stated in the earlier post and was referring back to. It's like saying there is no difference between water and rain - actually rain is a form of water.
"Yes there is, anarchism would be feminist anarchism, Christian anarchism, green anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, none of which are necessarily socialist in nature. For instance, Chomsky is a libertarian socialist but certainly do not believe in Christian or anarco-capitalism"
Right. To be more pedantic there is no difference between libertarian socialism and socialist anarchism, which is what originally stated in the earlier post and was referring back to. It's like saying there is no difference between water and rain - actually rain is a form of water.
Libertarianism encompasses both no state and small state political positions. It is more like saying that there is no different between a specific type of rain and water. Socialist anarchism is certainly a form of libertarian socialism, but not all libertarian socialist ideologies are necessarily anarchist in nature.
I once read the back of a book when I was browsing in a shop. The book was by a Harvard professor who was defending the anarchist position and claimed that the state should only exercise coercion when preventing the harm of others. It struck me as strange that he should call himself anarchist and still call for a minimal state.
While looking over Wikipedia's libertarian socialism page I found a section very pertinent to the original question in this thread:
In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as a contradiction in terms. However, the association of socialism to libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism to libertarianism in the United States.[19] As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer."
And even more:
Seventeen years (1857) after Proudhon first called himself an anarchist (1840), anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque was the first person to describe himself as a libertarian.[38] Outside the United States, "libertarian" generally refers to anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist ideologies. For these reasons the term "libertarian socialism" is today almost synonymous with anarchism, outside of the US the term "libertarian socialism" would be considered redundant.
And that's what I am saying. The corporate trust was designed as a work around to laws designed to prevent monopolies. Specifically it side stepped a law that did not allow one corporation to own stock in another corporation. Standard Oil was already a monopoly and finding means of side stepping laws designed to prevent monopolies. What you seem to be saying is that the laws which prevented Standard Oil from expanding its monopoly, and which they decided to find a way around, are responsible for them trying to expand their monopoly.No, I said those laws were the reason they created a trust. Any profit making venture naturally has a motive to expand. State regulations didn't create the motive, but they helped Standard Oil succeed by providing hurdles for their potential and existing competition.I see, and you don't happen to think that Standard Oil's monopoly had anything to do with their aggressive business tactics such as undercutting and buying out their competition? And it was regulations that made Rockefeller want to make his corporation ever bigger?Again, no. He wanted that on his own, obviously. I think you're missing my point completely. Standard Oil wanted to corner the market and government regulations helped them do it. Not because of how they applied to Standard Oil directly, but because of how they applied to competitors who could not so easily "clear the hurdles".
The fact that Standard Oil had a desire to corner the market doesn't provide a good reason for government to help them do it. Are you arguing that we should blame Rockefeller instead of government because Rockefeller, a private citizen, acted in his own self interest instead of as an agent of the people? That just sounds silly. It is government, not private citizens, that is supposed to act as an agent of the people.
I'm not saying Rockefeller wasn't "to blame", I'm just saying that's not relevant politically because Rockefeller wasn't an agent of government.
While looking over Wikipedia's libertarian socialism page I found a section very pertinent to the original question in this thread:
In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as a contradiction in terms. However, the association of socialism to libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism to libertarianism in the United States.[19] As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer."A fundamental principle of libertarianism is that each person naturally owns his own body. A person's body and labor are "privately owned" by him originally, not owned "collectively" by society. Ownership means the right to sell or trade as the owner chooses. Whatever the labor is traded for is then privately owned by him.
Opposing a person's private ownership rights to his own labor, and whatever he trades it for, is anti-libertarian. Chomsky is just very confused.
TheStatutoryApe
Oct9-09, 04:14 AM
No, I said those laws were the reason they created a trust. Any profit making venture naturally has a motive to expand. State regulations didn't create the motive, but they helped Standard Oil succeed by providing hurdles for their potential and existing competition.
Again, no. He wanted that on his own, obviously. I think you're missing my point completely. Standard Oil wanted to corner the market and government regulations helped them do it. Not because of how they applied to Standard Oil directly, but because of how they applied to competitors who could not so easily "clear the hurdles".
As I see it the 'hurdle', or rather barrier come hurdle, was placed before Standard Oil who wished to expand by buying stock in other corporations. Standard Oil found a way around it and the circumvention did not have anything to do with the size of the company so much as having a creative lawyer. And of course once the work around was designed it could be exploited by anyone in a position to exploit it. So I don't see how this "hurdle" was any sort of hindrance to Standard Oil's competition unless they were trying to create a monopoly themselves.
And as I already pointed out Rockefeller had plenty of competition and took them out in the old fashioned way (which you apparently do not believe exists) without any need of government regulation. Of course if you really want to you could say that someone else may have been able to get in on the action and undercut Rockefeller, instead of the other way around, if only they needn't have worried about business permits or a certain level quality of product or working conditions for their employees ect ect. Certainly, and I wonder how many unskilled immigrant workers bodies they would have had to climb in order to take down Rockefeller.
"A fundamental principle of libertarianism is that each person naturally owns his own body. A person's body and labor are "privately owned" by him originally, not owned "collectively" by society. Ownership means the right to sell or trade as the owner chooses. Whatever the labor is traded for is then privately owned by him.
Opposing a person's private ownership rights to his own labor, and whatever he trades it for, is anti-libertarian. Chomsky is just very confused."
It is certainly up for debate whether or not capitalism and private ownership increase or decrease our liberty, but I'm not debating this point.
You say "A fundamental principle of libertarianism is that....a persons labor is "privately owned" by him", and in a way I think socialists agree on this point, hence the motto "wage labour is slavery", ie they believe in a capitalist system your labour is stolen from you by people who own the means of production.
Besides, the point I was making by choosing those quotes from wikipedia is that the connection between libertarianism and socialism predates its connection with capitalism. Furthermore, the association with libertarianism and capitalism is almost an entirely American phenomenon. This is why it said the term libertarian socialism is redundant in Europe.
Note that I am not trying to argue for either side of the debate, but rather trying to clear up some translational issues between American and European traditions. As a European, I found it confusing that anyone would associate libertarianism with capitalism at all, they seem contradictory from what I know about libertarianism.
As I see it the 'hurdle', or rather barrier come hurdle, was placed before Standard Oil who wished to expand by buying stock in other corporations. Standard Oil found a way around it and the circumvention did not have anything to do with the size of the company so much as having a creative lawyer. And of course once the work around was designed it could be exploited by anyone in a position to exploit it. So I don't see how this "hurdle" was any sort of hindrance to Standard Oil's competition unless they were trying to create a monopoly themselves.The hurdle you refer to is the hurdle that resulted in Standard Oil creating a trust. Obviously that's not the same hurdle(s) that held back their competition.And as I already pointed out Rockefeller had plenty of competition and took them out in the old fashioned way (which you apparently do not believe exists) without any need of government regulation.Are you claiming there was a shortage of potential competitors? Other rich people just had no interest in getting richer, so they just chose not to enter the market? It wasn't the regulatory barriers to entry, it was a lack of interest?
Are we talking about completely different things here? A market in which competition is hindered by any artificial means is by definition not a (completely) free market. Are you claiming that Standard Oil achieved a monopoly without any artificial barriers to entry for any potential competitor? They just decided they weren't interested in profit? Of course if you really want to you could say that someone else may have been able to get in on the action and undercut Rockefeller, instead of the other way around, if only they needn't have worried about business permits or a certain level quality of product or working conditions for their employees ect ect.Among other things. Does this mean that you now agree that, whether you support those particular types of regulations or not, clearly they are generally a competitive advantage for large companies over small companies?
You say "A fundamental principle of libertarianism is that....a persons labor is "privately owned" by him", and in a way I think socialists agree on this point, hence the motto "wage labour is slavery", ie they believe in a capitalist system your labour is stolen from you by people who own the means of production.Then they are equating the private ownership of one's own labor with slavery. They are just using the word slavery to mean liberty.It is certainly up for debate whether or not capitalism and private ownership increase or decrease our libertyCapitalism and private ownership are the result of liberty, not the cause. Libertarians advocate liberty which results in capitalism, not the other way around. Capitalism is an inevitable result of a failure to restrict liberty. It's not some system cooked up by government to force on people like socialism.As a European, I found it confusing that anyone would associate libertarianism with capitalism at all, they seem contradictory from what I know about libertarianism.That sounds strange to me, since classical liberalism started in Europe, and most of the famous Enlightenment era classical liberals (pro-capitalism) were European.
John Locke and Adam Smith are probably considered the most influential figures of the Enlightenment, and they, and most of those with them, associated capitalism with freedom, and were European.
And that all predated the European socialist era by a couple hundred years. Marxist ideology is a relative latecomer to the scene.
Edit: According to Wikipedia: "the modern concept of socialism evolved in response to the development of industrial capitalism."
From Wikipedia :
"the association of socialism to libertarianism predates that of capitalism"
"Outside the United States, "libertarian" generally refers to anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist ideologies"
These bare statement show that what you write cannot be true. If libertarianism necessarily implies capitalism and ownership, then why were the first libertarians strongly opposed to them?
You write "Then they are equating the private ownership of one's own labor with slavery. They are just using the word slavery to mean liberty". Don't you understand that liberty means different things to other people? The original libertarians considered wage labour to be slavery. It's not up to you to tell them that their slavery is really their liberty.
If libertarianism necessarily implies capitalism and ownership, then why were the first libertarians strongly opposed to them?They weren't the first libertarians, they were just the first to use the term "libertarian" to describe themselves. Anyone can call themselves libertarian. They did not, however believe in the individual right to own one's labor. And although they called themselves "libertarian socialists", they were not advocates of a government imposed socialist economic system, either. They used both words very differently than commonly used today.
You write "Then they are equating the private ownership of one's own labor with slavery. They are just using the word slavery to mean liberty". Don't you understand that liberty means different things to other people? The original libertarians considered wage labour to be slavery. It's not up to you to tell them that their slavery is really their liberty.They weren't the original libertarians, or libertarians at all. They just widely used the term first, while the word liberty was long commonly used to mean the opposite of what they believed in. And they used the word slavery to refer to what the word liberty had long been used to mean.
It's called propaganda.
But, I'm sure you've heard the expression "a rose by any other name (is still a rose)". I value my right to decide for myself whether, when, and how to sell or trade my labor. Someone using the word "slavery" to describe that affects only how they choose to use the word, it doesn't actually change the situation.
"They weren't the first libertarians, they were just the first to use the term "libertarian" to describe themselves"
This makes no sense. If they were the first people to describe themself as libertarian, then libertarian by definition pertains to their beliefs because they invented the term.
"They used both words very differently than commonly used today"
As the quotes from wikipedia show, they rather use the words differently to how they are commonly used in the US today. However they use them in both the same way as their original meaning and the majority of the worlds common usage.
"But, I'm sure you've heard the expression "a rose by any other name (is still a rose)". I value my right to decide for myself whether, when, and how to sell or trade my labor."
Right. And socialists value that their labour isn't stolen from them by those owning the means of production.
"Someone using the word "slavery" to describe that affects only how they choose to use the word, it doesn't actually change the situation."
It doesn't affect your opinion of the situation, and neither does your choice of words affect theirs. Your argument would work equally well for a socialist arguing against your "liberty", ie their slavery.
jambaugh
Oct9-09, 03:22 PM
I'm not up to speed on the history of the use of the term "Libertarian" except as it is used by the Libertarian Political Party which is an offshoot (actually something of a heresy) of Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy. I think some here are using the term in this sense and some in a more historic sense.
With regard to Anarchy, I don't believe you can actually define it meaningfully. Whether it is formal or informal "The State" is and always will be the strongest domestic power. Drop a random collection of people on an island and "The State" is initially the biggest baddest dude willing to club you to steal your coconut. He may not bother to call it taxes or himself King but the difference is only a matter of scale.
Quickly people realize that many can overpower a few. The situation may evolve into a hierarchic tyranny or informal democracy or some other form depending on the situation and the will of those people. Until things stabilize there will be war and diplomacy and factions. Ultimately there comes formal agreements and distribution of duties where the many back up the few who deal with day to day state affairs and enforcement of agreements and rules that all must obey.
Government is the exercise of force. States form to maintain exclusive franchise on the use of force. But even in the most benign freedom loving society force must be used to deal with the individual who threatens to hit you over the head if you don't give him your coconut!
The use of force is always a factor in human interaction. Politics is how people decide to deal with this fundamental truth. You can't wish the use of force away, only abdicate the moral responsibility each individual has to decide when and why it is used.
I don't think anybody is denying that force may sometimes be necessary. What anarchists (and most libertarians) are denying is that there should be a "monopoly of violence" in the state.
If they were the first people to describe themself as libertarian, then libertarian by definition pertains to their beliefs because they invented the term.According to that logic, getting fired from your job means having your house burnt down. That's why it was called "fired" originally. And the word libertarian is derived from the word liberty which was already in common usage to mean the opposite."They used both words very differently than commonly used today"
As the quotes from wikipedia show, they rather use the words differently to how they are commonly used in the US today. However they use them in both the same way as their original meaning and the majority of the worlds common usage.Well, there's no reason to argue semantics, it's just a word. People can use it as they want. I'll use it to mean an advocate of liberty.And socialists value that their labour isn't stolen from them by those owning the means of production.So do I, and all libertarians (classical liberals). I never said otherwise. The word "stolen" simply doesn't mean voluntarily sold. There's another word they use very differently.Your argument would work equally well for a socialist arguing against your "liberty", ie their slavery.OK, if I were to use their definitions, then I don't oppose what they call stealing or what they call slavery. Is that what you mean?
So they could say "Al68 doesn't oppose stealing and slavery" (meaning that I don't oppose someone voluntarily selling their own labor). Would they be informing people with that statement or misleading them?
"According to that logic, getting fired from your job means having your house burnt down. That's why it was called "fired" originally. And the word libertarian is derived from the word liberty which was already in common usage to mean the opposite."
"Well, there's no reason to argue semantics, it's just a word. People can use it as they want."
Sounds like you're contradicting yourself to me. Anyway, the point is that libertarian was originally associated with socialism and still is outside of the US. Libertarianism later divided into propertarian and anti-propertarian. You are speaking about a specific type of libertarianism.
"I'll use it to mean an advocate of liberty"
Again, liberty means different things to different people. In the UK, the socialist parties are considered liberal, and more free-market parties are considered conservative.
You are welcome to argue against the tenets of socialism, but you can't argue that socialism and libertarianism are incompatible when libertarianism is a traditionally socialist ideology.
In the UK, the socialist parties are considered liberal, and more free-market parties are considered conservative.That's pretty much the same in the U.S. The word liberal is commonly used as a synonym for "socialist" while the word socialist is frowned upon and considered derogatory by them. I've been "scolded" for using the word socialist, but the word liberal, as you point out, has multiple and contradictory meanings to different people and causes a lot of misunderstandings. I don't use the word "liberal" without quotes or some kind of modifier like "classical liberal" that makes the meaning clear. Maybe I should treat the word libertarian (and slave) the same way?You are welcome to argue against the tenets of socialism, but you can't argue that socialism and libertarianism are incompatible when libertarianism is a traditionally socialist ideology.OK, I agree, if you're using the word libertarian to refer to that ideology. I've honestly never heard it used that way before except as a historical reference. But the incompatibility is really between liberty and "imposed" socialism, not voluntary socialism. In that sense, the "compatibility" between liberty and voluntary socialism simply results in most people choosing not to volunteer.
I wasn't using the word liberty to mean "selling one's labor", I was using it to mean that a person could decide for himself whether to or not, and under what conditions. Choosing not to "sell one's labor" is also exercising liberty. The word liberty refers to the right to make the choice, not the specific choice made. And the word "slave" historically has been used to refer to people who were denied that choice.
Voluntary socialism is actually practiced in the U.S. by small groups (libertarian socialists maybe? I don't know if they call the rest of us "slaves" or not). There has never been any law against it in the U.S. Such a law would be equally incompatible with liberty.
The reason the U.S. associates liberty with capitalism isn't just an arbitrary association, it's U.S. history. The U.S. simply chose not to restrict economic liberty. No major restrictions on either capitalism or socialism. People were free to practice either as they chose. The overwhelming majority practices capitalism as a result of the freedom to do so. Liberty isn't synonymous with capitalism, it's synonymous with the economic freedom that allows capitalism to thrive.
In addition, the word socialism was used mostly to refer to socialist states, which restricted liberty as a means to impose socialism.
madness
Oct10-09, 08:22 AM
"The word liberal is commonly used as a synonym for "socialist" while the word socialist is frowned upon and considered derogatory"
There are several openly socialist parties in the UK, although they are relatively minor parties. Nevertheless they are given credibility and appear on the news etc. Norway and Sweden have fairly socialist (at least compared to the US) governments.
"I've honestly never heard it used that way before except as a historical reference"
I was actually more familiar with the word in the context of socialism than with capitalism. Most people who call themselves "liberal" here are anti-capitalist.
"I don't know if they call the rest of us "slaves" or not"
I imagine the citizens of Norway do not consider you as slaves, and that you do not consider them as slaves.
The idea behind socialism is that capitalism acts to restrict an individuals freedom through class division and "wage slavery". Neither ideology are trying to restrict peoples' liberty, they are both trying to maximise it. They just have different ideas on how to do it (and possibly what liberty is).
jambaugh
Oct10-09, 01:54 PM
I don't think anybody is denying that force may sometimes be necessary. What anarchists (and most libertarians) are denying is that there should be a "monopoly of violence" in the state.
I thought anarchists desired a stateless society. It's not a monopoly of violence but unambiguous jurisdiction on the use of force. Force = violence or the threat of violence. [EDIT: ... which establishes the State.]
Even in the most all encompassing state I can take a swing at my Quaker neighbor or rape his wife. The state can confiscate all weapons but not our ability to do violence hence they cannot have a monopoly on its use. They can however punish or kill me for using violence. The threat to do so is their exercise of force and establishes their jurisdiction on its use.
At best Anarchy can be defined as the transition stage between periods of domination by a given power faction. Seeking Anarchy is like seeking freefall by jumping off a building. And I think the consequences of success are likely as dramatic.
This of course is not the same as seeking a change of state which is more like jumping out the window of a burning building. One is seeking escape from one undesirable situation and hoping to land in a better one.
The Anarchist sees government as unnecessary. The Libertarian sees it as necessary but a necessary evil and seeks to minimize its application to only the necessary role and that is to minimize the use of force. The Libertarian acknowledges my thesis that you can't wish away the use of force, only counter it with force.
For example, you cannot define private property without some social convention which incorporates the use of force to protect that property. Private property is what defines a thief which is someone the state punishes for taking that private property from its lawful owner. Without a state, your private property is how much you can hold on to by force. You become "the state" and your property your realm. You are subject to "war" when a bigger badder dude covets what you possess.
Only within the context of an existing state which enforces some rules of private property can you then --in the process of establishing the rules the state shall use-- argue what should or should not be considered private property. e.g. One may argue that what one produces, receives in exchanged for what one produces, or are gifted by others who previously produced or received in exchange or were gifted, constitutes private property not to be confiscated by the state without due process (or at all).
In the absence of a state you can only argue sensibly about what you as an individual should do, e.g. whether you as an individual should fight to keep a given coconut. You can argue with another about the issue but that argument must invoke the "shoulds" of their morality not your own. Thus two individuals may according to each's moral code both fight for the same coconut. The only way to establish a consistent definition of "should" which prevents fighting over coconuts is the establishment a social "should" backed by state sponsored force.
Note: I define an individual's moral code as what he thinks is right or wrong for him to do. It needn't be rational or self consistent. Individuals then either support the state or endure it or rebel against it (or some gradient in between) and they do so according to their own moral code.
Do you know any successful people who truly believe in, prefer, and desire anarchy? Anarchy is great for street gangs who prey on the defenseless - until they go home and realize grandma lives off a Government issued social security check and medicare/health care and a retirement pension invested in the stock market.
madness
Oct10-09, 02:09 PM
Anarchists do desire a stateless society. The monopoly of violence lies in the police and army. Anarchism is not meant to be a transition phase and is not meant to be chaotic. Anarchists such as Chomsky rather advocate direct grass roots democracy, with the power spread evenly the heirarchical structure abolished.
There have been functioning examples of anarchist societies (such as much of civil war Spain), which were highly ordered and large in scale.
Libertarians may or may not seek a stateless society.
As for the rest of your post, I think if you replace state with grass roots democracy which an individual is free to participate in or leave then there should be no problems.
madness
Oct10-09, 02:10 PM
As for successful people who desire anarchy. There is Gandhi, Tolstoy, Noam Chomsky, the people of civil war spain...
The idea behind socialism is that capitalism acts to restrict an individuals freedom through class division and "wage slavery".That just doesn't add up. My freedom simply isn't restricted by what they call "wage slavery" because I choose it voluntarily. No government tells me to do it. No private institution tells me to do it. Who is restricting my freedom?
madness
Oct10-09, 05:44 PM
The people who own the means of production get paid a disproportionate amount of money compared to the workers. So for example a factory owner is earning money out of the labour of the factory workers. This is what I think socialists mean by wage slavery. They then ask "why can't the workers own the means of production?". This is exactly what happened in anarchist Spain - the workers in the factories owned the factories, and elected leaders using direct democracy although the profit was shared.
So the reason a socialist would say your freedom is restricted by wage slavery is that without owning the means of production you cannot escape from it.
The people who own the means of production get paid a disproportionate amount of money compared to the workers. So for example a factory owner is earning money out of the labour of the factory workers. This is what I think socialists mean by wage slavery. They then ask "why can't the workers own the means of production?". This is exactly what happened in anarchist Spain - the workers in the factories owned the factories, and elected leaders using direct democracy although the profit was shared.
So the reason a socialist would say your freedom is restricted by wage slavery is that without owning the means of production you cannot escape from it.Yes, but that's just using it as a figure of speech, like with "a slave to cigarettes".
That's fine, but one should at least recognize that it's a figure of speech when used that way and not true in a literal sense.
TheStatutoryApe
Oct10-09, 07:28 PM
The people who own the means of production get paid a disproportionate amount of money compared to the workers. So for example a factory owner is earning money out of the labour of the factory workers. This is what I think socialists mean by wage slavery. They then ask "why can't the workers own the means of production?". This is exactly what happened in anarchist Spain - the workers in the factories owned the factories, and elected leaders using direct democracy although the profit was shared.
So the reason a socialist would say your freedom is restricted by wage slavery is that without owning the means of production you cannot escape from it.
The part that I underlined is quite possible in a capitalist society. It actually happens fairly often. The problem you see is that someone must invest in and create the means of production to begin with. If people come together and invest their time and effort into a project forcing them to give equal control and ownership to anyone else who comes along and becomes part of the company is to devalue (even steal) their work from them. No one truly owns the means of production then. That is the problem with the logic behind the socialist idea of 'the people' owning the means of production. Only where the means of production are owned by individuals are they truly in the hands of the people.
As for successful people who desire anarchy. There is Gandhi, Tolstoy, Noam Chomsky, the people of civil war spain...
:rofl: WOW! That is quite a list you've compiled - are there any OTHER "successful" people on the list?
Better yet, are there any PF members that are ready to "join" the ranks of the anarchists? Are you ready to forget about laws and banks and distribution networks and infrastructure and ANYTHING organized by the state?
Who among you is prepared to stake your claim to a small tract of real property and defend it with your hands, to grow your own food to survive, to walk to a river/stream/lake and carry your water home in any container you can find, to give up utilities and communications, health care, employment, cash and investments, and every means of distribution you know?
Doesn't it sound GREAT??? Talk about freedom...or does it sound scary to you too?
Ideology has it's place - it's not in the real world.
Who among you is prepared to...........to give up utilities and communications, health care, employment, cash and investments, and every means of distribution you know?I'm not an anarchist, but those things weren't invented by government. They were invented, and except for restrictions by government, for the most part, organized by private entities (in the U.S.).
The government's biggest contribution to most of those things in the U.S. was staying out of the way. (Except currency, some utilities, and roads, but although those were provided by government, they didn't have to be to exist).
Why would health care, employment, investments, and distribution be on the list? Those were primarily created, organized, and managed privately. Government's role in the U.S. historically was maintaining law and order, not actually managing or organizing privately provided goods and services.
Even today, most goods and services are primarily organized and managed privately, and even those that aren't could be, if freedom is protected, which is why we really need government.
That's where I disagree with anarchists, I believe protecting liberty is a legitimate role of government.
jambaugh
Oct11-09, 01:40 AM
The people who own the means of production get paid a disproportionate amount of money compared to the workers.
Proportion implies ratio so I assume you are comparing the ratio worker's pay over owner's pay to something. Now what ratio are you comparing it to that you say it is disproportionate?
Clearly it is disproportionate to what you personally think it should be but "I think its wrong" isn't an argument or evidence to be used in an argument. Would you please fill in the blank?
"owners get paid an amount of money disproportionate to __________ as compared to workers."
jambaugh
Oct11-09, 03:01 AM
Anarchists do desire a stateless society.
Which I assert makes them irrational as that is an impossibility short of annihilating all but one person on the planet.
The monopoly of violence lies in the police and army.
again that is only a monopoly if every member of society is in the police or in the army.
I cannot obtain a monopoly on the production of gold simply by declaring that I own all the gold mines. I must use force either through the state via enforcement of contracts or by my own bloody ruthless power to control all the gold mines and prevent anyone else from taking gold out of them. The state cannot eliminate non state sponsored violence. They can only make it illegal. So "monopoly on violence" is the wrong phrase. Try again.
Anarchism is not meant to be a transition phase and is not meant to be chaotic.
And I've made no statement about what an Anarchist intends. I'm making statements of fact about the nature of reality as it applies to the definition of Anarchism as the goal of as stateless society. The instant you eliminate the existing state you eliminate the state's suppression of organized use of force by other factions (e.g. street gangs and vigilante groups) and they will instantly become new states at war until a new equilibrium occurs. There is no avoiding the chaos and transitional nature of anarchy as defined by the elimination of the state.
Anarchists such as Chomsky rather advocate direct grass roots democracy, with the power spread evenly the heirarchical structure abolished.
Again what they advocate and what is possible do not necessarily have non-empty intersections. If Chomsky advocates direct grass roots democracy he is advocating a form of state and thus not a stateless society. That is unless he is advocating democracy without means of enforcement in which case what does the rapist care that people vote rape is illegal if there is no means to enforce that law.
The hazards of a direct democracy were very well outlined back when the founding fathers argued out the form of government the US would use. Who cares how people vote if there is no enforcement. Who protects the individual from being voted as tomorrows dinner if there is enforcement? And thus why should I hold any respect for what Chomsky advocates.
There have been functioning examples of anarchist societies (such as much of civil war Spain), which were highly ordered and large in scale.
Note the example you give was a transition period when the major power factions were fighting for dominance and so the smaller power factions i.e. small communities, could function as micro-states. Clearly once the fighting ended they did not long stay independent. But I still argue that all this means is that the state devolved to very small scale micro-states.
But anarchy does not mean putting anarchists in charge. They become the state. The critical premise of the anarchist is that spontaneous order forms from free individuals acting rationally (which is an invalid assumption) and that reason will in all circumstances preclude the preemptive use of force (again not a valid assumption).
As for the rest of your post, I think if you replace state with grass roots democracy which an individual is free to participate in or leave then there should be no problems.
So if the community votes to confiscate your crop and your farmland and distribute it, you are free to leave? What if you decide to stay? How is either case not a problem?
State enforced collectivism is NOT anarchy even if that state is a small village and if that state's decisions are arrived at via "grass roots democracy". Enforcement, even if that enforcement is all the yea-sayers in the democracy acting in concert, is "the state" whether those acting wish to call themselves a state or call themselves anarchists. They are acting in concert using the power of their numbers and using the authority of their vote. The state is always the adjudicator of its own authority. The state is a group of individuals acting through some agreement as to how and when force is to be applied.
Now if in your understanding my scenario is not anarchism I point out that is is a scenario common to "grass roots democracies" that emerged in various socialist revolutions of history. If in fact it is not anarchism then I point out it is yet another example of the instability of true anarchy.
If you claim it is anarchy then I say you are just trying to pass off your own version of state as a wolf in sheep's clothing.
I think your best bet is to define anarchy as an asymptotic horizon used as a direction (like colder) instead of as a goal (absolute zero). One could then argue as Libertarians do that we should move towards less state involvement i.e. toward anarchy (to which I agree) instead of to anarchy= no state (which I assert is operationally meaningless). But such arguments are only valid in the context of where we are (or rather what the nature of the state is) here and now. One may presume that there is some ideal point of minimum state action but that point may change due to circumstances such as a crisis.
But ultimately how does your ideal anarchist society prevent the violent takeover by a group of dedicated evangelical "statests"? You can invoke Gandhi but he merely shamed the British into realizing they were oppressors and not beneficent paternal rulers. They gave India independence because their ego demanded it. Had Gandhi been dealing with the Romans he'd have been crucified in short order along with his followers. You may bring up Spain but again that was a brief period when many factions were braced against each other fighting for who would become the next State. It hardly constitutes an existing "anarchistic society" dealing with a single determined power faction deciding to take over.
The best, most accurate scenario I can think of to describe the type of anarchy you seem to advocate is the Mexican village in the movie the Magnificent Seven only without the Hollywood Heroes coming to the rescue.
jambaugh
Oct11-09, 03:10 AM
I'm not an anarchist, but those things weren't invented by government. They were invented, and except for restrictions by government, for the most part, organized by private entities (in the U.S.).
This is quite true but those private entities were able to create and build without having to protect what they built from other private entities wishing to pilfer and loot. Consider how well the stores functioned in New Orleans after the Hurricane. Granted much stock was destroyed by the floods but plenty weren't. They lasted what? a day before looters cleaned them out?
The government's biggest contribution to most of those things in the U.S. was staying out of the way. (Except currency, some utilities, and roads, but although those were provided by government, they didn't have to be to exist).
Quite true if you restate it as the Government keeping the looters (including the Government) at bay.
Of course you understand this already as you state:
Even today, most goods and services are primarily organized and managed privately, and even those that aren't could be, if freedom is protected, which is why we really need government.
That's where I disagree with anarchists, I believe protecting liberty is a legitimate role of government.
madness
Oct11-09, 07:16 AM
"Proportion implies ratio so I assume you are comparing the ratio worker's pay over owner's pay to something. Now what ratio are you comparing it to that you say it is disproportionate?"
I'm comparing the ratio of work done to the ratio of pay. So to fill in your blank. Owners get paid an amount disproportianate to the amount of work they do compared to workers
"Which I assert makes them irrational as that is an impossibility short of annihilating all but one person on the planet"
What about anarchist Spain?
"again that is only a monopoly if every member of society is in the police or in the army."
It is a monopoly because we are not legally entitled to use it.
"If Chomsky advocates direct grass roots democracy he is advocating a form of state and thus not a stateless society"
Again I refer you to anarchist Spain. There was no state, only grass roots democracy. There was order, for example if the factory workers didn't like the person running the factory they elected a new one.
"The instant you eliminate the existing state you eliminate the state's suppression of organized use of force by other factions (e.g. street gangs and vigilante groups) and they will instantly become new states at war until a new equilibrium occurs"
Again, it didn't happen in anarchist Spain. The anarchist position holds that what you are arguing against is already the case in the form of the state.
"Note the example you give was a transition period when the major power factions were fighting for dominance and so the smaller power factions i.e. small communities, could function as micro-states. Clearly once the fighting ended they did not long stay independent"
Anarchist Spain was large in scale, spanning much of Spain. They didn't stay independent because they were invaded by Franco and thousands were executed.
State enforced collectivism is NOT anarchy even if that state is a small village and if that state's decisions are arrived at via "grass roots democracy". Enforcement, even if that enforcement is all the yea-sayers in the democracy acting in concert, is "the state" whether those acting wish to call themselves a state or call themselves anarchists. They are acting in concert using the power of their numbers and using the authority of their vote. The state is always the adjudicator of its own authority. The state is a group of individuals acting through some agreement as to how and when force is to be applied.
If you wish to call everybody in a community "the state", you can. The anarchists only want to change the power structure from top-down to bottom-up.
But ultimately how does your ideal anarchist society prevent the violent takeover by a group of dedicated evangelical "statests"?
With an army?
jambaugh
Oct11-09, 09:34 AM
I'm comparing the ratio of work done to the ratio of pay. So to fill in your blank. [I]Owners get paid an amount disproportianate to the amount of work they do compared to workers
And workers get paid an amount disproportionate to the amount of capital they risk as compared to owners. If you compare to risked capital workers should get zero. The question then is, how do you arrive at a fair distribution?
... [long rant cut out.]....
Let me offer you the first try at answering.
But let me also point out that many companies make no profit plus undergo a capital loss. In fact the majority of start-up companies fail in which case the workers still got their wages over the time they worked but the owners, not only got zilch, they got negative payment "disproportionate" to the amount of work they do compared to workers. They certainly didn't get fair wages for the blood sweat and tears THEY put into the company.
madness
Oct11-09, 10:03 AM
Your argument comes from a capitalist position and doesn't really come in to play from a socialist point of view. In a socialist anarchist (there are anarcho-capitailsts too) framework, everyone would be risking the same amount of capital.
Socialists criticise capitalism itself, and anarchists criticise heirarchical structures. So in answer to your question, you arrive at a fair distribution by allowing the workers to own the means of production and democratically manage the factory (or whatever it is) themselves.
I'm not an anarchist, but those things weren't invented by government. They were invented, and except for restrictions by government, for the most part, organized by private entities (in the U.S.).
The government's biggest contribution to most of those things in the U.S. was staying out of the way. (Except currency, some utilities, and roads, but although those were provided by government, they didn't have to be to exist).
Why would health care, employment, investments, and distribution be on the list? Those were primarily created, organized, and managed privately. Government's role in the U.S. historically was maintaining law and order, not actually managing or organizing privately provided goods and services.
Even today, most goods and services are primarily organized and managed privately, and even those that aren't could be, if freedom is protected, which is why we really need government.
That's where I disagree with anarchists, I believe protecting liberty is a legitimate role of government.
Contract law, property rights, border treaties, Government investment in infrastructure (highways and highway maintenance make distribution possible), investments are policed or guaranteed by the Government, healthcare is licensed and standards are set by the Government, and workers rights (especially safety) are protected by Government.
Your argument comes from a capitalist position and doesn't really come in to play from a socialist point of view. In a socialist anarchist (there are anarcho-capitailsts too) framework, everyone would be risking the same amount of capital.
Socialists criticise capitalism itself, and anarchists criticise heirarchical structures. So in answer to your question, you arrive at a fair distribution by allowing the workers to own the means of production and democratically manage the factory (or whatever it is) themselves.
The place for this type of debate is in a classroom. Anarchy doesn't work in the civilized "real" world without revolution or war.
I think our Capitalist society has been very fair in distributing wealth to poor people. Welfare has spent trillions of dollars to protect people - without burdening them with the ownership and management responsibilities of operating our industrial base.
Now you suggest that isn't good enough? Was the Government take-over of GM fair? Was the treatment of Bondholders fair? Should the Autoworkers Union have been given more than the rest of us? Should YOU have been given equity in GM - at the shareholders expense?
Anyone who has risked their financial security to start a business will disagree with you.
Anyone who has invested their personal funds in the stock market will disagree with you.
Anyone that holds bonds will disagree with you.
WHY will they disagree? They will disagree because they don't want their personal wealth taken away from them - regardless of amounts.
If you disagree with my comments, please explain to everyone that has something to lose how anarchy would make our lives better. Sell us on the benefits of anarchy - if you can.
So in answer to your question, you arrive at a fair distribution by allowing the workers to own the means of production and democratically manage the factory (or whatever it is) themselves.In a free market, anyone is "allowed to own means of production". There is no limit on "means of production".
Means of production are themselves "produced". It's not like they came first, then came labor. It's the other way around.
Mattara
Oct11-09, 04:53 PM
The problem with "democratically managing the factory" is that democracy is coercion because you can be forced with violence and the threat of violence to support something that you do not, in fact, support at all.
jambaugh
Oct11-09, 10:00 PM
Your argument comes from a capitalist position and doesn't really come in to play from a socialist point of view.
My argument is about the dynamics of interacting people. You can't invalidate the argument by shifting "points of view". If the argument is invalid point out where it is invalid. If its validity is contextual then argue the context. But the arguer's point of view is not a context. In particular....
Socialists criticise capitalism itself,...
how by your use of "point of view" dependence can a Socialist who thereby is NOT using a capitalist point of view legitimately criticize capitalism?
... and anarchists criticise heirarchical structures. So in answer to your question, you arrive at a fair distribution by allowing the workers to own the means of production and democratically manage the factory (or whatever it is) themselves.
In a socialist anarchist (there are anarcho-capitailsts too) framework, everyone would be risking the same amount of capital.
How can everyone risk the same amount of capital if not everyone has sufficient capital to pay their share? By the way, nothing in free market capitalism prevents a group of skilled laborers pooling their capital to form a company. Worker ownership is perfectly consistent with capitalism. What is not is workers using force to seize "the means of production" from the owner who did invest his capital.
Let me also point out that "the means of production" is ill defined. Part of the "means of production" is the contractual agreements of the owners and organizational leadership of management. Take the "Kelly Girls" the temp agency. There is no factory or raw materials or machinery. There is just a company which provides short notice on demand temporary office management labor. The actual girls could very well work independently of this structure but they benefit by the organization and logistical coordination of the management plus the contractual benefits e.g. retainer payments, and search and advertisement services provided by and paid for with the owner and his capital investment.
A new worker without capital must work for wages to get capital to invest in ownership of his own enterprise. He is free to do this in a capitalistic society and if successful enough to expand that enterprise hiring more workers. Indeed if he can demonstrate a reasonable chance of success in the venture he can get venture capitalists to back his enterprise. They will want a share in the ownership but that is their return on the risk and time use of this capital.
Provided he does not seek to obtain capital by fraud or force the socialist anarchist is perfectly free to live by his ideals in a free, free-market Federalist capitalist state. His ideals may make him non-competitive but that is not the fault of his competition.
Contrarily the capitalist is not free to exercise his ideals in a socialist state (whether they call their organization a state or an anarchy, if they use force to thwart capitalism they are a tyrannical state.) It would seem to me a no brainer that the capitalist society is more free.
You speak of "workers" vs "owners" as if they were disjoint sets. A worker is not a worker if he isn't working, he's just a person. An owner is a worker if he is adding value to the products of a concern. Let me point out that every job, EVERY job, is an intellectual occupation. A janitor doesn't just push a broom around, he must judge where unclean areas are and how to remediate them and whether his efforts have succeeded to the standards set. He uses perception and judgment. So too a ditch digger. Though some jobs are more physically demanding than others all are exercises of mind coordinating action. Without the mind there can be no value added. I make this point to say that the venture capitalist is too adding value through the judgment he makes in where and how much he will risk his capital. He judges how risky a venture is, how much the use of his capital should cost to offset that risk and whether he has enough information to make a reliable judgment. If he fails he looses capital. If he succeeds he gains more capital. The phylum of venture capitalists evolves with the most efficient at judging risk being the most successful.
Furthermore in the context of needing to court the venture capitalist the entrepreneur (possibly a dissatisfied worker) must demonstrate a competent business plan. Often he must submit multiple revisions before he is trusted with the investor's hard won capital. By this process the entrepreneur's chances of success (of generating and maintaining profitable productivity) is greatly greatly increased. The capitalist has added value to the enterprise by both providing the needed capital and by judging and remediating risk.
If we do it as you suggest "everyone risks the same amount of capital" firstly how broadly are you defining "everyone" and who has the competence to evaluate the risk of the venture in question? The successful venture capitalist has empirically demonstrated competence by virtue of his success. He risks only his own capital on his judgment. The collective you suggest do they go by vote? Do they appoint an executive to decide? Do they vote with their choice to participate? (This last case smells an awful lot like evil capitalists buying shares in an evil corporation under an evil free market system) And why can't individuals who more strongly believe in the enterprise not be able to risk more of their own capital in exchange for more return in the event of success? If its true anarchy then certainly nothing constrains him? And if something (a state?) does constrain him how is this situation more free than bad ole capitalism?
Now here is my answer to the question. A free market. The investor-owner using free contracts auctions the use of his capital by the enterprise. How much a block of ownership costs and thus how much return he gets per invested coin is determined by supply and demand and quality of the potential return (low quality being high risk). Likewise the worker auctions his service using a free contract again at a wage dictated by supply and demand and the quality of his offering and of his work situation. He asks more for hazardous labor, and for long hours. He is offered more if his work quality is higher. And if the enterprise does not distribute revenue equitably between worker wages and owner-investor returns then the value added by investors vs value added by workers will be out of balance making the productivity of the enterprise less than the ideal. They will not be as competitive against other enterprises in the same markets.
Inequity is defined empirically by inefficiency and lower productivity. The system if unconstrained by outside political (and hence coercive) forces is self correcting.
Only in a free market capitalist system is freedom maximized because only in such a system is the producer truly compensated in proportion to his effort and the benefit he provides to other individuals by his production. The producer may be either a worker, manager or capital investor. Or he may be a market trader or a banker or a independent contractor. If he is overpaid he will be underbid by competitors. If he is underpaid or rather offered underpayment he will sell his services elsewhere.
Money is ultimately a physical token of empirically verified moral value. You pay someone in direct proportion to how much he does for you as you judge your own benefit plus how much he sacrificed in the process as he judges. The negotiation of the contract is the mutual adjudication of what relative value this beneficent action has. He who does the most good to the most people gets the most tokens. He who receives the most benefit must reward the benefactor with tokens he earned by doing good himself. The only caveat is that an individual may give his tokens. Even the administration of tokens is a benefit hence the good banker gets rewarded. Any attempt to interfere with this system of moral prestige is a universal sin!
If you are dying of thirst in the desert and you run across a fellow who offers you a jug of water for $10,000 dollars you should pay it and be glad. Your life is worth $10,000 dollars to you and he just saved it by his foresight in having extra water. You may want to haggle but you should not stand on your rights to his beneficial action. Further if you see he has done this often you should go get a truck of water and compete with him selling at $500 a jug. Eventually some smart fellow will come along and install a coin operated water dispenser and many many lives will be saved. Free markets self correct.
By the way, nothing in free market capitalism prevents a group of skilled laborers pooling their capital to form a company. Worker ownership is perfectly consistent with capitalism. What is not is workers using force to seize "the means of production" from the owner who did invest his capital.
Did you notice the first thing the UAW wanted to do was sell their share of GM - that was given to them. Did anyone else wonder why they didn't propose an ESOP or some other method to acquire their employer?
If all of the UAW members and retirees went to the bank and borrowed $50,000 each to invest in GM, they could have attracted nearly unlimited capital in the market to acquire and operate the company "the right way".
madness
Oct12-09, 02:50 PM
"I think our Capitalist society has been very fair in distributing wealth to poor people. Welfare has spent trillions of dollars to protect people - without burdening them with the ownership and management responsibilities of operating our industrial base."
Welfate is socialist and would be unacceptable in a free market.
"If you disagree with my comments, please explain to everyone that has something to lose how anarchy would make our lives better"
Socialism should make life better for working class people, obviously CEO's of companies aren't the ones who benefit, that's the whole point. In the UK I get all my university fees paid as well as an interest free student loan and free health care. I am incredibly thankful that I live in a country which provides this, as I would not be able to afford to go to a top university otherwise.
madness
Oct12-09, 02:57 PM
"In a free market, anyone is "allowed to own means of production". There is no limit on "means of production"."
Then why is it that people born poor are statistically much less likely to go to a good university or end up with a high paying job? People who are born at a disadvantage have less access to education, a higher chance of getting involved in crime and less access to legal defense than those born into wealthy families.
The key point is that people are not born with equal opportunities, and do not always have access to the "means of production".
madness
Oct12-09, 03:08 PM
"My argument is about the dynamics of interacting people. You can't invalidate the argument by shifting "points of view". If the argument is invalid point out where it is invalid."
In historical examples of socialist anarchism, the workers collectively owned the factory and democratically elected someone to manage it. In this case, everyone risks the same capital, and your argument doesn't come into play.
"how by your use of "point of view" dependence can a Socialist who thereby is NOT using a capitalist point of view legitimately criticize capitalism?"
A socialist criticises capitalism on the basis that allows a select few to become wealthy through the labour of the majority.
"How can everyone risk the same amount of capital if not everyone has sufficient capital to pay their share?"
Why wouldn't they have sufficient capital? The whole point of socialism is to attempt to spread the narrow concentration of wealth among more people.
Sorry I haven't read the rest of your post, it's quite (very) long and I don't have time at the moment.
"In a free market, anyone is "allowed to own means of production". There is no limit on "means of production"."
Then why is it that people born poor are statistically much less likely to go to a good university or end up with a high paying job? People who are born at a disadvantage have less access to education, a higher chance of getting involved in crime and less access to legal defense than those born into wealthy families.
The key point is that people are not born with equal opportunities, and do not always have access to the "means of production".My point was that the "means of production" are themselves a product of voluntarily sold labor. Factories don't just appear, they are built by labor that is voluntarily sold to the owner.
I never made the claim that life was fair, or that outcomes would be equal. I made the claim that free market capitalism is a consequence of individual liberty. Voluntary socialism can also be a consequence of individual liberty, but it's just much less common for people to make that choice when they have it.Owners get paid an amount disproportianate to the amount of work they do compared to workersThis doesn't make any sense. Owners don't get paid for labor (unless they are also an employee).
If I invested $10 million in GM stock and made $1 million on it last year, I would have made much more than an average worker at GM, but it would have absolutely nothing to do with any labor on my part.
jambaugh
Oct12-09, 06:35 PM
In historical examples of socialist anarchism, the workers collectively owned the factory and democratically elected someone to manage it. In this case, everyone risks the same capital, and your argument doesn't come into play.
Again how is this not allowed in a free market capitalistic system? And for a specific example I direct your attention to my last comment below.
A socialist criticises capitalism on the basis that allows a select few to become wealthy through the labour of the majority.
How are you going to disallow this without force? e.g. in an anarchistic socialism?
Do you not agree that the more productive someone is the more compensation they should receive? Do you not agree that the more risk someone takes the more compensation they should receive?
Efficiently functioning profitable enterprises are not self assembling automatic machines a worker just walks up to and turns the crank on. The logistics of creating them, the commitments of capital and assessment of risk are skills requiring experience and expertise. The exercise of these skills enable the enterprise and thus constitutes a huge "value added" level of productivity.
The rich get rich by being productive on a large scale, by deferring gratification in the short term to build up working capital, by taking risks with that capital, and most especially by enabling the worker to be productive and reap the benefits of that productivity.
"How can everyone risk the same amount of capital if not everyone has sufficient capital to pay their share?"
Why wouldn't they have sufficient capital? The whole point of socialism is to attempt to spread the narrow concentration of wealth among more people.
The UAW is free to, as an alternative to a strike, leave the evil capitalist auto companies en masse and building their own production facilities under the system you described. If they do not have enough capital then for certain some do not have enough to contribute their equal share of the total capital needed. Nothing in this country prevents them from doing this and acquiring the capital externally. But the persons risking that capital must be compensated or they won't participate. (Unless you want to force him.)
Why does UAW not do this? I'll tell you. Because the management and ownership of Ford Motor Corp. is an essential ingredient in the UAW being able to produce those cars profitably. It is not "Evil Capitalists getting rich off the backs of workers" it is the capitalists and the workers jointly maximizing productivity and freely contracting on their relative compensation for the utility of their contribution.
Socialists speak of "spreading the wealth around" as if wealth is a pre-existing substance like butter. This is one of the worst errors socialists make. Money is just paper. Wealth is the ability to get things done and the value each individual places on getting those specific things done. Money is a token of wealth. If you weekly redistribute the money evenly then everyone will know that no matter how much they acquire, next week it is spread again. The money no longer is an incentive to work because it no longer represents how much one had to product to get it.
An individual's wealth grows because he acquires indebtedness from his service to others which he can exchange for services from others. The arguments over the economic systems must acknowledge this truth. Socialists argue that person A. is better off with half his wealth so long as those with more wealth have theirs reduced by a larger fraction.
Wealth is not relative in this sense. My wealth is my ability to obtain comforts and necessities, to communicate, be entertained and to get these with minimum effort. If I can teach physics to someone for (what can now be purchased with) $100,000 and they can leverage this knowledge along with their talents to make $1,000,000,000 then am I not better off? Or should I restrict my teaching to only those who only pay me $100 and only use it to make $200?
Sorry I haven't read the rest of your post, it's quite (very) long and I don't have time at the moment.
Yes I do go on. Take your time. I'll say one more thing and then shut the heck up.
The Plymouth Colony which socialism long before it had a name. Their original system is very close to your described social anarchism: See: The American socialist experiment (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0902/0902amsoc.htm).
The result was near disastrous. The true original meaning of the American Thanksgiving holiday was the Pilgrims' thanking God for their discovery of the superior free market system:
"By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plentie, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoysing of the harts of many, for which they blessed God. And in the effect of their perticular planting was well seene, for all had, one way and other, pretty well to bring the year aboute, and some of the abler sorte and more industrious had to spare, and sell to others, 50 as any generall wante of famine hath not been amongest them since to this day."--Gov. Bradford 1623
Of course it isn't taught that way in schools today.
I suggest you read the whole account from the original history: Of Plymoth Plantation (http://www.mith2.umd.edu/eada/html/display.php?docs=bradford_history.xml) and add it to your list of historical references. Indeed you're time, if limited, is better spent reading this than reading my rants.
"I think our Capitalist society has been very fair in distributing wealth to poor people. Welfare has spent trillions of dollars to protect people - without burdening them with the ownership and management responsibilities of operating our industrial base."
Welfate is socialist and would be unacceptable in a free market.
"If you disagree with my comments, please explain to everyone that has something to lose how anarchy would make our lives better"
Socialism should make life better for working class people, obviously CEO's of companies aren't the ones who benefit, that's the whole point. In the UK I get all my university fees paid as well as an interest free student loan and free health care. I am incredibly thankful that I live in a country which provides this, as I would not be able to afford to go to a top university otherwise.
You are arguing in favor of socialism, not anarchism. How would society benefit from anarchy?
madness
Oct13-09, 08:12 AM
"You are arguing in favor of socialism, not anarchism. How would society benefit from anarchy?"
Anarchism is a very broad set of ideologies, ranging from anarcho-communism to anarcho-capitalism, from collectivist to individualist. The only common theme as I am aware, is that any form of authority has prove itself to be legitimate. I'll provide a youtube video of Noam Chomsky talking on this point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G6kf7XM9Nk
I would prefer to live in a society where power is not centralised in a tiny proportion of the population, and I think the burden of proof is on the authoritarians.
"You are arguing in favor of socialism, not anarchism. How would society benefit from anarchy?"
Anarchism is a very broad set of ideologies, ranging from anarcho-communism to anarcho-capitalism, from collectivist to individualist. The only common theme as I am aware, is that any form of authority has prove itself to be legitimate. I'll provide a youtube video of Noam Chomsky talking on this point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G6kf7XM9Nk
I would prefer to live in a society where power is not centralised in a tiny proportion of the population, and I think the burden of proof is on the authoritarians.I think WhoWee was referring to the authoritarian socialist centralized power that used force to provide your "university fees paid as well as an interest free student loan and free health care." That is an example of socialist authoritarianism, not anarchism.
You said you were thankful that you lived in a country that used authoritarian force against others to provide your "university fees, loans, and health care", now you say you would prefer to live in a country that isn't authoritarian? Which is it?
madness
Oct13-09, 01:38 PM
You don't have to choose between socialism and anarchism, hence the term socialist anarchism. This has been discussed at length already in this thread.
jambaugh
Oct13-09, 04:11 PM
I would prefer to live in a society where power is not centralised in a tiny proportion of the population, and I think the burden of proof is on the authoritarians.
Burden of proof of what? I haven't heard arguments only claims. What values are you asserting anarchy and most especially socialistic anarchy better fulfill in their actualization than say Federal capitalism? It might help to outline the priorities before speaking of burden of proof.
Is individual civil liberty less important than the "common good"? Is individual welfare outweighed by common welfare? Does liberty trump wellbeing (as defined by others?)
I.e. is it better for individuals to have the right to act against their own interests as defined by criterion other than their own?
Once a goal or a value to be optimized is established then what beginning assumptions are we to make? People act rationally? Power corrupts? 2+2=5?
It would also be helpful if you could give in clear terms what you mean by Anarchism. You speak of "grass roots democracy" but that's "pure democracy" not anarchism as you do not explain in any detail what the voters have the authority to decide, especially with regard to the use of force. Anarchism presumably has something to say about distribution of the authority to use force.
I suggest you sit down, and write your own draft charter or constitution or social contract outlining how an anarchistic system as you see it would be implemented. It needn't be perfect but it would be a hint at your definition.
I still for the life of me do not understand what you mean by anarchistic socialism or socialist anarchism or what-ever. Socialism dictates redistribution of wealth but that cannot be implemented without coercive force which presumes at least temporarily the action of a state. You speak disparagingly about a system where wealth is "inequitably distributed" but that distribution occurs via free choice contracts in the absence of coercive force. I can understand the definition of anarchistic capitalism but I can also argue against it...(specifically the ability to hire thugs to coerce).
I don't think your ideology is either well defined or self consistent.
Galteeth
Oct14-09, 04:39 AM
They weren't the first libertarians, they were just the first to use the term "libertarian" to describe themselves. Anyone can call themselves libertarian. They did not, however believe in the individual right to own one's labor. And although they called themselves "libertarian socialists", they were not advocates of a government imposed socialist economic system, either. They used both words very differently than commonly used today.They weren't the original libertarians, or libertarians at all. They just widely used the term first, while the word liberty was long commonly used to mean the opposite of what they believed in. And they used the word slavery to refer to what the word liberty had long been used to mean.
It's called propaganda.
But, I'm sure you've heard the expression "a rose by any other name (is still a rose)". I value my right to decide for myself whether, when, and how to sell or trade my labor. Someone using the word "slavery" to describe that affects only how they choose to use the word, it doesn't actually change the situation.
The context that might make this more familiar to you is that private property rights were seen as being enforced by the state. There are different views on this subject among the anarchist/libertarian left.
Being a self-described anarchist, I have given these matter alot of thought, and am familiar with the various arguments. Some left anarchists take the meaning of the world "anarchy" very literally, meaning no rulers, or in other words, no hierarchy, even one that evolves without the use of force. Others are not so extreme, and believe in the idea of private property although not necessarily that force is justified to defend it. Most of these on the libertarian left do not extend this concept to ownership over means of production, or land, or other things of this sort where a single individual's ownership gives them a perpetually stronger bargaining position for free exchange then is created by the fruit of their labor alone. Thus opposing "capitalism" from this viewpoint is not opposing a "free market" but the notion of incruing rewards from the re-investment of capital.
Other anarchists see the term as a negative right, i.e., the absolute right to be free of violence, with economic arrangements as a secondary matter entirely (although since all economic arrangements would require the absolute consent of all involved, it is unlikely you would have "capitalists" in the modern sense of the term.)
On the right, you have many who don't oppose violence at all, just its monopoly. This is somewhat similar to the position of Rothbard. To me this is the most incoherent position, as the "competing" private forces are essentially warring governments.
You also have more moderate right wing anarchists who oppose force, but support the notion of property and capital in its modern form. You also have "minarchists" which are similar to what one thinks of as modern day american libertarians, who see the necessity of a state, but only in an absolute minimal role, which means preventing violence, protecting property rights, and enforcing contracts.
Many of these "minarchist" types also believe in the notion of keeping the state as local as possible.
jambaugh
Oct14-09, 02:00 PM
As I suggested and as Chomsky seems to indicate in the youtube interview posted, anarchism seems more a political direction similar to left vs right than a specific system of principles or goal. It is a direction in one of the many dimensions of political systems.
Nonetheless we can define "anarchy" as it is traditionally used as the asymptotic limit (stateless society) and I think it obvious this is at best a highly unstable transitory situation. It is a meaningful phenomenon and the right word is "anarchy" so I suggest those trying to define a political ideal qualify further their labels.
There are also two factors in state structure which I am seeing ignored here but which are exemplified by Federalism. Federalism advocates maximum authority held by the most central state but minimal jurisdiction. The constraint on this minimization which keeps it from being trivial (zero jurisdiction) is the justification for the use of force also mentioned by Chomsky. Dually maximal jurisdiction is reserved for the most distributed level (the individual as a state of 1) but minimal authority (only authority over self and property and potentially over incompetent dependents such as children).
Federalism seems to me to have been designed to promote the ideals espoused by anarchists (sans economic qualifiers such as socialist) while preserving the stability lacking in "naive anarchism".
Is Federal Anarchism an oxymoron in the sense you anarchists define anarchism?
You don't have to choose between socialism and anarchism, hence the term socialist anarchism. This has been discussed at length already in this thread.The choice is between authoritarianism and anarchism (or something in between).
Sure, in the absence of state (or state-like) economic "authority", both voluntary socialism and capitalism would be possible, and both would exist. I have no problem with voluntary socialism, and neither does any libertarian or anarchist I've heard of.
"Voluntary socialism" exists in the U.S. and includes every U.S. citizen that chooses (volunteers) to participate.
Socialism (or capitalism) logically can either be voluntary or include everyone, but not both.
SW VandeCarr
Oct14-09, 09:01 PM
Socialism (or capitalism) logically can either be voluntary or include everyone, but not both.
As stated, I agree with the quote above. In practice however, state socialism includes everyone and excludes true capitalism at all but the smallest scales.
Democratic 'socialism' is in fact capitalism with an expanded public sector (relative to the US) ie most European states, Canada,etc. One only has look at the strong international corporations and private sector banks that exist in these countries, not to mention very viable small business sectors that generally enjoy the protection (but not the control) of the government. In democracies, capitalism dominates the economy, but voluntary socialistic organizations can exist such as cooperatives, voluntary collectives, etc.
In state socialism, there is no "voluntary capitalism". The state decides what firms can operate under self-management and earn (and retain) "profits". (China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Nicaragua, and evolving in Venezuela).
jambaugh
Oct15-09, 02:09 AM
...Democratic 'socialism' is in fact capitalism with an expanded public sector (relative to the US) ie most European states, Canada,etc.
Not "is" but rather democracy tends to choose capitalism mostly over socialism. Just because A is compromised to allow a little bit of B doesn't make A=B.
One only has look at the strong international corporations and private sector banks that exist in these countries, not to mention very viable small business sectors that generally enjoy the protection (but not the control) of the government. In democracies, capitalism dominates the economy, but voluntary socialistic organizations can exist such as cooperatives, voluntary collectives, etc.
But note the more freedom the more these "wealth concentrating" institutions exist. This fact should say something to the idealist who thinks them evil or unjust. If banks and corporations are exploiting the workers why do they exist and even thrive in a free society? Why do they emerge and profit if they are not providing beneficial services?
[I am asking this question mainly of the statest socialist and communists out there.]
Let me also add to the anecdotes of history the Israeli kibbutz, another miserable failure of socialistic ideals.
In state socialism, there is no "voluntary capitalism". The state decides what firms can operate under self-management and earn (and retain) "profits". (China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Nicaragua, and evolving in Venezuela).
I would qualify that there is no "legitimate" voluntary capitalism. I.e. it goes on but under the state's radar or at least their official radar. There is always barter and black markets (and graft to the local officials who look the other way).
Galteeth
Oct15-09, 04:54 AM
As I suggested and as Chomsky seems to indicate in the youtube interview posted, anarchism seems more a political direction similar to left vs right than a specific system of principles or goal. It is a direction in one of the many dimensions of political systems.
Nonetheless we can define "anarchy" as it is traditionally used as the asymptotic limit (stateless society) and I think it obvious this is at best a highly unstable transitory situation. It is a meaningful phenomenon and the right word is "anarchy" so I suggest those trying to define a political ideal qualify further their labels.
There are also two factors in state structure which I am seeing ignored here but which are exemplified by Federalism. Federalism advocates maximum authority held by the most central state but minimal jurisdiction. The constraint on this minimization which keeps it from being trivial (zero jurisdiction) is the justification for the use of force also mentioned by Chomsky. Dually maximal jurisdiction is reserved for the most distributed level (the individual as a state of 1) but minimal authority (only authority over self and property and potentially over incompetent dependents such as children).
Federalism seems to me to have been designed to promote the ideals espoused by anarchists (sans economic qualifiers such as socialist) while preserving the stability lacking in "naive anarchism".
Is Federal Anarchism an oxymoron in the sense you anarchists define anarchism?
1. In short, federalism could fall in the range of libertarianism but not really of anarchism.
2. You have not really defined "state." The context in which you are using the phrase "stateless society" implies the notion of violent chaos. Personally, the only consistent definition of state that I can come up with is "aggressive human violence." This says nothing of its rationale or its consistent application. I would argue that in the typical chaotic situation to which you are referring as "stateless" what you really have is very small competing governments trying to assert control. The difference between this and warring tribes, civil wars as of the type seen in Africa, or large warring nation states is really just a matter of scale.
It is likely true that in such a small and competitive scale of government, justifications for the use of force will be extremely arbitrary, (such as "I feel like killing that person over there") but this is still a state imposing its will through coercion. Most people likely define some arbitrary cutoff point between "gangs with guns" and "states" although on close examination it is a matter of continuum. (For example, even the United States Government, which most would consider being the exemplar of a state in the opposite sense of warring gangs, does not follow its own fundamental "contract with the governed" from which it allegedly derives the right to exert force.)
The context that might make this more familiar to you is that private property rights were seen as being enforced by the state.Of course, but the practice of claiming ownership of property was not invented or introduced by the state.
In society there are many people who will want to claim ownership and use property, and defend it. Maybe the state will help them defend it, maybe not. In an anarchist society, they will at least try to defend it themselves, or pay for private security.
Anarcho-socialists cannot just decide these people won't exist, they must decide whether or not to use force against them.
As far as "voluntary socialism", it seems to me that by definition, it would include only those who choose to "volunteer", which is fine by me, and I think such a thing has never had any real political opposition.
jambaugh
Oct15-09, 01:27 PM
1. In short, federalism could fall in the range of libertarianism but not really of anarchism.
OK Then yes it is an oxymoron. I'm just trying to pin down the definition being used by self labeled anarchists.
2. You have not really defined "state." The context in which you are using the phrase "stateless society" implies the notion of violent chaos. Personally, the only consistent definition of state that I can come up with is "aggressive human violence."
I agree and have made this point earlier in the thread. Hence anarchy=stateless society is essentially meaningless.
This says nothing of its rationale or its consistent application. I would argue that in the typical chaotic situation to which you are referring as "stateless" what you really have is very small competing governments trying to assert control. The difference between this and warring tribes, civil wars as of the type seen in Africa, or large warring nation states is really just a matter of scale...
Agreed. Hence though it may occur briefly a state of anarchy(=stateless society) quickly decays (devolves? evolves?) into a waring sates and rule of the powerful.
Again this condition of anarchy does occur (typically with a disaster or disintegration of an organized state) so the term used as so defined is meaningful and useful within our language. I don't see the virtue of redefining it in an attempt to label a (non nihilistic) political ideal. As I suggested it is at best an ordering direction comparable to the "Left" vs "Right" qualifiers.
If you want to redefine anarchy and define anarchism in terms of justification of authority then I have a couple of problems there.
In some discussions I've seen "no self justifying authority" presented as an anarchistic ideal. In a democracy or republic the people are the state hence the there can be no external justification. In a theocratic monarchy there is an external justification of authority in the "divine right of kings". God justifies the state.
I don't understand how one can qualify justification without being specific about the mechanism of justification. If it is a matter of objective reason then you still, to be objective, must begin with an agreed upon set of values. Any "X should Y" assertion supposes a value system by which this is argued. "You should plant your corn early this year! (to maximize productivity and profit)"
One may begin with the socialist ideal and this justifies certain systems and acts of authority over others. One may begin with capitalist ideal, or a value system prioritizing security, or productivity, or growth. What I see in many "anarchistic" arguments is criticism of certain forms as lacking justification without the an argument explicitly stating the value ideal to show that the suggested anarchistic replacement is an improvement.
Such as: "Capitalism unfairly distributes wealth" without the explaining how fair and unfair are determined. There is often an implied socialistic value system underneath such claims.
Getting back to "anarchism as no unjustified authority" I would then argue that under that definition Federalism is by definition anarchism...but better called Federalism.
Of course I should put up or shut up. Let me think about my own hierarchy of values and I'll post them. Just as one should establish ones axioms before arguing theorems and ones epistemology before arguing truths one should establish ones ethic before arguing politics.
TheStatutoryApe
Oct15-09, 11:09 PM
You have not really defined "state." The context in which you are using the phrase "stateless society" implies the notion of violent chaos. Personally, the only consistent definition of state that I can come up with is "aggressive human violence."
The state is a social construct. "Aggressive human violence" in and of itself does not make a state though it may be one of the tools used by a state to assert its dominance.
Galteeth
Oct15-09, 11:24 PM
OK Then yes it is an oxymoron. I'm just trying to pin down the definition being used by self labeled anarchists.
I agree and have made this point earlier in the thread. Hence anarchy=stateless society is essentially meaningless.
Agreed. Hence though it may occur briefly a state of anarchy(=stateless society) quickly decays (devolves? evolves?) into a waring sates and rule of the powerful.
Again this condition of anarchy does occur (typically with a disaster or disintegration of an organized state) so the term used as so defined is meaningful and useful within our language. I don't see the virtue of redefining it in an attempt to label a (non nihilistic) political ideal. As I suggested it is at best an ordering direction comparable to the "Left" vs "Right" qualifiers.
If you want to redefine anarchy and define anarchism in terms of justification of authority then I have a couple of problems there.
In some discussions I've seen "no self justifying authority" presented as an anarchistic ideal. In a democracy or republic the people are the state hence the there can be no external justification. In a theocratic monarchy there is an external justification of authority in the "divine right of kings". God justifies the state.
I don't understand how one can qualify justification without being specific about the mechanism of justification. If it is a matter of objective reason then you still, to be objective, must begin with an agreed upon set of values. Any "X should Y" assertion supposes a value system by which this is argued. "You should plant your corn early this year! (to maximize productivity and profit)"
One may begin with the socialist ideal and this justifies certain systems and acts of authority over others. One may begin with capitalist ideal, or a value system prioritizing security, or productivity, or growth. What I see in many "anarchistic" arguments is criticism of certain forms as lacking justification without the an argument explicitly stating the value ideal to show that the suggested anarchistic replacement is an improvement.
Such as: "Capitalism unfairly distributes wealth" without the explaining how fair and unfair are determined. There is often an implied socialistic value system underneath such claims.
Getting back to "anarchism as no unjustified authority" I would then argue that under that definition Federalism is by definition anarchism...but better called Federalism.
Of course I should put up or shut up. Let me think about my own hierarchy of values and I'll post them. Just as one should establish ones axioms before arguing theorems and ones epistemology before arguing truths one should establish ones ethic before arguing politics.
I agree with all of this, which is why I personally see anarchy as more of an ethical code then a political system/ideal. I don't believe the use of force is justified except in immediate self-defene. The result of everyone having this same ethical code would in my mind be anarchy. They don't and they won't, but that's irrelevant from my point of view. Sort of like how one can believe murder is immoral but sill recognize that other people wil go on murdering irrelevant of that initial person's moral beliefs.
I don't claim these views necessarily represent a majority or even a large portion of self-described anarchists, although some type of similar moral ideal is often an underlying motivator, if not fleshed out coherently.
Galteeth
Oct15-09, 11:27 PM
The state is a social construct. "Aggressive human violence" in and of itself does not make a state though it may be one of the tools used by a state to assert its dominance.
"The state is a social construct." In common parlance yes, but this construct is extremely ill-defined, even by those who use the word in this manner. That is to say, while someone can say that America is a state, and the Bloods who enforce their drug turf are not a state, they rarely can elucidate what the actual demarcation line is between state and non-state.
SW VandeCarr
Oct17-09, 04:57 PM
"The state is a social construct." In common parlance yes, but this construct is extremely ill-defined, even by those who use the word in this manner. That is to say, while someone can say that America is a state, and the Bloods who enforce their drug turf are not a state, they rarely can elucidate what the actual demarcation line is between state and non-state.
I think you could define a state as an entity that exercises full 'sovereignty' over a defined territory. 'Full sovereignty' could be defined as not recognizing any higher authority. This would not preclude the state from entering into treaties or other agreements voluntarily according to the will of the sovereign.
In the case of gangs claiming defined territory, I would think they could be 'states' if they in fact exercised full unfettered sovereignty over that territory. An additional possible requirement for a state might be that it be recognized by other states.
This is why I think anarchy is outdated in the real modern world. If an anarchist community claims territory and recognizes no higher authority over that territory, it begins to look like a state. It would seem that anarchist communities are best suited to a migratory existence over unclaimed territory. As far as I know,nowadays, this could possibly be Antarctica or the high seas. I suppose you could have a true anarchist community living on boats based in international waters.
Galteeth
Oct18-09, 03:36 AM
I think you could define a state as an entity that exercises full 'sovereignty' over a defined territory. 'Full sovereignty' could be defined as not recognizing any higher authority. This would not preclude the state from entering into treaties or other agreements voluntarily according to the will of the sovereign.
In the case of gangs claiming defined territory, I would think they could be 'states' if they in fact exercised full unfettered sovereignty over that territory. An additional possible requirement for a state might be that it be recognized by other states.
This is why I think anarchy is outdated in the real modern world. If an anarchist community claims territory and recognizes no higher authority over that territory, it begins to look like a state. It would seem that anarchist communities are best suited to a migratory existence over unclaimed territory. As far as I know,nowadays, this could possibly be Antarctica or the high seas. I suppose you could have a true anarchist community living on boats based in international waters.
Here is a conceptual difficulty with that definition. Imagine a situation where a state claims full sovereignty over a territory. There could be a region within that territory where a group exists that enforces its own rules and such and flaunts the laws of the state, but makes no challenge to the highest authority and perhaps even acknowledges them in some way (say through tax or tribute.) Thus that entity would not be a state, even if they had effective local control.
Also any challenge on a territorial claim untill one side has been vanquished sufficiently to make that claim null invalidates a definition of state for either group from the perspective of someone living inside that territory. Thus the definition of what constitutes a "state" is undefined untill after the outcome of the conflict (I.e, the Confederate States of America was not a state, but if they had won the war, they would have been.)
This would even be true if there was no realistic chance for one group to extend their influence over said region as long as it was not worth it to extinguish the challenging group, leaving the area in a stateless position. (Schrodinger's Catsylvania)
In terms of states acknowledging each other, you can easily wind up with diamterically oppossed positions on what constitutes a state depending on which side's point of view you engage from.
I think the total sovereignty thing really is just a useful social construction. The reality it seems to me is that there are states within states, and the individual unit of state is one, a single individual willing to use violence to acheive his aims.
From this perspective (my perspective) it is pointless to talk about anarchism in territorial notions, the only relevant question is am I a unit of state or non-state, and if I choose non-state, I am refusing to impose my will on others by definition (at least through violent means), so there is no point in worrying about the broader questions of organization. An anarchist community could be a community of people who interact with each other on a voluntary basis, even if they have no power to resist a state (which they don't by definiton.)
It's a different gestalt then the conventional framework of politics.
SW VandeCarr
Oct18-09, 04:39 AM
The fact remains that if an anarchist community is founded on land claimed by a state, the community is in principle subject to the sovereign whether the sovereign chooses to enforce its authority or not. If the anarchist community challenges the authority of the sovereign, then it is in rebellion and an unstable situation exists until the situation is resolved. If the anarchist community is successful in establishing its independence it de facto obtains sovereignty over the land it uses and becomes a state whether it wants to or not.
For example, if the community wanted to recognize plural marriage, including persons under a certain age, in violation of the laws of the state, it would either have to be accommodated by the state by means of a waiver, accommodate the state by obeying its laws, or successfully rebel so that it could do whatever it wanted. Under such circumstances it would effectively become a state with its own rules of conduct (if you don't want to use the term "laws").
The idea of a state is a legal concept. It includes the idea of a defined territory with recognized boundaries. The CSA never fully established its legality as a state although it was organized as one. Its claim to its territory was immediately challenged by the USA and de facto control over it's claimed territory was limited by the shifting lines of battle. Stability was restored when the USA won and the CSA disappeared. No other power ever recognized the CSA.
This is why I think anarchy is outdated in the real modern world. If an anarchist community claims territory and recognizes no higher authority over that territory, it begins to look like a state. It would seem that anarchist communities are best suited to a migratory existence over unclaimed territory. As far as I know,nowadays, this could possibly be Antarctica or the high seas. I suppose you could have a true anarchist community living on boats based in international waters.
Are you describing Pirates?
Galteeth
Oct18-09, 10:06 AM
Are you describing Pirates?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_utopia
I would not personally define these as anarchist, for a variety of reasons.
Galteeth
Oct18-09, 10:08 AM
The most famous "anarchist" pirates (who probably never existed):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertatia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_utopia
I would not personally define these as anarchist, for a variety of reasons.
Interesting link, not even Pirates could exist for long (as true Anarchists) without assembling a type of Government - to form and recognize treaties.:rolleyes:
jambaugh
Oct18-09, 02:02 PM
Let me think about my own hierarchy of values and I'll post them. ... one should establish ones ethic before arguing politics.
The only honest consistent set of values I could come up with are...
I value most the prosperity and freedom of myself and my ken and friends prioritized by distance from me but including eventually all persons.
I worked out a nice classification of ethical attitudes. I am an ambitious mutualist in that I will be altruistic when it is at no or very little cost to me and otherwise seek my own benefit. Essentially Ayn Rand's rational self interest (though not her definition of altruism which she defined as requiring sacrifice.)
I believe too anarchistic a system will expose me too often to aggression from others. Likewise a monarchy with me at the top though that also would cost me too much time and effort administering the responsibilities that gives me over others.
I think a Federalism with laissez faire free market economics will maximize my personal prosperity and that of my ken friends fellow citizen and the rest of the world (in that order).
SW VandeCarr
Oct18-09, 03:48 PM
Are you describing Pirates?
If you distinguish between privateers and pirates, then a pirate ship or pirate organization could be considered an anarchist entity since they are stateless and self-governing. Purists might want to say they are not anarchist because, for the most part, they are (or at least were) authoritarian. However, if I remember my history correctly, Blackbeard was careful to share the booty equitably with the crew. The Somali pirates are land based but might be considered anarchists because they live in a non-functional state. Of course, seafaring societies need not be pirates. They could earn income from fishing or trafficking in legal (or illegal) commerce.
http://talkradionews.com/2009/04/analysis-the-%E2%80%9Cpoverty-of-leadership%E2%80%9D-in-somalia/
SW VandeCarr
Oct18-09, 04:03 PM
I think a Federalism with laissez faire free market economics will maximize my personal prosperity and that of my ken friends fellow citizen and the rest of the world (in that order).
That would describe the USA up to about 1933, at least if you were of the 'right' ancestry (=WASP+ maybe other NW European).
Jasongreat
Oct18-09, 04:54 PM
That would describe the USA up to about 1933, at least if you were of the 'right' ancestry (=WASP+ maybe other NW European).
IMO that would describe the USA up to about 1861.
SW VandeCarr
Oct18-09, 05:52 PM
IMO that would describe the USA up to about 1861.
The USA had a huge surge in immigration after the Civil War, mostly from Eastern and Southern Europe. However, jambaugh was talking about our personal prosperity. There was overt discrimination against these people (not mention the traditional "discriminatees"; African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, etc) in terms of getting into the best universities and rising to the higher jobs in business or in government. It's fair to say the upper classes were and are still dominated by WASPs and NW European surnames. Harvard had a quota for Jews as did other universities. This situation didn't dramatically change after 1933 either. I chose that date primarily as the end of laissez faire economics (which had been declining since 1861 but lasted somewhat through the 1920s). Otherwise, the situation is changing only very slowly. Currently, the USA has a president with a Kenyan surname, but to date, only one Catholic, no Jews, and no Latin surnames. In fact every US President other than Obama has been a WASP except Van Buren (Dutch),the two Roosevelts (Dutch), Kennedy (Irish Catholic), Hoover (German) and Eisenhower(German). Dutch, German and "Scotch-Irish" surnames are more or less "honorary" WASPs if they're Protestant.
This is off topic except to say that anarchist communities are IMHO even more likely to have restrictive membership (so there is a common set of agreed upon customs and beliefs reducing the need for coercion) than pluralistic states like the USA.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/harvard.html
For example, if the community wanted to recognize plural marriage, including persons under a certain age, in violation of the laws of the state, it would either have to be accommodated by the state by means of a waiver, accommodate the state by obeying its laws, or successfully rebel so that it could do whatever it wanted.Or just recognize plural marriages internally but not externally, like is currently being practiced in the U.S.
Personally, I think one wife is about one too many, though.
SW VandeCarr
Oct18-09, 09:02 PM
Or just recognize plural marriages internally but not externally, like is currently being practiced in the U.S.
The problem arises when 40 year old men take 12 year old girls as wives. Also there's all kinds of property and basic human rights issues if women are subordinate to men with institutionalized plural marriage. What about outright slavery? Should the US tolerate human rights violations "internally"?
Personally, I think one wife is about one too many, though.
Maybe there's safety in numbers?
Galteeth
Oct19-09, 04:17 AM
The problem arises when 40 year old men take 12 year old girls as wives. Also there's all kinds of property and basic human rights issues if women are subordinate to men with institutionalized plural marriage. What about outright slavery? Should the US tolerate human rights violations "internally"?
Maybe there's safety in numbers?
Slavery isn't really analagous to plural marriages. Slavery by definition can't be consensual.
The problem arises when 40 year old men take 12 year old girls as wives. Also there's all kinds of property and basic human rights issues if women are subordinate to men with institutionalized plural marriage. What about outright slavery? Should the US tolerate human rights violations "internally"? I was only pointing out how communities recognize plural marriages in the U.S., I don't advocate them. Like I said, I think one wife is too many.
SW VandeCarr
Oct19-09, 03:50 PM
Slavery isn't really analagous to plural marriages. Slavery by definition can't be consensual.
It's a spectrum. Plural marriages might be anything from communal (among consenting adults)and equal for both sexes, to an oppressive relationship of one sex over the other. Further down the gradient is effective or outright slavery. Certainly a marriage (plural or not) between a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl is not an equal relationship and IMHO not consensual.
EDIT: The real issue is whether anarchism can really be a model for a society in the modern world. Who enforces human rights for example? How does an isolated community defend itself against aggression? Suppose all states disappeared. Would there be some form of worldwide set of conventions for anarchist communities? How would they be enforced? Does such enforcement go against the grain of truly independent anarchist communities?
Galteeth
Oct24-09, 10:39 PM
It's a spectrum. Plural marriages might be anything from communal (among consenting adults)and equal for both sexes, to an oppressive relationship of one sex over the other. Further down the gradient is effective or outright slavery. Certainly a marriage (plural or not) between a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl is not an equal relationship and IMHO not consensual.
EDIT: The real issue is whether anarchism can really be a model for a society in the modern world. Who enforces human rights for example? How does an isolated community defend itself against aggression? Suppose all states disappeared. Would there be some form of worldwide set of conventions for anarchist communities? How would they be enforced? Does such enforcement go against the grain of truly independent anarchist communities?
The first two questions don't make much sense in the context of anarchism as I have been defining it.
For the rest:
3. NO.
4. Conventions might be enforced by social pressure and the neccessity to co-operate, but the whole point is that no individual or individuals have to accept this and can try to go it alone if they want.
5. Explained.
6. No
These are only the answers for the anarchism I have been talking about. Qualifying a different anarchist philosophy would result in different answers.
SW VandeCarr
Oct25-09, 05:56 PM
Here is a conceptual difficulty with that definition. Imagine a situation where a state claims full sovereignty over a territory. There could be a region within that territory where a group exists that enforces its own rules and such and flaunts the laws of the state, but makes no challenge to the highest authority and perhaps even acknowledges them in some way (say through tax or tribute.) Thus that entity would not be a state, even if they had effective local control.
Also any challenge on a territorial claim untill one side has been vanquished sufficiently to make that claim null invalidates a definition of state for either group from the perspective of someone living inside that territory. Thus the definition of what constitutes a "state" is undefined untill after the outcome of the conflict (I.e, the Confederate States of America was not a state, but if they had won the war, they would have been.)
This would even be true if there was no realistic chance for one group to extend their influence over said region as long as it was not worth it to extinguish the challenging group, leaving the area in a stateless position. (Schrodinger's Catsylvania)
In terms of states acknowledging each other, you can easily wind up with diamterically oppossed positions on what constitutes a state depending on which side's point of view you engage from.
I think the total sovereignty thing really is just a useful social construction. The reality it seems to me is that there are states within states, and the individual unit of state is one, a single individual willing to use violence to acheive his aims.
From this perspective (my perspective) it is pointless to talk about anarchism in territorial notions, the only relevant question is am I a unit of state or non-state, and if I choose non-state, I am refusing to impose my will on others by definition (at least through violent means), so there is no point in worrying about the broader questions of organization. An anarchist community could be a community of people who interact with each other on a voluntary basis, even if they have no power to resist a state (which they don't by definiton.)
It's a different gestalt then the conventional framework of politics.
The word "anarchy" literally means 'no state' or 'no sovereign'. As far what a state is, the modern definition is a legal one involving the idea of 'full sovereignty' over a territory with defined boundaries.
Historians might not apply such a definition to past societies. For example, was the North American Iroquois Confederation a state? It was a federation of six tribes living in loosely defined areas, but there were no sharp boundaries. However, they were not migratory. They lived in villages and did some garden type farming. In general most ancient states did not have sharp boundaries as far as I know.
If you're using these terms in an unconventional way, I suppose you can redefine them freely, but it's not clear to me just how your concept works. You don't like violence or coercive authority. OK, nothing unusual there. Your idea of anarchy apparently doesn't really mean "stateless'. It's an ethic based on voluntary cooperation. I've belonged to several "communes" in my life and they all eventually failed. Reasons: 1)Not everyone pulls their weight 2) Someone always ends up being "in charge" 3)Turnover because of personality clashes 4) Because of turnover, new members can't always be screened well, resulting in disruptive "bad apples" wrecking the arrangement. I could go on but I think I make my point.
Even a successful commune has to pay taxes, pay bills, and generally obey county, state and federal laws. Most of us were students, but some of us had day jobs. We had to live in the reality of a money economy even though we grew most of our own food and made a lot of our own tools and possessions from scavenged parts mostly from the local junk yard.
True anarchy was the natural form of social organization in neolithic times when the individual's survival depended on the group. To be excluded could mean death Today, anarchy is not viable macro-economically and difficult micro-economically as a practical alternative to the state and its economic system, IMO. It's just an idea, possibly for the future when people might live in orbiting space colonies (see GK O'Neill ref below).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/state
Here's someone with some interesting ideas that can have no practical consequences (unless most of us disappear) IMHO.
http://www.johnzerzan.net/
Galteeth
Oct26-09, 01:40 AM
If your using these terms in an unconventional way, I suppose you can redefine them freely, but it's not clear to me just how your concept works. You don't like violence or coercive authority. OK, nothing unusual there. Your idea of anarchy apparently doesn't really mean "stateless'. It's an ethic based on voluntary cooperation. I've belonged to several "communes" in my life and they all eventually failed. Reasons: 1)Not everyone pulls their weight 2) Someone always ends up being "in charge" 3)Turnover because of personality clashes 4) Because of turnover, new members can't always be screened well, resulting in disruptive "bad apples" wrecking the arrangement. I could go on but I think I make my point.
Even a successful commune has to pay taxes, pay bills, and generally obey county, state and federal laws. Most of us were students, but some of us had day jobs. We had to live in the reality of a money economy even though we grew most of our own food and made a lot of our own tools and possessions from scavenged parts mostly from the local junk yard.
True anarchy was the natural form of social organization in neolithic times when the individual's survival depended on the group. To be excluded could mean death Today, anarchy is not viable macro-economically and difficult micro-economically as a practical alternative to the state and its economic system, IMO. It's just an idea, possibly for the future when people might live in orbiting space colonies (see GK O'Neill ref below).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/state
Here's someone with some interesting ideas that can have no practical consequences (unless most of us disappear) IMHO.
http://www.johnzerzan.net/
Well, I agree with much of what you said. I don't really see any of the reasons your communes failed as being unexpected or even necessarily bad. Since I'm really talking about ethics here, I don't see the need for isolation of the society. I recognize the advantages that an advanced division of labor brings.
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you. Let's say, by some miracle, no one is able to use violence against other humans anymore. Let's say suddenly, for no explained reason, everyone gets "clockworked orange," and gets ill whenever they think about doing a violent act. What do you think would happen? Would society collapse? Would people starve to death? Would everyone just stop going to work, stop doing business?
TheStatutoryApe
Oct27-09, 03:39 AM
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you. Let's say, by some miracle, no one is able to use violence against other humans anymore. Let's say suddenly, for no explained reason, everyone gets "clockworked orange," and gets ill whenever they think about doing a violent act. What do you think would happen? Would society collapse? Would people starve to death? Would everyone just stop going to work, stop doing business?
Your definition of government and/or state as the use of violence is rather limited. There can be a state and government without the use of force or violence. Your above scenario does not depict a state of anarchy simply because there is no violence and hence no state as you choose to define it.
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you. Let's say, by some miracle, no one is able to use violence against other humans anymore. Let's say suddenly, for no explained reason, everyone gets "clockworked orange," and gets ill whenever they think about doing a violent act. What do you think would happen? Would society collapse? Would people starve to death? Would everyone just stop going to work, stop doing business?Assuming that the restriction on violence applies to force used to control one's claim of private goods/property, then why would anyone go to work? People are human, and most simply won't bother going to work if they don't have a means to protect their claim to whatever they sell their labor for.
How would a dispute get settled over who gets to eat the fish I caught? An inability to use force means whoever can grab it and run the fastest gets to eat it, assuming that grabbing and running are not examples of violence.
And if the person that caught the fish (as an example) has no means to control such fish, in reality he will have no material reason to fish.
Galteeth
Oct27-09, 02:46 PM
Assuming that the restriction on violence applies to force used to control one's claim of private goods/property, then why would anyone go to work? People are human, and most simply won't bother going to work if they don't have a means to protect their claim to whatever they sell their labor for.
How would a dispute get settled over who gets to eat the fish I caught? An inability to use force means whoever can grab it and run the fastest gets to eat it, assuming that grabbing and running are not examples of violence.
And if the person that caught the fish (as an example) has no means to control such fish, in reality he will have no material reason to fish.
While I understand what you are saying, and agree this miight be the case in very poor societies, I would think that in a place like America, while there may be some who would become thieves likes this, most people would carry along with their business.
Do you really think the reason most people don't break into your house and take all your stuff is fear of punishment?
While I understand what you are saying, and agree this miight be the case in very poor societies, I would think that in a place like America, while there may be some who would become thieves likes this, most people would carry along with their business.
Do you really think the reason most people don't break into your house and take all your stuff is fear of punishment?No, but the problem is never "most people", it's the few bad apples.
And I have to point out that the reason America isn't generally poor is because private property claims are protected (by force). Of course that's not an argument against anarchy, since that would be the case with or without government.
Galteeth
Oct27-09, 08:22 PM
No, but the problem is never "most people", it's the few bad apples.
And I have to point out that the reason America isn't generally poor is because private property claims are protected (by force). Of course that's not an argument against anarchy, since that would be the case with or without government.
The few bad apples will still have consequences, i.e., social condemnation, refusal of co-operation, etc. It really does seem like its a systemic risk.
What are you comparing America to in this regards?
Galteeth
Oct27-09, 08:23 PM
Your definition of government and/or state as the use of violence is rather limited. There can be a state and government without the use of force or violence. Your above scenario does not depict a state of anarchy simply because there is no violence and hence no state as you choose to define it.
Well if a state was based purely on voluntary co-operation then I don't have a problem with it, and I don't think most anarchists would either.
noblegas
Oct27-09, 08:36 PM
Your definition of government and/or state as the use of violence is rather limited. There can be a state and government without the use of force or violence. Your above scenario does not depict a state of anarchy simply because there is no violence and hence no state as you choose to define it.
Thats impossible. Government's sole existence depends on executing force in order for it to be maintained. Please direct me to a system of government that currently exists where people are voluntarily paying for various services provided by the government where they are arrested. If government could exist without force, then why are people arrested for not paying for income tax or up conscription was enforced by the US government up until 1973 ?
The few bad apples will still have consequences, i.e., social condemnation, refusal of co-operation, etc. It really does seem like its a systemic risk.We have that now, plus fear of imprisonment, and they still do it way too often.What are you comparing America to in this regards?I'm not sure what you mean, but I was pointing out that capitalism is the source of our prosperity, and depends on the (defensive) use of force to protect private property claims, whether government provides assistance or not.
But like I pointed out, even in the absence of government, people would use force to protect property claims, so it's not an argument for or against anarchism.
Galteeth
Oct27-09, 10:43 PM
We have that now, plus fear of imprisonment, and they still do it way too often.I'm not sure what you mean, but I was pointing out that capitalism is the source of our prosperity, and depends on the (defensive) use of force to protect private property claims, whether government provides assistance or not.
But like I pointed out, even in the absence of government, people would use force to protect property claims, so it's not an argument for or against anarchism.
I meant "does NOT seem like a systemic risk"
Galteeth
Oct27-09, 10:45 PM
We have that now, plus fear of imprisonment, and they still do it way too often.I'm not sure what you mean, but I was pointing out that capitalism is the source of our prosperity, and depends on the (defensive) use of force to protect private property claims, whether government provides assistance or not.
But like I pointed out, even in the absence of government, people would use force to protect property claims, so it's not an argument for or against anarchism.
This is going back to the monopoly of force arguments we were having earlier in the thread about what defines a government. I use George Washington's definition.
This is going back to the monopoly of force arguments we were having earlier in the thread about what defines a government. I use George Washington's definition.I never said I favored a monopoly of force, only that I don't oppose the use of defensive force in general.
I think we agree that government should not have such a monopoly. I'm not one of those against "taking the law into your own hands", since it is in our hands to begin with. I always hated that phrase, it's like my babysitter telling me not to take "watching my kid" into my own hands.
Edit: I just reread your post about people "getting ill whenever they think about doing a violent act". Maybe I misinterpreted it, if "violent act" refers only to initiation of force, not use of force in general.
TheStatutoryApe
Oct28-09, 03:53 AM
Thats impossible. Government's sole existence depends on executing force in order for it to be maintained. Please direct me to a system of government that currently exists where people are voluntarily paying for various services provided by the government where they are arrested. If government could exist without force, then why are people arrested for not paying for income tax or up conscription was enforced by the US government up until 1973 ?
A government/state has far more tools at its disposal for keeping its dominion than just force. The lack of ability to use force does not negate all other possibilities. Are there examples of governments that did not use force? I do not know. I have never seen a dog without fur but if I did I doubt I would question whether or not it is a dog.
This is going back to the monopoly of force arguments we were having earlier in the thread about what defines a government. I use George Washington's definition.
It's still a limited if poetic definition. Most governments have not possessed a monopoly on force. All citizens possess the right to exercise force to protect themselves or their property. People are capable of hiring themselves out as bouncers, body guards, security guards, bounty hunters, or even private police. The police and military have an authority granted by the government to use force in certain situations. It is not necessarily a monopoly nor would a 'monopoly of force' be the sole defining element of a government. As I already noted there are many tools at the governments disposal for asserting itself and maintaining its dominion. By far the most powerful means a government has to maintain control is having its citizens support and agree with it of their own free will.
jambaugh
Oct28-09, 04:18 AM
Your definition of government and/or state as the use of violence is rather limited. There can be a state and government without the use of force or violence.
Much as we might wish it so... it just ain't so. You can't stop murderers with harsh words and scolding. You can't collect taxes with "you should be ashamed you're not paying your fair share!" There ain't no government without a Marshal, Sheriff, or Policeman with the authority to toss your *** into the poky if you break the rules and with a gun or billy-club on his belt to back him up.
Government is the coordinated use of force. Nothing more... nothing less!
TheStatutoryApe
Oct28-09, 05:45 AM
Much as we might wish it so... it just ain't so. You can't stop murderers with harsh words and scolding. You can't collect taxes with "you should be ashamed you're not paying your fair share!" There ain't no government without a Marshal, Sheriff, or Policeman with the authority to toss your *** into the poky if you break the rules and with a gun or billy-club on his belt to back him up.
Government is the coordinated use of force. Nothing more... nothing less!
Why does the government have to do any of the above? The people can do it themselves if they so choose but it is easier to assign a person to that capacity.
"you should be ashamed you're not paying your fair share!" Shame and social pressure are probably the most efficient means the government uses to get things done. It is enough for most people. You will note that most people do not have federal agents showing up at their doors each year to make sure they pay their taxes. People do it anyway.
To believe that violence is the only method of keeping order and structure to a society is incredibly lacking in imagination.
You may note that there are many "coordinated use of force" that are nothing similar to government. So saying it is nothing more and nothing less is rather dishonest. You are taking a single common attribute of a thing and claiming it is the essence of what that thing is.
All humans have blood. Would you say that blood is the single defining attribute of what it is to be human regardless of the fact that there are plenty of other shared characteristics and that humans are not the only living things that possess blood?
jambaugh
Oct28-09, 01:25 PM
Why does the government have to do any of the above? The people can do it themselves if they so choose but it is easier to assign a person to that capacity.
Easier? Rather it is necessary ultimately and "who assigns?" defines themselves as "the government." Government is (a case of) a group of individuals acting. There is no such distinction as "people can do it themselves" government is people too. You have some rules about who is going to go arrest the murderer or mugger. Who is going to be sure we have the right culprit and what is to be done with them. The level of formality is a quality of government's form.
To believe that violence is the only method of keeping order and structure to a society is incredibly lacking in imagination.
To believe government can act without --at some level-- the threat of violence to back up that action is incredibly naive. But of course once a government is in place to control private sector violence (its principle role) then much of the remain "structure" can --and I believe should-- be handled in the private sector. But e.g. the Salvation Army can't function without the police to arrest those who would bludgeon Santa with his own bell and take his money bucket.
I challenge you to name one example (real or imagined) where a society "keeps order and structure" without the use of force or without a force backed government in the background suppressing violent resistance to that order and structure.
You may parrot Rodney King in asking "Why can't we all just get along?" but the undeniable truth is that we just can't. Someone is going to steal his neighbor's mule. Try to boycott him into returning it and it might work until someone realizes he can just break the boycott by threats to use more violence. At some point an organized body of men must suppress this. You can have your government hire its police on a case by case basis but that is just a detail of administration. There must be some decision making body to authorize the posse. Without it or with competing bodies you get mobs and open warfare.
You may note that there are many "coordinated use of force" that are nothing similar to government. So saying it is nothing more and nothing less is rather dishonest.
There are more details but that is about it. Of course there are domains where established government has broken down or failed to assert itself to suppress the local competition e.g. neighborhood street gangs and mafia. But note they are primitive forms of government with established rules of behavior, hierarchy, rank, and violent punishment for those who break the rules.
You are taking a single common attribute of a thing and claiming it is the essence of what that thing is.
Yes I am. In this case it is the defining attribute not just a common attribute.
All humans have blood. Would you say that blood is the single defining attribute of what it is to be human regardless of the fact that there are plenty of other shared characteristics and that humans are not the only living things that possess blood?
Yours is the bad logic. Just because A is a subcase of B and B is not always C doesn't mean A is not always C. e.g.
A = C = x is a defining attribute
B = x is a common attribute
Human DNA is the single defining attribute of humans within the class of organisms and so "being human" does equate to having human DNA. All other human attributes large and small manifest from how that DNA functions. Even our laws and social rules derive from the drive to preserve and propagate our DNA.
I have been asserting here that Government's defining attribute is the coordinated use of force. I challenge you to prove otherwise. All distinctions of types of governments ultimately come down to the details of who, how, when, and why that force is to be applied. Like the DNA above it is how violent force functions that dictates all other attributes of a government including its existence and necessity.
[EDIT:] OK If you don't like my definition of government state your own. Maybe we are arguing semantics. But I think only my definition is free of implicit assertions about the nature of reality (and thus is a definition and not a hypothesis). Governments state "thou shall..." or "thou shalt not..." with an implicit or explicit "or else". Any institution that says "thou should" is just giving advice or opinion and is insufficient to suppress those saying "thou shalt hand over your wallet or else I'll bludgeon you!"
Galteeth
Oct28-09, 04:32 PM
Easier? Rather it is necessary ultimately and "who assigns?" defines themselves as "the government." Government is (a case of) a group of individuals acting. There is no such distinction as "people can do it themselves" government is people too. You have some rules about who is going to go arrest the murderer or mugger. Who is going to be sure we have the right culprit and what is to be done with them. The level of formality is a quality of government's form.
To believe government can act without --at some level-- the threat of violence to back up that action is incredibly naive. But of course once a government is in place to control private sector violence (its principle role) then much of the remain "structure" can --and I believe should-- be handled in the private sector. But e.g. the Salvation Army can't function without the police to arrest those who would bludgeon Santa with his own bell and take his money bucket.
I challenge you to name one example (real or imagined) where a society "keeps order and structure" without the use of force or without a force backed government in the background suppressing violent resistance to that order and structure.
You may parrot Rodney King in asking "Why can't we all just get along?" but the undeniable truth is that we just can't. Someone is going to steal his neighbor's mule. Try to boycott him into returning it and it might work until someone realizes he can just break the boycott by threats to use more violence. At some point an organized body of men must suppress this. You can have your government hire its police on a case by case basis but that is just a detail of administration. There must be some decision making body to authorize the posse. Without it or with competing bodies you get mobs and open warfare.
There are more details but that is about it. Of course there are domains where established government has broken down or failed to assert itself to suppress the local competition e.g. neighborhood street gangs and mafia. But note they are primitive forms of government with established rules of behavior, hierarchy, rank, and violent punishment for those who break the rules.
Yes I am. In this case it is the defining attribute not just a common attribute.
Yours is the bad logic. Just because A is a subcase of B and B is not always C doesn't mean A is not always C. e.g.
A = C = x is a defining attribute
B = x is a common attribute
Human DNA is the single defining attribute of humans within the class of organisms and so "being human" does equate to having human DNA. All other human attributes large and small manifest from how that DNA functions. Even our laws and social rules derive from the drive to preserve and propagate our DNA.
I have been asserting here that Government's defining attribute is the coordinated use of force. I challenge you to prove otherwise. All distinctions of types of governments ultimately come down to the details of who, how, when, and why that force is to be applied. Like the DNA above it is how violent force functions that dictates all other attributes of a government including its existence and necessity.
[EDIT:] OK If you don't like my definition of government state your own. Maybe we are arguing semantics. But I think only my definition is free of implicit assertions about the nature of reality (and thus is a definition and not a hypothesis). Governments state "thou shall..." or "thou shalt not..." with an implicit or explicit "or else". Any institution that says "thou should" is just giving advice or opinion and is insufficient to suppress those saying "thou shalt hand over your wallet or else I'll bludgeon you!"
I agree with jambaugh in regards to definition, although I reach slightly different conclusions.
I think the way "The statuatory ape" (love that name by the way) is thinking of government is in more of the social construct sense.
But ulitmately, every law or regulation passed by the government is backed up with by "or else."
A slightly more convoluted form of this is when a government creates money to pay for something, but this is still ultimately backed by force since the money in such situations is backed by taxes or currency monopoly or some other form of resource extraction that is ultimately not voluntary.
Getting back to anarchism, and heading slightly into redundancy, I don't think a "government" that isn't backed by force is something most anarchists have a problem with. If the only means of a government enforcing its rules were the strength of the ideas of the rules, social pressure, and withholding co-operation, I don't think most anarchists have objection.
Of course as I have pointed out, I don't speak for all anarchists, and there are some who think any form of heirarchy, even it's voluntary, is wrong (although I personally feel alot of this is based on wooly thinking and incomplete concepts).
noblegas
Oct29-09, 12:11 AM
A government/state has far more tools at its disposal for keeping its dominion than just force. The lack of ability to use force does not negate all other possibilities. Are there examples of governments that did not use force? I do not know. I have never seen a dog without fur but if I did I doubt I would question whether or not it is a dog.
A dog does not have the means to steal all the resources that would give him an advantage over its enemies. A dog cannot assemble other dogs together to overpower its opponents. If the other possibilities are more worthy than using the threat of force , then why wouldn't individuals that make up a body of government used its other resources to fight against its opponents that do not require force? Why have most civilizations throughout human history needed a military to maintain their power if government considered something like diplomacy as a worthy weapon? Perfect physics analogy: Power=Work/time= Force*distance/time;
Conclusion: The government needs power in ordered to be maintained, without force , the government would have no perfect power; Therefore, the government could not exist without implementing force, like human could live any longer if they did not regularly consumed water or went long periods without consuming water.
TheStatutoryApe
Oct29-09, 01:51 AM
[EDIT:] OK If you don't like my definition of government state your own. Maybe we are arguing semantics. But I think only my definition is free of implicit assertions about the nature of reality (and thus is a definition and not a hypothesis). Governments state "thou shall..." or "thou shalt not..." with an implicit or explicit "or else". Any institution that says "thou should" is just giving advice or opinion and is insufficient to suppress those saying "thou shalt hand over your wallet or else I'll bludgeon you!"
I define the state as a sort of social construct. It is a sizable nontransitory and organized group of people generally living in a fix territory working together for their mutual benefit with a sovereign authority over themselves and an agreed upon social contract. And I would define a government as the structure of organization to said state and its social contract. The primary authority of a government comes from the support of its people rather than the exercise of violence though in many instances through history support from only a minority was necessary to establish a state and government.
Even a totalitarian government that rules mostly by force must have support of some portion of the people or it will be overthrown, which is what happens to most primitive totalitarian states. In fact we can see from history that most states that ruled primarily by violence and force without significant support from its citizens were highly unstable and unsuccessful at maintaining power. Yet another reason why defining government as the exercise of violence does not seem very logical.
There are many types of social constructs and many of them utilize violence as well. Not all social constructs would be rightly labeled as states. One of the issues of definition here seems to be size and scope. Galteeth mentions the idea of a single man wielding violence to his own ends as being a form of 'state' or 'government'. I would have to disagree. While there may be no specific number for delineation between what is and is not a state we would generally not refer to two persons where one rules over the other as a state. They may even fit all of the criteria as I defined above (excepting the 'sizable' criteria) but we still do not consider them a state. Just as we generally do not call two people a 'gang' or a 'mob' and have no strict numerical criteria for defining either of these other than that they are significantly numerous.
Also some seem to be loosely defining a gang or mafia to be something like a state. They are social constructs as well and so share similar characteristics to a state or government but violate certain criteria. For one gangs and mafia are generally not a sovereign authority. They are also generally separate from the community in which operate having a smaller scale social structure of their own. Certainly a 'party' or aristocracy in some forms of state and government have separate social niches but these are generally seen as a part of the community or state social structure as a whole rather than separate and independent.
I could come up with more distinctions for my definition but I am a bit busy at the moment feel free to question me on other aspects of my definition that I have not touched upon.
Conclusion: The government needs power in ordered to be maintained, without force , the government would have no perfect power; Therefore, the government could not exist without implementing force, like human could live any longer if they did not regularly consumed water or went long periods without consuming water.
Yet we generally do not consider humans to be primarily or exclusively defined by the drinking of water.
My only contention is the exercise of violence as a primary definition of government. And the part which you responded was really in response to the scenario of humans not being capable of violence. Would you believe that the government and state could not exist if humans were incapable of violence?
Galteeth
Oct30-09, 10:41 PM
I define the state as a sort of social construct. It is a sizable nontransitory and organized group of people generally living in a fix territory working together for their mutual benefit with a sovereign authority over themselves and an agreed upon social contract. And I would define a government as the structure of organization to said state and its social contract. The primary authority of a government comes from the support of its people rather than the exercise of violence though in many instances through history support from only a minority was necessary to establish a state and government.
Even a totalitarian government that rules mostly by force must have support of some portion of the people or it will be overthrown, which is what happens to most primitive totalitarian states. In fact we can see from history that most states that ruled primarily by violence and force without significant support from its citizens were highly unstable and unsuccessful at maintaining power. Yet another reason why defining government as the exercise of violence does not seem very logical.
There are many types of social constructs and many of them utilize violence as well. Not all social constructs would be rightly labeled as states. One of the issues of definition here seems to be size and scope. Galteeth mentions the idea of a single man wielding violence to his own ends as being a form of 'state' or 'government'. I would have to disagree. While there may be no specific number for delineation between what is and is not a state we would generally not refer to two persons where one rules over the other as a state. They may even fit all of the criteria as I defined above (excepting the 'sizable' criteria) but we still do not consider them a state. Just as we generally do not call two people a 'gang' or a 'mob' and have no strict numerical criteria for defining either of these other than that they are significantly numerous.
Also some seem to be loosely defining a gang or mafia to be something like a state. They are social constructs as well and so share similar characteristics to a state or government but violate certain criteria. For one gangs and mafia are generally not a sovereign authority. They are also generally separate from the community in which operate having a smaller scale social structure of their own. Certainly a 'party' or aristocracy in some forms of state and government have separate social niches but these are generally seen as a part of the community or state social structure as a whole rather than separate and independent.
I could come up with more distinctions for my definition but I am a bit busy at the moment feel free to question me on other aspects of my definition that I have not touched upon.
Yet we generally do not consider humans to be primarily or exclusively defined by the drinking of water.
My only contention is the exercise of violence as a primary definition of government. And the part which you responded was really in response to the scenario of humans not being capable of violence. Would you believe that the government and state could not exist if humans were incapable of violence?
Some states are certainly more successful then others, and many states are regards as the least worst alternative by the people they govern. It seems to me you are talking about diffirences between states, not fundamental features of them. The point was more so that all laws or rules decreed by states or governments are ultimately backed by force. An entity that created rules that did not have the threat of force to back them up would not fall into the category of state and government. In this way,use of force is the defining characteristic of a state.
1. All governments use force.
2. Some governments have other features.
You could argue 3., not every person or persons who use force can be considered government.
If so, what are other fundametal characteristics that define government besides (1) to delineate between government and not-government? Someone earlier on suggested some ideas, such as full sovereignty, but I pointed out some problems with those definitions. You are correct that in the social construct sense, most people don't think of all use of force as government. I am arguing that these are fuzzy definitions.
EDIT: I am not arguing that (1) implies it converse, the opposite of (3), I know this is a fallacy. I am personally stating (3) (not as a consequence of (1), but for the sake of this argument I will discount (3) for the time being.
TheStatutoryApe
Oct30-09, 11:22 PM
Some states are certainly more successful then others, and many states are regards as the least worst alternative by the people they govern. It seems to me you are talking about diffirences between states, not fundamental features of them.
The list of criteria that I provided are not meant to be differences but fundamental features. Such a massive and distinct entity as a state/government is complex and in my opinion requires multiple necessary features for definition. Some may or may not be able to be dropped but then they would, in my estimation, be considered exceptional. The rest of my post was a partial attempt at explaining my rationale for the applicability of these features.
The point was more so that all laws or rules decreed by states or governments are ultimately backed by force. An entity that created rules that did not have the threat of force to back them up would not fall into the category of state and government. In this way,use of force is the defining characteristic of a state.
I would have to disagree. The most fundamental necessity for a government to impose and enforce a social contract is the support of a significantly numerous or influential portion of its citizens. Without this it is just a gang bullying a community (that is a separate construct from the community rather than a niche within it as a government is) and will eventually disintegrate.
I would also contend that the imposition and enforcement of rules are only a single function of government and that other functions, such as representation of its constituents, are equally fundamental to a government.
1. All governments use force.
2. Some governments have other features.
You could argue 3., not every person or persons who use force can be considered government.
If so, what are other fundametal characteristics that define government besides (1) to delineate between government and not-government? Someone earlier on suggested some ideas, such as full sovereignty, but I pointed out some problems with those definitions. You are correct that in the social construct sense, most people don't think of all use of force as government. I am arguing that these are fuzzy definitions.
EDIT: I am not arguing that (1) implies it converse, the opposite of (3), I know this is a fallacy. I am personally stating (3) (not as a consequence of (1), but for the sake of this argument I will discount (3) for the time being.
This is the fundamental flaw of the definition. 'Organized exercise of force' describes far more than just government and I would argue that most organized exercises of force are not what would be defined as government. So either this definition is too simple and vague to be useful or you are expanding the definition of state/government to include several other distinct phenomenon (including such things as mobs of angry football fans) which are generally not included under the umbrella of the terms state or government again making the definition less than useful.
To reiterate...
[A] sizable nontransitory and organized group of people generally living in a fix territory working together for their mutual benefit with a sovereign authority over themselves and an agreed upon social contract. And I would define a government as the structure of organization to said state and its social contract.
.. is my definition. I will leave this for you to question if you like instead of writing an essay.
Galteeth
Oct30-09, 11:30 PM
"[A] sizable nontransitory and organized group of people generally living in a fix territory working together for their mutual benefit with a sovereign authority over themselves and an agreed upon social contract. And I would define a government as the structure of organization to said state and its social contract."
Historically, most governments did not have the idea of a social contract. Under this definition, for example, the kingdoms that were based on the divine right of kings would not be considered government.
TheStatutoryApe
Oct31-09, 12:10 AM
"[A] sizable nontransitory and organized group of people generally living in a fix territory working together for their mutual benefit with a sovereign authority over themselves and an agreed upon social contract. And I would define a government as the structure of organization to said state and its social contract."
Historically, most governments did not have the idea of a social contract. Under this definition, for example, the kingdoms that were based on the divine right of kings would not be considered government.
I am using 'social contract' in a broad and generalized way to include unwritten laws or rules of conduct as well as those of a religious or superstitious origin. If a kings subjects (constituents) believe he is the divine seat of righteousness and so follow him for that reason that is a form of social contract. It is an agreement (however informal) between individuals to accept a certain order of things.
Galteeth
Oct31-09, 12:38 AM
I am using 'social contract' in a broad and generalized way to include unwritten laws or rules of conduct as well as those of a religious or superstitious origin. If a kings subjects (constituents) believe he is the divine seat of righteousness and so follow him for that reason that is a form of social contract. It is an agreement (however informal) between individuals to accept a certain order of things.
But this case does not necessitate the subjects' acceptance of the justification, only that the king has command of sufficient force to impose rule. In the case of kings, the justification or contract was made subsequent to the orginal monarch's acquisition of power. In other words, kings did not convince their subjects that they were divinely chosen and then acquired power, the acquisition of power was seen as proof of divine ordinance.
TheStatutoryApe
Oct31-09, 01:02 AM
But this case does not necessitate the subjects' acceptance of the justification, only that the king has command of sufficient force to impose rule. In the case of kings, the justification or contract was made subsequent to the orginal monarch's acquisition of power. In other words, kings did not convince their subjects that they were divinely chosen and then acquired power, the acquisition of power was seen as proof of divine ordinance.
And that would be the social contract at work. It is believed that there is to be a king and that the king ascends to power in a certain fashion. If this person ascended to power in a fashion acceptable to the people they will then follow him. A man may take the throne by force, dethroning the previous king, but this was as well generally considered an acceptable fashion to obtain a throne in most circumstances.
The king also requires backing and the confidence of others through some form of contract to obtain the force necessary to take a throne.
Galteeth
Oct31-09, 01:22 AM
And that would be the social contract at work. It is believed that there is to be a king and that the king ascends to power in a certain fashion. If this person ascended to power in a fashion acceptable to the people they will then follow him. A man may take the throne by force, dethroning the previous king, but this was as well generally considered an acceptable fashion to obtain a throne in most circumstances.
The king also requires backing and the confidence of others through some form of contract to obtain the force necessary to take a throne.
Ok, I kind of feel like were going around in circles here, but that definition of social contract is so loose as to apply to any group that uses force and subsequently justifies their actions.
TheStatutoryApe
Oct31-09, 06:24 AM
Ok, I kind of feel like were going around in circles here, but that definition of social contract is so loose as to apply to any group that uses force and subsequently justifies their actions.
I'm not sure what you mean. The only definition I have ever seen for 'social contract' is as a broad abstract term to describe the manner in which people agree to live and work together. That does not necessarily mean that it is a fair one or that all parties involved have an equal say. The social contract in a monarchy in a nut shell is that there is to be a monarch and the monarch is the source of law. There is more to it than that but as far as the structure of government goes that's about it. Its obviously a fairly primitive form of state.
jambaugh
Nov1-09, 11:28 AM
I define the state as a sort of social construct. It is a sizable nontransitory and organized group of people generally living in a fix territory working together for their mutual benefit with a sovereign authority over themselves and an agreed upon social contract. And I would define a government as the structure of organization to said state and its social contract. The primary authority of a government comes from the support of its people rather than the exercise of violence though in many instances through history support from only a minority was necessary to establish a state and government.
You describe aspects of a form of government. The Irish during the famine years of the 19th century had no "social contract" with the ruling British. There was no consent of the governed yet they were governed. Again I argue that consent of the governed is not necessary for government to be defined. It rather is a criterion for legitimacy in government for someone valuing free government. Again a quality of type not of definition.
I have always had a problem with the "social contract" idea (though I see it as far superior to e.g. divine right of kings) in that a contract by definition presupposes a free choice. I, born into the State in which I am living, had no choice as to its form. Fortunately for me those who set it up did give me some small control over its future form but I alone have no power to rebel. I can at best choose exile from my home. The social contract idea is at best a polar ideal (like anarchy) defining an axis along which we may order governments in classifying them but not something that can be fully actualized. Ultimately we cannot renegotiate government for each individual born and as each day passes.
Finally those who "reject the social contract" are still subject to the force exercised by those who form the government. Heinlein painted a pretty good picture of the maximum actualization of the "social contract" idea in his Coventry short story. Even when exile is the only punishment it must be enforced. The process of this enforcement, adjudicating upon whom it is to be enforced and when and why, the actual implementation, that defines the government.
Government is not an object it is a process. It is not defined by its form but by its function. The function of government is to selectively apply coercive force upon individuals to make them behave in a certain way (lawfully).
Again I challenge you... state an action of government which is not a coercive act at some level? I can find examples but they are meaningless acts such as congressional "non-binding resolutions" or "bully pulpit" calls to action on the part of private citizens and ultimately meaningful only because those individuals so acting have celebrity status by virtue of being in a position to exercise force.
Even a totalitarian government that rules mostly by force must have support of some portion of the people or it will be overthrown, which is what happens to most primitive totalitarian states.
But of course it needn't be supported by all. Those who do not support it are still subject to it. One ruthless man with an ultimate weapon is sufficient to support a tyranny. Such parsing is just a question of who holds the power and thus has the ability to grant authority. Again all this is a function of the use of coercive force. A village can through numbers tar and feather the individual. A warrior can tyrannize a village of peasants. The common denominator is who uses force and thus who is able to decide on its "authorized use". The implied context of "authorized use of force" is the existence of a background government which punishes unauthorized use by virtue of its superior ability to apply force. I can state that "I do not authorize the US Federal government to tax my income." That is meaningless until I have the power to use force superior to that of the Federal government.
In fact we can see from history that most states that ruled primarily by violence and force without significant support from its citizens were highly unstable and unsuccessful at maintaining power. Yet another reason why defining government as the exercise of violence does not seem very logical.
Break up your statement. I assert all states "rule by violence and force." There's no "primarily" too it. The question of "support from its citizens" is a question of form. Who says a government must be stable to be defined as a government.
I don't disagree totally with your thesis but I think once you agree with me as to the definition of government as the coordinated use of force (both active violence and its explicit or implicit threat) then we can begin to make progress arguing as to the "best" form of government in terms of stability and benefit to individuals under its rule. You imply by virtue of appealing to "the consent of the governed" that in the absence of this consent there will be... "revolt"? Does then the government not in is failure to sustain itself at least try to suppress such revolution with force of arms? Typically in the "bloodless coupe" it is the army that finally rejects the dictates of the tyrant and it is They who thus decide the issue because it is only through them that the tyrants govern because government is the coordinated use of force and without the wielders of guns there is no government.
There are many types of social constructs and many of them utilize violence as well. Not all social constructs would be rightly labeled as states. One of the issues of definition here seems to be size and scope. Galteeth mentions the idea of a single man wielding violence to his own ends as being a form of 'state' or 'government'. I would have to disagree. While there may be no specific number for delineation between what is and is not a state we would generally not refer to two persons where one rules over the other as a state. They may even fit all of the criteria as I defined above (excepting the 'sizable' criteria) but we still do not consider them a state. Just as we generally do not call two people a 'gang' or a 'mob' and have no strict numerical criteria for defining either of these other than that they are significantly numerous.
Understood. Like anarchy such is a polar extreme, yet again in the case of two men on a desert island if you wish to define "government" at all it must be defined at the point where conflict arises with the potential for violence. One may expect the weaker man to defer to the stronger and then hope that the stronger will grant equality to the weaker. There is always the possibility of enslavement, rebellion, war. Whether these are rational outcomes is another question but we are fools to assume all men behave rationally. From three to three hundred there is some equilibrium reached where some agree to use force to make all abide by some set of rules.
Is it not applicable to call Robinson Crusoe's mastery over Friday a "government" with Crusoe as King? He even invokes "divine right" but mainly his reign was a function of his munitions. You needn't call this government but it is the seed out of which the oak grows. People have conflicting interests which ultimately are settled by violence if no compromise is found. Even in the absence of overt violence its threat is always in the background of the negotiation to compromise. This is always in the background of any "social contract" and the ultimate aim of forming such a contract...but then the contract must be enforced.
Also some seem to be loosely defining a gang or mafia to be something like a state. They are social constructs as well and so share similar characteristics to a state or government but violate certain criteria. For one gangs and mafia are generally not a sovereign authority.
When police fear to travel in a gang controlled neighborhood would you not say they reign sovereign over that neighborhood? Has not the, elsewhere sovereign, government then abdicated its sovereignty for a time over that region? Isn't that the whole point of gang markings? To establish the domains of the territory over which they assert their sovereignty? Take the jailhouse gang. Why, if the warden holds "sovereignty", is it that the new prisoner feels compelled to join a gang? Because the gangs by virtue of their ruthlessness have more power of life and death over the prisoner than does the warden. It is the gangs who rule the prison yard beyond the scope of the guards duties to prevent escape and overt mass violence. The new prisoner joins one gang to be protected from violation by other inmates. The gang serves as a syndicate form of government within the domain it is allowed( by the impotence or legal restrictions of the warden to control absolutely the lives and behavior of the imprisoned.) Not an ideal government but I say no less a government than the one which forces them to live in the prison. There are leaders and warriors and rules and consequences for when those rules are broken. The ultimate prison crime is to rat on a fellow inmate. That's law in effect. The punishment is generally execution. Without the punishment the law is meaningless.
And does your requirement of sovereign authority then preclude state and local governments as being "governments" in the US since the Federal Govt. has final sovereignty?
I assert that you can identify the Governments by their logo on the uniform of enforcement officers. They are the guys with guns on their belts. In the case of a gang it is their markings and colors and the guns are under their shirts.
They are also generally separate from the community in which operate having a smaller scale social structure of their own.
A better description of Washington (inside the beltway) I have not seen! But I disagree with regard to gangs and mobs. They are generally intimately involved in the community (though generally not in a positive way).
Yet we generally do not consider humans to be primarily or exclusively defined by the drinking of water.
...
My only contention is the exercise of violence as a primary definition of government. And the part which you responded was really in response to the scenario of humans not being capable of violence. Would you believe that the government and state could not exist if humans were incapable of violence?
It is a defining characteristic and I would say no, it is not possible to define government or State in the absence of human ability to do violence. But that's so far off the scale of possibility that it is not useful even for definitional purposes.
People without the power to do violence cannot have the power to function in any capacity. Any tool is also a perfectly good weapon.
People without the whit to do violence cannot function. The man incapable of conceiving of the effect of a hammer on someone's head cannot conceive of the effect of a hammer on a nail.
Finally the man without the will to do violence cannot function as he is subject to the tyranny of the child, the insane, the unscrupulous or subject to the hunger of the lions, tigers, and bears.
(You should read "The Warriors" a short story by Larry Niven.)
jambaugh
Nov1-09, 12:49 PM
The point was more so that all laws or rules decreed by states or governments are ultimately backed by force. An entity that created rules that did not have the threat of force to back them up would not fall into the category of state and government. In this way,use of force is the defining characteristic of a state.
1. All governments use force.
2. Some governments have other features.
You could argue 3., not every person or persons who use force can be considered government.
If so, what are other fundametal characteristics that define government besides (1) to delineate between government and not-government? Someone earlier on suggested some ideas, such as full sovereignty, but I pointed out some problems with those definitions. You are correct that in the social construct sense, most people don't think of all use of force as government. I am arguing that these are fuzzy definitions.
Well stated. Let's try to pin down 3. Clearly a mad man on a rampage is not "government".
I've always qualified "coordinated use" and still my definition may lack some further qualification. Let me try again and see if you can play devil's advocate help me refine it.
Definition: Governing occurs when one individual or group coerces another to act within constraints that the coerced individual would not in general otherwise respect and would otherwise have the power to exceed.
Thus we define: A government is any organization whose function is to govern as defined above. or simply as the process of governing.
I think I have not emphasized the coercion enough and the violence too much. Killing people who refuse to commit suicide is not governing it is slaughter. It is when people abide by rules due to consequences ultimately resulting in violence that governing does occur. It is then the nature of those constraints being placed, how many, how they are decided and enforced that we use to qualify types and forms of governments.
The reason I keep harping on this fundamentally coercive nature of government is that it puts a much higher burden on the justification of utilizing government as a means of say social engineering. In the case currently being debated, Health Care Reform, we should always keep the coercive nature of government conscious in our minds. To what extent do we need to and to what extent are we justified in, applying coercion in the domain of the practice of medicine?
That of course is an open question with different answers depending on one's political beliefs. But the underlying coercion at the heart of every government act is, not a question of opinion or relative to one's beliefs but rather an objective fact.
jambaugh
Nov1-09, 01:35 PM
I think I've presented my position to sufficient degree that anyone can anticipate my further arguments so I'll leave it at that. I'll keep reading but I think my posts are getting too redundant.
The reason I keep harping on this fundamentally coercive nature of government is that it puts a much higher burden on the justification of utilizing government as a means of say social engineering.I think you also just pegged the reason many don't want to acknowledge it. No one wants to say the words "I advocate using force to coerce others to do what I want" when they know they can just write a bill that does just that, advocate it, pass it, all without ever having any discussion about whether coercion is justified.
The current health care proposal is a great example. Advocates aren't defending the use of aggressive force to coerce peaceful citizens into doing what they wouldn't do voluntarily, because they know they don't have to. All they have to do is convince enough voters that "we're on your side, trust us", and they can use force to coerce people at will.
TheStatutoryApe
Nov1-09, 04:25 PM
People without the whit to do violence cannot function.
This right here will be the undoing of our entire discussion. If you truly believe this then we have a rather fundamental difference in understanding of the human condition and will never get anywhere.
Galteeth
Nov2-09, 02:52 AM
Well stated. Let's try to pin down 3. Clearly a mad man on a rampage is not "government".
I've always qualified "coordinated use" and still my definition may lack some further qualification. Let me try again and see if you can play devil's advocate help me refine it.
Definition: Governing occurs when one individual or group coerces another to act within constraints that the coerced individual would not in general otherwise respect and would otherwise have the power to exceed.
Thus we define: A government is any organization whose function is to govern as defined above. or simply as the process of governing.
I think I have not emphasized the coercion enough and the violence too much. Killing people who refuse to commit suicide is not governing it is slaughter. It is when people abide by rules due to consequences ultimately resulting in violence that governing does occur. It is then the nature of those constraints being placed, how many, how they are decided and enforced that we use to qualify types and forms of governments.
The reason I keep harping on this fundamentally coercive nature of government is that it puts a much higher burden on the justification of utilizing government as a means of say social engineering. In the case currently being debated, Health Care Reform, we should always keep the coercive nature of government conscious in our minds. To what extent do we need to and to what extent are we justified in, applying coercion in the domain of the practice of medicine?
That of course is an open question with different answers depending on one's political beliefs. But the underlying coercion at the heart of every government act is, not a question of opinion or relative to one's beliefs but rather an objective fact.
I think the difference in our points of view come from different goals. I see anarchism as primarily an ethical system as opposed to a political one.
In this sense, a man on a mad rampage is not ethically different then a man killing for some purpose. Barring someone who is actually delusional, murder will always seem to serve some purpose, even if it is simply the purpose of eliminating people. Genocides are the act of governments, and may be seen to have some broader purpose in the minds of the murderers.
One could make the argument that one who kills purely for personal pleasure is not acting as a government, since the benefit is solely to the murderer. However, this then implies that a quality of government must be of benefit to more then one person, which I do not agree with. In an ethical anarchist framework, any act of violence can be defined as government. For a somewhat more traditional view, we could look at the motivation of the violence as a factor. This heads into difficult territory, as a line must be somewhat arbitrarily drawn at some point to delineate between what degree and types of motivation are necessary to constitute government. In the very basic example of control of resources, the benefit may simply be an economic one to the members of the government who want a particular resource (think warrior tribes or slave masters). Polar extremes are good way to think of this. The further you get from the polar extreme of a sole man killing for pleasure, the fuzzier what is and is not a government becomes untill we reach some threshold, principally of size and organization, where most agree that a government has been established.
On the other hand, what is or is not a violent or coercive act is very easy to define.
Galteeth
Nov2-09, 03:08 AM
This right here will be the undoing of our entire discussion. If you truly believe this then we have a rather fundamental difference in understanding of the human condition and will never get anywhere.
My hypothetical example of people "clock-worked orange" into not being able to do violence (specifically human violence) was meant to be a counter-argument to the claim that violence is necessary for society. I argued that violence was only necessary to counter violence or its potential.
Someone else asked a question about propery. I argue that if violence truly became impossible (but everything else was the same) while there would still be some who would steal, the majority would not. This isn't even particularly important to the point I was trying to make, since such a situation was impossible.
In response to the question "How could anarchy work?" my answer is if everyone is an anarchist. This does not mean that people have to be identical, or even have the same values, just that they would need to agree on a few fundamental rules that were imposed by voluntary self-restraint. In other words, a society that functioned without violence can be envisioned. Or to put it another way, society, in the absence of violence, is capable of organizing itself without violence. People say this will never happen. I agree, it seems unlikely in the immediate future. But this does not ethically invalidate the premise. People consider murder to be wrong, but acknowledge that it will exist. This is what I mean by anarchism as more so an ethical philosophy. Refusing to govern others, and to the extent possible, support the governing of others. Contrary to the early posts, i don't see this as an inconsistent position.
This is an oversimplification. Anarchism is the philosophy of a stateless society without a centralized monopoly of violence. There can certainly be voluntary political order in an anarchist society.
So, would an anarchist society abdicate the right to wage war a la Japan? Would this position involve total pacifism or would militias with no central authority be allowed for self-defense?
Galteeth
Nov2-09, 03:30 AM
So, would an anarchist society abdicate the right to wage war a la Japan? Would this position involve total pacifism or would militias with no central authority be allowed for self-defense?
Your're going to have to narrow that down to a specific anarchist ideology to get a meaningful answer. As came up in previous posts, there are a number of different anarchist ideologies, all of which look different.
Your're going to have to narrow that down to a specific anarchist ideology to get a meaningful answer. As came up in previous posts, there are a number of different anarchist ideologies, all of which look different.
I'll look into it, thank you. The distinction between giving up political order and a centralized agent of violence is very interesting and has forced me to question my current stance on anarchy.
jambaugh
Nov2-09, 05:29 AM
This right here will be the undoing of our entire discussion. If you truly believe this then we have a rather fundamental difference in understanding of the human condition and will never get anywhere.
Firstly I misspelled and should have written "wit" instead of "whit" i.e. mental faculty rather than "smallest part". I beg your pardon.
The wit to do violence is as I intended it, not being so dumb as to be unable to conceive of violent effect of an action. Without the "wit to do violence" intentionally one cannot foresee consequences enough to avoid accidental violence. (The proverbial child with the loaded gun scenario.)
If you truly cannot agree that such level of awareness of consequence is necessary to survive than indeed we cannot proceed.
jambaugh
Nov2-09, 06:05 AM
...In this sense, a man on a mad rampage is not ethically different then a man killing for some purpose. ...
I was more concerned with the effect of violence on the "victim". I am not governed by being murdered. I am governed e.g. by being given the restricted choice of picking cotton for someone else or being murdered, (or in a more benign case of stopping at a stop sign or risking the fine if I'm caught running it or being arrested if I refuse the fine or being physically subdued and likely harmed if I refuse to "come along quietly".)
Hence the executioner killing a man because he broke a capital law is effecting government while the man exterminating a person is not. Ethics aside the executioner is simply backing up the threat whose purpose is to affect behavior while the exterminator could care less about the behavior of those he exterminates.
The execution is part of a process of governance while the extermination is not as such. Similarly with the policeman using his baton to subdue a fellow resisting arrest vs the policeman beating a man with his baton out of malice i.e. with the primary goal to injure.
In this I am qualifying my earlier definition in saying not violence per se(coordinated or random) but coercion and the violent consequence behind that coercion is the defining characteristic of governance. One may argue forms but the act is the act. The rapist threatening the victim with a beating if they don't "shut up and take it" is governing the victim thereby. Not the rape but the threat of the beating and the execution of that threat if the victim does resist.
Galteeth
Nov3-09, 04:57 AM
I was more concerned with the effect of violence on the "victim". I am not governed by being murdered. I am governed e.g. by being given the restricted choice of picking cotton for someone else or being murdered, (or in a more benign case of stopping at a stop sign or risking the fine if I'm caught running it or being arrested if I refuse the fine or being physically subdued and likely harmed if I refuse to "come along quietly".)
Hence the executioner killing a man because he broke a capital law is effecting government while the man exterminating a person is not. Ethics aside the executioner is simply backing up the threat whose purpose is to affect behavior while the exterminator could care less about the behavior of those he exterminates.
The execution is part of a process of governance while the extermination is not as such. Similarly with the policeman using his baton to subdue a fellow resisting arrest vs the policeman beating a man with his baton out of malice i.e. with the primary goal to injure.
In this I am qualifying my earlier definition in saying not violence per se(coordinated or random) but coercion and the violent consequence behind that coercion is the defining characteristic of governance. One may argue forms but the act is the act. The rapist threatening the victim with a beating if they don't "shut up and take it" is governing the victim thereby. Not the rape but the threat of the beating and the execution of that threat if the victim does resist.
But what about instances of systematic genocides?
TheStatutoryApe
Nov3-09, 05:43 AM
I see anarchism as primarily an ethical system as opposed to a political one. In this sense, a man on a mad rampage is not ethically different then a man killing for some purpose.
So a man who kills in self defense is no different from a man who kills to take someones property?
One could make the argument that one who kills purely for personal pleasure is not acting as a government, since the benefit is solely to the murderer. However, this then implies that a quality of government must be of benefit to more then one person, which I do not agree with. In an ethical anarchist framework, any act of violence can be defined as government. For a somewhat more traditional view, we could look at the motivation of the violence as a factor. This heads into difficult territory, as a line must be somewhat arbitrarily drawn at some point to delineate between what degree and types of motivation are necessary to constitute government. In the very basic example of control of resources, the benefit may simply be an economic one to the members of the government who want a particular resource (think warrior tribes or slave masters).
Again, this whole definition broadens from the traditional definition to such an absurd degree as to be very nearly useless. If I beat a stranger and take their money I have 'governed' them? That's rather ridiculous don't you think?
Polar extremes are good way to think of this. The further you get from the polar extreme of a sole man killing for pleasure, the fuzzier what is and is not a government becomes untill we reach some threshold, principally of size and organization, where most agree that a government has been established.
On the other hand, what is or is not a violent or coercive act is very easy to define.
The notion of government is a complex thing. There are no simple and clear cut ways to define it. When you treat complex phenomena as though they are simple you lose perspective and your ability to work with these phenomena will be limited by the simplicity of your approach to them.
My hypothetical example of people "clock-worked orange" into not being able to do violence (specifically human violence) was meant to be a counter-argument to the claim that violence is necessary for society. I argued that violence was only necessary to counter violence or its potential.
I am fairly certain I understood your point even if I disagreed with your conclusions which seemed to be there could not be any such thing as government in such a scenario.
I was referring specifically to my discussion with Jambaugh.
Firstly I misspelled and should have written "wit" instead of "whit" i.e. mental faculty rather than "smallest part". I beg your pardon.
The wit to do violence is as I intended it, not being so dumb as to be unable to conceive of violent effect of an action. Without the "wit to do violence" intentionally one cannot foresee consequences enough to avoid accidental violence. (The proverbial child with the loaded gun scenario.)
If you truly cannot agree that such level of awareness of consequence is necessary to survive than indeed we cannot proceed.
I was not responding to your misspelling and understood that you meant wit. It was other parts of your post that I was responding to but I felt that particular sentence summed it up instead of quoting the entire post. Perhaps the hammer bit would have been better. It seemed to me that you were indicating a belief that humans could not function without the ability to commit violence. Specifically you expressed the belief that if a person could not conceive of hitting someone over the head with a hammer they could not conceive of hitting nails with a hammer. This gave me the impression that you feel violence and the will to do violence is so inherent to survival as to be part of almost any everyday task.
Perhaps though you were simply taking my words out of context and to an extreme. I was referring to Galteeth's idea of people being programmed to have such a visceral response to the idea of doing violence to another human so as to be unable to commit violence to one another.
Personally I believe that we would still find some means of government and even believe that most of the ways in which government preserve the common social contract are through nonviolent methods. I am pretty sure from your posts so far that you disagree with the later but I can not imagine someone disagreeing with the former. Maybe you do but I find it a very odd idea.
So if I have misinterpreted your response let me know. And if you are interested in my response to your earlier post regardless just let me know.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.