Without a centralized, involuntary taxation power be sustainable?

[ultimablah]

Would a society without a centralized, involuntary taxation power be sustainable? (eg. an anarchy?) Could people be happy without having to rely on a system that uses force to mandate policies? Would economics work? What problems would an anarchy have?

I was interested in this topic after writing an essay on the effects of government regulation, and a curious thought-experiment of a society without a government. I was curious on what your opinions and theories were.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

There would be an unstable power vacuum, and someone would rush in and become Despot. Most likely this someone would be whoever happened to have the most weapons at the time. It wouldn't be pretty.

Essentially, you can't have an anarchic society, because there are always people who want to control things, and they will take advantage of the situation.

 

[LowlyPion]

You might want to look at the Spanish Civil War.

http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/recommended-reading-the-spanish-civil-war/

 

[russ_watters]

You may want to research a good fraction of the countries in Africa. Somalia is one excellent example.

For the purpose of the paper, you should differentiate between "anarchy" and "anarchists". Anarchists aren't really after anarchy - what they are after looks a lot more like communism (but varies a lot). The label basically just means they are anti-existing government. I'd be very careful about using self-proclaimed "anarchists" as sources. There is no single definition because it isn't a real/coherent political theory the way "Democracy", "communism" and "monarchy" are.

 

[LightbulbSun]

There is no single definition because it isn't a real/coherent political theory the way "Democracy", "communism" and "monarchy" are.

Well the general definition is that anarchy means "without a state."

 

[WarPhalange]

Anarchy works on the presumption that people are generally good and smart.

Neither of those is totally true and it takes a small minority of bad people to ruin a society, and enough stupid people and the entire society will collapse as well.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Well the general definition is that anarchy means "without a state."

See: difference between "anarchy" and "anarchists" and which one russ was referring to

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I wouldn't be surprised if Anarchism, like Communism, came about as a reaction to industrialization.

Except that perhaps whereas Communists decided (officially, at least) that industrialization was an inevitable and an essential progression of history, Anarchists probably originally thought it was a temporary fad or something. It seems like they thought that if they could destroy the societal structures that gave rise to industrialism, industrialism and the miseries it had brought to the world of Victorian America and Europe would just go away.

Without some centralization of power it seems to me that economics could not work the same way, no. There would be merchantile activity moving small amounts of good around and small-scale production of goods but commerce on a large scale simply wouldn't be possible, without roads, shipping facilities, etc. The business environment would be completely unstable, like in the 1980's China or in 1990's Russia where business was half-legal and half-illegal, so everyone at every point would always be squeezing a business enterprise and siphoning off whatever they could.

Famines and epidemics and environmental destruction would run rampant without any central authority to prepare for and prevent them. There are many problems that we just don't see and don't think about today because our society is geared towards having centralized authority and standardization. I mean, look at that cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe in the last few days.

Or, do you know how many diseases used to be spread entirely through food, because there were no centralized public health authorities until the 1910's - 1920's? You know how most people usually caught tuberculosis in the 19th century and before? From drinking milk. You'd drink a nice, tasty glass of fresh milk, and a few months later die because your lungs were filled with potato-like tumors. Bovine tuberculosis is communicable to humans. Even once they knew this was the cause it took decades to eradicate it because every U.S. state and European country had to form centralized health authorities that would force farmers to maintain proper sanitation and inoculate their cows for tuberculosis and other diseases.

⚛​

 

[russ_watters]

Well the general definition is that anarchy means "without a state."

Well, there is more implied to me, and it shows up in the dictionary:

1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

My preference is for the first definition, a condition of absolute lawlessness. I prefer it because it is a starting point for discussion, and used by Hobbes for that purpose. Any report on anarchy must start with Hobbes:

"during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man"[1]. In this state any person has a natural right to do anything to preserve his own liberty or safety, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."[1].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature
The entire book is available here and if it isn't required reading, it should be: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html

 

[russ_watters]

I wouldn't be surprised if Anarchism, like Communism, came about as a reaction to industrialization.

Since they are largely developments of the same school of thought, yes.

Except that perhaps whereas Communists decided (officially, at least) that industrialization was an inevitable and an essential progression of history, Anarchists probably originally thought it was a temporary fad or something.

Stalin may have embraced industrialization, but that doesn't mean that he and Marx didn't still think industrialization was a major cause of the problems that communism was designed to fix. Communism most certainly was a reaction to the growing pains of the industrial revolution. Ie:

It seems like they thought that if they could destroy the societal structures that gave rise to industrialism, industrialism and the miseries it had brought to the world of Victorian America and Europe would just go away.

Yep.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Well, there is more implied to me, and it shows up in the dictionary: My preference is for the first definition, a condition of absolute lawlessness.

Same. A lot of anarchists seem to base their argument on faith. They have faith that our transportation systems will be maintained. They have faith that the people will prevent some company from taking other businesses out of business or exploiting consumers. They have faith that fire departments and hospitals will still be vital. It's just as faith-based as a religion.

They also seem to think that people who state anarchy means chaos is just a misconception based upon people's ignorance of anarchy. I really wish they would debunk that with a good argument instead of just saying it's a misconception because they don't want to hear their philosophy is flawed.

 

[ultimablah]

"Same. A lot of anarchists seem to base their argument on faith. They have faith that our transportation systems will be maintained. They have faith that the people will prevent some company from taking other businesses out of business or exploiting consumers. They have faith that fire departments and hospitals will still be vital. It's just as faith-based as a religion.

They also seem to think that people who state anarchy means chaos is just a misconception based upon people's ignorance of anarchy. I really wish they would debunk that with a good argument instead of just saying it's a misconception because they don't want to hear their philosophy is flawed."

If people wanted transportation systems, wouldn't they work towards maintaining them?
If they wanted to prevent a company from taking over other companies or exploiting consumers, wouldn't people prevent the companies from exploiting them, or the companies prevent being taken over?

If people want fire departments and hospitals, would hospitals and fire departments not be profitable for people who provided them?

Anarchy frequently causes chaos, mostly due to peoples' previous conditioning by government, but anarchy does not necessitate chaos.

If people want something, they are willing to work for it or pay for it.
The simple premise is that people are greedy.

How is the philosophy flawed?

 

[jreelawg]

If people wanted transportation systems, wouldn't they work towards maintaining them?
If they wanted to prevent a company from taking over other companies or exploiting consumers, wouldn't people prevent the companies from exploiting them, or the companies prevent being taken over?

If people want fire departments and hospitals, would hospitals and fire departments not be profitable for people who provided them?

Anarchy frequently causes chaos, mostly due to peoples' previous conditioning by government, but anarchy does not necessitate chaos.

How is the philosophy flawed?

Without a government, law enforcement would be private, the military private, emergency services private, and etc. It would boil down to who had the most money, or who had the most guns, and they would end up being a dictator of an entirely capitalist society. This would not be a place you would want to live in. The dictators might end up taxing the people if they want any protection, or they may slaughter who ever they want. They may end up enslaving most of the population, and while it may have started out as Anarchy, it would begin to model a corrupt dictatorship that would classify as a government.

 

[ultimablah]

Without a government, law enforcement would be private, the military private, emergency services private, and etc. It would boil down to who had the most money, or who had the most guns, and they would end up being a dictator of an entirely capitalist society. This would not be a place you would want to live in. The dictators might end up taxing the people if they want any protection, or they may slaughter who ever they want. They may end up enslaving most of the population, and while it may have started out as Anarchy, it would begin to model a corrupt dictatorship would would essentially classify as a government.

Let me make absolutely sure: Your argument against anarchy is because you believe anarchy is unsustainable, and anarchy would collapse. Is this correct?

Just want to make sure so I can effectively argue against it.

How would the company with the most money get the most money? Are you saying nothing would prevent them from getting money, would prevent them from getting an army, would prevent them from taxing people?

 

[jreelawg]

How would the company with the most money get the most money?

They would hire guns and control all the resources. Maybe there wouldn't even be a currency, only control of land and resources. The dictator may or may not share any of it with the people. Probably only enough to have a work force and hired guns to maintain control.

They may not be organized enough to control all the land, and so other warlords may control other areas. They would then fight each other and come through pilaging and stealing when possible. Some people might be able to survive in tribes hiding from warlords, but they may at any time be caught and slaughtered.

 

[ultimablah]

They would hire guns and control all the resources. Maybe there wouldn't even be a currency, only control of land and resources. The dictator may or may not share any of it with the people. Probably only enough to have a work force and hired guns to maintain control.

They may not be organized enough to control all the land, and so other warlords may control other areas. They would then fight each other and come through pilaging and stealing when possible. Some people might be able to survive in tribes hiding from warlords, but they may at any time be caught and slaughtered.

Again I ask, how would the companies get the money to hire guns? Why would guns allow themselves to be hired? Are you saying nothing would prevent them from getting money, would prevent them from getting an army, would prevent them from taxing people? Why would, in short, people fund a system which will only benefit a few, and obviously not all that fund it? To fund a military conquest is extremely risky and difficult; after all, if you fail, your life is most likely destroyed. Plus, it takes time and advertising to construct a military force; those who oppose you will not want to fund you, and those who think that even if they succeed, nothing guarantees that they will benefit will not fund you. Even the companies that fund you will face difficulties, because people would be alerted of such a military organizing, and people would want to be protected, and thus would willingly pay a company large sums of money to protect their way of life. The people would, of course, make sure that the company can not then turn around and use the resources to oppress the people after winning the war.

 

[jreelawg]

Again I ask, how would the companies get the money to hire guns? Why would guns allow themselves to be hired? Why would, in short, people fund a system which will only benefit a few, and obviously not all that fund it? To fund a military conquest is extremely risky and difficult; after all, if you fail, your life is most likely destroyed.

You would be forced to fund it as they steal everything you own and dump you in a ditch.

If you don;t work for the warlord, then the warlords men may slaughter you. Plus the warlord may be the only provider of food, so it is do as told or die with the rest. Disobeying would mean execution.

The people who are quickest at the draw gathering weapons and recruits would prosper. The way to the top would be ruthless brutality and would most likely guarantee that the ruler would not be compassionate. Many would want to live in peace, but one band of killers could easily exploit their weakness and take over. If not one, then another, but some will surely try, and the most ruthless would most likely succeed.

Because there would be no legit law enforcement, looting would end up being the most successful business, and that business would grow and strive for monopoly. In which case you would have essentially a Mafia run country, however, in a country of no law, the mafia would not be sufficient at protecting people from most criminal activity.

 

[ultimablah]

If you don;t work for the warlord, then the warlords men may slaughter you. Plus the warlord may be the only provider of food, so it is do as told or die with the rest. Disobeying would mean execution.

You would be forced to fund it as they steal everything you own and dump you in a ditch.

The people who are quickest at the draw gathering weapons and recruits would prosper. The way to the top would be ruthless brutality and would most likely guarantee that the ruler would not be compassionate. Many would want to live in peace, but one band of killers could easily exploit their weakness and take over. If not one, then another, but some will surely try.

Because there would be no legit law enforcement, looting would end up being the most successful business, and that business would grow and strive for monopoly.

If looting were the most profitable business, wouldn't one make a killing by providing a company that said that they would provide against looters?

You have to realize, a LOT of people have to gather and say "okay, let's try and take everyone over" in order to have a remote chance of succeeding. A lot. They would have to be numerous enough in every form of production to be able to out-produce every other company combined, and with all people who do not like military conquests funding the other companies, the other companies could, quite probably, stop the military conquest. It's not just speed, it's also quantity. People would realize that if a dictatorship arose, their businesses, in all probability, would not exist, and peoples' livelihoods would, in all likeliness, not exist, and would strive to prevent it from arising.

Again, where would the warlord get the men to slaughter people for him? Where would he get the money to pay the people? You're assuming that the warlord has the resources to control the people, which would allow him to then be able to, uh, control the people. The assumption that people would be too afraid to compete against the warlord if the majority were for the warlord is a valid assumption; the problem is simply reaching majority.

What do you mean by "legit" law enforcement? Most people do not want to be stolen from, murdered, raped, or otherwise harmed, so there is a huge market for protective services. There would also be endless applicants to be an employed protector.
What would happen to a murderer? I doubt the majority of people would want to do business with a murderer, and so the murderer would have extreme difficulty financially and socially.

"You would be forced to fund it as they steal everything you own and dump you in a ditch."
This is assuming they already have the power to force you to fund it. How do they gain the power to force you to fund it?

 

[jreelawg]

If that is the case, then why, in a world of governments trying to stop organized crime, is organized crime so big.

In Russia after the collapse of the USSR, the Mafias took over, and now control directly or indirectly 80% of Russia's banks. Mafias systematically extort and kill those who resist their control, and eventually the most ruthless rise to the top.

The mafia would own the companies, and they would protect their interests, which may be having a lot of people working for you, but it would no doubt be an ugly world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/03/98/russian_mafia/70095.stm

 

[jreelawg]

If looting were the most profitable business, wouldn't one make a killing by providing a company that said that they would provide against looters?

You have to realize, a LOT of people have to gather and say "okay, let's try and take everyone over" in order to have a remote chance of succeeding. A lot.

Are you arguing a hypothetical where man started from scratch, like if a bunch of small children washed up on an island, or are you talking anarchy in modern society. Because the guns are already here and built, and the organized criminals already very powerful.

 

[jreelawg]

What do you mean by "legit" law enforcement? Most people do not want to be stolen from, murdered, raped, or otherwise harmed, so there is a huge market for protective services. There would also be endless applicants to be an employed protector.
What would happen to a murderer? I doubt the majority of people would want to do business with a murderer, and so the murderer would have extreme difficulty financially and socially.

So then, would it be a mandatory tax for all in exchange for protection? Isn't that a government? Which company would get the money?

Otherwise, would you pay COD. I can see it now.

"uh, security corp. there uh, killin and raping my family, please come help."

"Ok sir, how do you plan to pay for our services."

"Uh, I'll give you three beaver pelts and five pound of rice."

 

[drankin]

Actually believing that anarchy would work is naive. If it could work it would have happened by now. The only places on Earth that do practice it in some fashion do not work at all. Somalia for example. To actually argue it as viable environment for civilization is amusing. Especially on this forum.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

As I said above I definitely think that Anarchism is a load of hooey. But an interesting thought occurred to me: what's the difference between believing that anarchy would magically make everything wonderful and fix all our problems and believing that free markets would magically make everything great and fix all our problems? It seems to me that free-marketeers are essentially the ideological descendants of Anarchists for the late 20th and 21st centuries.

(And before people pile on me with facts about the actual benefits of markets as a tool, I'm well acquainted with much of the mathematical, economics, and computer modeling research that demonstrates that. I'm talking about the people who think that markets can achieve miracles and that they're infallible, who think that the market should always run the show and so always respond to any cataclysmic debacles of markets like the current financial crisis by saying "The problem is that it wasn't free enough! If there only had been even less regulation and oversight everything would've worked out just fine!")

⚛​

 

[jreelawg]

A completely free market would pretty much be anarchy. Meaning if law enforcement, emergency services, military, education, etc were all private. There would be no reason for taxes, and what place would there be for government policy?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Oh, this is awesome. I'm going to call all the free market guys "bomb-throwing Anarchists" now.

⚛​

 

[LightbulbSun]

Deregulation of the markets is what ultimately caused this financial mess. Let this be another exhibit to show to people why deregulation just doesn't work. I'm sure libertarians will find some excuse to save face though.

 

[ultimablah]

So then, would it be a mandatory tax for all in exchange for protection? Isn't that a government? Which company would get the money?

Otherwise, would you pay COD. I can see it now.

"uh, security corp. there uh, killin and raping my family, please come help."

"Ok sir, how do you plan to pay for our services."

"Uh, I'll give you three beaver pelts and five pound of rice."

Which company? Whichever one you choose. Multiple companies would exist in competition.
You don't even have to choose any, which means that it's not mandatory; if you find that it is safer to not support (and be defended by) a power-hungry company rather than it is to support a power-hungry company, than you will not support it, and instead, you would be willing to pay for a company that you could trust. Since that demand would exist, most likely by many people who wanted safe protection, companies would arise to fill that demand, because people are greedy.

No "system" is perfect and infalliable, and to compare it to a utopia is folly. It simply would be better than the current system in place.

Lightbulbsun, I've heard that interesting tidbit that Obama threw out there. In what way, exactly, did deregulation cause the financial mess? What deregulation, specifically, caused the current crisis?

Drankin, no system has "worked" so far, so if any system could "work", it would have happened so far. And no, our representative republic has not worked.

A better question is, why should the market NOT run the show? What will allowing the market to run its own course cause? The market is a self-improving process, as would be shown if it were simply allowed to run. The market would recover, businesses would spring up that (if deregulation did cause the failure) would not make the same mistakes, and life would continue.

Hm, in response to the last point, let me ask a question; what protects people from the government they institute? What protects us from our government? If governments are suddenly destroyed, yes, there are power holes, which people will immediately try to fill with themselves out of greed.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If looting were the most profitable business, wouldn't one make a killing by providing a company that said that they would provide against looters?

Again, where would the warlord get the men to slaughter people for him? Where would he get the money to pay the people? You're assuming that the warlord has the resources to control the people, which would allow him to then be able to, uh, control the people. The assumption that people would be too afraid to compete against the warlord if the majority were for the warlord is a valid assumption; the problem is simply reaching majority.

A person or group of persons running a security operation would be a prime candidate for a dictator. Perhaps one starts out as a blacksmith(I'm going back in time here for the sake of simplicity) but no one seems to be able to afford arms. On the other hand people are being hired for security and using either clubs or old substandard equipment because they can't afford decent weapons. So Mr. Smith has an idea. He organizes several independent security men, outfits them with quality arms (which he makes himself) and sells their services based on having a superior service both in quality of arms and in being an organized group who can back one another up. Smith makes quite a bit of money selling his services and pays his men well so he is able to attract and pay for more men and sell their services to more clients making yet more money. Smith may even wind up hiring more smiths to keep up with the demand of outfitting his men. If Mr. Smith continues to succeed and outstripes his competitors he will eventually have the largest most well equiped military force in the area. He may even wind up with a near monopoly on weapons production.

Anyone following the same path as Mr. Smith above can eventually wind up with a large quantity of resources and influence. Perhaps passing it down through generations the family fortune will become even more massive and the family reputation more pronounced. We will wind up with classism. Devides between those who have amassed fortunes and those who have little but their own labour to rely upon. Those with resources will be able to hire Mr. Smith and those with little will not be able to compete for his services. Perhaps a family with particularly vast resources (perhaps involved in banking and loans) will hire Smith's men as an army. Hire them to police their holdings which just might cover a vast expanse of the area. They can then tell Mr. Smith that they would like him to enforce certain rules in all of these areas, for the common good of course. And now you have a central authority who commands the largest military force in the area enforcing the rules that they believe ought be enforced. Is that still anarchy?

 

[ultimablah]

A person or group of persons running a security operation would be a prime candidate for a dictator. Perhaps one starts out as a blacksmith(I'm going back in time here for the sake of simplicity) but no one seems to be able to afford arms. On the other hand people are being hired for security and using either clubs or old substandard equipment because they can't afford decent weapons. So Mr. Smith has an idea. He organizes several independent security men, outfits them with quality arms (which he makes himself) and sells their services based on having a superior service both in quality of arms and in being an organized group who can back one another up. Smith makes quite a bit of money selling his services and pays his men well so he is able to attract and pay for more men and sell their services to more clients making yet more money. Smith may even wind up hiring more smiths to keep up with the demand of outfitting his men. If Mr. Smith continues to succeed and outstripes his competitors he will eventually have the largest most well equiped military force in the area. He may even wind up with a near monopoly on weapons production.

Anyone following the same path as Mr. Smith above can eventually wind up with a large quantity of resources and influence. Perhaps passing it down through generations the family fortune will become even more massive and the family reputation more pronounced. We will wind up with classism. Devides between those who have amassed fortunes and those who have little but their own labour to rely upon. Those with resources will be able to hire Mr. Smith and those with little will not be able to compete for his services. Perhaps a family with particularly vast resources (perhaps involved in banking and loans) will hire Smith's men as an army. Hire them to police their holdings which just might cover a vast expanse of the area. They can then tell Mr. Smith that they would like him to enforce certain rules in all of these areas, for the common good of course. And now you have a central authority who commands the largest military force in the area enforcing the rules that they believe ought be enforced. Is that still anarchy?

No, it's not.
I see the argument that you are making, and I find it interesting. If Mr. Smith and his family were dictatorial, then perhaps that would form a dictatorship. It's feasible, but I would like to clarify a few things;

If people cannot afford weapons, how can people afford men with weapons?
Who else, besides Mr. Smith, the security staff, and the co-arms smiths would become obscenely rich?
Would you pay for the services of Mr. Smith (assuming that the world had been hit by a "reset wealth" and "delete government" button today, and Mr. Smith was just starting out with guns)?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, it's not.
I see the argument that you are making, and I find it interesting. If Mr. Smith and his family were dictatorial, then perhaps that would form a dictatorship. It's feasible, but I would like to clarify a few things;

If people cannot afford weapons, how can people afford men with weapons?
Who else, besides Mr. Smith, the security staff, and the co-arms smiths would become obscenely rich?
Would you pay for the services of Mr. Smith (assuming that the world had been hit by a "reset wealth" and "delete government" button today, and Mr. Smith was just starting out with guns)?

How can Mr. Smith afford his smithy even? People will have something whether that's some resources or a skill or what have you everyone will have something and some will have more than others even if they are not obscenely wealthy.

But on the capacity to afford armed men. A merchant may be able to afford, say, a hundred dollars to purchase a cheap weapon. Perhaps even five hundred to purchase a decent one. But can he weild it well? Can he police and run his shop simultaneously anyway? If he can't weild it well and won't be able to wander his shop brandishing it to discourage theivery what would be the point in spending even as little as a hundred dollars on this weapon? Why not just get a heavy stick for when he does happen to catch a theif? Or maybe he can more easily afford to pay Mr. Smith. Especially if Mr. Smith's men are more capable of discouraging and catching theives and vandals than the merchant with his hundred dollar gun under the counter. For a merchant "Loss Prevention" is the key to whether or not he can afford security. And if his customers feel more safe in his shop he will possibly even get a boost in business. The idea essentially is that the investment should make him money not cost him money. "Affordability" has to do with more than just having the resources, it also requires an ability to make the investment worth the cost.