[Dr House]

Yes because no body would resist a hostile takeover of their community

They would. Then the side with the greater quantity of resources wins, and takes control of the land. Or else one side decides it's just not worth it for them to fight the other off. Which is more or less how real countries are formed.

Ultimately any rule of law is the rule of the gun.

This is patently false. Does the rule of law belong to the head of the army? Doesn't he have "the most guns"?

Well, specifically speaking the rule of law belongs to whomever controls the most guns. In a stable society there is a pecking order where an organization (the state) holds a monopoly over violence, and commands full control over the armed forces within its jurisdiction -- this is done that way because society implicitly understands that the alternative is much more unstable and unpleasant. When one or more pillars of the social structure decide to go against it, society breaks down, as it is held up by the monopoly over the use of force. In point of fact the army (not even necessarily its head) does basically hold the government by the short and curlies, and defers to it simply because they find doing so preferable to the alternative. There are dozens of cases throughout recorded history, however, of the army deposing the government, or popular revolutions overruning it.

[Eran]

In a stable society there is a pecking order where an organization (the state) holds a monopoly over violence, and commands full control over the armed forces within its jurisdiction

This is one form of a stable society, but not the only form.

this is done that way because society implicitly understands that the alternative is much more unstable and unpleasant.

How do you know? Couldn't it be possible that it is done that way because it serves the interests of those controlling the state, and that it is in their interests to promote the notion that the alternative is much worse?


Note that about 500 years ago, the implicit understanding of society was that having a single organisation to run society is not enough - you actually need a single person - the king - to do that. Implicit understanding was so strong that countries routinely "recruited" kings from abroad.

Yet that "implicit understanding" was proved wrong. What makes you sure the current "implicit understanding" won't similarly be proven wrong?

[Dr House]

How do you know? Couldn't it be possible that it is done that way because it serves the interests of those controlling the state, and that it is in their interests to promote the notion that the alternative is much worse?

The alternative is much worse because if the state is not allowed control peacefully it will attempt to retain its control by force, resulting in a bloodbath. Which is why anarchy has only ever existed in collapsed societies and isolated frontiers (which normally are still technically under the jurisdiction of a realm, only no one bothers to enforce the law out there).

Note that about 500 years ago, the implicit understanding of society was that having a single organisation to run society is not enough - you actually need a single person - the king - to do that. Implicit understanding was so strong that countries routinely "recruited" kings from abroad.

Yet that "implicit understanding" was proved wrong. What makes you sure the current "implicit understanding" won't similarly be proven wrong?

This misses my point entirely. I'm not referencing modern republican nation-states, I'm referencing governments in general. Generally speaking governments are held up by some sort of legitimizing narrative or another. When this legitimizing narrative breaks down, the structure of society collapses, and after a transitional period (which far more often than not is bloody) reorganizes under a new form of organizational structure, which is always hierarchical and always has a skewed balance of coercive power.

[SolarCross]

Fair enough.

I'd rather point out that under any system of government (even in a group of Chimps!), the rulers are those who enjoy legitimacy, not those with physical power. Guns follow legitimacy.

Legitimacy? Yeah sure say the magic words and woo everyone obeys, no need for guns then.

Legitimacy is just a woo word, a smoke screen to disguise the guys with guns. Government without guns won't last a day even if it has all the 'legitimacy' in the world because anyone who won't obey can and anyone who wants to take over can.

Government without 'legitimacy' but does have guns will be obeyed even by those that don't want to obey and will survive takeovers as long as has enough guns.

Really legitimacy follows the guns as history shows.

[mikema63]

He doesn't have to, though, does he? If you were a monarch, wouldn't you choose, based on your understanding of economics, to adopt a highly laissez - faire attitude?

If I became a monarch I would end the monarchy, I can't imagine anyone who believed in individual freedom willingly ruling over others.

[Eran]

The alternative is much worse because if the state is not allowed control peacefully it will attempt to retain its control by force, resulting in a bloodbath.

Why do you speak of "The" alternative, as if there is only one?

This misses my point entirely.

No, it doesn't. I understand your point was regarding the necessity for some form of government (rather than a particular form). My point was to show how misleading it can be to assume that just because a certain form of societal organisation doesn't current exist, it cannot exist.

There is anecdotal evidence for stable and peaceful anarchies. But even without them, anarchy cannot and shouldn't be ruled out.

Society needs a common, legitimised form of dispute resolution. Governments provide such mechanism.

A dominant component of societal evolution of the past several centuries is an increasing regard to individual rights and diminution of the legitimising power of raw force. This is the process that allowed modern democracies to be stable. An extrapolation of the same process will allow a market anarchy to be stable without a central government altogether, relying instead of distributed institutions to maintain peace and order.

Legitimacy is just a woo word, a smoke screen to disguise the guys with guns. Government without guns won't last a day even if it has all the 'legitimacy' in the world because anyone who won't obey can and anyone who wants to take over can.

You are correct to suggest that legitimacy alone isn't enough - guns are required to suppress natural human tendency to ignore common norms for personal gain.

However, you shouldn't ignore legitimacy altogether. Ask yourself why American Presidents obey US Supreme Court rulings. Why American generals obey the President. In neither case is it about who has more guns.

If I became a monarch I would end the monarchy, I can't imagine anyone who believed in individual freedom willingly ruling over others.

If I became monarch, I would take steps that, in today's society, will likely cause my violent overthrow.

[mikema63]

If I became monarch, I would take steps that, in today's society, will likely cause my violent overthrow.

You have aroused my suspicions.

[SolarCross]

However, you shouldn't ignore legitimacy altogether. Ask yourself why American Presidents obey US Supreme Court rulings. Why American generals obey the President. In neither case is it about who has more guns.

the power and legitimacy of both president and court relies on the same set of guns so that is a silly example. generals 'obey' presidents because usually it suits them to do that, the president is part of a bureaucracy that supplies them with money for guns and starts wars for them to fight. When presidents order generals to take a pay cut then we soon see how much the generals value the legitimacy of presidents.

[Dr House]

Double post

[Dr House]

Why do you speak of "The" alternative, as if there is only one?

Because in this context there is. Either a centralized, stable institution (i.e. a government) holds a monopoly over the legitimate use of force, or it does not.

There is anecdotal evidence for stable and peaceful anarchies.

In frontiers. Isolated regions that no one governs because it's just not worth their while. Though even those have local, very small-scale forms of communal organisation with a leadership structure.

A dominant component of societal evolution of the past several centuries is an increasing regard to individual rights and diminution of the legitimising power of raw force.

This is blatantly false. In the West's Middle Ages, the town and the family were the most important social units, and everyone was seen as having rights based on Christianity. The Enlightenment created a breeding ground for many ideologies which had a revolutionary, transformative, or pre-Christian worldview -- these ideologies did not share this key Western assumption. In the Islamic world it's been even more apparent. Individual rights are held in very poor regard in much of it, and were never held higher than in the Baghdad Caliphate of the Middle Ages.

If we're referring to political rights like the right to vote, then and only then does this hold true. And even then, the right to decide on events in things that most impact you (local ones) has been weakened, not strengthened. So quite simply, this whiggish interpretation of a continual historical progression is inane.

If I became a monarch I would end the monarchy, I can't imagine anyone who believed in individual freedom willingly ruling over others.

That's stupid. If I were a libertarian my first assumption would be that handing the government to anyone else other than myself would pretty much lead to business as usual. As a monarch you can enforce your vision of a free society, and you'd kind of have to because anyone else in power would enforce a more statist vision. Abdicating a monarchy does not entail dismantling the government structure that underlies it.

[Eran]

When presidents order generals to take a pay cut then we soon see how much the generals value the legitimacy of presidents.

Presidents routinely ask generals to take a 100% pay cut, as when they are being fired. Supreme Court decisions often come against the interests of the President, sometimes against popular will.

You could argue that all those decisions are expedient. A rogue general or President won't survive long in power. That is true, but begs the question of why. The answer is that the legitimacy of the Constitution pervades American society. Officers are likely to refuse a patently-illegal command (say to storm Congress) from their general, and enlisted men may well refuse a similar command from their officers.

All of which comes to point out that in most societies, government enjoys broad, if only tacit, consent. Ultimately, it is this consent, rather than the power of guns, that keeps the regime stable. See Syria.

(btw, the quote was mine, not mike's).

Because in this context there is. Either a centralized, stable institution (i.e. a government) holds a monopoly over the legitimate use of force, or it does not.

The range of societal structures without a centralised, stable institution (i.e. government) is even wider than the range of possible governments. When you claim that "the alternative is much worse", you make a sweeping statement regarding an almost-infinite range of possibilities.

Isolated regions that no one governs because it's just not worth their while.

Ireland was effectively anarchically organised for centuries. And while Ireland might have been at the edge of Europe, it wasn't a frontier. It was a mature and stable society.

This is blatantly false. In the West's Middle Ages, the town and the family were the most important social units, and everyone was seen as having rights based on Christianity.

People had rights, but rarely individual rights. More often, they shared in communal rights associated with their class, guild or station.

I don't want to suggest that the journey was always in one direction. Clearly, the 20th century presented ample examples of violent individual right violations of unprecedented scope and scale.

But still, if you compare sentiments in Medieval England, Colonial America, Victorian England and modern Western democracies, I think you will recognize increasing respect to individual rights in such things as choice of occupation, marriage, sexual choices, religious freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of movement. The authority of authority (which was admittedly split between church and state in medieval Europe) over individuals is declining. This is not to be confused with technological changes that allow a much more effective expression of that authority in modern times.

Medieval rulers had as much (or more) authority to tax as modern governments, but lacked the organisation and technology to enforce that authority as effectively.

Thus recognition in limitations on the power of authority (or is it the authority of power?) (whether state, church or guild) over individual choice has generally declined, with notable (but so-far temporary) exceptions.

As a monarch you can enforce your vision of a free society,

That's what I had in mind when I predicted a violent overthrow of myself as a monarch.

[mikema63]

That's stupid. If I were a libertarian my first assumption would be that handing the government to anyone else other than myself would pretty much lead to business as usual. As a monarch you can enforce your vision of a free society, and you'd kind of have to because anyone else in power would enforce a more statist vision. Abdicating a monarchy does not entail dismantling the government structure that underlies it.

I'm an anarchist, my first move is to end the government altogether, not enforce my views on everybody.

mike wrote:
However, you shouldn't ignore legitimacy altogether. Ask yourself why American Presidents obey US Supreme Court rulings. Why American generals obey the President. In neither case is it about who has more guns.

This was Eran, no?

[SolarCross]

This was Eran, no?

Yes. sorry sloppy cutting and pasting to blame there.

[Dr House]

I'm an anarchist, my first move is to end the government altogether, not enforce my views on everybody.

Right, but you don't do this by bloody abdicating. You do it by using your power to purposefully destabilize your government and prevent its reformation.

Of course, anarcho-capitalism would be the same thing in practice, but still.

[Jeliza-Rose]

Please keep in mind - this is a theoretical argument raised by Hans Hoppe.

Ahhhhh, HH Hoppe ! The Libertarian who won't stop exposing Libertarianism for what it is...Monarchy Version 3.0

http://mises.org/daily/author/164/HansHermann-Hoppe

To reach this libertarian nirvana, one "must never be even the slightest wavering in one's commitment to uncompromising ideological radicalism (extremism)."

So yeah, the libertarians propose a "Third Way"...namely privatize everything, replace the police dept & military with private insurance companies (now with GUNS!!) and allow a 'natural elite' to rise to the top of "society" - if you could call it that.

"secession and privatization are the primary vehicles and means by which to overcome democracy and establish a natural order"

This is only be possible (early on) if the elite carve up society into small parcels of land...

"only in small regions, communities or districts will it be possible again for a few individuals, based on the popular recognition of their economic independence, outstanding professional achievement, morally impeccable personal life, and superior judgment and taste, to rise to the rank of natural, voluntarily acknowledged authorities and lend legitimacy to the idea of a natural order - an "anarchic" private law society - as the answer to monarchy and democracy."

It would, at first, be an Aristocracy rather than a Monarchy (back in the day, the aristocrats never had any real love or admiration for the Monarchy).

"The natural outcome of the voluntary transactions between various private property owners is decidedly nonegalitarian, hierarchical, and elitist. As the result of widely diverse human talents, in every society of any degree of complexity a few individuals quickly acquire the status of an elite. Owing to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, bravery or a combination thereof, some individuals come to possess "natural authority," and their opinions and judgments enjoy widespread respect."

Of course, it's only a matter of time before the aristocrats consolidate power and, for all intents and purposes, morph into a - Neo-Ancien Régime (aka monarchy).

"Moreover, because of selective mating and marriage and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are more likely than not passed on within a few noble families."

And of course, they will be benevolent...because they are superior beings (aka Libertarians)

"It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, far-sightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other, and it is these very leaders of the natural elite who typically act as judges and peacemakers, often free of charge, out of a sense of obligation ( Noblesse oblige!!! ) required and expected of a person of authority

But first they must somehow bamboozle the "brutes", "dullards", and "fools", to actually destroy the one thing in their favor...their hard fought for democratic-republic.

As Mises put it:

"The flowering of human society depends on two factors: the intellectual power of outstanding men to conceive sound social and economic theories, and the ability of these or other men to make these ideologies palatable to the majority."

HH Hoppe adds ...

"only radical - indeed, radically simple - ideas can possibly stir the emotions of the dull and indolent masses. And nothing is more effective in persuading the masses to cease cooperating with government than the constant and relentless desanctification[/b] of government and its representatives as moral and economic frauds and impostors: as emperors without clothes subject to contempt and the butt of all jokes."

Sound familiar?? It's been the RNCs game plan for the past 40 years. Wreck our govt from within, and then cry crocodile tears when the govt no longer works.

And who would this "natural elite" be? Larry Summers, Henry Paulson, David Koch, Sheldon Adelson....

[1St Archon of Xavier]

I think you all make excellent points here, however I believe that as a society we have all approached the issue of which political structure works best from the perspective of what has gone before and what the status quo is. The problem with this is that all these rely on a set of theoreticals which attempt to predict human behavior, e.g. if this happens then this may follow. Variations of the status quo and/or what has gone before have been theorized, but the end result will be the same. In a monarchy where the title is passed down through heredity a sense of entitlement sets in after only a few generations (history has shown time and again), and the populace become property, subjects, in effect slaves. In a democracy the politicians become far too greedy and end up serving the populace only when it furthers their own ends and if given too much freedom the uninformed populace make a mess of things by not having the insight to make informed decisions. I think a complete overhaul is in order and if we can approach the issue sideways we might get somewhere. My proposal is for a blending of systems, taking the best ideas from a variety of political structures and putting them together, mix in a little common sense and we might just come up with something that functions better than the status quo.

[Potemkin]

Ireland was effectively anarchically organised for centuries. And while Ireland might have been at the edge of Europe, it wasn't a frontier. It was a mature and stable society.

...which was conquered by England precisely because it was anarchically organised. No single individual was in charge of Ireland, so the English monarchy stepped into the power vacuum - with the blessing of the Papacy, no less.

[Decky]

Presbyterian heresy and lies!

[Potemkin]

Laudabiliter

Read it and weep, Decky.

[Decky]

Oh a fictional document how exciting. I have a document you signed saying that you would sell your whole pen collection imminently on ebay and give me the money but of course no copy is extant. I will eagerly await the cheque unless you are doing a direct bank transfer instead?