[Eran]

If there is no over-arching authority capable of enforcing the law upon enforcement agencies, effectively there would be no such law and they would be free to fight each other.

There is no over-arching authority over North America, yet Canada and the US do not solve their disputes by fighting.

There is no over-arching authority over world trade, yet trade disputes (not amongst governments but amongst private sector actors) are resolved peacefully millions of times a year.

There is no over-arching authority over the various organs of government, yet they settle their disputes peacefully.

And on, and on.

[Malatant of Shadow]

There is no over-arching authority over North America, yet Canada and the US do not solve their disputes by fighting.

We could, and there was a time when we did.

[mikema63]

Yes the impending Canada wars.

[Malatant of Shadow]

Yes the impending Canada wars.

No, I was referring to this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

[mikema63]

I know what your referring to, but the point is that we do not fight wars with Canada and we will not be fighting a war with Canada anytime soon.

Also fairly sure Canada wast it own country in 1812.

[SolarCross]

We know a song about that don't we? The War of 1812

[Rothbardian]

No, I was referring to this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

I wonder if this war would happen if the people supporting it had to:

1) Pay for it themselves
2) Fight it themselves

What do you think? War, and destruction in general, are incredible expenses with dubious gains at best. I suppose it might seem feasible to someone that's never had to answer to investors, serve a voluntary patronage, or risk losing their own shirt (life?) over the attempt.

[Malatant of Shadow]

I wonder if this war would happen if the people supporting it had to:

1) Pay for it themselves
2) Fight it themselves

As individuals, you mean? Of course not. Neither would the civilizations that fought it. But while the war would not have happened, a lot more violence on a smaller scale, amounting to much, much more killing in net effect, would have.

[SolarCross]

As individuals, you mean? Of course not. Neither would the civilizations that fought it. But while the war would not have happened, a lot more violence on a smaller scale, amounting to much, much more killing in net effect, would have.

How do you figure that?

[Malatant of Shadow]

How do you figure that?

That's the way it's always happened in historical stateless societies. Lower war casualties, more murder casualties, net effect is a higher chance of dying by violence. Without organized American, British, and Canadian governments, no War of 1812, but a lot more private murders. Net effect: higher chance of dying by violence, even without the war.

[ingliz]

How do you figure that?

Violence is the major cause of death among the precontact Ache (55% of all deaths) and very important among the Hiwi (30% of all deaths), ...*

* Hill K. et al, 2007. High adult mortality among Hiwi hunter-gatherers: implications for human evolution. Journal of Human Evolution 52:443-454.

[SolarCross]

Isn't that like comparing computers with abacuses? Its like saying don't use awesome linux instead of shitty old windows because windows is better than counting on your fingers.

[Malatant of Shadow]

Isn't that like comparing computers with abacuses? Its like saying don't use awesome linux instead of shitty old windows because windows is better than counting on your fingers.

No, I don't see that analogy at all. The question was asked whether the War of 1812 would have happened without taxation (at least that's what was implied). I answered truthfully that no, it would not have, but a whole lot more private murder would and in terms of risk of death by violence everyone would have been much worse off even without the war.

If you're positing a form of anarchy that is appropriate to a more advanced state of civilization rather than to pre-civilized societies, all I can say is that we know of no such thing ever existing, and have no reason to believe that it ever could, and all we can really go by are the stateless societies that have actually existed in the past.

There is no Linux.

[mikema63]

Because it never was it could never be?

Tell that to all technological and social development.

[Malatant of Shadow]

Because it never was it could never be?

Not just that, but also because of WHY it never was. It really isn't a mystery. Nor is it a conspiracy. As you increase the number of people in a society, the number of potential conflict vectors increases exponentially. As that happens, increasingly complex and sophisticated mechanisms of government are required to mediate with enforcement all of those potential conflict vectors. Anarchy (non-formal, non-hierarchical governing structures) work as long as numbers are small and everyone knows and generally trusts everyone else. But that doesn't describe civilization.

[SolarCross]

In complex systems the worse possible thing is called a 'single point of failure'. Government is essentially just that, a 'single point of failure' which is why 99% of society's problems can traced to government. In contrast choice is robust.

[mikema63]

Or it could be purposeful control and power to benefit the ruling classes and suppression and enslavement of the people to systematically exploit them and maintain their control, but sure I guess your thing might be true.

[Eran]

By the same token, production in the modern society is far more complex, involving many more interactions and instances of collaborations than anything known to primitive societies.

This point is beautifully illustrated in the I, Pencil fable.

Yet modern economies facilitate these countless interactions without the need for a central coordination by government.

[Malatant of Shadow]

In complex systems the worse possible thing is called a 'single point of failure'. Government is essentially just that, a 'single point of failure' which is why 99% of society's problems can traced to government.

1) No, government isn't a single point of failure because it isn't a single point of anything;

2) No, 99% of society's problems can't be traced to government, and NONE of them can be traced in any meaningful or useful way to the EXISTENCE of government, and that includes the ones that really are government's fault.

Yet modern economies facilitate these countless interactions without the need for a central coordination by government.

Modern economies ARE centrally coordinated by government in many, many ways.

[Dr House]

Soixante-Retard,
I have come to the conclusion that stable forms of governance (thus including both government and ordered anarchy) depend on the political culture within society.

Living in 1750, one could just as easily argue that monarchy (not just government) as well as slavery are emergent phenomena. After all, up to that time, every society has seen both.

Well they are emergent phenomena. Subjugation in the name of survival, social prosperity and superiority have always been staples of the human attitude, and at nearly all points of human history the most efficient form of procuring these has been slavery. In fact, slavery is so commonplace that despite the fact it is almost universally frowned upon by the reigning political culture, it still exists. You probably ate chocolate harvested by African slaves sometime this week.

As for monarchy, it's in fact emergent as well. It emerged as a larger form of control from feudalism, which itself emerged from the organization of settler societies through private property. In essence, feudalism is what happens when everything is owned by someone, including territorial jurisdictions and those who reside in them. Monarchy is this applied to an entire nation.

Anarchy, historically, has only ever happened in collapsed societies, and has always featured some sort of leadership. The Wild West had town mayors and sheriffs, tribal societies have chieftains, Second Republic Spain had village councils, and Somalia is basically a fiefdom (thus circling back to the beginning of this cycle).