Help from Libertarians/Anarchists
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Friday, January 18, 2008 14:04
VIEWED: 12974
PAGE 7 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
A few, a VERY few, people want to take what others have, but without a structure and organisation, without the aiding and abetting of well trained doormats to lay down and take it without resistance, they are not so much of a threat, unless resources are scarce - which will provoke more of that conduct.
Thank you.
Quote:And a measure of cognitive dissonance... People have to come up with a rationalization for why they "chose" to have government telling them what to do all their lives. It MUST be good, because I can't live willingly with a bad institution.
In fact, it seems almost like some form of Stockholm Syndrome, you ask me, in combination with a fear of the unknown...
--------------------------
I have been through some terrible things in my life, some of which actually happened.
--Mark Twain
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:For the record, I have never said corporate power *wasn't* corrupting, evil, and dangerous. To my recollection, I have never said anything positive about corporations in RWED ever.
Originally posted by rue:
And unlike CTS I see corporate power to be just as corrupting, evil and dangerous as government power.
***Please read this warning.***
Rue often lies outright about my positions--not just misconstrue, but states that I subscribe to platforms that are opposite of what I believe.
Please do not accept anything he says about my beliefs, ideas, or positions without dcuble-checking my own words in previous posts. If in doubt, you can always ask me. I'd be happy to clarify.
--------------------------
Never let the fear of striking out get in your way.
--Babe Ruth
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll answer a couple of these, based on what I've read of Libertarian theory, but I don't have the time or inclination to reverse all your misconceptions about libertarian economic theory. Do the reading, like I did. And I do still have some questions about the feasability of some of these ideas.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How did the original owners get that property ?
Original owners got the property by being the first to claim and use it. The 'and use' part is essential. They may sell it to other people as they choose.
Quote:Good question. Sort of moot in the present, since there isn't much free land to go around.
What keeps multiple people from claiming that property?
Quote:Theoretically, an independent judge, paid for by both parties. If one party fails to comply with the judgement, who'll do business with them next time?
Who adjudicates multiple claims?
Quote:They get sued, and if they don't correct, get a bad rep and lose business.
What happens when one party unilaterally changes the conditions of the lease - or adds conditions to the sale?
Quote:
Who maintains the currency used to buy and sell, or lease?
Independent banks issue currency backed by commodities.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow... what a fantastic thread. I'm kind of bummed that I was away from the computer yesterday. Oh well, not sure what I can add of substance, but I did have a couple of comments.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Signy, all you're doing is plopping anarchy down on top of our existing system and saying: see, it don't work!
This sort of sums up the whole discussion from my point of view.
How about a thought experiment? Let's look at it from exactly the opposite perspective (or vainly attempt to anyway). Imagine you're someone who grew up in an anarchist society and someone is explaining to you this novel, alien concept of "government". What kinds of questions might you ask?
Q: "So, you're saying that 'leaders' would make up rules and people would just follow them??? Haha... right..."
A: "Well, we'd have ways to enforce the laws. We'd have police officers with guns."
Q: "What, like one for each person?"
A: "Well, our proposal is more like 2 or 3 per thousand."
Q: "HAHA... yeah, that's funny. And all those people would just do what they're told? Dream on..."
I could go on, but you get the idea. The reason people behave themselves isn't because they are powerless to do otherwise. It's because of shared values and ingrained awareness that our system requires rule-following to work. There's no reason to believe an anarchist society would not, or could not, develop similar taboos and ideals that provide the foundation for anarchy to 'work', in the same way our societal values provide the foundation for government.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
My ability to alienate ... something or other. You get the drift, I'm sure. I have few talents, but apparently that's one of them.
I suspect this may be at the heart of rue's apprehensions about he would fare under anarchy...
Quote:
I see corporate power to be just as corrupting, evil and dangerous as government power. The idea that somehow corporations will be nice and not pollute, pay everyone fairly, and not have their own goon squads run the place - without some muscular social bounds placed on them - just isn't borne out by any slice of history.
I've been seeing it like this for some time now. The modern corporation is essentially a nation state without geographical identity. Its 'citizens' are its shareholders - not its employees, who are merely human 'resources'. Often they are client-states of a parent government, but they are still free to act as independent entities, as governments, especially when operating across traditional geographical borders.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The problem with corporations as an organizing principle for society is that they are created around gain and run without social feedback. They are in effect sociopaths. (And also, I might add, run on an unnatural model of human behavior that requires a total lack of trust and empathy.)
Government OTOH CAN be an expression of the will of the people - representing their interests as a group and the commons that all people depend on. So if you have corporations you have to have government to countervail - but you also have to make sure that it is representing your interests and hasn't been hijacked by business.
This is interesting. Why do you think government is more likely to enact the will of its citizens than a corporation?
Quote:
BTW - one way for government to function without the 'big stick' of violence is just for it to withhold its cooperation. To not recognize, enable or support a function or organization. You don't want that factory over there 'cause it'll pollute your water table ? ? You don't pipe it water - or build a sewer, or road, or a run the grid up to it. You don't protect its 'property' from theft, fire, vandalism. Nor do you recognize its right to an exclusive tenancy on the land. There are all sorts of ways to do that without a single instance of government 'force'.
This seems a much more realistic short-term goal for our own society. Th
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Exactly. Though I would argue that they do own a substantial amount of real estate. McDonalds owns enough land to constitute a small country.
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I've been seeing it like this for some time now. The modern corporation is essentially a nation state without geographical identity. Its 'citizens' are its shareholders - not its employees, who are merely human 'resources'.
The bottom line though, is that incorporation is a legal artifact that wouldn't exist if it weren't for government. In my view, corporatism and government are really two halves of the same coin of oppression.
That is why I think the Blue Sun/Alliance relationship is fascinating. I know I keep coming back to Firefly, but hey, if I can't do it here, where else can I keep bringing it up ad nauseum?
--------------------------
There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.
--Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS:
Firstoff, thanks for trying to explain anarchy to a serious skeptic. This has a been an interesting thread that has brought a reluctant poster but longtime lurker into the discussion.
I think that most folks hear the word anarchy and immediately think CHAOS!!! This tends to overshadow any further consideration of the concept in most cases. I'm one of these folks, and its been interesting to hear from a devout anarchist who isn't interested in simply tearing down everything we hold dear for the sake of tearing down. I think, though what you envision isn't really anarchy at all. You mentioned the "Right-Anarchists" and as I understand it, the concept that such folks simply want to take government out of the equation, but maintain all other social structures which that government helps to maintain. It's an interesting concept that has one fatal flaw IMHO. Most of those societal structures are in place because of the government. In effect, our societies banded together in a very Hobbesian way, made a social contract to stick together, formed a government, and live together in peace for the most part. Your notions, at least to me, simply seem to be a renegotiation of that social contract with a different government. Okay, that government you envision looks nothing like our current system, but I would argue that there are some very government like activities inherent in your descriptions of a "right-anarchist" society.
To quote from some previous posts:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch:
Reality is you as the victim of the first individual or group better armed or just more ruthless than you are.
Reality is that when you are armed and not a sitting duck, easy victim, the gangs move on to easier targets. To be sure, one has to have a certain amount of "ruthlessness" as you call it, a lack of hesitation to kill in self-defense to take on one's own security responsibilities. But it is not any more "ruthless" than whoever were to take on those security responsibilities for you (e.g. police or military).
BTW, just because people want freedom doesn't mean they are individually isolated and can't "gang up" to defend their communities from marauders.
So, in the right-anarchist society you envision, its okay that certain communities are "sitting ducks" at the mercy of wandering bands of ruthless murauders as long as your community isn't effected. That sounds a great deal like the CHAOS most folks equate anarchy with. Not sure how you are going to convince the vast majority of citizenry to give up their current relative state of security in favor of being a "sitting duck", but that's just one flaw I see.
Another is the concept that folks would "gang-up" to defend themselves. Isn't that a very government like concept? The entire reason people get together and form governments is because they recognize that they have common interests that could be better served by "ganging-up" as you call it. Once a group of folks decide to "gang-up" against marauders its only one more step to "gang-up" to make sure their fields are irrigated, crops are harvested, bullets are made, defensive works built, and a host of other group self interests. Low and behold before you know it, you've got a government!
What am I missing or are you envisioning only occasional "ganging-up" to take care of common community problems, and how is that not a form of government?
-----------------
Yet Another Stupid Blog --> www.razzarant.net
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Everyone would have to dabble in all kinds of civic minded avocations--volunteer this, volunteer that--anarchy is not a system for people who want to be left alone to wallow in privileged ignorance--such folks would not fare too well.
They better be willing to volunteer to pick up my garbage...cause otherwise I'm sticking it on your lawn...your lawn...he'll that's actually my garbage dump. ANARCHY!
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Obviously I'm going to have to delve into this, but I have an essential problem with the notion of Libertarianism/ Anarchy, which is that power inevitably concentrates. It doesn't matter whether that power is based on land, money, guns, or religion... knocking everyone down to equal status is NOT going to guarantee that it will remain so unless you take specific steps to keep power from re-concentrating. It's the Burt story all over again. And that in itself needs coordinated action 'cause MOST folks aren't about to confront the sociopath individually. That's why I think it's so necessary to look at societies that didn't have apparent means of enforcement, like the Harrapans or the Aegeans, to see how they got there.
The FF's mistake was thinking that power rested in the land, guns, laws, and religion. They did their best to distribute those powers and make them answerable to the people, or to ban them from government outright (religion). They depended on the notion of grabbing land from the natives to provide a "floor" below which nobody else would sink (as long as they worked hard) but didn't have an answer for when the land rush ended, and most people got wrapped up in an system in which the "means of production" was mostly owned by somebody else. In the libertarian construct it seems that danger still exists that entities will form which will outgun everyone else.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:True. Most of Europe's infrastructure are in place because of monarchy (in fact, the form of govt supported by Hobbes). It doesn't mean they can't change to a democracy now. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Now, can my way to skin a cat work? We won't know until we try.
It's an interesting concept that has one fatal flaw IMHO. Most of those societal structures are in place because of the government.
Quote:Oh, no, it's never okay. I was simply explaining that robbers aren't soldiers. They aren't looking for a fight--they are looking for an easy score. So if you're armed, they'll look elsewhere. But if *everyone* is armed, they have to look for another way to make money that doesn't involve a high risk of death. Cause believe it or not, robbers, like everyone else, want to live. Predators prey on the weakest victims, but if everyone is strong enough to put up a good fight, they have to start eating vegetables.
So, in the right-anarchist society you envision, its okay that certain communities are "sitting ducks" at the mercy of wandering bands of ruthless murauders as long as your community isn't effected.
Quote:No, that isn't government. That could be construed to be a military, which is not the same thing as government. There is no monopoly of force where one entity has all the guns, and no one else has any. When people gang up, they keep all their own guns--no one has a monopoly. The alliance does not serve the function of government, legislating what each person could or could not do under threat of force--because the alliance itself does not have force of its own to make threats with.
Another is the concept that folks would "gang-up" to defend themselves. Isn't that a very government like concept?
Another way to think of it is to realize that we have a semblance of global anarchism. That is, we do not have a global government that has a monopoly of all global forces. Each sovereign state has and keeps its own weapons. Sometimes, some states gang up against others, as the Axis did in WWII. Defending states then gang up against the invading gang. The alliance was not a superimposing government that could boss the allied states, since it had no force of its own.
Cooperation is not the same thing as government. Remember, the essence of government is to hold all or most of the available guns, point those guns at you, and tell you what you are and are not allowed to do.
--------------------------
In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination.
-- Mark Twain
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
... which is that power inevitably concentrates. .. knocking everyone down to equal status is NOT going to guarantee that it will remain so unless you take specific steps to keep power from re-concentrating.
First, no one supports knocking people down to equal status except for the left-anarchists (communists), who are not represented on this board.
Second, power is not the same thing as force. It is a subtle, but important, distinction, I believe. One can have a lot of power and influence without pointing guns at folks and forcing them to do what one wants.
But yes, I agree that measures to keep power from concentrating are needed. I think at best, one can only slow down this process, not stop it entirely.
What SergeantX posted was right on the money. For anarchism to work, there has to be a different mindset, a different set of expectations and worldviews. There are different assumptions, mores, and norms, all of which "govern" collective behavior more than all the written laws put together. I believe this culture of individual sovereignty is our best hope for keeping the powers from concentrating too much too fast. Put that together with a citizenry that is armed and trained to use arms, power becomes less likely to concentrate.
Quote:Right now, corporations only "outgun" everyone else because they are in cahoots with the monopoly of guns. Take that monopoly away, arm the citizenry, and there may be a completely different picture of who is outgunning who.
In the libertarian construct it seems that danger still exists that entities will form which will outgun everyone else.
--------------------------
I will not pretend that if I had to choose between communism and Nazism I would choose communism.
-Sir Winston Churchill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME