Anarchy
Posted by Rozar 11 years ago to Philosophy
Alright here we go. I've been looking into anarchy for the past few weeks and it's starting to get to me. So I want to discuss it here with everyone who would like to help me out.
Mostly I intend on playing devil's advocate and debating a few issues with you from an anarchist perspective to kind of test it out.
Any input would be wonderful so let me know what you think. :)
Some food for thought:
What is the purpose of a government and does it accomplish that purpose or make it worse.
What can the government do that the free market can't?
Governments use force to redistribute wealth, the government doesn't own anything, or produce anything, and is funded by force. So anything the government does is forced redistribution.
Right?
Why couldn't individuals survive in a community without government?
Thanks I'll try to add more as time progresses.
Mostly I intend on playing devil's advocate and debating a few issues with you from an anarchist perspective to kind of test it out.
Any input would be wonderful so let me know what you think. :)
Some food for thought:
What is the purpose of a government and does it accomplish that purpose or make it worse.
What can the government do that the free market can't?
Governments use force to redistribute wealth, the government doesn't own anything, or produce anything, and is funded by force. So anything the government does is forced redistribution.
Right?
Why couldn't individuals survive in a community without government?
Thanks I'll try to add more as time progresses.
If you look at the reality of global capitalism, you realize that for Toyota or Mercedes to make and sell cars, they must have enforceable contracts, but also cross many borders. So, they shop for laws. Read any contract you have. Two points define the context:
1. The contract is interpreted according to the laws of some place - not necessarily where you or they live or do business.
2. You agree to arbitration.
Generally, the American Arbitration Agency (HQ in Ireland, actually) is often the preferred vendor. But if you look in your own local community, you will find law offices offering arbitration, adjudication, and mediation services. (The three are different.)
Moreover, the Uniform Commercial Code (see WIkipedia) was created from whole cloth by a committee of jurists who sought to reconcile the different intentions of contracted parties. Many firms adopted it. If you look, you might find that your own state government just absorbed it into local law. The UCC has its origin in a simple fact: when you buy something, you issued a sales memo which has terms stated on the back. But you responded to a purchase order that had its terms stated on the back. How are those reconciled when they conflict?
I have worked in private security since 2002 and my degrees are in criminology. Private guards take a lot abuse from the public perception -- as do selfishness and capitalism. The reality is different from the common perception. Just to say, for over 100 years private police at Ford Motor Company worked next door to private police from General Motors and no one ever fired a shot at the other. War is not profitable.
If you explore any "end of the world" scenario, it is clear that without a sense of EXTERNAL control, most people would devolve to savagery. The missing piece is the INTERNALIZED morality of the rational person. When more people know their own best interests, government will - as the man said - wither away.
Minipuck asked: "These group of people without a central government would be relying on someone to run this third party credit check /bank thing."
No ONE agency would, but here and now COMPETING agencies do: the big three credit reporting firms for consumer credit. In yesterday's news Standard & Poor (another firm serving a different market) just downgraded France's bonds.
Long ago, some MIT "radical for capitalism" offer his Ayn Rand Club the idea of a "meta-stable society" one that constantly realigns to changing conditions. It is not ONE institution for education and ONE for healthcare and ONE for transportation but a plurality that brings true stability.
Think about this: Bill Clinton, the President of the United States, cheated on his wife with a girl who was drastically younger than him and had about the polar opposite amount of power, she was an intern. His moral compass which guided the nation abused his position for adultery. That's not even the worst part. How many people met him, worked with him, supported him and helped him rise to the highest office. And not one of them could detect his personality well enough to think that he was capable of this act? Either they knew, and didn't care, or they didn't and any one who is good at lying can control National policies.
I agree about Bill Clinton. He was only worse than John Kennedy: more failures; fewer achievements. It is not just that we all err. It is that power corrupts. So, those who are drawn to power are drawn to immorality. We see this in the private sector where the inventor engineer is steamrollered by the office politician.
So, I am not sure that we have an institutional solution, no special social system will solve the problem of personal moral failure. Some arrangements cater to it; others quarantine it.
I disagree that most people would devolve to savagery. The problem is-once you have one person using force to get their way and has any success at it, then you will see others copy the strategy or align with him. now you have little fiefdoms and force becomes the operating principle.
And so too with government.
Here and now, as I said, I point to Multinational Corporations. The MNCs live and act in world of anarcho-capitalism because they are above most national governments, they shop for the laws they want for their contracts, they have their own security forces, and they arbitrate when they have honest disagreements, and they do not shoot it out with their market rivals.
So, yes, I agree with you in that sense that "most" people will eventually live without government.
When you say: ".... nce you have one person using force to get their way and has any success at it, then you will see others copy the strategy or align ..." you are describing government, or one origin or ontology for it. Any doctrinaire anarchist will claim (with some justification) that the government is just the gang big enough to keep the other gangs out.
And so it was, until 1776. Then, from a blank slate, we created a new social contract. Ideas matter.
The same thing happened to Rome; Christianity got a foothold and grew in strength because Romans became sophisticated and tolerated alien religions. IIRC, around the time of Christ most of the military worshiped Moloch, not a Roman household god. Christianity at the time wasn't particularly tolerant; Christians had no power, but the faith itself gave no credence to other religions, just as Judaism didn't. If your populace gets in the mental habit of treating all religions as equally valid, pretty soon religious faith itself becomes meaningless. And you are ripe for a vigorous, intolerant religion to come to the fore.
As Christianity grew in influence and power, they didn't treat other religions as equally valid. They were vigorous. And they had a very compelling, and different message from other religions of the time.
But in an Anarchy? It is very easy to economically distance yourself from people you disagree with.
If you are willing to use force to suppress people, you are only building an army that they can use to suppress you once they vote it away from you.
Let me tell you a story: At one time, I leaned strongly towards anarchism; I postulated an environment that was 'roomy' and affluent enough that people would not have a high urgency to compete for scarce resources and thought that amongst intelligent and well-disposed folks, this would just work. This opinion was bolstered by the high quality of people - friends and acquaintances - in my personal environment.
One day, I awoke as the co-founder of a budding bootstrap medical software company. As the company grew, we hired many of those friends and acquaintances. And then my warmth toward anarchy started dissolving.
It turns out that even when you hire people who are very intelligent and ethical, they do not behave with innate 'enlightened self interest'. Our original "Employee Handbook" was the verbally repeated injunction, "Do all of the good things and none of the bad things." This did not work. We now have a 20 page (gasp!) handbook with a lot of does and don'ts in it. The fact that most of our employees have been impeccably honest (to the point of refusing substantial bribes) and routinely work wonders does not mean that we haven't had occasional bad apples, nor does it mean that we can rely on our folks to pro-actively do their work instead of gaming on their computers - even when they consciously know that their paycheck depends on our getting the site in and happy.
So I have concluded that the reason anarchy does not work is that there is a certain percentage of bad apples who will actively try to damage successful interaction and that most people lack wisdom - the 'cattle on the Common' problem. In an anarchy, the intelligent and well-disposed man will park across the driveway to the fire station...for 'just a moment' to go into the pharmacy and pick up a prescription for his wife. (His personal need is great, and surely that will not hurt for just a few minutes...).
Jan
There are most certainly bad apples, and I would even go on to say that even the good apples have a few bad spots on them. We all make those little mistakes that limit our productivity and hurt us in the long run, though some make less than others.
Anarchy isn't a utopia, and it won't end all instances of the initiation of force. But it is a much better system than forcing people to pay for the bad apples and pay for the mistakes of others.
In business we have auditable controls. In government, we have laws.
Governments are ran by one of two groups; appointed, seemingly benevolent individuals who, once appointed, have a vested interest in expansion of the problem they were appointed to resolve, to guarantee their survival, or the alternate government appointed official is the one infiltrating the branch of the government that is regulating their market with intentions of guaranteeing special privileges for themselves.
All of the speculation as to how Anarchocapitalism would function is moot, because the self-serving interests of individuals would prompt solutions that would evolve at an exponential rate surpassing all previous human expectation. The solutions would be beyond our current ability to speculate!
True laze-faire capitalism has never been experienced, and the lack of historical data leaves man fearful of his true potential.
Anarchy is about aligning interests. So many things that are wrong with the world exist because the people involved benefit more from the exacerbation of the problem instead of solution.
Why can't you take the idea or patent to your DRO and have their assurance that others won't use it. Then the DRO will compensate you for any infringements, and go after the perpetrator in a waysimilar to what I listed before.
you're wearin me down on this one
Here's what you'll find in any public policy text book regarding when it appropriate for government to provide a good/service:: if the consumption of a desired good/service cannot be withheld from a member of a society (ie. through a pricing system. Ex. the common defense, police services, etc).
If a good/service can be denied to a person, for example, who is not willing to trade or pay for it, then this is a good/service the private sector should provide.
And this is at the heart of most economic and social financing problems.
Of course everyone knows this. The problem is how to take the reins back and put us on the right track again.
The Federal government has it's purpose, if nothing more than to represent the states internationally, to provide for a standing military and to pass laws to cover all the states.
A good example of individuals living in an area of basically no government was the west and you fought for what was yours and the strong survived.
In some of my technical work I actually wrote building code. I see some need for limited government involvement in that. I found that non-government writers of code (trade groups) were too easily bought and would incorporate elements that actually put the public at risk. That stint was educational for me, in terms of my Objectivist views.
Our government, in the US, is an excessive user of force. Our government also bastardizes science. I'm disgusted by these things.
just the first thing that came to mind.
Thank you for replying it means a lot to get this off my chest.
this is helpful for me, too. it's giving me ideas for a project I'm preparing for. so, thank you, too.
one more point - - I guess in this sort of situation, these group of people without a central government would be relying on someone to run this third party credit check /bank thing. what if there is no one who is willing, or what if there is no one with the knowledge and skills to organize one to work well? what happens then?
even as I say this, I know what argument i would use against myself. still, since this is an exercise, I'd like to see what you say.
In your first point, and this is my best to explain it without much research:
If he was willing to allow this third party to view and monitor his savings, they could give him a reduced rate, as long as he signed a contract with whoever was giving him the voucher, that they would have access to remove a certain amount of money from his bank account automatically If he didn't fulfill his obligations.
Banks make a lot of anarchist arguments possible, with their ability to guarantee funds in case of a default, and their secondary ability of blacklisting those who do default.
anarchy always turns into dictatorships. watch out for the guy with the biggest club lurking at the edge of the woods
constructing a rational society is like constructing a building. it does take purposeful thought. anarchy is Brownian motion.
Any long term agreement or investment is going to require a contract. If there is no enforcement mechanism, a contract is meaningless. Without contracts, no one will build or develop. the "group" will be forever stuck in just existing because plans and agreements, by definition, require consensus
People can disagree on so many things, but if anyone wants to do business they have to have a basic trust. People want to be cost efficient, they want to get the biggest rewards for the smallest efforts and risk. You have the potential of being screwed on a daily basis, but how many times have you had to sue that darn wal-mart for selling you a faulty product? When was the last time you had to use a courtroom to do anything that actually benefited your life?
That last question is really a shot in the dark considering you might of actually spent a considerable amount in one but I don't think most people have.
here's a story for you. My son was pulled over for a tail-light that was out. He did not have the most current insurance card in the vehicle so he was ticketed, even though his insurance was current. The ticket required he go to court to prove the insurance had been current. He moved, forgot about the ticket (his big fail) and a year later was at the DMV renewing his license tags and they had the police come over and handcuff him and drag him to jail. He was released, had a bunch of paperwork to take care of and meet a court date. when he went to court his case was dismissed because after all, his insurance was always current and he had committed no crime-except forgetting about the original court appearance. If the officer had let him call his insurance company during the initial stop-the court system would not have been needed. but we are all about compliance not logic and everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
You place high confidence in trust and cooperation but I have seen cooperation dissolve time and time again under high stakes.
What does the anarchy society do, when one of parties refuses to adhere to the agreement? that is the test of enforcement.
therefore, the risks assessed might be too risky for the company to take on. Even if they took it on-now you have to meet THEIR contract. Just shifting risk does not solve the problem
Then you have the credit rating agencies which monitor who breaks their contracts and gives them a score. The first person who broke their contract has his score reduced based on how extreme it was, making it difficult for him to hire DRO's in the future until he rectifies his bad credit. Even an individual could make an appeal to the credit agency with the case that the DRO he originally signed up with is corrupt or lying or breaking the contract and get the DRO's credit rating score lowered, which is extremely important to them because that is what their business is based on.
All of this reduces risk to an extremely small number. Risk will always exist, and it is about shifting it. Shifting it to a smaller number.
Imagine a woman accuses a man of raping her. She goes to her DRO to submit her accusation and they start an investigation. From what they find they agree that there is proof that she was raped by Bob. So they go to Bob's house and tell him he has been accused of rape and then they and Bob agree on a date to go to court to defend himself. They tell him that if he wins they will compensate him for his time. Bob goes to court and the DRO has substantial proof that he did it and his testimony fails to prove otherwise.
Knock Knock Knock.
The DRO knocks on his door to inform him that he lost the trial. They tell him they will drop all coverage with him, and since the DRO has a contract with the power and water company his service with them will be shut off. Also the road infront of his house is privately owned and by being convicted of a crime he no longer has a contract with the owner of said road and if he is caught trespassing he will be escorted off the road.
The DRO agent tells Bob he has three options. Sit in his house without water or electricity or a way to feed himself, try going on the run without being able to get any kind of business done even for his basic necessities, or come with the DRO agent peacefully to a place where he can work out his debt to both the women and the company. They will base his work for them off of his skills, or offer to train him in another field for a fee. they tell him he will work for them for a period of a certain amount years and they will garnish his wages until he pays off the debt he owes.
P.S. I'm googling Brownian motion
as well, you will have disagreements over rights. to a nomad, the idea one can own an apple on a tree makes no sense but to the orchard owner (which could be your society sharing the orchard) at some number of nomads coming through-you will want to protect the apples, because you are counting them, you put in the work to ensure they're growing there. same with technology, etc.
The argument about property rights is a good one. For your nomad scenario, how would a state stop a bunch of nomads from stealing your apples any better than you could? You could even hire a DRO to insure your apples, so they would pay you for any one that was stolen. Now the DRO has an incentive to discover a means to prevent the nomad from taking the apples. A lot of problems in an anarchy turn into great business opportunities.
Without cooperation the remedy is no cooperation. If someone doesn't cooperate with me, I won't cooperate with him.
Apply it to the whole. Most of society cooperates on a daily basis without being forced to and it isn't because their scared of people coming to put them in cages if they don't. If someone doesn't want to cooperate that's their choice. If some one breaks a contract, or is caught stealing, he will be unable to get a credit card, a bank account, a loan, a job, an apartment or anything else because no DRO will insure him. And you never have to force him to do anything.
Other members of the society will watch the resolution of a high stakes mediation. When they see there is no compliance in even one case, it will color their own choices to invest in high stakes. How does a society increase its wealth or progress if none in the society are willing to put it all on the line? History shows us that most will not. But those who do can benefit greatly and increase the the well being of an entire society. In those societies that enforce and protect the contracts that and assets of those putting it all on the line, the overall health and strength of that society is exponentially better than those societies which do not. This is why nomadic societies stay much in the dark ages of civilization. It brings to mind an interesting question. Is a society as only strong as its weakest links?
So I like to simplify things and I think I can summarize your statement into the fact the society needs a way to punish people who don't have integrity. This is where things get complicated. So, you sign a contract with Bob to fix his roof for $1,000. You both use the same DRO who checks your credibility and charges each of you a fee based on the risk of the contract, as determined by the DRO. You both agree and sign the contract. Bob gives you a thousand dollars and you leave town. Bob tells his DRO who after a really short investigation, reimburses Bob his $1,000. Now the DRO updates your file in a database that it shares with other DRO's that you broke a legitimate contract. Say goodbye to ever getting a DRO to insure anything you say anymore. Try taking that $1,000 and trying to buy a hotel room in the next town. If I owned a hotel and you wanted a room I'd either take a deposit in case you broke something or I would want a credit card. The second you gave me that credit card I'd know that you broke a contract and wouldn't rent you a room. You wouldn't be able to get a job anywhere without a credit check. You go to the gas station to fill up your tank, unfortunately for you that gas station uses the same DRO that you used to and in their contract with that DRO they can't do business with anyone who broke a contract with them. No gas for you.
Your life turns into an economic hell.
Satisfied?
so now the DRO is only worth the enforcement of the county. I'll only trade now with businesses inside the county with a track record. fiefdom. Or I grow my fiefdom to a certain point and basically align with all the DROs in the tri-state area. I bring the DROs lots of business. I don't pay the little guys for their service and I steal their inventions. The DROs all look the other way.
This is a good summary of anarcho-capitalism, aka voluntaryism. It outlines some history and the people who have advocated for it. Lots of good sources and points. There is very little here that is not inline with Rand's capitalistic ideals. This is not the "anarchy" spoke of by violent provocateurs dressed in black. This is the ultimate society built on the concepts of individual sovereignty and VERY limited government.
Rand's definition of Capitalism bears no resemblance to the capitalism that we think we have had in this country for the last 100 years. Even she says that no society has every tried these principles in a pure form; though I believe that that should be our endgame, to use reason to convince others of the possibility of self-rule.
"I heartily accept the motto--'That government is best which governs least;' and I should like to see it acted upon more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,--'That government is best which governs not at all;' and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
Henry David Thoreau
Civil Disobedience - 1847
Could or wold the private sector do this and perhaps do it better?
Who is going to regulate our food, drugs, water, environment, transportation, security, and national health. Could the private sector do this? If they could, who would pay them, oversee them, and regulate them?
As for regulation on food drugs water and such pyruvate industries could easily benefit from critiquing systems. Privatize the fda. Anyone can sell whatever food they want, but unless it's inspected and approved by the fda I wouldn't. The difference is, if the fda makes a mistake, too bad you still have to use their seal of approval. There's no competition to take their place. And if the fda fails they won't go out of business, so they get comfy and relaxed and their standards slip.
(I made that word up, since there's no "cracy"-ending word for the rule of law.)
http://www.russellmadden.com/Government_...
http://www.russellmadden.com/Government_...
http://www.russellmadden.com/Anarchic_Co...
Anarchy assumes what it has to prove.