Anarchic Order

Spintech Magazine ^ | January 4, 2002 | Paul Hein, M.D.

[Architect]

In fact, it is far harder to hide in a modern society than a primitive one. In the old West, you could always just ride off. But not today. Your reputation follows you. If you try to buy a house, the neighbors won't let in people who are known as muggers. If you try to find a job, your boss will refuse to work with known criminals. Etc.

You mention that a grocer won't know if I'm paying for my bill with mugging money. You are right. Of course, that's exactly how it stands today. So let's concentrate on what happens if you get caught mugging.

In the current situation, a government decides to put you in prison. The government will take about a year to do so. Result: the person you mugged is still out his money, you get lessons in how to be a better mugger, and the tax payer is charged the bill for all this. Hardly what I would call justice.

In a system of private justice, the person you mugged would sue you for damages and find a judge to rule on the case. You would have a choice: either mutually agree on a choice of judge and accept the verdict or... It would become known that you refuse to play by the rules.

At which point, you're back to looking for a place to live.

The diamond-cutting industry was once dominated by orthodox Jews who were forbidden by their religion to sue each other. So if they had a dispute, they would take it to an arbitrator to resolve. To someone who was known to be fair. There weren't any problems. It is human nature to accept recognize what is "fair" and to accept the verdict.

This is also how the English Common Law evolved. Peasants would hire judges at county fairs and festivals to resolve their disputes. The good ones got hired again by other disputants and their judgements became the basis for later decisions by other judges.

[Aurelius]

"Wise guy. Of course such things [murder] will happen with government...but it would happen a lot more without government."

It is estimated that in the last century 170 million citizens were murdered by their own governments. ("Death by government", Rummel) Taking the century's world average population at 3 billion, which is high, that gives an estimated average annual governmental murder rate of almost 60 per 100,000. The annual(non-governmental) murder rate in the U.S. hovered around 10 per 100,000 during the century.

[Architect]

I don't see why it's necessary to abandon cities and high-rises. A huge number of jobs which only exist to support the state would obviously disappear. Lawyering, much accounting. And, of course, bureaucrats would all suddenly find themselves in need of a job.

WRT all the land (and other property) the government owns, I think Harry Browne has the right idea. Sell it off and use the proceeds to pay off all the stakeholders in the government scam. Annuities for retirees. Severance pay for bureaucrats. Etc.

[Logophile]

All sufficiently-complex systems are self-ordering. Think of an ecology. The conifers grow on the hills and the cactii in the deserts. Nobody orders them to. It just happens. The same thing happens in an economy. We use the term "marketplace" to refer to this particular self-ordering mechanism.

When government imposes its will on society, this has the effect, not of imposing order on disorder, but rather of freezing motion. In other words, it does not impose order. It imposes stasis.

You talk of government as if it were a foreign entity imposed on society. That may be true when one nation conquers another; otherwise, every government grows out of a particular community or nation. One could say that government, like the economy, is a "self-ordering mechanism."

Just as some trees grow in the mountains and not in the desert, some forms of government have florished in some societies and not in others. Have you considered why there are no anarchistic societies anywhere today? What sort of society would be required for anarchy to form and florish spontaneously?

[Logophile]

Yes - people do prefer security to liberty, it seems.

Most people would prefer to have both.

[Ridin' Shotgun]

You talk of government as if it were a foreign entity

Guess what? The Supreme Court talked that way too, respecting Volume 20; Corpus Juris Sec. 1785 (NY re: Merriam 36 NE, 505 141): THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION WITH RESPECT TO A STATE. There are others that say basically the same thing. But then the States incorporated, the counties incorporated, the cities incorporated and now you compete with all of these corporate entities in business.

[Aurelius]

I doubt very much that a government ever arose spontaneously where there was none. The origins of government have almost always been by conquest.

[Logophile]

It is estimated that in the last century 170 million citizens were murdered by their own governments. ("Death by government", Rummel) Taking the century's world average population at 3 billion, which is high, that gives an estimated average annual governmental murder rate of almost 60 per 100,000. The annual(non-governmental) murder rate in the U.S. hovered around 10 per 100,000 during the century.

There are governments and there are governments. Surely you do not mean to imply that there is little difference between the U.S. government and that of, say, North Korea.

What was the "governmental murder rate" in the United States during the last century, and how does that compare with the "non-governmental" rate?

[Doctor Doom]

But the reality, so eloquently pointed out by Benjamin Franklin, is that you cannot have both.

[Logophile]

I doubt very much that a government ever arose spontaneously where there was none. The origins of government have almost always been by conquest.

Well, someone was doing the conquering. The first governments must have arisen spontaneously somewhere in the world.

[Ridin' Shotgun]

I'm not suggesting that cities should be 'abandoned', other than by those who would choose to abandon them. Living off the land (ranching, farming, mining, timber) has become an impossibility in these days of wildlife refuges, heritage rivers, wilderness designations and other various environazi regulations.

I agree that selling off the land the government holds is a good plan, but if government scam can be proven to be the fraud it appears to be, the people who (knowingly) participated and profited from that fraud shouldn't be awarded with severence etc., they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, just like anyone else would be.

[Logophile]

But the reality, so eloquently pointed out by Benjamin Franklin, is that you cannot have both.

We cannot enjoy both security and liberty? No wonder anarchists have had such a hard time selling their ideas to their fellow Americans.

I believe that Franklin would have disagreed with you. He worked to form a nation that is both as secure as possible and free as possible.

[Doctor Doom]

I believe that Franklin would have disagreed with you.

Don't bet your wad on that.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

[Architect]

You talk of government as if it were a foreign entity imposed on society.

That is precisely what it is. A government may, as you say, be organic and grow out of its community (or more accurately, out of previous governments). But that does not change its purpose - which is to control and manipulate the development of that community. It imposes a system of law and order instead of letting the market choose the mechanisms for self-defense and conflict resolution which work best.

Have you considered why there are no anarchistic societies anywhere today?

Historically, they have been conquered by states. Once installed, the state has been extremely difficult to weed out.

What sort of society would be required for anarchy to form and florish spontaneously?

Well, the first step is obviously for people to recognize that such a thing is thinkable.

I would say that a second would be a recognition of the right to individual secession. A friend of mine has this dream of buying an island in the Straits of Juan de Fuca and making her own country. Why the hell shouldn't she have the right to do precisely that?

[Logophile]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Yes, I know the quote. (Franklin is one of my heroes.) But Franklin did not say the choice was either liberty or security. Note the qualifiers: essential liberty; temporary safety. Franklin was promoting neither anarchy nor cowardice.

[Ridin' Shotgun]

A friend of mine has this dream of buying an island in the Straits of Juan de Fuca and making her own country.

I have a friend who wants to capture an island, declare himself an unfriendly nation and apply for foreign aid, LOL.

[Architect]

The first governments must have arisen spontaneously somewhere in the world.

Quite true. In his works, Marvin Harris shows quite brilliantly the evolutionary processes which lead to the subjunction of people, as control became more and more tight and adherence to the ruler became less and less voluntary.

It's fairly clear that the first real states arose in response to the requirement for complex hydrological works to support agriculture. Dams, irrigation canals, etc. All the primary states arose in river valleys and lake districts. Once someone seizes control of the waterworks, he's got you by the proverbial throat. You have to let him be king or you die.

[Architect]

I agree that selling off the land the government holds is a good plan, but if government scam can be proven to be the fraud it appears to be, the people who (knowingly) participated and profited from that fraud shouldn't be awarded with severence etc., they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, just like anyone else would be.

While I might agree with you in theory, I would be more than satisfied to be finally left free. I don't care what price you want. Slave for five years? Sold. It's better than being a half-slave for the rest of my life.

[Doctor Doom]

It's fairly clear that the first real states arose in response to the requirement for complex hydrological works to support agriculture

That's an element, but you can't discount organized gangs of bandits who ran the early protection rackets on the first farmers.

[BlackbirdSST]

How would anarchy better deal with individuals who couldn't/wouldn't govern themselves?
I'm still pondering this. I'm not a mob rule oficinado, but I do know a mob can be assembled at the drop of hat. That of course is my knee jerk answer. We probably don't have to look any further than pre white America, to see where a people can self govern. Even an Honorable Society needs occassional enforcement of it's established principles. I would view this governance as a form of Anarchy. Blackbird.