Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anarchy doesn't require universal benevolence. People can't be trusted with power over others, and that's the key pragmatic reason to not have a state. It's because people aren't always good that we can't give them control over everyone else's lives.
Honestly, I don't care what people do in a free society. You can do whatever you think will work best. Form a democratic republic with other like-minded people if you want, start a commune, start a libertarian minarchist community...just don't force anyone else to be part of your system.
That's the benevolence problem though.
How do you stop people from forming a system and forcing others to be a part of it? How do you stop the conquerors? They benefit greatly at the expense of others by creating a system and using violence to force others to join it.
Anarchy doesn't require universal benevolence. People can't be trusted with power over others, and that's the key pragmatic reason to not have a state. It's because people aren't always good that we can't give them control over everyone else's lives.
Honestly, I don't care what people do in a free society. You can do whatever you think will work best. Form a democratic republic with other like-minded people if you want, start a commune, start a libertarian minarchist community...just don't force anyone else to be part of your system.
I'm sorry if I muddied the water of marigolds6's response. I should've quoted the whole response. Sometimes it's difficult to explain or describe a paradox. I thought this was excellent. Here it is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by marigolds6
This is the benevolent society paradox of anarchism though (and to a lesser extent, anarchocapitalism). Even if you can return to a stateless society, a single nation-state, with the benefits of military force and national security, holds a massive economic advantage in a stateless society. The incentive to form a state where no states exist is huge. You become the dominant force in the world almost immediately. Anarchy requires universal benevolence; no one will band together to form a nation and break the anarchy. Everyone will forgo the benefits to themselves in under to maintain the stateless society.
Anarchocapitalism is a little different. Instead of a true stateless society, it requires a pure market. States can exist, but only if their power is limited to the preservation of a free market and th adjudication of contracts. (This is why anarchocapitalism masquerades as libertarianism so much, even though the two are radically different.) But, like anarchism, anarchocapitalism also requires that no corporations are formed, in particularly stateless corporations (obviously all corporations are stateless in anarchy, but you could have corporations which are not stateless in anarchocapitalism and are subject to state coercion to preserve the free market).
Why? Because stateless corporations can alter a free market. They can create market capture and market distortion; and profit by those deviations from the free market. Since corporations cannot, by definition, act benevolently, if they are formed they must take advantage of destroying the free market and would inherently lead to the destruction of the anarchist or anarchocapilist society.
So, how do you ensure that the entire world stays benevolent and never breaks the stateless societal pact for their own advantage?
I think people who think privatization is ridiculously bad, while they run around calling to expand government, using the argument the government does it better, while ignoring that the government contracts out the very same services they want to nationalize.
STUPID.
Healthcare being a prime example.. almost every state government contracts out healthcare insurance, but yet we hear non stop.. "government healthcare, yaaaaaa"..
as I said..
STUPID..
Lets all hope your not against everyone and not all about profit....
I dont recall anyone advocating for privatizing everything, normally its in direct response to some kook wanting to expand governmental control over something..
Considering that these sorts of things are controlled by municipalities , privatization deals typicality means just that, an expanded monopoly in control of everything.
The idea came from the Chicago-based investment firm William Blair and Company, which saw a way to enrich its bottom line. The private firm was politically well-connected and did not go through any bidding process to get the outsourcing job.
William Blair is a global investment banking and asset management firm. We are committed to building enduring relationships with our clients and providing expertise and solutions to meet their evolving needs. An independent and employee-owned firm, William Blair is based in Chicago, with offices in 19 cities across five continents.
So what can grow into a world wide monstrosity, the city of Chicago or something in 19 cities across five continents. If I don't like Chicago I can go to St Louis...though it won't matter if another Willaim Blair deal is waiting for me.
Morgan Stanley is also bigger than any municipality.
And how did it all really work out?
Analysts determined the city’s parking meters were worth $1 billion more than they were leased for. That billion stayed with the Wall Street bank, not the people of Chicago.
Within months of the deal, parking rates in some areas of the city quadrupled. Since then, rates rose every year between 14 and 25 percent.
When the government is bad you can eventually vote them out. When it signs a bad contract it can last for , in this case, 75 years.
That's the benevolence problem though.
How do you stop people from forming a system and forcing others to be a part of it? How do you stop the conquerors? They benefit greatly at the expense of others by creating a system and using violence to force others to join it.
This is for ChiGeekGuest as well...saw your reply too.
I could go at this by simply saying it doesn't matter, and that people would have to figure something out..that I don't have the answer, and if I did that would be a compelling argument to put me in charge because I know what the best solution will be. I know that seems like a cop out and isn't satisfying to those who want a set plan, but it's a legitimate answer. There's no way to know unless we allow people to organize spontaneously, experiment, and see what comes from that environment. Yes, that's scary to people, but I don't think they really realize how much evil will disappear instantly without a centralized coercive authority starting wars, picking winners and losers, wrecking the economy, stifling innovation, putting future generations in crippling debt, and many other intrusions into everyone's lives and free will as human beings.
I could also say that I don't think other states would be that overpowering, or even a looming threat most of the time. They could be, but with or without a state, it comes down to who is most effective...attacker or defender. It's way easier to defend than to attack, and much cheaper. There's also no state to take over/surrender so you'd have to painstakingly conquer everyone's homes and communities, large or small. You'd always be at risk of bombings, shootings, or any other uses of force from people who won't surrender. Look how Afghanis of all people have been able to prevent the Soviets/Russians and the U.S. from defeating them. They just don't give up and then bleed the opponent of resources until their economy goes to crap. You'd also be more likely to have a trained and armed population in a free society, because there is no attitude of "the state will protect me, so I don't need to learn". Then there's the fact that people will have great incentive to organize in defense of invasion, if it even happened. If the demand is there, people will work together.
This is all just my own personal take on what would work, but I'm no expert. I'm sure other anarchists would have different ideas.
As for libertarians vs anarcho-capitalists, I assume you mean minarchists vs anarcho-capitalists. In that case, yes, they are very different, even if they share similar ideas. If you're going by the libertarian philosophy (non-aggression principle and respect for property rights) then anarcho-capitalists are just fully consistent libertarians, whereas minarchists are maybe 95% consistent.
I figured I'd spend a little extra time with my answer, so hopefully it gets read carefully. Usually people skim over my longer posts and ignore details so I keep it short.
You are about four centuries behind in your concept of the social contract.
Check out some Proudhon (which will at least get you up to the 19th century). You are talking about a social contract. But really what I am getting at is more 20th century theory like original position and neo-Hobbesian theory.
Who? Gauthier?
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and dismiss anyone who uses the obscenely idiotic "Prisoner's Dilemma" game.
His use of the word "rational" in a a subjective context makes anyone past age 12 laugh off his assertions.
This is for ChiGeekGuest as well...saw your reply too.
I could go at this by simply saying it doesn't matter, and that people would have to figure something out..that I don't have the answer, and if I did that would be a compelling argument to put me in charge because I know what the best solution will be. I know that seems like a cop out and isn't satisfying to those who want a set plan, but it's a legitimate answer.
You lost them right off the bat.
I can see them reading your whole response and just coming back to this opening to dismiss your viewpoint. No one can be this insouciant. Impossible.
That's where their mind gets stuck. As you know from when you were a proponent of the state.
The few anarchists I've known describe the transformation as a result of fatigue. You simply can't get around the moral inconsistencies of the state if you value self-ownership/freedom IF you put so much thought into your world outlook.
This is for ChiGeekGuest as well...saw your reply too.
I could go at this by simply saying it doesn't matter, and that people would have to figure something out..that I don't have the answer, and if I did that would be a compelling argument to put me in charge because I know what the best solution will be. I know that seems like a cop out and isn't satisfying to those who want a set plan, but it's a legitimate answer. There's no way to know unless we allow people to organize spontaneously, experiment, and see what comes from that environment. Yes, that's scary to people, but I don't think they really realize how much evil will disappear instantly without a centralized coercive authority starting wars, picking winners and losers, wrecking the economy, stifling innovation, putting future generations in crippling debt, and many other intrusions into everyone's lives and free will as human beings. ...
I'm having a hard time explaining where I'm coming from with this. I'm also pretty sleepy so I'll be brief & then continue to think about & play around with these things.
You say, "There's no way to know unless we allow people to organize spontaneously, experiment, and see what comes from that environment."
I say, look around you, this is the result of allowing people to organize spontaneously & to experiment. Look around you, this is what comes from that environment.
I can see them reading your whole response and just coming back to this opening to dismiss your viewpoint. No one can be this insouciant. Impossible.
That's where their mind gets stuck. As you know from when you were a proponent of the state.
The few anarchists I've known describe the transformation as a result of fatigue. You simply can't get around the moral inconsistencies of the state if you value self-ownership/freedom IF you put so much thought into your world outlook.
Just comes down to how seriously you take the non-initiation of force. I take it very seriously, and I know you do too. It's just evil, but people aren't committed to giving it up. If its wrong, it's wrong and I won't advocate it at all.
I'm having a hard time explaining where I'm coming from with this. I'm also pretty sleepy so I'll be brief & then continue to think about & play around with these things.
You say, "There's no way to know unless we allow people to organize spontaneously, experiment, and see what comes from that environment."
I say, look around you, this is the result of allowing people to organize spontaneously & to experiment. Look around you, this is what comes from that environment.
You are free.
Yes, but it came from the paradigm of "it's okay to control others by force if done by way of the state", which is a step up from "its okay to control others by force because I want to", but we're not yet at the point where we denounce it completely without any excuses. In that new paradigm, it's hard to predict what people will invent, or what ideas will be tried, fused together, or what some genius will contribute. The genius of millions (billions?) of people shouldn't be underestimated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
