Ron Paul is very clear. He is NOT an Anarcho-Capitalist

[erowe1]

The problems Machiavelli puts forth in The Prince, would be exacerbated in a completely stateless environment given the nature of human beings. Those with the will to power and a propensity for psychopathy and violence would adapt well to this new world. They would no longer be burdened with any sense of societal morality. If a peaceful anarchistic society could exist in any significant numbers greater than a few dozen families I would be surprised. Of course, they would eventually be ground to dust by outside forces that would exploit the power vacuum indicative of a world such as this.

All the things you're talking about are states.

The burden states have is the same burden Machiavelli's prince had, and it's not a moral one, it's a practical one. Those who rule others will always be limited in what they can get away with. And they will always look for means of making their rule more palatable to their subjects, to get away with as much as they can and to make it as easy as possible to get away with whatever they do. This is true of Mexican Cartels and of the regime in DC and of a lone mugger in an alley. I see no essential difference between them. What makes one a state makes the other a state. Things like constitutions and democratic elections are just two of the tools they have to help convince their subjects to submit, as are various promises of why you're better off with them than without them. Sometimes the promises are made with sticks, and sometimes with carrots, but all criminals from the lowliest mugger to the largest and most sophisticated state use variations of these.

So if you're talking about a stateless society, you're talking about one that doesn't have any of those things.

I'm not saying that a peaceful anarchistic society can exist. I just don't see why the question of whether it can or not matters.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Give me an example of a pure, unadulterated free market. There will be always amoral actors in it trying to consolidate power. It would be even easier to do in a stateless society.

Your proof is what, exactly?

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

All the things you're talking about are states.

The burden states have is the same burden Machiavelli's prince had, and it's not a moral one, it's a practical one. Those who rule others will always be limited in what they can get away with. And they will always look for means of making their rule more palatable to their subjects, to get away with as much as they can and to make it as easy as possible to get away with whatever they do. This is true of Mexican Cartels and of the regime in DC and of a lone mugger in an alley. I see no essential difference between them. What makes one a state makes the other a state.

So if you're talking about a stateless society, you're talking about one that doesn't have those things.

I'm not saying that a peaceful anarchistic society can exist. I just don't see why the question of whether it can or not matters.

I guess it really depends how you define a "state". If its a consolidation of power I think the notion of a "state" is inevitable. It's simply what humans do given their tribal nature and genetic makeup.

 

[erowe1]

I guess it really depends how you define a "state". If its a consolidation of power I think the notion of a "state" is inevitable. It's simply what humans do given their tribal nature and genetic makeup.

Yes, I agree that it's inevitable.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Your proof is what, exactly?

Human history. Humans have the will to power for better or worse. Without huge nation states filling the power vacuum other actors will. Whoever configures a superior fighting force rules the day. Here, you might enjoy listening to this.

Show 43 - Wrath of the Khans I
In one of the most violent outbursts in history a little-known tribe of Eurasian nomads breaks upon the great societies of the Old World like a human tsunami. It may have ushered in the modern era, but at what cost?
Wrath of the Khans I


Show 44 - Wrath of the Khans II
The Mongol leader Genghis Khan displays an unmatched level of strategic genius while moving against both Northern China and the Eastern Islamic world. Both civilizations are left stunned and millions are slaughtered.
Wrath of the Khans II


Show 45 - Wrath of the Khans III
The expansion of Genghis Khan's conquests continue, with locations as far apart as Europe and China feeling the bloody effects of Mongol warfare and retribution. Can anything halt the carnage?
Wrath of the Khans III


Show 46 - Wrath of the Khans IV
The death of Genghis Khan, the founder of the Mongol Empire, should have slowed the momentum of Mongol conquests, but instead it accelerated it. This time though, all of Europe is on the Mongol hit list.
Wrath of the Khans IV


Show 47 - Wrath of the Khans V
Succession issues weaken the Mongol Empire as the grandchildren of Genghis Khan fight over their imperial inheritance. This doesn't stop them from dealing out pain, suffering, and ironically good governance while doing so.
Wrath of the Khans V

 

[erowe1]

The debates about anarchy here always get far too caught up in whether or not it's possible. They always have.

I see it as a completely unimportant question. Even if anarchy is theoretically possible to exist at some time in the future of humanity, that doesn't mean it can exist for us. And even if it can exist for us, it would require some drastic change in the world that none of us can plan for or predict.

But the importance of the concept is as an ideal, something to move toward and not away from, rather than a black-and-white success or failure.

So we can't get there. But maybe we can get closer and closer. And if you ask how close, then the answer has to be that there's not limit to how close. There's no line that cuts through the continuum of violence that says, you can do only this well but no better. So pure statelessness (and by pure, I mean, zero muggers in alleys exist in the world) could still be approached asymptotically. And we don't have to be able to get to it for it still to function as an asymptote for us. But the other side of that is that, we must have the ideal of pure statelessness, in order for there to be an asymptote there for us to approach. Take that asymptote away, and we're just wandering around aimlessly guessing at what's better than what, and wondering when taxes will get low enough that we can say, "There. That's low enough. If you cut them any more you won't be committing enough theft."

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Doesn't necessarily have to be drugs or prostitution. Any cabal with enough firepower could wrangle control over any lucrative trade. Not everyone will play by your set of rules in your idyllic anarchistic society. And if you had a problem with that you would face 'Plata O Plomo' diplomacy.

So, worst case scenario in the stateless world is that we end up with a state? And according to that 'reasoning', you argue on behalf of the state?

No one ever said anything about everyone playing by our set of rules in an idyllic anarchist society. It is the statists who believe in fanciful idyllic societies where men behave like angels.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The debates about anarchy here always get far too caught up in whether or not it's possible. They always have.

I see it as a completely unimportant question. Even if anarchy is theoretically possible to exist at some time in the future of humanity, that doesn't mean it can exist for us. And even if it can exist for us, it would require some drastic change in the world that none of us can plan for or predict.

But the importance of the concept is as an ideal, something to move toward and not away from, rather than a black-and-white success or failure.

So we can't get there. But maybe we can get closer and closer. And if you ask how close, then the answer has to be that there's not limit to how close. There's no line that cuts through the continuum of violence that says, you can do only this well but no better. So pure statelessness (and by pure, I mean, zero muggers in alleys exist in the world) could still be approached asymptotically. And we don't have to be able to get to it for it still to function as an asymptote for us. But the other side of that is that, we must have the ideal of pure statelessness, in order for there to be an asymptote there for us to approach. Take that asymptote away, and we're just wandering around aimlessly guessing at what's better than what, and wondering when taxes will get low enough that we can say, "There. That's low enough. If you cut them any more you won't be committing enough theft."

I owe you a rep. Anyone want to cover me?

 

[KingRobbStark]

That's fine. Ask Ron Paul if he was an anarchist, and the obvious answer would be no. Now ask him if he believes in voluntarism and his answer (based on countless interviews) would be a resounding yes.

 

[KingRobbStark]

I owe you a rep. Anyone want to cover me?

I got you covered. I wish I can do it twice.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

So, worst case scenario in the stateless world is that we end up with a state? And according to that 'reasoning', you argue on behalf of the state?

No one ever said anything about everyone playing by our set of rules in an idyllic anarchist society. It is the statists who believe in fanciful idyllic societies where men behave like angels.

I just think the state is inevitable. The Founders of this nation state didn't believe men were angels, many argued that was the reason to have a state in fact.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

So, worst case scenario in the stateless world is that we end up with a state? And according to that 'reasoning', you argue on behalf of the state?

No one ever said anything about everyone playing by our set of rules in an idyllic anarchist society. It is the statists who believe in fanciful idyllic societies where men behave like angels.

Worst case I imagine would be something like the Mongols knocking on your front door before raping and slaughtering everyone you hold dear. Check out those podcasts by the way, pretty enthralling history.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Human history. Humans have the will to power for better or worse. Without huge nation states filling the power vacuum other actors will. Whoever configures a superior fighting force rules the day. Here, you might enjoy listening to this.

Not the greatest nor the worst argument. If we accept what you say is true, small/constitutional government is bad because there are "unlimited" nation states out there which could smash the small/"limited" one. (people were scared shitless of the Soviets[despite helping the Reds defeat the Germans, making the world safe for Soviet Communism], if you'll recall...and some people still quake in fear at the thought of the ChiComs, Putin, etc)

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

The problem with saying "anarchy is impossible because humans will always seek to consolidate power" is that the definition of the state in this case is too broad. In order for an entity to maintain lasting power, it has to be able to exact tribute (revenue) from its victims. Just because early victims were too weak to resist the initial conquest does not mean that the state is a necessary, or even inevitable institution. The state has to employ other, more subtle tactics to stay entrenched. It has to convince people that taking other people's property is perfectly acceptable, and it has to provide an avenue for them to do so.

Humans may very well intrinsically seek to control others, but there is a difference between unlibertarian mindsets and actively transforming those unlibertarian mindsets into outright theft. The trick becomes to change people so that they are no longer susceptible to falling into the traps set by those who seek to establish an institution of violence. If that requires showing that society can be egalitarian in the absence of a state (not that society is egalitarian WITH a state), then that is what anarchists should work towards. That is why I believe mutual aid and charities are ultimately so much more important than winning elections and/or sitting on internet forums criticizing everyone and everything. It has to be a psychological revolution if it is to have any staying power.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I just think the state is inevitable. The Founders of this nation state didn't believe men were angels, many argued that was the reason to have a state in fact.

Their argument doesn't make any sense, if one actually understands the state.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Worst case I imagine would be something like the Mongols knocking on your front door before raping and slaughtering everyone you hold dear. Check out those podcasts by the way, pretty enthralling history.

So, because something bad might happen to someone, some time, we must do something not as bad, but still bad, to everyone, all the time?

And then we're to trust that this institution with the authority to prevent this bad thing - say, a Mongol invasion - will both A.) actually be able to prevent said bad thing and B.) not do anything equally bad or worse?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Mercenaries who are any good at what they do (have superior weapons and the will to use said weapons) soon realize there is no need to accept wages, when they can just as easily obtain all of the wealth for themselves.

see below ...

I have read Machiavelli. Have you?

If so, you don't seem to have realized that the world of the eponymous Prince was NOT a stateless one ...

Exactly. Those with the will to power would have a much easier time consolidating power.

Only in your "fantasy world" where the application of coercion is apparently costless.

Either you haven't read Machiavelli, you haven't understood what you read, or you read some deficient "Cliff's Notes" summary ...

The State significantly lowers the "barriers to entry" for would-be "will to power" coercers like the Prince. Just ask Hitler.

Or ask the Khans for whom you seem to have such a fetish. Their easiest conquests were of pre-existing States ...

 

[Henry Rogue]

Give me an example of a pure, unadulterated free market. There will be always amoral actors in it trying to consolidate power. It would be even easier to do in a stateless society.

I don't claim that a true Free Market has ever existed or that a stateless Society is even possible, For that matter I doubt this behemoth government can be shrunk an inch. I don't know if a Free Market is even possible, but I can certainly see the effects government intervention has produced on the market.

My point was, your argument is reminiscent of the democrats gun control argument. What the democrats can't seem to understand is that government created the conditions by restrictions in freedom and their solution is even more restrictions in freedom. Nefarious actors have always existed and will always exist, either they are the government or they gain power and money through government intervention in Society. The mob existed in Chicago long before prohibition, there influence was localized and relied on buying off politicians and police. You see, in order to run their protection rackets, they had to pay protection fees to a larger mob, the city's government. Of course, prohibition allowed the mob to grow at an astonishing rate.

A private police force is only one solution put forth, another is a self policing community. There is no such thing as a utopia, but I doubt a policeless state could be worse than the costumed psychos running around now.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

see below ...



Only in your "fantasy world" where the application of coercion is apparently costless.

Either you haven't read Machiavelli, you haven't understood what you read, or you read some deficient "Cliff's Notes" summary ...

The State significantly lowers the "barriers to entry" for would-be "will to power" coercers like the Prince. Just ask Hitler.

Or ask the Khans for whom you seem to have such a fetish. Their easiest conquests were of pre-existing States ...

I don't understand why this seems to be such a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[Pericles]

Your proof is what, exactly?

We can start with Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire.