Some posters have espoused anarcho-capitalism as a superior means of “governance” than a state-centric distribution of power. I assert that economic ties would be insufficient to mitigate conflict among actors in such a state of nature, and the asymmetries in material capabilities would lead to more of a “might makes right” world than is presently the case. Discuss.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Some posters have espoused anarcho-capitalism as a superior means of “governance” than a state-centric distribution of power. I assert that economic ties would be insufficient to mitigate conflict among actors in such a state of nature, and the asymmetries in material capabilities would lead to more of a “might makes right” world than is presently the case. Discuss. [/quote]
It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing approach. I think our state-centric power structure has served well when we respect the existence of a federal democratic republic whereby individual and group liberties, including those of businesses and organizations, are protected through a reasonable, enforceable fiat of negative liberties that are codified into the highest laws of the land.
I assert that anarcho-capitalism would resemble the streets of Paris in 1789 then immediately devolve into dictatorship. Furthermore I contend that anyone who advocates it is a loon.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Some posters have espoused anarcho-capitalism as a superior means of “governance” than a state-centric distribution of power. I assert that economic ties would be insufficient to mitigate conflict among actors in such a state of nature, and the asymmetries in material capabilities would lead to more of a “might makes right” world than is presently the case. Discuss. [/quote]
It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing approach. I think our state-centric power structure has served well when we respect the existence of a federal democratic republic whereby individual and group liberties, including those of businesses and organizations, are protected through a reasonable, enforceable fiat of negative liberties that are codified into the highest laws of the land.[/quote]
I concur. By state-centric I meant the Weberian conception of what constitutes a state. I identify with Hume’s belief that a balance must be struck between security and liberty, both being underpinned by justice.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I assert that anarcho-capitalism would resemble the streets of Paris in 1789 then immediately devolve into dictatorship. Furthermore I contend that anyone who advocates it is a loon.[/quote]
We agree.
Anarchy can only works if the means of violence are :
-evenly distributed
-reduced to zero
in any other cases, there will be a (weberian) State.
That’s the theory.
In practice, this means that anarchy became impossible the day someone invented the bow.
Remove the big daddy Feds from the equation, then you will see how awesome state-centrism is.
When there is no plan B (usually asking the Feds for help when all else fails), then there will be blood in the streets. I can’t wait for it to happen here.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Anarchy can only works if the means of violence are :
-evenly distributed
-reduced to zero
in any other cases, there will be a (weberian) State.
That’s the theory.
In practice, this means that anarchy became impossible the day someone invented the bow.
[/quote]
I think that the only thing anarchy needs in order to work well is that the people perceive that violence is not worth it
Same under any other system, actually
But in other systems, this perception is enforced by the largest/accepted/most organized force. For anarchy to work, this needs to not be necessary
An even distribution of force would probably accomplish this, I’m not so sure it’s the only way
[quote] squating_bear wrote:
I think that the only thing anarchy needs in order to work well is that the people perceive that violence is not worth it
[/quote]
“Your future dream is a sharpie’s scheme” - Johnny Rotten
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
An even distribution of force would probably accomplish this, I’m not so sure it’s the only way[/quote]
Why would it? It only reduces the propensity of conflict because actors understand that the costs of using force are increased. It does not make the use of force obsolete. There have been wars waged between states of roughly equal material capabilities.
The international political system is characterized by anarchy, as no overarching authority exists to regulate states behavior toward each other. It could hardly be called a pacific state of affairs. Anarchy in a domestic context would result in even greater fragmentation and propensity for violence as the number of potential conflict dyads among actors would increase exponentially. In sum, anarchy leads to the very Hobbesian state of nature it so ardently hopes to transcend. Anarchy perpetuates the use of force as the ultima ratio.
Humans are humans, and our ancestors were kicked out of the garden. A state solves no problems; it only gives one group of people a recognized power to do what it wants to others. Free societies will always be very temporary in nature. The statist believes that the rape victim is best off just trying to enjoy it. The libertarian believes she would be better off fighting back.
That’s what statism is all about-creating compliant victims.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Humans are humans, and our ancestors were kicked out of the garden. A state solves no problems; it only gives one group of people a recognized power to do what it wants to others. Free societies will always be very temporary in nature. The statist believes that the rape victim is best off just trying to enjoy it. The libertarian believes she would be better off fighting back.
That’s what statism is all about-creating compliant victims.[/quote]
In my opinion , your opinion is not realistic . I will agree with you that we do not live in a free society but it is not the GOV that is ruling us . It is all the money . It says money is more important than Environment , money is more important that health, welfare and most essentials of a balanced life
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Humans are humans, and our ancestors were kicked out of the garden. A state solves no problems; it only gives one group of people a recognized power to do what it wants to others. Free societies will always be very temporary in nature. The statist believes that the rape victim is best off just trying to enjoy it. The libertarian believes she would be better off fighting back.
That’s what statism is all about-creating compliant victims.[/quote]
States condone sexual assault? Ok.
Address my criticisms of anarchy specifically if you can.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
An even distribution of force would probably accomplish this, I’m not so sure it’s the only way[/quote]
Why would it? It only reduces the propensity of conflict because actors understand that the costs of using force are increased. It does not make the use of force obsolete. There have been wars waged between states of roughly equal material capabilities.
The international political system is characterized by anarchy, as no overarching authority exists to regulate states behavior toward each other. It could hardly be called a pacific state of affairs. Anarchy in a domestic context would result in even greater fragmentation and propensity for violence as the number of potential conflict dyads among actors would increase exponentially. In sum, anarchy leads to the very Hobbesian state of nature it so ardently hopes to transcend. Anarchy perpetuates the use of force as the ultima ratio.
[/quote]
I think when you compare people as individuals vs. big groups then things change. Playing to peoples emotional soft spots within a group identity in order to convince them to go to kill distant humans (especially when the sender would not send themself)…yeah, this is very different from anarchy. Doesn’t fly
If you zoom in a lot more, force was not evenly distributed. The tendency is to try and attack a weak spot, etc. If you actually had an exactly equal number of troops, ammo, intel, skill sets, etc. and you were only able to inflict a 1:1 attrition rate between your team and the enemy, and this was known by both sides before the beginning - do you actually think war would ensue? Probably not, but maybe? Doesn’t matter - impossible hypothetical you say? Exactly. That’s what kamui said
[quote]Why would it? It only reduces the propensity of conflict because actors understand that the costs of using force are increased.[/quote]Right.
All it takes is that the perceived marginal cost exceed the perceived marginal benefit. With or without anarchy.With or without anarchy.With or without anarchy.With or without anarchy.
So it’s your position that it is IMPOSSIBLE for people to perceive such a thing unless a bigger force keeps them in line. If not, then don’t act like it
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote] squating_bear wrote:
I think that the only thing anarchy needs in order to work well is that the people perceive that violence is not worth it
[/quote]
[/quote]
So an inevitability as opposed to an impossibility
Some sort of understanding which decreases greed, hate and increases love and forgiveness sure would help in changing peoples perceptions of the costs vs benefits of killing each other. The Age of Aquarius is nigh. You laugh now, but just wait until 2012 when the Nephilim return…
[quote] squating_bear wrote:
If you zoom in a lot more, force was not evenly distributed. The tendency is to try and attack a weak spot, etc. If you actually had an exactly equal number of troops, ammo, intel, skill sets, etc. and you were only able to inflict a 1:1 attrition rate between your team and the enemy, and this was known by both sides before the beginning - do you actually think war would ensue? Probably not…
[/quote]
Do you know anything at all about human nature and warfare? Firstly, a parity of conventional armaments does not lessen the likelihood of conflict. Just look at WWI. In WWII Germany has a smaller army than France. Just look at any guerrilla insurgency. They adapt their tactics due to their inferior armaments. Secondly, attritional warfare is overcome by mobility. So an inferiority in armaments can be overcome via tactics and attritional warfare can be overcome via mobility. Additionally attritional warfare doesn’t lessen the likelihood of conflict anyway. Does any of this mean anything to you? You can’t be convinced can you? You’re determined to believe something entirely irrational aren’t you?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote] squating_bear wrote:
If you zoom in a lot more, force was not evenly distributed. The tendency is to try and attack a weak spot, etc. If you actually had an exactly equal number of troops, ammo, intel, skill sets, etc. and you were only able to inflict a 1:1 attrition rate between your team and the enemy, and this was known by both sides before the beginning - do you actually think war would ensue? Probably not…
[/quote]
Do you know anything at all about human nature and warfare? Firstly, a parity of conventional armaments does not lessen the likelihood of conflict. Just look at WWI. In WWII Germany has a smaller army than France. Just look at any guerrilla insurgency. They adapt their tactics due to their inferior armaments. Secondly, attritional warfare is overcome by mobility. So an inferiority in armaments can be overcome via tactics and attritional warfare can be overcome via mobility. Additionally attritional warfare doesn’t lessen the likelihood of conflict anyway. Does any of this mean anything to you? You can’t be convinced can you? You’re determined to believe something entirely irrational aren’t you?[/quote]
Firstly, what is it that you think I believe?
My actual belief on anarchy is not what it might seem here
[quote]Do you know anything at all about human nature and warfare? [/quote]I think everybody knows at least something. On warfare you know more than me, on human nature I do think I’ve got you.
[quote]Firstly, a parity of conventional armaments does not lessen the likelihood of conflict. [/quote]I wasn’t talking only armaments, I said [i]everything[/i].
EXACT eye for an eye. This portion you’ve quoted was more like a thought experiment, not a proof for anarchy
[quote]They adapt their tactics due to their inferior armaments. Secondly, attritional warfare is overcome by mobility. So an inferiority in armaments can be overcome via tactics and attritional warfare can be overcome via mobility. [/quote]These have no bearing on what I was saying
You cut it out from the quote above, but I had already tried to save you the trouble
As a technicality though, I do disagree with this part
[quote]Firstly, a parity of conventional armaments does not lessen the likelihood of conflict. [/quote]“Likelihood” means that we are not talking absolutes, but probabilities
Pointing out an instance does not mean that it isn’t a factor, it only means that it cannot be the only factor. Ok, so there are also other factors - I think I said this
[quote] squating_bear wrote:
Firstly, what is it that you think I believe?
My actual belief on anarchy is not what it might seem here
[/quote]
I can only go on what you say / your posting history. You appear to be a radical libertarian / anarcho-capitalist. I’m a libertarian too. Although only so far as reason and human nature allows. There’s not much point in trying to address the rest of your post as it contains contradictions and you seem to be aware of the impossibility of defending your own ideology.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote] squating_bear wrote:
Firstly, what is it that you think I believe?
My actual belief on anarchy is not what it might seem here
[/quote]
I can only go on what you say / your posting history. You appear to be a radical libertarian / anarcho-capitalist. I’m a libertarian too. Although only so far as reason and human nature allows. There’s not much point in trying to address the rest of your post as it contains contradictions and you seem to be aware of the impossibility of defending your own ideology.[/quote]
This page explains my actual view as far as I have developed one, if you want to know
I am still interested in pondering, so thought experiments are worthwhile to me and I understand few are interested
I actually didn’t see the contradictions in that post. Point them out please? Logic is a mechanical process. It works something like this
Assumptions/Knowledge ----------> Logic Process -----------> Outcome(s)
Given a set of assumptions, the logic process will always give the same outcome
Does an unknown set of assumptions exist that in combination with an anarchical “system” would logically process into an outcome of peace?
I would imagine that if we thought about it very, very hard, then the answer would be that there are probably multiple sets of assumptions that would each end in this outcome, however unlikely, overly simple, or overly complex. This being a separate issue from whether or not those assumptions could ever actually be implemented in the real world
So that thought experiment had a set of assumptions that do not jive with the real world, but I am not aware of logical contradictions within it. All thought experiments have a set of assumptions that do not jive with the real world.
It would probably take a lot of processing to find a configuration that fits. I enjoy pondering this, since it’s all about perceptions, decision making processes, a bunch of personal interests that fit all together into a giant twisted thing that I like
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I assert that anarcho-capitalism would resemble the streets of Paris in 1789 then immediately devolve into dictatorship.[/quote]
I see your streets of Paris and raise you one Animal House homecoming parade.
