Whenever a people give the job of enforcement to another group of people, they thereby give up the right of self-governing. But any time a group of people arrogates to themselves the right to rule of steal from or in any way harm a self-governing people, they must resist them with force or give up the right to freedom. Either way, the invasive group take their freedom from them, whether or not they conquer them. For the act of self-defense is also permission to commit violence. It may be preferable to being conquered, but not an absolute good. A sword that can kill others is also capable of killing yourself. Violence always begets violence.
This is a really important point, Jesse. And we need to think carefully about the institutional rules and their incentives as we seek to design local alternatives to Leviathan states. So, for example, if we outsource the job of enforcement to another group in a competitive marketplace for such services, there is hopefully a competitor or two that will take our custom if we are displeased with the initial arrangement. Hobbes's argument is essentially that Leviathan power arrests tit-for-tat violence. My counterargument would be that there are diminishing returns to investment in violence relative to cooperation. And enforcement agencies would have stronger incentives to resolve their conflicts rather than maintain legal or actual tit for tat.
Even in tit-for-tat situations people often seek mediated resolution, I’m thinking of the McCoy-Hatfield feud, a documentary I watched said that they were always taking each other to court in addition to the fighting. I think many people will choose free market arbitration over violence.
I understand your pint, but my underlying assumption is that people are not nonviolent. Violence will occur in any group larger than zero. I sort of like the old saying, there are three kinds of people in the world. Those that can count and those who can't. I add, anyone can count.
It's estimated that the first species of humans evolved about 2 ½ million years ago, and our species has existed for more than 300,000 years. The first government is said to have been established in Sumer (Mesopotamia) about 6,500 years ago. More than 1,000 years passed before the next government was established. I don't know how much time passed before a majority of the world's population lived under one government or another, but it seems clear that for much more than 99% of the time humans have existed, they existed without governments, and for more than 98% of the time our species has existed most have lived without governments. The evidence indicates that humans can survive without governments.
Great comment, John. In the interests of combating a steel man, some -- like Hobbes -- argue that a Leviathan power mutes the violence of all against all. I suspect that this has mixed anthropological truth, though I would also argue that our forebears were definitely violent and tribes would decimate competing tribes prior to settled agriculture and subsequently, the age of empire. Could empires have had some stabilizing effect? I suppose so. But we must not confuse empire with civilization. And indeed, peaceful civilization is possible (indeed, more probable) without a monopoly on violence. So governance without governments. Rules without rulers. (James C. Scott is excellent on these matters.)
Hobbes lacked access to modern anthropology, so his claim in “Leviathan” that a state of nature is a war of all against all in which life is “nasty, brutish, and short” is understandable. I'm no authority on anthropology, but I've read a few books on the subject. Reading about primitive societies helps understand what prehistoric societies without governments were like. Some such societies still exist, or at least did in the 20th century. Those I read about were in remote forested locations in government-controlled territory. However, government agents left those societies alone, perhaps because they thought the costs of interfering with them weren't worth the benefits. As I recall, tribes in New Guinea sometimes fought each other, but their fighting was much less destructive than modern warfare. Most societies were internally peaceful, but at least one wasn't: the Jivaro (aka the headhunters of the Amazon). Jivaro “society,” if it can be called that, typically consisted of widely separated households, which were the homes of three married adults: one man and two women. That arrangement resulted from there being twice as many Jivaro women as men, because the men tended to kill each other. In contrast, the Mbuti, a pygmy hunter-gather group living in a Congo rain forest, were entirely peaceful. They didn't fight with neighbors or among themselves. Differing religions seemed to account for the stark contrast between the Jivaro and the Mbuti. The former believed one could pay a shaman to put a curse on an enemy. Any misfortune that befell a Jivaro man was believed to be the result of that curse. The injured party would often kill the man suspected to have bought the curse. The Mbuti's benign religion involved worshiping the forest. No one could interfere with them because they could quickly disappear into the forest to evade pursuers. I was surprised to learn they were explicit anarchists. They were familiar with government and disliked it. Any person who wanted to rule another person was by their definition not a Mbuti.
In one respect, that's a tautology. In another respect, we have to figure out how to become counterpower so we can enjoy our experiments. But remember Hasnas's admonition: "If you want the strongest argument for anarchy, simply remove your self-imposed blinders and look around."
"We can use collective swarm intelligence systems to get there." To that I would turn your words back on you, that is, "We must prove it can work."
Depends the flavor of anarchy you want. Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. Volunteering to be part of a society where the people make their own rules can exist within the realm of anarchy. Such as Leaderless, a concept network state without leaders.
Did you read the article? The first line is: "I am presenting an argument for anarchy in the true sense of the term—that is, a society without government, not a society without governance. There is no such thing as a society without governance. A society with no mechanism for bringing order to human existence is oxymoronic; it is not “society” at all."
Also, "Volunteering to be part of a society where the people make their own rules can exist within the realm of anarchy." It's called panarchy, which we discuss here: https://underthrow.substack.com/p/panarchy-the-state-20
I'm saying short of anarchy. You cannot just drop the economic system and the economic sytsem that we know of is some form of capitalism. But a regulated one. (which is to say you need a new kind of capitalism, what I will call "people's capitalism," and that is what must be introduced. Beyond the current sort of "regulation." This is the next phase of capitalism but it is a shame that nobody wants to support regulation of an intelligent sort. No "private" ownership. Intervention must not be ruled out automatically. New interventions are possible but are blocked by "free market" ideology.)
all the "markets" are regulated. That is not even in question. You cannot have the present form of capitalism. The point is not that it is regulated or non-regulated. It is promoted as non-regulated. But what is needed is INTELLIGENT regulation, a whole different approach and a whole different level of regulation where there is a committee or a board that has extensive authority, and government support, to investigate and determine which regulations (which is to say which sort of governance) need to be instituted, or, in some cases maybe little or no regulation. The kind of regulation we have now assumes that there is NO regulation that is really needed and then sneaks in some kind of inadequate thing (which may include much more regulation than their ideology calls for but this sort of inadequate regulation will still be there even if it makes but little sense. Once you replace the bad regulation with a new wave of intelligent regulation according to the "people's capitalism" model there may even be LESS overall --I don't know off hand; nobody likes my theory so I gave up on trying o work al lthe details out!!!!# I suppose the main problem would be who does the regulating if not government. It would need to be truly a major program. I am talking about an economy where excellent college students woudl either go into regulation or the business world---both being about equal in importance to our economy)
With all due respect, this is silly. I would recommend you spend some time with the dynamics of public choice economics before committing to the idea of the One True Way, which not only doesn't exist, but concentrated enforcement authorities who think they know what "intelligent regulation" are dangerous because they fancy themselves as angels, or at least paladins. I wouldn't trust an excellent college student to regulate anything beyond the scale of a park, but I might trust a small jurisdiction that has proven itself compared to its neighbor as an excellent provider of governance services. // You seem idealistic. And that's quite a thing to say coming from someone who posted an article about anarchism. Yet the competitive forces inherent in anarchism are paradoxically pragmatic.
" I might trust a small jurisdiction that has prove itself..." OK; fine. Use that. Develop the idea. You notice that I never said what exact sort of regulation I would prefer. So your idea sounds fine to me so far (but who decides what qualifies as "a small jurisdiction that has proven itself" and to whom is this to be demonstrated? In anarchism, so leaders just arise spontaneously?). I do not specify exact regulatory regimes because yeah ---I actually had one. In the beginning I started as an economics theoriest by conceving of that plan. That is separate and I do not talk about it much anymore. Beyond that I just don't know. People need to get creative and figure this out. Your idea is a good place to start. (ps. no, I do not like what sort of things go on in colleges today either but ideally I mean... considering that there would be some educated persons in some good colleges then I am just saying that those ideal graduates of the ideal system would be equally divided between business and regulatory work because regulatory work would have that much esteem. So that is a kind of minor point. You could just create the "Institute of Higher Regulation" and start training persons in this --- before it is TOO LATE)
Whenever a people give the job of enforcement to another group of people, they thereby give up the right of self-governing. But any time a group of people arrogates to themselves the right to rule of steal from or in any way harm a self-governing people, they must resist them with force or give up the right to freedom. Either way, the invasive group take their freedom from them, whether or not they conquer them. For the act of self-defense is also permission to commit violence. It may be preferable to being conquered, but not an absolute good. A sword that can kill others is also capable of killing yourself. Violence always begets violence.
This is a really important point, Jesse. And we need to think carefully about the institutional rules and their incentives as we seek to design local alternatives to Leviathan states. So, for example, if we outsource the job of enforcement to another group in a competitive marketplace for such services, there is hopefully a competitor or two that will take our custom if we are displeased with the initial arrangement. Hobbes's argument is essentially that Leviathan power arrests tit-for-tat violence. My counterargument would be that there are diminishing returns to investment in violence relative to cooperation. And enforcement agencies would have stronger incentives to resolve their conflicts rather than maintain legal or actual tit for tat.
Even in tit-for-tat situations people often seek mediated resolution, I’m thinking of the McCoy-Hatfield feud, a documentary I watched said that they were always taking each other to court in addition to the fighting. I think many people will choose free market arbitration over violence.
I understand your pint, but my underlying assumption is that people are not nonviolent. Violence will occur in any group larger than zero. I sort of like the old saying, there are three kinds of people in the world. Those that can count and those who can't. I add, anyone can count.
It's estimated that the first species of humans evolved about 2 ½ million years ago, and our species has existed for more than 300,000 years. The first government is said to have been established in Sumer (Mesopotamia) about 6,500 years ago. More than 1,000 years passed before the next government was established. I don't know how much time passed before a majority of the world's population lived under one government or another, but it seems clear that for much more than 99% of the time humans have existed, they existed without governments, and for more than 98% of the time our species has existed most have lived without governments. The evidence indicates that humans can survive without governments.
Great comment, John. In the interests of combating a steel man, some -- like Hobbes -- argue that a Leviathan power mutes the violence of all against all. I suspect that this has mixed anthropological truth, though I would also argue that our forebears were definitely violent and tribes would decimate competing tribes prior to settled agriculture and subsequently, the age of empire. Could empires have had some stabilizing effect? I suppose so. But we must not confuse empire with civilization. And indeed, peaceful civilization is possible (indeed, more probable) without a monopoly on violence. So governance without governments. Rules without rulers. (James C. Scott is excellent on these matters.)
Hobbes lacked access to modern anthropology, so his claim in “Leviathan” that a state of nature is a war of all against all in which life is “nasty, brutish, and short” is understandable. I'm no authority on anthropology, but I've read a few books on the subject. Reading about primitive societies helps understand what prehistoric societies without governments were like. Some such societies still exist, or at least did in the 20th century. Those I read about were in remote forested locations in government-controlled territory. However, government agents left those societies alone, perhaps because they thought the costs of interfering with them weren't worth the benefits. As I recall, tribes in New Guinea sometimes fought each other, but their fighting was much less destructive than modern warfare. Most societies were internally peaceful, but at least one wasn't: the Jivaro (aka the headhunters of the Amazon). Jivaro “society,” if it can be called that, typically consisted of widely separated households, which were the homes of three married adults: one man and two women. That arrangement resulted from there being twice as many Jivaro women as men, because the men tended to kill each other. In contrast, the Mbuti, a pygmy hunter-gather group living in a Congo rain forest, were entirely peaceful. They didn't fight with neighbors or among themselves. Differing religions seemed to account for the stark contrast between the Jivaro and the Mbuti. The former believed one could pay a shaman to put a curse on an enemy. Any misfortune that befell a Jivaro man was believed to be the result of that curse. The injured party would often kill the man suspected to have bought the curse. The Mbuti's benign religion involved worshiping the forest. No one could interfere with them because they could quickly disappear into the forest to evade pursuers. I was surprised to learn they were explicit anarchists. They were familiar with government and disliked it. Any person who wanted to rule another person was by their definition not a Mbuti.
We can make volunteer based circles using collective intelligence systems. We cannot start off right away as anarchy. We must prove it can work.
We can use collective swarm intelligence systems to get there.
"We cannot start off right away as anarchy."
No, we cannot. Hence, Assymptotic Anarchism. https://underthrow.substack.com/p/asymptotic-anarchism-for-anti-authoritarians
"We must prove it can work."
In one respect, that's a tautology. In another respect, we have to figure out how to become counterpower so we can enjoy our experiments. But remember Hasnas's admonition: "If you want the strongest argument for anarchy, simply remove your self-imposed blinders and look around."
"We can use collective swarm intelligence systems to get there." To that I would turn your words back on you, that is, "We must prove it can work."
Depends the flavor of anarchy you want. Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. Volunteering to be part of a society where the people make their own rules can exist within the realm of anarchy. Such as Leaderless, a concept network state without leaders.
https://youtu.be/pwNId_vuwPM?si=yjvwxvkToKMCGQDE
Did you read the article? The first line is: "I am presenting an argument for anarchy in the true sense of the term—that is, a society without government, not a society without governance. There is no such thing as a society without governance. A society with no mechanism for bringing order to human existence is oxymoronic; it is not “society” at all."
Also, "Volunteering to be part of a society where the people make their own rules can exist within the realm of anarchy." It's called panarchy, which we discuss here: https://underthrow.substack.com/p/panarchy-the-state-20
And here: https://underthrow.substack.com/p/the-big-forgotten-idea
And here: https://underthrow.substack.com/p/panarchy-a-summary
Also rules without rulers:
https://underthrow.substack.com/p/towards-rules-without-rulers
And the first thing one must do with the economy is REGULATE it. Below is a 'Section' heading:
https://silverman.substack.com/s/econo-postings
I wish I could agree with this point. Alas.
Still, I invite you to make a tidy case instead of sending readers to a series of articles.
I'm saying short of anarchy. You cannot just drop the economic system and the economic sytsem that we know of is some form of capitalism. But a regulated one. (which is to say you need a new kind of capitalism, what I will call "people's capitalism," and that is what must be introduced. Beyond the current sort of "regulation." This is the next phase of capitalism but it is a shame that nobody wants to support regulation of an intelligent sort. No "private" ownership. Intervention must not be ruled out automatically. New interventions are possible but are blocked by "free market" ideology.)
I see. I think you're right about that. Most of the developed world is crony capitalism/state capitalism, which grows out of regulated markets.
all the "markets" are regulated. That is not even in question. You cannot have the present form of capitalism. The point is not that it is regulated or non-regulated. It is promoted as non-regulated. But what is needed is INTELLIGENT regulation, a whole different approach and a whole different level of regulation where there is a committee or a board that has extensive authority, and government support, to investigate and determine which regulations (which is to say which sort of governance) need to be instituted, or, in some cases maybe little or no regulation. The kind of regulation we have now assumes that there is NO regulation that is really needed and then sneaks in some kind of inadequate thing (which may include much more regulation than their ideology calls for but this sort of inadequate regulation will still be there even if it makes but little sense. Once you replace the bad regulation with a new wave of intelligent regulation according to the "people's capitalism" model there may even be LESS overall --I don't know off hand; nobody likes my theory so I gave up on trying o work al lthe details out!!!!# I suppose the main problem would be who does the regulating if not government. It would need to be truly a major program. I am talking about an economy where excellent college students woudl either go into regulation or the business world---both being about equal in importance to our economy)
With all due respect, this is silly. I would recommend you spend some time with the dynamics of public choice economics before committing to the idea of the One True Way, which not only doesn't exist, but concentrated enforcement authorities who think they know what "intelligent regulation" are dangerous because they fancy themselves as angels, or at least paladins. I wouldn't trust an excellent college student to regulate anything beyond the scale of a park, but I might trust a small jurisdiction that has proven itself compared to its neighbor as an excellent provider of governance services. // You seem idealistic. And that's quite a thing to say coming from someone who posted an article about anarchism. Yet the competitive forces inherent in anarchism are paradoxically pragmatic.
I rather thought it was probably "public choice" that was silly. I don't really 'get' that one. But recommend a link and I will give it a try. Max.
" I might trust a small jurisdiction that has prove itself..." OK; fine. Use that. Develop the idea. You notice that I never said what exact sort of regulation I would prefer. So your idea sounds fine to me so far (but who decides what qualifies as "a small jurisdiction that has proven itself" and to whom is this to be demonstrated? In anarchism, so leaders just arise spontaneously?). I do not specify exact regulatory regimes because yeah ---I actually had one. In the beginning I started as an economics theoriest by conceving of that plan. That is separate and I do not talk about it much anymore. Beyond that I just don't know. People need to get creative and figure this out. Your idea is a good place to start. (ps. no, I do not like what sort of things go on in colleges today either but ideally I mean... considering that there would be some educated persons in some good colleges then I am just saying that those ideal graduates of the ideal system would be equally divided between business and regulatory work because regulatory work would have that much esteem. So that is a kind of minor point. You could just create the "Institute of Higher Regulation" and start training persons in this --- before it is TOO LATE)