Statism vs. Anarchism

[Essos]

Peaceful in terms of engaging in warfare perhaps. The state is still inherently a violently coercive entity, which uses its monopoly on the use of force to excercise powers which individuals lack, and logically cannot delegate to a higher entity.

Yes, and that's a good thing.

DO you read the things you post before you post them?

It's a good thing that states have powers which cannot be possessed by individuals, and therefore cannot be logically delegated to another party by any individual or group of individuals? That makes perfect sense that does.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Hail Statan.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Yes, and that's a good thing.

DO you read the things you post before you post them?

It's a good thing that states have powers which cannot be possessed by individuals, and therefore cannot be logically delegated to another party by any individual or group of individuals? That makes perfect sense that does.

Yes, it does.

Really, NA says it best.

The original question posed is one hard to answer in any cohesive way, due largely to the part that the one posing it fails to propertly define the terminology and structure for it. He asks by what method does the US derive its jurisdiction. He fails to address exactly what he means by "jurisdiction". On the face of it, the question is easily answered, the enabling statute of federal courts can be found in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330-1369 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441-1452. These statutes define subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction (a more elaborate discussion of venue is not really relevant as venue is a more artificial construct not really relevant to judicial jurisdiction).

However I doubt that this is what the opposition means, and instead I believe is refering more to the political philosophical construct of "legitimacy". As such, the more appropriate question is, from what does the U.S. government derive its legitimacy. From a philosophical standpoint, the government is defined as the entity that has the sole legitimate use of force (exceptions for things like self-defense notwithstanding). So for the government to BE a government, the fundamental aspect of it is that it has the ability to use force, free of legal restraints, to effectuate its goals.

Thus the paramount discussion centers on the idea of what makes an agent of the government different from a criminal. An individual who shows up at my door demanding money, and who takes me hostage when I refuse is an extortionist, and a kidnapper. Unless he's the government, in which case, he's merely the tax man. Why does that government have that authority? Well from a simple point, it has that authority because it has the power to enforce it. The tax man is armed, and has many other armed coworkers to enforce that point. So HOW they can do it is a moot point, they simply can.

The broader question becomes then why should we, as a collective society allow that to occur? Thus I propose the rather..poorly defined and somewhat cryptic question posed be modified slightly to state instead "why should the collective society tolerate governmental use of force, and the coercive effect of having that force, when other elements of the society are not permitted to do so?"

Generally that argument falls into two "camps", the statists, and the anarchists. The statists (me, in this instance) and the anarchists (the opposition) who argue that use of force by any entity is no more or less acceptable if not consented to. The general theory of the opposition is "volunteerism", which denotes generally that all human interaction should be fundamentally voluntary, and that the government does not have a right to use force if not consented to.

Statists on the other hand take a varied view. Some social contract theorists argue that implicit concent of the goverened does exist. That the continued existance within that government is a tacit consent to its methods. Others, like Hume, do not overly concern themselves with "consent" as much as a more utilitarian perspective. It exists, because it's the best method.

In the end, while social contract theory makes valid points, it does have a somewhat fatal flaw. If I explicitly reject the use of force, I'm still subject to it. Even if I try to leave the country, I'm still subject to its authority until I do so, no matter how much I state I don't wish to be.

In the end, anarchists tend to use a "natural law" argument in contrary to the nation of the state. They argue terms of legitimacy, illegitimacy, use of force, coercion, and the rejection of it other than when explicitly agreed to, under natural rights arguments.

I find such arguments not only not compelling, but fundamentally flawed. Anarchists inevitably fail to point out the exact source of these "natural laws" when confronted. They fail to show their origins, their purpose, or that they even exist at all. Rather they're some set of guiding principles that exist "in the ether" so to speak. They are because, apparently, they are. Because they say so. It's uncompelling and flawed. Indeed, the only way to properly address what "natural laws" exist is to look at how human society functioned in its Hobbsian "state of nature". A state Hobbes himself described as "nasty, poor, brutish and short". The state of nature is anarchy. It's a state of "war of man against man". And it's a war the opposition would have us return to, under the guise of hopelessly deluded idealism, and philosophical hand wringing about "legitimacy of force". But philosophy must yeild to pragmatism. And theory that relies on propositions routinely disproven aren't worth the ink the print them.

Indeed, the sum total of human social evolution can be seen as, often, a way away from that system. Societies evolved for a reason, heirarchies rise because of it. The seminal work on the theory is, of course, Hobbes' Leviathan, and he lays out quite well the origin, and, indeed, the NEED for such a structure. The opposition's interpretation of anarchy relies on such a patchwork of private enterprises, deregulated militias in the guise of "private security" and some form of good will charity to prevent the collapse into this state of nature that it requires one to come up with some childish fantasy land.

Indeed, the only hope against such a society, such a place of constant war, IS the leviathan. Society needs a leadership heirarchy in order to function. Indeed, the evolution of heirarchy is inevitable. This anarchist dream world of the opposition ends the minute the man with the most guns decides he wants to be in charge.

With that said, the only question becomes, what is the best form of it? If we accept, as I contend, that some authority is not only required, but naturally evolving, the only question remains, by what form do we wish it to take?

And in the end, a simple Hume like utilitarianism is the best. If society exists, if the hegemon exists, to keep us from war of man against man, what other purposes should it serve, what makes one "better" than the other? The answer of course, is the one that provides the most benefit to the subjects. Benefit being, in this instance, the one that best provides an opportunity for success, for happiness, and for health. The one that best allows the subjects to be peaceful, happy, and safe, in the aggregate. Not for everyone, of course, but this is not a failing of the system, so much as it is a failing of volume. Too many people exist with few enough resources, and challenges in that resource allocation. Moreover, fantastical systems that, on paper, that proport to do better than the current, have not been born out (indeed, systems like socialism which MAY fulfill those goals better are even FURTHER from the goal of the opposition).

Democratic peace theorists like David Bremmer have put for the idea that stable, long lasting military and economic peace is the best way to achieve those goals. Which makes stable, democratic nations the ones which best effectuate a system that provides the most benefit to all in the aggregate.

In short, the US government derives its legitimacy because of two primary principles: the fact that not only is society necessary for the continued prosperity of humanity, but its evolution is not only natural, but practically inevitable, and one would have to basically wish into existance a set of conditions that would make it less so, and that the stable, liberal democratic system is the one that most effectuates peace, and is most likely to bring prosperity, happiness, and safety to its subject.

In short, it's legitimate, because pragmatically it's the best system there is that we've currently found. All philosophical handwringing from anarchists about "legitimacy" is just a game of find the red queen. A constant card shuffle to distract from the idea that their version of reality simple fails pragmatically. It make sa nice sound bite, complaining about the "evil government" who comes to your house and takes your hard earned money, no better than a common thief, but that's a distraction, a 3 card monty to distract you from the idea that in the end, all their philosophy is is hot air, complaining about one system while failing to propose one in any way workable.

And as I said, philosophy always must yield to pragmatism.

[Valourium]

It really depends on how you achieve each one. You could gradually adjust the population into anarchism by creating a slightly authoritarian state, then slowly loosing the grip from the government and disbanding a few laws at a time. The majority of people will then be accustomed to how to behave civilized, and what they should or should not do. Then if anyone slips up in anarchism, the mistake can be corrected.

But honestly, I do not believe, and please excuse how expected this sounds, that anarcho capitalism would work at all. Period. Anarcho communism at least creates a sense that working together is required, so no one man will try to become more powerful than others, but rather workers will make sure that does not happen.

It would still be a very risky thing to do, but I believe that anarchism would be better if it could be achieved in such an orderly fashion as I described. If that cannot happen, then statism is the way to go.

[Twilliamson]

they are both pretty shitty

[The Steel Magnolia]

they are both pretty shitty

They're also a binary choice.

[Essos]

DO you read the things you post before you post them?

It's a good thing that states have powers which cannot be possessed by individuals, and therefore cannot be logically delegated to another party by any individual or group of individuals? That makes perfect sense that does.

Yes, it does.

Really, NA says it best.

The original question posed is one hard to answer in any cohesive way, due largely to the part that the one posing it fails to propertly define the terminology and structure for it. He asks by what method does the US derive its jurisdiction. He fails to address exactly what he means by "jurisdiction". On the face of it, the question is easily answered, the enabling statute of federal courts can be found in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330-1369 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441-1452. These statutes define subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction (a more elaborate discussion of venue is not really relevant as venue is a more artificial construct not really relevant to judicial jurisdiction).

However I doubt that this is what the opposition means, and instead I believe is refering more to the political philosophical construct of "legitimacy". As such, the more appropriate question is, from what does the U.S. government derive its legitimacy. From a philosophical standpoint, the government is defined as the entity that has the sole legitimate use of force (exceptions for things like self-defense notwithstanding). So for the government to BE a government, the fundamental aspect of it is that it has the ability to use force, free of legal restraints, to effectuate its goals.

Thus the paramount discussion centers on the idea of what makes an agent of the government different from a criminal. An individual who shows up at my door demanding money, and who takes me hostage when I refuse is an extortionist, and a kidnapper. Unless he's the government, in which case, he's merely the tax man. Why does that government have that authority? Well from a simple point, it has that authority because it has the power to enforce it. The tax man is armed, and has many other armed coworkers to enforce that point. So HOW they can do it is a moot point, they simply can.

The broader question becomes then why should we, as a collective society allow that to occur? Thus I propose the rather..poorly defined and somewhat cryptic question posed be modified slightly to state instead "why should the collective society tolerate governmental use of force, and the coercive effect of having that force, when other elements of the society are not permitted to do so?"

Generally that argument falls into two "camps", the statists, and the anarchists. The statists (me, in this instance) and the anarchists (the opposition) who argue that use of force by any entity is no more or less acceptable if not consented to. The general theory of the opposition is "volunteerism", which denotes generally that all human interaction should be fundamentally voluntary, and that the government does not have a right to use force if not consented to.

Statists on the other hand take a varied view. Some social contract theorists argue that implicit concent of the goverened does exist. That the continued existance within that government is a tacit consent to its methods. Others, like Hume, do not overly concern themselves with "consent" as much as a more utilitarian perspective. It exists, because it's the best method.

In the end, while social contract theory makes valid points, it does have a somewhat fatal flaw. If I explicitly reject the use of force, I'm still subject to it. Even if I try to leave the country, I'm still subject to its authority until I do so, no matter how much I state I don't wish to be.

In the end, anarchists tend to use a "natural law" argument in contrary to the nation of the state. They argue terms of legitimacy, illegitimacy, use of force, coercion, and the rejection of it other than when explicitly agreed to, under natural rights arguments.

I find such arguments not only not compelling, but fundamentally flawed. Anarchists inevitably fail to point out the exact source of these "natural laws" when confronted. They fail to show their origins, their purpose, or that they even exist at all. Rather they're some set of guiding principles that exist "in the ether" so to speak. They are because, apparently, they are. Because they say so. It's uncompelling and flawed. Indeed, the only way to properly address what "natural laws" exist is to look at how human society functioned in its Hobbsian "state of nature". A state Hobbes himself described as "nasty, poor, brutish and short". The state of nature is anarchy. It's a state of "war of man against man". And it's a war the opposition would have us return to, under the guise of hopelessly deluded idealism, and philosophical hand wringing about "legitimacy of force". But philosophy must yeild to pragmatism. And theory that relies on propositions routinely disproven aren't worth the ink the print them.

Preface, I'm personally a Minarchist for practicality.

Edited for the bits I'm concerning myself with.

SO, firstly, NA does get it at least partly correct, in that anarchism is generally concerned with volunteerism over coercive force. Unfortunately, he takes a left turn in the next paragraph that deals with anarchism, when he begins referring to natural laws.

I'm honestly not sure how to respond to the rest of what he said directly, because I've never heard an anarchist claim that a non-state would be governed by natural laws. I'm not sure what he's trying to say or get at with this argument.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

Some dude decides to start making trouble in your perfect anarchist society. How do you deal with him without the threat or use of force?

Why is it a requirement that we not use threat or use of force? Non-aggression principle doesn't disallow use of force after all, just initiation of force.

Leaving aside the inherent dumbness of the non-aggression principle, "trouble" does not necessarily equate to the initiation of force. Answer the question.

[Essos]

Why is it a requirement that we not use threat or use of force? Non-aggression principle doesn't disallow use of force after all, just initiation of force.

Leaving aside the inherent dumbness of the non-aggression principle, "trouble" does not necessarily equate to the initiation of force. Answer the question.

If they're not threatening or initiating force against you, they're not making trouble. You're going to have to come up with trouble that applies to a society without a state that isn't violent in nature.

Also, amuse me by explaining the inherent dumb qualities of the non-aggression principle.

[Cameroi]

you know, i read that as satanism vs anarchism. but i still think economic hegemony is a bigger satan then the state.

[Nicer potlimitomaha]

I'd have to choose statism, as loads of laws are better than none.

Basicly this.

[Anarchos]

Autonomy and Horizontalism sounds like "order" to me.

statism =/= originator of morality or order.

Some dude decides to start making trouble in your perfect anarchist society. How do you deal with him without the threat or use of force?

Anarchism isn't strictly pacifist.

Self-defense/ostracism/etc.

No one says an anarchist society would be "perfect" or utopian.

For any frequently asked questions: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ ... rchist-faq

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ ... orks#toc41

[Sociobiology]

Leaving aside the inherent dumbness of the non-aggression principle, "trouble" does not necessarily equate to the initiation of force. Answer the question.

If they're not threatening or initiating force against you, they're not making trouble. You're going to have to come up with trouble that applies to a society without a state that isn't violent in nature.

Also, amuse me by explaining the inherent dumb qualities of the non-aggression principle.

what if their definition of force is different than yours? Worse what if they don't share your non-aggression principle. Now if you can impose your beliefs on them then you are no better than a state, worse actually since you lack universal public laws, rights, courts, elections, and specialists that mitigate the harm a state can do.

[Sociobiology]

Some dude decides to start making trouble in your perfect anarchist society. How do you deal with him without the threat or use of force?

Anarchism isn't strictly pacifist.

Self-defense/ostracism/etc.

but without laws and rights you can be ostracized and thus have your property ceased for any reason the community sees fit. After all the community decides if you have rights.
you a creating a tiny isolationist community without any advanced technology.

No one says an anarchist society would be "perfect" or utopian.

or functional.

For any frequently asked questions: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ ... rchy-works

except this is not actually based on any empirical work so it is meaningless. it pure opinion and guesswork just like Heinlein's citizen soldier society.

[Ireases]

Why do you say that?

Minimal government, laissez faire capitalism, and lots of gun totting maniacs killing each other to stop each other. Yep you would love it there.

How original.

[Anarchos]

but without laws and rights you can be ostracized and thus have your property ceased for any reason the community sees fit. After all the community decides if you have rights.
you a creating a tiny isolationist community without any advanced technology.

The community runs on decentralization and consensus and direct democracy. There are "laws" and "rights" semantically.

or functional.

Is that supposed to be an insult? You should atleast look into its historical pragmatism before using a pointless strawman.

except this is not actually based on any empirical work so it is meaningless. it pure opinion and guesswork just like Heinlein's citizen soldier society.

Wrong. Define "empirical work". You probably didn't even skim through it. Granted that particular work is more of an essay for someone inquring about anarchism. Keep in mind anarchism is a 200 year old politically philosophy with tons of academic influence.

[Asgarnnia]

Any human and social activity in which individuals act without external coercion is anarchy. The general societal state known as "Anarchy" is only where those situations reach near universal presence. Criticism of "anarchy" is criticism of individual activity and thought.

All decisions you take which are not enforced by the state or by another individual or group is a form of excercising anarchism, because you are using your personal set of rules (either moral, biological or sheer preference) instead of those coerced upon you by the state (ignoring the whole discussion of just how independent are those factors in the first place).

Democracy is anarchy, because you take part in decisions which affect your personal universe. It is not perfect anarchy, because in all modern democracies, your status as citizen (and the forceful duties it implies) is automatic: you never choose to be a citizen, you never choose to sign the social contract. Unless you choose to stay away from everyone as an hermit (a choice which would destroy most philosofical classifications of you as a human), you are forced to pay taxes, you are forced to obey laws which you did not choose. All the land you cross belongs to the state, all the humans you find are "citizens", compatriots. However, the more democratic a society is (the more referendums, the more local assemblies, the more self-management in companies) the closer you are to an anarchic state of society, even if the state remains present.

Anarchy is not a binary state. It is a gradual state of being, based on the principle that humans are not retards, and that the individual, as a person, is paramount in choosing his actions and his interactions with others.

[Sociobiology]

but without laws and rights you can be ostracized and thus have your property ceased for any reason the community sees fit. After all the community decides if you have rights.
you a creating a tiny isolationist community without any advanced technology.

The community runs on decentralization and consensus and direct democracy. There are "laws" and "rights" semantically.

so you are limiting yourself to very small communities thus giving up on most of technology.
Also we write down laws so everyone knows what is expected of them, and so terms are clearly defined. And we have courts to get impartiality.
Is preaching a religion different than the rest of the community legal?
is shooting a man to death because he shot your brother years ago legal?
how about firing a shotgun into a crowd of people to stop a thief?
is a man sleeping with your wife punishable? Is trying to stop him justified?
gray areas places were both parties see themselves as the victim this is were courts excel.

oh and their are two ways to work direct democracy majority rules, which is worse than most current states, and complete consensus which is non-functional in large sizes.

centralization is necessary for large societies due to how the human brain processes information, It cannot keep track of the vital information on thousands of people so it resorts to stereotyping when deciding things like trust and first impressions, the only way around that is with specialists creating, assessing, and enforcing laws. which is why EVERY large society (bigger than a few hundred individuals) uses them. some of the ones on the low end get away with very few specialists (see cheifdoms and tribes) but they still use them. And technology requires huge societies. it take hundreds of thousands of people trusting each other without ever meeting, to make an MRI machine.

Is that supposed to be an insult? You should atleast look into its historical pragmatism before using a pointless strawman.

what historical pragmatism the only places anarchism has been used were band societies. Non-aggression has never been successfully implemented on a societal scale.

Define "empirical work"

science. peer reviewed literature
actual anthropology, archaeology, psychology, any of these would be sufficient.

You probably didn't even skim through it.

actually I did that's how I knew it was not based on any empirical research or knowledge.
It reads like the worst forms of here-say revisionist history, sweeping generalization without the slightest hint of data, with complete inconsistency of terms or explanation of said inconsistency.

Keep in mind anarchism is a 200 year old politically philosophy with tons of academic influence.

so is communism and democracy, whats your point.
And saying anarchism has academic influence is stretching the term until is would also apply to a harry potter book.

want to see what a real researched book on societal organization looks like I suggest better angels of out nature . by Pinker.

edit; I sorry the quote boxes ate most of your text accidentally. I had to copy paste it back in.

[Essos]

If they're not threatening or initiating force against you, they're not making trouble. You're going to have to come up with trouble that applies to a society without a state that isn't violent in nature.

Also, amuse me by explaining the inherent dumb qualities of the non-aggression principle.

what if their definition of force is different than yours? Worse what if they don't share your non-aggression principle. Now if you can impose your beliefs on them then you are no better than a state, worse actually since you lack universal public laws, rights, courts, elections, and specialists that mitigate the harm a state can do.

Immaterial. For the purposes of the non-aggression principle, force is fairly clearly defined. There is some debate on the part of things such as abortion, as to whether or not they violate th enon-aggression principle. Actual physical violence, destruction of property, or similar acts, are not acceptable under the NAP.

The NAP is not a coercive philosophy. You may either abide by it, or not. The only reason not to abide by it is if you desire to assault, rob, or otherwise use force against people. Is it your intent to state that humans are naturally violent and unruly people, who only operate in cooperative societies due to the threat of force by the state?

[Corageland]

I prefer Statism, i know an anarchist who has provided a few good examples of working anarchist areas, but mass-anarchism would generally not work in my opinion. Too many people have violent tendencies and without state police forces and prisons they would run rampant, mass-murderers would be in significant numbers same as any other major crime. And i personally could never trust anyone i didn't know intimately. That may just be my paranoia, but i believe no reasonably sized human society in the current era could survive becoming part of an anarchist society. Self-destruction happens often enough as it is.

[Distruzio]

Anarchism.

The State is an institution run by gangs of murderers, plunderers, and thieves, surrounded by sycophants, propagandists, willing executioners, and fools. It is an institution that corrupts man's soul and taints everything it touches. It is anti-moral.

[Maurepas]

Statism. I don't think I'm going to be in charge of the lynch mob.

[Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys]

Anarchy as small scale social collectivism is possible and even desirable and allows dynamic familial interactions.

However beyond a certain level (I'd estimate an arbitary 500+ population) familial relationships become strained and there is a need for more statist processes in the form of committees which naturally develop into representative councils. once you go beyond 2000 members, Statism asserts itself in hierarchical representative forms...

So fission isn't a thing?

[Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys]

Why would an anarchist society be nation-sized? Why should it be? Why not have a confederation of small communities?



I choose to make actual arguments.

If you turned the whole US into small isolated anarchist pockets each a confederation of it's own who would pay for the education? Who would pay for the national military? Who would pay for government run hospitals? You can't expect small confederations to run the 5.6 trillion dollar government and pay all the debt we owe to China as well.

"Arguments" like this one are exactly what Gramsci meant by cultural hegemony.

[Genivaria]

If you turned the whole US into small isolated anarchist pockets each a confederation of it's own who would pay for the education? Who would pay for the national military? Who would pay for government run hospitals? You can't expect small confederations to run the 5.6 trillion dollar government and pay all the debt we owe to China as well.

"Arguments" like this one are exactly what Gramsci meant by cultural hegemony.

Relevance?