From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Fri Nov 08 2002 - 17:14:32 MST
On Friday, November 08, 2002 5:18 PM Rafal Smigrodzki rms2g@virginia.edu
wrote:
>> So the problem becomes: How to create a
>> social structure where either there are no
>> centralizations of power, or where those who
>> control the centralized power can have no
>> effect on it's continued existence. This isn't
>> an easy job, but it's what is required for a
>> stable libertarian society. (You may achieve
>> a libertarian society without this, but it won't
>> be stable.)
>
> ### Very good points. I presented much the same
> arguments to Dan some time ago,
Years before you discussed this with me, I was thinking about this
topic. If you read my years earlier discussion of feedback loops in
society on this list, you'd see why I believe free market anarchy fares
best here in terms of long term stability.
In fact, the topic has been discussed in libertarian circles long before
me. Heck, Robert Nozick's _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_ (1973) is partly
about how an anarchist society might evolve into a minarchist one.
(Also, I believe only a very naive libertarian anarchist would believe
anarchism of any sort is perfectly stable. All archist systems, after
all, ultimately arose from anarchic ones.)
> but he's a tough cookie :-), still wants the glory
> of the anarchy, even if it won't last too long. Did
> you read our discussions on the demarchy?
> This would be one way of getting a bit closer
> to the ideal of freedom for all, without giving up
> the stability that a little bit of enslavement
> brings.
My point again: if you already have a state in place, then all that is
necessary is for that state to be corrupted. If you have no state in
place, then one must build one _first_ before it can be corrupted.
Anarchism put an extra layer of protection. I don't think it's perfect,
but it looks to be the best we can do this side of divinity.
Also, what exactly do you mean by "if it won't last too long"? The
Icelandic example lasted for longer than the United States has existed.
Depending on how you look at the American system, some would say the
Federal system ended with the Civil War. Also, I reckon most would
agree that America has certainly gone through many political changes and
the government has grown immensely since the founding.
Whether sortition -- or demarchy or whatever you want to call it --
would work is another matter. My belief is it's a band-aid solution.
As long as the government has the power, those who want it for whatever
reason will be attracted to it. Yes, sortition, limits on how laws are
originated, and the like might slow down the growth and abuse of power
for a while, but such limitations exist _now_ yet crafty people have
found ways of getting around them. I reckon they always will.
Also, less crafty and well meaning people too will see crises -- such as
the WTC attack -- as justification to set aside limits for a while.
Higgs details this process in his _Crisis and Leviathan_. Demarchy has
no real barrier to this. Free market anarchy has one, though not a
perfect one. (If you're going to attack it for not being perfect, then
show me any previous or potential (I mean workable here -- not just
anything you can dream up) system that is?)
Finally, in the long run, there is no such thing "a little bit of
enslavement." It's like a little bit of pregnancy. It grows and grows.
You are either free or a slave.
(Though I do not recommend Nozick's aforementioned book -- not because
of substantive disagreement, but because it's reads like he was taking
bong hits through the writing and editing process -- he brings up an
interesting story that might illustrate this here. Imagine you are a
slave in the typical sense: your master owns you, tells you what to do,
and beats you severely if you don't comply or make a mistake. Imagine
now, your master decides he will allow you a little free time, say, you
don't have to work for him on Sundays, and no longer punishes you with
beatings. Later on he allows you more free time, perhaps weekends and
evenings. Still later, he even allows you some input into what you will
do when you're working for him. He'll take your views into
consideration, but he still has final say. After a time, he decides to
let all the slaves to decide to advise him as a group on what tasks
should be done. Further on, he decides to let them vote, say, on tasks
he puts before them. He might say you have to pick cotton, but you and
the others decide how to organize this through voting. Still later,
there is no master, but the other slaves get to decide on what you do
through a vote. Finally, the slaves even allow you to vote in this
process. The question Nozick puts to the reader is this: Did you stop
being a slave at any of these points or do you still remain a slave even
at the final stage. My answer is you remain a slave under all the above
conditions because someone else always decides for you at each step,
regardless of your input or their limitations. (I'm not sure if I got
Nozick's steps exactly right here, but I feel the above gets the gist
across.))
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
"You wanna get high?" -- Towelie from "South Park"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:01 MST