From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 14:04:08 MST
Daniel Ust wrote:
> All archist systems, after all, ultimately arose from anarchic ones.)
### Exactly. Why do anarchies inevitably evolve into states?
-----
> 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.
### Who will stop a state from forming itself out of the dregs of the
society, attacking the honest anarchists around them?
------
> 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.
### Well, states in Europe and China existed in various guises for thousands
of years. Anarchy existed even longer but only at the technologically
marginal levels of development (50 000 years in Australia, etc.). So, yes,
some types of anarchy are quite stable, like the aquarium before you put
fish in it.
--------
>
> 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.
### Nothing ain't perfect, y'know.
>
> 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?)
### The key to stability is to have a clear standard you want to enforce and
a cohesive group powerful enough to do it. A demarchy with some
constitutional checks and balances (effective procedures for preventing the
representatives from exempting themselves from the laws they pass, forced
disclosure of information, a bicameral supermajority IQ-weighted Borda count
voting system, and others) should produce a much more stable and responsive
system than current democracies, and we do know that democracies can last
quite a long time, even in the absence of transparency and modern voting
methods.
---------
>
> 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.
### No, I absolutely disagree here. Sometimes you become freer, sometimes
you lose some freedom, but you almost never reach the extremes. If what you
said were true, societies would progress from ancient slave societies
downward, to, well, hard to tell what could be less free than an ancient
tyranny.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:03 MST