From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 14:57:41 MST
--- Rafal Smigrodzki <rms2g@virginia.edu> wrote:
> Daniel Ust wrote:
>
> > All archist systems, after all, ultimately arose from anarchic
> ones.)
>
> ### Exactly. Why do anarchies inevitably evolve into states?
Because most anarchies in history have evolved in non-Bayesian
environments.
>
> -----
>
> > 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?
Those who take personal responsibility for maintaining a stateless
condition.
>
> ------
> > 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.
Iceland was not depopulated. What it was that made it stable was the
fact that it was so culturally and ethnically homogenous that all
members of the society believed, more or less, in the validity of the
way in which the society governed itself (or failed to govern).
This is one reason why I generally oppose the free-immigration wing of
libertarians. A high trust libertarian society can only remains stable
so long as all or most members are high trust individuals, where
they've bought into the validity of the high trust condition and the
demand for personal responsibility it entails.
Allowing free immigration from any polity, no matter what level of
trust is prevalent in such societies, dilutes and destabilizes the high
trust conditions necessary for stable functional libertarianism.
> >
> > 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.
Pre-Civil War US was 10% enslaved, where 10% of the population was
enslaved 100% of the time to the private sector. Today, 100% of the
population is enslaved 46% of the time to the public sector, resulting
in 46% total slavery in our society in the US (and 77% in Max M's
society). We are not more free, we are simply more equitably enslaved.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:04 MST