From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Wed Nov 13 2002 - 13:16:54 MST
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> --- 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.
### Elaborate?
>
>>
>> -----
>>
>>> 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.
### Are there enough of them? Won't they become corrupted by the power they
have? History seems to say no to both questions.
-----
>
> 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).
### Good points. Rather special circumstances are needed for a non-primitive
anarchy to exist
---- > > 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. ### Agreed. However, how do you insure the control of immigration, without some sort of coercive intervention? A system all but indistinguishable from a state will evolve as soon as there are enough citizens willing to stop immigration. Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:05 MST