Somalia

[andyfox]

Yes, I read the article, that's how I knew that there had been only 4 radios per 1,000 people.

I haven't participated in any of the A/C discussions/debates here; certainly I have not claimed that no government must be worse than any central government. But saying things have improved in Somalia because there is no central government has not been proved; nor would comparing Somalia today with the ghastly government it had previously convince me of the superiority of anarchy to government; nor would comparing Somalia's advances to those of the wonderfully governed other countries of Africa.

[Borodog]

Andy,

The point is not to convince you of the superiority of anarchy to government.

The point is to illustrate that many of the arguments against that possibility that are made by statists, which if true would make it literally *impossible* for there to be any improvement at all without a central government to create, judge and enforce law, which have been refuted so many times on theoretical grounds, are in fact refuted empirically as well. That obviously does not imply, and I do not claim that it implies, that any anarchy is better than any government. But the converse has been the universal claim of all statists I have ever discussed this with; that any government, no matter how tyrranical, is better than anarchy (Hobbes's State of Nature), since anarchy always, supposedly, leads inevitably to the perpetual war of all against all; homo homini lupus est; a man is men's wolf.

If the statists on this board are now willing to admit that it's no big deal to have property rights, law, courts, security of contract, economic development, an increasing standard of living, and on and on and on, without a central government, then they've made a GIGANTIC intellectual concession.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
But the converse has been the universal claim of all statists I have ever discussed this with; that any government, no matter how tyrranical, is better than anarchy (Hobbes's State of Nature), since anarchy always, supposedly, leads inevitably to the perpetual war of all against all; [censored] homini lupus est; a man is men's wolf.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you cite someone more modern than the 17th century who thinks this? I certainly don't believe this.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the converse has been the universal claim of all statists I have ever discussed this with; that any government, no matter how tyrranical, is better than anarchy (Hobbes's State of Nature), since anarchy always, supposedly, leads inevitably to the perpetual war of all against all; [censored] homini lupus est; a man is men's wolf.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you cite someone more modern than the 17th century who thinks this? I certainly don't believe this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believed it until I started reading this board.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the converse has been the universal claim of all statists I have ever discussed this with; that any government, no matter how tyrranical, is better than anarchy (Hobbes's State of Nature), since anarchy always, supposedly, leads inevitably to the perpetual war of all against all; [censored] homini lupus est; a man is men's wolf.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you cite someone more modern than the 17th century who thinks this? I certainly don't believe this.

[/ QUOTE ]

James Buchanan, Winston Bush, Thomas Hogarty, J. Patrick Gunning, Warren Samuels, William Craig Stubblebine and Gordon Tullock, to name a few. They were the authors of Explorations in the Theory of Anarchy and Further Explorations in the Theory of Anarchy. Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State and Utopia.

From Stringham:

[ QUOTE ]
Winston Bush wrote the pioneering article, "Individual welfare in anarchy'. His work, a later version of which was published in the Journal of Economic Theory (Bush and Mayer, 1974), provides a mathematical model of social interaction without a state. When people interact, they can choose to respect the other's property or to engage in predation. Bush argues that in a state of anarchy, individuals expend too many resources on predation, making both parties worse off. After the distribution of property rights under Hobbesian anarchy is established, agreeing on a common set of rules will be mutually beneficial. Although he favors society without rules, Bush believes that predation would prevail.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Gordon Tullock's "The edge of the jungle" advances the Winston Bush hypothesis and argues that cooperation would be limited under anarchy. Without government enforcement, long-term contracting and many other beneficial trades would not occur. People would spend too many resources engaging in opportunistic behavior, which would eventually lead to anarchy's demise.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
J. Patrick Gunning does not rule out ordered anarchy, but he believes that anarchy can only function at a primitive level. He believes that more advanced relations involving trade require external enforcement. In Gunning's words, "Even if trades are expected to be infinitely recurring, there may be no trade.' He gives an example of a pygmy and a giant who would be unable to make contracts unless a third party, a super-giant, entered the picture. The supergiant is an analogy for the government that prevents cheating.

[/ QUOTE ] (I'm not making this up; this was the guy's actual argument.)

[ QUOTE ]
James Buchanan analyzes the situation of Hobbesian anarchy as a prisoner's dilemma in "Before public choice." Buchanan believes that people will act opportunistically when given the incentive, and although they would be better off following common rules, they have no way to commit.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably my favorite from Explorations:

[ QUOTE ]
Thomas Hogarty tries to rule anarchy inferior on empirical grounds. He provides three case studies to support why we should have government. As his first example of anarchy, Hogarty points out that brown rats do not have government, and, in fact, often bite each other. As his second example, Hogarty discusses how the children in Lord of the Flies did not have government and engaged in many malicious acts. As his final example, Hogarty argues that a prisoner-of-war camp during the American Civil War provides an example of individual interaction without a state. Rather than acting cooperatively, the prisoners engaged in aggressive behavior.

[/ QUOTE ] (I'm not making that one up either.)

Basically, all but one of the others in Explorations support the Hobbesian view of anarchy as nasty, brutish and short, with any government being better than none. The one dissenter was Moss:

[ QUOTE ]
Not only may anarchy be possible, but Laurence Moss argues that the idea has a long history in American thinking. Although anarchist theory has been developed further in recent years, the idea that markets can function without government was popular in eighteenth-century America as well. Moss argues that eighteenth-century anarchists such as Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker were simply defending the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. Moss then discusses how this tradition has been picked up by Murray Rothbard and other modern free-market economists. Even though most people consider anarchism to be radical, Moss concludes, "Property anarchism is as American as apple pie!"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand was also an "any state is better than anarchy" type (she DESPISED the concept of anarchy, and her estate will release none of her works for republication in any work related to anarchy), and so might have been, although he never wrote on the subject, Ludwig von Mises. I always found it telling that Mises, who developed pretty much a theory of almost everything, never looked at the fundamental philosophical underpinnings of the state itself, or at market production of the goods and services of social order (law, conflict resolution, and security). I think he didn't because deep down he knew he wouldn't like what he found.

Interestingly, John Locke disagreed with Hobbes, and thought anarchy was clearly better than monarchy, but not better than democracy. But amazingly, all of the arguments he used against monarchy actually apply more to democracy (which he favored) and don't actually apply to anarchy at all.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the converse has been the universal claim of all statists I have ever discussed this with; that any government, no matter how tyrranical, is better than anarchy (Hobbes's State of Nature), since anarchy always, supposedly, leads inevitably to the perpetual war of all against all; [censored] homini lupus est; a man is men's wolf.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you cite someone more modern than the 17th century who thinks this? I certainly don't believe this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believed it until I started reading this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said "thinks" this. If you ever thought about it and came to the conclusion that the best anarchist system would be worse than the worst state system then you weren't thinking very clearly.

Its also not a claim that I have ever seen from any statist on these boards. It is a total strawman that boro keeps repeating. If he repeats it again without links he should join Nielsio on the bench.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the converse has been the universal claim of all statists I have ever discussed this with; that any government, no matter how tyrranical, is better than anarchy (Hobbes's State of Nature), since anarchy always, supposedly, leads inevitably to the perpetual war of all against all; [censored] homini lupus est; a man is men's wolf.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you cite someone more modern than the 17th century who thinks this? I certainly don't believe this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believed it until I started reading this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really believed that ANY possible state (think the worst possible government) would be better than ANY possible anarchic society (think the best possible anarchic state)?? I just find that so hard to believe.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd vote for Borodog over Kim Jong-il.

[/ QUOTE ]

a definite toss up

[/ QUOTE ]

BORO 4 MOD

[Borodog]

It's not a strawman. It's the inevitable logical result of the arguments that claim to show that law, property rights, and contract cannot exist in the absence of a coercive monopolist producer and enforcer thereof.

But apparently the statists on this board, including Copernicus, are now happy to concede that law, property rights, contract, and the social order and economic development that arises therefrom can all exist in the absence of governments. So there's nothing more to argue about.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the converse has been the universal claim of all statists I have ever discussed this with; that any government, no matter how tyrranical, is better than anarchy (Hobbes's State of Nature), since anarchy always, supposedly, leads inevitably to the perpetual war of all against all; [censored] homini lupus est; a man is men's wolf.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you cite someone more modern than the 17th century who thinks this? I certainly don't believe this.

[/ QUOTE ]

James Buchanan, Winston Bush, Thomas Hogarty, J. Patrick Gunning, Warren Samuels, William Craig Stubblebine and Gordon Tullock, to name a few. They were the authors of Explorations in the Theory of Anarchy and Further Explorations in the Theory of Anarchy. Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State and Utopia.

From Stringham:

[ QUOTE ]
Winston Bush wrote the pioneering article, "Individual welfare in anarchy'. His work, a later version of which was published in the Journal of Economic Theory (Bush and Mayer, 1974), provides a mathematical model of social interaction without a state. When people interact, they can choose to respect the other's property or to engage in predation. Bush argues that in a state of anarchy, individuals expend too many resources on predation, making both parties worse off. After the distribution of property rights under Hobbesian anarchy is established, agreeing on a common set of rules will be mutually beneficial. Although he favors society without rules, Bush believes that predation would prevail.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Gordon Tullock's "The edge of the jungle" advances the Winston Bush hypothesis and argues that cooperation would be limited under anarchy. Without government enforcement, long-term contracting and many other beneficial trades would not occur. People would spend too many resources engaging in opportunistic behavior, which would eventually lead to anarchy's demise.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
J. Patrick Gunning does not rule out ordered anarchy, but he believes that anarchy can only function at a primitive level. He believes that more advanced relations involving trade require external enforcement. In Gunning's words, "Even if trades are expected to be infinitely recurring, there may be no trade.' He gives an example of a pygmy and a giant who would be unable to make contracts unless a third party, a super-giant, entered the picture. The supergiant is an analogy for the government that prevents cheating.

[/ QUOTE ] (I'm not making this up; this was the guy's actual argument.)

[ QUOTE ]
James Buchanan analyzes the situation of Hobbesian anarchy as a prisoner's dilemma in "Before public choice." Buchanan believes that people will act opportunistically when given the incentive, and although they would be better off following common rules, they have no way to commit.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably my favorite from Explorations:

[ QUOTE ]
Thomas Hogarty tries to rule anarchy inferior on empirical grounds. He provides three case studies to support why we should have government. As his first example of anarchy, Hogarty points out that brown rats do not have government, and, in fact, often bite each other. As his second example, Hogarty discusses how the children in Lord of the Flies did not have government and engaged in many malicious acts. As his final example, Hogarty argues that a prisoner-of-war camp during the American Civil War provides an example of individual interaction without a state. Rather than acting cooperatively, the prisoners engaged in aggressive behavior.

[/ QUOTE ] (I'm not making that one up either.)

Basically, all but one of the others in Explorations support the Hobbesian view of anarchy as nasty, brutish and short, with any government being better than none. The one dissenter was Moss:

[ QUOTE ]
Not only may anarchy be possible, but Laurence Moss argues that the idea has a long history in American thinking. Although anarchist theory has been developed further in recent years, the idea that markets can function without government was popular in eighteenth-century America as well. Moss argues that eighteenth-century anarchists such as Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker were simply defending the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. Moss then discusses how this tradition has been picked up by Murray Rothbard and other modern free-market economists. Even though most people consider anarchism to be radical, Moss concludes, "Property anarchism is as American as apple pie!"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand was also an "any state is better than anarchy" type (she DESPISED the concept of anarchy, and her estate will release none of her works for republication in any work related to anarchy), and so might have been, although he never wrote on the subject, Ludwig von Mises. I always found it telling that Mises, who developed pretty much a theory of almost everything, never looked at the fundamental philosophical underpinnings of the state itself, or at market production of the goods and services of social order (law, conflict resolution, and security). I think he didn't because deep down he knew he wouldn't like what he found.

Interestingly, John Locke disagreed with Hobbes, and thought anarchy was clearly better than monarchy, but not better than democracy. But amazingly, all of the arguments he used against monarchy actually apply more to democracy (which he favored) and don't actually apply to anarchy at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to get into a pissing match here, but none of those quotes lead me to the conclusion that the authors argue that ANY state (i.e. the worst state) produces better results than ANY anarchic society.