Somalia

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
adios,

I never claimed that anyone on these board made that explicit claim. Shockingly enough, I have discussed anarchy and government in contexts other than 2+2. And if you think that the proposition "any government at all is better than no government at all" is uncommon amongst the general population's opinions about anarchy, I suggest you go take a survey.

elwood and bobman,

I've already conceded the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Earlier you wrote in part:

[ 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 ]

No statists on this board?? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

To my recollection the specific question of "is *any* form of anarchy better than *any* form of government" has never come up. I could he wrong. I have almost 10,000 posts, and I can't vouch for every post that has been made by every other poster on the subject. If some statist would like to produce a thread where they said something akin to "well certainly some kinds of anarchy would be better than some kinds of government" in a thread in which I was participating, I would be happy to concede my error. Such could very well be the case. I just can't think of any. As you can imagine, it's a pretty hard thing to search on around here (I did try though).

But in any event, I've already conceded the argument. The important part is that the statists around here have conceded that anarchy can indeed be better than government. As I said, I think that has enormous implications for these discussions.

[andyfox]

Points well-made and taken.

FWIW, I believe that Hobbes's idea that, in a state of nature life was brutish, nasty, and short (or whatever it was he said), is false. "Mainstream" political and economic thinkers have always assumed a "rational" man for whom government was rational and natural. (Kind of like your view of capitalism [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

I prescribe a copy of Stone Age Economics for all concerned. Followed by James C. Scott's Seeing Like a State.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
But in any event, I've already conceded the argument. The important part is that the statists around here have conceded that anarchy can indeed be better than government. As I said, I think that has enormous implications for these discussions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since it is a position that was never held on these boards "concession" is a misleading characterization. more importantly, it means there is no change in the statists position in these discussions, so the only possible "enormous implications" lie in a change in your not continuing to debate against positions that dont exist.(otherwise known as a strawman)

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
But in any event, I've already conceded the argument. The important part is that the statists around here have conceded that anarchy can indeed be better than government. As I said, I think that has enormous implications for these discussions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Admittedly I'm late to the party, but isn't this a pretty clear "This and more can be found in this months issue of DUUUUUUUH! Magazine" situation.

I'll be another "statist" to "concede" this point. I can absolutely think of certain governmental systems that would be clearly behind an AC system.

This isn't really new info, but it seems to give Boro a hard-on, and I'm all about making people happy.

Cody

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But in any event, I've already conceded the argument. The important part is that the statists around here have conceded that anarchy can indeed be better than government. As I said, I think that has enormous implications for these discussions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Admittedly I'm late to the party, but isn't this a pretty clear "This and more can be found in this months issue of DUUUUUUUH! Magazine" situation.

I'll be another "statist" to "concede" this point. I can absolutely think of certain governmental systems that would be clearly behind an AC system.

This isn't really new info, but it seems to give Boro a hard-on, and I'm all about making people happy.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for spoiling my lunch with that image.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
The war of all against all, where everyone engages in predation, were it to actually happen, has to be worse than any government, which at its very worst (I hope you'll agree) is of the form of war of a small ruling class against everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't appear to me that this is necessarily so, because the predation of all against all could be of a more restrained type: partially deterred, and significantly mitigated, by the power of all to resist; whereas the predation of a ruling class with a near-monopoly on weapons, money and force could result in wholesale slaughter, devastation and/or enslavement of the victimized and powerless group.

In the animal kingdom, predators generally choose their victims quite selectively, because if they are injured while attacking (even if they win that individual struggle), they may be crippled or infirmed by injuries incurred during their attack when the victim fights tooth and nail for its very life. This may later even cause the death of the injured predator (perhaps due to starvation).

So: a scenario compried of of all predators, does not necessarily imply that all will engage in predation recklessly, haphazardly or even very broadly.

Therefore, a scenario of all predators is not necessarily worse than a scenario of a certain predatory group endowed with unstoppable power preying at will upon other defenseless groups.

I would guess you may have merely overlooked this possibility in coming to your conclusion above.

[Borodog]

This is hilarious. Where were all of these claims that it's so obvious that laws, property rights, contracts, etc. were all no big deal under anarchy for the last 2 years?

[ QUOTE ]
He argues against government and then talks about 'his property' rights. The fact is without government you would have no property rights, no police force or court system to secure your 'rights'. -- bocablkr, 2+2 statist

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a serious risk with AC, there's no cushion, no safety net, there's no rule-of-law because there is no law. -- Dick Tanner, 2+2 statist.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, you're free to associate with whomever you choose, and I'm free to round up more people and take you as my slave. -- Dick Tanner, would-be 2+2 slave-owner

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I said that under AC there would be no standards whatsoever! And not just accounting standards -- but no standards at all in society . . . Therefore, to summarize my position. In the "AC world", as I understand it, some processes will carry on, based on privately-determined rules and regulations, as they do now. However, social interaction and work itself will be extremely hampered (society itself might collapse), on account of the total lack of laws and regulations governing said society. -- Cyrus, 2+2 statist

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no such thing as "rights" in AC. -- natedogg, 2+2 statist

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But under AC there are no laws of the land, no state government ensuring that "self-ownership" is not violated. -- natedogg, 2+2 statist

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
AC has been disproven. The natural state of just about everything in the universe starts at and ends with randomness and chaos...anarchy. Copernicus, 2+2 statist

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Repsect for property cannot just arise out of thin air in an anarchist society. Government is necessary to culivate and protect the idea of property rights. -- Steven Bickford, 2+2 statist

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
A large society needs some sort of government to enforce basic laws. Otherwise, chaos erupts. -- iggmcfly, 2+2 statist

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Give up police, social security and national defense? . . . it would be a disaster. The nonviolent society ACers imagine, where property rights are respected . . . is a fantasy. AC land would descend into chaos almost before it began. -- LinusKS, 2+2 statist

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And who enforces the contracts when it's broken? Without the backing of absolute power to enforce their will, courts and laws eventually become powerless . . . -- Phil153, 2+2 statist

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
. . . I'm saying that the free market will not even be operating because there will be no security. -- ChrisV, 2+2 statist

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Without some centralized authority in place to control dramatic expressions of violence . . . there would be abject chaos and destruction very likely leading to the end of the human race. -- Smasharoo, 2+2 statist

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it seems pretty obvious that this would lead to chaos and violence once again (who would voluntarily go to court and voluntarily accept the ruling if they knew that their lives would be ruined by it??? The fact that the agreed to at the time of the contract does not mean that they will actually do it at this point) . . . -- Propertarian, 2+2 statist

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly-disputes will be decided violently outside of the court!!! -- Propertarian, 2+2 statist

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So how do they decide which court to hear the case in? Sounds like it'll devolve into chaos and violence. -- Dan., 2+2 statist

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the results of exactly one combination of search parameters on this topic. So, by all means, continue tripping all over yourselves making out that statists on this forum have never said that law, courts, property, contracts, social order and economic development could not exist in the absense of government. It doesn't really matter if you all aloofly now claim that you really never meant that at all. All that matters is that you've conceded the argument.

Oh, and I just remembered one other:

[ QUOTE ]
The problem that results is that we fail to create common law --- we fail to create reliable/predictible rules to govern our relations. -- elwoodblues, 2+2 statist

[/ QUOTE ]

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The war of all against all, where everyone engages in predation, were it to actually happen, has to be worse than any government, which at its very worst (I hope you'll agree) is of the form of war of a small ruling class against everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't appear to me that this is necessarily so, because the predation of all against all could be of a more restrained type: partially deterred, and significantly mitigated, by the power of all to resist; whereas the predation of a ruling class with a near-monopoly on weapons, money and force could result in wholesale slaughter, devastation and/or enslavement of the victimized and powerless group.

In the animal kingdom, predators generally choose their victims quite selectively, because if they are injured while attacking (even if they win that individual struggle), they may be crippled or infirmed by injuries incurred during their attack when the victim fights tooth and nail for its very life. This may later even cause the death of the injured predator (perhaps due to starvation).

So: a scenario compried of of all predators, does not necessarily imply that all will engage in predation recklessly, haphazardly or even very broadly.

Therefore, a scenario of all predators is not necessarily worse than a scenario of a certain predatory group endowed with unstoppable power preying at will upon other defenseless groups.

I would guess you may have merely overlooked this possibility in coming to your conclusion above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Predators must predate to survive. When all are predators, as Hobbes would have it, to not predate is to die. To predate leads to conflict and hence to death. Inevitably such a situation leads to a bloodbath. Hobbes understood this, which is why he was so obsessively afraid of anarchy, which he equates with the war of all against all. If you take his premise at face value, then the consequences are inevitable, and he would be correct; any government at all would be better than that, no matter how tyrannical and genocidal.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
AC has been disproven. The natural state of just about everything in the universe starts at and ends with randomness and chaos...anarchy. Copernicus, 2+2 statist

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll just respond to mine. Nothing in that statement is in any way supportive of a claim that I think the structure of AC itself, with contracts property rights etc, are in and of themselves untenable, or qualitatively worse than the worst possible government. I think AC, if it could ever get started, is at best less efficient than a state in many areas and unsustainable for long periods of time. That doesnt mean I would prefer a despotic state over AC if I had to live my life under them.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The war of all against all, where everyone engages in predation, were it to actually happen, has to be worse than any government, which at its very worst (I hope you'll agree) is of the form of war of a small ruling class against everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't appear to me that this is necessarily so, because the predation of all against all could be of a more restrained type: partially deterred, and significantly mitigated, by the power of all to resist; whereas the predation of a ruling class with a near-monopoly on weapons, money and force could result in wholesale slaughter, devastation and/or enslavement of the victimized and powerless group.

In the animal kingdom, predators generally choose their victims quite selectively, because if they are injured while attacking (even if they win that individual struggle), they may be crippled or infirmed by injuries incurred during their attack when the victim fights tooth and nail for its very life. This may later even cause the death of the injured predator (perhaps due to starvation).

So: a scenario compried of of all predators, does not necessarily imply that all will engage in predation recklessly, haphazardly or even very broadly.

Therefore, a scenario of all predators is not necessarily worse than a scenario of a certain predatory group endowed with unstoppable power preying at will upon other defenseless groups.

I would guess you may have merely overlooked this possibility in coming to your conclusion above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Predators must predate to survive. When all are predators, as Hobbes would have it, to not predate is to die. To predate leads to conflict and hence to death. Inevitably such a situation leads to a bloodbath. Hobbes understood this, which is why he was so obsessively afraid of anarchy, which he equates with the war of all against all. If you take his premise at face value, then the consequences are inevitable, and he would be correct; any government at all would be better than that, no matter how tyrannical and genocidal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hobbes isn't looking deeply enough.

Consider not only my argument, but also the animal kingdom. It goes on even though it is rife with predation.

edit: every living thing consumes some other living thing (or something that was once living) to survive. Yet the system does not collapse but rather flourishes as a whole.