Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And of course the only possible solution to this problem is anarchy.


[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK AC is the only system where everyone has the bear the costs of their economic decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because that could NEVER EVER happen under terrible, evil government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government operates by definition by externalizing its costs, so no, it couldn't.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Umm, it's voluntary, you can stop doing service with some protection agency if you don't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you will still need protection, so its not really voluntary is it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's like saying that since you need food, buying food is not voluntary. Is your stomach "coercing" you into buying food?

[ QUOTE ]
In fact it's not unlike a tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. In the case of a tax, a monopolist claims that in order to protect you and your property from invasions and expropriations it must invade and expropriate your property. In the case of voluntary aquisition of protective services you make the decision that you need to protect your property from invasions and expropriations and you choose from among competing suppliers as to which you will patronize and which you will not patronize.

What you're saying is that because you have to pay to purchase a security system, buying a security system is not unlike being mugged.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the 'barrel of a gun' is a reference to the way government cooerces people into 'voluntarilly' paying taxes, ect.

YOu want to force people to go along with your morality even if they are not harming others or themselves because you invent cute definitions of what is harming others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, your "reference" is pointless until you accept that you can "coerce" people into doing things without using any physical force whatsoever. Then we can try to have a discussion about something that bears resemblance to reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. So you are incapable of having a rational discussion until others accept your pet definitions of words?

The only reason that you could possibly need to expand the definition of "coercion" to include things that are not the use of force or the threat of force is to justify the use and threat of force to achieve your own ends when others disagree with them. You should really have a chat with Arfinn Madsen about this. At least he is honest about his willingness to force others to his will.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And of course the only possible solution to this problem is anarchy.


[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK AC is the only system where everyone has the bear the costs of their economic decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because that could NEVER EVER happen under terrible, evil government.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much is Bush paying out of his own pocket for the war in Iraq? Or the members of congress who voted for it? Who's paying for the bridges to nowhere?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you point to the provisions in the Constitution that require any of these things?

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And of course the only possible solution to this problem is anarchy.


[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK AC is the only system where everyone has the bear the costs of their economic decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because that could NEVER EVER happen under terrible, evil government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government operates by definition by externalizing its costs, so no, it couldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I guess we have to take your word on that?

Re: AC and power
 

Taxation = externalizing costs. I'd love to see your plans for a government that doesn't tax.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And of course the only possible solution to this problem is anarchy.


[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK AC is the only system where everyone has the bear the costs of their economic decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because that could NEVER EVER happen under terrible, evil government.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much is Bush paying out of his own pocket for the war in Iraq? Or the members of congress who voted for it? Who's paying for the bridges to nowhere?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you point to the provisions in the Constitution that require any of these things?

[/ QUOTE ]

Purple monkey dishwasher?

What difference does it make if these things are "required" or not? Those making the decisions are not the ones paying for those decisions. And it's the same whether the expenditures are "required" or not.

But in a sense, you're right. There CAN be a government where everyone bears the cost of their own economic decisions. It's the government of ME. I make decisions for ME and I pay for them.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
Taxation = externalizing costs. I'd love to see your plans for a government that doesn't tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

While taxation can be used to externalize costs, it is not the same thing.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Taxation = externalizing costs. I'd love to see your plans for a government that doesn't tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

While taxation can be used to externalize costs, it is not the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/1...bardrlyur2.jpg

Explain it to us, please.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And of course the only possible solution to this problem is anarchy.


[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK AC is the only system where everyone has the bear the costs of their economic decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because that could NEVER EVER happen under terrible, evil government.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much is Bush paying out of his own pocket for the war in Iraq? Or the members of congress who voted for it? Who's paying for the bridges to nowhere?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you point to the provisions in the Constitution that require any of these things?

[/ QUOTE ]

The goalposts just got blown off the field entirely.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
While taxation can be used to externalize costs, it is not the same thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do the people in government pay their own salaries? This is what Boro meant, I think. At the very least the costs of the beauracracies are externalized to the tax payers, regardless of what policies the government inacts.

AFAIK none of the G8 countries have governments that dont engage in some sort of externalization of costs to the benefit of special interest groups at the expense of taxpayers.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And of course the only possible solution to this problem is anarchy.


[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK AC is the only system where everyone has the bear the costs of their economic decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because that could NEVER EVER happen under terrible, evil government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government operates by definition by externalizing its costs, so no, it couldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I guess we have to take your word on that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. You can rationalize your way to it yourself. It takes about 3 lines:

1. The costs associated with the actions of those in government are not borne by those in government.
2. Rather, they compel others by violence and threat of violence to carry those costs.
3. Hence government operates by externalizing its costs.

Re: AC and power
 

pvn,

as usual, way to look for ways to drop a snide one-liner on someone instead of addressing the content of their post. yeah, 'i've got my hammer.' every time i try to suggest something that might appeal to you, your response is to ignore it completely and look for something petty to take potshots about. it is getting extremely old.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

as usual, way to look for ways to drop a snide one-liner on someone instead of addressing the content of their post. yeah, 'i've got my hammer.' every time i try to suggest something that might appeal to you, your response is to ignore it completely and look for something petty to take potshots about. it is getting extremely old.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK fine, I'll give you the long version.

When you say:

[ QUOTE ]
So to answer the OPs question, a stateless society could potentially exist if force was widely and overwhelmingly perceived as an illegitimate and apolitical tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

And then you follow it up with:

[ QUOTE ]
I do not hope for or envision a stateless America.

[/ QUOTE ]

The conclusion is that you do not perceive (and do not want to perceive) force as an illegitimate and apolitical tool.

In other words, you have your hammer.

Re: AC and power
 

pvn,

Or maybe I think the circumstances that would lead to a stateless America would be less desirable than other outcomes.

I said a stateless society could POTENTIALLY exist under those circumstances. However, there is no reason that a government could not also be founded on those principles.

This is pretty much SOP for you; any time someone disagrees with you, accuse them of supporting violence against innocents.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Or maybe I think the circumstances that would lead to a stateless America would be less desirable than other outcomes.

I said a stateless society could POTENTIALLY exist under those circumstances. However, there is no reason that a government could not also be founded on those principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you said you don't want a stateless America. You did not say that you were hoping against a set of circumstances that could lead to either a stateless america *or* some other stateful outcome.

[ QUOTE ]
This is pretty much SOP for you; any time someone disagrees with you, accuse them of supporting violence against innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not hope for or envision a stateless America.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you hope for and envision a state in America.

How do you see this without violence against innocents?

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Or maybe I think the circumstances that would lead to a stateless America would be less desirable than other outcomes.

I said a stateless society could POTENTIALLY exist under those circumstances. However, there is no reason that a government could not also be founded on those principles.

This is pretty much SOP for you; any time someone disagrees with you, accuse them of supporting violence against innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an important point that you and other statists repeatedly fail to understand. States by their very definition employ violence against innocents. Now, if your position is that violence against innocents is sometimes justified, for example in the name of a greater good that you perceive, then that's a different argument. But don't pretend that supporting of a state does not carry with it the support of violence against innocents, because it does by definition. And don't act like someone who points this out is just using some rhetorical device to smear you. If you feel your beliefs smeared by the facts, perhaps you should re-examine your beliefs, and not attempt to redefine the facts away.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
States by their very definition employ violence against innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO. States, in practice throughout history, have employed violence against innocents.

I think creating a society where power (in the Arendtian sense) is the primary organizing factor (rather than force) would be extremely difficult whether one used a state to do it, used markets, or used some other communal/syndicalist structure.

Nowhere did I endorse the state in my post. Nor did I endorse anarchism. It's assumed that if I don't want one, I want the other. Quite frankly, I'm not a big believer in either. "I hate politics and I hate the easy answers," as my favorite poet succinctly put it.

When an ACist accuses someone else of endorsing state violence against others, they are typically using a straw man. Most statists hold one or both of the following beliefs:

1. States should not initiate force against individuals in many instances where they do so (i.e. war on drugs, etc). States overstep their legitimacy when they coerce citizens beyond their ability to protect property. (In other words, the state isn't operating efficiently, and much of the waste and coercive externalization of costs is a product not of the theory of the state, but by its flawed implementation).

2. State initiation of force in some instances is legitimate and tacit consent is given by all citizens by virtue of their participation in society. (I think this is a far less compelling position.)

Nobody is going to tell you that their theory of the state includes coercive, illegitimate force.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nowhere did I endorse the state in my post. Nor did I endorse anarchism. It's assumed that if I don't want one, I want the other. Quite frankly, I'm not a big believer in either. "I hate politics and I hate the easy answers," as my favorite poet succinctly put it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You want to have your cake and eat it too. Well, it's binary, it's one or the other. The lightbulb is either on or off. If you destroy the lightbulb, it's off. There's no way around it.

So, which do you prefer?


[ QUOTE ]
When an ACist accuses someone else of endorsing state violence against others, they are typically using a straw man. Most statists hold one or both of the following beliefs:

1. States should not initiate force against individuals in many instances where they do so (i.e. war on drugs, etc). States overstep their legitimacy when they coerce citizens beyond their ability to protect property. (In other words, the state isn't operating efficiently, and much of the waste and coercive externalization of costs is a product not of the theory of the state, but by its flawed implementation).

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case, the statist still believes that some force to coerce citizens is "legitimate" - so the accusation that this statist endorses violence against others is valid. The fact that this statist thinks that *some* force is "over the line" is irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
2. State initiation of force in some instances is legitimate and tacit consent is given by all citizens by virtue of their participation in society. (I think this is a far less compelling position.)

[/ QUOTE ]

And again, this still is an endorsement of violence against others.

The fact that you think it's legitimate doesn't change what it is.

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is going to tell you that their theory of the state includes coercive, illegitimate force.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a few honest thugs.

Re: AC and power
 

pvn,

If you need to categorize my position, I suppose you could label me 'undecided.' Am I not allowed to make observations about the behavior of people, markets and states without endorsing one or the other?

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
State initiation of force in some instances is legitimate and tacit consent is given by all citizens by virtue of their participation in society. (I think this is a far less compelling position.)

[/ QUOTE ]

If I go and become a hermit subsistence farmer in the middle of nowhere can I avoid state interference?

What if I take other people with me? Does our society have to yield to the larger one?

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]

In this case, the statist still believes that some force to coerce citizens is "legitimate" - so the accusation that this statist endorses violence against others is valid. The fact that this statist thinks that *some* force is "over the line" is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the example I gave, the state's use of force is legitimate when it is protecting someone's property. Protection of property is one your core values, isn't it?

Regarding your objection to the second point, as I said, I don't find it very compelling either. My point is that the typical theory of the state (the social contract) holds that individuals consent to the rule of the government and participate in the creation of all laws that concern them. You and I both know that in practice ('representative democracy') this has led to a variety of practices that involve the illegitimate initiation of force against individuals and their property. As part of this, many people view these actions as legitimate by virtue of their faith in the government. That doesn't mean that the theory of the state, or the ideal notion most people have of it, includes illegitimate force. Many people don't think critically about it, or misunderstand key concepts. But you'd rather simply call them 'thugs.' I'm sure that makes you feel good about yourself, but that's about all it does.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In this case, the statist still believes that some force to coerce citizens is "legitimate" - so the accusation that this statist endorses violence against others is valid. The fact that this statist thinks that *some* force is "over the line" is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the example I gave, the state's use of force is legitimate when it is protecting someone's property. Protection of property is one your core values, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but in your example, you're ignoring how that legitimate use of force is funded.

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't mean that the theory of the state, or the ideal notion most people have of it, includes illegitimate force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show us a state, "ideal" or otherwise, that doesn't include initiation of coercive force.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but in your example, you're ignoring how that legitimate use of force is funded.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm actually not. I said that the position includes the fact that the coercive externalization of costs (i.e. taxation without direct consent) is a product of flawed implementation and is NOT legitimate.

[ QUOTE ]

Please show us a state, "ideal" or otherwise, that doesn't include initiation of coercive force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, as soon as you show me a market driven society that doesn't include same. Why don't you demonstrate to me why the theory of the state necessarily includes violence against innocents, since that's what you're claiming?

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but in your example, you're ignoring how that legitimate use of force is funded.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm actually not. I said that the position includes the fact that the coercive externalization of costs (i.e. taxation without direct consent) is a product of flawed implementation and is NOT legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me repeat:

The accusation that this statist endorses violence against others is valid. Any personal view over whether the force is legitimate or not is irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Please show us a state, "ideal" or otherwise, that doesn't include initiation of coercive force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, as soon as you show me a market driven society that doesn't include same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, cowboy. I've never said violence, or the initiation of coercive force, will disappear without a state.

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you demonstrate to me why the theory of the state necessarily includes violence against innocents, since that's what you're claiming?

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you funding it?

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

If you need to categorize my position, I suppose you could label me 'undecided.' Am I not allowed to make observations about the behavior of people, markets and states without endorsing one or the other?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to be undecided, that's fine. But note, you can't be opposed to something and undecided about it.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
The accusation that this statist endorses violence against others is valid. Any personal view over whether the force is legitimate or not is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The statist in this example endorses violence against others to the exact extent that most ACists do. So I don't really see how you have a leg to stand on making that accusation.

Again,

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you demonstrate to me why the theory of the state necessarily includes violence against innocents, since that's what you're claiming?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that is exactly what you and Borodog have said about the state. In answer to your question about funding, a perfectly legitimate state would be administered and funded via direct democracy, including all matters of taxation.

I am not disagreeing with you that states have overwhelmingly been the PRIMARY initiators of illegitimate violence against individuals and property throughout recent history.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

If you need to categorize my position, I suppose you could label me 'undecided.' Am I not allowed to make observations about the behavior of people, markets and states without endorsing one or the other?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to be undecided, that's fine. But note, you can't be opposed to something and undecided about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Change me to 'deeply skeptical of all available options.'

Re: AC and power
 

Sorry, by 'direct democracy' in my previous post, I am referring to a system wherein each person consents to any law concerning him/her. Not merely where each person votes or participates. That obviously changes things, should be more specific.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah and you need to eat. So using the services of food providers are not voluntary. In fact they are not unlike a tax

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. Sustinence is a tax your body charges to keep functioning. Would you be able to suspend this too in AC Land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the government the only entity that can provide for this need? No, of course not. So why do you think it should be the only provider for other needs?

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
Again, your "reference" is pointless until you accept that you can "coerce" people into doing things without using any physical force whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for agreeing with the ACists on that one.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, by 'direct democracy' in my previous post, I am referring to a system wherein each person consents to any law concerning him/her. Not merely where each person votes or participates. That obviously changes things, should be more specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this isn't a state in any meaningful sense of the word. This is simply a set of free market interactions. If you want to call this a state, fine, it is an unobjectionable state. But this is basically the same "argument" as used by Dan and others when they say things like two people deciding on where to go eat lunch are forming a government.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
States by their very definition employ violence against innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bolding it doesn't make it true.

[ QUOTE ]
States, in practice throughout history, have employed violence against innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]

States by their very definition employ violence against innocents. Taxation necessitates violence and the threat of violence. If you'd like to try to redinfe this away, be my guest, but peddle it elsewhere. Since the innocent, those who have aggressed against no one's person or property, are taxed, the state employs violence against the innocent. Period.

[ QUOTE ]
I think creating a society where power (in the Arendtian sense) is the primary organizing factor (rather than force) would be extremely difficult whether one used a state to do it, used markets, or used some other communal/syndicalist structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

[ QUOTE ]
Nowhere did I endorse the state in my post. Nor did I endorse anarchism. It's assumed that if I don't want one, I want the other. Quite frankly, I'm not a big believer in either. "I hate politics and I hate the easy answers," as my favorite poet succinctly put it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like saying, "Nowhere did I endorse rape in my post. Nor did I endorse non-rape. It's assumed that if I don't want one, I want the other. Quite frankly, I'm not a big believer in either." It's a fence you can only allow yourself to straddle by defining away the violence inherent in one of the two positions.

[ QUOTE ]
When an ACist accuses someone else of endorsing state violence against others, they are typically using a straw man.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they aren't.

[ QUOTE ]
Most statists hold one or both of the following beliefs:

1. States should not initiate force against individuals in many instances where they do so (i.e. war on drugs, etc). States overstep their legitimacy when they coerce citizens beyond their ability to protect property. (In other words, the state isn't operating efficiently, and much of the waste and coercive externalization of costs is a product not of the theory of the state, but by its flawed implementation).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I know. This is the "The submarine is made of the wrong brand of screen doors" argument.

[ QUOTE ]
2. State initiation of force in some instances is legitimate and tacit consent is given by all citizens by virtue of their participation in society. (I think this is a far less compelling position.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you find it far less compelling, because it is infact ridiculous. It states that the state can do anything it bloody well likes, and that the non-emmigration of the population to Antarctica is demonstrative of their "tacit consent." It's a ridiculous argument that no one could possibly choke down unless you throw the word "state" in it, and then suddenly the government-schooled credulous lap it up with surprising gusto.

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is going to tell you that their theory of the state includes coercive, illegitimate force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they're not. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that their theory of the state does not include coercive, illegitimate force.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is going to tell you that their theory of the state includes coercive, illegitimate force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they're not. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that their theory of the state does not include coercive, illegitimate force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, someone around here, Arfinn, IIRC, flat-out admitted it - at least when it comes to foreign policy. I'm sure he'll tell you that domestically everything is on the up and up.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is going to tell you that their theory of the state includes coercive, illegitimate force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they're not. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that their theory of the state does not include coercive, illegitimate force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, someone around here, Arfinn, IIRC, flat-out admitted it - at least when it comes to foreign policy. I'm sure he'll tell you that domestically everything is on the up and up.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of statists that will admit that the behavior of the state is inherently "wrong" but simply believe that the ends justifies the means.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of statists that will admit that the behavior of the state is inherently "wrong" but simply believe that the ends justifies the means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe a case can be made for a limited government ("state") which is not inherently wrong and does not initiate force on its citizens. So I disagree with the labeling of statists using the state institutions of the past as a model.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of statists that will admit that the behavior of the state is inherently "wrong" but simply believe that the ends justifies the means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe a case can be made for a limited government ("state") which is not inherently wrong and does not initiate force on its citizens. So I disagree with the labeling of statists using the state institutions of the past as a model.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really consider minarchists statists.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of statists that will admit that the behavior of the state is inherently "wrong" but simply believe that the ends justifies the means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe a case can be made for a limited government ("state") which is not inherently wrong and does not initiate force on its citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you describe such a beast? Can this "government" unilaterally create law? Can it tax it's citizens against their will? Can it forceably exclude competition from it's markets? If you answer "yes" to any of these, then it initiates force against its citizens. If you answered "no" to all of them then it is not a government.

Re: AC and power
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I know. This is the "The submarine is made of the wrong brand of screen doors" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is such an awesome name for that argument.

Re: AC and power
 

Boro,

Taxation by consent does not necessitate any violence against innocents. The original theory of democracy is that each citizen is both the law-giver and the subject of the law. He is not merely represented by the government (a process with well known flaws), he IS the government. Issues of scale, implementation and scarcity are just a few of the biggest reasons why it has never really occured.

Arendt's 'On Revolution' contains an excellent discussion of the Athenian city-state and the concept of isonomy, or no-rule, which preceded democracy. Athenians would have inerpreted democracy quite literally - 'the rule of the mob' - and not looked upon it so favorably as most do today.

pvn touches on this in his response (basically saying that anything constituting a fully legitimate state would be, in effect, barely a state or no state at all). I agree with pvn that the larger the state gets, the harder it is to manage the interests of all its citizens in a legitimate way, even if the participants have the purest of intentions. In a sense, the government of 'me' is indeed the most legit government. But that doesn't necessarily make it effective.

The reason I mention the difficulty of implementing power, as opposed to force, is because I think it touches on one of my major objections to market anarchism (and more generally, highlights the difficulty of any form of politics). Force and power exist on a spectrum; where one rules completely, the other is absent from the realm of politics. In a totalitarian state, force is the ONLY law; in a perfectly legitimate one, it's power. I find this formulation very elegant. Societies in the real world, of course, have some balance of the two, and that balance is in constant flux. Perhaps the closest we have come to the rule of pure force, in practice, would be fascist states like Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany; however, even there, individuals acting in concert (power) comprised some part of the efforts of the state.

This is the important part: where power is absent, force is the only rule. Power is more fleeting, more temporal, and more fragile than force. If you want to prevent force from being the only law, you must find a way to spread power throughout society, to create participation, civility, and order by mutual consent.

Market anarchists have it right when they object to force as the law of politics. What they don't do, from what I can tell, is talk about how power can supplant force, how it can be spread and developed in a sustainable way. Where power is absent, force WILL rule.