Hugo's defence of anarchy

[Hugo]

'Sound' is a human word that represents the registration of percussive waves against human receptors, or eardrums. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make percussive waves? Yes, absolutely.

Well, then there you go.

That is the nature of 'representative democracy'. One (actually everyone) is expected to swear fealty to the candidate given the 'mandate of the masses', rather than 'true' democracy.

Sounds like tyranny to me. Why should it be called just to have a person swear fealty against their will to a man they don't support and recognise as their leader?

Technically, the Gov't does 'own' Canada.

Explain that to me, because I don't see how the government "technically owns" Canada.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Sounds like tyranny to me. Why should it be called just to have a person swear fealty against their will to a man they don't support and recognise as their leader?

You rolls the dice and takes your chances...but it is wrong to not 'pay up' if you are unhappy with the outcome. Besides, tyranny is in the eye of the beholder, not too many people go around after an election and say 'yay, my tyrant won!'.

Taxes are a neccesary evil, and the vast majority of Canadians agree. It is the waste of those tax dollars that most people have a problem with.

Explain that to me, because I don't see how the government "technically owns" Canada

Will explain later, going fishing with a buddy. I will need to use public roads to get there, though, and I gladly paid my pittance for a fishing lisence. The gov't owns the fish too, you see, by enforcing rules regulating fishing practices. If it were not regulated, there would be no fish left. They allow me to catch only a certain number, of certain species, and at certain times of the year, in order to preserve the long-term health of the species as best they can. Now, I'm off to catch some delicious gov't issue rainbow trout!

[Hugo]

You rolls the dice and takes your chances...but it is wrong to not 'pay up' if you are unhappy with the outcome.

Is it "wrong to not 'pay up'" if you never wanted to roll the dice in the first place but were forced to against your will?

Taxes are a neccesary evil, and the vast majority of Canadians agree.

If we see evil, we should devote ourselves to eliminating it, rather than shrugging our shoulders and ignoring the problem. Furthermore, evil left unchecked will grow. So a minimal government will grow and grow, like the initially minarchist government of the USA that, over the next two centuries, snowballed into the current Leviathan.

Will explain later, going fishing with a buddy. I will need to use public roads to get there, though, and I gladly paid my pittance for a fishing lisence. The gov't owns the fish too, you see, by enforcing rules regulating fishing practices.

Alright, you seem to believe that the government is necessary to preserve your fish. I'll prove to you that it isn't. First, I'll give a couple of examples, and then explain the theory.

Consider the Atlantic Cod Fisheries. In this case, government protection and communal ownership clearly failed to protect fish populations. Now, consider the example of southern forestry in the USA, where private enterprise and private ownership averted a forecast catastrophic deforestation.

The theory is that things owned by everyone will be cared for by no-one. The common attitude will be one of "let someone else worry about it", since nobody is designated as the caretaker. Basically, it is left up to government, or to conservation groups, but if government or these groups err or overlook the issue (as they have countless times before), all is lost.

With private ownership, however, there is an economic incentive to conserve. Think about your fishing spot. If you own it, you have a vested interest in avoiding depletion of the fish population since this will deprive you of the future pleasure of fishing. If the fishing spot is owned by somebody else, they have the incentive to protect their investment by restricting your fishing.

The only way this will fail is if the owner absolutely does not care about the value of his possessions in any form - monetary, aesthetic, etc. Such an irrational individual would doubtless not possess much for very long.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Is it "wrong to not 'pay up'" if you never wanted to roll the dice in the first place but were forced to against your will?

No one forces you to vote, but if you do, then you are 'rolling the dice'.

[Hugo]

No one forces you to vote, but if you do, then you are 'rolling the dice'.

So if I didn't vote, what then?

Basically, democracy gives you two choices: play the game and accept the outcome, or don't play the game, and accept the outcome the players decide for you.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

So if I didn't vote, what then?

Then you should have ran. Either away or in the election. I believe 'society' to be a progress forward, from anarchy. If we try to change things, they should change forward, not backward.

[Hugo]

Then you should have ran.

Why am I obliged to run? This argument suffers from the fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question. You assume that one should be obliged to participate in the system without demonstrating why one should be obliged. Your argument stems from an assumption.

If I can only truly opt out by leaving the country, this means that either a) the state owns Canada and everything in it or something gives the state the right to violate property law.

Either way, you've got some explaining to do, because neither of these are a priori knowledge.

I believe 'society' to be a progress forward, from anarchy.

The opposite of anarchy is totalitarianism, so is that your idea of progress? The march towards the totalitarian state and the communist economy? Orwell's 1984?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

In regards to the 'ownership of Canada' I shall begin with this quote. As an anarchist, I'm sure you'll agree to it's relevance. It is taken from my Canadian Global Almanac (1992) of '100 Canadian Quotations and Phrases' p.97.

#6. "We we Caesars, there being nobody to contradict us." Pierre-Esprit Radisson, French explorer and fur trader, describing the life of the coureur de bois, journal of 1661.

First claim of 'new wilderness' was made, (albeit against the ignorance of the 'originals', the First Nations, to it's implications)and 'Kanata' was claimed, for the first time, as property.(How far did this claim extend? How far can/should it? As far as the eye can see? As far as can be imagined? Or as far as it can be defended by force of arms?) The new 'country' was claimed, sold, bought, fought over, etc. as a whole (At least New France, Upper & Lower Canada, etc. were concerned).

It was long ago 'claimed' far before you or I ever got the chance to. It belonged to the 'crown'. Therefore, it was theirs to dispense with. Now, I'm sure you'll remember the 'sodbusters' that were promised 'free land' if they moved out west, and worked the soil. (Again, some 'injuns' had to be killed, because they had no idea what it meant to 'own land'. They were just part of nature's cycle, according to them) The Crown never actually 'gave Crown land' away, they just made it sound that way, because they still owned 'the whole' . They 'de facto' leased it to the homesteaders, for they still expected 'Crown laws' to be obeyed, and expected taxes in return.

The Crown became 'The People of Canada', and developed a 'representative democracy', but the 'ownership of the whole' still resides in the theory of 'Crown land', subject to annex for the benefit of the whole if 'the people of Canada' feel it neccesary. The 'people of Canada' place this power in the hands of elected officials, the 'majority', willingly.

[Hugo]

Am I to understand, then, that you view the violent expropriation of land (theft) as legitimate when conducted by the Crown? That the Crown had the right to expropriate land from the Indians and the French by violence?

If you think this is the case, then perhaps I should come to your house and take away all your possessions. It would be perfectly just. If not, then the "Crown" and thus the Government has no right to what it supposedly owns.

The Crown became 'The People of Canada', and developed a 'representative democracy', but the 'ownership of the whole' still resides in the theory of 'Crown land', subject to annex for the benefit of the whole if 'the people of Canada' feel it neccesary. The 'people of Canada' place this power in the hands of elected officials, the 'majority', willingly.

If the "people of Canada" owned anything, wouldn't it be better to place it in their hands directly (as in anarchy) rather than to insist that it be held by so-called representatives who in fact only represent 16% of the population?

Doesn't that just guarantee that a lot of people are going to be denied the right to collective property that they supposedly own a part of?

[August1991]

Is Hugo still on about the State?

Hugo wrote:

But this problem is already resolved, in the form of condo fees, or "bundling" as it is understood in economic terms. Basically, you agree to pay for the public goods when you buy the private. If you don't like it, you find another condo.

Hugo, you have given here a simple but good explanation for the existence of the State and its right to assess taxes.

The State is like the Condominium Management Committee and taxes are like the condo fees. (Condo fees are not fixed for all time but frequently change according to common expenses. They are not wholly included in the original purchase price.)

This arrangement is to the benefit of the individual condo owners.

Hugo, you are arguing with yourself.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

That the Crown had the right to expropriate land from the Indians and the French by violence?

I didn't say they had the 'right to', I said they had the 'guns to'. Guns don't make things right, they make things happen. Interestingly, Saddam Hussein said in one of his 'Open Letters to the People of the United States' that "White Europeans have still been the only people in history to carry weapons across the Atlantic to North America for the purposes of conquering". If you deny the legitimacy of ownership of conquered territory, and think the 'conquerers' should return all lands 'ill-gotten', we'd all be huddled in a gorge in Kenya. but I digress.

[Hugo]

Hugo, you have given here a simple but good explanation for the existence of the State and its right to assess taxes.

Actually, August, you have given a simple but good argument for a private-property society. Basically, your argument rests upon rights coming with ownership, which is exactly my point.

Your analogy about the condo hinges upon the fact that the "Condominium Management Committee" is the legitimate owner of the condo or represents the legitimate owners. The Government is not the legitimate owner of Canada, nor does it represent the owners of Canada (if it did, you'd get one vote per dollar's worth of property you owned).

If you deny the legitimacy of ownership of conquered territory, and think the 'conquerers' should return all lands 'ill-gotten', we'd all be huddled in a gorge in Kenya. but I digress.

What are you digressing from? Is it an answer to my point about your theory of collective ownership of Canada embodied in the state?

I put my property in a bank along with others, at which point it becomes the collective ward of the bank. However, I can ask for my property back at any time. I cannot ask the government for my property back at any time, therefore, the government cannot be the trustees of our collective property.

[August1991]

Your analogy about the condo hinges upon the fact that the "Condominium Management Committee" is the legitimate owner of the condo or represents the legitimate owners. The Government is not the legitimate owner of Canada, nor does it represent the owners of Canada (if it did, you'd get one vote per dollar's worth of property you owned).

Each person owns their own condo. We are talking about the entry to the building.

The Management Committee (it could be all condo owners together) represent the condo ("legitimate") owners.

How the Management Committee should make its decisions would not necessarily be "one vote per dollar's worth of property". In theory, each condo owner would be assessed an amount equivalent to the benefit that owner alone derived from the use of the entry available to all.

But I'm happy Hugo that you accept the notion that a Management Committee can exist with some decision-making scheme and this would make the world a better place for the individual condo owners. Do you agree?

-----

Hugo, you seem "obsessed" by this notion of "ownership". You should think rather in terms of "rights". For example, there is something called an easement.

[Hugo]

Each person owns their own condo. We are talking about the entry to the building.

We really need to define what's going on here. Does somebody own the whole building and charge rent to tenants (in which case, he'd just tack the renovation costs onto the rent)?

Or do condo owners buy the individual apartments and leave the ownership of the actual building and its infrastructure (hallways, elevators, utility supplies) to another (in which case, he'd "bundle" the renovation costs into the condo fees they are paying for upkeep of the building and infrastructure)?

In any case, there is no need for a Management Committee or anything like it. It merely boils down to "who owns what." You could have a Residents Committee, but they wouldn't have any jurisdiction over what they didn't own, e.g. whether or not an entranceway gets renovated.

But I'm happy Hugo that you accept the notion that a Management Committee can exist with some decision-making scheme and this would make the world a better place for the individual condo owners. Do you agree?

Any association with voluntary membership is perfectly acceptable - as long as they agree not to infringe upon non-member rights. But as you'll see above, I don't think that a Management Committee is necessary or useful.

Hugo, you seem "obsessed" by this notion of "ownership". You should think rather in terms of "rights".

Ownership is rights, August.

[August1991]

Or do condo owners buy the individual apartments and leave the ownership of the actual building and its infrastructure (hallways, elevators, utility supplies) to another (in which case, he'd "bundle" the renovation costs into the condo fees they are paying for upkeep of the building and infrastructure)?

More or less. The actual building and its infrastructure (hallways, elevators, utility supplies) are "collectively" owned. To cover upkeep and renovations, each condo owner pays regular, variable condo fees. These are set by a Condo Management Committee.

But Hugo, since you are obsessed with the idea that everything must have an individual owner, let's pursue that idea. And let's simply things further by considering only the main entry. And let's follow your exceptionally narrow definition of ownership and rights.

Person X owns the building's main entry and has sole right to its use unless he decides to sell this right to others.

How much should Person X charge individual condo owners for using his entry? (You used the term "bundle". Fine with me. I'm asking you to be precise in determining the fee each condo owner should pay.)

If Person X was thinking of renovating his entry, how should he go about knowing whether simply to repaint the entry at low cost or to redo completely the entry at great cost?

[Hugo]

The actual building and its infrastructure (hallways, elevators, utility supplies) are "collectively" owned. To cover upkeep and renovations, each condo owner pays regular, variable condo fees. These are set by a Condo Management Committee.

So a couple hundred people decided one day to pool their money and build a condo to live in? In that case, if they set up a management committee, they are all there of their own free will and expressly consented to abide by the decisions of the Committee, therefore, that is not an analogy for the state because consent is unanimous, competition is not outlawed and contribution is mutually agreed upon by all.

Person X owns the building's main entry and has sole right to its use unless he decides to sell this right to others. How much should Person X charge individual condo owners for using his entry?

This is both an irrelevant and an unanswerable question. Irrelevant because the prices set are of no consequence to the question of how and why they should be charged, unanswerable because there are as many answers as there are people. Ideally, a person would make an economically rational decision, but there are many different outcomes that can all be described as economically rational, and then you can add all the economically irrational decisions that people frequently make.

If Person X was thinking of renovating his entry, how should he go about knowing whether simply to repaint the entry at low cost or to redo completely the entry at great cost?

He might perform a cost/benefit analysis, do a survey, read some tarot cards or tea leaves. It's really irrelevant.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Ownership is rights, August.

Yes, but that is all it is, and it is limited. 'Property ownership' gives you the right to call the police 'or (army) to take your side in any 'demarcation dispute'. Basically, protection money. You would have to enlist a 'private force' if the land were ruled by 'anarchy'. You get that same protection, now, from society as a whole, with the masses funding that force. If the country were over-run, you would either have to pay the new occupier for 'recognition and protection' of your 'private property', or lose it all, depending upon the whim of the new 'occupying force'. Thus is property ownership. The 'right' to own can only be protected by, or scotched by, force.

[Hugo]

'Property ownership' gives you the right to call the police 'or (army) to take your side in any 'demarcation dispute'.

No, it does not. The police or army are (supposedly) there to enforce your rightful claims should you be unable to yourself. "Property ownership" merely means that you are morally entitled, or have the right, to dispose of your property as you will, save that it infringe upon another's rights. Involving the police presupposes that 1) somebody is interfering in your rights and 2) you cannot or will not pursue another avenue towards resolution of the conflict.

You would have to enlist a 'private force' if the land were ruled by 'anarchy'. You get that same protection, now, from society as a whole, with the masses funding that force.

The difference is that the force allows no competition and lacks the incentive to actually meet the demands of the masses, being disconnected from pricing and demand feedback. A monopolistic police force is not Pareto optimal and therefore is unjust and economically unsound. This can easily be seen because the only way the police are able to continue their monopoly is by the exercise of violence.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

A monopolistic police force is not Pareto optimal and therefore is unjust and economically unsound. This can easily be seen because the only way the police are able to continue their monopoly is by the exercise of violence.

I would suggest that the 'monopolistic police force' of society is at least Pareto efficient for it places all citizens in the same boat, as it would for a democracy or a dictatorship.

The police are given the powers to uphold the law collectively because individuals cannot be trusted to uphold laws in the same manner, or to the same degree, as a set of collective laws.

I would further suggest that the reason many favour the 'free enterprise system' as the mechanism for driving society is that it is fuelled by human greed. This would render 'Pareto optimality' unobtainable, except for under a system of 'true communism', a Marxist-Democracy.

[Hugo]

I would suggest that the 'monopolistic police force' of society is at least Pareto efficient for it places all citizens in the same boat, as it would for a democracy or a dictatorship.

Firstly, it's not Pareto-efficient because you can demonstrate a way (private law enforcement) that will provide better for less. I'm basing that on historical private law enforcement (for instance, after Peel introduced the metropolitan police force in London the crime rate didn't actually drop at all), and on historical evidence of the free market vs. the public sector, for example, the drop in price and increase in quality of the UK electricity supply after it was privatized.

Secondly, all citizens are also in the same boat of needing food. Is this an argument for nationalising the food industry, from farm to grocery store? Or is it instead an argument that the free market is quite capable of providing a necessary and universal good, more capable, in fact, than nationalised food industries which have caused more deaths by famine than any natural disaster ever could? I think the latter.

I would further suggest that the reason many favour the 'free enterprise system' as the mechanism for driving society is that it is fuelled by human greed.

Yes, and rightly so. Humans are greedy, with some noteworthy but incredibly rare exceptions. You can either deny that and hope everything works out with a system that assumes humans are angels (socialism), or you can accept that and try to devise a system that will harness it for good (capitalism). For an analogy, consider that atomic power can be incredibly destructive but, when harnessed in the correct way, can be used for great good.

This would render 'Pareto optimality' unobtainable, except for under a system of 'true communism', a Marxist-Democracy.

"True communism" as most communist thinkers such as Marx, Bakunin, Chomsky or Proudhon saw it would be anarchy, not democracy. Perhaps you'll tell me which communist thinker you're basing this claim on.

Furthermore, since both democracy and communism-by-force (which is the kind overwhelmingly used in history) rely on coercion, they cannot be Pareto-efficient. If somebody has to be coerced into an economic transaction, that very fact means that it cannot be Pareto efficient.

The police are given the powers to uphold the law collectively because individuals cannot be trusted to uphold laws in the same manner

But the police are individuals. So you are saying that individuals can be trusted to do what individuals cannot be trusted to do, which is wholly self-contradictory.

[August1991]

If Person X was thinking of renovating his entry, how should he go about knowing whether simply to repaint the entry at low cost or to redo completely the entry at great cost?

He might perform a cost/benefit analysis, do a survey, read some tarot cards or tea leaves. It's really irrelevant.

This question is far, far from irrelevant. In fact, it is central to the issue at hand.

So a couple hundred people decided one day to pool their money and build a condo to live in? In that case, if they set up a management committee, they are all there of their own free will and expressly consented to abide by the decisions of the Committee, therefore, that is not an analogy for the state because consent is unanimous, competition is not outlawed and contribution is mutually agreed upon by all.

I think it is a direct analogy of the State - and of a major problem society faces.

Let me be more precise (and simplify even further): Imagine that there are only two condo owners (Y and Z) and they both sit on the Committee. Now the two must decide whether to renovate the main entry and how to share the cost if they do. (Voluntary consent will be mutual - unanimous in this case.)

The problem is that any money spent by Y benefits not only Y but Z also. No fool, Z knows this and tries to get a free ride on Y's wallet. But then, Y tries to do the same at Z's expense.

End result? The entry way never gets renovated despite the fact that both, if they were honest, would be prepared to pay to have a renovated entry. IOW, the end result is certainly not an optimum, Pareto or otherwise.

----

This reasoning alone does not justify the existence of a coercive State but it is the first step.

[Hugo]

It is far, far from irrelevant. In fact, it is central to the question at hand.

Then explain how, because I don't see it. Anarchy is about freedom, not about telling people what to do. So I can tell you what I think would happen under anarchism, but I can't tell you what will happen and nor can anybody else.

End result? The entry way never gets renovated despite the fact that both, if they were honest, would be prepared to pay to have a renovated entry.

If both owned the entranceway, then both would presumably reap the benefit of renovating it, therefore both would pay for it. If one did not want to, but the other desperately did, there are still options. If Y thinks the benefit would be so great, he could offer to buy Z out. He could propose that they seek an arbitrator. But in the end, no, there is absolutely no way to coerce Z into spending his money - his property - in a way he does not want. And that is right, moral and just, and if the entranceway goes unrenovated and all the tenants move out, Z has been given his just desserts for his economic irrationality.

[August1991]

there is absolutely no way to coerce Z into spending his money - his property - in a way he does not want. And that is right, moral and just.

According to you, it may be right, moral and just.

But the situation I described would also lead to a "bad" solution that even Z would prefer to avoid.

It would mean that Y and Z would live with a shoddy entry - when in fact they both are prepared to pay to have something better.

Hugo, this unfortunate situation arises often in life and in nature. There are a variety of ways to solve it. A Nobel Prize awaits anyone with a new solution.

[Hugo]

According to you, it may be right, moral and just. But it would also be a "bad" solution... Hugo, this situation unfortunately arises often in life and in nature.

Of course. No anarchist would tell you that anarchy will relieve human error and suffering, it is impossible to do so. What anarchy will do, however, is remove human error from positions of power where those errors are able to do massive harm to millions of people, by eliminating those positions of power. Think of it as damage limitation. Capitalism is to say, "people are greedy, how can we minimise this problem?" as anarchism is to say, "people are fallible, how can we minimise this problem?" Socialism is denial of the existence of greed, just as statism is denial of the existence of fallibility. Socialism requires belief in New Socialist Man to work, statism requires belief in the Philosopher-King to be feasible. Since I know you are a capitalist, I hope this comparison will strike a chord with you.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

"True communism" as most communist thinkers such as Marx, Bakunin, Chomsky or Proudhon saw it would be anarchy, not democracy. Perhaps you'll tell me which communist thinker you're basing this claim on.

This thought is my own. I don't know that I can take credit, because I thought it was obvious. Let's call it 'Marxist-Fleabagist'. In a way, it does address Pareto-optimality, though I must admit I had not heard that exact term until you 'coerced' me to look it up this morning.

Free enterprise vs. Marxism are systems of economy, while totalitarianism vs. democracy are systems of rule (or of power and law, if you will). I contend that only Marxism and Democracy, or Free enterprise and totalitarianism, can go together if they are allowed to run their natural course. Democracy can only be viable and 'true' if all the people are equal. In the free enterprise system, lobby groups, et al. taint 'equality' in their favour.

If such a system indeed existed

statism requires belief in the Philosopher-King to be feasible.

( A post I'd gladly give up all 'eathly possessions for) then that person would merely decide upon what choices the 'equal masses' would vote for. That person would have to be very careful, for he/she would only benefit equally and to the same extent as everybody else, so 'greedy individualism' would have to benefit all.