Hugo's defence of anarchy

[Hugo]

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.

I don't agree. Implementations of Marxism in history have almost always accompanied totalitarianism, and a tendency towards free markets has usually accompanied democracy. Not that this has to be the case, but if you are contending that Marxism is the natural accompaniment to democracy and capitalism to totalitarianism, the bulk of empirical evidence is against you and you will have to explain it very well to make a case.

You should also note that I'm against democracy and totalitarianism. Consider that anarchists generally label themselves anarcho-capitalists or anarcho-socialists, the "anarchist" part describes what they want to do, and the "capitalist" or "socialist" part describes what they think will happen. Without a state and without coercion, neither capitalist nor socialist has any way to ensure that their desired outcome will be the actual outcome.

Another point for you to think about is this: If you are against totalitarianism, and you are against anarchy, then you eliminate the polar opposites on the power scale. If that is the case, you must believe that there is an "optimal" amount of government we should have. How much is enough, and why is it not too little, or too much?

The fact is that any defence of a non-anarchist or non-totalitarian argument is purely arbitrary and thus indefensible because it rests solely on opinion rather than on any a priori truths. Science and nature are based on simple and universal truths. Anarchism is based on simple and universal truths. Statism, however, is based on highly convoluted and subjective opinions.

Democracy can only be viable and 'true' if all the people are equal.

I see that as plainly false. Democracy means that those in the majority are superior than those in the minority, because the majority is allowed to force its will upon the minority. Therefore, democracy revolves about inequality and iniquity.

In the free enterprise system, lobby groups, et al. taint 'equality' in their favour.

Think about this carefully. The only example you mention is lobby groups. How are lobby groups able to "taint equality"? The only way is by influencing government, and without government, lobby groups would be utterly useless. The most anyone can do without government, without coercion, is to ask. Nobody can demand.

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.

I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at here. Can you clarify?

[August1991]

TheloniousMonk, your post is an odd mix of ideas. I will comment on one idea that is unfortunately too common and wrong:

Democracy can only be viable and 'true' if all the people are equal.

Imagine, Thelonious, that posters to this forum decide to take a democratic vote about whether to burn your business down. (Downtown Calgary, no?)

Most posters are indifferent, some are against but a few think it might be "fun". You of course are decidedly against. Majority vote decides the issue. Pouf.

Democratic societies have constitutions, charters, bills of rights precisely to protect against such votes. They protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority, and the individual against mob rule.

But the problem here is really "equal votes".

I imagine that you have strong feelings about seeing your business go up in flames. Posters to this forum have probably weak feelings about the fun of watching it burn.

Equality or "one man, one vote" ignores the depth of feeling about an issue.

-----

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.

Basically agreed.

No anarchist would tell you that anarchy will relieve human error and suffering, it is impossible to do so.

But it is possible to alleviate human error and suffering. For example, that is why "prices" were invented. (And inadvertently mathematics.)

With clear terms of trade, some "bad solutions" are avoided. But not all. The State is a remnant of previous non-market solutions. In some cases, even in modern times, the State is better than no solution at all.

But why is the State so large? I don't know.

[Guest eureka]

I have the matches if somebody can bing the kerosene. The discussion is interesting but, Hugo, I am sorry that I simply can not find the time for speculative matters.

[Hugo]

But why is the State so large? I don't know.

I think there are two factors. First is simple self-interest, as when an institution provides an individual with a livelihood and a comfortable existence they will generally try to protect and nurture that institution. Corporate management is a good example, as they try to grow and nurture their company as much as possible. What prevents this being a major problem is all the other corporations whose managements are trying to do the exact same thing. With government, however, there is no competition, no mechanism to stop politicians expanding government to their hearts content. The only potential restraint is a very dubious reliance on public awareness, which collapses when the public becomes disinterested or, worse, buys into the idea that government should be bigger.

The second is the misguided desire to do good. This can be seen in a lot of government programmes that are designed to benefit people but actually end up hurting them: minimum wage, price and rent controls, affirmative action, welfare, socialised medicine and so forth. In this case, it's clear that what is happening is misguided and ill-informed people are being allowed to give their ideas free reign. In the market, fallacious and wrong-headed ideas don't survive, but when these ideas are backed by force and a monopoly on violence, it doesn't matter how impractical they are.

In some cases, even in modern times, the State is better than no solution at all.

Of course, but we're not faced with "no solution at all." We are faced with preferable, viable and superior alternative solutions. The state maintains power not because it is a good idea, but because it has the inertia of long tradition, a strong grip on the minds of the populace and a monopoly on violence.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

If that is the case, you must believe that there is an "optimal" amount of government we should have. How much is enough, and why is it not too little, or too much?

I believe the gov't should have exclusive roles, but not all-encompassing roles. Gov't should be limited to those things which provide for 'public good', such as schools and roadways, law, etc. Gov't should have a job to do, just as the police, and 'individuals or groups of individuals' have to be trusted to do their job, without letting the 'anarchist self' control one's actions. If people cannot be trusted to be police as their 'job', then how could any company survive?

[Hugo]

Gov't should be limited to those things which provide for 'public good', such as schools and roadways, law, etc.

What about food and water? Those are definitely "public goods", so by your rationale, shouldn't the state be running the foodstuffs industry and the water supply?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

What about food and water? Those are definitely "public goods", so by your rationale, shouldn't the state be running the foodstuffs industry and the water supply?

Water, yes, most definitely. Filtration (and it's standards), fluoridation and delivery are impossible for the individual. Food and farming industries are often subsidized by the gov't. I would guess that in the long run, it would prevent famine, because a farmer with gov't assistance is less likely to convert his land to Casino space, to maximize his return of the square footage.

[Hugo]

Food and farming industries are often subsidized by the gov't. I would guess that in the long run, it would prevent famine, because a farmer with gov't assistance is less likely to convert his land to Casino space, to maximize his return of the square footage.

What do you make of the endemic famines suffered by countries with centrally planned agricultural industries? How do you explain that the number of famines suffered by nations utilising free-market foodstuff production is so close to zero as to look like a rounding error?

Water, yes, most definitely. Filtration (and it's standards), fluoridation and delivery are impossible for the individual.

Many, many things are impossible for the individual, and yet the free market creates them (railroads, skyscrapers, jet airliners, airlines, etc).

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

How do you explain that the number of famines suffered by nations utilising free-market foodstuff production is so close to zero as to look like a rounding error?

Ok, I led with my chin on this one.However, many advances in science, and some by accident has led to higher yields, less devastation from pests, etc.

What do you make of the endemic famines suffered by countries with centrally planned agricultural industries?

Centralized agriculture was not the cause of the famines, but in some cases, did exacerbate the problem. Mao, especially, screwed up bad.

Many, many things are impossible for the individual, and yet the free market creates them (railroads, skyscrapers, jet airliners, airlines, etc).

I do not see how you can believe in a company, but not a gov't(actually, I can). The profit gained by the individual from gov't vs. industry is that the latter offers pure cash, while the gov't rewards must be shared. So, as an anarchist, you dislike sharing.

[Hugo]

However, many advances in science, and some by accident has led to higher yields, less devastation from pests, etc.

But nevertheless, you must agree that the free market has utilised those developments most effectively, and fostered new ones due to the profit motive.

Where the food market has failed in capitalist nations, it has been because of the abandonment of capitalism (e.g. the government price-fixing of food during the Great Depression causing food shortages). When the agricultural industry has been left alone, it has not failed to provide. Famine is unheard of in Western nations.

Centralized agriculture was not the cause of the famines, but in some cases, did exacerbate the problem.

No, that's wrong. Mao tried to force industrialisation, draining the peasantry off the land, and then tried to force collectivism (Jung Chang). Lenin and Stalin caused the Bread Wars and the massive famines of the 20s and 30s as direct results of their collectivist policies (Nikita Kruschev, Robert Conquest et al).

If you have alternative sources or evidence I'd like to hear them. But for you to state that centralised agriculture did not cause famine, without anything in support, is like saying "Day is night."

The profit gained by the individual from gov't vs. industry is that the latter offers pure cash, while the gov't rewards must be shared. So, as an anarchist, you dislike sharing.

No, I dislike being forced to share under threat of violence and expropriation.

Furthermore, "cash" is representative of goods and services. So your contention is that government rewards are something concrete, which I might want or might not but have to accept anyway, whereas profit from industry can take the form of whatever I want. Being sane, I choose the private option.

I don't believe in any company, but I believe that the competition between companies will cause them to want to offer the best for the least - in goods, in labour policies, etc.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Mao tried to force industrialisation, draining the peasantry off the land, and then tried to force collectivism (Jung Chang).

I read a book on Mao, written by his personal doctor of many years. While most of it dealt with the infighting within the system, some historical bits were also revealed. For instance, Mao had once seen a peasant smelting his own metal and thought it was ingenious. Virtually overnight the majority of the peasantry abandoned farming and took up smelting. The coal and other fuels were used up more rapidly, the metals smelted were practically useless and widespread famine was the result.

From a search on google I found a source from Wikipedia, which confirms your claim that privatization was a key factor in avoiding famine, (Especially in the Netherlands), but also that famine occurs naturally from time to time. Especially in the 'old days', even one bad year could be devastating. People slaughtered their draught animals for food, so that the next season production capabilities were severely limited, and the consumption of the seed grains for food pretty much guaranteed famine for the next couple of years.

Famine is unheard of in Western nations.

This is no great surprise, the population vs arable land was hugely favourable in N. America (And it has only been farmed intensively for the last couple of hundred years) at the beginning, and only could have been a concern recently, but modern transportation has meant that N. America has no need to be self-sufficient.

[Hugo]

Especially in the 'old days', even one bad year could be devastating.

The modern Agricultural Revolution began in about 1750, at much the same time as the appearance of capitalism and free markets. It's funny that ever since this time, we have had the continual massive advances that have succeeded in eradicating famine, whereas since the beginning of agriculture around 12,000 years beforehand, very little had changed and famine was an ever-present fear.

This is due to the economic systems. Serfs had little reason to strive for new methods and technologies since all their produce was taxed, landholders had little reason to demand them since economic growth didn't really happen and increased prosperity was granted by royal fiat rather than trade. But when you move farming towards a freeholder system, suddenly farmers have incentives to be more productive.

the population vs arable land was hugely favourable in N. America (And it has only been farmed intensively for the last couple of hundred years) at the beginning

Population vs. arable land was very favourable in Russia too, even more so in the Ukraine, and yet those countries have suffered innumerable famines, even in the 20th Century. Britain has a population that is far in excess of what its arable land can support, and yet famine in Britain of the last few centuries is almost unheard of. The closest thing would be the Irish potato blight, but that is a drop in the ocean compared to Russian, Ukrainian or Chinese famines.

modern transportation has meant that N. America has no need to be self-sufficient.

The modern transportation that has been developed and implemented under the free market?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Here is something interesting in the news. It was in the Calgary Herld but was actually from The Times of London.

October 17, 2004

Scientists find way to make us slaves

Lois Rogers, Medical Editor

ALDOUS HUXLEY may have got it right. In Brave New World, his classic futuristic novel, the author envisaged a society divided into castes from Alpha at the top to Epsilon at the bottom.

The Epsilons were content to plod on with tedious tasks, their brains numbed by drugs. Until now this has been the stuff of science fiction.

However, experiments conducted on rhesus monkeys have shown for the first time that animal behaviour can be permanently altered, turning the subjects from aggressive to “compliant” creatures.

The scientists did so by blocking the effects of a gene in the brain called D2, which cut off the link between the monkeys’ motivation and perceived reward. Humans have an identical gene.

The project was led by Barry Richmond, a government neurobiologist at America’s National Institute of Mental Health, who has detailed the findings in the journal Nature Neuroscience this month.

The work shows how the monkeys could be made to work enthusiastically for long periods without the need for a “treat”.

The experiments involved getting monkeys to operate levers in response to colour changes on screens in front of them. Normally they work hardest and fastest with the fewest mistakes if they think a reward for the “work” is imminent.

However, Richmond’s team found that they could make the monkeys work their hardest and fastest all the time, without any complaint or sign of slacking, just by manipulating D2 so that they forgot about the expectation of reward.

“Most people are motivated to work hard and well only by the expectation of reward, whether it’s a pay cheque or a word of praise,” said Richmond. “In these experiments we found we could remove that link and create a situation where repetitive, hard work would continue without any reward.”

So much for Anarchy. And for 'socialism', too I guess. Wouldn't the use of this, though, be desired by a 'free enterpriser' as the ultimate in 'maximizing profit'? Personally, I think it is an abomination, as is any 'GMH' (Genetically Modified Humans).

[Hugo]

I can't see employer manipulation of D2 gaining much acceptance. No employee with half a brain would accept such tampering, and if would be easy to spot any employer who had done it secretly by the fact that his workers so cheerfully worked without pay.

This is an abomination, I agree. I don't think it's a curtain call for anarchy because without coersion I can't see anybody standing for it. The families of employees so tampered with would sue for millions, the customer base would vanish overnight, there would be non-stop protest marches outside the factory gates, harassment and ostracism of executives, and so on. Look at how much flak companies get about third-world sweatshops today - and that's voluntary!

I think this technology will probably be very interesting to a totalitarian state like Cuba or China, that has armies to violently crush dissent, and can violate human rights as much as they please because they don't recognise that their citizens have rights at all.

On the subject of Huxley, his vision and that of Orwell's 1984 are two visions of how totalitarian socialism could be accomplished. Huxleys is more sustainable, but needs more technology. Both are dire warnings against statism and concentration of power.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

I can't see employer manipulation of D2 gaining much acceptance. No employee with half a brain would accept such tampering

I believe that in a round-about way, the far-right proponents of the free enterprise system seek to accomplish the same thing, without the directness of genetic manipulation. If such social systems, such as a publicly funded and mandated school system, become privatized, the owners will 'chart the course' of everybody from kindergarten on up. The owner of the schools will be driven by his/her own economic interest, and so what you will learn, and why, will increasingly be about what serves the owner, and not the individual nor society, or at most,just to the basest degree.

[Hugo]

The owner of the schools will be driven by his/her own economic interest, and so what you will learn, and why, will increasingly be about what serves the owner, and not the individual nor society, or at most,just to the basest degree

No, it will be driven by the desires of the consumer. Private industry caters to what the market wants, and private schools will offer the kind of education their paying customers - parents - demand, or they will go out of business.

[August1991]

Britain has a population that is far in excess of what its arable land can support, and yet famine in Britain of the last few centuries is almost unheard of.

Holland is my favourite example.

I can't see employer manipulation of D2 gaining much acceptance. No employee with half a brain would accept such tampering, and if would be easy to spot any employer who had done it secretly by the fact that his workers so cheerfully worked without pay.

Agreed but the issue, IMV, is whether parents would choose to alter the code of a child (before or after birth), or the State the code of an orphan.

Since you guys are going off into The Twilight Zone, let me note my suspicion that such a gene would not survive long. Genes must be transmitted to survive.

The owner of the schools will be driven by his/her own economic interest, and so what you will learn, and why, will increasingly be about what serves the owner, and not the individual nor society, or at most,just to the basest degree.

That happens now Thelonious. Kids learn what the Ministry ordains and what a teachers' union agrees to teach. True, individual teachers still have some leeway. Sort of.

My argument with Hugo would be about payment in a private system. Rich kids would get good schools, others OK schools and then the rest would get, well, what?

If someone had asked me, before my birth, if I would agree to give up one half my lifetime salary but with the understanding that I would get a decent education fand a decent homelife for the first 18 years of my life, I would have jumped at the offer. I know too many people who never got the offer.

Let the State collect taxes and pay for non-union teachers working in private schools. This also has the advantage of not putting all our eggs in one basket. (BTW, Canada almost has such a system.)

[Hugo]

Agreed but the issue, IMV, is whether parents would choose to alter the code of a child (before or after birth), or the State the code of an orphan.

I think it fair to say that if parents are willing to abrogate the free will of their children on a large scale, humankind is going to be radically different as a species. Any discussion of social and political models is going to be very different because the rules of the game have been fundamentally changed.

My argument with Hugo would be about payment in a private system. Rich kids would get good schools, others OK schools and then the rest would get, well, what?

Well, this happens now, doesn't it? Rich kids get to go to vastly better-performing private schools and then to good universities, whereas other kids have to suffer in the underachieving state school system.

As to how the poor would afford good schools in market anarchy, there are a wide variety of ways. For instance, a student who is very bright but poor and passes the entrance exams to a good school but cannot afford the fees will almost certainly get a long-term loan from a lending institution, since he represents an excellent credit risk as he is likely to get a good job once he graduates.

Don't discount private charity. Studies and economic simulations show that as the tax burden decreases and prosperity increases, charitable giving is increased. Of course, with competition between charitable schools (for students, and for donated money), each school still has the incentive to do the best they possibly can for the student.

As to whether charity alone can provide a service, there are many examples of charities that achieve all they set out to entirely with private donations. The Seeing-Eye Dogs foundation is an example. Everybody who needs a seeing-eye dog gets one, and the charity runs a surplus each year.

Without the massive tax burden on households, families will have less pressure to have both parents at work. Sure, they'd have to pay for things they get "free" from tax money now, but firstly, the average family has to pay taxes for a whole load of stuff they never see a cent of return for, and secondly, we all know the free market will provide these services far cheaper. With less pressure to work multiple jobs, homeschooling becomes a very viable option, and the evidence of educational achievement shows that homeschooling is very superior to collective schools.

Let the State collect taxes and pay for non-union teachers working in private schools. This also has the advantage of not putting all our eggs in one basket.

This should tell you what the actual agenda of the state is. If the government truly wanted to provide "free" education to all, they would privatise the entire education system and issue education vouchers. The fact is that government jealously asserts control over the entire educational system and often viciously attacks private schools and homeschooling, without good reason (after all, private schools and homeschooling alleviate the pressure on the education budget). The only cause of such a policy can be indoctrination.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

homeschooling becomes a very viable option, and the evidence of educational achievement shows that homeschooling is very superior to collective schools.

I have personally seen the opposite. I believe it can be possible in individual cases, but for the vast majority, it is impossible.

For instance, a student who is very bright but poor and passes the entrance exams to a good school but cannot afford the fees

I agree, scholarships and bursaries are available to those who strive for them, but they are limited to the top 1-2% at high school.

that government jealously asserts control over the entire educational system and often viciously attacks private schools

I have never heard of this. Do you mean schools run by cults such as the Dukhobors and Creationists etc.?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Rich kids would get good schools, others OK schools and then the rest would get, well, what?

Hamburger University, and hands on training for a McJob.

[Hugo]

I have personally seen the opposite. I believe it can be possible in individual cases, but for the vast majority, it is impossible.

Homeschooling generally produces better results than public schooling, if only because parents prepared to homeschool their kids have a far greater interest in it than teachers. Homeschooling doubtless isn't for all parents, but private schools invariably deliver better results than state-run schools. In any event, state schools seem to be the worst option short of no education at all.

I agree, scholarships and bursaries are available to those who strive for them, but they are limited to the top 1-2% at high school.

Bursaries are provided by the state. If private loans were the main method of paying for education you'd see it done very often and with good results. You are attacking a hypothetical system with the flaws of an existing and entirely different system.

Furthermore, it gives the child an interest in completing education satisfactorily and getting a good job i.e. the bill for schooling hanging over them. With "free" state schooling, the cost is hidden, so they can waste time in school and don't work too hard at their career, all too often. Students coming out of university feel pressured to get a job, and a good one, because of their student loans.

I have never heard of this. Do you mean schools run by cults such as the Dukhobors and Creationists etc.?

No, I mean things such as the Ontario government refusing to give parents of privately schooled children any kind of tax credit. Basically, that amounts to fines for private school.

Hamburger University, and hands on training for a McJob.

You're being elitist.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

If private loans were the main method of paying for education you'd see it done very often and with good results.

This has been done, I believe. The purpose was to help eliminate the large number of loan defaults, and I think it was RBC or BMO that underwrote student loans in Alberta commencing some years ago.

I wonder, though, if the bank loaning the student money has a say in what the student can take for classes. Just as banks are loathe to lend for high-risk ventures such as restaurants, would they give a student a loan for a philosophy degree? Or a BFA? Should the bank have a say?

QUOTE 

Hamburger University, and hands on training for a McJob. 

You're being elitist.

Not really, just cheeky. If a certain percentage of people are needed to work low-income or menial jobs, and if private enterprise were to control schooling, it would be in the best interest of the school to 'direct learning input' early. Why waste a seat in in chemistry or geography class on that percentage which will never utilize it?

The privately run school system (Let's say McDonald's Corp bought all of Calgary's high schools and The UofC) would maximize returns for themselves by 'weeding out' the lower 50% of students from the classes that require 'higher intelligence'. The top 50% would then have smaller class sizes and receive a better education, and be more likely to pay off those exorbitant student loans. The lower 50% could then be focused on being better 'peons'. After all, why would a privately run school invest time and materials equally throughout the school when the return on investment is guaranteed to be 'not equal'?

[Hugo]

I wonder, though, if the bank loaning the student money has a say in what the student can take for classes. Just as banks are loathe to lend for high-risk ventures such as restaurants, would they give a student a loan for a philosophy degree? Or a BFA? Should the bank have a say?

Of course! It's their money. The bank is free to attach whatever conditions it likes to its loan, and the prospective debtor is able to reject or accept them as he sees fit.

You would probably see that degrees less likely to lead to high-paying jobs would carry a higher rate of interest for the loan. Another positive result you would see is that gluts and shortages in the labour market would correct themselves. For instance, apparently we have too many law graduates right now. What happens in the free market is the marginal value of a law graduate is pushed down, salary drops, the interest rate for law degree loans rises and people choose other degrees to attain. Similarly, where there is a labour shortage the wages rise, interest rates drop, and more people are attracted to the profession.

It also encourages personal responsibility for education and career, because a person directly bears the consequences of his own choices and actions rather than forcing the taxpayer to bear them for him.

If a certain percentage of people are needed to work low-income or menial jobs, and if private enterprise were to control schooling, it would be in the best interest of the school to 'direct learning input' early.

To be honest, that level of coercion would almost certainly require a state, and examples of such practices are seen in totalitarian states such as Cuba. Schools are not beholden to those who'd employ their students but to their customers, the students and/or their parents, so they will meet the demands of their customers or go out of business. The employers can only manipulate education through market forces, the labour market, and such manipulation is beyond monopoly of any one employer.

The top 50% would then have smaller class sizes and receive a better education, and be more likely to pay off those exorbitant student loans. The lower 50% could then be focused on being better 'peons'.

I think you're labouring under some misconceptions about minimum-wage jobs. Most people who work in them are under 25, most people who work in them are earning more within 12 months.

Students who were a lot brighter would probably get more resources on their education. Lending institutions would be more willing to lend them large sums of money because they are going to be more successful in life.

But short of the Bokanovsky process, what are you going to do about it? Some people are smarter. That's it.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

My apologies, I have been too busy recently for any posts, though I have tossed a couple out there on a few subjects.

There are some points I will concede on, but there are a few I still have issue with. Policing, mainly, and the gov'ts role with it.

I shall try to make some time this weekend to revist this and a couple of other points.

[Hugo]

No problem. I appreciate your efforts thus far! Hopefully when your schedule allows we shall deal with the issues of polycentric law and the justice & policing market.