Hugo's defence of anarchy

[Hugo]

What do you mean by "no single political authority"? How could they have law if there was no authority?

There was authority, just not one single authority. Anarchism relies upon polycentric law, statism upon monocentric law. Anarcho-capitalism holds that law is a good like any other, with a market, and in a free law market people will "buy" law at the price and quality they deem best. Therefore, polycentric law is the best way to get law that is the will of society, much as a polycentric, market-based car industry is the best way to supply cars.

Under a government, unjust law is a private good, just law a public good. Therefore, statism exposes law to the public goods problem and the tragedy of the commons. Anarchy turns this upon its head and makes just law a private good and unjust law a public good.

That may be your definition, but it is faulty.

If government did not use coercion, either to force people to "buy" its services or to prevent others from competing with them, they would no longer be government, but merely a business.

No, consent will serve.

Then if we can provide collective goods based upon consent, why should we have coercion?

It can be. What needs examination is why you would claim that voluntariness precludes government.

Because, as I have illustrated above, government precludes voluntaryism. It uses force to make people buy and force to eliminate competition. Therefore, there is no room for free will and consent.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Divided authority is still authority. That's not anarchy, it's just a different constitution.

[Hugo]

6 billion states of one. That is anarchy, self-government: to have authority over oneself and not to have authority over another. Your reluctance to call things by their names changes nothing.

The other mark of anarchist society, apart from polycentric law, is pacifism. The initiation of force is not permitted to anyone, rather than being permitted but restricted to a limited group as in statist societies.

Note that these conditions were true in anarchist Iceland. There was polycentric law in the form of chieftains, who formed "government." However, a citizen was free to choose whichever chieftain he wanted, or even to become a chieftain, and there were many chieftains even within the same geographical area. A citizen did not even have to move to select a different chieftain. Furthermore, the chieftains had no executive arm. Their capacity was strictly as advisors and mediators, and a chieftain had no power to coerce anybody. Thus, like businesses, they were fully at the mercy of their customers, the citizenry. They had to provide what was demanded or go out of business.

Oh, and as to your question as to how there could be law without authority, consider that "law" is just basically a set of rules. Rules come into existence without any kind of authority all the time. Why are all ATM cards the same size and shape? Why is paper produced in standard sizes? Why are USB-based computer peripherals compatible? Why, as August is fond of saying, do humans use language? What authority backs these rules? If there is a demand for rules and uniformity, it will arise whether there is authority qua state or not.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You seem to want it both ways.

You say on the one hand there is authority (albeit divided), then you describe a situation of no authority.

Which ... proves my point. Anarchy is an impossibility. A fiction. A nullity.

[Hugo]

The existence of free will creates authority over oneself. I decide what I am going to do. I have authority over my body. Therefore, the only way to eliminate all authority is the extinction of humanity. But what you can do is reduce authority down to the level of free-willed individuals. That's anarchy. Basically, a man shall have authority over himself but not over any other man. Statism is the converse, that some men shall have authority over other men and those other men, no or limited authority over themselves.

[The Terrible Sweal]

"Authority over oneself" is not authority, it is a rhetorical device to describe liberty. Authority proper arises only as between or among persons.

The problem with anarchy is not (as is often suggested) the inability to acheive it. The problem is that no description of it can be formulated which is not merely a variation of either [a] social contract government or authoritarian rule.

[Hugo]

Authority proper arises only as between or among persons.

If this is your working definition of authority, then anarchy would indeed be without authority. One can grant another "authority" over oneself and one's possessions (like a power of attorney), but since this is freely given, it isn't really authority, any more than your employer has authority over you.

The problem is that no description of it can be formulated which is not merely a variation of either [a] social contract government

It is social contract "government". In fact, it is the only truly contractual government. Non-anarchist/voluntaryist social contracts expect at least one of the parties not to explicitly consent to the contract, or create a contract where one of the parties has no right to make the stipulations contained in it.

We went over this before. August claimed that one's birth was tantamount to signing the social contract, but since one's birth is nonconsensual, it cannot logically be taken as consent to anything else. You and August have both claimed that one must consent to government to live in a country, but until the rightful ownership of the country by the government is established this would simply be an illegal contract, much as if I made a contract with August (for instance) that he could watch your TV on Tuesdays if he paid me $50, without consulting you first.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It is social contract "government".

Good. That settles that then.

You and August have both claimed that one must consent to government to live in a country,

Jeez, Hugo. Are you literally incapable of grasping what another person writes?

What August and I have said is that in societies you are free to depart from, remaining constitutes consent to the terms of the social contract therein.

... but until the rightful ownership of the country by the government is established this would simply be an illegal contract,

Back to this 'ownership' nonsense! "Ownership" is not the point. Participation in the social contract is.

[Hugo]

What August and I have said is that in societies you are free to depart from, remaining constitutes consent to the terms of the social contract therein.

And right back to the circular argument again. If I consent by staying, then that presumes that the government is indeed the legitimate authority in Canada. They can only attach conditions to that which they are the rightful authority over. The argument amounts to: "Government is legitimate because it is legitimate." I can sit on my own property and refuse to obey the rules you set out for being on your property, can I not?

Back to this 'ownership' nonsense! "Ownership" is not the point. Participation in the social contract is.

Which presumes ownership or authority derived from the rightful owners. All of them.

Jeez, Hugo. Are you literally incapable of grasping what another person writes?

Cut it out. You are not in a position to be casting aspersions on my debate.

[The Terrible Sweal]

And right back to the circular argument again. If I consent by staying, then that presumes that the government is indeed the legitimate authority in Canada.

Nope.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

The existence of free will creates authority over oneself.

This is fine, right and just, but only if you are the sole person on the planet. Even God, or man's notion of god, sought to put limits on this free will by religious law. (Although that is a 'voluntary contract' also)

[Hugo]

Nope.

You believe whatever you're comfortable with, Sweal. The fact that you can't mount any kind of defence speaks volumes.

This is fine, right and just, but only if you are the sole person on the planet.

Not at all. If we are all human, and we all have free will, then it logically follows that the limit on our free will is where it overlaps another's free will. It doesn't even need to be said.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Nope.

You believe whatever you're comfortable with, Sweal. The fact that you can't mount any kind of defence speaks volumes.

Hugo, my 'nope' has every bit as much validity as your nonsensical repetitive recitations. Plus it had the advantage of brevity.

I have already spoken volumes to you, but they might as well have been addressed to a bale of straw. For example, youi've become attached to the idea of a circular argument and you resort to that comment each time a direct line is cut through your convolutions. There is nothing whatsoever circular about my position, except the path you are walking around it.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Here is a modern working example of the feasability of Anarchy. This was lifted from the BBC online news today.

Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 November, 2004, 23:50 GMT 

E-mail this to a friend  Printable version 

Living in Somalia's anarchy 

As Somalia's new government prepares to return to restore order after years of anarchy, the BBC News website's Joseph Winter reports from Mogadishu on life with no central control.

Somalia is the only country in the world where there is no government.

 

Some of my children sell nuts in the street to earn some money. We can't afford to send them to school

Ladan Barow Nur

In pictures: Life in Mogadishu 

Seventeenth century philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote that "life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", if there is no central authority.

Few Somalis have probably heard of Hobbes but most would agree with his description - except for "solitary", as family and clan ties remain extremely strong.

The last government, of Siad Barre, was toppled in 1991.

Since then Somalia has been divided into a myriad of different fiefdoms controlled by rival warlords, who occasionally clash for territory.

So what is life like after more than a decade without a government?

No public spending

Driving 50km (30 miles) from one of the airstrips near the capital, Mogadishu, to the city, you pass seven checkpoints, each run by a different militia.

Life in Somalia is 'poor, nasty, brutish and short'

At each of these "border crossings" all passenger vehicles and goods lorries must pay an "entry fee", ranging from $3 - $300, depending on the value of the goods being carried - and what the militiamen think they can get away with.

There is no pretence that any of this money goes on public services, such as health, education or roads.

Much of it is spent by the militiamen on khat, an addictive stimulant, whose green leaves they can chew for hours on end.

Those who can afford it travel with several armed guards - and then you can pass the road-blocks unmolested.

Much of south Mogadishu appears deceptively calm but parts, including the north, remain too dangerous to visit.

While Siad Barre is commonly referred to as a dictator and people were press-ganged into fighting wars with Somalia's neighbours, some now remember with fondness that schools and hospitals were free.

It is now estimated that only about 15% of children of primary-school age actually go to school, compared with at least 75% even in Somalia's poor neighbours.

In Mogadishu, many schools, colleges, universities and even government buildings, have become camps for the people who fled to the capital seeking sanctuary from fighting elsewhere.

[August1991]

Hugo could make the defendable argument that this state of affairs is an improvement over the situation prevailing prior to 1991.

IOW, compare comparables.

And to be frank, the notion of government as we understand it in Canada is unknown in most countries of the world. In many places, a president can issue a decree but it means absolutely nothing when it leaves his desk.

Much of it is spent by the militiamen on khat

Same as Yemen.

[Hugo]

Your source, Thelonius, has spent a week or so in one city and presumes himself an expert on the entire country. Tell me, would you spend a week in Toronto, and count yourself an expert on Quebec, the Maritimes, Alberta and BC?

Jim Davidson of the Awdal Roads Company has spent a lot of time travelling in the entire country and wrote this essay about Somalian anarchy.

Bryce Bigwood, who hasn't travelled to Somalia but who has researched it carefully, has a very similar view to Davidson's. His essay is interesting because he actually thinks about solutions to the ongoing problems in Somalia, for instance, the addition of transferable restitution (think of our collection agency system) to the Xeer legal code, and more efficient arbitration methods.

Shafer Parker, an Albertan, has offered this embellishment on an article in a 2002 National Geographic magazine, in which the author, Andrew Cockburn, basically asserts that anarchy is responsible for Somalia's rise from the ashes of her 1993 war.

As August said, it is important to consider anarchist Somalia not as compared to Canada, but as compared to Somalia under a government. The comparison is clear: anarchist Somalia is a vast improvement. If Canada were to become anarchist, we would get similar improvements, and we would also not have nearly the same amount of problems since we are starting from peace rather than the destruction of war and since we already have a lof of the institutions that Somalia ought to develop.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

I read these essays, and I must say they have not convinced me to move to Somalia anytime soon.

As an aside, 'transferable restitution' was one of the most annoying habits I encountered in high school (and a little bit beyond) amongst us 'poor' students. Sometimes I would lend $5 to a friend, but when I asked for it back, he would say, "Oh, 'Joe' owes me five, so just collect from him and we'll be square". I would always reply, "Screw that, YOU borrowed the money so YOU pay it back. Live up to your responsibility!"

As to the essays, I found it curious that all of them referred to the clan-style of 'autonomous existence', when the 'greater clans' were defacto gov'ts themselves. They always refer to the clans 'defending themselves', without acknowledging that it was probably (With the exception of the US incursion) the aggression of a neighboring clan, or themselves, that was the ongoing problem. The essays didn't tell you that the individual clans were the agressors, but there sure seems to be a lot of 'defending' going on.

Another intersting point was that very little wealth is created in Somalia, (If you can call a gov't less country a name) but rather it was 'sent home' by the diaspora.

As to the development of resources, Jim Davidson accuses in his essay

In 1993, the USA government sent many huge convoys of trucks into the mountains where the uranium was known to be, and took many truckloads of ore to the port of Mogadishu. I propose that further investigation may reveal that the USA government stole much of the readily available uranium ore, though it would likely deny this idea.

while the US may have paid a local clan some few dozen chickens for the 'lease to the land', and since the contract would have been voluntary, (and Xeer-kosher) there is no legitimate 'beef' here.

For any investor, to hear the words "Our mineral development rights depend on the unwritten word of a clan-chief, and that word depends on whether he and his clan can field enough milita and arms to defend their territory from a neighboring clan and/or bandits." does not inspire confidence.

[Hugo]

As an aside, 'transferable restitution' was one of the most annoying habits I encountered in high school (and a little bit beyond) amongst us 'poor' students.

That's not what's being discussed. Transferrable restitution means that you can sell a debt. Say I owe you $1000 and I default on the loan. You don't have any way to make me pay. You sell the debt to a professional collector, who pays you $1000 for it. Then that collector makes it his business to hound me for the $1000, plus a fee for his services (which, being a smart guy, you would have insisted that I agree to as part of the terms for the loan). This is how things worked in anarchist Iceland, for instance. It meant that even the poorest peasant had a way to get what was owed to him by the rich and powerful.

The essays didn't tell you that the individual clans were the agressors, but there sure seems to be a lot of 'defending' going on.

Anarchy isn't going to solve the problem of crime. What it would solve is, basically, the public goods problem of government. In Iceland, people were free to pick their chieftain or "clan" and so clans competed, like businesses, to offer the best services to people for the least cost. A person could always opt out.

In Somalia, as the essays have said, they're still not quite at a truly anarchist society, as the Icelanders or the Pennsylvanians were. They're missing a few institutions. But they're closer than they were thirteen years ago, and there has been progress.

while the US may have paid a local clan some few dozen chickens for the 'lease to the land', and since the contract would have been voluntary, (and Xeer-kosher) there is no legitimate 'beef' here.

Maybe. I don't know. I imagine Davidson must have some grounds for his speculation (and it is speculation, by his own admission).

[August1991]

Anarchy isn't going to solve the problem of crime. What it would solve is, basically, the public goods problem of government.

It wouldn't solve the problem of free-riders any better than our current system does.

In Iceland, people were free to pick their chieftain or "clan" and so clans competed, like businesses, to offer the best services to people for the least cost.  A person could always opt out.

We have all of that now, more or less.

Many public goods are geographic and many of the goods and services provided through government are geographic (garbage collection, roads, schools, hospital care). In the western world, people choose their jurisdiction in the same way they could choose their clan. (In Somalia, birth decides clan membership.)

None of this solves the fundamental problem that while a bridge between two towns may be a good thing, each person individually has an interest in claiming otherwise.

[Hugo]

It wouldn't solve the problem of free-riders any better than our current system does.

Well, it would. Currently, free-riders have the option of using the tool of state power, or violence, to get their free ride. Under anarchy, that's no longer possible (at least, it's far harder, since no violent institution has an illusion of legitimacy).

We have all of that now, more or less. Many public goods are geographic

Exactly. You are justifying monopoly within a geographic area. That's a state - a monopoly on violence within a geographic area. If that is what you think, then effectively we already have anarchy (multiple states, different areas) and what you want is a single world government.

This is also like state-granted geographic monopolies for utility and cable companies, for instance.

None of this solves the fundamental problem that while a bridge between two towns may be a good thing, each person individually has an interest in claiming otherwise.

You propose a state to take care of a public goods problem and you just create an even bigger one: the state itself.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Exactly. You are justifying monopoly within a geographic area. That's a state - a monopoly on violence within a geographic area

Is that not also the right of the Anarchist or the 'Clan'? (In fact, a sole Anarchist automatically has monopoly over all his resources! Unless, of course, he is schizophrenic. )

In all cases, Gov't or Anarchy, the use of power or violence is an option open to all, with consequences for all. Any gov't abusing power could face rebellion, an uprising or a coup followed by a beheading.

[Hugo]

In all cases, Gov't or Anarchy, the use of power or violence is an option open to all, with consequences for all.

The key difference, of course, is that government gives a facade of legitimacy to what it does. Those who disagree with or resist government crimes are traitors, turncoats, rebels, insurgents, terrorists, tax evaders, draft-dodgers, criminals and so forth. The government is able to label itself as righteous.

In fact, a sole Anarchist automatically has monopoly over all his resources!

Because he owns them. Government doesn't own anything.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Back to this 'ownership' nonsense! "Ownership" is not the point. Participation in the social contract is.

Which presumes ownership or authority derived from the rightful owners. All of them.

You keep putting the cart before the horse. "Ownership" is created by the social contract, not vice versa.

Jeez, Hugo. Are you literally incapable of grasping what another person writes?

Cut it out. You are not in a position to be casting aspersions on my debate.

You don't like that criticism, eh. Well then, stop impetuously or impertinently misstating the positions of your interlocutors.

[Hugo]

You keep putting the cart before the horse. "Ownership" is created by the social contract, not vice versa.

What is the social contract?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Social Contract Theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society. ...

Social Contract