Anarchism - does it lead to failed states

[IvanV]

Libertarians would argue that unfettered capitalism achieves this. Governments are becoming increasingly irrelevant already.

I don't buy that argument. All but the most extreme capitalist libertarian accepts the need for governments to enforce things like laws, contracts and property rights. But as mentioned above, ultimately the ability to do that is based upon coercive power. I don't see how a capitalist economy would function with no central authority to prevent theft.

Pretty much the first thing that any nascent human settlement in the modern world will do is create a local council to organise those things that are best organised collectively. And there are many such things.

Most places the trend on state spending is upwards. The problem of developed countries is growing a surplus to be able to spend at the kind of level that developed countries spend at. Without it, they are held back. Britain is an exception and recently trimmed back (pre-Covid) the state to below 35% of the national income. So down a bit but hardly an irrelevance. It's over 40% in most of Europe, and up to 50% in several places. So actually most places the state is becoming more relevant. Covid will have increased it.

And how is the major road system being built in this extreme capitalist economy? Even the privately-funded turnpike model of Britain in the industrial revolution required a central government to coordinate it. And it eventually collapsed because so many of the turnpike trusts couldn't afford to upgrade their roads to compete with the new canals and railways, and went bankrupt. The state had to pick up the pieces. Even privately funded telecoms networks need central coordination. And other network utilities.

And what about education and health? Redistribution is actually good for us all. If you make everyone pay for education and health at full cost, then lots of people can't afford it, and you end up with a country with a large penumbra of poor people, such as we saw in 19th century Britain, or modern developing countries. Such a country is not such a nice place to live, especially if you are part of the majority of hordes in poverty. A nation of relatively well-educated and healthy people has a positive effect on the whole economy, by increasing its productivity. And what about controlling plagues?

What about a planning system? Well-planned cities are more productive and efficient. What about controlling environmental pollution?

The truth is that a successful capitalist economy needs considerable coordination, collective investment in infrastructure, and, would you believe, redistribution. Successful capitalist economies do a lot of redistribution.

[lpm]

A non-utopian argument for anarchism is that village level communities would be incapable of the worst forms of destruction that can only be achieved by centrally organized states. Self governing communities may be prone to coercive behavior by individuals or small groups. But they are never going to be able to, say, invade the Congo or Iraq, or carry out the Holocaust, Great Leap Forward, or Red Famine.

Centralized powerful states that respect their citizens' human rights seem nice for those citizens. But the picture is very different for outsiders, or if the state doesn't respect individuals and instead sends millions off to the camps to die.

At a global scale, the world might have been better off if somehow in 1800 the people of Europe had rejected states and decided to live in anarchistic communes.

The argument is obviously wrong, because for most of our history we lived in village sized communities without the ability for mass destruction. And yet the archaeological record shows those small communities had walls, defensive ditches and hillforts.

[Woodchopper]

As for your argument about laws, ultimately they are enforced at the point of a gun. Especially in Britain you don't see that on a day to day basis. But if someone were to openly break the law in a non-trivial sense then sooner or later they'd receive a visit from the police or a summons to go to court. Ignore that and the police will at some point use physical force, and if someone were to fightback then pretty soon they would be looking at the barrel of a police firearm.

That's a description of rule by law, not rule by gun. The difference is that law is not arbitrary, day-to-day or individual decision making. The fact that the police use physical force or a literal gun is totally irrelevant - it's not the gun that is providing the power, it's the law.

I disagree that its "not the gun that is providing the power, it's the law". They both do. Hopefully laws have popular consent and legitimacy. But all that falls apart if it isn't also backed up by guns. Without the guns the only penalty for those who break the law are varieties of naming and shaming. Guns without laws made by representative governments are just despotism, which usually falls apart anyway. But laws without guns just won't be enforced as soon as they meet anyone who is antisocial.

[Woodchopper]

A non-utopian argument for anarchism is that village level communities would be incapable of the worst forms of destruction that can only be achieved by centrally organized states. Self governing communities may be prone to coercive behavior by individuals or small groups. But they are never going to be able to, say, invade the Congo or Iraq, or carry out the Holocaust, Great Leap Forward, or Red Famine.

Centralized powerful states that respect their citizens' human rights seem nice for those citizens. But the picture is very different for outsiders, or if the state doesn't respect individuals and instead sends millions off to the camps to die.

At a global scale, the world might have been better off if somehow in 1800 the people of Europe had rejected states and decided to live in anarchistic communes.

The argument is obviously wrong, because for most of our history we lived in village sized communities without the ability for mass destruction. And yet the archaeological record shows those small communities had walls, defensive ditches and hillforts.

The point would be that conflict between self governing communities would in aggregate involve less human suffering than organized war, exploitation and repression carried out by states. A village might build a wall and a moat, but its never going to be able to drop Fat Man and Little Boy onto cities on the other side of the world.

[lpm]

But all that falls apart if it isn't also backed up by guns.

My fundamental disagreement is with this statement. I don't think it falls apart in 2021, in most of the world.

If people expect the law to reassert itself they will continue to obey it. Since 1945 we've been putting people on trial for crimes committed when no law was in force, or even for things that were officially legal. We're well beyond the point when it becomes self sustaining.

[IvanV]

... for most of our history we lived in village sized communities without the ability for mass destruction. And yet the archaeological record shows those small communities had walls, defensive ditches and hillforts.

The efficient size of the community that could be defended was smaller with early technologies. But there's no going back once larger organised societies that have the technology to conquer and hold a larger state have moved into your area.

Early small settlements had defences because it was a very violent time. They had to spend a lot of their communal resources on defence. They were not necessarily independent of their neighbours. Even in classical and mediaeval times, when states were larger, settlements were fortified because of risk of invasion, not because they were (all) independent.

[lpm]

A non-utopian argument for anarchism is that village level communities would be incapable of the worst forms of destruction that can only be achieved by centrally organized states. Self governing communities may be prone to coercive behavior by individuals or small groups. But they are never going to be able to, say, invade the Congo or Iraq, or carry out the Holocaust, Great Leap Forward, or Red Famine.

Centralized powerful states that respect their citizens' human rights seem nice for those citizens. But the picture is very different for outsiders, or if the state doesn't respect individuals and instead sends millions off to the camps to die.

At a global scale, the world might have been better off if somehow in 1800 the people of Europe had rejected states and decided to live in anarchistic communes.

The argument is obviously wrong, because for most of our history we lived in village sized communities without the ability for mass destruction. And yet the archaeological record shows those small communities had walls, defensive ditches and hillforts.

The point would be that conflict between self governing communities would in aggregate involve less human suffering than organized war, exploitation and repression carried out by states. A village might build a wall and a moat, but its never going to be able to drop Fat Man and Little Boy onto cities on the other side of the world.

Obviously, but a village can raze another village to the ground, kill all men and children, and carry off the cattle and women. That human suffering is almost certainly far higher than sporadic organised war and mass slaughter.

It's not clear if Caesar's mass murder of Gauls, followed by a couple of centuries of centralised peace, was worse than the previous suffering from village level violence. History can distort by having enormous detail of Caesar and none of pre-Roman Gaul. But even in the historical record there's plenty of accounts of raiding groups travelling huge distances - thousands of miles - on extended village-level massacres.

[Woodchopper]

Obviously, but a village can raze another village to the ground, kill all men and children, and carry off the cattle and women. That human suffering is almost certainly far higher than sporadic organised war and mass slaughter.

It's not clear if Caesar's mass murder of Gauls, followed by a couple of centuries of centralised peace, was worse than the previous suffering from village level violence. History can distort by having enormous detail of Caesar and none of pre-Roman Gaul. But even in the historical record there's plenty of accounts of raiding groups travelling huge distances - thousands of miles - on extended village-level massacres.
[/quote]

That's probably correct.

[Woodchopper]

But all that falls apart if it isn't also backed up by guns.

My fundamental disagreement is with this statement. I don't think it falls apart in 2021, in most of the world.

If people expect the law to reassert itself they will continue to obey it. Since 1945 we've been putting people on trial for crimes committed when no law was in force, or even for things that were officially legal. We're well beyond the point when it becomes self sustaining.

Its self sustaining among people who want to live in a society in which everyone obeys the law. But those people are not effective at enforcing laws among people who are antisocial.

The law abiding community will fall apart very quickly as soon as a small group decide they can get whatever they want through use of force. You rapidly get what you'll find across parts of the developing world - communities are run by 'big men' who employ the rule of the gun you mentioned upthread.

ETA Mexico is one of the most violent place son the planet. A couple of years ago I had a long chat with this person. We reckoned that only about 0.5% of the population were actively involved in perpetrating cartel related violence. The other 99.5% would very likely prefer to live in a society in which people obeyed the law. But they don't because of a tiny fraction.

[IvanV]

But all that falls apart if it isn't also backed up by guns.

My fundamental disagreement is with this statement. I don't think it falls apart in 2021, in most of the world.

I'd like to believe you, but I feel I can't. We humans include a minority who won't always play by the rules of society. The threat of future prosecution is insufficient to stop them. Indeed the threat of present prosecution is insufficient to stop them, whether we are talking about crime, or events like the 2011 riots in England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots What would have happened there if there had been no police applying force to contain them? It would soon have gone quiet and they'd all have gone home? That's not what usually happens when people occupy the streets and find no one opposes them.

Let me remind you of the Montreal Police Strike. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray-Hill_riot More recent police strikes have understood the importance of retaining a back-stop force to maintain order.

I was astonished when I first learned about it, and had to accept that modern societies are a lot closer to violence than we like to think. Most of us would like to carry on in peace and harmony, obey social rules. But it only takes a small minority to find that they can apply violence and if there is no one to stop them they will soon take over. That minority exists and will discover it very quickly, as Montreal found out.

[plodder]

I'm not sure. Constant low level misery is probably better than occasional extreme trauma - not least because it's easier to manage. This is why historians don't keep careful note of all the moaning people do on your local town's facebook pages, for example. It's not important.

[plodder]

But all that falls apart if it isn't also backed up by guns.

My fundamental disagreement is with this statement. I don't think it falls apart in 2021, in most of the world.

If people expect the law to reassert itself they will continue to obey it. Since 1945 we've been putting people on trial for crimes committed when no law was in force, or even for things that were officially legal. We're well beyond the point when it becomes self sustaining.

Also - chops, try not paying the people who have the guns. There have been loads of examples of mercenaries and privateers throughout history. You don't need a state for this. How many state-sponsored wars have their been that are actually to protect well-connected private enterprise?

Dispand the armies and see whether shareholders allow Musk to build a robot army. Armies are there to protect against other armies.

[monkey]

But all that falls apart if it isn't also backed up by guns.

My fundamental disagreement is with this statement. I don't think it falls apart in 2021, in most of the world.

If people expect the law to reassert itself they will continue to obey it. Since 1945 we've been putting people on trial for crimes committed when no law was in force, or even for things that were officially legal. We're well beyond the point when it becomes self sustaining.

When I was reading Woodchopper's post's I was assuming he was using guns as shorthand for coercion. Guns aren't the only way a state coerces you. The threat of prison or fines seems to be enough for most. Plus there's the more sneaky underhanded way they can operate too.

[plodder]

What compels people to go to prison?

[monkey]

What compels people to go to prison?

Mostly not guns, which was my point.

ETA: I agree with people who say things like "The law only works because the state has a monopoly on violence".

[Martin Y]

Yes, I think we get your point that ultimately the state (or whoever else is) enforcing order has to be willing and able to bring more force to bear than whoever is challenging them. But I'm not clear on what point you're making with "what if you don't pay the police?". If you're not willing to invest in security then you don't have security. And? If you have Jeff Bezos's money but don't have anyone enforcing property rights then you shortly won't have Jeff Bezos's money. Peaceful cooperation and altruism may be the best strategy for everyone to prosper overall but it's not the best strategy for every individual.

[Grumble]

What compels people to go to prison?

Not usually guns.

[lpm]

Nearly all people go to prison willingly - they obey the prison officer. A few are violent. Even criminals believe in the power of the law - they mostly claim to be innocent, they rarely claim the court has no jurisdiction over them.

In England we're several centuries beyond "The law only works because the state has a monopoly on violence". The law works because it's the law. Same way money works because it's money. I don't believe these shared abstract beliefs will disappear given how deep routed they are in our society.

None of this is to say there aren't shoplifters, Covid rule breakers and violent criminals. But only a handful of these lawbreakers come up with fantasy arguments about being freeman of the land and the like.

[monkey]

Nearly all people go to prison willingly - they obey the prison officer. A few are violent. Even criminals believe in the power of the law - they mostly claim to be innocent, they rarely claim the court has no jurisdiction over them.

In England we're several centuries beyond "The law only works because the state has a monopoly on violence". The law works because it's the law. Same way money works because it's money. I don't believe these shared abstract beliefs will disappear given how deep routed they are in our society.

None of this is to say there aren't shoplifters, Covid rule breakers and violent criminals. But only a handful of these lawbreakers come up with fantasy arguments about being freeman of the land and the like.

Most of the law seems to be about property, but a big chunk of it tells you that you will be punished if you punch, kick, main or kill someone else (with a few exceptions). But another bit tells you that police can do that, if they need to (with some limits). The monopoly on violence is part of the law.

[lpm]

But all that falls apart if it isn't also backed up by guns.

My fundamental disagreement is with this statement. I don't think it falls apart in 2021, in most of the world.

I'd like to believe you, but I feel I can't. We humans include a minority who won't always play by the rules of society. The threat of future prosecution is insufficient to stop them. Indeed the threat of present prosecution is insufficient to stop them, whether we are talking about crime, or events like the 2011 riots in England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots What would have happened there if there had been no police applying force to contain them? It would soon have gone quiet and they'd all have gone home? That's not what usually happens when people occupy the streets and find no one opposes them.

Let me remind you of the Montreal Police Strike. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray-Hill_riot More recent police strikes have understood the importance of retaining a back-stop force to maintain order.

I was astonished when I first learned about it, and had to accept that modern societies are a lot closer to violence than we like to think. Most of us would like to carry on in peace and harmony, obey social rules. But it only takes a small minority to find that they can apply violence and if there is no one to stop them they will soon take over. That minority exists and will discover it very quickly, as Montreal found out.

The existence of crime, criminals and riots is not an argument against my point.

We all know shoplifting exists and hence CCTV cameras and store detectives are needed. But I'm not going to start shoplifting if those cameras and guards disappear, nor would anyone else here. Like everyone else I believe in laws including those that aren't enforced. A small minority would take advantage of the opportunity, obviously. But rioters believe in the law, see it cannot be enforced and seize the opportunity. They don't reject the structure, they exploit the weaknesses.

Ultimately the riots you mention in London and Montreal have had zero impact. The rule of law is still in place, I can visit London and not be the victim of crime, the people of Montreal exert their property and other rights. Obviously the rule of law is always temporarily falling apart - every night in some city centre pub - but returns within minutes. It's incredibly robust in most of the world. A tiny police force and trivial state violence is sufficient to maintain stability that lasts centuries.

[lpm]

Nearly all people go to prison willingly - they obey the prison officer. A few are violent. Even criminals believe in the power of the law - they mostly claim to be innocent, they rarely claim the court has no jurisdiction over them.

In England we're several centuries beyond "The law only works because the state has a monopoly on violence". The law works because it's the law. Same way money works because it's money. I don't believe these shared abstract beliefs will disappear given how deep routed they are in our society.

None of this is to say there aren't shoplifters, Covid rule breakers and violent criminals. But only a handful of these lawbreakers come up with fantasy arguments about being freeman of the land and the like.

Most of the law seems to be about property, but a big chunk of it tells you that you will be punished if you punch, kick, main or kill someone else (with a few exceptions). But another bit tells you that police can do that, if they need to (with some limits). The monopoly on violence is part of the law.

Exactly. Police violence is governed by law. My entire point.

[plodder]

Yes, I think we get your point that ultimately the state (or whoever else is) enforcing order has to be willing and able to bring more force to bear than whoever is challenging them. But I'm not clear on what point you're making with "what if you don't pay the police?". If you're not willing to invest in security then you don't have security. And? If you have Jeff Bezos's money but don't have anyone enforcing property rights then you shortly won't have Jeff Bezos's money. Peaceful cooperation and altruism may be the best strategy for everyone to prosper overall but it's not the best strategy for every individual.

I’m explaining some libertarian perspectives, which are pretty consistent. You don’t need governments to have police, you need wealth. A government without money isn’t much of a government after all. A libertarian definition of goverment might be an organisation that is allowed to legally compel you to hand over your wealth, under threat of force, without you having done anything wrong.

They would claim that it’s entirely possible to manage without huge chunks of the state, perhaps all of it, and still live in a a modern looking world.

[IvanV]

The existence of crime, criminals and riots is not an argument against my point.
...
Ultimately the riots you mention in London and Montreal have had zero impact. The rule of law is still in place, I can visit London and not be the victim of crime, the people of Montreal exert their property and other rights. Obviously the rule of law is always temporarily falling apart - every night in some city centre pub - but returns within minutes. It's incredibly robust in most of the world. A tiny police force and trivial state violence is sufficient to maintain stability that lasts centuries.

At the end, you seem to agree that the threat of state force is necessary to keep the peace. When the force is credible and well-directed, you don't need very much, but at the end you need it as a backstop. The London and Montreal riots came to an end, because in the end force was used.

I thought your point was that we could all live happily ever after without a state security force willing to apply force to enforce order. That's what I've been arguing against.

So what is your point?

[monkey]

Nearly all people go to prison willingly - they obey the prison officer. A few are violent. Even criminals believe in the power of the law - they mostly claim to be innocent, they rarely claim the court has no jurisdiction over them.

In England we're several centuries beyond "The law only works because the state has a monopoly on violence". The law works because it's the law. Same way money works because it's money. I don't believe these shared abstract beliefs will disappear given how deep routed they are in our society.

None of this is to say there aren't shoplifters, Covid rule breakers and violent criminals. But only a handful of these lawbreakers come up with fantasy arguments about being freeman of the land and the like.

Most of the law seems to be about property, but a big chunk of it tells you that you will be punished if you punch, kick, main or kill someone else (with a few exceptions). But another bit tells you that police can do that, if they need to (with some limits). The monopoly on violence is part of the law.

Exactly. Police violence is governed by law. My entire point.

That's nice, you seem to be missing mine.

[lpm]

The existence of crime, criminals and riots is not an argument against my point.
...
Ultimately the riots you mention in London and Montreal have had zero impact. The rule of law is still in place, I can visit London and not be the victim of crime, the people of Montreal exert their property and other rights. Obviously the rule of law is always temporarily falling apart - every night in some city centre pub - but returns within minutes. It's incredibly robust in most of the world. A tiny police force and trivial state violence is sufficient to maintain stability that lasts centuries.

At the end, you seem to agree that the threat of state force is necessary to keep the peace. When the force is credible and well-directed, you don't need very much, but at the end you need it as a backstop. The London and Montreal riots came to an end, because in the end force was used.

I thought your point was that we could all live happily ever after without a state security force willing to apply force to enforce order. That's what I've been arguing against.

So what is your point?

That today, in 2021, we in much of the world are getting close to the point where law is self-sustaining. Our system works, at a fundamental level.

The riots in Montreal were only 50 years ago, but even in the short time since I'd argue it wouldn't be repeated to the same extent. The minority gets smaller and smaller with each decade. The imperfections in our system get gradually eroded. The statistics show that crime is decoupled from police power - the causal relationship of police numbers leading to changes in crime rates does not appear to exist. Young people today are discernably more empathic and law abiding than my generation was.

This is not a claim that progress is one way, or that it's flawless, or that it applies to Mexico. It is not a short term argument.

In other words, revolution is unnecessary and almost certainly would be destructive and increase inequality. Improving the current system takes us where we want to go.