Joseph Sobran: "the Reluctant Anarchist"

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1807225' date='Mar 14 2009, 09:56 PM']You can't see unrestrained capatalism bringing out the same tendencies?[/quote]

Well, I avoid saying "unrestrained capitalism" because it's government that deflects undesired consequences... for a price. A free market welcomes all consequences. Even bad ones.

But, oh yes. Not on a vast degree as Government. And Government by its nature does things through coercion and theft and force -- that's what Government is. The markets work through voluntary means.

For a large example of consequence, let's say a private business if found to have been engaging in something negligent and stupid and it lead to thousands of deaths. They would go out of business. Not only would no one want to do business with that company, no one would want to work there and have the name of that business tarnish their resume. That's Market.
Yet, after 9/11 no one was so much as fired from our own Government. A few people got promoted, and Government got bigger. In fact, an entirely new level of bureaucracy was added. That's Government. Only Government.

Only Government can punish success and reward failure like this. Free Markets, on the other hand, punish failure and allow individuals to learn from mistakes. Markets reward success.

[Lounge Daddy]

I was sitting in my Philosophy class last week and we were covering Hobbes. My teacher actually pointed to Somalia as evidence that Hobbes was right, and we do need a State to save us from ourselves.

So what about Somalia? [url="http://www.fee.org/Audio/YSC/FINAL%20YSC%20-%20Benjamin%20Powell%20-%20African%20Development%20-%20Case%20Study%20of%20Somalia.mp3"]Here is an MP3 of a talk[/url] given by Benjamin Powell in July at the Foundation for Economic Education.

Most people think Somalia, and they think civil war and [i]Black Hawk Down[/i] and Statelessness = chaos. What doesn't get coverage is that the civil war was preceded by, not just Government, but outside Governments meddling and imposing various forms of coercion, foreign sponsored dictatorships, etc.

After the US and UN left, the mass warring stopped (surprise surprise). Not that there was no violence of any kind, or no problems. This is the human race. But there was general peace and the warring ended, and the market forces were able to operate freely. In fact, Somalia enjoyed economic prosperity that it hadn't had before.

But what happened after that period of prosperity? It came to a screeching halt when the CIA began paying off warlords. Because Government cannot sit by while these people operate without Government -- and prosper without Government. Government, after all, needs us to think that we need it.

Here's a related [url="http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/64_somalia.pdf"]PDF of a study on Somalia after State collapse[/url].

[Winchester]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1806934' date='Mar 14 2009, 10:19 AM']#2 Government doesn't produce anything. It only takes, and uses force to accomplish its ends.[/quote]
Hi, I'm government. I preserve things, at the expense of my body and my lifespan. Your generality is untrue.

[i]Employment [/i]is force. [i]Every [/i]form of authority is force, in one way or another. Force is not inherently evil.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1807618' date='Mar 15 2009, 11:51 AM']I was sitting in my Philosophy class last week[/quote]

poor thing

that's where you went off the tracks.

Things will get better once the semester is over



sorry

Edited March 15, 2009 by Hassan

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1807796' date='Mar 15 2009, 05:41 PM'][i]Employment [/i]is force. [i]Every [/i]form of authority is force, in one way or another. Force is not inherently evil.[/quote]
Employment is voluntary. Slavery is force. One uses voluntary exchange -- in this case time for money. The other uses coercion, or worse.

I agree with the Church that force isn't evil if it is used to preserve life. Self-defence.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1807799' date='Mar 15 2009, 05:44 PM']poor thing

that's where you went off the tracks.

Things will get better once the semester is over



sorry [/quote]

[Winchester]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1807817' date='Mar 15 2009, 06:06 PM']Employment is voluntary. Slavery is force. One uses voluntary exchange -- in this case time for money. The other uses coercion, or worse.[/quote]
Employment or theft. It's not a free choice. An employer has authority over his employees.

You could always revolt. Being a citizen is a choice, as well.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1807823' date='Mar 15 2009, 06:13 PM']Employment or theft. It's not a free choice. An employer has authority over his employees.

You could always revolt. Being a citizen is a choice, as well.[/quote]

Gosh Winchester, of course Markets offer a free choice! I entered into a mutual agreement with an employer -- an agreement between them and myself. It free exchange—I offer my time and services, and I receive an agreed upon pay and benefits package.

In contrast, the State arbitrarily made me a citizen simply because I was born inside its boarders. I receive nothing, but but the State only takes. And the use of deadly force isn't an option for my employer to get his way, its a matter of fact for the State.

If I walk away from my job, I can probably find another one in the city. Really I can find another, if I need, at a gas station or a fast food place, or something. Worst case scenario – I get a job a a nearby city.

If I quit my country, I move very far from friends and family and, by the way, also find a new employer.

If a business abuses authority bad enough, people stop doing business with it, no one wants to work there, and they go out of business. It's a peaceful resolution. The Markets is built on mutual agreements and participation is voluntary. The Markets do not own you, and you deal with them as you see fit.

If a government does the same, it requires a bloody revolution. Government operates on force and coercion. As far as the State is concerned, it owns you. That's why the State allows you to keep a portion of your income, and the State can use force of law to send you to war if it so chooses.

Edited March 16, 2009 by Lounge Daddy

[Winchester]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1808097' date='Mar 15 2009, 10:14 PM']If a business abuses authority bad enough, people stop doing business with it, no one wants to work there, and they go out of business.[/quote]Yes, the mines went out of business. The clothing factories went out of business. It took government intervention to improve worker safety because it is not a free choice. You can ignore the history all you want, but government, in spite of its flaws, is the main reason we don't have children working in sweat shops, the reason there is any form of safety regulation and the reason there's such a thing as overtime--it's not a free choice for the majority of people.

And there aren't sweat shops still in existance in other countries. Right.

There needs to be a balance. Anarchy is not a balance, and it's never in the history of man been a good thing. Tribal organization is not anarchy. Warlord rule is not anarchy. Anarchy means no rule. It means no governance. That doesn't last because the evil will always snatch power. Anarchy is an interim state, usually it doesn't exist at all, it just means there are many competing factions, no matter how small and violent they may be. Anarchy requires the agreement of each person to self rule. It's not possible.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1808115' date='Mar 15 2009, 09:48 PM']Yes, the mines went out of business. The clothing factories went out of business. It took government intervention to improve worker safety because it is not a free choice. You can ignore the history all you want, but government, in spite of its flaws, is the main reason we don't have children working in sweat shops, the reason there is any form of safety regulation and the reason there's such a thing as overtime--it's not a free choice for the majority of people.[/quote]


Sure. I mean I doubt my family worked as Share Croppers in the south because they wanted to. My grandfather got off the farms becuase when after he got out of the Army the government paid for him to receive what would today be something like a community college education for skills which would allow him to work for a phone company. Before that farming was all the family had know for 300+ years. If the land owner cheated them, rather when the landowner cheated them, there was no free market solution. They had no money, at least not enough to buy their own land, and they had no pratircal education outside of farming even if they wanted another job the couldn;t find it. And if they organized with other farmers to negotiate better conditions they'd be out and unemployable (who's going to hire trouble makers?). I'm pretty sure if you asked someone fifty years ago, or even today, why the go down to work in the West Virginian mines they'd give you a simmilar story.

[Winchester]

One bullet, one vote.

[Lounge Daddy]

Ya. As I said, Government served it's purpose. And as we as a people evolve, systems become obsolete -- and new and better systems become available. Monarchies had a purpose too, before societies evolved to the point where they were no longer necessary. Economically, mercantilism had a purpose too, as the early economies evolved.

If the State collapsed today, children wouldn't fill the factories. And employers wouldn't deliberately make workplaces unsafe -- they wouldn't have any good employees wanting to work there, because work so easily gets around. That wasn't the case long ago, but it's the reality today.

Evolution! Agora! Action!

[Winchester]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1808212' date='Mar 16 2009, 12:48 AM']Ya. As I said, Government served it's purpose. And as we as a people evolve, systems become obsolete -- and new and better systems become available. Monarchies had a purpose too, before societies evolved to the point where they were no longer necessary. Economically, mercantilism had a purpose too, as the early economies evolved.

If the State collapsed today, children wouldn't fill the factories. And employers wouldn't deliberately make workplaces unsafe -- they wouldn't have any good employees wanting to work there, because work so easily gets around. That wasn't the case long ago, but it's the reality today.

Evolution! Agora! Action![/quote]
And here I was thinking that civilization was in a constant state of rising and collapsing. Your model neglects the fact that the world is marred by sin--ignores the decline in philosophy and human thought--ignores history. Pretend all you want that we've evolved. We've simply found more efficient ways of being inhumane. Here. In America. They're still sawing off people's arms, gang-raping political/tribal opponents in other countries and you can pretend all you want that these people wouldn't come in and happily make another government in place of this one, then you are beyond deluded.

Drug lords, gang leaders, foreign governments, will fill the vaccuum. Or corporate militaries, which would likely be a step. You really see people going from government to holding hands and buying each other Cokes while singing, don't you? You imagine no one with a gun will step into the breach?

It's reality because the laws have changed, which keep society in check. Remove the law, and the powerful will revert. Because people are that way. History says it.

No one made them deliberately unsafe. But they won't spend money to keep them safe. The only reason we have the protections we have is collective action--union and government. Anarchists don't collect--they're anarchists.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1808334' date='Mar 16 2009, 01:06 AM']And here I was thinking that civilization was in a constant state of rising and collapsing. Your model neglects the fact that the world is marred by sin--ignores the decline in philosophy and human thought--ignores history. Pretend all you want that we've evolved. We've simply found more efficient ways of being inhumane. Here. In America. They're still sawing off people's arms, gang-raping political/tribal opponents in other countries and you can pretend all you want that these people wouldn't come in and happily make another government in place of this one, then you are beyond deluded.

Drug lords, gang leaders, foreign governments, will fill the vaccuum. Or corporate militaries, which would likely be a step. You really see people going from government to holding hands and buying each other Cokes while singing, don't you? You imagine no one with a gun will step into the breach?

It's reality because the laws have changed, which keep society in check. Remove the law, and the powerful will revert. Because people are that way. History says it.

No one made them deliberately unsafe. But they won't spend money to keep them safe. The only reason we have the protections we have is collective action--union and government. Anarchists don't collect--they're anarchists.[/quote]

I don't deney that anarchism might work on a small schale amongst willing participants. I think Orwell's writtings of the Spanish Civil War and experiments in Israel show this. I think thise is largel correct, however. In the cases where anarchism has worked you have individuals seeking a peaceful enviorment of mutual cooperation. On the global scale this breaks down.

Longe Daddy. Many anarchists I read postulate that human vices are the result of their social context and in an anarchistic world the context that breads these vices is abolished. So you agree with this?

[Galloglasses' Alt]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1808362' date='Mar 16 2009, 02:29 AM']Longe Daddy. Many anarchists I read postulate that human vices are the result of their social context and in an anarchistic world the context that breads these vices is abolished. So you agree with this?[/quote]
This actually sounds like the marx theory that People have been conditioned to be selfish because of Capitalist society.