Deconstructing the state

[otherone]

From another thread:

History's most successful stateless society was Ireland.
Their stateless way of life was there well before Patrick showed up.
They had managed to keep that way of life for more than a thousand years.
Obviously, anarchism is bull$#@! and can't handle "national defense"....

I've spent some time researching the history of stateless Ireland and Brehon Laws. I'm not certain that Ireland generally qualifies as a true anarchist society, as it was a feudal monarchy with some dependence on Canonical Law.
Is egalitarianism a requirement for a stateless society?
But I digress. What struck me was the lack of criminal law...in that all judicial matters were civil, and dependent on a victim demanding reparations. Is the criminal justice system the foundation of the violent state? What would happen today, if we were to only have civil law? In what ways would our society change?

[Cabal]

Often in debate, what constitutes 'true anarchy' is in question--some laymen, for instance, like to reference Somalia. I suspect there are no historical examples that reflect an ideal, large-scale, voluntaryist society; though there are surely societies and instances of regional history that tend to lean anarchistic to varying degrees.

Is egalitarianism a requirement? Not necessarily. Anarchist philosophy has never presumed a utopia, despite popular naysayer belief, where all men and women live in peace an harmony with each other because they are all saints and respectful of one another and their property 100% of the time. On the contrary, anarchists have spent a great deal of time and effort in philosophizing and engaging in thought experiments about the potential issues which may arise. Curiously enough, statists never fail to disregard this fact; every discussion about the topic of anarchy is bound to have the same hypothetical scenarios pop up time after time, no matter how many different and numerous responses have been laid out for such questions over decades.

In any case...

While the philosophy of liberty promotes it; no, I don't think unanimous egalitarianism is necessary. Though, ideally, I do suspect it would be increasingly difficult for those who choose to continue the practice of disrespecting others as less-than-equals in most situations.

On the topic of the current criminal justice system; I'm not sure how it can be viewed as anything less than an abysmal failure. So, if the system in itself doesn't speak for itself in that regard, I'm not sure what will.

More to the point, I don't personally have an answer to your question; who does? The best I (or anyone else) could do is speculate--another thought experiment as it were. I'm fairly certain we'd have less non-violent 'criminals' locked up in cages living off of tax payer dollars, though. At worst, I suspect we'd have some nomadic criminals moving from territory to territory--due to ostracism--continuing to act criminally whilst avoiding restitution; but they wouldn't necessarily last too long.

I think the more difficult thought experiment to engage in is how much less desperation which results in criminal activity would there be in a free society? I ponder about this one quite a bit, myself; but, quite frankly, it's very difficult to fully comprehend and wrap one's head around the many, many substantial changes society as a whole would undergo. There are sure to be some rough patches here and there, but I tend to suspect the positives would be rather vast, relatively speaking.

[otherone]

While the philosophy of liberty promotes it; no, I don't think unanimous egalitarianism is necessary. Though, ideally, I do suspect it would be increasingly difficult for those who choose to continue the practice of disrespecting others as less-than-equals in most situations.

I was thinking in terms of social castes. Medieval Ireland, stateless, nonetheless was feudal. People were locked into their strata. I don't know that people had the means, or inclination, or ability, to be socially mobile. If this is the case, is it tradition, or tacit consent to an imposed order, that maintains the status quo...after all, no criminal law means no one can be imprisoned for jumping ship? Or does one's Lord have recourse before the Law to punish the offender?

More to the point, I don't personally have an answer to your question; who does? The best I (or anyone else) could do is speculate--another thought experiment as it were. I'm fairly certain we'd have less non-violent 'criminals' locked up in cages living off of tax payer dollars, though. At worst, I suspect we'd have some nomadic criminals moving from territory to territory--due to ostracism--continuing to act criminally whilst avoiding restitution; but they wouldn't necessarily last too long.

Without criminal law, I don't think society would have the means to ostracize anyone. The culpable party would be under the jurisdiction of the victim. I think a major sticking point that critics of anarchy have is the potential corruption of private security. Eliminating criminal law eliminates the need for police altogether, and neuters both public or private aggressors. And thought experiments are fun.

[Wesker1982]

Without criminal law, I don't think society would have the means to ostracize anyone. The culpable party would be under the jurisdiction of the victim.

What do you mean, under the jurisdiction of the victim?

Ostracizing would be easy. Since all property is privately owned, known violent criminals would be removed from everyone's property who did not want to associate with them. They would be de facto pushed into the wilderness. Or at the very least only allowed on the property of other criminals or people who get a thrill from dealing with them. And depending on the severity of the crimes, people associating with the criminals could be ostracized as well.

I think a major sticking point that critics of anarchy have is the potential corruption of private security.

It is more of a problem for legally protected violators with a monopoly.

Private criminals have no illusion of legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

The same analysis applies to the possibility of a private police force becoming outlaw, of using their coercive powers to exact tribute, set up a "protection racket" to shake down their victims, etc. Of course, such a thing could happen. But, in contrast to present-day society, there would be immediate checks and balances available; there would be other police forces who could use their weapons to band together to put down the aggressors against their clientele. If the Metropolitan Police Force should become gangsters and exact tribute, then the rest of society could flock to the Prudential, Equitable, etc., police forces who could band together to put them down. And this contrasts vividly with the State. If a group of gangsters should capture the State apparatus, with its monopoly of coercive weapons, there is nothing at present that can stop them — short of the immensely difficult process of revolution. In a libertarian society there would be no need for a massive revolution to stop the depredation of gangster-States; there would be a swift turning to the honest police forces to check and put down the force that had turned bandit.

There is another vital consideration that would make it almost impossible for an outlaw police force to commit anything like the banditry that modern governments practice. One of the crucial factors that permits governments to do the monstrous things they habitually do is the sense of legitimacy on the part of the stupefied public. The average citizen may not like — may even strongly object to — the policies and exactions of his government. But he has been imbued with the idea — carefully indoctrinated by centuries of governmental propaganda — that the government is his legitimate sovereign, and that it would be wicked or mad to refuse to obey its dictates. It is this sense of legitimacy that the State's intellectuals have fostered over the ages, aided and abetted by all the trappings of legitimacy: flags, rituals, ceremonies, awards, constitutions, etc. A bandit gang — even if all the police forces conspired together into one vast gang — could never command such legitimacy. The public would consider them purely bandits; their extortions and tributes would never be considered legitimate though onerous "taxes," to be paid automatically. The public would quickly resist these illegitimate demands and the bandits would be resisted and overthrown. Once the public had tasted the joys, prosperity, freedom, and efficiency of a libertarian, State-less society, it would be almost impossible for a State to fasten itself upon them once again. Once freedom has been fully enjoyed, it is no easy task to force people to give it up.

[otherone]

What do you mean, under the jurisdiction of the victim?

Brehon Laws

Ostracizing would be easy. Since all property is privately owned, known violent criminals would be removed from everyone's property who did not want to associate with them.

This isn't ostracizing...it's freedom of association. There would be no compulsion to disallow criminals on one's property, especially if it's profitable. Similarly, an individual could 'ostracize' someone just because they smelled funny.

[Wesker1982]

This isn't ostracizing...it's freedom of association.

To ostracize is to exclude, right? All one would have to do is use freedom of association to exclude (ostracize) one from their property. I am not sure where the confusion is here.

There would be no compulsion to disallow criminals on one's property, especially if it's profitable.

You could compel someone off of your property. Dealing with criminals would not be profitable in a free society. Real criminals make up a small minority of the population. It would be a small market.

If there was someone who was discovered to knowingly deal with violent criminals, honest people would stop dealing with them. Especially in absence of the current system, people would put more significance on alternative ways to deal with crime. As in, most people might not like it if you sell a candy bar to a known violent criminal, but since the State has "taken care of it", they don't put as much importance on the merchant refusing to exchange with them, etc.

[Cabal]

Or at the very least only allowed on the property of other criminals or people who get a thrill from dealing with them.

This is an interesting point I hadn't considered much before, not to segue too much here, but could this potentially result in a negative externality of sorts? Assuming ostracism is indeed effective enough to cause criminal parties to seek refuge among their own, and assuming these criminals continue to grow in number and are capable of both tolerating, working with, and respecting one another--I know, that's a lot of assumptions, but bear with me--couldn't this potentially lead to the formation of large criminal syndicates? Or at the very least territories which essentially become havens for criminals?

Given the nature of consistent and chosen criminal activity, I suspect it'd be fairly difficult to sustain such a thing. It's also somewhat difficult to imagine the extent of organized crime we know of today without a State to facilitate such. So perhaps this segue is nonsensical, but I hadn't really considered it before.

[Wesker1982]

couldn't this potentially lead to the formation of large criminal syndicates? Or at the very least territories which essentially become havens for criminals?

It is possible, I guess. But I don't see it really being a problem. They would be small, isolated, and disorganized. Any discussion about criminal armies etc. would be exactly the same as any other national defense discussion. What is an aggressing army anyways but a criminal gang writ large?

Given the nature of consistent and chosen criminal activity, I suspect it'd be fairly difficult to sustain such a thing.

Right. They would be like State armies..... except way less efficient since they can't offload their costs to a stupefied public indoctrinated into believing their wars of aggression are justified.

[Cabal]

I was thinking in terms of social castes. Medieval Ireland, stateless, nonetheless was feudal. People were locked into their strata. I don't know that people had the means, or inclination, or ability, to be socially mobile. If this is the case, is it tradition, or tacit consent to an imposed order, that maintains the status quo...after all, no criminal law means no one can be imprisoned for jumping ship? Or does one's Lord have recourse before the Law to punish the offender?



Without criminal law, I don't think society would have the means to ostracize anyone. The culpable party would be under the jurisdiction of the victim. I think a major sticking point that critics of anarchy have is the potential corruption of private security. Eliminating criminal law eliminates the need for police altogether, and neuters both public or private aggressors. And thought experiments are fun.

I don't see how it follows that feudalism would necessarily emerge from anarchy.

As for corruption among private security firms and such; sure that is quite possible. But given the nature of competition within a free market and considering the bottom line of the almighty dollar, it probably wouldn't be commonplace to go about practicing blatant corruption.

I mean even if firm A is super corrupt; that doesn't mean firm B, C, D, E, and F also are. So instead of going to firm A with their money, customers would likely be more inclined to go to one of the other firms. Now firm A may try to muscle out their competition, but that would be quite costly--it's unlikely they'd be willing to go to economic war with their competitors while still trying to sustain their customers via corruption. Morever, when we think of corruption nowadays, there's usually some political context tied to it--corrupt politicians, corrupt police, corrupt bureaucracy, etc. Of course this isn't the only way corruption is possible, but the absence of a State would certainly limit its availability, I suspect.

[Wesker1982]

I mean even if firm A is super corrupt; that doesn't mean firm B, C, D, E, and F also are. Now firm A may try to muscle out their competition, but that would be quite costly--it's unlikely they'd be willing to go to economic war with their competitors while still trying to sustain their customers via corruption.

Bingo. It would require their customers to support their criminal activity since they are funded through voluntary means. If a private defense agency could get enough customers to pay for their criminal activities on a scale large enough to take on the rest of society, then this population could not produce anything but a criminal and corrupt government.

[Cabal]

then this population could not produce anything but a criminal and corrupt government.

Which is basically where we're at now. This is why the argument from morality is key, IMO; and the arguments from effect really won't cut it. Intellectual revolution is necessary--which, in my estimation, has been one of Ron Paul's primary agendas. Unfortunately there's still quite a bit of opposition to such, even within his own camp it would seem.

[Wesker1982]

Which is basically where we're at now.

Right. But I don't think this is because most people are criminal. In a free society, protection agencies being successful tyrants would literally require most people to support crime.

But with the State, it is run by criminals only because people think the alternative is worse. They think this criminal gang we have now is better than alternative criminal gangs. The State gets the support of non-criminals right now because people overwhelmingly believe in the legitimacy of the institution itself.

Of course the support for the State is not necessarily strong and enthusiastic. A large part of the support is passive and acquiescent.

[Cabal]

Oh, I agree with that. I didn't mean to imply anything to the contrary. However, there is a widespread problem of citizens basically attempting to control the gun in the room [the State], to point it at their opponents, either ignorant or in disregard of the immorality of such an action. Hence my point about intellectual revolution. Some, no doubt, will never care about the immorality of it all, either because they aren't bothered by ethics, or they're riding the subjective/nihilistic bandwagon. But I'm confident that they will inevitably become ever smaller of a minority.

[ProIndividual]

From another thread:


I've spent some time researching the history of stateless Ireland and Brehon Laws. I'm not certain that Ireland generally qualifies as a true anarchist society, as it was a feudal monarchy with some dependence on Canonical Law.
Is egalitarianism a requirement for a stateless society?
But I digress. What struck me was the lack of criminal law...in that all judicial matters were civil, and dependent on a victim demanding reparations. Is the criminal justice system the foundation of the violent state? What would happen today, if we were to only have civil law? In what ways would our society change?

I find there has never been an anarchist society in the terms we (as anarchists) describe it. We are like a 2nd Enlightenment, and as such it takes a few hundred years to transition. The first Enlightenment took a couple of centuries to convince people that the dominant tyranny of the time (religions) needed to be separated from states (the 2nd most powerful institutions of the time). Once that was done, and religion lost it's power over the states a new problem sprang up...the state was now the most powerful institution on Earth since dynasties and empires that were largely in place because of religious sanction (like the Vatican for instance) died off. So now what to do with these smaller decentralized states, called nation states?

Another Enlightenment is required. Likely a third will be required to abolish the next most dominant and tyrannical institution that follows the nation state; the large companies.

Notice none of these things (religion, government, business) will cease to exist, only they will cease to be involuntary (compulsory). We (anarchists) don't seek a world w/o government anymore than the Enlightenment figures sought to abolish religion. They sought to abolish compulsory religion, and we seek to abolish compulsory government...nothing more.

No, egalitarianism is not a prerequisite for anarchism...that's only if all parties agree to live egalitarian. Since some will, some won't, no uniformity of economics will occur.

Ireland, the Icelandic Commonwealth, and Somalia are not anarchic societies per se. Ireland was a decent example of some aspects of anarchy, as the Icelandic Commonwealth was a goodexample of polycentric law (anarchic law; ironically it failed because they created a barrier to entry into the law market after a time, and eventually this predictably caused it's collapse). But all have their dissimilarities. Iceland, for example, didn't have cops...no private police. It was up to the winner of court case to enforce the judgement (you can imagine the drawbacks of this). Although in almost all cases this worked (due to social ostracism), it failed on the sociopaths (which they had no clue such a thing existed at the time, so it isn't really their fault). Somalia is a good example how statelessness actually improved the place post-state (compare Somalia pre-fall of the state to post-state...it improved in nearly every measurable category). Unforntunately people try to compare them to the USA, not to pre-fall of the state Somalia. But Somalia isn't anarchic anyways...it's stateless. The difference? Imagine all priests disappearing magically before the Enlightenment. They would simply be replaced by the people with more priests. Now imagine the state failing before an Enlightened transition to anarchism...the same would be true. It's not really fair to compare enlightened transitions to a philosophy, whether regarding religion or states, to complete collapses of religions or states because of some magic disappearance, the failure of the institution, or a comet coming down to Earth and wiping out the religion/state. A failed state like Somalia is not an anarchy, per se.

If you want to see polycentric law, or how it would work, check on some videos on "polycentric law" or "anarchic legal order", via Mises website contributor Roderick Long, or any of the well produced (not crappy ones) Youtube videos. There are some stellar productions out there that go about an hour or so each.

I'll link you to some of the best work that I enjoy (this is just some ideas):



Law without govt Part 1:



Part 2:



Part 3: