An Open Letter to the Peace Movement from Roderick Long

[jmdrake]

Does not solve the problem of monopoly. Besides, you'd have to entirely change the justice system from one of incarceration to one of restitution, which I am entirely in favor of. In any event, you can't claim to be a peaceful man, if you advocate violent monopolies - that was the whole point of the article. Surely, we can at least agree inasmuch, right?

You specifically raised the problem of you being forced to pay for it. That's solvable regardless of whether or not you move away from an incarceration based system. At least paying for the court isn't a problem. Paying for the incarceration is. But that's solvable too if those incarcerated have to earn their upkeep. And no, I don't agree that someone can't claim to be a peaceful man unless they agree with anarchy. If anarchists make their case by laying out exactly how they plan to solve the problems associated with anarchy in a modern society that's one thing. But to demonize the other side as not being peaceful doesn't help the anarchist cause in my opinion. I also don't think that advocating violent competitors, as opposed to violent monopolies, makes one peaceful. (Not sure if you're advocating that.)

[jmdrake]

I believe government should be kept at a minimum,, and "supported" voluntarily.. I suggest a tip jar.

+rep

[jmdrake]

You're an anarchist, but don't realize it. If it's voluntary, then it isn't a State, and if it isn't a State, there is anarchy. (Just to be clear, you wouldn't send the Gendarmes against competing dispute resolution organizations would you?)

He said "supported voluntarily". There is no reason why something couldn't be a state and be supported voluntarily. Many people make donations to public libraries and other "state" institutions. If such institutions began receiving all of their funds from volunteer sources that wouldn't mean the state would just disappear. It would be that the state would actually be beholden to the people though.

[pcosmar]

You're an anarchist, but don't realize it.

No, I'm not. Perhaps Minarchist,, perhaps Voluntarism. At least as secular Government goes.

There is always some government,, some law,, written or not. Be it Family, Tribe or Clan,, or in any society.
Anarchy simply does not exist.
Could there be a better form of Government? Yes, I believe so. But there will always be some form of government.

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

Thanks Austrian Econ Disciple for continuing the argument in my absence.

And no, I don't agree that someone can't claim to be a peaceful man unless they agree with anarchy. If anarchists make their case by laying out exactly how they plan to solve the problems associated with anarchy in a modern society that's one thing.

You're missing the point. The answer to the question of whether or not states necessarily employ aggressive violence is not dependent on how a society lacking a state would deal with various social problems.

Your reasoning seems to boil down to:
1. I don't think various social problems could be solved in a society without a state.
2. Therefore I don't think that states necessarily employ aggression

But that's a blatantly invalid argument. Even if you were right about your premise, your conclusion still would not follow from the premise.

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

He said "supported voluntarily". There is no reason why something couldn't be a state and be supported voluntarily. Many people make donations to public libraries and other "state" institutions. If such institutions began receiving all of their funds from volunteer sources that wouldn't mean the state would just disappear. It would be that the state would actually be beholden to the people though.

If it's supported completely through voluntary contributions then it can't be a state. It's true that many people make voluntary contributions to the state, such as through donations to public libraries, etc, as you mentioned. But, it's also true that the state forcefully extracts some property from people involuntary. It is this involuntary income that makes the state the state. If you got rid of this income and only kept the voluntary income then the institution would no longer be a state, as Austrian Econ Disciple said.

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

No, I'm not. Perhaps Minarchist,, perhaps Voluntarism. At least as secular Government goes.

There is always some government,, some law,, written or not. Be it Family, Tribe or Clan,, or in any society.
Anarchy simply does not exist.
Could there be a better form of Government? Yes, I believe so. But there will always be some form of government.

A consistent voluntarist is an anarchist. Also, the statement "there will always be some form of government" has nothing to do with whether governments necessarily employ aggression or not.

[jmdrake]

If it's supported completely through voluntary contributions then it can't be a state. It's true that many people make voluntary contributions to the state, such as through donations to public libraries, etc, as you mentioned. But, it's also true that the state forcefully extracts some property from people involuntary. It is this involuntary income that makes the state the state. If you got rid of this income and only kept the voluntary income then the institution would no longer be a state, as Austrian Econ Disciple said.

Just because AED said it, doesn't make it true. And in this case your position and his position is provably not true. This is provable by induction. A 100% privately funded state library is still a state library. Some state colleges and universities are receiving mostly private funding. Some have claimed that they should be freed from state control because they are no longer receiving any more percentage of state funds than are private universities. Certainly a state legislature could decide to make such an institution private, but there's no reason why a state legislature would legally have to make that decision.

Or consider the hypothetical Island of piconesia. Let's say someone from outside the island said "I've found a way to tap the energy from your volcano and use it to power all of Japan. We'll pay you enough money for this that it can entirely support your economy." For this hypothetical assume that nobody to this point had claimed ownership of the land surrounding the volcano because it was deemed worthless as it was too dangerous to live near the active volcano. Just because all of the funding for the piconesia government was now coming from a foreign corporation who volunteered the funding to piconesia, doesn't mean piconesia doesn't have a state.

[jmdrake]

Thanks Austrian Econ Disciple for continuing the argument in my absence.


You're missing the point. The answer to the question of whether or not states necessarily employ aggressive violence is not dependent on how a society lacking a state would deal with various social problems.

Your reasoning seems to boil down to:
1. I don't think various social problems could be solved in a society without a state.
2. Therefore I don't think that states necessarily employ aggression

But that's a blatantly invalid argument. Even if you were right about your premise, your conclusion still would not follow from the premise.

I'm not missing the point and I haven't made an invalid argument. You're just so into your own philosophies that it's made you incapable of learning something from a different point of view. You can't honestly say that someone can't claim to be peaceful simply because they haven't been convince by you that your solution would actually bring more peace. The key word here is honestly. You can dishonestly say that all you want. If anarchy leads to less peace than I'm not being against peace by being against anarchy. Now I'm sure you believe that anarchy leads to more peace. And that's cool. But until I agree with you, saying that I'm not being peaceful because I don't agree with you is just silly.

[jmdrake]

A consistent voluntarist is an anarchist. Also, the statement "there will always be some form of government" has nothing to do with whether governments necessarily employ aggression or not.

The point pcsomar was making, and you seem unwilling or unable to grasp, is that even in examples of societies that anarchists use to "prove" their point about the viability of "anarchy", there is still government. Whether or not those governments employ aggression or not is irrelevant. For instance some have raised the idea of ancient Scotland or modern Somalia as "anarchy" forms of government. (Some anarchists shy away from the Somalia example because that country is clearly not peaceful). In ancient Scotland there was a sort of "restitution based" legal system that AED agrees with. The same thing exists in Somalia. But guess what? Both societies depended on clan government to work. Sure, it's a government system that's completely foreign to our understanding of government. But it was still government.