Freedomain Radio

What I've read or heard of DROs seems to assume a uniformly free society. However, what I think is much more likely is a heterogeneous society composed of communities with wildly differing forms of governance, or no governance. I've written about that here:

http://www.strike-the-root.com/what-is-to-be-done-with-statists

Part 2 is here:

http://ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle579-20100718-08.html

If that's the way it works out, it must add some complication to the model, although I'm not sure what.

I still don't understand one thing that is crucial for me:  If there is an option to leave the system for statists, then doesn't their system automatically become voluntary?  Doesn't people being able to leave take away the fundamental coercion necessary for it to be a state and, thus, create a free market competition amongst communities?  So, isn't it either free or not free?  How can there logically be a mixture when there is "Free, unhindered passage"?

I disliked your violent examples in Part 2.    Particularly the 'Terminally Ill Assassins of America'.    That just seemed like it would fuel the fears that many have about anarchist communities living near them.

However, I do find your idea of multiple diverse communities to be a plausible one.   People are herd animals and will congregate with like minded individuals.  

Neil Stephenson used a relatively dark version of this idea in his books Snow Crash and the Diamond Age or A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer.  

People become members of distributed republics or phyles (some with territory, some without).   Then as long as they stayed in their own communities, those laws applied to them.   If they visited another community, then they were either subject to conditions layed out in a "treaty" between the two communities or they were an unattached foreigner and subject to those laws. 

I like this quote by John Taylor Gatto:

People are less than whole unless they gather themselves voluntarily into groups of souls in harmony. Gathering themselves to pursue individual, family, and community dreams consistent with their private humanity is what makes them whole; only slaves are gathered by others.

Woops, I just saw the other post:

I still don't understand one thing that is crucial for me:  If there is an option to leave the system for statists, then doesn't their system automatically become voluntary?  Doesn't people being able to leave take away the fundamental coercion necessary for it to be a state...

Yes and no. The coercion is still there in Statist City. It's just that people living there have voluntarily submitted to being coerced  - as many people are inclined to do in exchange for "security". It's not too hard to imagine people wanting to live in a place with no drugs, for example, and agreeing to having drug laws. No skin off their back if they never use them anyway.

If you are wondering, it's my opinion that places would gradually become more free, as people in more statist places discover anarchy does not mean chaos. Also there would be a natural barrier to overbearing statism, at least in the cost aspect, as people would escape to less statist places if local taxes increased.

tastemaker:

I still don't understand one thing that is crucial for me:  If there is an option to leave the system for statists, then doesn't their system automatically become voluntary? 

Yes.

tastemaker:

Doesn't people being able to leave take away the fundamental coercion necessary for it to be a state and, thus, create a free market competition amongst communities?

Yes.

tastemaker:

So, isn't it either free or not free?  How can there logically be a mixture when there is "Free, unhindered passage"?

The communities would be seen as the owners of any territory they control.   So for membership they may have requirements like following their laws & customs, paying taxes, etc. and in return they would offer various services.

Free & unhindered passage would probably only be allowed for people that belonged to other communites that had treaties with this one  (assuming road travel).  Much like they would need DRO coverage to use someone else's road in a pure anarcho-capitalist society.

Then again I wonder how many long distance roads will be maintained.   It seems to me that long distance travel will become focused on trains & planes.  So as long as the train maintained ownership for all it's rails,  the rail company could limit any local communities interference to a customs/immigration check at the rail station  (Same for planes that owned their own airports).  

lowkey:

The communities would be seen as the owners of any territory they control.   So for membership they may have requirements like following their laws & customs, paying taxes, etc. and in return they would offer various services.

Free & unhindered passage would probably only be allowed for people that belonged to other communites that had treaties with this one  (assuming road travel).  Much like they would need DRO coverage to use someone else's road in a pure anarcho-capitalist society.

Then again I wonder how many long distance roads will be maintained.   It seems to me that long distance travel will become focused on trains & planes.  So as long as the train maintained ownership for all it's rails,  the rail company could limit any local communities interference to a customs/immigration check at the rail station  (Same for planes that owned their own airports).

Hmmm... interesting.  Thanks for this very thought provoking response.  This makes more sense to me.  But even people who wanted a "statist" type of community would still be there under a voluntary contract, which means everything is fundamentally voluntaryist at every level, no?  Is this what you are essentially arguing for Paul?  I got the impression that you were trying to say that there could be a mixture of coercive areas with voluntary areas, but which all the people could choose what they wanted to be a part of, which doesn't make sense to me for my aforementioned reasons.

Paul47:

The coercion is still there in Statist City. It's just that people living there have voluntarily submitted to being coerced  - as many people are inclined to do in exchange for "security". It's not too hard to imagine people wanting to live in a place with no drugs, for example, and agreeing to having drug laws. No skin off their back if they never use them anyway.

I understand the idea of voluntarily giving up some of my rights for protection, etc... or even agreeing to have money taken for a package of services, even if I don't use some. However, this would still be voluntary and not coercive.  I don't see how one can simultaneously do something voluntarily and be coerced to do it.  Isn't this a contradiction?

tastemaker:

 But even people who wanted a "statist" type of community would still be there under a voluntary contract, which means everything is fundamentally voluntaryist at every level, no? 

At the base level, yes I think it would make everything effectively voluntary.   The only exception that I can think of our minors or others subject to the oversight of a guardian.  They may be required to live in a community they do not like until their emancipation.

tastemaker:

Is this what you are essentially arguing for Paul?  I got the impression that you were trying to say that there could be a mixture of coercive areas with voluntary areas, but which all the people could choose what they wanted to be a part of, which doesn't make sense to me for my aforementioned reasons.

 

There would be a mix of communities.   Some would have strict borders and others would be more flexible.   It depends on the groups and how different their rules are compared to their neighbors.

tastemaker:

Paul47:

The coercion is still there in Statist City. It's just that people living there have voluntarily submitted to being coerced  - as many people are inclined to do in exchange for "security". It's not too hard to imagine people wanting to live in a place with no drugs, for example, and agreeing to having drug laws. No skin off their back if they never use them anyway.

I understand the idea of voluntarily giving up some of my rights for protection, etc... or even agreeing to have money taken for a package of services, even if I don't use some. However, this would still be voluntary and not coercive.  I don't see how one can simultaneously do something voluntarily and be coerced to do it.  Isn't this a contradiction?

Lets say you join a club and the club has a rule that all members must carry a token with them at all times.  If you do not have your token with you, then you owe a fine.

Now,  you joined the club voluntarily.   They can then hold you to the rules and use whatever coercion is allowed by those rules.  So the coercion would only be in response to specific acts, and the voluntary agreement would be for the whole ruleset.   Does that make sense?  Or do I still have a contradiction?

lowkey:

tastemaker:

Paul47:

The coercion is still there in Statist City. It's just that people living there have voluntarily submitted to being coerced  - as many people are inclined to do in exchange for "security". It's not too hard to imagine people wanting to live in a place with no drugs, for example, and agreeing to having drug laws. No skin off their back if they never use them anyway.

I understand the idea of voluntarily giving up some of my rights for protection, etc... or even agreeing to have money taken for a package of services, even if I don't use some. However, this would still be voluntary and not coercive.  I don't see how one can simultaneously do something voluntarily and be coerced to do it.  Isn't this a contradiction?

Lets say you join a club and the club has a rule that all members must carry a token with them at all times.  If you do not have your token with you, then you owe a fine.

Now,  you joined the club voluntarily.   They can then hold you to the rules and use whatever coercion is allowed by those rules.  So the coercion would only be in response to specific acts, and the voluntary agreement would be for the whole ruleset.   Does that make sense?  Or do I still have a contradiction?

Perhaps it is my own ignorance, but it seems to me there is still a contradiction.  I voluntarily agreed to the rules upon joining and, therefore, it is me who is the one trying to break the mutually agreed upon contract should I not have my token or pay the fine.  This breach of contract would be a kind of act of aggression (or perhaps a type of theft) on my part, not vice-versa, right?

But even people who wanted a "statist" type of community would still be there under a voluntary contract, which means everything is fundamentally voluntaryist at every level, no?  Is this what you are essentially arguing for Paul?

Yes. But I'm glad you brought that point up; it definitely throws things into relief.

Perhaps it is my own ignorance, but it seems to me there is still a contradiction.  I voluntarily agreed to the rules upon joining and, therefore, it is me who is the one trying to break the mutually agreed upon contract should I not have my token or pay the fine.  This breach of contract would be a kind of act of aggression (or perhaps a type of theft) on my part, not vice-versa, right?

Yes, I look at it as a breach of contract on your part, and the contract would operate to set your punishment.  More like a condominium arrangement, but extended to other behaviors. But we can't take this analogy too far. If people agree to a representative democracy, and the representatives get too heavy-handed for even those who voted for them, then there is nothing keeping the people around if they get fed up with it. Nothing contractually keeps them there (with the exception of minor children, as lowkey points out, which is a detail I've ignored that needs working out).

The point is, why are people statists? Because they love being coerced, or they love being protected? I don't think people do like being coerced; at least they grumble about it all the time, and only put up with it because they think they need to, to be protected.

The whole point of the argument was to let people know there is a place for them in a free world, even if they are dubious about some aspects of freedom, even if they are not themselves anarchists. In fact there is a place for them even if they are outright communists or fascists, as long as they limit their practices to those who agree with them.

The immediate question that comes to mind, for me, is the question of children.

For the adults, yes, even the 'statist' towns would actually be voluntary. If I joined some crazy commie commune where the rule is that no one can claim property, then I am bound by those rules. It's not really coercion, in the sense that I agreed to it. Acting out a rape fantasy voluntarily means it's not really rape.

But for the new generations after the founding of the town, the minors have no say in where they are born, they have to stay until they are old enough to leave by the rules of the town. I figure that this would naturally work itself out, since no town that openly imprisons its youth will get very far at all in terms of economy and diplomatic relations with its neighbors, but definitely the element of coercion would still exist for minors.

So... I think that Anarchyvilles would have a large, relatively young population, because the youth will flee the oppressive hometowns of their childhood like refugees after the greatest disaster they've ever known, except all the buildings will remain intact, because the damage was done only to their minds. The Statist towns will be lucky to survive more than a few generations, it's unlikely that non-religious people will voluntarily continue to submit themselves to such torture after it's been long proven that the alternatives work much better.

The whole assassination thing just seems completely pointless to me, though. Killing some guy with stupid ideas is still an act of aggression, even if he supports aggressing against citizens of Anarchyville. This kind of terrorism really will lead to the kind of constant civil war that critics of "anarchy" always claim is inevitable after the collapse of government. I think it'd just be easier to let their war-hungry politicians rise to power in their own towns, and then watch them crumble. War simply isn't profitable unless you can get something from it, and as Stefan did a brilliant job of explaining (it was either in Practical Anarchy or some other book, I can't remember), there's really no incentive to invade an anarchic society, because the people will either flee and leave nothing of value, or resist with such unpredictable methods (there's no way to know who's armed and who isn't in a stateless society) that all Anarchyvilles will be the "graveyard of empires". Sooner or later, war just won't be possible anymore, even for statist towns because they'll have to figure out eventually that it just doesn't work.

The whole assassination thing just seems completely pointless to me, though. Killing some guy with stupid ideas is still an act of aggression, even if he supports aggressing against citizens of Anarchyville.

Perhaps you are right about the way things would work out here.

I was worrying about the "lynch mob" mentality. Normally I'd suspect that the more statist towns would be at an economic disadvantage compared to the free ones, and there'd be high unemployment and other problems in these towns. This is a condition ripe for the rise of demagogues, seeking to help people transfer the blame for their condition to "others". However, when people do get into mobs like this, they can usually be stopped if a credible threat of harm exists for the leaders of the mob; I suppose an example is a mob in front of the jail seeking to lynch one of the prisoners, with a lone sheriff holding them off by explaining that the mob may get him, but he will get the leader first.

This also gets into the question of what aggression is. Yes, violent physical action, but what about "fighting words"? What about inducing others to violence? It's kind of a grey area, and I'm not sure about how this has been analyzed around here. Anyway, if inducing others to violence is considered violence itself, then there is no moral problem with defending against it. I understand the need for proportional response, and other such caveats. But I also think it is not always necessary to wait until a blow has been received before exercising a defense. Also, keep in mind that almost all wars have been started by leaders who sit safely back at home while others do the dirty work for them.

Finally, I was not actually advocating the more extreme responses. I was hypothesizing what sorts of things might come about as a result of certain problems (one of the first problems pointed out when I first put out the idea was that statist communities might invade). The people in Anarchyville are individuals, and they all will have their own take on what provocations they are willing to put up with.

Paul47:

The whole assassination thing just seems completely pointless to me, though. Killing some guy with stupid ideas is still an act of aggression, even if he supports aggressing against citizens of Anarchyville.

Perhaps you are right about the way things would work out here.

I was worrying about the "lynch mob" mentality. Normally I'd suspect that the more statist towns would be at an economic disadvantage compared to the free ones, and there'd be high unemployment and other problems in these towns. This is a condition ripe for the rise of demagogues, seeking to help people transfer the blame for their condition to "others". However, when people do get into mobs like this, they can usually be stopped if a credible threat of harm exists for the leaders of the mob; I suppose an example is a mob in front of the jail seeking to lynch one of the prisoners, with a lone sheriff holding them off by explaining that the mob may get him, but he will get the leader first.

This also gets into the question of what aggression is. Yes, violent physical action, but what about "fighting words"? What about inducing others to violence? It's kind of a grey area, and I'm not sure about how this has been analyzed around here. Anyway, if inducing others to violence is considered violence itself, then there is no moral problem with defending against it. I understand the need for proportional response, and other such caveats. But I also think it is not always necessary to wait until a blow has been received before exercising a defense. Also, keep in mind that almost all wars have been started by leaders who sit safely back at home while others do the dirty work for them.

Finally, I was not actually advocating the more extreme responses. I was hypothesizing what sorts of things might come about as a result of certain problems (one of the first problems pointed out when I first put out the idea was that statist communities might invade). The people in Anarchyville are individuals, and they all will have their own take on what provocations they are willing to put up with.

I don't think that's ever really very effective with any group that has a serious mob mentality. In the real world, there's always a second guy waiting to take the place of the guy at the top. You can never shoot them all, and shooting at them at all makes the mob more violent.

Besides, the statist towns would be too busy attacking each other. They'd probably need the Anarchyvilles to survive, since most production would be going on there as a natural result of businesses being allowed to choose between freedom or statism. If the whole scapegoat thing does happen, it'll more likely be against another statist town. Historically speaking, it tends to be the city-states that wage war against others that get conquered. Anarchic cities won't do any of that, they're only concerned with defense. They'd have more money to spend on actually defending the towns, rather than blowing it on wars in foreign territory.

As for "fighting words", I don't think such a thing could really be argued to be any kind of "aggression", this just seems too close to "hate speech" for me. People like to think that when genocide happens, it was the fault of those who had the xenophobic radio shows and the leaders of the racist parties, but honestly, this is just scapegoating as well. The fact of the matter is that a leader can only persuade a group to do what it already wants to do. Hate speech is a convenient scapegoat because we can then blame the person who convinced the people to kill, and take away the guilt/blame from the actual murderers. But "hate speech" is only dangerous as long as there are people who will obey whatever the speakers of hate tell them to do.

Paul47:

tastemaker:

But even people who wanted a "statist" type of community would still be there under a voluntary contract, which means everything is fundamentally voluntaryist at every level, no?  Is this what you are essentially arguing for Paul?

Yes.

On reflection, this discussion gives the wrong impression. It's not that statists have all turned into voluntaryists; far from it. These statist communities certainly will have some voluntaryists, but there will also be many who while voluntarily there (as is the case with every community today), are not there in any contractual arrangement - just as is mostly the case today.

Not only that, but these statist communities will not just have people who have agreed to "live and let live" with respect to Anarchyville. They will also have people who would rather have Anarchyville suppressed, but for whatever reason are unable to accomplish that. Maybe they don't have the time and money, or maybe they are fearful of reprisals by anarchists, or whatever.

We don't need the enlightement of everybody to make this work. We just need what we already have in abundance: enlightenment in some, fear or laziness in others, and self-interest in everyone.

I don't think that's ever really very effective with any group that has a serious mob mentality. In the real world, there's always a second guy waiting to take the place of the guy at the top. You can never shoot them all, and shooting at them at all makes the mob more violent.

Actually, if you use google and enter search terms like "mob" with "repelled", you will find it is quite common that mobs are repelled by a few competent individuals with arms. The L.A. riots are one example, where Korean shopkeepers kept their shops from being burned by setting up on the roofs with battle rifles.

There may be some Anarchyvilles filled with nothing but pacifists (and you are welcome to live in such, if you think defense is worthless), but I'd put my money on the survival of those filled with well-armed individuals.