POLITICS Libertarian Anarchism (was protestors considered suspected terrorists)

[Guest guest]

Again for the sake of avoiding super duper long posts, I am breaking

up my responses. I also changed the subject line to more accurately

reflect what we are talking about.

>> Before the time of the Kings, commentators of all stripes have noted

>> that Israel was arguably the most libertarian society in the history

>> of the world. They had no king, no congress, no legislature, no

>> potentate of any sort. There were no taxes in Israel. Yes, they were

>> required to support the priesthood for both worship and non-worship

>> functions, but there was no means by which this was enforced by a

>> governmental entity. The courts were private in nature. There were no

>> jails since the Mosaic code provided for restitution in the event

>> someone was found guilty. The law was the same for the stranger and

>> citizen alike, and strangers were not assessed a tax of any sort, even

>> when the nation was going to war, which is the only time a census was

>> allowed and a poll tax could be taken.

>

> They also had a very strong national identity bound together by a

> religious agreement, and they had universal law by which they were

> judged, bound up in that religious agreement.

Contrary to what you seem to be implying above, the same law by which

Israel would be judged was the same law by which God was judging the

nations around them.

Over and over again God through Moses says do not do

__________________ (fill in the blank) which the nations around you

are doing and for which they are being judged. Religious agreement or

no, the nations were being judged by the same universal law (which

only makes sense, otherwise it wouldn't be universal) as the Hebrews.

Leviticus 20: 22, 23

22 Ye shall therefore keep all My statutes and all My judgments, and

do them, that the land whither I bring you to dwell therein spew you

not out.

23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation which I cast

out before you; for they committed all these things, and therefore I

abhorred them.

Perhaps by universal you mean the Hebrews had an agreed upon law, thus

being " universal " for them, nonetheless the nations were being judged

in light of it.

> I think this makes a theocratic anarchism much different from a

> non-theocratic anarchism.

In a general theological sense, all societies are theocratic, i.e.

under the direct rule of God, and they often find blessing in

accordance to how closely they mirror God's universal law in their own

agreed upon law code.

[i don't want to go to far with that line of thought so as to not make

this an explicitly religious thread, but most people confuse theocracy

with ecclesiocracy (rule by the Church) which is **not** sanctioned by

God's universal law code and is something very much to be avoided.]

After all what society wouldn't be blessed which, instead of having a

huge " penitential " industrial prison complex, funded by stolen

dollars, to house people who often haven't committed no real crime, or

if they have committed a crime are therefore supported by society in a

system that exposes them to all kind of danger, and teaches them to

become even better criminals - what society wouldn't be blessed if

instead they had a system that actually involves making the victim

whole, rather than enhancing the power of the state (through fines,

etc.) or furthering the development of a permanent criminal class?

What society wouldn't be blessed that didn't distinguish between torts

and criminal offenses and instead considered all lawbreakers debtors,

with an obligation to pay, and all victims creditors, with the right

to be restored?

What society wouldn't be blessed that didn't engage in kidnapping and

slavery (conscription), that didn't practice animal cruelty, that

recognized marital rights for both spouses, that didn't practice total

war, that favored neither the rich or poor, that treated the stranger

as a citizen, that had a just punishment attached to each offense,

rather than the ridiculous arbitrary punishments that make up our

current judicial code, such that a thief can get ten years for

stealing a TV and a rapist can be on the streets again in three?

So you see, religious identity or no, " theocratic " or no, this is not

an all or nothing proposition, and societies can benefit to the extent

they practice such righteous decrees.

Further, the history of anarchical societies seem to suggest that

there isn't much difference between a " theocratic " anarchical society

and a " non-theocratic " anarchical society, as " non-theocratic "

anarchical societies tend to look an awful lot like what was happening

in Israel in their basic outlines, leaving aside the cultic aspect of

the Israeli assembly. As a result, such societies historically have

tended toward civil righteousness and peaceful living.

It also makes perfect sense in light of the New Testament. St.

says the work of the law is written on every man's heart. The law

itself is not, but the _work_ of the law is written on their heart. So

even left alone, mankind can produce externally societies which in a

general sort of way look like what God clearly denoted as the model

civil society, ancient Israel ***before*** the kings.

It is interesting to note that ancient Ireland, after its conversion

to Christianity, modified the role of the kings in their anarchical

society, a society that lasted for over a thousand years.

> Today, we have a national identity bound up

> in our common political agreement and we have universal law under

> geographical areas provided by the political apparatuses that oversee

> whichever given territory.

>

> If we take away what the state provides, we have a vaccum where Israel

> had a theocratic agreement.

So here you are stating baldly what I asked about specifically in

another post, that in order to have freedom we must have at the center

of society a centralist, monopolistic, socialistic, coercive entity or

we create a vacuum that would presumably cause society to collapse

into chaos, i.e anarchy as most people understand the term. This

socialistic, monopolistic, coercive center gives us our national

identity and " universal law " we need in order to survive.

I find this interesting but it seems to me to resonate with a certain

incoherence. Government at best, according to most constitutionalists,

is a necessary **evil**. In order to maintain its position it must

engage in legalized violence or it would cease to be a civil

government and simply become a voluntary society. .

So let me see if I get this straight. We have an evil at our center

that we expect to keep away foreign baddies (the military), domestic

baddies (the police) and then tell us who the baddies are versus the

goodies so we can maintain a peaceful society (the courts), all the

while proclaiming how bad (but necessary) it is and yet allowing it

access to legalized violence. In other words we won't be free unless

we have an evil system at the center empowered to maintain our

freedom. Doesn't make sense to me.

Your comment above also points out the religious nature in which even

believers have imbued the state. No God therefore we must have a state

to establish a national identity and a universal law. That really

isn't to far removed from the attitude that got Israel in trouble

government wise in the first place.

> We would have neither a national identity

> nor a universal law.

Making note again of the religious nature you are imbuing to the

state, this sounds good except for one thing - you ignored what God

himself through Moses had to say about how those who fancied

themselves as not being subject to God's universal law or a part of

the Hebrew's religious identity, would respond to seeing the

outworking of God's universal law in Israel. I even made a point of

emphasizing it so you wouldn't miss it and I will do so again since

you snipped it our of your response:

" When they hear all these decrees, they will exclaim, 'How wise

and prudent are the people of this great nation!' For what great

nation has a god as near to them as the Lord our God is near

to us whenever we call on him?

----------

and

----------

" And what great nation has decrees and regulations as righteous and

fair as this body of instructions that I am giving you today? "

Deuteronomy 4: 5-8

Pagan, heathen, idolatrous nations, involved in every abomination

imaginable under the sun, would hear the law of God and respond

positively. They - the pagan nations, not Israel - would say the law

code was righteous and fair. I repeat, the pagan nations themselves,

not Israel, would say the decrees and regulations are righteous and

fair. Hmmm...that seems to void this idea that the universal law of

God, which the pagan nations didn't abide by, couldn't be heeded

because they didn't share Israel's religious identity. And while it

makes superficial sense, it simply is not true to the words of Moses.

When God said Israel was to be a model to the nations, it would make

little sense, if he didn't expect that model to be emulated by those

nations.

As I noted earlier, it also makes perfect sense in light of the New

Testament. St. says the work of the law is written on every man's

heart. It would seem rather silly, and capricious, to punish the

nations around Israel for a law code they didn't understand. Their

response clearly shows in their heart of hearts they knew what was

right or at least could recognize it when they saw it.

The Old Testament explicitly rejects the idea that Israel's uniqueness

was a barrier to it being a model, in fact it states the uniqueness

would be the very factor that attracted the nations around it to the

Hebrew model.

But whatever the case, non- " theocratic " anarchic societies have indeed

thrived, and they have often thrived and developed law codes that are

quite similar to the Mosaic law.

And given the fact that the nations did hear the law of God as

expounded through Moses, one should not at all be surprised to find in

history societies that recognized the wisdom of what Israel ultimately

rejected.

Here is one that flourished 3000 years before Christ:

Ancient Stateless Society: Bronze Age India and the State in History

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_10_3_04_thompson.pdf

--

Life is too short to wake up with regrets.

Love the people who treat you right.

Forget about the ones who don't.

Believe everything happens for a reason.

If you get a second chance, grab it with both hands.

If it changes your life, let it.

Nobody said life would be easy.

They just promised it would be worth it.

[Guest guest]

> Certainly, private firms could enforce contracts to some degree. But

> when the contract falls between the jurisdiction of two or more firms,

> it seems there would be insurmountable practical hurdles.

Insurmountable? I don't see why. The two (or more) firms could duke it

out of course, just as Ron could win the presidency, Barack Obama

could stop endorsing infanticide, and Bush could push the

button plunging the world into nuclear war. I mean anything is

possible but I don't think any of the above is very likely.

The more likely scenario is that each person and the company that

represents them would agree beforehand on another party to resolve any

lingering dispute, an appeals court so to speak. So if the issue is

tried by one firm and a court (there may or may not be a relationship)

and one of the parties doesn't like it, then it can be tried by the

other firm and its chosen court. If one of the parties doesn't like

that outcome then both parties can submit the dispute to the agreed

upon third court for ultimate resolution. And short of something

flawed in the legal procedure itself, the dispute ends there. Or

conversely both parties via their firms can simply agree to submit the

dispute to an agreed upon third party.

Both firms would have a vested interest in keeping costs down so as to

make a profit, rather than amping up the violence and thereby

increasing costs, increasing premiums, and losing market share. Both

parties would have a vested interest in making sure they had a third

party who was fair and honest. The arbitrator has a vested interest in

being competent, fair, and honest or people will stop coming to her if

they realize she is on the take or not very good. That is what the

market does for you. If you have to compete and bear the costs of your

own actions, rather than live off stolen funds, and thereby transfer

the cost to the taxpayer, then there is enormous pressure to do it

right.

These are market checks and balances that do not exist in our current

state run systems. After all, everyone has the same issues that you

raise above, whether a minarchic or anarchic society. The reason in

our current system in the US we have checks and balances is that we

don't expect any one group to always get it right. So there are

municipal courts, superior courts, supreme courts, etc. There is the

executive, legislative, and judicial branches, etc.

The problem is state mandated checks and balances only **simulate**

market checks and balances and thus have none of the pressures of the

market at work to keep the system honest and fair. Is it any wonder

why private courts are growing by leaps and bounds? Is it any wonder

why business people prefer to handle disputes among their peers

through their own commercial law systems? Is it any wonder why many

people prefer trials by agreed upon experts (which is essentially what

arbitration is all about) rather than trial by juries hamstrung by the

state?

> Moreover,

> much of the contract of libertarianism (or other law-based political

> theories) is implied, such as the non-agression axiom. Exactly what

> constitutes aggression, exactly how to judge the magnitude of

> aggression and how to remedy or require restitution for it has to be

> made explicit, whether by individual contract or my legislation.

Or by court precedent, which is exactly how the legal system of the

west has developed, said system by the way which has deep roots in the

Mosaic law code. So I'm not sure the objection here. Every society,

regardless of its makeup, has to go through this process, and it is a

continuing process. No law code, not even the Mosaic code, can account

for every possible situation. Yes, even the Mosaic code has/had a body

of **developed** exposition as to how the law applies in a given area.

It is clearly stated in the law when it talks about how the hard cases

should be handled by the priests and judges, i.e. cases where there is

no clear immediate application of the law as revealed by Moses.

What you describe is simply a feature of all law, even the Mosaic law

to some extent, and is really a non-starter.

> Israel had theocratic legislation but we, absent the state, would have

> none.

What? With the state we DO have **theocratic** legislation, but

without it we DO NOT? What kind of religious ethos are you imbuing the

state with?

> Must I made a specific contract with every individual I might happen

> to come across? That is clearly impossible. So what, then, could

> provide any remote degree of consistency in the enforcement of implied

> contract?

Since there is much more to answer in this post, rather than me

filling up even more cyberspace answering this objection, I suggest

you study the relevant theoretical literature and actual historical

examples to see how this was/is done.

Bruce Benson's _The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without The State_

might be a good place to start.You can find an excerpt here:

http://mises.org/story/2542

A historical example from American history can be read here:

An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

> Moreover, what would stop firms from engaging in malfeasance for the

> sake of profit or collusion with other firms? Or, for that matter,

> becoming aggressive and establishing a state?

I already answered this is an earlier post but it bears repeating again:

Actually I think the general tendency would be for firms **not** to

collude with one another. Why should they? War and violence is

expensive. Firms would want to keep costs down and the best way to do

that is pursuing peaceful measures. Sure they could try to settle

disputes violently, but then the premiums to their customers would

dramatically go up and said customers would seek out a different

agency.

And say a few firms did try and collude, they would then have to face

the wrath of other firms who do not buy into their aggressive

takeover, and the people themselves who would not buy into it. It is

one thing when you have a captive set of customers you can't lose

(like the gov't coercion of taxes) and a printing press or its

equivalent, then you don't bear directly the costs of your attempted

collusion. But it is another thing when you have to bear the entire

cost yourself, as would any protective agency. I think the tendency

would be away from collusion and toward providing a competitive

peaceful service(s) in the marketplace.

And this in fact is what history shows.

>> Even libertarians who can't stand Christianity, and their number is

>> legion, begrudgingly acknowledge that ancient Israel was a libertarian

>> society, even if they don't like the type of libertarian society that

>> it was.

>

> Yes, but it had universal law as per above..

See my response in the previous post.

[Guest guest]

,

[snip]

> Perhaps by universal you mean the Hebrews had an agreed upon law, thus

> being " universal " for them, nonetheless the nations were being judged

> in light of it.

That's exactly what I mean -- the legislative function of the society was

fulfilled by the religious sphere and produced universally agreed upon law.

In our society, we obtain this from the state; in an anarcho-capitalist society,

we don't obtain it at all (at least as far as I understand).

[snip]

> What society wouldn't be blessed that didn't engage in kidnapping and

> slavery (conscription), that didn't practice animal cruelty, that

> recognized marital rights for both spouses, that didn't practice total

> war, that favored neither the rich or poor, that treated the stranger

> as a citizen, that had a just punishment attached to each offense,

> rather than the ridiculous arbitrary punishments that make up our

> current judicial code, such that a thief can get ten years for

> stealing a TV and a rapist can be on the streets again in three?

> So you see, religious identity or no, " theocratic " or no, this is not

> an all or nothing proposition, and societies can benefit to the extent

> they practice such righteous decrees.

I think we are talking about two different things. I agree with you that if a

society believed these things its members would be much better off.

However, I am saying this: on a very practical level, judges must judge

according to explicit legislation or contract. Israel had explicit legislation

that was universally agreed upon, but an anarcho-capitalist society in which

legislation is provided by firms that compete for the same geographical

territory would not. Thus, it would be much more difficult for the latter to

work at a practical level than the former.

[snip]

> It also makes perfect sense in light of the New Testament. St.

> says the work of the law is written on every man's heart. The law

> itself is not, but the _work_ of the law is written on their heart. So

> even left alone, mankind can produce externally societies which in a

> general sort of way look like what God clearly denoted as the model

> civil society, ancient Israel ***before*** the kings.

It seems like you are taking this statement totally out of its context, which is

addressing whether or not Gentile Christians need to follow the Mosaic law by

becoming circumcised and food prohibitions and whether God favors the Jew over

the Gentile.

> It is interesting to note that ancient Ireland, after its conversion

> to Christianity, modified the role of the kings in their anarchical

> society, a society that lasted for over a thousand years.

I barely know anything about that society but it sounds interesting.

>> Today, we have a national identity bound up

>> in our common political agreement and we have universal law under

>> geographical areas provided by the political apparatuses that oversee

>> whichever given territory.

>> If we take away what the state provides, we have a vaccum where Israel

>> had a theocratic agreement.

> Your comment above also points out the religious nature in which even

> believers have imbued the state. No God therefore we must have a state

> to establish a national identity and a universal law. That really

> isn't to far removed from the attitude that got Israel in trouble

> government wise in the first place.

I think you are reading things into my comments that I didn't intend. What I'm

saying here is the same thing I was saying above: they may have voluntarily

contracted with judges to resolve disputes, but there were not competing systems

of legislation according to which people would be judged within the nation.

[snip]

> Here is one that flourished 3000 years before Christ:

>

> Ancient Stateless Society: Bronze Age India and the State in History

> http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_10_3_04_thompson.pdf

Thanks, , this is a very interesting article. A few points are worth

making, however:

-- His evidence that they did not have a capital, aside from being very

speculative, does not preclude the existence of city-states.

-- The fact that there were no horses and camels in the area probably reduced

their need for defense. He cites evidence that they had systems for defense

against pirates making sea-to-land raids but gives no indication of whether

these would be organized by the city at a public level or by a private firm.

-- He uses their absence of warfare as his primary evidence they did not know

the " state, " but this could hardly be construed in any reasonable way as

evidence that they relied on private firms to produce legislation and defense

that could compete with one another in a given geographical area.

After making it to page 9, it seems like the rest is built on speculation on top

of speculation. I got to the point where, after speculating that the might not

have had a state and then speculating from there what they might have had, he

goes on to speculate how it might have been possible that they had it. It is,

of course, interesting speculation, but it's not really evidence of a stateless

society.

Moreover, he seems to equate the state with militaristic force. But there are

plenty examples of governments set up more or less voluntarily in the absence of

militaristic force that were based on the idea of collective will rather than

market transaction. A good example would be New England municipalities. Each

town government did not need a militia to subjugate the people. It was the

natural belief of the people that the most reasonable way to govern themselves

was to meet together and vote on how to govern themselves.

>

>

> --

>

> Life is too short to wake up with regrets.

> Love the people who treat you right.

> Forget about the ones who don't.

> Believe everything happens for a reason.

> If you get a second chance, grab it with both hands.

> If it changes your life, let it.

> Nobody said life would be easy.

> They just promised it would be worth it.

>