A Mercenary Military?

[Tallpine]

When did we become Imperialists?

It was a gradual thing.  You weren't supposed to notice.

[RevDisk]

That was likely because of a specific computer error.  Unix computers store a date/time value as a number of seconds since Midnight, January 1, 1970.  They use a 32-bit signed value to store the seconds, which means that this counter rolls over at 2038/01/19 03:14:07.  Probably some foolish programmer interpreted a negative value wrong, and gave you a 30+ year reenlistment.

-BP

It'll effect all POSIX time representation, not just Unix.  It'll be quite an issue in three decades for embedded systems.  I always found it amusing that when it wraps around, it'll wrap to Friday the 13, Dec 1901, not 1/1/1901. Thankfully, it's starting to be addressed now.  Virtually all 64 bit systems are using a signed 64-bit value in time_t.  Which would wrap around in 300 billion years.

Actually, the explaination I got was that it was a temporary extension until my manditory retirement age.  It works out either way.  I'm not sure which reasoning would be more unsettling.

[BrokenPaw]

Actually, the explaination I got was that it was a temporary extension until my manditory retirement age.  It works out either way.  I'm not sure which reasoning would be more unsettling.

The unsettling part is that your mandatory retirement age coincidentally matches up nicely with the POSIX EOTWAWKI.

Is there something that RevMom would like to tell us about her past?  Perhaps a lone cybernetic warrior sent from the future to protect her from the T-1000?  Only she fell in love with it?  And got pregnant?  And it turns out that SkyNet didn't take the POSIX date problem into account?  And you're a genetic time bomb?

Well.  I, for one, welcome our cybernetic RevDisk overlords.

 , BP

[RevDisk]

Actually, the explaination I got was that it was a temporary extension until my manditory retirement age.  It works out either way.  I'm not sure which reasoning would be more unsettling.

The unsettling part is that your mandatory retirement age coincidentally matches up nicely with the POSIX EOTWAWKI.

Is there something that RevMom would like to tell us about her past?  Perhaps a lone cybernetic warrior sent from the future to protect her from the T-1000?  Only she fell in love with it?  And got pregnant?  And it turns out that SkyNet didn't take the POSIX date problem into account?  And you're a genetic time bomb?

Well.  I, for one, welcome our cybernetic RevDisk overlords.

 , BP

Um, I guess now would not be a good time to point out I was born on D-Day, June 6.  And that my birthday last year was 06/06/06 ?

[Paddy]

Here's an idea-let's just privatize the entire U.S. military. Disband all the branches and dissolve the Defense Dept.  Hire 'private contractors' on an as needed basis.  Some third world country need an asskicking?  Lowest bidder gets the contract.  Avoid all those pesky Code of Military Conduct, Geneva Convention impediments.  No more phony ra-ra patriotism bullshit. While we're at it, outsource the entire U.S. Congress, too.  Probably get a perfectly good Indian or Pakistani congressman for under $10k.  Of course, they'd all be named Raj Patel, so we'd have to give them numbers or different colored t-shirts or something.  When decision making time comes, we'll all just vote by pushing a button for one of 3-4 choices, like in those audience participation game shows.  Popular choice wins.  Constitutional problems you say?  pfffftt. What the hey, we aren't using it now, and it just causes a lot of contention.  Can't we all just get along?

 

[Len Budney]

Here's an idea-let's just privatize the entire U.S. military. Disband all the branches and dissolve the Defense Dept.  Hire 'private contractors' on an as needed basis.  Some third world country need an asskicking? ...

You'll never convince private citizens to pay voluntarily for a foreign "asskicking." Which is precisely why it's such a good idea. Defense IS possible on a voluntary basis--that's how the country came to be in the first place. But imperialism is completely impossible on a voluntary basis.

Lowest bidder gets the contract.

That suggestion involves two parts: "lowest bidder" and "winner take all"--i.e., THE contract, as if there were only one. Both of those concepts are meaningful only in the context of socialized defense. In a free market there are multiple providers of a service, and people decide on lots of factors other than price. If the lowest bidder took all, then Taco Bell would be the only restaurant left in business.

Suffice it to say that privatized defense would work very differently than "Taco Bell über alles."

--Len.

[RJMcElwain]

You'll never convince private citizens to pay voluntarily for a foreign "asskicking." Which is precisely why it's such a good idea. Defense IS possible on a voluntary basis--that's how the country came to be in the first place. But imperialism is completely impossible on a voluntary basis.

Len.

There are some that would tell you that the oil industry kind of "hired" our government military to invade Iraq in order to secure the oil. How would that be different from hiring Blackwater to secure the oil for Exxon?

Bob

[Len Budney]

You'll never convince private citizens to pay voluntarily for a foreign "asskicking." Which is precisely why it's such a good idea. Defense IS possible on a voluntary basis--that's how the country came to be in the first place. But imperialism is completely impossible on a voluntary basis.

There are some that would tell you that the oil industry kind of "hired" our government military to invade Iraq in order to secure the oil. How would that be different from hiring Blackwater to secure the oil for Exxon?

Excellent question. The difference is that a private security contractor is not above the law; government soldiers are. When Blackwater is hired by the government, we get the worst of both worlds: government gives its contractor immunity from law; but as a "private" entity, there's practically no government oversight either. The result is an armed group accountable to nobody.

--Len.

[Paddy]

Excellent question. The difference is that a private security contractor is not above the law; government soldiers are. When Blackwater is hired by the government, we get the worst of both worlds: government gives its contractor immunity from law; but as a "private" entity, there's practically no government oversight either. The result is an armed group accountable to nobody.

Wait a minute.  I thought you were all for privatization of everything, now you're concerned with accountability.  I thought the 'free market' magically took care of that so there is no need for government oversight.

[Len Budney]

Wait a minute.  I thought you were all for privatization of everything, now you're concerned with accountability.

Sure. That's not a contradiction. You're a private individual, for example, and I approve of that--but you're also accountable as well: if you attack me, I will shoot you. That's what makes you different from a cop, say: if a cop attacks me and I shoot him, I'm in a world of trouble, because he has special government powers and protections. Blackwater employees are not private employees, because they too have special government powers and protections. If I shot one of them in self-defense, I'd probably be headed for Gitmo.

Compare that with the Pinkertons. If I shot a Pinkerton in self-defense, I'd have to prove that it was self-defense, just like any other self-defense case. But the judicial process wouldn't be stacked against me, and his fellow Pinkertons would not get away with claiming I hung myself in my cell after savagely beating, tazing and pepper-spraying myself.

I thought the 'free market' magically took care of that so there is no need for government oversight.

I'm not advocating government "oversight"; I'm advocating the same libertarian justice system for everyone. Government employees are above the justice system, but at least they're under some sort of oversight. Blackwater employees are above the justice system and without government oversight. The government protects them, but makes practically no effort to control them. As I said, it's the worst of both worlds. They're what cops would be if there were no civilian review, no IAB, no higher agencies and commissioners weren't elected: completely unaccountable and out of control.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

Wait a minute.  I thought you were all for privatization of everything, now you're concerned with accountability.  I thought the 'free market' magically took care of that so there is no need for government oversight.

Pure libertarianism and pure laissez-faire sound good on paper but cannot survive contact with reality, and human nature in particular.

[Len Budney]

Pure libertarianism and pure laissez-faire sound good on paper but cannot survive contact with reality, and human nature in particular.

I don't agree. Suppose that (1) there were two police departments in your town, and (2) it were clearly understood that cops have no powers or immunities above any other citizen. Under those circumstances, try and imagine police brutality flourishing. Everyone is free to sign on with the PD of their choice, and one of its functions is to protect its clients from the other PD.

--Len.

[Paddy]

Sure. That's not a contradiction. You're a private individual, for example, and I approve of that--but you're also accountable as well: if you attack me, I will shoot you. That's what makes you different from a cop, say: if a cop attacks me and I shoot him, I'm in a world of trouble, because he has special government powers and protections. Blackwater employees are not private employees, because they too have special government powers and protections. If I shot one of them in self-defense, I'd probably be headed for Gitmo.

Compare that with the Pinkertons. If I shot a Pinkerton in self-defense, I'd have to prove that it was self-defense, just like any other self-defense case. But the judicial process wouldn't be stacked against me, and his fellow Pinkertons would not get away with claiming I hung myself in my cell after savagely beating, tazing and pepper-spraying myself.

Rather than explain how the 'free market' provides accountability, you change the subject with hypotheticals verging on the hysteria of an imagined 'worst case scenario'.

I don't agree. Suppose that (1) there were two police departments in your town, and (2) it were clearly understood that cops have no powers or immunities above any other citizen. Under those circumstances, try and imagine police brutality flourishing. Everyone is free to sign on with the PD of their choice, and one of its functions is to protect its clients from the other PD.

Another non sequitur hypothetical.  Towns don't have two police departments. 

[Len Budney]

Rather than explain how the 'free market' provides accountability...

I did explain exactly how the free market provides accountability. I'm sitting here in a booth drinking sweet tea, with a Bianchi IWB holster at 4 o'clock, an SW9VE loaded with jacketed hollowpoints, and a spare magazine at 8 o'clock next to my cell phone. I have quite literally got your accountability right here.

I can of course contract with a security service, but as my agents they would have no more nor less power than I do to defend me. Namely, I'd expect them to be armed and aware. The specific arrangements could be infinite. I could give them my house keys, or install silent alarms, or have them on call, or any number of other arrangements. But they all amount to the same thing: I am delegating my own personal power to defend myself against attack onto an agent hired for the purpose. The agency is literally equivalent to the 9mm currently inside my waistband at 4 o'clock.

Another non sequitur hypothetical.  Towns don't have two police departments.

That's right, because government is a monopolist. Private security, however, is not. Therefore free-market security precisely fits my description. Nothing non-sequiturial about it.

--Len.

[Paddy]

I did explain exactly how the free market provides accountability. I'm sitting here in a booth drinking sweet tea, with a Bianchi IWB holster at 4 o'clock, an SW9VE loaded with jacketed hollowpoints, and a spare magazine at 8 o'clock next to my cell phone. I have quite literally got your accountability right here.

So, free market accountability is assured by each individual simply shooting whoever might threaten or attempt to coerce them?  IOW, in your scenario, two guys with MP5's walk in the door and accuse you of screwing them on a business deal.  They claim you misrepresented your product and came to kill you. As proud as you obviously are of your defense setup, you're nonetheless outgunned, so you wind up dead.

No other oversight or independent judgement, just each individual's 'opinion'.  Yeah, Len.  That'll work. 

[Len Budney]

So, free market accountability is assured by each individual simply shooting whoever might threaten or attempt to coerce them?

You're asking for McAnswers to your questions. That puts pressure on me to boil answers down to sound-bytes for you, but this inevitably leads to your criticizing my laconic answers for their lack of detail. To try and address that, here's a longer answer. Please realize, however, that you're asking for short answers to long questions.

My reference to the autoloader I'm carrying at the moment is in fact a condensation of all of Locke's best arguments (and none of his bad ones) into one sound byte. Namely, the foundation of all justice rests not on social contract but on the right of self-defense. Everyone is morally entitled to defend himself, and is morally forbidden to initiate aggression or other non-defensive force. Any and all institutions of "justice" proceed directly from this axiom: an officer can defend me, if he has my permission to do so, using neither more nor less force than I am permitted to use personally in my own defense. In particular, he can't "defend" me against my will, and he can't initiate aggression or other non-defensive force in my name, with or without my consent.

The rest is detail. It's permissible to sell one's services as a security guard; that's simply subcontracting my own self-defense. The myriad of security services fall under the same heading, whether it's patrolling, alarm systems, security cameras, lighting, structural hardening, or anything else. As long as it involves no force except defensive force, it's moral, legal and permitted. Communities can and will produce very different institutions. In the west this might resemble a private version of the familiar "court" system. In Somalia, it would probably be based on the Xeer. Libertarian muslims might go to an imam for judgment; libertarian bedouin to their sheikh; etc. When you ask for a direct analogue of the current American legal system, you're asking the wrong question; it can and probably would work somewhat differently.

Which leaves one loose end:

IOW, in your scenario, two guys with MP5's walk in the door and accuse you of screwing them on a business deal.  They claim you misrepresented your product and came to kill you... No other oversight or independent judgement, just each individual's 'opinion'.

You're raising the valid question how disputes are resolved when both parties claim to be acting in self-defense, say. That's where 6,000 years of human civilization (almost all of it predating the "state") kicks in. I with my Kalashnikov and my plumber with his MP5 realize, before we resort to a gunfight, that we each have brothers, uncles and cousins, not to mention security agencies and life insurance. The insurance companies will want to avoid a payout by proving that the insured was guilty of a crime; the defense agencies are contractually obligated to sort out the dispute and prosecute murder; and if all else fails, our respective relatives are willing to avenge our deaths.

So what happens next? Your question assumes that this will inevitably lead to a feud, until one or the other clan is exterminated. You take the Hobbesian view that, unless some external authority steps in, society must collapse into a war of all against all. That's certainly one possibility. Hobbes believed it.

Yet human history has been surprisingly lacking in Hobbesian war. Why might that be? Simply put, people realize that feuding is bloody and expensive. Human tribes everywhere have learned instead, to submit most of their disputes to a binding mediation process. Today, when my plumber and I can't agree, our respective clans have a vested interest in avoiding a feud. The only way to do that is to submit our dispute for mediation. If we refuse mediation and one of us kills the other, the survivor's clan will usually submit to arbitration to determine whether the killing was murder or self-defense, and will allow the killer to suffer the punishment rather than embroil itself in a feud likely to leave many brothers, uncles and cousins dead.

The exact institution for resolving the conflict will vary, because that's the way with free markets. One size does not fit all.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

Len, you reasoned yourself from "market and individual decide" to "mediation". Congratulations, you derived the need for some sort of government or central authority that does the mediation.

One of the problems with libertarian purist theories is that they simply refuse to understand why gov has evolved in human society. Gov evolved because it became necessary, not because some Statist Ex Machina willed it into being and coerced everybody to accept it. Gov provides stability where human numbers are too great for self-organization and personal initiative to suffice. That is why gov is dangerous, even oppressive in a small community, but essentially indispensible in larger communities. The critical turning point is arguable and is dependent on culture, geography, and technological level, but its very existence is not.

Also, your own line of reasoning would inevitably produce the Hobbesian war if simply extrapolated. A group beats an individual, a clan beats a group, a tribe beats a clan, a nation beats a tribe, etc. As you can see, human society naturally gravitates towards higher forms of organization as a tool of self-preservation. Any lesser organization generally succumbs to and is eliminated by or absorbed by any higher organization. When rival organizations are about equally matched, they generally establish a low-intensity conflict and wait for a better chance. Turn the crank and you will ultimately produce a small number of advanced organizations, which will eventually eliminate one another because of fluctuations in their parity. When only one organization is left, they become the central government. Its rules become the laws.

So, in your terminology, Hobbesian wars happen all the time, but are generally resolved quickly and violently between mismatched opponents, or they simmer in the background among equally-matched opponents waiting for a better opportunity.

Moreover, at every stage of human societal development, the highest organizational level generally matched the geography and technology of the time. Increases in human density and improvement in communications have invariably increased the radius of power projection and thus of any individual government. Therein the danger of oppressive remote gov. However, the solution is not to demolish the gov (futile - it will reemerge), but to steer it in a benign direction.

[Len Budney]

Len, you reasoned yourself from "market and individual decide" to "mediation". Congratulations, you derived the need for some sort of government or central authority that does the mediation.

You're making a leap here. Who says the mediator has to be "government" or "central"? It doesn't. Indeed, it can't be. When the "government" is one of the litigants, how can it claim the right to mediate the dispute? Obviously, when one sues a mediator, one can't submit the dispute to him for resolution!

One of the problems with libertarian purist theories is that they simply refuse to understand why gov has evolved in human society.

Actually that question has been addressed, by Hans Hoppe among others. In a nutshell: the earliest mammals evolved a herd structure because (1) cooperation confers a survival advantage, and (2) early mammals were too stupid to cooperate purposely. Thus they evolved a mindless form of cooperation that we know as a "herd." This persisted through the great apes, which can fairly be described as tribal, and from them to humans. We're tribal because we evolved from herd animals. Government is what you get when the tribal structure is preserved in an increasingly-complex society.

In short, government exists because we do indeed have common ancestors with the sheep. We're smart enough to invent better things than tribes, but most of us yield instead to the herd instinct that evolution saddled us with.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

We're tribal because we evolved from herd animals. Government is what you get when the tribal structure is preserved in an increasingly-complex society. In short, government exists because we do indeed have common ancestors with the sheep. We're smart enough to invent better things than tribes, but most of us yield instead to the herd instinct that evolution saddled us with.

I like ripping on the sheeple as well. But, the reality is more complicated - see the expansion to my previous post.

[Len Budney]

We're tribal because we evolved from herd animals. Government is what you get when the tribal structure is preserved in an increasingly-complex society. In short, government exists because we do indeed have common ancestors with the sheep. We're smart enough to invent better things than tribes, but most of us yield instead to the herd instinct that evolution saddled us with.

I like ripping on the sheeple as well. But, the reality is more complicated - see the expansion to my previous post.

The explanation in your post is incorrect. Your first paragraph asserts without proof that government is "indispensable," which simply begs the question. Your second paragraph asserts without proof that Hobbesian war is inevitable, but there are lots of counterexamples to disprove that claim. The final paragraph makes the dubious claim that the greatest centralization corresponds with the greatest progress. The Soviet Union is a decent counterexample. As is the US: her periods of greatest prosperity have been her times of greatest freedom, not greatest centralization.

As for my observation, it's not "ripping on sheeple." Do you dispute the fact that we are indeed descended from a long line of herd animals? It's not really open to argument that we inherited our group instinct from a shrew-like ancestor 65 million years ago. The only debatable question is whether the herd or tribe can be improved upon. But the fact that we've always done things that way does nothing to advance the case; we've done it since before we left the trees or started using tools. We didn't exactly weigh all the alternatives carefully.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

You're making a leap here. Who says the mediator has to be "government" or "central"? It doesn't. Indeed, it can't be. When the "government" is one of the litigants, how can it claim the right to mediate the dispute? Obviously, when one sues a mediator, one can't submit the dispute to him for resolution!

Yes, that is a problem. "Who is watching the watcher?"

For me, the solution is to realize that gov is a compilation of bureaucrats. When a particular bureaucrat screws up, he should be the one to burn. Dumping the responsibility on "gov" as a whole means the particular perp can get away with it. He does it on purpose and likes it that way, because then people do not punish him but back down and simmer against the "gov".

So, my advice is, don't play into the perp's hand. Expose the louse. The other bureaucrats will burn him, if for no other reason than securing themselves. The problem only appears when ALL of them or at least a critical number are all perps. Thankfully, we are not there yet, and if the sheeple understand that, they can still delouse the system. So, you have your work cut out for you. Go forth and de-sheeple your fellow constituents. I have been doing this for a long time now.

[Len Budney]

You're making a leap here. Who says the mediator has to be "government" or "central"? It doesn't. Indeed, it can't be. When the "government" is one of the litigants, how can it claim the right to mediate the dispute? Obviously, when one sues a mediator, one can't submit the dispute to him for resolution!

Yes, that is a problem. "Who is watching the watcher?"

I agree with Jefferson (though he didn't take the argument far enough). The ultimate protection of the individual's freedom is the individual himself, armed and vigilant. Any concession of special powers or immunities to anyone severely undermines that defense: one is accepting the manifest contradiction that one must defend oneself from the cops, yet isn't allowed to do so.

For me, the solution is to realize that gov is a compilation of bureaucrats. When a particular bureaucrat screws up, he should be the one to burn. Dumping the responsibility on "gov" as a whole means the particular perp can get away with it. He does it on purpose and likes it that way, because then people do not punish him but back down and simmer against the "gov".

But by accepting the right of an agent of force to exist, with special powers you don't have, you've already given the whole game away. The USA PATRIOT act and the MCA were a done deal when the Constitution was inked. Once the machinery of power is created, freedom is doomed.

The problem only appears when ALL of them or at least a critical number are all perps. Thankfully, we are not there yet, and if the sheeple understand that, they can still delouse the system. So, you have your work cut out for you. Go forth and de-sheeple your fellow constituents. I have been doing this for a long time now.

I'm trying. When a majority wake up realizing that "government" does go away when you ignore it--as long as enough people ignore it--then the people will be de-sheepled.

Too many people have chosen to support their existence by forcible predation on their fellow man, though. Those people, which you call "bureaucrats," will put up a fight. Hopefully we can convince them all to give up quietly and get an honest job.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

The explanation in your post is incorrect. Your first paragraph asserts without proof that government is "indispensable," which simply begs the question.

First I state, then I explain. Nothing wrong with that.

Your second paragraph asserts without proof that Hobbesian war is inevitable, but there are lots of counterexamples to disprove that claim.

Please provide the counterexamples. I am convinced that power struggles exist at every level of societal organization, down to a family of two. Only Robinson Crusoe is not a subject to such, but he immediately got sucked back in when the savages and Friday entered his life.

The final paragraph makes the dubious claim that the greatest centralization corresponds with the greatest progress. The Soviet Union is a decent counterexample. As is the US: her periods of greatest prosperity have been her times of greatest freedom, not greatest centralization.

You define "success" inconsistently. The "success" of an organization is the extent of its control w.r.t. rival organizations. It might or might not correlate with economic, military, or political success at all, although it generally does. Our current gov is much more "successful" in this Dawkinsian sense than its historical predecessors. The same analysis can be applied to religions, which also do not necessarily correlate that well with economics, military affairs, or politics.

Do you dispute the fact that we are indeed descended from a long line of herd animals? It's not really open to argument that we inherited our group instinct from a shrew-like ancestor 65 million years ago.

I do not dispute evolution; on the contrary, I use it very much in my argument. What I dispute is the conclusion that we maintain our social organization only because we are hard-wired herd animals. Moreover, narrowly taken, the argument is completely wrong. We certainly do not have the social organization of pre-historic men - isolated family groups of no more than 30 individuals. Instead, our social structure has evolved to match the environment, biology, and technology, to maximize the survival chances of genes. Read the "Selfish Gene" for a beautiful discussion on the subject.

The only debatable question is whether the herd or tribe can be improved upon. But the fact that we've always done things that way does nothing to advance the case; we've done it since before we left the trees or started using tools. We didn't exactly weigh all the alternatives carefully.

There may be more efficient ways to organize, but I doubt it very much. Every attempt at large-scale pre-meditated social engineering historically has collapsed relatively quickly, and society has reverted to a form matching the ambient conditions best.

[CAnnoneer]

The ultimate protection of the individual's freedom is the individual himself, armed and vigilant.

I agree. That is something that must be maintained, by steering the gov that way through the electoral process.

Any concession of special powers or immunities to anyone severely undermines that defense: one is accepting the manifest contradiction that one must defend oneself from the cops, yet isn't allowed to do so.

What are the special powers and immunities you speak of? Be more concrete. Also, you are certainly allowed to defend yourself against bad cops. Cops and bureaucrats are not the gov, they are just individual agents of gov. If you refuse to treat them as individuals, you forfeit to the perp.

But by accepting the right of an agent of force to exist, with special powers you don't have, you've already given the whole game away. The USA PATRIOT act and the MCA were a done deal when the Constitution was inked. Once the machinery of power is created, freedom is doomed.

Absolutely not. Voters can vote in candidates that can strike down any such law. Freedom is only doomed when the machinery is broken enough or people refuse to use a still-functioning machinery. I think we have much more of the latter than the former. We don't even get 50% to show up to vote in this country, while most races are decided by a few percent at most - enough said.

When a majority wake up realizing that "government" does go away when you ignore it--as long as enough people ignore it--then the people will be de-sheepled.

Gov never goes away. Somebody is always in charge. This is something you must internalize. The real question is who is in charge and what they are doing. Also, you cannot get gov to go away by ignoring it. Just try to ignore the police or IRS or NSA; it does not work.

Too many people have chosen to support their existence by forcible predation on their fellow man, though. Those people, which you call "bureaucrats," will put up a fight. Hopefully we can convince them all to give up quietly and get an honest job.

The parasytes always need a host. If the host allows the parasytes to remain, whose fault is that?

[Len Budney]

Your second paragraph asserts without proof that Hobbesian war is inevitable, but there are lots of counterexamples to disprove that claim.

Please provide the counterexamples. I am convinced that power struggles exist at every level of societal organization, down to a family of two.

Depends what you mean by that. If you're saying that people disagree, fine--but disagreement only becomes a libertarian problem when it involves initiation of aggression. To suggest that violent conflict exists at all levels is simply not reasonable. Examples abound:

* The so-called "Wild West" was not so wild after all. On the frontier where government hadn't yet penetrated, people worked out peaceful arrangements nothing like a John Wayne movie.

* The Pennsylvania colony existed in a state of anarchy for several years.

* Somalia is no Utopia--but without a state, it's doing considerably better than its neighbors.

* Protesters at Tiananmen Square constructed and operated a successful anarchist society for two months. (Ironically, they gathered to demand democracy, and seem not to have appreciated that they were actually enacting something better.)

* Whenever people come to a four-way stop sign, or wait for a bus, or spread a beach towel, they demonstrate non-violent conflict resolution.

The final paragraph makes the dubious claim that the greatest centralization corresponds with the greatest progress. The Soviet Union is a decent counterexample. As is the US: her periods of greatest prosperity have been her times of greatest freedom, not greatest centralization.

You define "success" inconsistently. The "success" of an organization is the extent of its control w.r.t. rival organizations.
[/quote]

That definition is singularly slanted in favor of the state: if "success" is roughly defined as "power," especially coercive power, then yes--totalitarian societies are the most "successful." But who cares?

It might or might not correlate with economic, military, or political success at all, although it generally does. Our current gov is much more "successful" in this Dawkinsian sense than its historical predecessors.

And the Third Reich was even more successful. So what? If that's "success," give me failure.

Do you dispute the fact that we are indeed descended from a long line of herd animals? It's not really open to argument that we inherited our group instinct from a shrew-like ancestor 65 million years ago.

I do not dispute evolution; on the contrary, I use it very much in my argument. What I dispute is the conclusion that we maintain our social organization only because we are hard-wired herd animals.

I didn't say "only." But if you drop the "only," what's left is absolutely indisputable.

Moreover, narrowly taken, the argument is completely wrong. We certainly do not have the social organization of pre-historic men - isolated family groups of no more than 30 individuals. Instead, our social structure has evolved to match the environment, biology, and technology, to maximize the survival chances of genes. Read the "Selfish Gene" for a beautiful discussion on the subject.

It's an elaborate version of the tribal structure. Literally, empires evolved from kingdoms, which evolved from city-states, which evolved from tribes, which evolved from families. The general layout of all are identical. The latter are merely bigger and more elaborate.

What you can't claim is that we've tried anything else. Arguably, we couldn't have tried anything else prior to the 19th century: before that, practically everyone hovered on the brink of starvation. A handful of the most hardened anarchists might resort to a tribal structure in a survival situation.

The only debatable question is whether the herd or tribe can be improved upon. But the fact that we've always done things that way does nothing to advance the case; we've done it since before we left the trees or started using tools. We didn't exactly weigh all the alternatives carefully.

There may be more efficient ways to organize, but I doubt it very much. Every attempt at large-scale pre-meditated social engineering historically has collapsed relatively quickly...

Yup. What hasn't been tried is unpremeditated, non-engineered, decentralized society. I don't know of any libertarians (or anarcho capitalists) who suggest that a centrally-designed society is a workable idea. The free market is the antithesis of that.

--Len.