A Nation State IS a Monopoly on Violence

[Chris]

True.

Here's the short version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ


Here's a longer version with more context:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7ilSNa0Cgs

[Peter1469]

Of course it is. Nation-states have been the bedrock of the international order since the Treaty of Westphalia (https://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/treaty-westphalia). Prior to that royalty and nobility waged wars on whims.

I expect the nation-state system to last until nation-states can no longer protect their citizens. Then you will see nations merge into confederations and ultimately perhaps a global government. Naturally. Not the artificial forcing that is being attempted today.

[Chris]

A system based on a monopoly of violence cannot be good, cannot lead to good things.

[Peter1469]

A system based on a monopoly of violence cannot be good, cannot lead to good things.


It is, however, reality. Human nature prevents any change.

[The Xl]

Nation States are horrid. Do human beings as a whole have the capacity to do better though? That's the real question.

[Peter1469]

Nation States are horrid. Do human beings as a whole have the capacity to do better though? That's the real question.

They are free to do so.

I gave my prediction above. That is the direction we are headed.

[Chris]

It is, however, reality. Human nature prevents any change.

It is also reality the human existed 98% of the time without the modern state.

[Chris]

Nation States are horrid. Do human beings as a whole have the capacity to do better though? That's the real question.

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

— Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

[Peter1469]

It is also reality the human existed 98% of the time without the modern state.

Right. They chose that path.

Do you think humans will chose to go back to tribal and family based societies? I don't. Unless there is a global disaster. And then in a generation or two, I believe humans will again form nations.

[Chris]

Right. They chose that path.

Do you think humans will chose to go back to tribal and family based societies? I don't. Unless there is a global disaster. And then in a generation or two, I believe humans will again form nations.


They? A few chose that.

Many look at BREXIT and other similar actions as a sign the globalization into a one world government has reached its pinnacle. Even nationalist movement seen in Sanders and Trump trend toward smaller nation-states.

[The Xl]

They? A few chose that.

Many look at BREXIT and other similar actions as a sign the globalization into a one world government has reached its pinnacle. Even nationalist movement seen in Sanders and Trump trend toward smaller nation-states.

Many want nationalism and smaller nation States, but I'm not sure they want them abolished outright. I think cold turkeying them would be a bad idea anyway, it would be like a heavy alcoholic trying to quit drinking cold turkey without a detox.

[Chris]

Many want nationalism and smaller nation States, but I'm not sure they want them abolished outright. I think cold turkeying them would be a bad idea anyway, it would be like a heavy alcoholic trying to quit drinking cold turkey without a detox.

Agree, change needs to come slowly, prudently.

[The Xl]

Agree, change needs to come slowly, prudently.

Absolutely.

[Peter1469]

They? A few chose that.

Many look at BREXIT and other similar actions as a sign the globalization into a one world government has reached its pinnacle. Even nationalist movement seen in Sanders and Trump trend toward smaller nation-states.


There are a few movements to split current nations. Scotland, Catalonia, California. Hardly a significant portion of humanity.

[Peter1469]

Many want nationalism and smaller nation States, but I'm not sure they want them abolished outright. I think cold turkeying them would be a bad idea anyway, it would be like a heavy alcoholic trying to quit drinking cold turkey without a detox.

I doubt a significant number of people want to move in that direction.

[Hal Jordan]

Many want nationalism and smaller nation States, but I'm not sure they want them abolished outright. I think cold turkeying them would be a bad idea anyway, it would be like a heavy alcoholic trying to quit drinking cold turkey without a detox.
Not all alcoholics drink Wild Turkey, though. :tongue:

Seriously, though, decreasing the power of governments is a process. It will take time and a lot of work.

[Chris]

I doubt a significant number of people want to move in that direction.

Britain voted for BREXIT, the US elected a nationalist over a globalist.

[Chris]

There are a few movements to split current nations. Scotland, Catalonia, California. Hardly a significant portion of humanity.

Just part of reversing the globalist trend.

[Peter1469]

Britain voted for BREXIT, the US elected a nationalist over a globalist.

Exactly. I have said the nation-state has been the paramount actor on the world stage since the Treaty of Westphalia. It will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

[Peter1469]

Just part of reversing the globalist trend.

No. The three that I identified are attacking nations. Not globalism.

[Chris]

Of course it is. Nation-states have been the bedrock of the international order since the Treaty of Westphalia (https://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/treaty-westphalia). Prior to that royalty and nobility waged wars on whims.

I expect the nation-state system to last until nation-states can no longer protect their citizens. Then you will see nations merge into confederations and ultimately perhaps a global government. Naturally. Not the artificial forcing that is being attempted today.


Exactly. I have said the nation-state has been the paramount actor on the world stage since the Treaty of Westphalia. It will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.


Right but you also foresaw "nations merge into confederations and ultimately perhaps a global government."

That is what I'm saying has reversed course.

[Green Arrow]

A system based on a monopoly of violence cannot be good, cannot lead to good things.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

[Chris]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Granted, if a violent state considers violence good then it might exist for a time.

[Green Arrow]

Granted, if a violent state considers violence good then it might exist for a time.

It's a trade-off. A monopoly on violence actually limits violence.

[Chris]

It's a trade-off. A monopoly on violence actually limits violence.

In response to your last two Sithian statements, no, take non-Sithian Lord Acton's statedment about power and corruption; no, the world is not less violent.

https://s9.postimg.org/6vkk4yabj/Moab-_Afghanistan-_Taliban-_Boom.gif

MOAB, May, 2017.

[Green Arrow]

In response to your last two Sithian statements, no, take non-Sithian Lord Acton's statedment about power and corruption; no, the world is not less violent.

https://s9.postimg.org/6vkk4yabj/Moab-_Afghanistan-_Taliban-_Boom.gif

MOAB, May, 2017.

Really? What major genocides are occurring today? How many large-scale wars?

[Peter1469]

Right but you also foresaw "nations merge into confederations and ultimately perhaps a global government."

That is what I'm saying has reversed course.

That is far in the future.

As I said, nation-states will remain paramount for the foreseeable future.

[Chris]

Really? What major genocides are occurring today? How many large-scale wars?

Since the modern state came into existence? We can all name those.

[Green Arrow]

Since the modern state came into existence? We can all name those.

Note the word "today."

[Chris]

Note the word "today."

Note you're defining away the problem by narrowing your view. Steven Pinker does that too. Here's a long piece that dispels that Comptean Myth: Steven Pinker is wrong about violence and war (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-declining): "It would not be the first time that science has been used to bolster faith in the future. Nineteenth-century disciples of Comte’s religion of humanity practised a daily ritual in which they tapped the parts of their heads that according to phrenology embodied the impulses of altruism and progress. In order that they would never forget the importance of cooperation, they were instructed to wear specially designed clothing with buttons down the back that could be accessed only with the help of other people. Twenty-first century believers in human improvement can surely find a better way to practise their faith. Reciting out loud numbers broadcast by their amulets, they can exorcise any disturbing thoughts from their minds. For so long shrouded in myth and superstition, meaning in life can at last be produced by modern methods."

[Green Arrow]

Note you're defining away the problem by narrowing your view.

Nope.

[Ethereal]

The nation-state as we know it was basically invented by Egyptian Pharaohs and refined by them over thousands of years. They are all characterized by the same material and abstract qualities: Taxation, bureaucracy, professional armies, defined territories, rigid hierarchy, psychological conditioning, ritual, ceremony, iconography, etc.

[Ethereal]

Prior to that royalty and nobility waged wars on whims.

Not much has changed, it seems.

[Ethereal]

Nation States are horrid. Do human beings as a whole have the capacity to do better though? That's the real question.
Well, for most of human history, there were no nation-states. Then agriculture emerged in the fertile crescent about 12,000 years ago and the nation-state along with it. Since then, there has been a tendency to associate social order with the influence of the state, but I would argue this is the result of thousands of years of conditioning and propaganda by the ruling classes. In reality, social order is the natural state of humanity and would persist in the absence of the state, just as it did for tens of thousands of years prior to its emergence.

[The Xl]

Note the word "today."

That has more to do with a more aware and "spoiled" citizenry than it does the benevolence of our current nation states.

[The Xl]

Well, for most of human history, there were no nation-states. Then agriculture emerged in the fertile crescent about 12,000 years ago and the nation-state along with it. Since then, there has been a tendency to associate social order with the influence of the state, but I would argue this is the result of thousands of years of conditioning and propaganda by the ruling classes. In reality, social order is the natural state of humanity and would persist in the absence of the state, just as it did for tens of thousands of years prior to its emergence.

I'm not convinced a no state world would work as efficiently as you present it, at least not without some growing pains and a relatively long grace period.

[Ethereal]

Do you think humans will chose to go back to tribal and family based societies?

That assumes humans ever left such societies in the first place, but I would argue that our communal and familial networks have far more influence on our daily lives than the state does. In some ways, we still inhabit an anarchic society, at least as it concerns our small scale relations.


I don't. Unless there is a global disaster. And then in a generation or two, I believe humans will again form nations.

But it wasn't really "humans" in general who formed nation-states. It was a small ruling elite. The masses simply went along out of fear, ignorance, or some combination of the two.

[Ethereal]

I'm not convinced a no state world would work as efficiently as you present it, at least not without some growing pains and a relatively long grace period.

Efficient in regards to what, though?

[Ethereal]

The natural order has always prevailed. The state merely glommed onto it like a parasite and then took credit for all the blessings said order bestows upon us. After centuries of conditioning and propaganda, the masses came to associate order, which is natural, with the artificial designs and machinations of the ruling classes. Put simply, the state is just a massive and sophisticated illusion.

[The Xl]

Efficient in regards to what, though?

How society functions. Most people are conditioned to a state, and this generation couldn't handle it. Not to mention, I have issues on how the logistics of an anarchist system works in regards to law, the courts, etc. It's one of the reasons why a prefer a tiny state vs no state, at least in this environment.

[Ethereal]

It's a trade-off. A monopoly on violence actually limits violence.

In theory, perhaps, but empirically, that is debatable. Stateless societies certainly had violence, but there is little evidence to suggest they were more violent than statist societies. I mean, virtually every mass atrocity in the past ten thousand years has been committed by state actors.

[Ethereal]

Really? What major genocides are occurring today? How many large-scale wars?
Large swaths of the Middle East are basically a slaughter house. Millions have died as a result. And much of that chaos can be attributed to the external and internal machinations of state actors.

But I'm wondering why results at present would be the only results germane to the discussion when the nation-state has existed for around 12,000 years. Shouldn't we also consider the past genocides and large wars that happened under the aegis of various nation-states?

[Ethereal]

How society functions. Most people are conditioned to a state, and this generation couldn't handle it. Not to mention, I have issues on how the logistics of an anarchist system works in regards to law, the courts, etc. It's one of the reasons why a prefer a tiny state vs no state, at least in this environment.
Society "functions" because of a natural order that would exist regardless of the state. The things we do on a day-to-day basis are largely ungoverned. Granted, we have positive laws that require this and prohibit that, but we are largely free to ignore them and do as we please. That's why almost everyone on the highway is driving at least ten miles an hour over the speed limit, and why millions of Americans buy and sell illegal drugs every day. Our intimate, small scale relationships are almost exclusively peaceful and voluntary, and that is largely the result of a natural and ungoverned order. The state's role in maintaining order is just an illusion conjured up by the ruling classes over many centuries of conditioning and propaganda. Now, I'm not saying that the best way to achieve statelessness is to abolish the institution overnight. I'm just saying that statelessness is achievable and even desirable.

[The Xl]

I don't think anyone should be putting over the state's virtues or anything. It hasn't functioned well, especially in South America, the Middle East and Africa. Hell, the only reason America has thrived the way it has is in spite of the state. My skepticism of a lack of state certainly isn't meant to be an endorsement of the horrors and general inefficiency of the state.

[Ethereal]

I don't think anyone should be putting over the state's virtues or anything. It hasn't functioned well, especially in South America, the Middle East and Africa. Hell, the only reason America has thrived the way it has is in spite of the state. My skepticism of a lack of state certainly isn't meant to be an endorsement of the horrors and general inefficiency of the state.

I know. I'm not judging you or anyone else for making those kinds of arguments. I used to make them too.

[Peter1469]

Large swaths of the Middle East are basically a slaughter house. Millions have died as a result. And much of that chaos can be attributed to the external and internal machinations of state actors.

But I'm wondering why results at present would be the only results germane to the discussion when the nation-state has existed for around 12,000 years. Shouldn't we also consider the past genocides and large wars that happened under the aegis of various nation-states?
The modern nation-state dates to 1648. The governments that existed prior to that date were different. Even the democratic city-states of ancient Greece were markedly different from the modern form.

I am not convinced that the habit of humans to coalesce under some sort of government is forced or unnatural.

[The Xl]

Society "functions" because of a natural order that would exist regardless of the state. The things we do on a day-to-day basis are largely ungoverned. Granted, we have positive laws that require this and prohibit that, but we are largely free to ignore them and do as we please. That's why almost everyone on the highway is driving at least ten miles an hour over the speed limit, and why millions of Americans buy and sell illegal drugs every day. Our intimate, small scale relationships are almost exclusively peaceful and voluntary, and that is largely the result of a natural and ungoverned order. The state's role in maintaining order is just an illusion conjured up by the ruling classes over many centuries of conditioning and propaganda. Now, I'm not saying that the best way to achieve statelessness is to abolish the institution overnight. I'm just saying that statelessness is achievable and even desirable.

What happens when a fight between two individuals breaks out? Who determines the outcome? How would the losing party fair vs how he would fair with a state? In an anarchist system, something will come along and function the way the state did, it's inevitable. And if it doesn't, there will be an issue with how conflicts and disputes are solved. This is especially so when you consider the people of today are not only conditioned to live under a state, but a ridiculously enormous state. It would take time to even have a possibility to successfully transition to not having a state.

[Ethereal]

The modern nation-state dates to 1648. The governments that existed prior to that date were different. Even the democratic city-states of ancient Greece were markedly different from the modern form.

I am not convinced that the habit of humans to coalesce under some sort of government is forced or unnatural.
I don't see any fundamental differences between ancient and modern nation-states. They are all variations on the same core themes and elements as far as I can tell.

And of course the habit of humans to coalesce under "some sort of government" is not forced or unnatural. Humans had governments before there were nation-states. I'm not talking about any old form of government, but states specifically.

[Chris]

Society "functions" because of a natural order that would exist regardless of the state. The things we do on a day-to-day basis are largely ungoverned. Granted, we have positive laws that require this and prohibit that, but we are largely free to ignore them and do as we please. That's why almost everyone on the highway is driving at least ten miles an hour over the speed limit, and why millions of Americans buy and sell illegal drugs every day. Our intimate, small scale relationships are almost exclusively peaceful and voluntary, and that is largely the result of a natural and ungoverned order. The state's role in maintaining order is just an illusion conjured up by the ruling classes over many centuries of conditioning and propaganda. Now, I'm not saying that the best way to achieve statelessness is to abolish the institution overnight. I'm just saying that statelessness is achievable and even desirable.

In another thread today I made a similar point that the natural social order, found in the market, language, traiditons, insitutions, norms, morals, etc, it what the state tries to manage. The problem is many begin to think society depends on the state when in fact the state depends on society. Without an existing natural social order the state would have nothing to manage and wouldn't be able to manage.

[Ethereal]

What happens when a fight between two individuals breaks out? Who determines the outcome? How would the losing party fair vs how he would fair with a state? In an anarchist system, something will come along and function the way the state did, it's inevitable. And if it doesn't, there will be an issue with how conflicts and disputes are solved. This is especially so when you consider the people of today are not only conditioned to live under a state, but a ridiculously enormous state. It would take time to even have a possibility to successfully transition to not having a state.

I'm sure you've been in fights before. How many of those fights were resolved by the state?

In any case, humans resolved conflicts without the state for most of their history. Usually, it was a tribal form of government whose authority rested largely upon a social consensus among the tribe. For the most part, people voluntarily acceded to this authority because it was in their rational self-interest to do so.

Put another way, humans understand the value and importance of arbitration and mediation of conflicts innately. It's not something that a "state" needs to impose upon them against their will. It's also worth noting that the large majority of people are not inclined towards violence. And this isn't based on some Utopian conception of humans as noble creatures, but because of basic evolutionary forces. That is, peaceful resolution of a conflict is almost always preferable to violence because violence is very risky.

And I agree that statelessness is something that should be pursued conservatively and incrementally. I don't think it should come about radically because it wouldn't be sustainable in my opinion.

[Peter1469]

I don't see any fundamental differences between ancient and modern nation-states. They are all variations on the same core themes and elements as far as I can tell.

And of course the habit of humans to coalesce under "some sort of government" is not forced or unnatural. Humans had governments before there were nation-states. I'm not talking about any old form of government, but states specifically.
OK then. I see the modern nation-state as just an evolutionary process of governance. Primarily caused by the cost of waging war. With the advent of gunpowder and the associated offensive and defensive tactics and technology, even kings could no longer afford to wage war. That directly led to the creation of the modern nation-state. In Europe, I believe France was the first. Its geography allowed relatively easy central governance.

[Chris]

What happens when a fight between two individuals breaks out? Who determines the outcome? How would the losing party fair vs how he would fair with a state? In an anarchist system, something will come along and function the way the state did, it's inevitable. And if it doesn't, there will be an issue with how conflicts and disputes are solved. This is especially so when you consider the people of today are not only conditioned to live under a state, but a ridiculously enormous state. It would take time to even have a possibility to successfully transition to not having a state.

That's a long, complex topic in itself. I could recommend theoretical theses on it like Robert P. Murphy's Chaos Theory (https://mises.org/library/chaos-theory), but will point you instead to a practical history of the implementation of private security and courts, Edward Peter Stringham's Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life, here's a short paper by him, How Private Governance Made the Modern World Possible (https://www.cato-unbound.org/2015/10/05/edward-peter-stringham/how-private-governance-made-modern-world-possible).

[Chris]

OK then. I see the modern nation-state as just an evolutionary process of governance. Primarily caused by the cost of waging war. With the advent of gunpowder and the associated offensive and defensive tactics and technology, even kings could no longer afford to wage war. That directly led to the creation of the modern nation-state. In Europe, I believe France was the first. Its geography allowed relatively easy central governance.

Were it evolutionary, it would have happed by men's action but not their design. From the classical Greek's and their democracy to the US Constitution, these states were designed.

[Peter1469]

Were it evolutionary, it would have happed by men's action but not their design. From the classical Greek's and their democracy to the US Constitution, these states were designed.

Their designs are actions.

[Mister D]

Following with some interest.

[Chris]

Their designs are actions.

Doesn't make sense.

Take something very simple like language. No one designed the English language, it was created by man's actions, by his participation in communication. People have tried to redesign languages, like Noah Webster English spelling, and people have even invented languages, like Esperanto, but they are not followed or used much.

Santa Fe's streets that wander all over the place were not designed till modern times. Washington DC was designed.

When it comes to governance, family as the basic institution of governance, even tribes, and clans, came about by men's actions. They were not designed. Only the modern state, in various forms, is first designed and then, sure, that design is acted on.

Evolution is not by design, there is no progress to it.

[Peter1469]

Yet as humans developed agriculture and created larger groups- they designed governments. For the last 12,000 years.

Some of the biggest areas of war occur on the borderlands where the new agricultural societies bumped into the older hunter gatherer societies.

[Chris]

Yet as humans developed agriculture and created larger groups- they designed governments. For the last 12,000 years.

Some of the biggest areas of war occur on the borderlands where the new agricultural societies bumped into the older hunter gatherer societies.

Yes, they did, they designed governments to protect crops to maintain armies to fight wars, defensive and offensive.

James C Scott's [i]The Art of Not Being Governed[i] documents the history of the border between stateful and stateless in the region of Zomia. That area, Zomia, still exists. He writes: "Homo sapiens have been around for something like two hundred thousand years.... Until shortly before the common era, the very last 1 percent of human history, the social landscape consisted of elementary, self-governing, kinship units that might, occasionally, cooperate in hunting, feasting, skirmishing, trading, and peacemaking, It dod not contain anything one could call a state.. In other words, living in the absence of state strucutures has been the standard human considtion."

The state/nation is an anomaly.

[Mister D]

Yes, they did, they designed governments to protect crops to maintain armies to fight wars, defensive and offensive.

James C Scott's [i]The Art of Not Being Governed[i] documents the history of the border between stateful and stateless in the region of Zomia. That area, Zomia, still exists. He writes: "Homo sapiens have been around for something like two hundred thousand years.... Until shortly before the common era, the very last 1 percent of human history, the social landscape consisted of elementary, self-governing, kinship units that might, occasionally, cooperate in hunting, feasting, skirmishing, trading, and peacemaking, It dod not contain anything one could call a state.. In other words, living in the absence of state strucutures has been the standard human considtion."

The state/nation is an anomaly.
To be fair, so is writing, science and leisure time.

[Chris]

To be fair, so is writing, science and leisure time.

Hmm.

Now writing is just a representation of language, an order emerging from man's actions.

Science is tougher. It's beginnings are based on authority, which could be considered design, and centralized on a few authorities. The Enlightenment brought about a shift from authority in a few men to authority in inductive empiricism. That was questioned even by Hume who introduced the problem of induction, exampled by the discovery of black swans in Australia, the problem being one of a Sorites paradox, not solved until modern time with Popper's intriduction of falsification, but it is still decentralized but it is without authrotiy. Was that by design? Seems it was more like trial and error like God creating a helpmeet for Adam.

Leisure? The anthropologist Pierre Clastres, in Society Against the State: Essays in Political Anthropology, tells of South American tribes where the men's sole occupation was clearing land for the women to plant and harvest. Missionaries introduced them to the ax and figured that would double production and pring progress. The men accepted the gifts, learned how to use them, finished their clearing in half the time, and went off to enjoy their leisure, which happened to be sporting war games with other tribes. That wasn't by design!

[Peter1469]

Yes, they did, they designed governments to protect crops to maintain armies to fight wars, defensive and offensive.

James C Scott's [i]The Art of Not Being Governed[i] documents the history of the border between stateful and stateless in the region of Zomia. That area, Zomia, still exists. He writes: "Homo sapiens have been around for something like two hundred thousand years.... Until shortly before the common era, the very last 1 percent of human history, the social landscape consisted of elementary, self-governing, kinship units that might, occasionally, cooperate in hunting, feasting, skirmishing, trading, and peacemaking, It dod not contain anything one could call a state.. In other words, living in the absence of state strucutures has been the standard human considtion."

The state/nation is an anomaly.

So when are we tossing the nation-state aside?

[Dr. Who]

Hmm.

Now writing is just a representation of language, an order emerging from man's actions.

Science is tougher. It's beginnings are based on authority, which could be considered design, and centralized on a few authorities. The Enlightenment brought about a shift from authority in a few men to authority in inductive empiricism. That was questioned even by Hume who introduced the problem of induction, exampled by the discovery of black swans in Australia, the problem being one of a Sorites paradox, not solved until modern time with Popper's intriduction of falsification, but it is still decentralized but it is without authrotiy. Was that by design? Seems it was more like trial and error like God creating a helpmeet for Adam.

Leisure? The anthropologist Pierre Clastres, in Society Against the State: Essays in Political Anthropology, tells of South American tribes where the men's sole occupation was clearing land for the women to plant and harvest. Missionaries introduced them to the ax and figured that would double production and pring progress. The men accepted the gifts, learned how to use them, finished their clearing in half the time, and went off to enjoy their leisure, which happened to be sporting war games with other tribes. That wasn't by design!

Had the nation state never evolved, medicine would not have evolved. It was the secular hospitals under the nation states that really provided the funding and education to evolve from being mere homes of refuge to being complex institutions for the provision of medicine, care for sick and centers of research.

[Green Arrow]

That has more to do with a more aware and "spoiled" citizenry than it does the benevolence of our current nation states.

...so citizens being more aware and "spoiled" somehow keeps us from fighting each other?

[Green Arrow]

In theory, perhaps, but empirically, that is debatable. Stateless societies certainly had violence, but there is little evidence to suggest they were more violent than statist societies. I mean, virtually every mass atrocity in the past ten thousand years has been committed by state actors.

I'm not arguing state v. no state, exactly, I'm more arguing that one or two states with a monopoly on violence over other states limits violence on the whole than what would exist otherwise.

I also don't think "virtually every mass atrocity in the past ten thousand years has been committed by state actors" is a fair or empirical argument, considering state actors have been the way of life for much of that time. It's like blaming violence on religious people, because at one point in history everyone was religious so naturally there was a lot of "religious" violence, or blaming atheists for violence because in the early-to-mid 1900s atheist state actors were quite common.

[Green Arrow]

Large swaths of the Middle East are basically a slaughter house. Millions have died as a result. And much of that chaos can be attributed to the external and internal machinations of state actors.
I don't agree. ISIL, for example, is a big contributor and is hardly a state actor. Ditto AQ and the Taliban. I suppose you could argue that such groups were financed and weaponized by state actors, but I don't think you could successfully argue that such groups wouldn't have still been violent and murderous without state actors. Maybe they wouldn't be as effective without it, but they would still have been violent and murderous.

But I'm wondering why results at present would be the only results germane to the discussion when the nation-state has existed for around 12,000 years. Shouldn't we also consider the past genocides and large wars that happened under the aegis of various nation-states?
Because, as I clarified in a previous reply, I'm not arguing state v. non-state per se, I'm more arguing single state with a power monopoly v. everyone else.

[Green Arrow]

I don't think anyone should be putting over the state's virtues or anything. It hasn't functioned well, especially in South America, the Middle East and Africa. Hell, the only reason America has thrived the way it has is in spite of the state. My skepticism of a lack of state certainly isn't meant to be an endorsement of the horrors and general inefficiency of the state.

I don't see how you could argue that factually.

[Green Arrow]

Following with some interest.

It's not a topic I get into often mainly due to lack of interest (for example, I'm not terribly concerned with whether a state or non-state is better anymore because states are what we have and that isn't likely to change barring a cataclysm), but when Ethereal, The Xl, and Peter1469 are involved I find the discussion very engaging and edifying and can't help myself.

[Green Arrow]

Had the nation state never evolved, medicine would not have evolved. It was the secular hospitals under the nation states that really provided the funding and education to evolve from being mere homes of refuge to being complex institutions for the provision of medicine, care for sick and centers of research.

Ah, but the sticky wicket there is proving empirically that such advances wouldn't have ever come along without the state. Perhaps it would have taken longer, but how can we say empirically that it never would have come about without state actors? It's not something I can comfortably stake my claim on.

[Dr. Who]

Ah, but the sticky wicket there is proving empirically that such advances wouldn't have ever come along without the state. Perhaps it would have taken longer, but how can we say empirically that it never would have come about without state actors? It's not something I can comfortably stake my claim on.
Absent taxation and the funding of such institutions, it is doubtful that anarchistic societies would agree to anything in sufficient numbers and further continue voluntarily paying for them. Even in the history of all hospitals, it was either a religious order, a monarch or a wealthy benefactor that supported hospitals. They were never voluntarily specifically supported by private donations from the "general" public.

/Edit that does not include campaigns to raise funds for special needs.

[Green Arrow]

Absent taxation and the funding of such institutions, it is doubtful that anarchistic societies would agree to anything in sufficient numbers and further continue voluntarily paying for them. Even in the history of all hospitals, it was either a religious order, a monarch or a wealthy benefactor that supported hospitals. They were never voluntarily specifically supported by private donations from the "general" public.

To be fair, no such mechanism existed. We never really even had such a thing until entities like GoFundMe started up in the last 10-20 years.

[Dr. Who]

To be fair, no such mechanism existed. We never really even had such a thing until entities like GoFundMe started up in the last 10-20 years.

Do you really think that GoFundMe would take the place of the funding of hospitals by taxation? No one is going to start a GoFundMe when they have to take their 4-year-old to the ER because of meningitis or pneumonia. GoFundMe works only because there are very few people asking for assistance. If everyone were doing so, it would cease to be effective.

[Green Arrow]

Do you really think that GoFundMe would take the place of the funding of hospitals by taxation? No one is going to start a GoFundMe when they have to take their 4-year-old to the ER because of meningitis or pneumonia. GoFundMe works only because there are very few people asking for assistance. If everyone were doing so, it would cease to be effective.

I wasn't suggesting it would be better than taxation. I'm just saying public (voluntary) funding is a relatively recent invention that was not created by the state, and thus we can't really argue that the funding of medical research and development wouldn't necessarily have halted minus the state.

[Dr. Who]

I wasn't suggesting it would be better than taxation. I'm just saying public (voluntary) funding is a relatively recent invention that was not created by the state, and thus we can't really argue that the funding of medical research and development wouldn't necessarily have halted minus the state.
I think that I am a pretty good judge of people in general. While people do like to be generous, their own needs tend to dominate over the needs of others. If money were not taken at source for all of the things funded by the state, how much do you think that people would voluntarily donate to causes or support everything funded by the state? I am absolutely convinced that the number on average would be far less than what is taken involuntarily. They won't necessarily know or understand the value of some or even most research.

[Ethereal]

OK then. I see the modern nation-state as just an evolutionary process of governance. Primarily caused by the cost of waging war. With the advent of gunpowder and the associated offensive and defensive tactics and technology, even kings could no longer afford to wage war. That directly led to the creation of the modern nation-state. In Europe, I believe France was the first. Its geography allowed relatively easy central governance.
There are natural factors that contributed, undoubtedly. But I see them as incidental more than causal, if that makes sense.

[Peter1469]

Right.

If nation-states disappeared, and were not replaced by some other formal type of government system, we may well be better off. But we don't know that, because nation-states are fully in place and are not voluntarily dissolving.


It's not a topic I get into often mainly due to lack of interest (for example, I'm not terribly concerned with whether a state or non-state is better anymore because states are what we have and that isn't likely to change barring a cataclysm), but when @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870), @The Xl (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=865), and @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) are involved I find the discussion very engaging and edifying and can't help myself.

[Peter1469]

There are natural factors that contributed, undoubtedly. But I see them as incidental more than causal, if that makes sense.

Expand on that please.

[Chris]

So when are we tossing the nation-state aside?

It would have to be a gradual process. Two factors would contribute.

One, education, remind people that government depends on them, not they on the government.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

--Declaration of Independence

Two, as always happens with any state, the people become dissatisfied, lose trust in government, and so on. Many times what happens is they ask for more government. But eventually they realize that enslaves them and doesn't work either. Maybe then they'll heed #1.


A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

--Someone wrote that

[Chris]

Had the nation state never evolved, medicine would not have evolved. It was the secular hospitals under the nation states that really provided the funding and education to evolve from being mere homes of refuge to being complex institutions for the provision of medicine, care for sick and centers of research.


Other way around. Governments depend on the people. Go back to the beginning. The state didn't invent agriculture to support it, no, agriculture made the state possible. Same with medicine.

[Chris]

I don't think anyone should be putting over the state's virtues or anything. It hasn't functioned well, especially in South America, the Middle East and Africa. Hell, the only reason America has thrived the way it has is in spite of the state. My skepticism of a lack of state certainly isn't meant to be an endorsement of the horrors and general inefficiency of the state.

Exactly. Agriculture, medicine, technology, science, markets and more make the state possible.

[Dr. Who]

Other way around. Governments depend on the people. Go back to the beginning. The state didn't invent agriculture to support it, no, agriculture made the state possible. Same with medicine.

I wasn't commenting on what made the state possible. Only that the modern hospital only became possible because of the support of the state.

For that matter, the only reason that banking your money is remotely safe and people are not now stuffing their savings into mattresses is because of the development of state insurance of bank deposits and the power to regulate the banking industry.

[Green Arrow]

I think that I am a pretty good judge of people in general. While people do like to be generous, their own needs tend to dominate over the needs of others. If money were not taken at source for all of the things funded by the state, how much do you think that people would voluntarily donate to causes or support everything funded by the state? I am absolutely convinced that the number on average would be far less than what is taken involuntarily. They won't necessarily know or understand the value of some or even most research.

I don't disagree.

[Chris]

I wasn't commenting on what made the state possible. Only that the modern hospital only became possible because of the support of the state.

For that matter, the only reason that banking your money is remotely safe and people are not now stuffing their savings into mattresses is because of the development of state insurance of bank deposits and the power to regulate the banking industry.

You talked about medicine.

Hospitals have been around since ancient times connected with religion. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hospitals

Banking is safe? What happened to cause Bush and Obama to bail banks? What was the great recession?

[Dr. Who]

You talked about medicine.

Hospitals have been around since ancient times connected with religion. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hospitals

Banking is safe? What happened to cause Bush and Obama to bail banks? What was the great recession?
Once again I reference the modern hospital i.e. since the 19th century, not the ancient hospitals which were few and far between. As to the financial bailout - deposits were still insured regardless of the bailouts and the reason for the financial failure was the repeal of a piece of legislation that would have prevented the failure to begin with. It has been repealed once again because some people are either extremely stupid or hope to make out like bandits the next time the financial sector perpetrates a get rich quick scheme.

[Chris]

Once again I reference the modern hospital i.e. since the 19th century, not the ancient hospitals which were few and far between. As to the financial bailout - deposits were still insured regardless of the bailouts and the reason for the financial failure was the repeal of a piece of legislation that would have prevented the failure to begin with. It has been repealed once again because some people are either extremely stupid or hope to make out like bandits the next time the financial sector perpetrates a get rich quick scheme.

Right, define your terms narrowly enough and you'll always be right.

If the banks, the market and the government crash economically, federal insurance won't do you any good.

Wrong, federal regs were in place. See The Political Implications of Ignoring Our Own Ignorance (http://www.aei.org/publication/the-political-implications-of-ignoring-our-own-ignorance/).

[Dr. Who]

Right, define your terms narrowly enough and you'll always be right.

If the banks, the market and the government crash economically, federal insurance won't do you any good.

Wrong, federal regs were in place. See The Political Implications of Ignoring Our Own Ignorance (http://www.aei.org/publication/the-political-implications-of-ignoring-our-own-ignorance/).
I think that it's pretty much universally accepted that the neutralization of Glass-Steagall in 1999 allowed the banks to grow through mergers and acquisitions and allowed their holding companies to engage in previously forbidden insurance and investment banking activities which created a too big to fail situation. It wasn't the only reason for the failure but it was the reason that they became too big to fail and why they had the ability to bundle those sub-prime mortgage time-bombs as securities. It was ignoring the basics of mortgage underwriting in terms of qualifying the borrower and the inflated state of house prices that was the proximate cause of the disaster, however, with the consolidation of banks, their irresponsible mortgage underwriting practices were left concentrated in too few hands. These banks sought to offset their risk by transferring them to the securities market which created a worldwide financial crisis.

[Chris]

I think that it's pretty much universally accepted that the neutralization of Glass-Steagall in 1999 allowed the banks to grow through mergers and acquisitions and allowed their holding companies to engage in previously forbidden insurance and investment banking activities which created a too big to fail situation. It wasn't the only reason for the failure but it was the reason that they became too big to fail and why they had the ability to bundle those sub-prime mortgage time-bombs as securities. It was ignoring the basics of mortgage underwriting in terms of qualifying the borrower and the inflated state of house prices that was the proximate cause of the disaster, however, with the consolidation of banks, their irresponsible mortgage underwriting practices were left concentrated in too few hands. These banks sought to offset their risk by transferring them to the securities market which created a worldwide financial crisis.

Well, no, it's not. I think you assume much opinion as fact.

[The Xl]

I'm sure you've been in fights before. How many of those fights were resolved by the state?

In any case, humans resolved conflicts without the state for most of their history. Usually, it was a tribal form of government whose authority rested largely upon a social consensus among the tribe. For the most part, people voluntarily acceded to this authority because it was in their rational self-interest to do so.

Put another way, humans understand the value and importance of arbitration and mediation of conflicts innately. It's not something that a "state" needs to impose upon them against their will. It's also worth noting that the large majority of people are not inclined towards violence. And this isn't based on some Utopian conception of humans as noble creatures, but because of basic evolutionary forces. That is, peaceful resolution of a conflict is almost always preferable to violence because violence is very risky.

And I agree that statelessness is something that should be pursued conservatively and incrementally. I don't think it should come about radically because it wouldn't be sustainable in my opinion.

Might will likely make right in those sorts of situations without a state. And even if they don't, there is the strong possibility that the loser of that conflict will result in having his liberty infringed on, be it via the other party being stronger, more influential, more wealthy, etc, or via the decision of mob rule.

[The Xl]

...so citizens being more aware and "spoiled" somehow keeps us from fighting each other?

Absolutely. We're more informed and spoiled than ever. There is no way advanced western citizenry will tolerate any more than proxy wars with voluntary soldiers. They barely got through the Vietnam process.

[The Xl]

I don't see how you could argue that factually.

Compare us to how the rest of the world has developed and functioned, in regards to wealth and freedom. There is a correlation between that and us being overall the freeist functioning state in the world since our inception.

[Chris]

Might will likely make right in those sorts of situations without a state. And even if they don't, there is the strong possibility that the loser of that conflict will result in having his liberty infringed on, be it via the other party being stronger, more influential, more wealthy, etc, or via the decision of mob rule.


Might makes right is a costly proposition. If I take by force your community, I am responsible for the well-being of those in that community. If I don't take that responsibility, I lose reputation, and without reputation few will trust and do business with me.

[Chris]

Might makes right is a costly proposition. If I take by force your community, I am responsible for the well-being of those in that community. If I don't take that responsibility, I lose reputation, and without reputation few will trust and do business with me.

Of course that only works in a world in which we depend on each other, where we know who help and are helped by, a world that used to exist, where society, in the time and place we lived, was the center of our world. The bigger, stronger, more centralized the government, intruding on our lives in every which way, that we help with tax thefts and it helps by redistribution, the it regulates from afar and we report to it crimes, the more it becomes the center of our world, an individualistic, isolated, impersonal world.

[Dr. Who]

Well, no, it's not. I think you assume much opinion as fact.

Please tell me what isn't true.

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 mandated the separation of commercial and investment banking. It prevented securities firms and investment banks from taking deposits; commercial Federal Reserve member banks from dealing in non-governmental securities for customers; investing in non-investment grade securities for themselves; underwriting or distributing non-governmental securities or affiliating (or sharing employees) with companies involved in such activities.

Even though there was an increasing tendency of the courts to overlook the marriages of Federal Reserve member banks to companies engaging in securities activities, the process was not easy. It became a whole lot easier in 1999 when Congress passed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which repealed the affiliation provisions of Glass-Steagall and opened the door to wholesale mergers and acquisitions involving Federal Reserve member banks and all manner of investment banks and securities firms. The blending of those disparate corporate philosophies liberalized the previously rather conservative lending practices of the commercial banking sector resulting in a much less risk averse and IMO immoral approach to mortgage lending. It permitted high ratio mortgage lending at adjustable rates to less than qualified buyers i.e. those with a FICO score below 620. The fractional banking system was having a field day creating money out of thin air. These sub-prime mortgages were then pooled and unloaded on the secondary market as securities. Complicit ratings agencies put AAA ratings on these loans making them highly desirable to foreign investors and pension funds.

Any errors thus far?

This was all taking place against the background of an unsustainable housing bubble characterized by rising house prices initially triggered by the movement of money from the investment market to the real estate market during the 90's. By the new millennium, there was an insatiable appetite in the market to acquire said homes, including the development of house flipping as a new income strategy by entrepreneurial types, which only added to the rising house prices. The hot real estate market was in no small part fueled by the availability of cheap money thanks to a now liberalized mortgage market and lower interest rates. All parties were revelling in this hedonistic financial fantasy. From 2003 to 2007 the value of subprime loans had increased a whopping 292% from 332 billion to 1.3 trillion. However, the handwriting was on the wall by 2006 when the number of sub-prime mortgage defaults started exceeding the statistical norm and began showing signs of extreme deterioration, as the reality of those adjustable rate mortgages was coming back to bite the borrowers and lenders. By the summer of 2007, it was all over but the crying. The Willy Wonkas of the banking industry had transformed into Ebenezer Scrooges. Not only were there no more subprime loans but the cost of all loans became more expensive resulting in even more defaults and foreclosures as people were unable sell their houses, leading to a glut of foreclosures on the market and a collapse of prices.

[Chris]

Please tell me what isn't true.

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 mandated the separation of commercial and investment banking. It prevented securities firms and investment banks from taking deposits; commercial Federal Reserve member banks from dealing in non-governmental securities for customers; investing in non-investment grade securities for themselves; underwriting or distributing non-governmental securities or affiliating (or sharing employees) with companies involved in such activities.

Even though there was an increasing tendency of the courts to overlook the marriages of Federal Reserve member banks to companies engaging in securities activities, the process was not easy. It became a whole lot easier in 1999 when Congress passed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which repealed the affiliation provisions of Glass-Steagall and opened the door to wholesale mergers and acquisitions involving Federal Reserve member banks and all manner of investment banks and securities firms. The blending of those disparate corporate philosophies liberalized the previously rather conservative lending practices of the commercial banking sector resulting in a much less risk averse and IMO immoral approach to mortgage lending. It permitted high ratio mortgage lending at adjustable rates to less than qualified buyers i.e. those with a FICO score below 620. The fractional banking system was having a field day creating money out of thin air. These sub-prime mortgages were then pooled and unloaded on the secondary market as securities. Complicit ratings agencies put AAA ratings on these loans making them highly desirable to foreign investors and pension funds.

Any errors thus far?

This was all taking place against the background of an unsustainable housing bubble characterized by rising house prices initially triggered by the movement of money from the investment market to the real estate market during the 90's. By the new millennium, there was an insatiable appetite in the market to acquire said homes, including the development of house flipping as a new income strategy by entrepreneurial types, which only added to the rising house prices. The hot real estate market was in no small part fueled by the availability of cheap money thanks to a now liberalized mortgage market and lower interest rates. All parties were revelling in this hedonistic financial fantasy. From 2003 to 2007 the value of subprime loans had increased a whopping 292% from 332 billion to 1.3 trillion. However, the handwriting was on the wall by 2006 when the number of sub-prime mortgage defaults started exceeding the statistical norm and began showing signs of extreme deterioration, as the reality of those adjustable rate mortgages was coming back to bite the borrowers and lenders. By the summer of 2007, it was all over but the crying. The Willy Wonkas of the banking industry had transformed into Ebenezer Scrooges. Not only were there no more subprime loans but the cost of all loans became more expensive resulting in even more defaults and foreclosures as people were unable sell their houses, leading to a glut of foreclosures on the market and a collapse of prices.

Read the link I supplied. Not interested in that distraction from the topic.

[Dr. Who]

Read the link I supplied. Not interested in that distraction from the topic.
I read your link before I posted. I shall in future avoid posting in your threads. That should solve the problem.

[Chris]

I read your link before I posted. I shall in future avoid posting in your threads. That should solve the problem.


It's easy enough to connect your off-topic distraction back to the topic. Say we go with the opinion you've gleaned from nameless others that the government deregulated banking. What you arrive at were that true is nothing but the fact that the government is incompetent. Kling, an economist, who has worked in related areas, says, on the contrary, the banking regulations that led to the great recession were still in place, that the problem was the government trusted them to be effective, and they weren't. But we rearrive at the same conclusion, that the government is incompetent. How else can an incompetent government remain in power but by maintaining a monopoly on force?

[Dr. Who]

It's easy enough to connect your off-topic distraction back to the topic. Say we go with the opinion you've gleaned from nameless others that the government deregulated banking. What you arrive at were that true is nothing but the fact that the government is incompetent. Kling, an economist, who has worked in related areas, says, on the contrary, the banking regulations that led to the great recession were still in place, that the problem was the government trusted them to be effective, and they weren't. But we rearrive at the same conclusion, that the government is incompetent. How else can an incompetent government remain in power but by maintaining a monopoly on force?

This is me not being a distraction........

[Chris]

Yes, government is a special sort of player in society; its coercions differ than those of criminals. Its coercions are overt, institutionalized, openly rationalized, even supported by a large portion of the public. They are called intervention or restriction or regulation or taxation, rather than extortion, assault, theft, or trespass. But, say libertarians, they are still initiations of coercion.

@ https://fee.org/articles/libertarianism-and-classical-liberalism-a-short-introduction/