Comment: SuccessCouncil...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Thanks Treg,.. (see in situ)

SuccessCouncil...

1) Yes. Yes. No.

Your last sentence in part one; "If we went stateless,and violence by his statistic increased 1 million fold, it would still not surpass the invisible violence of every act of taxation."

We may want to think that one over. "a million fold"? How about something like this: violence -- rape, assault, muggings, burglary, homicide --- are at an all time low in 1990's and 2000's. For 20 years its be like 6 victims of violence per 100,000 individuals. Yet in the 1960's, 70's and 80's it was like 20 victims per 100,000 individuals. New York City, once considered horribly unsafe place where even comedians would make fun of daily muggings and murders, is today a very safe city. (don't quote me or use me as a source, go to Pinkers book instead). Ok but I get your point which is that the violence of taxation has to be factored in, and in your opinion, if one does that, the scales tip in favor of a stateless society even if violence goes up to say 1,000 victims per 100,000 individuals. Better 1,000 people suffer bad fate rather than 99,000 get taxed, is that your point? Well I am afraid most people everywhere would disagree with you. And this is why we anarcho-capitalist may be running up against more than just a philosophical miss-understanding.

But here is my reply, not Pinkers, mine is that it appears we humans have already internalized that calculation and we choose government, we choose the state or the king or the great Leviathan BECAUSE we all feel safer with the annoying taxing shake down vs the wild world of a stateless society whereupon the results (for me) might be great, ie I might become one of those 1,000 victims, if not this year, next year.

Further, as Pinker points out, once a Stateless environment ensues, its logical reasoning goes like this, Better to be a Mugger than get Mugged. Or, better to hit that tribe first and take its women and things than wait around for them to come hit me/us.

The balking up of individuals into "US" vs "them" groups, is done just for that reason, groups beat individuals: gangs form, tribes form, clubs form, and these intern have 'memories' of wrongs and seek out long term vengeance. Think Hatfields vs McCoys or crips vs bloods or Mafia families vs Mafia families. The field studies of Chimp life show that gangs support territories and will quickly gang up on a lone out group male, kill him, and tear him from limb to limb, if not eat him too.

SO again, it seems that we humans have internally done this calculation, and we choose a State, a King, a Leviathan to keep the order and to be the appeal of last resort (vengeance stops here -- and it is THAT which gives govt its legitimacy in most peoples eyes). Its has if Mankind knows somewhere in his being that a Stateless society is a society of runaway violence, filled with personal vendettas and making the world unsafe and murderous. In all peoples everywhere across the globe and across time, Humans choose to live under a leviathan of one kind or another.

Evolutionary wise, anthropologically wise, it does not appear that Mankind chooses Stateless societies, though he may have evolved inside one where the warfare (think about those chimps) was a huge factor in Man's variation and selection.

Not to say that Stateless life has not existed. It has come to exist but then soon goes out. We only have 10,000 poorly recorded years of human life to reflect on.

But here is what I see. Stateless societies been tried due to changing situations economically and especially, via the technology-cost of war. There, the technology-cost of war, is a real insight into what shapes societies and governments. Make the technology-cost of war HIGH, as in higher that 100 men's wages in one lifetime, and you have several eras in Mankinds history. Those are: Imperial China, Pharaohs of Egypt, the Roman Empire, and the 21st Century of TODAY. But lets look at technology-cost of war when it was just 3 months wages of ONE man. That is, just one man had all the power in his hands. That was late 1700s and early 1800s. The colt 45 cost about 3 months wages. Not until the end of the 1800s when the Gatling machine gun and steal ships loaded with cannons change the equation back again to 100 men's wages in one life time. And, as this equation changed, technology-cost of war ROSE or SHRANK, so did Leviathan grow or shrink. I wish I could find someone who could help me display this in a moving graphic, as the cost goes up and time moves the empires grow, and as the cost goes down and time moves the empires shrink or fall into near stateless anarchy or indeed, total anarchy.

Again, Mankind himself, a product of evolution for over 3 million years, appears to have lived in a state of anarchy or near anarchy for 90% of his time on earth. The weapons of war were cultural artifacts, brought on by lackmarian selection, and it seems to me, though I could be wrong, that these weapons where like the colt 45, not too costly, thus the "state" did not get too big. So 90% of human life on earth was a cultural group vs cultural group game of selection for most of man's life on the planet...or so it appears. And its been that culture, that begets that weapon, and its been that weapon that shapes our cultural success over our cultural neighboring enemies. One might even ask, who is evolving who here. Is man evolving or is it the weapon who is evolving man's culture?

So, you might ask, is the technology-cost of war, rising or decreasing. That is a great question and I will get into it, if anyone is interested.

Your 2) I will address later.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820