The truth behind Pete Leeson's assertion

By -
At FEE one day, I heard Pete say something to the effect that, "If all states were like Switzerland, I would not consider anarchy as an option."

I think that is a sound way to look at this. But we should consider the reverse, too: If no states were like Switzerland, I certainly would be an anarchist.

Is certainly true in some states are really awful. And Pete's insight means that we shouldn't force the state on, for instance, the people of Somalia: the state they would get is likely to be a lot worse than the clan-based governance they enjoy at present.

But the reverse is true as well: If you live in Switzerland, be thankful for what you've got. Governance doesn't get much better than that, and certainly stateless governance has shown no evidence that it can achieve such a happy civil condition. Do not give up an actual bird in the hand for a brighter colored, but purely theoretical, bird in the bush.

(And no, I don't think Switzerland is heaven on earth: we live in the city of man, and should not expect to find the city of God on earth.)

Comments

  1. Samson Corwell6:17 PM

    I find it odd that there are "anarchists" at FEE. It doesn't seem like anyone of them can be called anarchists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah6:32 PM

      Well, anarchocapitalists anyway. And there are plenty of them.

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell7:04 PM

      I think I've seen them. They sometimes manage to take very anti-liberty stances. It's the obsession with economics, I think, that gets them.

      Delete
    3. Bob Murphy8:34 PM

      Putting aside the smugness, Mr. Corwell, does your commentary here even make sense? If an obsession with economics can lead one to (foolishly) be an anarcho-capitalist, why would you find it odd to find such people clustered about the Foundation for Economic Education? Are you surprised that there are people with goofy outfits at Comic Con?

      Delete
    4. Samson Corwell12:00 PM

      Well, Bob, it's not so much an obsession with economics as it is an infection of economism. You don't succumb to it since you pay attention to news about US government torture and the like. The others, well, they usually pay no attention to such matters, unfortunately. I've examined anarcho-capitalism and I do not believe that it can rightly be called a form of anarchism or capitalism. The communities that Rothbard and others outline resemble corporate city-states.

      Now, I know that anarcho-libertarians typically say that a state is an entity with a monopoly on the legal use of force, but Max Weber's definition is of use in only a limited context. A state is really a polity, so "private property communities" will have some form of government whether libertarians realize it or not.

      Delete
    5. Samson Corwell12:01 PM

      Apologies for the smugness, by the way.

      Delete
  2. Thomas L. Knapp8:53 AM

    "[W]e live in the city of man, and should not expect to find the city of God on earth"

    Oddly enough, this is my belief exactly, and the basis of my anarchism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. skylien5:34 AM

    FWIW: As Gene doesn't want to force his way of life onto others, I really think, as I said already, that Gene in fact can only be an anarchist, which should be clear from this post:
    http://gene-callahan.blogspot.co.at/2012/10/would-you-secede.html

    And if that really is enough, I guess it makes me one too. At the moment individual secession was possible in the US (even if no single person did it) taxes are obviously voluntary. And if almost all people chose to still fund the then existing PDA called USG and play by all its rules then of course nothing would change much in the land of the now (truly) free...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Josiah Neeley12:13 PM

      If anarchy requires only that a state allow citizens to revoke their citizenship, then anarchy is actually pretty common.

      Delete
    2. skylien1:41 AM

      Not really. Secession is not just revoking your citizenship. It means you can keep all your legally acquired possessions including the land you own that would not be under the jurisdiction of the USG anymore.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more