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...
Is "the state" the same thing as "the government" or is it something different? If they are the same, then most people seem to use the word "government" instead of "state", though I don't know why.
ReplyDeleteI think that Green would consider the state the entire social reality of which the government is a component.
DeleteYou will get in response the usual deliberate confusion between submitting to reasonable restrictions necessary to allow social functioning and abject subjugation to arbitrary rule.
ReplyDeleteUnless of course Libertarians have stopped commenting here.
I expect no less.
DeleteIf one assumes the State is the only source of services to protect life and property, then of course this quote is reasonable. That assumption is the very issue at question for Libertarians, however, as you well know.
ReplyDeleteThe fact you call the creation and enforcement of rights a "service" as if this could be provided on a market is the source of your confusion here: markets PRESUPPOSE this "service" and thus can't provide it.
DeleteCouldn't it be achieved if it was transitional from our current State-enforcement system? That way, there *would* be the necessary conditions--though it might rub anarchists the wrong way to hear government is necessary after all, at least at the dawn of their utopia.
DeleteCouldn't it be achieved if it was transitional from our current State-enforcement system?
DeleteNo, because you're simply transforming the form of government. Think corporatocracy, corporate republics, or mega corporations. You're going for Shinras instead of anarchy.
Samson has answered for me.
DeleteSamson has answered for me.
DeleteIt's not like this is entirely theoretical either. We have historical examples of just this stuff happening. The East India Trading Company was an empire in its own right, the United Fruit Company conquered Central American countries, the drug cartels have created their own quasi-state in Columbia, the Mexican drug cartels have the power to take on Mexican military forces, ISIS has seized like a third of Iraq, the labor wars in the Gilded Ages had the characteristics of actual. These aren't exactly historical oddities.
I also should add that states are not "monopolies" on militaries and police forces (it should be pretty obvious why ancaps like to use Weber's definition). Instead, militaries and police forces are the defining characteristics of a state, so the "private defense agencies" would be states themselves and instead of Chairman Mao, you'd have Chairman of the Board Mao. This is also why I find the idea of having a "market" in roads to be rather strange. In short: politics/political philosophy is not economics, law is not a "consumer good", and governments aren't market functions. Two totally different areas of life.
DeleteGene,
ReplyDeleteyour quote doesn't explain why people should submit to the power of the state within which they currently live.
Yes, 'the state' in general may be necessary, but that doesn't mean the state which currently exists is necessary.
After all, people have revolted against currently-existing states so as to replace them with a better state.
So why should people submit to the power of the state that currently exists?
Well, first of all, it isn't my quote.
DeleteSecondly, Green discusses this at some length. I'll put up a quote a little later.
ok, thanks.
DeleteGene you wrote above:
ReplyDeleteThe fact you call the creation and enforcement of rights a "service" as if this could be provided on a market is the source of your confusion here...
Was that a typo, or do you really believe the State creates rights?
No, I'd say a misreading, Bob: the sentence you quote doesn't say the state creates rights. It does say they are created, which is clearly true.
DeleteApparently, if you don't believe in natural rights you don't believe in any government-independent morality at all. This is libertarianism's biggest hurdle.
DeleteGene, do you have any theories as to why libertarians fail to see that a Shinra Power Electric Company or a British East India Trading Company is basically what libertarianism is in the real world?
ReplyDelete