You are not logged in.
I have long maintained that the earthbound hordes of humanity will never see the end of the State. This is because I see the problem of statism as a population density effect. The more humans who live and work in a small geographic area ( cities, in other words), the more virulent the demand for an overarching statist solution to the problems that naturally arise when basically self-interested, variously skilled and talented individuals co-exist. The reason for this is quite simple - population density equals a higher crime rate without fail, due to simple logic of increased opportunity. Rather than become a responsible individual and take the precaution of creating an armed, polite society, the lazier of the population will demand regulators and heavier security administered from a central point. Anyone who has lived in both urban and rural areas will know exactly what I'm talking about. The ironic thing is that - as most libertarian/anarchist minded folks are well aware - the increase of regulation in search of security not only does not effectively discourage real crime (measurable damage against persons and property), it also creates a monopoly on force that seeks to gain ever increasing hegemony for itself - leading to the classification of voluntary, non-other damaging actions as "crimes".
Even the simplest perusal of human history points to the market (the sum total of human interactions, and the goods and services created by those interactions) as the only true arbiter of freedom. In fact, one may posit that the more access to an unhindered market is available, the more freedom of action and opportunity exist for a given population. If one posits a system where the only 'regulation' is a mutual agreement between individuals not to defraud or use force to obtain the possessions and labor of another, one can extrapolate a society where true freedom is the norm. This will never, of course, be accomplished by a state in any form. A state - being the embodiment of a desire to shun personal responsibility and the ever-present duty of defending one's own self from force and fraud - exists to hinder human action, therefore hindering the market. The state is a vast, multi-leveled tool used by a parasitic cadre of individuals who's only purpose is to hinder human interaction! The state's answer to any problem is always 'hinder more actions', despite the fact that many of the problems arise from state hindrance of the market in the first place! (see The War On Drugs, and the increase in burglaries/muggings/theft thanks to victim disarming "gun control" laws.) It is in the states best interest for the crime rate to soar. It is in the states best interest for people to live in poverty and clamor for welfare. It is in the states best interest to create enemies who attack and kill it's citizen. It is in the states best interest to maintain and make compulsory public schools that produce ignorant, rote-spouting citizens who are unable to use critical reasoning to solve even the simplest of problems. This gives the state a reason to exist, and a reason to grow, and a mass of ignorant true believers who will demand it's existence and encourage it's growth.
I have come to accept the rise and growth of states as a natural phenomena, triggered by population density and the inherent non-equality of the human race. To most of my friends this is an almost heretical conclusion - I've been more or less denounced by people I respect and like because of this conclusion. The point they refuse to see is that the formation and growth of states actually serves to create anarchistic pressure to flee the grip of control and therefore is the main impulse in the settlement of new frontiers. The driving force for the expansion of humanity. The invisible hand that widens the market.
Human society MUST expand, so long as we live in a world of resources and scarcity. The earth - as vast and abundant as it is - is but a speck in the cosmos. Outside this cradle lies the rest of the universe, infinite to our still limited senses, waiting to be claimed and put to use. The grand stage on which the drama of the market, the story of human action, will be played out.
The hardcore space-socialists tell me that private exploitation of off planet resources can never be opened to the masses. They have a common reason: it's dangerous. This always makes me laugh. What frontier isn't dangerous? What frontier isn't settled on the blood and bones of the brave and foolhardy, the desperate and the contrary? Frontierists are by nature anarchistic.
Anarchy is dynamic. Statism is static. The human waveform is a naturally expanding sphere, anarchist on the wavefront, decaying into statism within. The true beauty is that there is always a place for the frontierist to depart when the grip grows too tight. It will not be easy. Nothing worth having is ever easy. It is the supreme challenge facing the human race - and the question in every seekers mind is simple: Is it worth it?
I say it is.
The only solution to statism - and the only hope for the survival of this human species - is a dynamic, expansionist human society with an unlimited frontier.
The answer to statism is to open the frontier to immigration.
I'll see you in the NEO belt!
- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
"But society is nothing but the combination of individuals for cooperative effort. It exists nowhere else than in the actions of individual men. It is a delusion to search for it outside the actions of individuals." -Ludwig Von Mises
Offline
Hmm, so you're saying that once the frontieer becomes populated, it would necessarily require a state?
Two things I question about some stuff you said.
First, you say that the market is the only ?arbiter of freedom.? Fair enough, but how does one maintain a market without a state? How do we define property? Is it the anarchist kind, or the libertarian kind? And, once we defined that property, how do we uphold it? One should note that Libertarianism necessarily requires a State of some kind to uphold property right (even if it's a mob state). Minimising the state in that context (ie, just have police to uphold property right), is just giving more power to those who own property, not making the people more free.
Secondly, you say that some people say that ?private exploitation of off planet resources can never be opened to the masses [because it's dangerous].?
I can honestly say I have never heard this before, and I have to question where you heard it. We have often talked about exploitation of resources in space, and we all accept that it's dangerous. The real, legitimate, reason resources can't be exploited for profit is that resources in space are generally valuable where they are, especially when we're talking about resources in a gravity well. There are very few resources which can be used for profit (ie, fissable material), everything else basically stays where it is. Once we have autonomous processing facilities on Mars or Luna or where-ever, there would be no need to get supplies shipped. Any trade systems would then be cut off or drastically reduced. Private exploitation would then have nothing to do with a market, unless it was with those in the locale area, and then we get into a whole pandora's box of who ?owns? the life support systems, and stuff like that.
What you seem to be suggesting is "anarcho"-capitalism, a twisted version of anarchism and capitalism that does have a state, even if it's a small one.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
A well written essay, but it offers nothing new. A biased appraisal justifying a prededfined solution born from a love of a simplistic philosphical notion. Rationlization of an ideology is always pretty, but still pretty empty.
The world view is contrived
Offline
Hmm, so you're saying that once the frontieer becomes populated, it would necessarily require a state?
No, George is saying that statism is a population density effect. Statism is never necessary in any situation, but is inevitable in population centers.
how does one maintain a market without a state?
The market, the human market is inevitable, state or no state.
How do we define property?
We? I am not a collectivist, Josh Cryer, I am an individualist. George Potter defines property as morally obtained goods - either by creation, barter or homestead. I would have to agree with him.
Is it the anarchist kind, or the libertarian kind?
I am unfamiliar with both of those.
And, once we defined that property, how do we uphold it?
How would who? I would uphold my property however I damn well pleased.
One should note that Libertarianism necessarily requires a State of some kind to uphold property right (even if it's a mob state). Minimising the state in that context (ie, just have police to uphold property right), is just giving more power to those who own property, not making the people more free.
I couldn't care less about Libertarianism, Josh Cryer.
I can honestly say I have never heard this before, and I have to question where you heard it.
I heard someone say it on libertyforum.org yesterday. I cannot speak for George.
Once we have autonomous processing facilities on Mars or Luna or where-ever, there would be no need to get supplies shipped. Any trade systems would then be cut off or drastically reduced. Private exploitation would then have nothing to do with a market, unless it was with those in the locale area, and then we get into a whole pandora's box of who ?owns? the life support systems, and stuff like that.
You keep on saying 'we', as if everyone that ventures into the frontier will be part of the same large organization. With an open frontier theres room for ANY form of social organization - from utter hermitude to totalitarian hive minds. Your vision of an empire encompassing the entire Solar System, excluding Earth makes little sense. Attempting to impose your ideals onto other individuals is a sure way to get yourself shot on the frontier.
The market on Earth is large. The demand on Earth for resources found in NEO's is large. To think that trade between Earth and the frontier would be closed off is silly.
What you seem to be suggesting is "anarcho"-capitalism, a twisted version of anarchism and capitalism that does have a state, even if it's a small one.
It's not Anarcho-Capitalism, it's Frontierism.
- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
"But society is nothing but the combination of individuals for cooperative effort. It exists nowhere else than in the actions of individual men. It is a delusion to search for it outside the actions of individuals." -Ludwig Von Mises
Offline
However you damn please? Murder?
A state is necessary to enforce the order of society. Even if the state is only a simple state as in early 1800s America, keeping order on the frontiers. Any society without a semblance of a government is doomed to chaos.
Offline
Soph, how do you define 'anarchy', and 'societal interactions'?
-foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
"But society is nothing but the combination of individuals for cooperative effort. It exists nowhere else than in the actions of individual men. It is a delusion to search for it outside the actions of individuals." -Ludwig Von Mises
Offline
foadi;
I heard someone say it on libertyforum.org yesterday.
Given how that place is, I bet you also heard about how the Jews plotted Sept. 11.
Human: the other red meat.
Offline
Given how that place is, I bet you also heard about how the Jews plotted Sept. 11.
Don't judge a massive forum by its trolls, please.
- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani
"But society is nothing but the combination of individuals for cooperative effort. It exists nowhere else than in the actions of individual men. It is a delusion to search for it outside the actions of individuals." -Ludwig Von Mises
Offline
It's not like they just came in to troll after the forum got big. Trust me, it's not.
If there are non-anti-Semites, they came in later, after the anti-Semites had taken the place over and driven out most of the original non-anti-Semites (me, for example).
Human: the other red meat.
Offline
foadi, first let me respond to your original reply.
Statism is never necessary in any situation, but is inevitable in population centers.
Well, a fetus inevitably requires air to breath once it is born, so breathing air is necessary. This is what I was asking you. You are suggesting that as populations become bigger, a state is more and more necessary.
In any anarchistic text I have read, the argument has always been that the State exists for property, for power, etc, not because of a population problem. Granted, I have always maintained that for large populations, we would have to have a resource surplus, but that's really just common sense. But to say that ?all? large populations are inevitably statist is to suggest that the state is necessary, and I simply don't see the justification.
The market, the human market is inevitable, state or no state.
I have no idea what ?market? you're talking about. The ?human market? becomes less and less apparent (assuming we're talking of a market where profit exists) as resources become more and more abundent, and more and more distributed. The market inherently relies on there being a disproportionate scale of resources (ie, some place has oil but can't grow food, another place has food but no oil, voila, a perfect market situation where profit is attainable). I have maintained on these forums that when we're going to Mars we're going to have those abundant resources.
Yes, I continue to say ?we,? and you'll see why mommentarily.
I couldn't care less about Libertarianism, Josh Cryer.
Me either. But I'm not the one spewing crap about ?the market [being] the only true arbiter of freedom.? You go on and define ?the market? to be almost meaningless, since under your definition anything wherein humans interacted would be ?the market.?
I'm willing to wager that your market is the same as Proudhon's Right of Increase... this is hardly anarchistic.
I heard someone say it on libertyforum.org yesterday. I cannot speak for George.
I'll head over there when I have the time, beacuse I have to see this for myself, it's really quite ridiculous. I almost feel sorry for the person because they clearly take their position without thinking it through the least bit.
You keep on saying 'we', as if everyone that ventures into the frontier will be part of the same large organization.
Well, I'm sorry it offends you or something, and I'm delighted that instead of questioning the logic in my comments, you simply picked out something that you found annoying. It makes it a lot easier.
?We? refers to everyone who is constrained by the laws of the universe. The laws of thermodynamics, the conservation of mass, etc.
?We? refers to real economic limitations. That we can't simply ship resources to Mars, and that we must be resource independent.
?We,? also, to a smaller extent, refers to social limitations. That we can't really have ?poor starving people,? no matter which system you chose, because they might get this funny idea to revolt and so on.
?We? includes you whether you like it or not.
And I have not once mentioned a large organization, mainly because I'm not using ?we? in that context. Perhaps some of us will get to Mars that way, perhaps others will do it straight out of their own pocket, it doesn't matter, what matters is what natural rules and physical laws we're physically constrained by.
clark points out that airlocks will have to be secure, that way not everyone can throw people out of them. It's a natural rule that airlocks be secure.
With an open frontier theres room for ANY form of social organization - from utter hermitude to totalitarian hive minds.
Where have I suggested otherwise? I'm just talking about systems that work. I'm fairly certain anarchism can work. Especially on the frontieer, for even some of the same reasons you see this "anarcho"-capitalist ideal work.
This Mars Politics forum is about ideas that work. There was this one regular here who laughably said stuff about it being ?immoral? to give people ?free? food, electricity, etc. Basic life support stuff. What made it more interesting, is that they argued that it would be ?unethical? to terraform since it would jepordise peoples property rights (we'd have a large ocean in the northern hemisphere, you realize, so all that property would be under water).
So, if we're going to pick a system, why not pick one which works? I see no problem with what you're suggesting on the face of things, really, you can do what you want, but when you start shooting people up (to protect your Right of Increase), you turn things into a mob state real quick, and you show hypocrasy by pretending that your system promotes liberty.
Your vision of an empire encompassing the entire Solar System, excluding Earth makes little sense.
Are you even reading what I'm saying? Or are you extrapolating? It could be said that I am talking of a potential empire, but that's irrelevant, the so called empire would still be constrained by the same rules.
I don't see how I'm ?excluding? Earth, here. Physical trade between systems would be artifactual at most (people would pay a good price for Martian dimonds, for example- even though such items are mere keepsakes and irrelevant to survival), and perhaps in the beginning, technological. Other than that we're not going to be trading much. I've asked people to convince me, but they simply won't. They go off on these random tangents about Bazaar's or something, it's sad.
Attempting to impose your ideals onto other individuals is a sure way to get yourself shot on the frontier.
Oh, I wouldn't ?impose my ideals,? I'd keep to myself. I'm sure, of course, like Libertarians, you'd consider me ?imposing my ideals? since I'd be giving out technology to anyone who asked and had product equalivance* (I wouldn't bother anyone, I consider myself, for the most part, an individualist). Since you'd be unable to profit because of my generosity, I'm sure it'd piss you off. And a lot of other people. Especially people who I've stolen patents from and so on.
* Product equalivance is the ablity to trade something equally. I need energy, they need plastic, I give them plastic and some of my time for energy. No profit is made, but someone who does try to profit out there, will undoubtedly not like me doing this. In some cases, I can see myself giving without product equlivence, but I go by the silver rule.
The market on Earth is large.
I like how to speak of a frontieer, statelessness, anarchy and so on, but you use the Earth's markets as an example of the ?frontieer market.? You show, almost automatically, how this so called market would require a state, you just neglect, like most "anarcho"-capitalists, to accept that a mob which protects the Right of Increase is in itself a state.
I don't see the Earth as a legitimate example, because Earth has yet to successfully expand into space via capitalistic means (all our space stuff has benefited us here on Earth, please don't create straw men about satellites and so on and how they are our ?expansion into space?- there is no manned economy).
To think that trade between Earth and the frontier would be closed off is silly.
Name some stuff we'd be trading and we'll see how silly it really is...
It's not Anarcho-Capitalism, it's Frontierism.
This topic title was somewhat misleading, because it explicitly mentioned anarchy. No where have I seen anything about the political philosophy called anarchy, and instead, all I see is Libertarian mantra about the market.
Now let me respond to your second reply, one which clearly shows no ablity to understand the tenents of anarchism.
I am not an anarchist. Anarchists are kids who get a kick out of smashing Starbucks windows.
The American anarchist is the Idiot Anarchist. These kids grow out of their anarchist stage, so they're just people who follow whatever fad in childhood rebellion. A lot of American kids go through a hippy stage and don't really learn anything about it while they're there. The ones that do stay.
Most anarchist thinkers were rational philosphers. And a lot of real anarchists are peaceful demonstrators. This is just a gross generalization you accuse A.J. of making, except yours just seems quite uninformed.
Anarchists claim to hate politicians, but are always the first to show to protests, where they will beg those same politicians for favors.
Anarchists show solidarity with the rest of the masses, this does not equate ?begging for favors.? This is just buzzword language you're using to depreciate something you clearly know nothing about.
George Potter wrote this essay for friends of his. He used the term "Anarchy" out of convenience, assuming that the people who read it would know what he was talking about.
George Potter is a disingenious fool. He uses language he knows, if he's an intellectual at all, would obviously get confused with other lines of of philosophical thought. The fact that property necessarily requires a state, irrevocably means that anarchy means socialist. Period.
It was written for anti-statists, pushing space exploration. not for space lovers, pushing anarchy.
Are you saying that I'm a space lover pushing for anarchy? Wow, like A.J. you make assumptions about someone you don't even know. I haven't come to my position because I'm an anarchist, I've come to my position by thinking about what is required to survive in space, and the economics of the whole thing. I welcome any criticism of my arguments, but often, I get nothing. Like soph here, twisting the definition of anarchism (I've had to redefine it several times for the poor kid), implying that it means disorder. Proudhon smartly points out, his famous anarchy quote, ?Society finds its highest perfection in the union of order with anarchy.?
soph,
No, anarchy is an actual pseudo-system, with no potential whatsoever, IMHO, and as I've established before.
You must get out of this cycle of lying, soph, you established nothing before. Instead you trampled off whinging about how no one can have a discussion with me or something to that effect (probably because I totally refuted your whole argument).
But since I feel a miffed Josh Cryer post coming up, and I really don't want to go through another circular argument, I'll leave it at that.
Miffed? I'm not that miffed. Perplexed, perhaps. I mean, I did geniunely think this was a thread about anarchism, and I simply thought foadi was confused and had been indoctrinated with another form called "anarcho"-capitalism.
Anarchy is used in very few contexts, and it's been fairly well established (in many anarchist texts) that anarchism requires that no one have a Right of Increase. Period.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
I notified Adrian that this thread is not working.
Offline
