RoR: Forum

As much as I am not an anarchist in any form, I think the modern nation-state is a vestigal institution that cannot evolve to follow the needs of people in the form of common defense or general welfare. I think whatever governmental institution that will replace the nation-state will be it will have to be small, flexible, and tenable(sp?). Hell, even the modern big companies are dinos already, so even the typical Rothbardian claim that we ought to use DROs won't fly either because of their largeness in most Anacap models I've seen.

In the end, when all moral 'laws' are violated, all you can do is defend your life by any means necessary or you wind up dead under the bloodied fists of thugs and vandals.

-- Bridget

Post 1

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 3:31pm

The Sovereign Individual (Hardcover)
by James Dale Davidson, William Rees-Mogg "The coming of the year 2000 has haunted the Western imagination for the past thousand years..." (more)

This book might be of interest to you, Bridget...

Post 2

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 4:53am

Bridget, thanks for the clues. I googled "rothbard dro" and after a little reading found that this means "dispute resolution organizations." I have written here on RoR about the American Arbitration Association and its work.

I do feel that "size matters." It seems that in nature, at some level of complexity, new simplifying super-structures encompass multiples of smaller, individual entitites, once some arbitrary "complexity" has been reached. Cells to tissues to organs to organisms seems to be one model. Aristotle explained the state as a derivation from individuals to families to groups of families. In his time, most "states" were cities and most cities had 1000 to 10,000 individuals. (We know the coins of about 1000 individual city mints from the period 600 to 100 BC.) Rome brought an end to that. (Even Objectivists hail Rome, but personally, I collect the coins of the Greek cities, not the Roman Empire.) So, I agree that as individuals, you and I are probably best off in social contexts where we can name everyone in our worlds. In other words, working for General Motors would not do us well, based on who and what we are as individuals.

On the other hand, as I have argued in the "Person/Human" topic, other people have different natures. Large structures meet their needs. The larger the herd, the lower the chances that any one member will be picked off by a predator.

I have not read Sovereign Individual, but the reviews are intriguing. As I understand it, even in a decentralized world of autonomous individuals, nothing prevents large numbers of them from cooperating. It is only that they do not do so in the same place at the same time -- and (more to the point), the focus is not the "corporation" but rather the multitude of focusses as perceived by each individual acting on their own.

... so even the typical Rothbardian claim that we ought to use DROs won't fly either because of their largeness in most Anacap models I've seen.

I did not find any "anarcho-capitalist models" that provided the information you refer to. Do you have any pointers? (By "largeness" do you mean "number of employees" -- size of the organization -- or "importance" to the models?)

Post 3

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 4:56am

Robert, see above. Thanks for the pointer to Sovereign Individual. I found quite a lot about the book, including this:

THE SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL:
The Impact of the Information Age
by James R. Elwood
This book review appeared in the March 1997 issue of the Freedom Network News under the title: "Galt's Gulch in Cyberspace
All will not be sweetness and light. Governments, like the Church before them, will not go without a fight. The authors predict that they will resort to large increases in consumption taxes, will greatly increase property seizures under civil-asset forfeiture laws, and in worst cases will kidnap rich people for ransom and launch attacks on known tax havens. They will have the support of the many people who will be falling behind in the Information Age � so expect a rise in populism and even neo-Luddite attacks on individuals and companies who are identified with the cybereconomy. The Sovereign Individual warns that these threats are most likely in the advanced industrial and welfare states of North America and Western Europe, and actually counsels successful people to get out now and move to places with strong free-market economies like Argentina and New Zealand.
http://www.free-market.net/resources/libertydocs/sovereign-individual-book.html

Post 4

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 6:37am

I think we know NZ has its own problems. Well, unfortunately I started playing CIV IV and you know what one of the "advanced" government forms is? Environmentalism! What crap - it is even worse reading the description. The game is fun, though.

Post 5

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 6:42am

Reminds me of when took comparative government in college - and the assessment of communism being a more efficient form than what the US has, which is true IF one considers ruling as the prime function of government [or so it was said].....

Post 6

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 6:44am

I've always loved the Civ games in spite of his obvious political agenda. Some of your most powerful advances are religions. Pollution and global warming have been key factors in the late game since Civ 1. Still, it's just a damn well done turn based strategy game series.

Post 7

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 6:55am