|
This
illustration is a whole education in political economy in a few
thousand pixels.
The
annotations are significant, but even more so is the geometry through
which they're depicted: an expanding sphere of State control, first
over our necessities, then over our discretionary activities, and
ultimately over the whole of human existence. At each stage, the
State's coercive powers are amplified by the importance and scope of
the resources it appropriated in the previous stage, such that
individuals and voluntary organizations steadily lose all power to
resist its further expansion. The Blob wouldn't have had a chance
against the State.
I
can add only a single observation to this depiction: As the State
swells, it ceases to perform any of its functions even marginally well.
Indeed, the first functions it will slough are the ones for which we
originally agreed to tolerate a pre-indemnified coercive authority:
national defense, police protection, and the administration of
impartial justice. In the terminal stage of its expansion, when it lays
claim to all things and no one outside its corridors may do anything
without first asking its permission and paying its price, the State's
sole concern becomes the maintenance of its power and the perquisites
of its nomenklatura.
This
is likely to be a rather hectic day for me, so I doubt I'll be posting
anything further until tomorrow. Therefore I urge you one and all,
Gentle Readers, to reflect upon the above, and to ask yourselves:
This "anarchy" the State's boosters are always warning
me against: Just how bad would it be?
Francis W. Porretto - bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/
|
From the genius of Ayn Rand.
ReplyDelete"Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot."
Tim
How bad is anarchy? It depends which end of the rope you're on. The founders weren't great because they had first-mover advantage. They were great because they risked everything to do what needed to be done.
ReplyDeleteCasca
Nail on head Casca.
ReplyDelete"The Blob wouldn't have had a chance against the State."
ReplyDeleteThe State is the Blob."
From Oleg Volk, commenting on the diagram:
ReplyDeleteInstead of "government-provided" it should read "government-controlled" -- North Korean and Cuban governments aren't providing much except to a very narrow group of essentially feudal overlords.
"The founders weren't great because they had first-mover advantage."
ReplyDeleteCorrect! They had First Mover advantage. Something we ain't got. What left of us is Shiloh. You get the government or lack of government you deserve I always say. Ted Cruz gets it, I think.
Well I think 47% of the country is getting shafted on the government they deserve.
ReplyDeleteJosh
100% of the country Josh unless you think in the end the Obama voters are actually going to improve their lot. We're all in the same boat don't you know? The difference is those people you mention in passing are not smart enough to figure it out. We used to weed out the dummies and not give them the privilege to vote. Now look'it what we got voting. Get it?
ReplyDeleteI think we're saying two different things. The Obamazombies "deserve" the government they have. Short term gain "atleast for the welfare leech" for long term disaster of the country. I'm saying those who aren't with him, aren't complicit in his agenda (the voting public not in support of Obama) are getting shafted. They (we) of this blog, of the country who aren't with him, certainly don't deserve the government we're getting now.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I was trying to say. I think I read incorrectly into what you were saying.
I know someone who once called himself an anarchist. After getting chucked out of the air-force for smoking pot he lived off the taxpayer for years while resenting society as a whole and, of course, voted for the biggest statist crapbag around. It's the sort of anarchist who thinks the Communist sympathizing rock group, Rage Against the Machine, is just so kewl...
ReplyDeleteReal anarchists are all anarcho-capitalists. I have no respect of left-wing anarchists and next to no respect for anarcho-capitalists. The idea of having competing justice systems is ludicrous. People won't necessarily have the freedom to opt out of *any* justice system. I'm content with classical liberalism, but a minarchist world is my ideal.
"I think I read incorrectly into what you were saying."
ReplyDeleteYep, maybe a little Josh. It's not easy to say or explain how even the best of us in our own way (because of our ways) have reaped what we have sown.
Tony, we already have competing justice systems, both domestically and internationally. The results aren't terrific, but you can't claim that the problem is that they're in competition with one another when, in a world of semicooperating sovereignties, there's no alternative arrangement.
ReplyDeleteA very illuminating book on the subject was penned some years ago by Pacific Institute scholar Bruce Benson: The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without The State. It's not a conclusive argument, but it is full of good history and examples, even in the modern world, of Stateless judicial and penal systems that have something to say for themselves.
What alternative arrangement could anarcho-capitalists possibly offer other than more of the same domestically? They are in effect arguing for the status quo to be applied domestically and the status quo is broken. Why not just fight for what is demonstrably just or are they all subjectivists?
ReplyDelete