Justin Schwartz:
> >> Nor can democracy, not a credible version.
Gordon:
> >Then the democratic State is an oxymoron.
Justin Schwartz:
> Au contraire. Democracy is chosen (or won), by subjecting the public power
> to popular control.
In theory, but not in practice, as I recently pointed out. This is the reason that democracy can be imposed by force: in the presence of class, it's in fact a system of control by elites.
I've observed real democracy practiced at least on a small scale; the procedure is to elicit the opinions of even the most humble, not try to bully them into silence or pretend they have nothing to say. So I know the difference. What occurs in class system communities has some of the formal attributes of democracy, but most of the time it's a sham.
Gordon:
> But does the _nor_
> >mean that you have now abandoned the view that anarchy is
> >imposed on possibly unwilling populations like liberalism or
> >fascism?
Justin Schwartz:
> As a liberal I object to that elision. I'll grant you that anarchy cannot
> be imposed like fascism. I never held otherwise. I suppose it might be
> imposed by deliberate smashing of a state appartus despite the
> unwillingness of a substantial proportion of the population,a nd the
> maintenance of taht state of affirs by armed anarchist militias, though.
That would be a state.
Justin Schwartz:
> I would like to hear how public goods
> are provided for under anarchy.
Gordon:
> >I could spin any number of fantasies about how provision of
> >public goods could take place in an anarchy. The crux of the
> >matter is whether coercion is necessary to produce public
> >goods.
Justin Schwartz:
> That's what makes 'em public--indivisuals will nor provide the on their own
> because it's rational to free-ride.
Many public goods are not susceptible to free riding, so that can't be the fundamental problem which requires the coercion you think is necessary. The post office is one example.
Gordon:
> This closely resembles the contention that high
> >technology can be produced only through coercion; some people
> >seem to take it as an article of faith. The specific mechanism
> >remains very, very mysterious, however. Too bad -- I want to
> >know what it is about weapons, military units and discipline,
> >cops, courts and jails and class in general that produces
> >either computer chips or the post office.
Justin Schwartz:
> A very short version: for public goods you need taxes. For taxes you need
> laws and enforcement and cops and courts and jails. Otherwise you just ask
> for voluntray subscriptions pretty please, and why should I contribute if I
> will enjoy the befits even if I don't as long as everyone else contributes?
> Maybe some public spirit souls like yourself will contribute anyway, but
> not enough. Also, you need standards and enforcement of them for safety,
> e.g., in building bridges, buildings,a nd power plants. Safety and health
> are public goods too. Anarchism really is a recipe for Hobbesean barbarism.
You keep saying that, but only as an article of faith. The first thing you're going to have to come up with is a list of public goods which absolutely cannot be provided by uncoerced people. The post office is not one of them. Once you do, we can analyze the trajectories of coercion and see what they really produce.
I suppose anarchy appears Hobbesian to you because you believe in Hobbes's view of humans. This is a reasonable view, but there are two serious problems with it. First, the monarchs are not going to be made of any better stuff than the people they rule over; most likely, they will be worse stuff, since sociopathic personalities are attracted to government and similar opportunities to exercise domination and exploitation such as corporate management.
That is why, to get government post offices and government public highways in the 20th century, and all the other benefits of government, many, many millions of people had to be killed, maimed, tortured and terrorized by government violence, and enormous tyrannies constructed. Democracy may inhibit some grossly bad behavior, but in general as long as an elite is in charge of the visible government, and of businesses (especially the media) and other important institutions, the actual desires and interests of the _demos_ will be ignored, often to the point of serious misery and destruction. Anyone can observe this in daily life, or, if they have a strong stomach, in the newspapers or on television.
And second, it is clear that the constant advance of technology will make the competition between monarchs more and more destructive, which can have only one eventual outcome, that of self-annihilation. We started the 20th century with such modest tools as the machine gun and barbed wire; we're starting the 21st with nuclear bombs, ICBMs, nerve gas, biotechnology, airplanes, radio, television, and computers. It's getting to be late in the day for the same old stupid, ruinous games.
-- Gordon