[WS:] What does that mean, exactly? I suspect that this another of those religiously motivated fantasies, like rapture or armageddon, that infest the American political culture - all they carry is emotional connotation but they are devoid of any empirical meaning whatsoever.
If we think of this in more realistic rather than mythological terms the "collapse of the state" could only mean the "replacement of one form of governance by another." An empirical example of it would the "collapse" of the USSR which entails a certain form of central government being replaced by another form and certain geographical regions under the jurisdiction of the former gaining autonomy and developing their own governance structures. Hardly a "collapse."
Another empirical example is Somalia which does not have a functioning central government, which acquires a rather Hobbesian meaning in this particular context - a permanent state of war among armed groups - each with its own governance structure. Again, a rather undesirable place to be but hardly a "collapse" of governance in general.
So if we want to discuss "collapse of the state" in any meaningful way, we need to specify which form of governance we have in mind, in what particular place and time, what form of governance it is replaced with and what caused the change.
I think that the "collapse of the state" in the US would be much closer to that in the USSR and that in Somalia. The only remotely realistic scenario of such a collapse I can think of is some sort of fascist-libertarian insurgency taking over several states and openly defying the fed, and the federal inability to intervene (as they did in the Civil War or in the Civil Rights Movement era) - which would effectively lead to a breakup of the union. Possible scenario of that breakup would be grounded in history: more or less along the Mason-Dixon line in the east, the Pacific coastline vs inland in the west, and Texas becoming an independent state in the south. Not a probable scenario, to be sure, but at least a possible one.
While such "collapse" of the union would certainly lead to tectonic shifts in political power structures, that would be hardly be an end of the state or economic institutions built on its foundations. Some of the "new" states might get somewhat better social programs more progressive tax code and more government services, other would see their social programs, civil rights and government services being cut, some would see they GDP growing other would experience a stagnation, but that would be about it as far the extent of economic changes are concerned.
I think that talking about any other form of state "collapse" is delusional, on a par with religious babbling about the "end of the world" .
Wojtek
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:35 PM, nathan tankus
<somekindofheterodox at gmail.com> wrote:
> If the state would collapse i would suspect that those
> managers/capitalists that are able to keep control of their own
> material resources (see Pinkerton cops) would start circulating their
> liabilities as money. I think that the historical record supports that
> point. I also think there would be multiple lesser currencies floating
> around, mostly based on credit agreements between relative equals (see
> tally sticks, shop tokens etc).
>
> --
> -Nathan Tankus
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>