Nation-states

[Bizud]

To supporters of the status-quo, I offer you a challenge: Provide a philosophical justification for the nation-state, as opposed to other forms of societal organization (such as a feudal state, federation of anarchist communities, one world government, etc.)

[HoboFactory]

No system is perfect. The status-quo is obviosuly no exception. History tells as that feudalism is badly flawed also. A federation of anarchist communities sounds slightly self-contradictory, impossible to pull off, and would probably create a condition that impedes general human progress in terms of of science, technology, medicine, etc. The problem with a single global government is there's no place to go and nothing to do if that government becomes abusive and oppressive.

[Bizud]

A federation of anarchist communities sounds slightly self-contradictory,

 

Enlighten me as to the contradiction.

 

impossible to pull off

 

How so?

 

and would probably create a condition that impedes general human progress in terms of of science, technology, medicine, etc.

 

If "progress" means that our children are expected to live in a different world than ours, I see no need for it. The vast majority of our problems are caused by imperfect social institutions. Sure, curing cancer would be nice, but everyone knows we could end poverty tomorrow if we wanted to. Which would save more lives? Even still, however, I see no reason why such a society would impede scientific progress.

Edited January 17, 2005 by Bizud

[HoboFactory]

Enlighten me as to the contradiction.

 

Terms like "federation" and "community" seem to run contrary to the very essence of anarchy, it least in the common sense of the word.

 

How so?

 

The closest to that ever done before would probably be the lifestyle of certain Native American tribes, but even in these cases it tended to resemble communism more than anarchy. I mean the conversion from the present system to that is not one that people would accept or just take part in for some un-known reason. It just wouldn't last because it runs against the grain of human nature. Which is incidentlly why progress is essential. Humanity has always progressed, you can't force that into standstill. An anarchist society would make scientific progress impossible because great achievements in that field often take alot of work and resources that would be nearly impossible to appropriate in so loosely-formed a government. (An example would be America's pre-constitutional government under the Articles of Confederation, in which the goverment control over things was so lax, society was barely capable of functioning at all).

[Bizud]

Terms like "federation" and "community" seem to run contrary to the very essence of anarchy, it least in the common sense of the word.

 

The closest to that ever done before would probably be the lifestyle of certain Native American tribes, but even in these cases it tended to resemble communism more than anarchy. I mean the conversion from the present system to that is not one that people would accept or just take part in for some un-known reason. It just wouldn't last because it runs against the grain of human nature. Which is incidentlly why progress is essential. Humanity has always progressed, you can't force that into standstill. An anarchist society would make scientific progress impossible because great achievements in that field often take alot of work and resources that would be nearly impossible to appropriate in so loosely-formed a government. (An example would be America's pre-constitutional government under the Articles of Confederation, in which the goverment control over things was so lax, society was barely capable of functioning at all).

 

We appear to be talking about two different things. I'm talking about this anarchy.

[HoboFactory]

Apparently the concept is fairly ambigious; the thread on anarchy in this forum may offer some incite however. But it's 12:30AM right now so I'm gonna head off for now.

[Bizud]

That is the concept of anarchy as I understand it, and as expressed by Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Noam Chomsky, and countless others. The so-called "anarcho-capitalists" are a very small group compared to other anarchists.

[Biggie]

In a world government, there'd be a rather large democratic deficit, wouldn't there? It would be too large for any effective popular control of its decisions. It would probably be too remote and quite complicated for most people. Probably a tyranny.

 

I don't believe anarchist communities could function effectively for long, either. The physically strong would bully the weak. There needs to be a central -though limited- government to protect the rights of all in a society.

 

I know you asked to defend the status quo, and all I've done is briefly stated a few of my objections to the alternatives you mentioned. Off the top of my head I'm not sure why I support the Westphalian system. It leads to rivalry, but also competition (and by extension ingenuity) between states. Bad or good, depending on your perspective. I suppose also if the globe is divided into smaller governments not subject to any higher authority, they can be better accountable to their people's will and protect their rights. As I said, a world government would probably border on tyranny.

 

I'll need to think about this some more.

 

(An example would be America's pre-constitutional government under the Articles of Confederation, in which the goverment control over things was so lax, society was barely capable of functioning at all).

 

The reasons they went back to the drawing board and wrote a new Constitution are a wee bit more complex than that. You make it sound like government control is needed to keep the people in check.

[Bizud]

I don't believe anarchist communities could function effectively for long, either. The physically strong would bully the weak. There needs to be a central -though limited- government to protect the rights of all in a society.

 

Once again we're plagued by a misunderstanding of what is meant by "anarchist." To simplify, I'm thinking of communities where there is governance, but all citizens are active participants in it. Thus there's no reason to suppose that there would be no way of protecting the weak from the strong.

[Biggie]

Wouldn't that just be a democracy?

[Bizud]

Anarchists have always described themselves as democrats. "Democracy" means "rule by the people." In fact, if you read the writings of the foudning fathers of the US, they don't describe the society they were building as a democracy. To them, a democracy was "mob rule."

 

Yes, an anarchic society would also be democratic. More specifically, it would extend democracy to include democratic control over the economy, and would eliminate the concentration of power in the state. In a true democracy, you don't say "okay, let's pick five people to run the society for us, and then we'll choose again in five years." You say "okay, let's all two-thousand of us get together and make a decision as to where we're going to build the new school." This is, again, an oversimplification.

[Biggie]

Yeah, I've read quite a few of their writings. Madison wrote about that a fair bit, if I remember.

 

But if you have 2000 people all voicing their opinion on where to build the new school, how will they ever co-operate? I mean, it is possible in a very small group of people to come to an agreement, but can several thousand people do so? So many individual interests would be competing with each other.

 

And what if there is a crisis in the community that requires swift, decisive action? You can't convene 2000 people and expect results. One of the reasons the US strengthened its federal government in the Constitution was in response to armed uprisings which it couldn't quickly suppress.

[Matt]

If everyone had the power to change things, I doubt anything would ever get done.

[HoboFactory]

...

 

(An example would be America's pre-constitutional government under the Articles of Confederation, in which the goverment control over things was so lax, society was barely capable of functioning at all).

 

The reasons they went back to the drawing board and wrote a new Constitution are a wee bit more complex than that. You make it sound like government control is needed to keep the people in check.

Yeah, that statement was oversimplified.

 

But it's not so much that the government is needed to keep people in check as the government is needed to actually get things done. It was a system too loose to actually get anything done. For example, they didn't really have the power to tax, and without out taxes you dont have law enforcement, or buildings constructed, or debts paid, or much of anything else.

[rmak]

ppl must by nature live in seperated states. look at Canada with quebec and the west and the maritimes always wanting to seperate. it is the nature of people to be surrounded by the familiar.

[Biggie]

ppl must by nature live in seperated states. look at Canada with quebec and the west and the maritimes always wanting to seperate. it is the nature of people to be surrounded by the familiar.

I think you're on to something. Though, I think it may have more to do with lack of adequate representation in Canada of the west and maritimes. Ontario and Quebec basically run things.

 

And a government of a small geographic area can better represent the will of the population, than of a large area. To the French people, for example, the government of France is far more democratic than the European Union parliament.

[Mick]

Anarchists have always described themselves as democrats. "Democracy" means "rule by the people." In fact, if you read the writings of the foudning fathers of the US, they don't describe the society they were building as a democracy. To them, a democracy was "mob rule."

 

Yes, an anarchic society would also be democratic. More specifically, it would extend democracy to include democratic control over the economy, and would eliminate the concentration of power in the state. In a true democracy, you don't say "okay, let's pick five people to run the society for us, and then we'll choose again in five years." You say "okay, let's all two-thousand of us get together and make a decision as to where we're going to build the new school." This is, again, an oversimplification.

The fact that democracy is a highly contested concept has not been considered in your post. You are correct in saying that democracy is the "rule by the people" as it is derrived from the greek "demos" meaning many and "kratia" meaning rule. However one fundamental principle than can be agreed upon is that democracy includes a degree of equality.

 

In the event of an anarchy, democracy does not exist as the concept of equality no longer exists. A democracy is based on the princple of negative liberties, a process by which individuals limit their freedom to the state in order to achieve peace and security. This would nto exist in the anarchy. In an anarchy, there would be no regulatory agency to ensure that individual rights and freedoms are upheld. Further the concept of limiting freedoms to the state are only based on the consent of the governed. Such it would normally be accepted my society that the right to kill someone should be given up and the state prevent murder; people should have the right to live.

 

Without a regulatory agency, the economy would not be controlled by the people, but rather by private groups. The market would be 100% capitalistic without the concept of Keynesian economics, it would be laissez-faire and would be dependant soley on supply and demand.

 

Lastly, representative democracy is effective. It has been witnessed with the lack of proper citizen awareness and participation that a direct democracy in which a plebicyte is held for every issue has resulted in failure. This takes away accountability fom elected officials. Who would be responsible for a bad decision? The public in an anarchy? Who is there to blame? Society in general? This would lead to chaos. Secondly in the event of a direct democracy, a regulatory agency would exist thus society not being an anarchy.

 

Therefore an anarchy is not democratic.

[Bizud]

Anarchism, in the sense that every philosopher who has called himself an anarchist ("anarcho-capitalists" - nonexistent before the 20th century and virtually nonexistent outside the United States - notwithstanding) has used it, does not refer to the absence of governance. Since most of your post is based on that flawed assumption, there's not much point in responding to it, except for this:

 

It has been witnessed with the lack of proper citizen awareness and participation that a direct democracy in which a plebicyte is held for every issue has resulted in failure.

 

I never mentioned plebiscites specifically, but there have been many examples of societies that have governed themselves by means of local assemblies. Barcelona during the spanish civil war, for example. Freetown Christiania in Denmark is another.

 

This takes away accountability fom elected officials. Who would be responsible for a bad decision? The public in an anarchy? Who is there to blame? Society in general?  This would lead to chaos.

 

This is rubbish. Why do we need someone to blame? In a society where there are no "leaders," a society run by the participants, the people of the society would indeed have to accept responsibility for bad decisions. Why would this lead to chaos? Individual people can make mistakes and accept responsibility for them just fine, but groups of people can't make mistakes and accept collective responsibility?

[Biggie]

How do they solve problems of collective action?

 

(especially in larger societies)

Edited January 19, 2005 by Biggie

[Bizud]

Such as?

[Biggie]

Anything. Individuals will have different ideas of how to do things. How can an entire community convene and somehow manage to get things done?

[Bizud]

I assume you're speaking of the decision-making process? Generally, depending on the issue, I would imagine assembly, discussion, election of committees to study the issue in depth and present recommendations to the community at large, more discussion, and then either consensus or more discussion and investigation. Or maybe a vote.

[ecnarf]

Nation-states exist for resources, don't they?

 

If you had a bunch of small, local-run "governments" using direct democracy, there wouldn't be much to be said for foreign relations, and the ability to have resources such as oil imported would be severely hampered, if not near impossible.

[Bizud]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

 

"Rather than simply list known alternatives, debate for a short time, vote, and then accept or reject by some percentage of majority (say 50% plus one, or 2/3), a consensus decision-making process involves identifying and addressing concerns, generating new alternatives, combining elements of multiple alternatives and checking that people understand a proposal or an argument.

 

This empowers minorities, those with objections that are hard to state quickly, and those who are less skilled in debate. Therefore, consensus decision-making can be seen as a form of grassroots democracy."

 

Nation-states exist for resources, don't they?

 

If you had a bunch of small, local-run "governments" using direct democracy, there wouldn't be much to be said for foreign relations, and the ability to have resources such as oil imported would be severely hampered, if not near impossible.

 

Trade among small communities is impossible? Smaller communities can't form federations to enter into negotiations with other federations where geography prohibits direct trade?

Edited January 21, 2005 by Bizud

[the purple switch]

Thanks to the colonial era, there are not many nation-states left in the truest sense of the word. Arbitrarily deciding where borders should be placed (eg. Africa) created states that cut across nationalities and are the root cause of ethnic conflict in the world.

 

Nations and states are often two different things all togather and in most cases should not be joined togather. The only real nation states left are places like France where the Franks have lived in the area for centuries and have developed distinctions from thier neighbors.

 

What do you guys think?