Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Yes Means No

One of the ways that democracies flatter themselves is by proposing that they, uniquely among forms of government, operate via the "consent of the governed." But consent is something that must be given or withheld, and have you tried not paying your taxes lately? You can do it, but you're not free to do it. Certainly it's possible for small numbers of citizens to expatriate themselves, but in practical reality most of us are forever prisoners of our nationality--it is one of the inescapable aspects of our existence. Implied consent is one thing in minor matters of verbal contracts, say, but the idea that emerging from the uterus within the political borders of the United States of America implies that one consents to our rickety-rapacious system of governance is a stretch. And by a stretch, I mean a howler, because it's perfectly evident that no consent is involved at all. Walk down to the nearest federal court and inform the fine folks there that you hereby withdraw your consent to the Constitution, statutes, and common law of the United States of America and its individual states. Better yet, walk down to the nearest police station.

72 comments:

littlehorn said...

I think you can also join the Native Americans. Some of them created an alternate state or something. I read about that somewhere.

max555 said...

Your logical error is to assume that "consent of the governed" refers to *individual* citizens, not the collective citizenry as a whole.

The American revolutionaries rallying cry was to protest "taxation without representation", which meant they had no representatives in Parliament, but still had to pay British taxes.

Taxes are collected by "consent of the governed" because the tax laws are voted on and passed by the people's representatives in Congress. (This is what a "republic" means.) If the "governed" wish to withdraw their collective consent to be taxed, all they have to do is elect representatives that will eliminate the tax laws. Same goes for any other laws, such as the crimimal laws you describe.

Anonymous said...

"The collective citizenry as a whole" is not an entity with interests and rights. Only individual people have interests and rights. Coercing me in the name of 51% of my fellow citizens is not, in practice, different from coercing me in the name of an enlightened dictator.

IOZ would be the first to tell you that his writing is observational and not prescriptive. There is no society that does not entail coercion; as he said, it's an inescapable aspect of our existence.

IOZ said...

Or an unenlightened dictator.

Mr.Fundamental said...

I kept yelling "Paris! fucking Paris!" but nooo. it had to be Jersey.

elect representatives that will eliminate the tax laws.

now that's funny. here I thought I was the Defeatist. you want a guest spot max?

because we're waiting for you to tell us something that we don't already know.

Brian said...

"There is no society that does not entail coercion; as he said, it's an inescapable aspect of our existence."

Ioz: In addition to being booted out of the Dembot camp, this statement makes you unworthy of considering yourself a TRU libertarian. Because, you know, MAN, one Spanish village for three months during the Civil War enacted ANARCHY, man (until they fell into infighting and started killing each other) ...which means that ALL of the rest of human history is WRONG WRONG WRONG! Just gotta believe!

Brian said...

Oops...I meant "belief" not statement, 'cause our host did not state the quote.

max555 said...

"...IOZ would be the first to tell you that his writing is observational and not prescriptive."

OK. Does that make his pronouncements operationally different than a guy on a street corner, screaming about the alien space robots that are following him around? It's just observational, after all, and that's what the poor bastard is observing.

In this case, IOZ's observervation of the phrase "consent of the governed" as meaning something that the persons who wrote that phrase clearly did not intend, is likewise a subjective observation.

It's like saying, "America likes to call itself the land of the free. But 'free' means you don't pay, so therefore doesn't that mean that everything in America must cost zero dollars and be given away for free? Try telling that to a merchant when you try to take something without paying for it!"

Obviously, the meaning of "free" in the context of the American political culture is not the same as "free" in the context of economic exchange. Likewise, "consent of the governed" does not mean that every single person must give consent to the government to do anything that effects that person individually. The persons who coined that phrase in the Declaration of Independence did not mean it as IOZ is defining it here.

IOZ's commentary is indicting democracies for being hypocritical when saying their system operates by the "consent of the governed", but he uses a meaning of the phrase that was not the intended meaning of the authors.

Knock over that straw man, IOZ! Kill it dead!

Anonymous said...

OK. Does that make his pronouncements operationally different than a guy on a street corner, screaming about the alien space robots that are following him around?

Well, the general populace woul probably find most of the pronouncements here about as palatable as that. What that has to do with anything is up to you.

Anonymous said...

Or you could try to close the courts in western Massachusetts, or assault the officials who collect the taxes on liquor in western Pennsylvania. The government would be all, like, "it's cool, the people in those places have collectively withdrawn their consent -- let them go in peace."

Anonymous said...

OK. Does that make his pronouncements operationally different than a guy on a street corner, screaming about the alien space robots that are following him around? It's just observational, after all, and that's what the poor bastard is observing.

IOZ's pretty straightforward about admitting that he offers no fixes, er, "operational recommendations", if you prefer. I found it pretty frustrating for a bit myself. But nowadays, given the oceanic torrents of raw bullshit spewing over the land, I'm happy enough with a little candor and lucidity.

However, I still insist that The Hegemony will NOT be brought down by driving slowly in the fast lane.
-- sglover

Mr.Fundamental said...

max - you are so close. so very, very close.

your last name wouldn't happen to be Jones, would it?

max555 said...

"your last name wouldn't happen to be Jones, would it?"

Nope. But I recognize the cute Bob Dylan reference.

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised that a simple observation like IOZ' can generate so much controversy. Max555, I think you are reading way too much into this.

The United States of America governs us whether we consent to the governance or not. We have no choice. That's all he is saying, and I think it's hard to argue. If one extends the argument by adding "... and that is wrong wrong wrong!" one wades into much murkier waters. For starters, what's a better alternative? Most of the proposed solutions to this problem, if it is a problem, haven't worked out too well.

Government is like human nature. You can live with it, or you can die unhappy (and possibly soon).

Anonymous said...

Oh, and IOZ, there is no such thing as an enlightened dictator. I know this because they all said so, often very forcefully.

Anonymous said...

^^ whoops... meant "... as an unenlightened dictator."

Anonymous said...

Max, you need to read for comprehension, my dude. What IOZ is saying is not that democracies are hypocritical, but that they are not the paragons of unfettered freedom and virtue that all societies should aspire to be, which is what their erstwhile proponents hold them up to be when preaching about "exporting democracy".

Anonymous said...

I think Max probably discovered this place like, today. Thus him not totally grasping what was presented here and instead reminding us of what we were well aware of and brilliant pointing out that this is an argument no particular person has been putting forth.

Ash said...

Heck, if you don't want to be governed by the US government, leave. Ya stick around, welp, you've given consent I guess. Oh, you want your cake and to eat it as well.

puppylander said...

another logical error would be to assume that "consent of the governed" refers to the collective citizenry as a whole, and not individual citizens.

Brian said...

sadly, ash, as the folks of Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Okinawa, and our various cold war era colonies and client states know, it often difficult to fully leave the freedom-bringing embrace of our beloved Big Uncle.

Ash said...

I hear Ethiopia is pretty lawless these days.

la Rana said...

"Consent of the governed" had a lot more currency circa 1781, and given the relatively common belief that the constitution was only intended to last a generation, this seems a much more rational statement than you would have us believe. At the very least its an exception to your rule.

As for the general rule, no sentient being could doubt it. I never agreed to follow these laws, wherein said agreement would be the definition of consent. Here, it did not happen. End of debate.

Which makes me wonder whether Ash is a parody. How else to explain "I guess" as authority for her claim, or the inarticulate rendering of an inapplicable figure of speech? It's either that or she's pretty stupid, ya know, but then again, if you save a penny you earn it also.

Christopher said...

"Heck, if you don't want to be governed by the US government, leave. "

Ha!

One of the biggest fallacies in modern political... talking is the idea that Americans have political philosophies that are derived from specific thinkers who put forth specific ideas.

Do most Americans have a really specific idea of what "consent of the governed" means? I doubt it. I sure don't.

But more then that, Max, you're kind of arguing orthogonally to Ioz here; his central point is that a government operating under "the consent of the governed" is not notably more just than one being operated by a dictatorship.

If I want to pay a certain amount of taxes, but the majority of other voters want to pay a different amount, then I'm forced to go along with them. Functionally, that's pretty darn similar to a Dictator just setting the taxes for me.

I think Mr. Ioz' assumption here is that a government that operates by "consent of the governed" is often portrayed as being more just then those that don't. That's what's at issue, I reckon.

stillnotking said...

Heck, if you don't want to be governed by the US government, leave. Ya stick around, welp, you've given consent I guess. Oh, you want your cake and to eat it as well.

Ah, the "love it or leave it" cadre has been heard from. Never takes them long.

Riddle me this: if my remaining in the place of my birth is contingent upon agreeing to a certain political arrangement, is that not duress? Are decisions made under duress considered "free"? And could not the exact same love-it-or-leave-it argument be made about any polity, anywhere? (One blushes to raise the spectre of Nazi Germany, but it is such a useful reductio.)

You've actually made IOZ' point for him, you know. "Love it or leave it" translates as "If you want to live here, you have to do what we tell you".

(I'm the "anonymous" at 12:49 and 3:39, btw.)

Brian said...

No, Ash, Ethiopia is actually under the heel of a repressive regime given intense CIA support and air power. They are yet another client state of the machine. They may be lawless in the outer reaches of the country (and starvation is certainly a factor in recent years), but...Uncle definitely has a presence there.

Scats said...

"...given the relatively common belief that the constitution was only intended to last a generation..."

ahahahahaha! suckers!

Was PT Barnum a Founding Father?

hipparchia said...

eh, you say this as though the complete lack of government would set you free.

Anonymous said...

"IOZ would be the first to tell you that his writing is observational and not prescriptive."
Usually I don't cite anon. dewds (or dewdettes).
But, in this case, Word!

maxwhatever definitely needs a guest spot on the defeatists!

sign him up!

Mike

Anonymous said...

Ah, anon. has a moniker. And a good one at that.
Sorry for the oversight.
Pays to read closer, still.

Mike

Brian said...

"eh, you say this as though the complete lack of government would set you free."

Can't say I at least believe that. Anarchism is a fine utopian thought experiment/dream (better than State Communism) but I don't see hobbits and mutual aid societies, I see Mad Max. :) I would agree with many here that breaking up empires, leading to smaller, less powerful and arrogant States would be a good thing, if not for us in the continental US at least for our victims.

Mad Max or worse is what our policies bring to many of our failing client states, so... You support the current system-which is bipartisan and pretty consistent for 100 years, that's what you get.

Don't ask me to get all teary eyed over the rapacious machine whose territory I was born into. I don't understand how so many lefty progs can be so proud of their agnosticism or atheism while still worshipping at the altar of the State.

Ash said...

Is anybody, can anybody, really be free? Seems impossible to me. Even alone on an island you are a slave to you biological needs.

To say that your freedom under a dictator is equivalent to your freedom in the US seems absurd on its face. At least in the US you have a constitution which drives the system specifying some rights/freedoms and you do get to campaign and vote which does have some determination of the laws under which we choose to live whereas your options in a dictatorship are more limited. In either system you've got to ascend the power structure to exert your will. The democratic/constitutional system gives a more level playing field then the dictatorial. Often in a dictatorship ones tribe and familial relation to the power is the governing factor.

bRIAN said...

Ash: read down through the quotes. Tyrrany of the majority is still tyranny. 25% of the world's prison population is in the United States because the PEEPLES have listened to generations of propoaganda and decided drugs need to be criminalized.

You also ignore scale. As we as a nation have ignored past practice and centralized things more and more (sometimes for good reasons, I'll admit), power is concentrated in Washington. There is no way a citizen has any influence on the power structure of a 300 million strong continental empire.

You also ignore the lack of choice. There has been a consensus, let us call it the corporate capitalist/empire consensus for over 100 years. Remind me how much choice we really have among the current three? Not much. I guess if you are happy with three flavors of toxic vanilla, you will talk happily about choice.

You also ignore recent history. The President, we are now told, basically is above the law and can do what he wants to "protect us." How is your individual vote going to impact that?

There may not be formal "tribes" running things, but there certainly is a class of people-who generally know each other, attend the same parties, go to the same schools, etc. I would also note how many Bush family members are in prominent positions nationwide.

But...the most important thing may be habits of the population. The Police break down the door and murder an 83 year old woman in the "bad" part of town? Well, that's too bad. She should have moved out of the drug war zone! A protestor is tasered to death? He deserved it! He should OBEY. Boy, we are a proud and free population!

Ash said...

brian,

Yeah, you are just one in a pool of 300 million. If you have roommate, a wife and kids, your freedom is constrained. Your freedom is constrained in many innumerable ways.

The prime purpose of a constitution is to (try) prevent a tyranny of the majority. Bush may claim to be above the law but simply making the claim, even with lawyers offering supporting opinions does not make him so. Hopefully he will be prosecuted. He seems most vulnerable on the wire tapping issue and the torture one.

Yes there is a ruling class, money plays a huge role, and the current move to limit the redistribution of wealth through estate taxes threatens to concentrate power in ever fewer hands. This still is not equivalent to the path to power in a dictatorship. Executing a coup in the US, or Canada, or Britain is much more difficult then in, say, Zimbabwe, or Congo, or Pakistan or Syria.

stillnotking said...

Even alone on an island you are a slave to you biological needs.

I can't be a slave to my own needs. My needs are my interests. Without biology I would have no needs or interests.

To say that your freedom under a dictator is equivalent to your freedom in the US seems absurd on its face.

To say that the differences outweigh the similarities would be even more absurd. Human beings are not much like chimpanzees... if you focus on the differences rather than the underlying, profound similarities. It's a question of perspective.

It is still perfectly rational to prefer to be a human being than a chimp, or to prefer living in a democracy to a dictatorship. Again, this is an observational rather than prescriptive exercise.

la Rana said...

Summary of Ash:

1) love it or leave it
2) if you stay then you consent, "I guess"
3) If you want a country to have consent-dependent rules and you want to actually live in such a place, you are eating the cake that you took and now have
4) Ethiopia's problems are the result of a compromised judiciary and justice department
5)No one is really free because fuck-all if I can't get good chinese take-out in this town
6) Living in a dictatorship is completely different than the US because we have a piece of paper that is completely different than their piece of paper, and their leaders, unlike ours, are usually related to previous leaders
7)The prime purpose of a democratic constitution is to inhibit majority rule
8) Bush is not above the law because some people think he violated the law
9) Everything you have said is correct but Zimbabwe is, like, a bitch these days

IOZ said...

Bush may claim to be above the law but simply making the claim, even with lawyers offering supporting opinions does not make him so.

This one wins the counterfactual assertion of the day award.

la Rana said...

But IOZ! Everything is true if you say it!

Ash said...

What, you disagree IOZ? If I get a lawyer to write a legal opinion it has the force of law? riiiight. Not even true in Bush's case.

Anonymous said...

What, you disagree IOZ? If I get a lawyer to write a legal opinion it has the force of law? riiiight. Not even true in Bush's case.

So when is he getting arrested again?

Anonymous said...

What, you disagree IOZ? If I get a lawyer to write a legal opinion it has the force of law? riiiight. Not even true in Bush's case.

So when is he getting arrested again?

la Rana said...

I'll indulge Plato and Kant when they prattle on about universal truth, knowledge and reason, but I draw the line at the assertion that man-made legality exists on some ethereal plane unaffected by human action.

Mr.Fundamental said...

No, no, no, no! Come, let’s away to prison:
We two alone will sing like birds i’ the cage:
When thou dost ask me blessing, I’ll kneel down,
And ask of thee forgiveness: so we’ll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues
Talk of court news; and we’ll talk with them too,
Who loses and who wins; who’s in, who’s out;
And take upon’s the mystery of things,
As if we were God’s spies: and we’ll wear out,
In a wall’d prison, packs and sects of great ones,
That ebb and flow by the moon.

Brian said...

To expand upon Anonymous 11:58...you are ignoring, Ash...some definitions of terms.

If by "I" you mean yourself (or myself), then your statement is certainly true. When our COMMANDER IN CHIEF (PBHN) is the "I," well...that's a little different. Similarly, some small town lawyer-who cares what he or she says? A top attorney in the Justice Department, again...a little different matter.

Remember: "Impeachment is off the table." Sounds like what said lawyer said is carrying a lot of weight.

Ash said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ash said...

Impeachment is a political process which enables the removal of the President from office. The President is not above the law...after writing that I thought I'd research it a bit. I came up with this:

"What we're talking about here is presidential immunity. The Constitution is silent on this question. It says the president can be impeached, but that raises as many questions as it answers. Can the president be indicted and tried? If so, must the president be impeached first? If convicted of a crime but not impeached, could the president be required to serve a sentence while still in office? If the president is impeached, does the double jeopardy clause prevent subsequent criminal prosecution on the same grounds? If the president can't be prosecuted while in office, what happens if the statute of limitations runs out before his term expires? If convicted while in office, could the president pardon himself?

The issue isn't a new one – delegates discussed it (briefly) at the Constitutional Convention, although nothing about presidential immunity made it into the Constitution. Regarding presidential wrongdoing, the Constitution says only the following:

"The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and misdemeanors."

But impeachment only removes the president from office. The Constitution makes clear that impeachment does not, on its own, prevent future prosecution:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

What scholars argue about is whether this language, Constitutional history, or public policy requires impeachment of a president before prosecution. The idea that a sitting president must be impeached before prosecution is called the sequentialist position, advocated by law professor Akhil Reed Amar among others.

Critics of the sequentialist school of thought point out several flaws in its logic. For one thing, few sequentialists argue that the vice president is immune from indictment while in office, and in fact Vice President Spiro Agnew was indicted prior to expiration of his term. In a 2000 survey of other cases of indictment without impeachment, professor Jonathan Turley points out that judges Robert Collins, convicted of bribery, obstruction of justice, among other things, and Harry E. Claiborne, convicted of tax evasion and filing a false financial statement, were incarcerated jurists who continued to receive their salaries in prison. Some accused federal judges have argued the sequentialist position but in every case the courts have ruled against them. Turley observes that "governors, high state officials, federal cabinet officers, and federal judges have been similarly subjected to criminal indictment and trial before removal."

Critics note that the Constitution explicitly grants limited immunity to representatives and senators under Article I, Section 6:

"The Senators and Representatives … shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

The fact that no such provision is made for a sitting president, they argue, suggests he's not immune to prosecution."

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mprezarrest.htm

la Rana said...

"Hey JOE! Can we get another shovel over here?! We're gettin' some real good work done. No point in giving up now."

Mr.Fundamental said...

ash, we don't want to remove him from the office. we would rather there not be an office.

now. what must it be like to be the President? I think that's an interesting question. to think that this is what 300 million people want, me in this office, here to do all of this, to have all of this power, to represent 300 million people. me? silly old me. and they hang on every word. every action. every memo. what did I do to deserve this?

Bush looks pretty bored with it.

---

how many of us are standing around watching ash, la rana?

la Rana said...

too many

Anonymous said...

Jesus la rana, I almost had kidney failure over that summation of ash's "points", such as they are. Fantastic stuff.

And Ash, jesus, give up while you're behind, dearie. It's just sad to see you dimly flailing like that.

Ash said...

hmmm, a bunch of bitter fags clinging to utopian dreams of anarchy? ;)

IOZ said...

I like the idea that the absence of an articulated Führerprincip somehow indicates that George Bush and Don Rumsfeld are going to end up at the Hague.

Anonymous said...

And out come the knives! Ouchies!

Seriously, my dude/dudette, you know you're flailing, right? Doncha? I mean, when you have to mischaracterize the position of those who have been so readily and hilariously handing you your rhetorical ass with a motherfuckin bow wrapped round it, you are clearly not winning the day. Where did anyone here say that anarchy would be utopia? Seems you still suffer from the delusion that because we are arguing that democracy is still a form of tyrrany we're somehow stumping for some pie in the sky utopian anarchist scenario by virtue of advancing that argument. We're not (at least I'm not). We have no answers. We belive in nuzzingk.

la Rana said...

"Whoa MIKE Whoa! Easy there, that's the kitchen sink you're holdin'. Without it the whole house'd fall apart."

Ash said...

It appears one need redefine tyranny to make that charge:

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
tyr·an·ny Audio Help (tÄ­r'É™-nÄ“) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. tyr·an·nies

1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: "I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (Thomas Jefferson).
4.
1. Use of absolute power.
2. A tyrannical act.
5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.

Brian said...

But...Ioz....there is a PROCESS...to remove our crawford Caligula. The mere existence of a PROCESS (which has been used what...twice?, despite multiple offenses against the Constitution over the decades) means you are WRONG. Not too many FAGS are lawyers, so I guess we don't understand the MACHO MAJESTY of the LAW. Bow before Ash, lawbringer. Or, at least copy-and-paster from Wikipedia

Brian said...

1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.

See the concept of the unitary executive promulgated, without EFFECTIVE opposition or resistence by the current regime.

2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.

See above.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: "I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (Thomas Jefferson).

GITMO, Extraordinary Renditions, Abu Ghraib (future) incineration of the entire Iranian population via nuclear holocaust.

4.
1. Use of absolute power.
See above.

2. A tyrannical act.
See above.

5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.
I would imagine the residents of Iraq, Somalia, the wedding party in Afghanistan, thousands killed in Panama during our little police action, the Philipinos, the Indian tribes, etc. etc. etc. might like this definition.

Anonymous said...

ash, you fucking moron, why are you throwing Thomas Jefferson's dead ass into the mix? What's he gonna do, crawl out of the ground, convert Monticello into a super-prison and lock Chimpy's ass up? Are you for fucking real?

Ash said...

chill dude, the Jefferson thang was just part of the quote pulled verbatim from the American Heritage Dictionary definition of Tyranny.

Ash said...

...and am I for real?

naw, just little black pixels on a screen, nothin' real in that.

stillnotking said...

Quoting Jefferson's words on the rule of law in 2008 America is like waving around a wad of Confederate currency at the local 7-11.

Brian said...

Given the current state of the dollar, they might actually take said wad of paper!

(thank you. thank you...I'll be here all weekend.)

Anonymous said...

After all this, I still don't know when Bush is getting arrested. Ash, clarification?

erin4iraq said...

Well I for one am glad you all have given up defending anything but your own helplessness and the pointlessness of your existence. Easy prey.

hipparchia said...

heya, brian! long time, no see.

yep, agreed about the ill effects of our empiricism. i've long thought that abe lincoln did the world no favors when he refused to let the confederacy take its toys and stomp off. but england, for one, before that empire broke up, belies the simplistic notion that we'd have been less dangerous if we were a series of smaller states.

i actually like the idea of anarchy myself, but that's because i and most of the folks around me are reasonbly good and sane people. it's just that 1% or so of the population that are sociopaths that we need to band together to protect ourselves from.

sigh... which means government. an ____archy or ___ocracy of some form or another. after looking around some... me, i'm kinda taken with the what the modern-day descendents of the vikings have come up with.

Leonard said...

which means government.

True.

an ____archy

False. Unless you're including "an" as a valid blank-filler. Anarchy does not mean absence of government; it means absence of the state. The two are different things.

Brian said...

leonard: I am by no means as well read as you, but I remain skeptical of this particular argument of the anarchists. I am not sure I buy the idea that a "State" is somehow completely unique form of coercive social governance. I would accept "degree" or "extent" or intrusiveness...but the pater familias or tribal council or shaman still wields coercive power. I'm not sure I want to live in a tiny clan group.

As Ioz himself pointed out, all societies involve some form of "coercion." Even if we were to somehow cut the earth's population back to 100 million or so, the hunter gatherer bands have pretty rigid codes and traditions and folkways etc. The chieftain, or head hunter or whatever still lays the law down to those who cannot confrom.

Maybe old Montana Ted K was right (bombs aside) and we should live in primitive bands. And they were certainly more egalitarian and freer than the current urban State. But, if you don't obey the rules, informal as they may be, you starve or die.

hipparchia said...

ok, leaving aside the eleventy-seven different definitions of anarchy, and a discussion of just how separable are 'state' and 'society', for the moment...

what brian said. except that i know i don't want to live in a tiny group, or even a medium-sized one, and i already know i'd never make it on my own a la ted k.

i like being one of 300,000,000. talk about being able to hide in plain sight. i like having a large, sprawling government with multiple factions that moves ponderously in fits and starts, if at all, because the -archs and the -crats can't agree on anything. let them have their illusions of power, keep them busy pushing back at each other, instead of trampling on me. i like being able to remove them from power every couple of years or so, just by taking a few minutes to make a black mark on a piece of paper.

so, can we start backing away from being an empire, but keep the best of the rest of it? ioz says no, and history would seem to back him up, but i don't like any of the other alternatives, so i'd kinda like to fix this one.

la Rana said...

Hipparchia, I worship IOZ like the next guy, but I happen to disagree with IOZ on this point. His error lies in not realizing that organization necessarily entails corruption and coercion. Once you accept that premise, impotent states start looking a hell of a lot better.

hipparchia said...

... organization necessarily entails corruption and coercion.

damn, i wish i'd been on my toes enough to come up with that.

yep. the trick is to keep the corruption petty and the coercion pointed away from the little people, as much as possible.

Brian said...

la rana and hipparchia: I don't know about the 300 million. My "compromise" would be a confederation of smaller polities that are a little less concentrated, have a much smaller military, and squabble a bit more. I want more localism, so give me a Republic of California. (Or....cue the evil mariachi music...a Republica de California aprez la Reconquista). Don't wanna live in a tribe, but a ever more centralized continental miltarized empire with hundreds of military bases around the world doesn't appeal to me any more. I like the concept of a continent of Denmarks. :)

Still, the sheer creaking inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the current monstrosity-that's a good point!

hipparchia said...

aprez la Reconquista

viva la reconquista!

a confederation of smaller polities that are a little less concentrated, have a much smaller military, and squabble a bit more.

the eu perhaps? i confess, it's a model i find attractive - kind of your 'continent of denmarks' but with diversity. and italian food. :)


agree with you on the militarized empire part of it, but there are things i like --coercions, to be precise-- that i like about the large centralized model. abortion, for instance. several states have legislation outlawing abortion entirely ready to enact if roe v wade is overturned. i don't expect to ever need one myself, but i'm happy to apply as much coercion as i can, whenver and wherever it's needed, to keep abortion safe, legal, and affordable for as many women as possible.