Sunny:

Dave S – I’m afraid in a large enough group of people this is impossible.

No Sunny, it’s not impossible, it’s just (apparently) beyond what you’ve thought about yet.

Besides, even if something is “impossible”, that doesn’t mean we can’t strive towards it and get most of the way there, arriving at a workable approximation.

Or we could sit around calling any sort of ideas about progressive change “impossible”, and then the status quo wins every time.

People said that the abolition of slavery was impossible. That women voting was impossible. That humans travelling to the moon was impossible.

If increasing equality within society so everybody’s voice is heard can be written off as “impossible” without even a second look, then to be honest we might as well just give up now.

When it comes to creating the type of society we want to create (whatever that might be), the only thing that stops us doing it is people saying things are “impossible” without even trying them.

There are plenty of ways it could be done – in fact, I even have a book which explains one of them in great detail.

Even if you think we couldn’t run absolutely everything this way, do you disagree that we could still run most things in society based on a localised decision making process involving the people the decision affects?

Certain people you cannot exclude because they are part of society and will still benefit if you went ahead with the service.

Anarchism isn’t about excluding anyone (with the exceptions of authoritarians and fascists, since there is no middle ground). As far as is physically possible, it is inclusive of absolutely everyone – even so-called “trouble makers”, as I’m sure you witnessed at Climate Camp. Nobody is left out or excluded.

In the type of society I wish to help create, it wouldn’t matter if someone benefitted from something without having to “pay” for it. In fact, mutual benefit and mutual ownership of everything is pretty much the basis by which such a society would function – by which crime would almost cease to exist overnight, since the opportunities in which much of it could take place would be virtually eliminated.

For example, defence spending,

I’ve got to stop you on that one. Nobody benefits from defence spending except arms manufacturers.

We all lose.

Yet who is it to protect us against? Usually other governments or people who want to tell others what to do.

Perhaps if we could all get over ourselves and stop being so stupid, we’d realise what a complete waste it is to invent (let alone use precious resources to build) sophisticated ways of killing each other.

All it takes for this to happen is for people to think for themselves and refuse to be told what to do by ANYBODY.

No army, no police, no politicians.

street lighting, public roads… even radio/television/web.

Do you have a problem with people getting things for free? Stuff that benefits everybody universally? Why?

What about berries in a hedge, or apples on a tree? Should someone be there collecting a toll every time they are eaten by passing strangers?

The world is full of price tags – all of them put there by humans – and none of them actually mean anything.

So you need to make people pay even if, let’s say for moral reasons, they don’t want to take part. If someone says they don’t want to pay the defence part of their taxes, they end up in jail. Simple as. Otherwise you have a mess of a society.

We already have a fucking mess of a society, and it is BECAUSE of politicians and people following what they are told to do like sheep.

So I defy your “impossible”. Some things may be extremely difficult, but we humans are at our best when faced with adversity.

but generally you need a body like the state to oversee it all…”

I’m not arguing against the existence of the State. I’m not arguing against taxation per se. I’m not even arguing that there are not public goods which can and should be provided through blanket taxation.
I’m taking issue with your statement that all public goods must necessarily be provided via blanket taxation.
Something which, belatedly, you seem to agree with….now.
Once we’ve agreed that, then the discussion can move on to which specific items should indeed be provided through blanket taxation. But you do need to accept that your original statement was wrong before we do so.

Dave S – I’m afraid in a large enough group of people this is impossible.

Certain people you cannot exclude because they are part of society and will still benefit if you went ahead with the service.

For example, defence spending, street lighting, public roads… even radio/television/web.

So you need to make people pay even if, let’s say for moral reasons, they don’t want to take part. If someone says they don’t want to pay the defence part of their taxes, they end up in jail. Simple as. Otherwise you have a mess of a society.

but generally you need a body like the state to oversee it all… and even build roads in the first place so people use them. Defence spending is another one you avoided mentioning.

Because the BBC is non-rivalrous, the free-rider problem makes it very difficult to fund it otherwise. You end up with a piss-poor example like PBS.

The free rider problem makes them irrelevant? What are you burbling about? That I get the Theory of gravity for free, thus making me a free rider, means that said theory is irrelevant? Or that the method of funding it was wrong?

It may well be that certain public goods are “better” provided by blanket taxation but it certainly isn’t true that they must be. Lighthouses are used as an example here: they’re paid for by lights dues, which are paid as part of harbour dues. That means that only those boats that dock at British (an Irish) ports pay for them, but any ships passing through British waters get to use them. Sure, they’re free riders. But it’s not a problem of sufficient magnitude that we’ve moved lighthouses into being paid for blanket taxation.
Having lifeboats is clearly something that is publically beneficial too….but they’re funded by charity, not taxation.

“By your definition the BBC is a public good because millions more can tune into TV and Radio without there being less for others. Agreed?”

Free to air broadcasts (whether ITV, Capital or the BBC) are indeed public goods. They are non-rivalrous and non-excludable. As you can see from those examples, there is no need for them to be funded by blanket taxation.

My point I think?

The only way to get around this would be to have a much more federal structure of government, very de-centralised, and then have regular debates and referendums about such laws.

That’s really very similar to the structure that would be proposed by many (maybe even most) anarchists; localised autonomous groups in free association with each other. I guess the main difference is that in an anarchist society, there is no coercion to take part in something you disagree with.

Assuming the decision making process was by consensus, you’d have various options at your disposal if you disagreed: stand aside (meaning you don’t take part but you don’t stop the group doing it), block the proposal (this requires a rethink and further discussion), or leave the group altogether (if it’s not mutually beneficial). There are other options available to help the process along – sometimes just taking a break and coming back to it later gives everyone time to reflect and reach an agreement.

Now, I agree consensus is a rather high thing to aim for, but it does actually work as long as the people involved are really committed to making it work – committed to respecting each other, treating each other as equals, and coming to a mutually agreeable conclusion.

That’s the aspect that would require quite a bit of “reprogramming” (for want of a nicer word) of our brains, since we’d need to reach the stage where we accept that involvement in a (possibly long-winded or somewhat difficult) co-operative decision making process is by far preferable to being ruled from above.

The crux of the is issue really: are you committed to having a real say in your life, or do you just want to be told what to do and have no choice in the matter?

I think it’s a no-brainer really, but clearly I’m probably in the minority here (if only in terms of how far most people have really considered or tried the idea).

Still, I think Peter Kropotkin described it rather well, when writing about how an anarchist-communist society would work:

“Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all conquests – individual liberty – and moreover extends it and gives it a solid basis – economic liberty – without which political liberty is delusive; it does not ask the individual who has rejected god, the universal tyrant, god the king, and god the parliament, to give unto himself a god more terrible than any of the proceeding – god the Community, or to abdicate upon its altar his [or her] independence, his [or her] will, his [or her] tastes, and to renew the vow of asceticism which he formally made before the crucified god. It says to him, on the contrary, ‘No society is free so long as the individual is not so!’”

“God the community”… heaven forbid it!

Rumbold:

But would anarchism in practice really foster solidarity? Even if 90% of people reacted in a positive way, the lawless behaviour of the other 10% may cause life to be unbearable.

This is a common argument used to put the case against anarchism, and I can completely understand where it’s coming from. It’s a difficult question, and one that I probably can’t give a short answer to (when can I ever?). However, there is actually a compelling answer to this, but I need to get my head together enough to be able to explain it without writing pages and pages again! I think it’s going to have to wait until tomorrow, as I’m absolutely knackered tonight! Watch this space…

Erm tim I’m sure you’ve done Economics too so I don’t know what you find insane about that. Public goods HAVE TO BE provided through blanket taxation because, as Sahil pointed out, the free-rider problem makes them irrelevant otherwise.

Lighthouses are a good example, but we also see National Defence and Roads as public goods, although if lots of people used them then obviously others can’t. By your definition the BBC is a public good because millions more can tune into TV and Radio without there being less for others. Agreed?

this is Transparency International’s defintition?

There’s a lot of discussion about defining corruption – academics, lawmakers, everyone.

The World Bank has this to say..

“..We challenge the conventional definition of corruption as the ‘abuse of public office for private gain’, making a distinction between legal and illegal forms of corruption, and paying more attention to corporate patterns of corruption (which also affect public corruption).

the The OECD, the Council of Europe and the UN conventions don’t define “corruption”, but establish a range of corrupt offences: “The OECD Convention establishes the offence of bribery of foreign public officials, while the Council of Europe adds trading in influence and bribing domestic public officials too. In addition, the UN Convention covers embezzlement, misappropriation of property and obstruction of justice. One frequently-cited conundrum is distinguishing illegal trading in influence from legal lobbying. The Council of Europe Convention criminalises trading of “improper influence”, i.e., there must be corrupt intent. The UN Convention only covers peddlers who “abuse” their influence. The glossary notes that international definitions of corruption for policy purposes are common, and cites “abuse of public or private office for personal gain” as a useful example for policy development.”

Not really if something is non rivalrous then we have a massive freerider problem. I remember this case illustrated by Shelling:

http://www.polisci.ucsd.edu/~bslantch/courses/gt/04-strategic-form.pdf

Page 31 in the PDF, where people see and accident, but no one ends up calling because they assume someone else will even though they care about the person in the accident. This is extreme example, but underfunded would be a merit good Tim.

Whatever I approve of, obviously. Slightly more seriously, a State strong enough to protect citizen’s rights and weak enough not to threaten them.

“Public Goods would not exist if everyone wasn’t forced to pay for them.”

Sunny, that’s an insane statement. Public Goods are not, as you seem to think, things provided publically, nor are they things provided from taxation. They are things which are non rivalrous and non excludable.

The Theory of Gravity is a public good. Lighthouses are a public good (and as one of the UK’s Nobel Laureates, Ronald Coase, pointed out, they were not and are not provided from taxation). Knowledge is a public good.

Now it is true that theory then goes on to say that public goods will be “underprovided” unless there is taxpayer subsidy, but there is absolutely nothing that states that public goods “must” be funded by taxation.

Your very statement shows that you simply don’t know what a public good is.

“While traditionally anarchism is considered part of the leftist milieu, I often think it departs from there in rather interesting ways – ways that would (expectedly) hold considerable appeal for those on the libertarian right.

While I don’t doubt that I am pretty much “left-wing”, I really have no urge for any “dictatorship of the proletariat” or anything at all like that! (Actually, me and my anarchist chums regularly have a good laugh at the crazy antics of the authoritarian left… what a bunch of nutters!).”

Spot on. Good man.

“Society isn’t going to change overnight, but with a concerted effort, solidarity with each other and a different type of enlightened upbringing (bear in mind how much kids get drummed full of dog-eat-dog mentality in school), I really believe it would work.”

But would anarchism in practice really foster solidarity? Even if 90% of people reacted in a positive way, the lawless behaviour of the other 10% may cause life to be unbearable.

Sunny:

“Small govt could still pass laws that favour its own constituency. The Republilcan party, under Reagan (when it favoured big corporations) and now under Bush (when it has favoured Christian evangelicals) has used the law to shore up its fanbase rather than handing out money.

So the problem doesn’t go away… because in effect a govt could make it easier for companies to pollute (thus harming us) or give them legal advantages (biased against individuals) which amounts to the same.

The only way to get around this would be to have a much more federal structure of government, very de-centralised, and then have regular debates and referendums about such laws.”

The point Tim, Morgoth and I were making was that a smaller government will still spend money in the same way, but it will just have less of our money to spend so the distortion/damage will be less. Reagan’s reign is not easily classified as small-government, for though he preached minimalism, he still spent massive amounts of taxpayers’ money.

I am not sure why decentralised government will help, though I am generally in favour of stregthening local government. Regional government would be just as bad as central government mind.

“Unfortunately, if we only had the choice of commercially driven news organisations, like the Daily Mail, this debate would not happen nationally because they’d be too busy chasing up politically correct doctors or fundo-Muslims.”

Heh- I knew that sooner or later it would be the Daily Mail’s/Melanie Phillips’ fault.

Rumbold – I’m afraid I don’t agree with the view taken by yourself or Tim that small governments are the best way forward.

A small govt could still pass laws that favour its own constituency. The Republilcan party, under Reagan (when it favoured big corporations) and now under Bush (when it has favoured Christian evangelicals) has used the law to shore up its fanbase rather than handing out money.

So the problem doesn’t go away… because in effect a govt could make it easier for companies to pollute (thus harming us) or give them legal advantages (biased against individuals) which amounts to the same.

The only way to get around this would be to have a much more federal structure of government, very de-centralised, and then have regular debates and referendums about such laws.

Unfortunately, if we only had the choice of commercially driven news organisations, like the Daily Mail, this debate would not happen nationally because they’d be too busy chasing up politically correct doctors or fundo-Muslims

See, what I find interesting about anarchism is that (with perhaps the exception of those who wish to rake in *serious* physical riches and/or exercise supreme dictatorial power – but we’re never going to find common ground with such sociopaths) I think it has potential for almost universal appeal.

While traditionally anarchism is considered part of the leftist milieu, I often think it departs from there in rather interesting ways – ways that would (expectedly) hold considerable appeal for those on the libertarian right.

While I don’t doubt that I am pretty much “left-wing”, I really have no urge for any “dictatorship of the proletariat” or anything at all like that! (Actually, me and my anarchist chums regularly have a good laugh at the crazy antics of the authoritarian left… what a bunch of nutters!)

Still, I’m confident I would fare just as well as anybody in a right-libertarian society – though my affinity with the planet and desire for universal equality are my main reasons for not desiring such a society. In some ways it would be a step in the correct direction, but money can be every bit as much a small state with it’s own dictators, as actual countries can. I think the trouble with a libertarian society based on the free market is that really, it’s only a libertarian society for those with the capital, and it’s still going to result in ecological meltdown.

So this is really why I have my fascination with anarchism, and why I believe it’s a credible, formidable political position – more relevant to where we are now than it has ever been in history.

Ultimately, if we can cast off incorrect assumptions and deliberate misinformation about it, I think it can actually unify many aspects of the left and the right, in the way that we can all be “rich beyond our wildest dreams” (though I’m talking about more than material possessions). Not at the expense of each other, or to the detriment of each other’s personal liberty – but in free co-operation with each other.

I detest the idea that we are all the same, or that we should all think the same way or have the same desires in life. Again, I think anarchism really delivers here, because one of it’s central ideas is that nobody knows what is best for you better than you do yourself.

What I am interested in is where there is common ground for coming together with others, to get on with sorting out what’s mutually agreeable for us all.

I couldn’t give a crap whether you think you’re left, right, whatever… we all live here, and we need to get along. Bickering over differences needs to be left in the dustbin of history, where it belongs along with those party politicians who’ve perfected it’s pointless ways.

Anarchists generally don’t expect other anarchists to agree with them. In fact, I have never met another anarchist I had exactly the same views as, and I have met a LOT of anarchists! But this is the point – far from being a stone pillar, anarchy is a living praxis, that fully expects to have to resolve disputes and disagreements. It is simply a level playing field, so that such disputes and disagreements can be resolved in as peaceful and fair a way as possible.

Society isn’t going to change overnight, but with a concerted effort, solidarity with each other and a different type of enlightened upbringing (bear in mind how much kids get drummed full of dog-eat-dog mentality in school), I really believe it would work.

Moving on, in reply to Mangles as well as yourself – to quote Leo Tolstoy:

“Even if the absence of Government really meant Anarchy in the negative, disorderly sense of that word – which is far from being the case – even then no anarchical disorder could be worse than the position to which Governments have already led their peoples, and to which they are leading them.”

I never think of anarchy as being an “end” or an “answer”, but a constant process that will result in the best overall solution. It’s simply a way of working things out and taking responsibility for ourselves in the equation, rather than expecting someone else to do it for us.

This (in part) is why at the weekend, I proposed to discuss aspects of anarchism in depth on here sometime – because I’d like to explain my take on it a little more, and demonstrate how it relates to the issues we’re faced with today.

I really don’t consider myself an “expert” on it – but also, that is an area where I think it delivers again. Anarchism (and thus politics in general) should not be some complex, distant thing requiring “experts” to deal with it for us. Politics is a very real thing, affecting us all, and any adult should be able to understand it, formulate a reasoned point of view, and reach an agreeable, respectful compromise with others.

Accessibility and transparency are again, the point – because openness, mutual trust and respect are the best overall protection against corruption and misuse of power.

No “enforcing” needed, Mangles!

Excellent post, but I especially agreed with this bit:

“No, what’s really needed, is for us to join the dots and realise that nobody is willing or capable of representing us but ourselves. Then, we must recognise that those who are currently at the steering wheel will never willingly give up their control, or even hand back small bits of it – we’re going to have to take it back, and it’s probably not going to be pretty. They will try to denounce us, divide us, and use their full arsenal – the press, police, military, other members of the public – to hold us back.”

As a small-government libertarian I often find the notion of anarchism rather attractive, though think that it would not work so well in practice. I respect true anarchists like you though (as opposed to those who complain about all rules until it suits them to enforce the power of the state).

ZinZin:

Heh.