It appears that the Roman Catholic church's double strategy of openly attacking homosexuals while covering up for dozens or hundreds of paedophile priests has backfired on them most horribly.
88% of respondents to last week's Fun Online Poll though that a Roman Catholic priest was more likely to sexually molest a child than a gay adoptive couple.
Thanks to everybody who took the time to vote.
--------------------------------------
This week's Fun Online Poll asks a more fundamental question: "Is land ownership possible in the absence of a 'state'"?.
The faux-libertarians like to rail against 'the State', and I'd agree that half of what most governments do is either a waste of money or economically or socially damaging. Some of them appear to think that 'the State' oppresses landowners or homeowners and that 'the State' can somehow be overthrown and landowners and homeowners can live freely.
This can't possibly be true - if the State shut itself down, sacked all the police, deleted all the records at HM Land Registry and shut down the court system, you'd find very quickly that land and houses would become nigh worthless. 'So what.', the faux-libertarians continue 'I'll buy myself a shotgun.' although they forget to add '...and remain physically present 24/7, thus reducing my earnings potential to subsistence farming'. So those who are most willing to use force and violence would end up in occupation of various plots of land.
We know that anarchy never prevails for long - neighbours would get together to form their own vigilante groups or share duties, so ultimately a new 'State' would emerge, and the first thing that neighbouring 'landowners' would do is to rewrite the Land Registry and agree, for the collective benefit of themselves and to the collective detriment of everybody else, that protecting their 'title' to their own plots would be paramount, which would enable them to abandon subsistence farming and pursue more profitable activities.
So it strikes me that 'landownership' and the existence of 'a State' are more or less inseparable, one is more or less impossible without the other.
Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.
A grim document
5 hours ago
12 comments:
Well, if you define "state" to mean almost any kind of collective action including that which is voluntary, as you describe above, then I'd agree that it's essential for land ownership.
But, to me "the state" is an organisation that claims the monopoly on coercion/violence &c., and we could have land ownership without such a thing.
K, explain how land ownership (i.e. the right to collect ground rents, not the right to exclusive possession) would work in the absence of coercion or force.
MW, I did not say that the absence of the state would result in an absence of coercion or force, but that "the state" could mean an organisation that claims a monopoly on these things. Take away the monopoly and one might find various competing (or cooperating) groups claiming the right to use violence and coercion against others (e.g. for ejecting trespassers) against those who won't cooperate.
So, I'm basically agreeing with you but quibbling over definitions. For example, I read your use of 'anarchy' to mean 'disorder', which there would certainly be if the state suddenly vanished until such time as something else sprung up to take its place. If this were to start happening tomorrow I expect that that something would be rather like a state as I don't think the general population is particularly keen on anarcho-capitalism.
Note: I don't particularly subscribe to any particular view, I've not thought about it enough. However, in your analysis you've picked the worst possible outcome and treated it as fact.
Here's an alternative.
- I buy a shotgun, and continue to go to work. I now work half of the time I used to since the state isn't taking all my money.
- My wife does the same.
- There can now be someone on site 24/7 with a shotgun.
- Previously, for someone who wanted to steal from me, they faced the risk of being caught and put in prison. Now they face the risk of being dead.
As you say, the next step is the forming of a 'State' were groups would get together for their common good. I would argue that the key difference that makes this 'State' not a real state is that they all do so entirely voluntarily, and can leave whenever they wish.
I don't disagree that statehood is inevitable, but I don't think it's for the reasons you state. More it is because committees never work. In the end someone has to make decisions, in fact, I believe that even a mediocre decision maker is better than no decision maker.
If you've ever been anywhere near a neighbourhood community meeting you will know exactly what I mean.
as regards the lander registry, my understanding was that while scotland had the register of sasines for about 400 years
england only got a land registry in the 70s
prior to this it's who holds the deeds that defines the land etc
Yes but the slanted poll and the opening paragraph hardly follow.
Andy, the problem is when your wife comes home from work and finds your body dumped on the street and different people, also brandishing shotguns, now in your house.
- There can now be someone on site 24/7 with a shotgun.
Apart from what Mark said (and they may have AK47s, or a 81mm mortar, rather than shotguns), in this scenario how can you take your wife out on a date? Holidays?
forming of a 'State' were groups would get together for their common good ... they all do so entirely voluntarily, and can leave whenever they wish.
Lets says that my land is entirely surrounded by land owned by such a group. Decent folk, co-operating for mutual benefit and protection. Can I get protection provided by them for free? Might they decide that this is a bit unfair on them, and collectively decide to "tax" me for the services they provide?
@Mark,
Ah the "what if" game...
Or, my wife comes home to find five dead potential raiders, who I've shot -- why is your outcome the only possibility? Anything is possible in a hypothetical. I was merely contradicting your point that it was impossible to be on site 24/7, and be reduced to subsistence farming.
Also, you allow that these raiders can group together for their common good and that that doesn't constitute a "state", but if I get together with my neighbours, that does constitute a state?
You are rewriting the rules of the game as you go to make your point.
If I have an agreement with my neighbours beforehand that anyone who takes our property will suffer the wrath of the group, then when my wife returns, she will simply raise the alarm and the raiders get shot. Once that is known, raiders would stay away from the start, making the whole point moot.
The essential argument for anarchy being a workable system is that there are more decent people in the world than not. That most will not try to profit at the expense of others.
Having reread your argument, I also note that is is self contradictory: "land and houses would become nigh worthless" and yet these raiders will want to acquire it -- why, I thought it was worthless?
At present we live in a world were those who are willing to step outside the boundaries have no reasonable sanction. A single thug in a train carriage can effectively terrorise everybody else in it simply because he is willing to take actions that they will not. If the rest of the (we assume decent types) carriage knew that there would be no sanctions against them, and they were conditioned to standing up for themselves rather than simply complaining "someone should do something about this", that thug would find himself in a world of trouble.
I am not advocating anarchy. Simply pointing out that you've constructed your hypothetical situation very carefully to make it match your opinion.
I don't disagree with your point, I think property rights (in fact any rights) inevitably lead to statehood, but it's not because of the fear mad max coming to take my land.
Andy, yes, this is largely hypotheticals, but your final comment "I think property rights (in fact any rights) inevitably lead to statehood..." is what I am basically driving at; the reverse is also true - even in Communist countries land and buildings 'belonged' to somebody (the government) and by and large people and businesses had exclusive possession of where they lived or produced.
Mark, do you think that what this fellow describes as a means of ordering his ideal society is a "state"? Clearly he thinks that it isn't.
K, Lew makes a lot of good points, but what he is railing against is 'Big Government' and not the existence of 'a State' in the narrower sense (i.e. accepting that some things are best done collectively with the threat of force).
Post a Comment