"Two questions:
1) How was Medieval anarchic Icerland horrific?
2) It is possible to have a voluntary, non-state "we", so there must be
some other necessary distinction."
As to 1) all I can say is that Medieval Iceland doesn't exist anymore, nor do I remember any classes explaining the great contributions Medieval Iceland made to world culture, whereas I DO seem to remember a number of advances made by mixed economy nations, such as Britain, the United States, Germany, and France. This brings to mind the problem I see with many Libertarians and Libertarian/Anarchists. The examples they choose of "good" states/societies generally demonstrates the fallacy of the arguments their proponents advance. Rothbard admires Medieval Ireland and laments its inability to deal the bad, centralized, militaristic English. Well, my response is that societies that can not deal with their neighbors and prosper, probably were not very good societies. Medieval Icaland may have been a nice place, what did it accomplish?
As to 2) I thought it fairly obvious that we were discussing the "State" not state and society... If I must I say the "state" is that entity that has the legitimate authority for the use of proactive violence. In a number of societies, generally those considered "Western" we have that distinction between Civil/voluntary society and the "state." I would give my definition for the essential characteristic of the state. I simply argue that an all encompassing "state" or a non-existent "state" provide bad outcomes. In fact, I would argue that the absence of the state leads, more often than not, to the creation of the all encompassing state. As the anarchy of no state leads to the Chaos of no state, examples, Beirut 1975 until 1990 (?) Somalia 1992 to present.
When no state exists we have the Hobbesian world of the war by all against all. To escape that disaster, what generally emerges is an authoritarian state, to quell the chaos. It "makes the trains run on time" and that's what people will accept rather than the "freedom" of anarchy.
So, I come back to the point, we need to debate at the margins about the proper mix of "me" and "us" in society and the state's role in this intermediation. Personally, I accept that Libertarian domestic polices are often the best. But only from a Utilitarian view point. They work and work well for most people, however, as a basis for society, they would be abject failures. Their needs to be an "us" that can restrain the various "me's" that make up a society.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Foldvary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 5:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: going on about 'statists'
--- "Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... A world with the all inclusive
> Corporatist State or NO state would all be equally horrific. So, we
> debate at the margins of the "middle" ground for the best mix of "us"
> and "me" that works best.
Two questions:
1) How was Medieval anarchic Icerland horrific?
2) It is possible to have a voluntary, non-state "we", so there must be
some other necessary distinction.
Fred Foldvary
=====
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
