@ BM and DB

Quasi-anarchy, in other words, very small, weak government. Yes that would be great. If we could get to that and make it last, or maybe even if we couldn't make it last, hallelujah, the promised land. However in different colonies, and at different times, there were far different situations. The tyranny of the Puritans is clrealy not anarchy, or even quasi-anarchy, and that is only one example. The long quasi-anarchic period you are refering to was facilitated by the far away British overlords, by their combination of forbidding strong (though perhaps effective is a better word) colonial governments and "benign neglect". After the revolution, and even after adoption of the constitution there was always the frontier, with millions of square miles of good, nearly empty land, to keep the states at least a little less intrusive than they probably wanted to be.

Even the most tyrannical old regiems were not nearly as intrusive as modern governments, even those in places we still think of as free. The busybody impulse has many sources but Marx, and those he inspired to destroy The West, are most to blame. The centralizing and decentralizing forces have been at war for as far back as we can see. It is not just people against government, it is people against people as well. The thought, 'there ought to be a law' is easy to form. In fact I sure wouldn't mind if they came and stopped my neighbor's dog from barking right now. Yet I'm glad to live in such a small and easy going town that he doesn't have to worry about a lawman knocking on his door (or kicking in his door) for such a trivial reason.

The basic reason that this war has become more prominent now is that more people can see the lies. DB contends that the internet is the reason for this, and of course you are right but there is another major reason. The lies of the centralizers are more obvious, because at first they took what seemed to be baby steps, the boiling frog. They never had a good argument in the first place, so the further steps they want to take are more obviously tyrannical, and following one another in ever greater profusion.

I can't say that we have been going downhill freedom wise since the beginning. It has been a bumby ride until recently. Each war has made it worse and the aftermath has seen a relaxation. Bernays allowed them to hammer at us continuously. Political theater is no longer fooling as many as it did but it will never stop, and it will always convince some.

Whatever other circumstances made American more free than other places, the frontier magnified them. Sparce population may well be a major reason the dark age Germanic reagions were as free as they were. The Russians sold us Alaska because it was so far away but also because it was so sparcely populated that they could not effectively administer it. It must have been gloriously free. The only reason I went to college was to try to build a beanstalk, so that we would once again have a frontier.

I have never thought that the global government fools could make such a thing last but that does not mean that they won't get much closer to forming it than they are now. I'm with you. Less government, yes all the way down to nothing, I don't think we can get there but go ahead try. In the mean time, we draw new targets on our backs every day. And we do ourselves no favors by scaring those who see the growing darkness but who nevertheless fear anarchy, whether their fears are well founded or not.

You are not preaching to the choir by trying to convince me, because I am not in the choir. I am paying attention but not just to you.

From what I can tell, the modern Libertarian/Capitolist/Anarchist phenomenon came from Rothbard but he described alot of other things besides anarchy in early America. Power elite analysis is a very good way of looking at history but I like to look at in in other ways as well. I wish that I had heard of it fourty years earlier.

Wish in one hand...

I have not gotten to the reading, give me some time.

@ DB "The US was birthed in anarchy and has been in decline from a freedom standpoint ever since."

Just incorrect. Have you never heard of the Articles of Confederation? It was this voluntary confederation of states that made it possible for the states to throw off British rule. That's not anarchy. It was 'enough government to settle domestic disputes and keep foreign powers off our backs'. So it is possible to contrive the 'right amount' of government. Unfortunately, this was unacceptabel to British central banksters who have contrived through the Constitution to do away with the Article of Confederation and thence to re-colonize us through central banking.

@taxes, thank you for giving some consideration to my post.

---------------

It seems clear that the government model - certainly the one practiced in the last 100 years - is an obvious failure. Anyone living in central and eastern Europe or East Asia (as two examples) would gladly have taken much less formal government during this time.

One of the (many) interesting insights I drew from Scott's book was the idea that where people had a choice, they stayed out of the government controlled areas and stayed in the areas of so-called anarchy. The state never turned away willing volunteers, and few voluntarily rushed in to be co-opted by the state. Was the purpose of the Great Wall to keep invaders out, or to keep the captured slaves (for that is, after all, one of the main methods by which such regimes were populated) in?

One other era from which I have drawn interesting insights on this matter is during the early middle ages in Germanic Europe - the dark ages, another time period we are supposed to ignore. This time and culture offers an interesting take on the relationship of king, vassal, and law. To make a long story short, the law was above both king and vassal, and every vassal had a veto power over the king - as long as he could show his reason for veto in the law - law being that which was 'old' and 'good,' custom and culture based, if you will. If there is any interest, I offer the following link with a few posts based on the work done by Fritz Kern in Germany and published in 1914:

Click to view link

(They appear newest to oldest, but I would suggest reading in date order).

What seems certain is the process of centralizing nation-states is failing. The USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia all have broken into component parts. The EU? Even tiny Belgium, or Spain? As promises of the nation-state are breaking, the faith will fall away. Take away the faith and their will be little support.

Two authors, with infinitely better credentials than I have, see the breakup of the nation-state model coming. Jacques Barzun, 'From Dawn to Decadence' and Martin van Creveld 'The Rise and Decline of the State.' Their credentials are impeccable. They come at this from different angles, and reach similar conclusions. However, we see this crumbling before our eyes. I need no further evidence.

Gary North has written a review of these two books. They are the second and third books covered in this article (although the entire article deals with this subject):

Click to view link

I don't fool myself into believing that anarchy (meaning self-rule, or no-ruler) will come into being anytime soon, and likely not ever. However, I am certain it cannot if we keep discussing 'better regulation' or the possibility of choosing 'good leaders' as the solution. My view is simple: by aiming (with ideas) for the target with the least monopolized coercion as basis for organizing society, there is at least some chance of coming close to the bulls-eye. By aiming for some muddled version of status quo, there is only the certainty of achieving some version of the status quo.

I believe I have mentioned this here previously, so apologies in advance: every major religion teaches some form of the golden rule. It seems to me that there are billions of people who have some version of this in their DNA. It suggests that there is, perhaps, a good foundation upon which to build.

@WD

Your first paragraph basically says the same thing I did. Anarchy is ended by new government, often, though not always, going through a stage that no one thinks of as legitimate.

Jefferson's dream is very nice but that is all I can call it. I wish we had it. I wish that we could come up with a way to achieve it, even if only after our deaths. Jefferson also thought the French Revolution was a great thing.

I don't know of any examples from history that fit your critierion. Perhaps I will learn of some from Bionic Mosquito's suggested reading. I will go at it with gusto and an open mind, though I've yet to find examples that satisfied me in this area either.

Any situation that gets the powerful off of the backs of everyone else has always been and always be temporary, and the money they control has now gotten to be so much that temporary may well be very short or even not at all from now on. That is of course the coming real crisis is so bad that it kills most of us, not something to be hoped for, except maybe by them.

I wish I could show you your peaceful solution, or even any other solution.

Wish in one hand...

Reply from The Daily Bell

The Mosquito is correct about anarchy. As Rothbard points out, a quasi-anarchy worked well even in the "states" prior to the revolutionary war.

The US was birthed in anarchy and has been in decline from a freedom standpoint ever since. It took a Civil War and a million dead to change the political culture - and even then the US has not entirely changed, which is why it remains such a target.

BM

I almost missed that TBAON, you could call me taxes.

In populations as small as I am refering to the level of "government" would vary all the way from: suggestions from the oldest and or wisest of the group, to absolute tyranny, and at any level would most likely not be recorded as "government".

If the gatekeepers of education did allow this information to "come forth" it would be mostly disconnected tidbits. Not necessarily a waste of time, but not usually very useful either.

I won't dispute the veracity of Clastres. It seems pretty sensible to me, though there are other ways of looking at history.

One reason older societies had less of the craziness of today is that most of the members of them had never even thought of such crazy things. Now we have all been exposed to reality that is so much weirder than any fiction could ever be, that it will be hard get to anything any of us might call normal, without most of the information we have ever recorded being destroyed first. And yes that is of course purely opinion.

I will give Scott's book, and your article, and Clastres a thorough reading, but not tonight.

@ DB @ taxesbyanyothername

I understand the statists think government is the 'common man's' only defense against the powerful living off the weak. I also understand that libertarians are, so far, correct in that government/law has always been bought by money power. What I do not accept is that anarchy is a solution to the strong living off the weak. DB asks how much government is enough. Well, how much anarchy is enough? Under total anarchy, i.e. every man for himself, money power quickly buys enough muscle to steal everything of value. Under total government, the government quickly steals everything of value. The result is, in both cases, the warlords lord it over humanity and restrict its development to only that which maintains thier power, which is the poorest existence for mankind.

Jefferson dreamed of a government just powerful enough to keep outside forces off our back and allow the orderly settlement of domestic disputes. A good answer to how much government is enough, meaning any more than that is too much. Hamilton dreamed of a brave new world. Behind Hamilton were the banksters who bought their way to victory and who own us now.

What I am looking for is a peaceful solution to how we keep the rich off the backs of everyone else. What I do not see is how total anarchy favors humanity over money power.

I await examples of actual history that proves or even reinforces anarchy as a solution to anything but the quick and total control of money power.

DB: So here is our question to you: How much government is too much. And another: How much is too little? Good luck!

BM: This is really good. I truly admire the wisdom in the simplicity.

TBAON: …rather because only in tiny, or extremely nieve populations does anarchy last for any significant period.

BM: not so. It is believed to be true only because a) those that lived in quite decentralized, even anarchic, societies didn't bother recording their history, and b) there is no incentive for the gatekeepers of education to allow this knowledge to come forth:

Click to view link

From 'The Art of NOT Being Governed,' by James C. Scott:

It is said that the history of peoples who have a history is the history of class struggle. It might be said with at least as much truthfulness, that the history of peoples without history is a history of their struggle against the state.

- Pierre Clastres, La societé contre l'état

@WD

The most ruthless will always gain power; no governmental system, whatever its form, strength, or absence can stop that. We can delay it, and we can overturn it, but we can not indefinitely stop it.

Although I claim Libertarian I do not advocate anarchy. That is not because I think government is better but rather because only in tiny, or extremely nieve populations does anarchy last for any significant period. Either the most ruthless take control in short order, or others stop them from doing so by establishing what by most would be termed "legitimate government" or by taking over themselves.

Yes Glass-Steigall did limit the manner and scope of their depredations. Yet I maintain that they did away with it as and when they decided to, and not later.

Theoretically it is possible for any sort of monopoly to form, and to maintain itself, simply by serving its customers better than anyone else can. In practice this never happens. Only through the collusion of government is depredation on the present scale possible. And money power always gains control over government.

Whatever its form, and however it is used, monopoly of force is all that government is. In the early years of our country this was recognized by most people, and they thus kept governmental power down better than we have. The whole 20th century crushed that.

War, crisis and propaganda followed each other closely for nearly the entire time.
1896 Cross of Gold
1898 Spanish-American War, overseas empire, philippine fighting drags on
1901 McKinley assination
TR progressive
1907 panic
1911 Standard Oil Trust dismembered, muck rackers
1913 16th, 17th, Fed
WWI
WW constitutional professor, president
Loss of innocence followed by
Prohibition
Great Depression
WWII
Cold War
Korean War
Cold War continues
Vietnam
All of the crazyness of the 60s
Ditto 70s
Reagan military build up
The fall of the Soviet Union should have ended this but
Gulf War, perhaps the most lopsided battle in history
Clinton
dotcom bubble
9/11
The "reaction" of baby Bush, and his daddie's friends to their contrived attack.
Once again a "constitutional professor" and his progressive cabal.

Intellectual and emotional acceptance of government necessity is ingrained. We got it from our parents, just like they did.

Instead of reacting to this post, think about what YOU are actually talking about.

@ DB re: "Why are you so focused on telling other people what to do?"

I am not telling anyone what to do. I am only pointing out the lack of the workability of returning to the wild wild west and anarchy.

Why are you so focused on telling other people what to do? Why are you so intent on delivering up the field, without a fight, to money power, which is nothing more than the tyranny of the most ruthless?

Reply from The Daily Bell

We hadn't noticed we are delivering "up the field." However, your comparison of the Wild, Wild West (an elite meme) to "anarchy" (the absence of government) is quite revealing. You seem to believe a lack of government is unworkable. So here is our question to you: How much government is too much. And another: How much is too little? Good luck!

@ taxesbyanyothername

Glass-Steigall did prevent investment banking from using the rest of the banking system as a piggy bank for their insane speculation. No one is claiming that it did anything more. Does that mean that law is the solution to keeping the strong from living off the weak? Certainly not if money power is allowed to buy government. The solution to that problem may be the only peacful solution obtainable. The only worse system would be a regime of no law or law which applies to the weak but not the strong and connected, which is what we have now. I do not buy the libertarian dream of financial anarchy. It amounts to the wild wild west where the most ruthless ruled, hardly an environment where investment by any but the most ruthless could flourish.

@ bionic mosquito

No, I do not believe government and law/regulation can be a solution to central bankster control if the banksters are allowed to 'own' the government, which is now the case. In effect we already have what the financial anarchy libertarians dream of, all run efficiently by and for money power. Until we develop government and law which can not be bought by money power, government and law will only be any extension of money power. That does not mean anarchy without government and law would be any better. It would soon devolve into what we have now except with lotsa murders and no police. I submit that unless we develop and enforce law that prevents money from gaining control of it, there will be no workable, peaceful solution.

Reply from The Daily Bell

"I submit that unless we develop and enforce law that prevents money from gaining control of it, there will be no workable, peaceful solution."

Why are you so focused on telling other people what to do?

WD: Let's see, they've assassinated presidents, started wars and generally proved they will do anything to maintain their present state of parasitism. Am I scared of that? Right down to my socks, brother!

BM: Yet somehow you believe that legislation will pass that will both a) reign them in, and b) not upset them at the same time?

Please explain this. The whole point of DB's article is that a Rothschild WANTS regulation. Do you think he wants regulation that will reign him in?

Come on, get real.

@WD

"While it did not repeal the parasite of central banking, Glass-steagall did prevent the financial holocaust that ensued with its repeal."

It did not prevent the stag-flation of the late'70s-early '80s, and only the wisdom, and more particularly the courage of Paul Volker prevented that from becoming a prolonged depression.

It did not prevent the feel good '90s floating on a sea of fictional money, that we no longer think of as a sea of fictional money because it has gotten so much bigger.

Glass-Steagall lasted exactly as long as the big money wanted it to, and didn't prevent them from doing much of anything. Basically it just forced them to hire more accountants, lawyers, lobbists and politicians than they wanted to, and those very accountants, lawyers, lobbists and politicians are kicking our a$$es to this day.

Re: Bionic Mosquito

While it did not nullify the parasite of central banking, Glass-Steigall did prevent the financial holocaust that ensued with its repeal.

Am I scared of the wrath of the Rothschilds? Let's see, they've assassinated presidents, started wars and generally proved they will do anything to maintain their present state of parasitism. Am I scared of that? Right down to my socks, brother!

I say again, it may be self satisfying to recommend taking on the war lords, but until you convince the American people that it is once again worth risking it all to do so, your efforts are futile with the exception of showing everyone how clever you aren't.

"When this man is part of a family worth an estimated $500 trillion we need to pay attention to what they say." …. Posted by oldman67 on 01/09/13 07:09 PM

Why, oldman67? Are they more intelligent with such family worth or more vulnerable to intelligence which is priceless?

And with worlds getting considerably smarter and quicker than ever was ever possible before with the selfless internetworking and communicating of sensitive and formerly, wrongly thought, totally secure and secret information, if they are not fielding the best intelligence will they be forever engaged in increasingly revealing efforts to try and retain fortunes which are no longer theirs to administer and enjoy.

I am stepping all over it today:

"... truly effective regulation by government... "

An impossibility, I know. But an within the realm of possibility by those who call for government regulation.

WD, I may have misunderstood your comment, and replied according to that misunderstanding:

WD: What I do not hear being discussed are the dangers of incurring the wrath of the biggest accumulation of wealth the world has ever seen, namely the Rothschilds and associate City of London banksters who created and still live off the central banking system.

BM: I can read it to mean that you are afraid of their wrath, what they might do if somehow free markets replace central banking.

If this is your meaning, I have no comment to make - other than: why do you believe their wrath will be any less if truly effective regulation by government is implemented?

WD: So we are going to have to accept either a vastly smaller and weaker central government without central banking or controls like Glass-Steagall to prevent the boom/bust excesses of central banking.

BM: Somehow this is a difficult question for you?

WD: What I do not hear being discussed are the dangers of incurring the wrath of the biggest accumulation of wealth the world has ever seen, namely the Rothschilds and associate City of London banksters who created and still live off the central banking system.

BM: It is discussed regularly here. You want to deal with the dangers brought on by central banks by not dealing with central banks?

WD (paraphrased): Please, please, please Mr. Government, properly regulate the same entities that breathe life into your soul, the ones who will cut off your funding if you actually propose and implement any regulation in a manner of which they do not approve. Do so for the sake of the little people. You will make them very happy and they will like you a lot. We will eveninvite you to little Johnnie's birthday party. We have good chocolate cake.

BM: Rest assured, if some version of Glass-Steagall is again implemented it will be a version approved by and enforced in a manner acceptable to those same people who live off of the current banking system, the ones accumulating all of the wealth.

Our economic system is completely dependent on our political system.
If the management is corrupt, the system is corrupt.
The financial powers that run the country have gradually taken over and given us their version of "Brave new world".

"The ruling oligarchs correctly chose the painless, amusement saturated, soft totalitarianism of Huxley's Brave New World over the fearful, pain inflicting, surveillance state, house of horrors detailed in Orwell's 1984."

"There is too little cash, too few jobs, too much debt, too many takers, too few makers, too many bankers, too much delusion, and too few resources to sustain the unsustainable. We have entered the end stages of a ravenous locust swarm. The fields have been stripped barren."

"When the men in smoke filled rooms realized their soft totalitarianism was losing its grip on the oblivious, submissive, egoistical, distracted masses, they began phase two of their effort to retain their wealth, power and control. They began to institute Orwellian measures to strike fear into the populace. Their illusion of control is dissipating and they are resorting to force in order to maintain hegemony."

That is where we now find ourselves. "Brave new world" has run it's course.
"1984" is the new operating system.
Click to view link

Abu Aardvark on 01/10/13 05:03 AM wrote: "Since you asked for a proposal: Get rid of central banking!"

His Click to view link link states: "As long as we have a central bank, it makes sense to impose tighter controls on banks in order to minimize the damage the central bank's policies inflict. A better alternative is, of course, to have genuine free banking without the central bank." And: "Would more controls, i.e., keeping the Glass-Steagall Act intact, have prevented the current economic crisis? We suggest that the crisis wouldn't have been as severe, since controls would have prevented the massive monetary explosion since the early 1980s, which put the pool of real savings under severe pressure."

We all agree that discontinuing central banking would solve a great deal of the boom/bust problem by eliminating the extension of credit 'out of thin air'. The problem, of course, is that big government needs a central bank to float its borrowing for which actual taxes would be politically impossible. So we are going to have to accept either a vastly smaller and weaker central government without central banking or controls like Glass-Steagall to prevent the boom/bust excesses of central banking.

It is easy to recommend the demise of central banking. What I do not hear being discussed are the dangers of incurring the wrath of the biggest accumulation of wealth the world has ever seen, namely the Rothschilds and associate City of London banksters who created and still live off the central banking system. Are we ready for another War of 1812? How about a world wide depression brought on by the banksters to crush us? Want to be the next Libya? Make no mistake, that is what is at stake.

What we have in the US now is big government and big politics and parties wholly sold out to central banking. I submit that until the advantages of being free of central banking are understood by the American people in terms of their wealth and well being, all speculation, however scholarly, as to its advantages is futile, Murray Rothbard not withstanding.

'You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, unknown people far from any political game. The reason was quite simple - to force the people to turn to the state for greater security.' - Vincenzo Vinciguerra