Lets Talk About... National Anarchism!

[Ormurinn]

In the midst of my wanderings over the internet, I've come across a lot of political ideologies, but one that personally piques my interest was Nationa Anarchism. From Wiki -

National-Anarchists see the artificial hierarchies inherent in the state and capitalism as systematically oppressive and environmentally destructive. They distance themselves from fascism and communism as statist and totalitarian, and reject Nazism as the discredited ideology of a failed dictatorship.

National-Anarchism echoes most strains of anarchism by expressing a desire to reorganize human relationships, with an emphasis on replacing the hierarchical structures of the state and capitalism with local, community decision-making. National-Anarchists, however, advocate collective action organized along the lines of ethnic national identity, and aim towards a decentralized social order where tribes build and maintain an autonomous village-community, as an organic unity, which is politically meritocratic, economically self-sufficient, and ecologically sustainable.

From what I've found, the basic idea is that every group has the right to secede from their state, and form a community based around their own values, and to move freely between those areas that will accept them. It seems to be a fusion of some of the best elements of Green Primitivism, Mutualism and Proudhonist Anarchism. Communities should become more tight knit, more local and more self sufficient - The essential unit of organisation should go from the Nation State to Tribes based on shared ideology and kinship, and theres an element of bioregionalism too.

I think theres a lot to be said for a system that allows a million different ideologies and ethnicities to exist - The libertarians can live in their communities, the primitivists in theirs, the mutualists in theirs, and no one has a coercive state to enforce their ideology on anyone else. Legal systems would necessarily become polycentric (and if Medieval Iceland is anything to go by thats a good thing) and the constant state vs state warfare we experience today would be a thing of the past.

Obviously I'm an advocate, but these fora are probably the cleverest place i know of on the internet, so I come here seeking a discussion. No doubt some will hate the idea, but civil discussion is one of the best parts of the human experience.

Further reading:


http://berrocscirsblog.blogspot.co.uk/

http://tasna.wordpress.com/

And of course, theres

http://www.gutenberg.org/

for Literature

And a cite for my comment about Iceland:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/ ... eland.html

[Izawwlgood]

I think it's fine on a small scale, and I applaud self-reliance in all it's forms.

I'd love to see any of these communities, say, build a hydroelectric dam and sell the power to a neighboring town.

Because this is what I think of when people start talking about forming small self-regulating communities.

[Ormurinn]

I think it's fine on a small scale, and I applaud self-reliance in all it's forms.

I'd love to see any of these communities, say, build a hydroelectric dam and sell the power to a neighboring town.

Because this is what I think of when people start talking about forming small self-regulating communities.

Thanks, that made me smile

On topic, assuming a city-state type model (worked pretty well for the greeks), I can't see any reason it wouldnt be possible for a community to do as you described. Certainly there are community wind farms in the UK. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westmill_W ... ooperative

More broadly speaking, I don't think theres a hard population limit on how large one of these communities could grow, (or at least not one present regardless of political and economic affiliation) and co-operation between communities would be entirely possible. It's happened before in history, after a fashion, in the case of the Italian City States, and he German Free Cities, as well as in Greece. You could even make a case for one existing in the Saxon Heptarchy.

[pizzazz]

In the midst of my wanderings over the internet, I've come across a lot of political ideologies, but one that personally piques my interest was Nationa Anarchism. From Wiki -

National-Anarchists see the artificial hierarchies inherent in the state and capitalism as systematically oppressive and environmentally destructive. They distance themselves from fascism and communism as statist and totalitarian, and reject Nazism as the discredited ideology of a failed dictatorship.

National-Anarchism echoes most strains of anarchism by expressing a desire to reorganize human relationships, with an emphasis on replacing the hierarchical structures of the state and capitalism with local, community decision-making. National-Anarchists, however, advocate collective action organized along the lines of ethnic national identity, and aim towards a decentralized social order where tribes build and maintain an autonomous village-community, as an organic unity, which is politically meritocratic, economically self-sufficient, and ecologically sustainable.

From what I've found, the basic idea is that every group has the right to secede from their state, and form a community based around their own values, and to move freely between those areas that will accept them. It seems to be a fusion of some of the best elements of Green Primitivism, Mutualism and Proudhonist Anarchism. Communities should become more tight knit, more local and more self sufficient - The essential unit of organisation should go from the Nation State to Tribes based on shared ideology and kinship, and theres an element of bioregionalism too.

I think theres a lot to be said for a system that allows a million different ideologies and ethnicities to exist - The libertarians can live in their communities, the primitivists in theirs, the mutualists in theirs, and no one has a coercive state to enforce their ideology on anyone else. Legal systems would necessarily become polycentric (and if Medieval Iceland is anything to go by thats a good thing) and the constant state vs state warfare we experience today would be a thing of the past.

What stops one group from conquering another? Some of these groups are going to stay small, but for example groups based around free-market capitalism are probably going to group together for the increased efficiency. Most likely such countries are going to quickly outstrip small, woodland communes in terms of wealth, population, technology, etc.
Building on that, there are finite stores for many resources. Habitable, farmable land springs to mind. How much land does each group get? How is distribution determined? Does the Mississippi river delta or Pennsylvania coal mines just go to whoever gets there first, while later groups get the Sahara desert?
It seems like this model basically removes the possibility of using force against other groups, which is risky (what happens when some unstable group of nutcases starts research nuclear power?)

(Mostly minor philosophical point: clearly this doesn't allow for intolerant or expansionist belief systems, or those who believe that they should help others whether they want it or not. So not something that bothers me, but it's not quite true that you can have any possible system, since some systems require that you do not have all systems!).

[Izawwlgood]

On topic, assuming a city-state type model (worked pretty well for the greeks)

Can you clarify what you mean here? I'm not under the impression that the Greeks practiced anything remotely akin to what you're advocating for.

And yes, I don't think this would work on a large scale. Small groups can regulate themselves, but greater than, say, 300 individuals, and I can't imagine anything approaching civility or order is possible without hierarchies. I remembering reading that humans are neurologically hardwired to form and cultivate ~150 real relationships at any given time. I simply can't envision a way we could survive around significantly more than, say, double that.

[Ormurinn]

On topic, assuming a city-state type model (worked pretty well for the greeks)

Can you clarify what you mean here? I'm not under the impression that the Greeks practiced anything remotely akin to what you're advocating for.

Ah, I see. I Meant it in the terms of self-governing cities. Rather than non-hierarchial it might be better to think in terms of voluntary heirarchies. Theres nothing to say a metropolitan area won't stay together, maybe even under a modern style social democracy. The independent city is what i was referring to with the city states comparison.

And yes, I don't think this would work on a large scale. Small groups can regulate themselves, but greater than, say, 300 individuals, and I can't imagine anything approaching civility or order is possible without hierarchies. I remembering reading that humans are neurologically hardwired to form and cultivate ~150 real relationships at any given time. I simply can't envision a way we could survive around significantly more than, say, double that.

See above - hierarchies would definately exist, but they'd be weakened by the subjects self-sufficiency and ability to secede. Hell, if people want to live in an absolute monarchy or fascist dictatorship, start one, and more power to them, so long as any member is free to leave at any time.

What stops one group from conquering another? Some of these groups are going to stay small, but for example groups based around free-market capitalism are probably going to group together for the increased efficiency. Most likely such countries are going to quickly outstrip small, woodland communes in terms of wealth, population, technology, etc.
Building on that, there are finite stores for many resources. Habitable, farmable land springs to mind. How much land does each group get? How is distribution determined? Does the Mississippi river delta or Pennsylvania coal mines just go to whoever gets there first, while later groups get the Sahara desert?
It seems like this model basically removes the possibility of using force against other groups, which is risky (what happens when some unstable group of nutcases starts research nuclear power?)

I've puzzled over this issue myself, but I think the level of decentralisation we're talking about would severely limit the ability for any state to form a conquering army. When you want to send someone's son or daughter off to war their enthusiasm for your government will quickly cool - and whats their incentive to remain a part of your nation when they're self sufficient (I foresee big advances in 3d printing in particular - It's a field I'd like to work in)

I'd also like to address your point about increased efficiency from grouping together, without the buying power of the state-industrial complex and it's ability to prise open new overseas markets, I see there as being a limit to that effeciency gain. Theres a better criticism of mass-production than I could ever give here: http://mutualist.org/id116.html
and I agree that in a world without copyright-based rent seeking, with small, efficient electrically powered machinery situated locally, plan sharing via the internet, and the elimination of engineered obsolescence, the impetus of the concentration of capital disappears.

Not using force against other groups is one of the advantages in my book, beats the current system hands down as long as those unstable nutcases don't nuke anyone, thats fine. I imagine once they did' they'd be in for a bit of a shock, no-ones going to tolerate having them around, and attacking them could be construed as self defence.

As for finite resources, I'd like to link to this, because I can - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxW5yvpeHg4
and also address it by saying that posession would most likely be determined by occupancy. There would also be the fortuitous consequence that unproductive land speculation would be eliminated. Certainly if posession were determined by occupancy, the hereditary land baron who has my area in deadlock would be in for a well deserved rude awakening.

(Mostly minor philosophical point: clearly this doesn't allow for intolerant or expansionist belief systems, or those who believe that they should help others whether they want it or not. So not something that bothers me, but it's not quite true that you can have any possible system, since some systems require that you do not have all systems!).

[/quote][/quote]

Expansionist, no, or at least, the only way to expand would be to be so good that people decided to affiliate with you (a market in governments, oh what a dream ) But be as intolerant as you like, within your own borders. The White Nationalists, Black seperatists and Green Power Rangers can all have their own lands, assuming anyone wants to affiliate with them. If they want to build Orania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orania,_Northern_Cape Then I say go for it, they deserve it.

[lutzj]

I've puzzled over this issue myself, but I think the level of decentralisation we're talking about would severely limit the ability for any state to form a conquering army.

Nope, and this is where the whole idea falls down. First of all, certain city-states with especially favorable geography or brilliant leadership are going to be able to conquer weaker neighbors. Second, city-states will form alliances (or networks of tributaries) that can easily conquer weaker neighbors, which both inherently causes consolidation and forces still more states to form their own alliances for self-preservation. The strong alliances of strong states then quickly snowball and form empires.

[CorruptUser]

Looks like a pseudo-Nazi group to me.

[Ormurinn]

Looks like a pseudo-Nazi group to me.

I've learned to take the mainstream view of any anarchist movement with a grain of salt - and the accusations levelled against National Anarchism are among the most ridiculous. I can't see anything about the principle "Everyone gets a space to live amongst others who share their principles" which agrees in the least with any aspect of fascism.

[Zamfir]

Junger was a weird figure. In favour of heroic warfare on your weaker neighours, and against the Jews (though not in favour of killing them, AFAIK). And still opposed to the Nazis, because they were uncivilized commoners or something like that. The Germans never figured what to do with him after the war.

You seriously have to wonder why someone would pick Junger as their guru, out of all the myriad other anarchists from history they could have chosen.

[Azrael]

Looks like a pseudo-Nazi group to me.

I've learned to take the mainstream view of any anarchist movement with a grain of salt - and the accusations levelled against National Anarchism are among the most ridiculous.

... the very first section of their manifesto is titled Anti-Zionism. Link removed.

[Derek]

Looks like a pseudo-Nazi group to me.

I've learned to take the mainstream view of any anarchist movement with a grain of salt - and the accusations levelled against National Anarchism are among the most ridiculous. I can't see anything about the principle "Everyone gets a space to live amongst others who share their principles" which agrees in the least with any aspect of fascism.

Except that, according to the except from Wikipedia that you posted, they don't advocate "a space to live amongst others who share ones principles", but "collective action organized along the lines of ethnic national identity". These are two very different things.

[Jave D]

National-Anarchists see the artificial hierarchies inherent in the state and capitalism as systematically oppressive and environmentally destructive.

From what I've found, the basic idea is that every group has the right to secede from their state, and form a community based around their own values, and to move freely between those areas that will accept them. It seems to be a fusion of some of the best elements of Green Primitivism, Mutualism and Proudhonist Anarchism. Communities should become more tight knit, more local and more self sufficient - The essential unit of organisation should go from the Nation State to Tribes based on shared ideology and kinship, and theres an element of bioregionalism too.

I think theres a lot to be said for a system that allows a million different ideologies and ethnicities to exist - The libertarians can live in their communities, the primitivists in theirs, the mutualists in theirs, and no one has a coercive state to enforce their ideology on anyone else. Legal systems would necessarily become polycentric (and if Medieval Iceland is anything to go by thats a good thing) and the constant state vs state warfare we experience today would be a thing of the past.

How exactly would this be any better for the environment? It'd be giving total leave to various groups - whatever groups - to pollute and shit all over their "community" chunk of the environment. Because it'd be oppressive and statist to say otherwise.

I hate to say this, but changing "nation state" to the term "tribe" doesn't magically eliminate any of the problems inherent in states. And having a multiplicity of states with less control and less standardization could only add to, not remove, state conflicts and especially environmental concern. Instead of a thing of the past, state vs state warfare would increase.

[pizzazz]

What stops one group from conquering another? Some of these groups are going to stay small, but for example groups based around free-market capitalism are probably going to group together for the increased efficiency. Most likely such countries are going to quickly outstrip small, woodland communes in terms of wealth, population, technology, etc.
Building on that, there are finite stores for many resources. Habitable, farmable land springs to mind. How much land does each group get? How is distribution determined? Does the Mississippi river delta or Pennsylvania coal mines just go to whoever gets there first, while later groups get the Sahara desert?
It seems like this model basically removes the possibility of using force against other groups, which is risky (what happens when some unstable group of nutcases starts research nuclear power?)

I've puzzled over this issue myself, but I think the level of decentralisation we're talking about would severely limit the ability for any state to form a conquering army. When you want to send someone's son or daughter off to war their enthusiasm for your government will quickly cool - and whats their incentive to remain a part of your nation when they're self sufficient (I foresee big advances in 3d printing in particular - It's a field I'd like to work in)

I'd also like to address your point about increased efficiency from grouping together, without the buying power of the state-industrial complex and it's ability to prise open new overseas markets, I see there as being a limit to that effeciency gain. Theres a better criticism of mass-production than I could ever give here: http://mutualist.org/id116.html
and I agree that in a world without copyright-based rent seeking, with small, efficient electrically powered machinery situated locally, plan sharing via the internet, and the elimination of engineered obsolescence, the impetus of the concentration of capital disappears.

What load of nonsense. You haven't answered or addressed anything. You start by supposing that everything would be decentralized, but you have no way to ensure that states do not gather together and centralize. You also assume every individual makes everything they need without trade or does not care for police protection or any other benefit of being in a state (and that patriotism/nationalism don't exist) and that no one has any reason to ever want war. As for why people would remain part of nations even if not necessary, people like to be part of groups. We're social animals.
Your rambling on capital is no more informative. Massive amounts of industrialization occurred and strides were made in mass-production (and as a result, efficiency) with close to no government intervention (see: pre-Great Depression US). If you want me to believe that one of the simplest, most basic, and easiest to prove results of economics is false, you had better have a damn good reason. Your link seems to contain a great many claims--perhaps you could summarize the argument you think they are making that mass-production is less efficient?
I'm not even sure what your last 2 lines are supposed to mean. Copyrights are not rent-seeking; their existence strongly encourages creation by allowing creators to profit from their creations, and a world with no copyright would be a very sad world indeed.
Obviously there's a limit to the efficiency gain--you can't make anything infinitely efficient (or even 100% efficient). But that doesn't mean there is no efficiency gain, and if the gain exists people will want to take advantage of that. And your system both 1) should allow them to, and 2) has no means to stop them from doing so.

Not using force against other groups is one of the advantages in my book, beats the current system hands down as long as those unstable nutcases don't nuke anyone, thats fine. I imagine once they did' they'd be in for a bit of a shock, no-ones going to tolerate having them around, and attacking them could be construed as self defence.

As for finite resources, I'd like to link to this, because I can - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxW5yvpeHg4
and also address it by saying that posession would most likely be determined by occupancy. There would also be the fortuitous consequence that unproductive land speculation would be eliminated. Certainly if posession were determined by occupancy, the hereditary land baron who has my area in deadlock would be in for a well deserved rude awakening.

I'm not sure what that has to do with finite resources. You have no system or structure for states to deal with other states, but at the same time no way to stop states from simply doing as they will with other states. In the nuke example--is there any way to stop nutcases from using nukes other than economic sanction? Because that hasn't worked even with our current system, which allows for a lot more cooperation than yours. And not using force is of course always a plus, but it is necessary to have available for certain cases.

(Mostly minor philosophical point: clearly this doesn't allow for intolerant or expansionist belief systems, or those who believe that they should help others whether they want it or not. So not something that bothers me, but it's not quite true that you can have any possible system, since some systems require that you do not have all systems!).

Expansionist, no, or at least, the only way to expand would be to be so good that people decided to affiliate with you (a market in governments, oh what a dream ) But be as intolerant as you like, within your own borders. The White Nationalists, Black seperatists and Green Power Rangers can all have their own lands, assuming anyone wants to affiliate with them. If they want to build Orania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orania,_Northern_Cape Then I say go for it, they deserve it.[/quote]
Ah, but what if we have a group that doesn't think [racial group X] is human and thus doesn't deserve to have land, and so wants to take over their land?
More relevant: you assume free migration of people between groups. What if some group's philosophy calls for restriction of inflow (eg Orania, or a hippy commune that doesn't want racists) or of outflow (if, for example, some group provides education to every child but doesn't want them all to leave for the libertarian state next door as soon as they have their training) of people?
Is free flow of information also assumed? It seems like you do, above, but certainly some states will exhibit censorship.

[Newt]

Communities should become more tight knit, more local and more self sufficient - The essential unit of organisation should go from the Nation State to Tribes based on shared ideology and kinship, and theres an element of bioregionalism too.

Other problems aside, it's not like most of the world wasn't organized in tribes with shared ideology and kinship at some point; why would you expect a 'return' to our roots to be any more stable, particularly with a population of 6.8 billion?

Pizzazz, copyrights are rent-seeking; that's how they're supposed to motivate people to create things, as you've mentioned.

[CorruptUser]

Copyrights and patents are only rent-seeking after the fact, prior they facilitate the creation of inventions and artwork.

Bethesda isn't going to create The Elder Scrolls VI: Blackmarsh* if the first person that buys it will reverse engineer and resell to everyone else for $1 each, despite not having put in the tens of millions in programming costs.

*No, I don't know what the next one will be, but if each title is based on a province, there's only 5 left to choose from. Unless they decide to use Akivari provinces or something.

[Ormurinn]

... the very first section of their manifesto is titled Anti-Zionism. Link removed.

Could you clarify why that's a problem?

Except that, according to the except from Wikipedia that you posted, they don't advocate "a space to live amongst others who share ones principles", but "collective action organized along the lines of ethnic national identity". These are two very different things.

"Collective action organized along the lines of ethnic national identity" is equivalent to fascism to you? What do you think of the Civil Rights movement of the '50's?

How exactly would this be any better for the environment? It'd be giving total leave to various groups - whatever groups - to pollute and shit all over their "community" chunk of the environment. Because it'd be oppressive and statist to say otherwise.

I hate to say this, but changing "nation state" to the term "tribe" doesn't magically eliminate any of the problems inherent in states. And having a multiplicity of states with less control and less standardization could only add to, not remove, state conflicts and especially environmental concern. Instead of a thing of the past, state vs state warfare would increase.

I'll admit to not having a source for this, but my gut feeling is that more locally-governed areas will tend to be better cared for, because people will have a real connection to the land they live on. I can't think of a tribal society off the top of my head that has destroyed their environment, even those who have adopted modern technology - I don't think the Kalaallit ever over-hunted the reindeer they base their livelihoods on for instance, despite having the capability to do so. Lobster fishing in maine was historically preserved in similar fashion http://lingitlatseen.wordpress.com/2011 ... lectivism/

As for your latter point about war, the Icelandic commonwealth (which i use here as an example because the floating system of chieftancies is pretty close to the idea of states that compete for members) at it's most violent period of full-blown war, had a per-capita murder rate lower than the modern day U.S.

What load of nonsense. You haven't answered or addressed anything. You start by supposing that everything would be decentralized, but you have no way to ensure that states do not gather together and centralize. You also assume every individual makes everything they need without trade or does not care for police protection or any other benefit of being in a state (and that patriotism/nationalism don't exist) and that no one has any reason to ever want war. As for why people would remain part of nations even if not necessary, people like to be part of groups. We're social animals.
Your rambling on capital is no more informative. Massive amounts of industrialization occurred and strides were made in mass-production (and as a result, efficiency) with close to no government intervention (see: pre-Great Depression US). If you want me to believe that one of the simplest, most basic, and easiest to prove results of economics is false, you had better have a damn good reason. Your link seems to contain a great many claims--perhaps you could summarize the argument you think they are making that mass-production is less efficient?
I'm not even sure what your last 2 lines are supposed to mean. Copyrights are not rent-seeking; their existence strongly encourages creation by allowing creators to profit from their creations, and a world with no copyright would be a very sad world indeed.
Obviously there's a limit to the efficiency gain--you can't make anything infinitely efficient (or even 100% efficient). But that doesn't mean there is no efficiency gain, and if the gain exists people will want to take advantage of that. And your system both 1) should allow them to, and 2) has no means to stop them from doing so.

Ok. Thanks for taking the time to respond with such a rigorous argument.
Has there ever been a period when a population has been clamouring for war and persuaded the government of the time into it against it's better judgement? My country has only started three wars in my lifetime - and before every one there were mass movements calling for them not to occour. The state rode roughshod over the people's objections however. I think thats the general pattern - central state starts war against the wishes of the general public - relies on coercive force to provide it with the resources to do so (or alternatively a large and well-funded propaganda arm). In a system where people are more self-sufficient, I'm working on the assumption that the govt loses its ability to be coercive. We're not doing very well at coercing the Taleban not to fight occupying forces, for instance.

As for the capital argument - here goes. The pre-great Depression Industrialisation you reference was only made possible through the developement of national transport infrastructure - and that infrastructure was developed expressly at the urging of government - incentivised through massive government subsidy to railroad concerns, the excercise of emminent domain to make the routes themselves possible, and the reform of tort law to exempt common carriers from many kinds of liability. The state effectively combined many small, local markets into a single large one, then artificially lowered the costs of servicing that mass market, giving an incentive for greater concentration of capital, and making mass production seem more effecient - because the agregate costs of distributing goods from a mass-producing factory/large scale agribusiness are artificially socialised. As a modern-day example, you pay through your taxes for the upkeep of the Interstate system - and the majority of the damage to that system, which necessitates the repair costs, somes from mass transit. If Walmart for instance had to pay the actual cost of transporting its goods, it would quickly lose its price advantage over more local businesses. Ditto for local over national factories, regional agricultural co-ops over large agribusiness etc. From my source;

the so-called "internal economies of scale" in manufacturing could come about only
when the offsetting external diseconomies of long-distance distribution were artificially nullified by
corporate welfare. Such “economies” can only occur given an artificial set of circumstances which
permit the reduced unit costs of expensive, product-specific machinery to be considered in isolation,
because the indirect costs entailed are all externalized on society. And if the real costs of long-distance
shipping, high-pressure marketing, etc., do in fact exceed the savings from faster and more specialized
machinery, then the “efficiency” is a false one.

(chapter one is the only one I'm really referencing - and I'd ask you to please read it, simply because I feel like i'm doing the arguments a disservice. It's only 18 pages)

I'd definately argue that copyright is rent-seeking, and I don't see it as having particularly great consequences for invention. Thomas Newcomen famously patented the steam engine, for instance, and stifled innovation until his patent expired, allowing Watt to greatly improve on the design.

More relevant: you assume free migration of people between groups. What if some group's philosophy calls for restriction of inflow (eg Orania, or a hippy commune that doesn't want racists) or of outflow (if, for example, some group provides education to every child but doesn't want them all to leave for the libertarian state next door as soon as they have their training) of people?

I don't think there should be any obligation to accept someone into your community - freedom of association and all that. I really admire the Oranians - they're holding on to their culture in the face of adversity, and by all accounts its a model community. I'm less sure about your hypothetical second group, but perhaps a contract with their students? I think those students have a right to leave, and preventing them doing so would be difficult.

Thanks again for the debate

[Derek]

Except that, according to the except from Wikipedia that you posted, they don't advocate "a space to live amongst others who share ones principles", but "collective action organized along the lines of ethnic national identity". These are two very different things.

"Collective action organized along the lines of ethnic national identity" is equivalent to fascism to you? What do you think of the Civil Rights movement of the '50's?

A struggle to end a system that organized people along ethnic lines? The Civil Rights movement did not exclude white members. Most member were black because blacks were the ones suffering, but it was not an exclusionist movement. And the movement was not (with the exception of a few radicals) trying to secure a black homeland. They wanted equal treatment, regardless of race or ethnicity. It was, in fact, the opposite of what you are suggesting.

[Ormurinn]

Except that, according to the except from Wikipedia that you posted, they don't advocate "a space to live amongst others who share ones principles", but "collective action organized along the lines of ethnic national identity". These are two very different things.

"Collective action organized along the lines of ethnic national identity" is equivalent to fascism to you? What do you think of the Civil Rights movement of the '50's?

A struggle to end a system that organized people along ethnic lines? The Civil Rights movement did not exclude white members. Most member were black because blacks were the ones suffering, but it was not an exclusionist movement. And the movement was not (with the exception of a few radicals) trying to secure a black homeland. They wanted equal treatment, regardless of race or ethnicity. It was, in fact, the opposite of what you are suggesting.

I don't understanding where you're drawing the conclusion that I don't think people should be treated equally regardless of their race. I'm quite happy for people to live in ethnically exclusive enclaves if they want to, that's their right. Do you have anything against the Amish? The Oranians? The Kibbutzim?

As for the Civil rights analogy, I was being literal with regards to "organized along the lines of ethnic national identity." A whole lot of their organizing took place in black churches.

[Derek]

I don't understanding where you're drawing the conclusion that I don't think people should be treated equally regardless of their race. I'm quite happy for people to live in ethnically exclusive enclaves if they want to, that's their right. Do you have anything against the Amish? The Oranians? The Kibbutzim?

As for the Civil rights analogy, I was being literal with regards to "organized along the lines of ethnic national identity." A whole lot of their organizing took place in black churches.

Oh I don't think your racist, but I do think that most of the people promoting this ideology are. You are emphasizing the idea of people with similar beliefs living together, but from what I can tell its really about people of the same ethnicity living together, regardless of actual beliefs. This is our land, this is your land, and if we ever see you flirting with our daughters, we'll lynch you.

[Jave D]

How exactly would this be any better for the environment? It'd be giving total leave to various groups - whatever groups - to pollute and shit all over their "community" chunk of the environment. Because it'd be oppressive and statist to say otherwise.

I hate to say this, but changing "nation state" to the term "tribe" doesn't magically eliminate any of the problems inherent in states. And having a multiplicity of states with less control and less standardization could only add to, not remove, state conflicts and especially environmental concern. Instead of a thing of the past, state vs state warfare would increase.

I'll admit to not having a source for this, but my gut feeling is that more locally-governed areas will tend to be better cared for, because people will have a real connection to the land they live on. I can't think of a tribal society off the top of my head that has destroyed their environment, even those who have adopted modern technology - I don't think the Kalaallit ever over-hunted the reindeer they base their livelihoods on for instance, despite having the capability to do so. Lobster fishing in maine was historically preserved in similar fashion http://lingitlatseen.wordpress.com/2011 ... lectivism/

But you're citing precedents from long-standing tribal communities. I'm talking about the result of this type of 'government' as placed upon modern society, in which 'communities' are not merely (or not just) close-knit clan- and kin-based societies, but also whatever groups. Including groups which think overhunting, overfishing, and polluting the earth is their God-given right. Including groups that think the world is ending soon so it doesn't matter whether anything is sustainable.

The thing is, given current technology and the scope of any modern societies needs, the impact any society has on its neighbors cannot be dismissed.

As an example. China and the US (different states, each governing themselves) still have a (severe) impact on the global climate and ecology. In one case (the US) there is (somewhat of) the policy of being sustainable and green. In the other case (China) they do not adhere to that. If we picture in your national anarchist society hypothetical mini-Chinas and mini-US's, what will happen is the mini-Chinas will poop all over the landscape, to the detriment of everyone, and so it won't matter if the other states do or don't adhere to some sort of green industry ideology, because it really only takes one person pooping in the punch bowl to ruin the punch for everybody. And if this national anarchist society is going to enforce green standards so that no state winds up pooping all over the place, then it's not really "anarchist" and we may as well discuss the subject of enforcing green standards from a national government to begin with.

As for your latter point about war, the Icelandic commonwealth (which i use here as an example because the floating system of chieftancies is pretty close to the idea of states that compete for members) at it's most violent period of full-blown war, had a per-capita murder rate lower than the modern day U.S.

The Icelandic commonwealth also had a per-capita population density of 1.3 per square mile. The US has in many places a population density a thousand times that, and greater than that almost anywhere. It's not likely given this extreme difference that the key factor is the type of government.

Tribal communities and societies also tend to have comparatively low population densities. It's easy to get along and live-and-let-live when there's no pressure from overcrowding and population, and these things are not going to change simply by a change in government. (Unless that change also includes vast and most likely bloody population changes.)

[Ormurinn]

But you're citing precedents from long-standing tribal communities. I'm talking about the result of this type of 'government' as placed upon modern society, in which 'communities' are not merely (or not just) close-knit clan- and kin-based societies, but also whatever groups. Including groups which think overhunting, overfishing, and polluting the earth is their God-given right. Including groups that think the world is ending soon so it doesn't matter whether anything is sustainable.

The thing is, given current technology and the scope of any modern societies needs, the impact any society has on its neighbors cannot be dismissed.

Thats a good point. I'm not advocating an immediate violent revolution to impose this sort of change at all though - if it ever did occour I envisage it as a slow, gradual change towards greater political flexibility, self sufficiency and local government, until people become so independent from the state that it becomes irrelevant and withers away. I definately agree that nothing good would come of National Anarchism if it were instituted tomorrow - culture is too atomised and individuals too interdependent.

If you're going to shit on your environment, I don't think it will pay off for your community, any more than shitting in your own back garden. If thats your community's land, and decisions about it are made by people who live on it, I would think it'd be difficult to push through a project that caused too much damage. It's legendarily difficult to push incinerators through the local planning laws of county councils in England for instance, and county councils are completely impotent compared to what I'm suggesting. In bigger cases, like for instance the heavy metals pulution and salinity problems in the Aral Sea, It wasn't people who lived locally who took the decision to ruin their environment - It was sovietr bureaucrats. Now Uzbekistan is an independent state, theres a real effort to return the sea to its original state. (Not least because the local economy relies on irrigation of cotton from it) I think thats a general principle, that local people know best with regards to their own environment.

(as an aside, China's per-capita carbon emissions are an order of magnitude lower than the US's, and china generates 17% of it's energy from renewable sources, as opposed to 14.3% in the US)

As an example. China and the US (different states, each governing themselves) still have a (severe) impact on the global climate and ecology. In one case (the US) there is (somewhat of) the policy of being sustainable and green. In the other case (China) they do not adhere to that. If we picture in your national anarchist society hypothetical mini-Chinas and mini-US's, what will happen is the mini-Chinas will poop all over the landscape, to the detriment of everyone, and so it won't matter if the other states do or don't adhere to some sort of green industry ideology, because it really only takes one person pooping in the punch bowl to ruin the punch for everybody. And if this national anarchist society is going to enforce green standards so that no state winds up pooping all over the place, then it's not really "anarchist" and we may as well discuss the subject of enforcing green standards from a national government to begin with.

(as an aside, China's per-capita carbon emissions are an order of magnitude lower than the US's, and china generates 17% of it's energy from renewable sources, as opposed to 14.3% in the US)

I do think the dynamic would be fundamentaly different if they were mini-US's and mini Chinas, as opposed to the current maxi versions, since mini-versions are more likely to be influenced by neighbors (hey guys, we just visited mini-cuba, and you can BREATHE there!). I'm sure some NA societies would shit all over their environment - but I think the logical consequence would be that they learn the error of their ways when no-one wants to live there.

The Icelandic commonwealth also had a per-capita population density of 1.3 per square mile. The US has in many places a population density a thousand times that, and greater than that almost anywhere. It's not likely given this extreme difference that the key factor is the type of government.

Tribal communities and societies also tend to have comparatively low population densities. It's easy to get along and live-and-let-live when there's no pressure from overcrowding and population, and these things are not going to change simply by a change in government. (Unless that change also includes vast and most likely bloody population changes.)

Thats true - I don't have much for a rebuttal really, it's hard to find examples of tribal societies/small city states in the modern world, using modern technology, to compare my hypotheticals to, and my premise is predicated on people undergoing a period of dramatic increase in self sufficiency, coupled with better development in the technology to empower smaller communities to maintain the same quality of life as big ones.

I see a lot of the things I'm advocating for as inevitable - with the current economic mess, general failure of western states, peak oil coming up, I think people are going to become more independent as a matter of necessity. As for technological developments, Solar panels are already effecient enough that they're almost wholly prefferable to a biomass/diesel generator for a man in my situation, and I live in a rainy shithole. I've been handed part of an F1 car, race-ready, that was printed earlier in the morning. Cities are already gaining the ability to produce their own food http://sustainablecities.dk/en/city-pro ... fish-farms .

If we don't fall into the trap of reactionary fascistic statism, I think a lot of elements of a NA society will be present naturally in the cultures we live in within the next 50 years.

[pizzazz]

I've cut out some nested quotes for space.

Ok. Thanks for taking the time to respond with such a rigorous argument.
Has there ever been a period when a population has been clamouring for war and persuaded the government of the time into it against it's better judgement? My country has only started three wars in my lifetime - and before every one there were mass movements calling for them not to occour. The state rode roughshod over the people's objections however. I think thats the general pattern - central state starts war against the wishes of the general public - relies on coercive force to provide it with the resources to do so (or alternatively a large and well-funded propaganda arm). In a system where people are more self-sufficient, I'm working on the assumption that the govt loses its ability to be coercive. We're not doing very well at coercing the Taleban not to fight occupying forces, for instance.

The German people were pretty eager to go to war in 1939. You could argue it was a result of propaganda, but really all the Nazis did in that case was point out what everyone was already feeling (anger at France and Britain, humiliation after WWI, etc.) and promise a solution. It's not really that hard to get people excited for a war, though maintaining that excitement is much harder. Nationalism is one of the easiest ways to accomplish this, though promises of individual glory work as well. And of course, this only gets easier the smaller a group you are dealing with; just witness the near-constant warfare among various tribes in the Americas and Africa.

As for the capital argument - here goes. The pre-great Depression Industrialisation you reference was only made possible through the developement of national transport infrastructure - and that infrastructure was developed expressly at the urging of government - incentivised through massive government subsidy to railroad concerns, the excercise of emminent domain to make the routes themselves possible, and the reform of tort law to exempt common carriers from many kinds of liability. The state effectively combined many small, local markets into a single large one, then artificially lowered the costs of servicing that mass market, giving an incentive for greater concentration of capital, and making mass production seem more effecient - because the agregate costs of distributing goods from a mass-producing factory/large scale agribusiness are artificially socialised. As a modern-day example, you pay through your taxes for the upkeep of the Interstate system - and the majority of the damage to that system, which necessitates the repair costs, somes from mass transit. If Walmart for instance had to pay the actual cost of transporting its goods, it would quickly lose its price advantage over more local businesses. Ditto for local over national factories, regional agricultural co-ops over large agribusiness etc. From my source;

the so-called "internal economies of scale" in manufacturing could come about only
when the offsetting external diseconomies of long-distance distribution were artificially nullified by
corporate welfare. Such “economies” can only occur given an artificial set of circumstances which
permit the reduced unit costs of expensive, product-specific machinery to be considered in isolation,
because the indirect costs entailed are all externalized on society. And if the real costs of long-distance
shipping, high-pressure marketing, etc., do in fact exceed the savings from faster and more specialized
machinery, then the “efficiency” is a false one.

Firstly: you state that such industrialization was only possible because of government, but this is a completely unprovable assertion. You have no way of knowing how the free market would have handled this transportation issue. Railroads may have developed anyway, or another form of transportation might have taken over. You have no way of knowing what else might have happened, especially if the money the government taxed to give to the railroads had remained in private hands. Oh, and crediting deregulation to the government as a helpful action is disingenuous at best.
As an example, I offer the globalization of industrialized economies over the last several decades. It was not government that developed the telecommunications or transport technology necessary to move products all over the world as we currently do; rather, private companies from many different governments worked together to reach the point where I can communicate with a company headquartered on the other side of the country, to get customer service from India, so that a complicated piece of electronic equipment that was built and assembled in Japan, China, and Korea can reach my house 24 hours later.
(I also don't buy the theory that transportation is the essential difference here. Wal-mart mostly saves money in production, whose costs dwarf those of transportation. A company shipping things on Interstates definitely pays extra in the form of tolls, and I'd like to see a citation that such shipping is actually subsidized significantly, as every time I've been on an interstate there have been way way more cars than trucks).
Moreover, even if you are correct about history, I think there's some sort of inevitability to concentration of capital. As technology improves, shipping costs can only decrease, subsidized or no, and the difference between mass production and local production has only increased.

(chapter one is the only one I'm really referencing - and I'd ask you to please read it, simply because I feel like i'm doing the arguments a disservice. It's only 18 pages)

I'll try if I have time. Maybe this weekend.

I'd definately argue that copyright is rent-seeking, and I don't see it as having particularly great consequences for invention. Thomas Newcomen famously patented the steam engine, for instance, and stifled innovation until his patent expired, allowing Watt to greatly improve on the design.

On the other hand, he might not have even invented it in the first place if he couldn't have patented it. I would say that whether copyrights are rent-seeking depends on their terms. It's certainly possible to have them be strict and long-lasting enough that it guarantees inventors will make economic profit off of them, but if you have no copyright then you have lots of people benefiting without paying, which necessarily leads to a sub-optimal level of intellectual creation and is most definitely the opposite of rent-seeking.

More relevant: you assume free migration of people between groups. What if some group's philosophy calls for restriction of inflow (eg Orania, or a hippy commune that doesn't want racists) or of outflow (if, for example, some group provides education to every child but doesn't want them all to leave for the libertarian state next door as soon as they have their training) of people?

I don't think there should be any obligation to accept someone into your community - freedom of association and all that. I really admire the Oranians - they're holding on to their culture in the face of adversity, and by all accounts its a model community. I'm less sure about your hypothetical second group, but perhaps a contract with their students? I think those students have a right to leave, and preventing them doing so would be difficult.

Thanks again for the debate

Fair enough about freedom of migration into places, I misread your original post.
But leaving is a similar problem to those I pointed out before: you assume that every possible state is perfectly fine with people leaving at will. You're imposing a lot of restrictions (perhaps without realizing) on what can supposedly accommodate any possible belief system.

[setzer777]

Setting aside the problem of mini-states invading each other (which others have effectively pointed out), what's to prevent an external (large, unified) state from invading and conquering these mini-states piecemeal?

[Yakk]

It was not government that developed the telecommunications

I'm sorry. Claiming that it wasn't a government (or government monopolies) that developed the internet seems like a pretty weak claim.

[Ormurinn]

The German people were pretty eager to go to war in 1939. You could argue it was a result of propaganda, but really all the Nazis did in that case was point out what everyone was already feeling (anger at France and Britain, humiliation after WWI, etc.) and promise a solution. It's not really that hard to get people excited for a war, though maintaining that excitement is much harder. Nationalism is one of the easiest ways to accomplish this, though promises of individual glory work as well. And of course, this only gets easier the smaller a group you are dealing with; just witness the near-constant warfare among various tribes in the Americas and Africa.

I was under the impression that the reason the germans were so eager to go to war wasdue to crippling austerity measures anwar reparations - I'm not going to argue that war doesn't breed more war - It obviously does. I'm not sure that I would characterise internicine tribal conflict as on the same scale as a true war either - It was often ritualised (Counting coups amongst the amerindians, duelling champions in antiquity). I'd rather have no conflict - but tribal conflict is preferrable to the kind of industrial murder seen in eveyr war since the napoleonic era.

Firstly: you state that such industrialization was only possible because of government, but this is a completely unprovable assertion. You have no way of knowing how the free market would have handled this transportation issue. Railroads may have developed anyway, or another form of transportation might have taken over. You have no way of knowing what else might have happened, especially if the money the government taxed to give to the railroads had remained in private hands. Oh, and crediting deregulation to the government as a helpful action is disingenuous at best.
As an example, I offer the globalization of industrialized economies over the last several decades. It was not government that developed the telecommunications or transport technology necessary to move products all over the world as we currently do; rather, private companies from many different governments worked together to reach the point where I can communicate with a company headquartered on the other side of the country, to get customer service from India, so that a complicated piece of electronic equipment that was built and assembled in Japan, China, and Korea can reach my house 24 hours later.
(I also don't buy the theory that transportation is the essential difference here. Wal-mart mostly saves money in production, whose costs dwarf those of transportation. A company shipping things on Interstates definitely pays extra in the form of tolls, and I'd like to see a citation that such shipping is actually subsidized significantly, as every time I've been on an interstate there have been way way more cars than trucks).
Moreover, even if you are correct about history, I think there's some sort of inevitability to concentration of capital. As technology improves, shipping costs can only decrease, subsidized or no, and the difference between mass production and local production has only increased.

The Railway's were developing along ver different lines before the government decided to encourage the construstion of a single national tramsport infrastructure, Smaller trunk lines connecting local infrastructure. Theres no reason to think they'd proceed otherwise without false state impetus in my mind, but we can freely disagree on this.

Someone already made the point that the internet is down to government investment in the ARPANET, but i'm going to go further - theres no reason the internet should necessarily lead to globalization as it is today, as opposed to a vast ecosystem of interconnected cottage industries for instance. With the technology currently availiable, electronic machine tools, 3d printers like rep-rap http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap , and the distribution of plans through the internet, could be an impetus to decentralisation. It hasn't currently because we're wedded to an outdated factory model still mired in the detritus of the Scientific Management theory - and because there are a lot of very, very wealthy vested interests banking on the factory model continuing, as are governments. How else is Nike going to charge hundreds of dollars for a shoe that costs cents to produce? When 3d printing advances to the level that object piracy is as big an issue as music piracy, they wont.

(Heres an article from The Economist on this very phenomenon http://www.economist.com/node/21553017 )

You state that shipping costs will only decrease with time. That doesn't dovetail very well with peak oil, but again, I'm happy to agree to disagree.

On the other hand, he might not have even invented it in the first place if he couldn't have patented it. I would say that whether copyrights are rent-seeking depends on their terms. It's certainly possible to have them be strict and long-lasting enough that it guarantees inventors will make economic profit off of them, but if you have no copyright then you have lots of people benefiting without paying, which necessarily leads to a sub-optimal level of intellectual creation and is most definitely the opposite of rent-seeking.

I don't think copyright has done anything to increase the rate of invention - certainly there was plenty of invention before copyright was codified. Even today we see Open-source programmers producing superior software for free, under a licence exhorting the recipient to share it freely, alter it however they like, and share it with as many people as possible.

Fair enough about freedom of migration into places, I misread your original post.
But leaving is a similar problem to those I pointed out before: you assume that every possible state is perfectly fine with people leaving at will. You're imposing a lot of restrictions (perhaps without realizing) on what can supposedly accommodate any possible belief system.

Perhaps I am, I'll admit. I don't think anything as extreme as North Korea could occour in a NA system, simply because, again, government becomes a lot more voluntary when you don't rely on it. I may be letting utopian daydreams cloud my thinking, and I'll accept this is quite possibly a chink in the armour, along with the prospect of invasion. But if you seek an example of lots of small, decentralised states resisting a hegemonising tyranny, you needn't look further than the American Revolution.

[Zamfir]

But if you seek an example of lots of small, decentralised states resisting a hegemonising tyranny, you needn't look further than the American Revolution.

You can't realistically be in in favour of small, decentralized, non-hegemonic states divided on tribal lines, and also bring up the US as example to be followed.

[omgryebread]

International trade is greatly facilitated by having fewer entities to deal with. A grocery store chain wishing to import food to the US really need only deal with a few foreign governments, since a country like Brazil is going to make several types of food because of it's size, government policies that promote agriculture, well-established and stable political climate, etc. Smaller city-states by definition would produce a narrower range. Running a grocery store in Baltimore, and maintaining the same quality of food would require working with many more international governments. It would also mean I'm not as big a chain as Safeway and Giant, without the cost-saving supply chains, legal departments, etc.

In other words, you'd make free trade harder. The desire for free trade has been moving world culture in the opposite direction, as we can see with things like the WTO, NAFTA, and the countless regional conferences. More unification, not less, has been the trend.

Related to that, different places have different resources, and varying levels of those. If the US were to split into sovereign states, Alaska would find it urgent to negotiate trading agreements, and quickly. Oil from Alaska would not be as urgent as the food needed to go into it, so other places would have time to negotiate some pretty favorable trading deals. We can already see the problems that resource differentials have caused. Compare oil-rich Qatar and relatively resource poor Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone has more than three times the population of Qatar. Qatar, however, has infinitely more ability to project military power. Its international influence is enormous with it's membership in OPEC and the Arab League. Its government owns possibly the most influential news organization in the world. The power Qatar wields indirectly through Al Jazeera is enormous. Unified governments can help smooth these differentials. The European Union is the best and most prominent example of this.


Related to trade is corporatism. A corporation is distinctly unlike a state. As a professor of mine put it, a state consists of its participants, whereas a corporation is owned by some of its participants, and is engaged in a contractual relationship with others. Corporations by their nature are voluntary (one can sell their stock in a corporation, or not invest in the first place, or refuse or end an employment contract.) This works the other way though. States cannot disown their citizens except by exile or execution, and they generally have to grow talent rather than hire it.

The upshot of that is that corporations can do some things more effectively. I won't spend too much showing this, as state-run enterprises have largely given way to corporations, or a new hybrid model, like Shaanxi Youser Group or PetroBras, companies that are both state-owned and private.

In a national anarchistic world, corporations would quickly become the dominant world force (if they aren't already.) As much as I dread corporatism, I admit I'd prefer it to a fragmented city-state society. Imagine, if you will, the world as a bunch of small decentralised states. I, from City-State A, establish Rye Strategic Services (if I didn't work in politics, I'd want to work in the private military industry.) Not being a city-state, I can recruit soldiers, weapons designers, strategists, spies, lawyers, and economists from around the world. City-State A, being a relatively chill place, doesn't need me. However, over in City-State B, the charismatic populist authoritarian, Zamfir has taken power. He's managed to convince his people that they deserve a sweet mountain range by their territory that's rich in some valuable mineral. Unfortunately, that territory is owned by the peaceful City-State C, run by it's popular and duly elected leader Ormurinn.

Neither state's military force is really able to project force well enough. But, City-State B already has a neat mining industry in their part of the mountain range they already own. They can afford to hire RSS, and we go in and take it. But hey, maybe C can afford a PMC of their own!

Even assuming I don't go Big Boss on everyone and use my superior military power to fuck things up for everyone, having huge private military companies that aren't incredibly answerable to anyone fighting wars isn't a great thing. War is the most drastic example, but every industry has corporations, and I can only see them getting more powerful if you diminish the power of states and international governance.