Wall Street Couldn’t Have Done It Alone
To Occupy Wall Street:
Wall Street couldn’t have done it alone. It takes a government and/or its central bank, the Federal Reserve System, to:
- Create barriers to entry for the purpose of sheltering existing banks from competition and radical innovation, then regulate for the benefit of the privileged industry;
- Issue artificially cheap, economy-distorting credit in order to, among other things, give banks incentives to make shaky but profitable mortgage loans (and also to grease the war machine through deficit spending);
- Make it lucrative for banks – and their bonus-collecting executives — to bundle thousands of shaky mortgages into securities and other derivatives with the knowledge that government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other companies, all subject to powerful congressmen looking for campaign contributions, would buy them after a government-licensed rating cartel scores them AAA;
- Inflate an unsustainable housing bubble by the foregoing and other methods, enticing people to foolishly overinvest in real estate.
- Work closely with lending companies to establish a variety of programs designed to lure people with few resources or bad credit into buying houses they can’t afford;
- Attract workers to the home-construction bubble, setting them up for long-term unemployment when the bubble inevitably burst;
- Implicitly guarantee big financial companies and/or their creditors that if they get into trouble they would be rescued;
- Compel the taxpayers to bail out those companies and/or creditors when the roof finally fell in.
No bank or group of banks could do these things on its own in a freed market. It takes a government-Wall Street partnership – the corporate state — to create such misery and exploitation.
So demonstrators, you are right. Something is dreadfully wrong. But your list of culprits is far from complete. So go ahead and protest outside Goldman Sachs and Bank of America. But also spend some time outside the White House, the Fed, the Treasury, and the Capitol Building. Together they are responsible for our current economic woes. These are the entities that control our fate and over which we have no real say. It’s time for things to change.
Greed without political power is boorish. Greed with political power is dangerous.
The freed market is the alternative to what you properly despise.
Comment by Bill Hennessy on 7 October 2011:
Excellent points, Sheldon. Excellent. I wrote a similar piece today, but from almost the opposite perspective. I was concerned that some Tea Partiers were forgetting that big banks are not exactly angels in all this, and that our market solutions are what Americans want.
Comment by Libertarian Jerry on 7 October 2011:
Good article Sheldon…..For almost 100 years the Federal Reserve Central Bank System has systematically looted America. It has turned America into a nation of debt serfs,devalued and then destroyed our currency,stole the people’s gold,facilitated both the welfare and warfare states,manipulated the market with credit bubbles and most importantly created the financial means for the growth and dominance of a monster Federal Government. Most of the Nations economic problems,on a national scale,can be laid at the feet of the Federal Reserve Central Bank fiat money system. The only answer is to repeal the Federal Reserve Charter along with the Legal Tender Laws and thus create a true free market for money. This,along with slashing government spending,taxes and regulations would help spur the economic recovery of America. However,this is a very difficult,if not impossible,long road to travel. But,I do think that the 1st step on that road is the education of the American people as to the threat and danger of this central bank monster. This is what I see today on the Internet and in the protests around our country. 20 or even 10 years ago,very few average citizens were discussing or were even aware of the Federal Reserve threat. But,if enough people understand who their real enemy is,maybe we can start to change things. I sure hope so.
Comment by Camille Christie on 8 October 2011:
Great article Sheldon. While the Occupy protest started as Occupy Wall Street, we are aware that the FED and Govt were the starting point for Wall Street greed. In retrospect should/could it have been known as Occupy the FED, certainly. IMHO as a seniour citizen, I am THRILLED to be a part of this awakening.
We have consistently said we do not have all the answers but given the many great minds in our country and around the world, certainly we can come up with incredible solutions. Pointing out the blatant things wrong with our country is a starting point. We didn’t get in this mess overnight and it will take a while to undo the many screw ups.
We WILL and we ARE Occupying and protesting at FED buildings and are making it more of the focus.
Thank you all for your input, it is much appreciated.
Blessings & Joyous Howls,
Camille Christie – Occupy Wall Street
Comment by economics on 8 October 2011:
An excellent post indeed. One thing to remember. Socialism is not the solution for current issues. It is not capitalism that we are living in. It is KENSIANISM and it has to end!
Comment by dick green on 8 October 2011:
As citizens, the most obvious recourse is the ballot box. But we have to do two things:
1. Vote–not just presidential elections, but all elections.
2. Starting in the Congress, we need to vote in new parties.
Not just Republicans and Democrats. Having JUST third-party presidential candidates doesn’t work. We need to break the two party oligarchy.
Comment by W on 8 October 2011:
It’s tautologically true enough that the market can’t do regulatory capture by itself. Similarly, a system that has no power to protect property rights can’t miscarry justice when adjudicating over disputes.
As for whether or not it actually makes sense to argue that the recent financial crisis would not have been possible without the State:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
Pingback by Wall Street no podría haberlo hecho solo « La Nueva Politica Venezuela on 9 October 2011:
[...] http://www.thefreemanonline.org/anything-peaceful/wall-street-couldnt-have-done-it-alone/ Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
Comment by ExExZonie on 9 October 2011:
When Fannie and Freddie agreed to buy sub-prime loans after the government changed their purchase standards, banks were able to clear these loans off their books and palm them off on the taxpayers. If the loans failed, Joe Sixpack was expected to make up the difference and keep the GSEs afloat (because banks had stock in the GSEs). When the GSEs failed in 2008, their stock was immediately worthless and the banks were instantly over-leveraged, technically bankrupt – all the banks would have simultaneously failed!). That’s why there was a credit freeze – by law, you can’t loan if you don’t have enough reserves.
Banks thought their retained loans were “insured” through instruments called Credit Default Swaps (CDSs), which had no real backing, but were highly profitable to the agencies that sold them. But ultimately, when the loans went bad, the money to pay the insurance policies wasn’t there; AIG and Lehman were caught completely short and unable to pay. One got bailed out; one failed and was sold for about five cents on the dollar.
Banks got a lot of money from the Fed after 9/11 – and went into the business of refinancing every property they could possibly refinance, poor or not. Why not? Uncle Sam would buy every loan they wrote!
The point isn’t that poor or low income people’s loans caused the crisis; the point is that the policies behind this bone-headed idea led to the crisis due to unforeseen consequences. Who was punished for this constellation of mistakes? No one!
Comment by John and Dagny Galt on 9 October 2011:
Atlas Shrugged and Starving The Monkeys in real time!
Pingback by Occupy Wall Streeters Need to Call for Less Government Intrusion and More Freedom, NOT the Other Way Around, and more… » ReasonAndJest.com on 9 October 2011:
[...] Sheldon Richman: Wall Street Couldn’t Have Done It Alone [...]
Pingback by Wall Street Couldn’t Have Done It Alone « curvvd libertarian on 9 October 2011:
[...] Wall Street Couldn’t Have Done It Alone [...]
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 9 October 2011:
W: Who stood behind the “private sector” banks while they wrote the shaky loans? Who demanded that banks lend to the “under-served”? Who guaranteed deposits so that depositors didn’t have to worry about what the banks were doing with their money? Who pushed Fannie and Freddie to plunge into subprimes big-time?
All together now: The government!
Comment by NoStateJake on 9 October 2011:
Response to Dick Green above:
Voting is not the answer because it perpetuates a corrupt system, and when you put people in positions of power, well, power corrupts.
What we need is a new system, instead of government, and that is, all human affairs conducted on a voluntary basis. Where no group of people, (government) has the right to initiate force.
After all, if government was really there to protect your rights and property, then they wouldn’t be the first ones in line to take them from you.
Comment by Mike Lonkouski on 9 October 2011:
Great article refuting the ridiculous goals of the “OWS” “movement”.
Their presentation is less than complimentary, their demands are laughable, and their ideals are sophomoric at best.
What’s really going to make you sick, is when the Obama administration uses this event as an impetus, and a political mandate to enact some form of this insanity.
Comment by Peter on 9 October 2011:
NoStateJake,
In other words, you’re arguing for an idealized fantasy world in which everybody just so happens to agree with everybody else’s property claims 100% of the time in every circumstance.
Yeah, such a thing would be great, though the idea is entirely irrelevant when discussing how best to organize society in reality.
Comment by Scam on 9 October 2011:
Peter, that’s not what he is saying at all. Just because you can’t personally comprehend how something would work in a stateless society, does not mean that it’s “an idealized fantasy world” that couldn’t possibly happen.
Comment by Scam on 9 October 2011:
Scam,
Actually, it’s exactly what he’s saying, and you’re simply too much of an insane moron to comprehend basic principles of reality or the implications of your own thinking.
What are the origins of the state, Scam? Do tell, and give the world an indication that you’re not a babbling chimp.
Comment by Evan on 9 October 2011:
@ Mike Lonkouski,
This article doesn’t “refute the goals of the (Occupy Wall Street) movement.” It just expands on them. The fact is, I spent the past few days there and the sheer diversity of thought and opinion I encountered was mind-boggling. This is a very decentralized movement, and many of the individuals involved understand the points Sheldon brings up here very well.
Just as we cannot abstract ourselves out of the idea of the market, if you want to change something for the freer, get involved in it. If you agree with this article, go to, or organize an occupation in your local area and reach out to those discontent with the system. Practice agorism, spread the ideas of peace and liberty, and participate. What I experienced in Liberty Plaza was beautiful and inspiring, it was peacefully, consensually, and voluntarily organized and built from the ground up, not imposed from the top-down, I can tell you that much.
Comment by Lawson Kline on 9 October 2011:
Great Points. Its time to occupy Washington…
Comment by Gene on 9 October 2011:
You forgot that mention that the Federal Government threatened all the Banks in Loan Officer meetings (I’m a former WaMu Loan Officer from Phoenix) with prosecution if we violated the EOCA by NOT making Liar Loans to people.
The OCC and Federal Govt forced us make Liar Loans under EOCA threat and should be exposed for the Liars they are.
Comment by Phil R. on 10 October 2011:
@ Evan
My thoughts and experience exactly. Sure you’ve got your share of Obama people and left wingers in this #Occupy movement (and we have to be careful of hijack attempts). But there is a lot more to it than that. As you say the diversity of #Occupy is impressive. The only people denying that diversity of thought and opinion are the willfully ignorant or the hopelessly partisan aka republican/conservatives for whom O’Reilly and Limbaugh do the thinking.
As far as the demands are concerned there is no refutation of them per se since there are really no official OWS demands. There is a list or two been circulating but those lists are the work of single individuals and the lists are unofficial unrepresentative and the demands are ‘proposed’ only, subject to revision at a future date. Fact is no one speaks for OWS so there is no possibility of an “official” list of demands.
Regarding Sheldon’s suggestion that the protesters set up outside the Federal Reserve Sheldon has to get up to speed. There have been and are protests outside Federal Reserve branches in Kansas, Boston, Chicago and San Fransisco. And that’s before Alex Jones started his anti-Fed actions a few days ago
Comment by Scam on 10 October 2011:
Peter,
First of all it seems you mistakenly filled in my name on your comment. But who knows, maybe I’m just an insane moron who can’t comprehend basic principles of that reality.
Usually I don’t waste my time responding to people who contribute such pithy remarks, but I feel as tho your tone may be due to mistakenly taking my original comment as a personal insult or attack. I assure you that nothing personal was meant by it.
My point was that when people come across an idea that they can’t fathom the implications of, they too quickly write it off. For example, when I present the idea that stop lights should be done away with, everyone immediately writes off that idea because they assume it would lead to chaos on the roads and more accidents. They cannot fathom the idea of spontaneous order, and instead of learning more about the idea and its merits, they just assume that they are correct.
You make this mistake by assuming it would not be possible to have private property rights without the force of the state unless people agreed with each other 100% of the time. I was then merely bringing to your attention that you shouldn’t attribute a faulty position to someone else just because you disagree with them. But if that makes me a “babbling chimp” then so be it.
Comment by Peter on 10 October 2011:
Scam, when you have the tendency to say absolutely nothing at all, you should learn to use less words in order to do so.
Again, you put forth a statement that you’re too intellectually weak in order to defend. The basis of your reasoning is an unsupported and wildly conjectural statement that your opposition simply “can’t comprehend” the results of the system you’re advocating. The strongest point you’ve offered thus far is nothing more than an ad-hominem logical fallacy. See, Scam, what’s actually occurring here is this: your opponent understands the implications of your own reasoning infinitely better than you, yourself, do.
And, actually, my tone is due to the fact that you’re clearly a moron. Indicate that you’re not a moron, and my tone will change, but each consecutive post strengthens the notion that you are. You’re the type of idiot that carries around the idea that, because your own ideas are different, you must necessarily be more intelligent than the majority. While a truly brilliant idea will, by definition, be a rare and unique thing, so is, by definition, extraordinary stupidity. You happen to be exemplary of the latter.
Your comment about stop lights and other peoples’ reactions is a non-sequitur [bonus: A traffic system free of regulation already exists in the modern world. Do yourself a favor and find out where that is as well as what the accident and fatality rates are], as is your conclusion that “if other people disagree with me, it’s because they don’t understand what I do”. You’ve constructed a fail-safe delusion to become permanently drunk upon: if somebody else points out why it is you’re wrong, well, clearly it’s because they just don’t get it.
As for your last point, well, it’s another hilarious logical fallacy: the always-appearing-in-a-moron’s-arsenal strawman tactic. What I did, however, mention was that, in a society where everybody just so happened to agree with everybody else’s property claims, there would be no need for the state, which goes without saying.
Let me ask you again, Scam. What are the origins of the state? Why does the state arise in the first place? What of the “spontaneous order” that precedes a state?
Pingback by A political economy model for Occupy Wall Street « Knowledge Problem on 10 October 2011:
[...] hitting the nail on the head, from my perspective) is Sheldon Richman at the Freeman, noting that Wall Street couldn’t have done it alone: To: Occupy Wall [...]
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 10 October 2011:
Gene, can you send me links on that?
Comment by Kenneth Hopf on 10 October 2011:
Sheldon .. Of course, these points have been explained repeatedly to the political left for as long as I can remember. If I know anything about history, these same points have been explained to them for longer than I can remember. Yet still their mantra doesn’t change. At some point you realize that criticism simply has no effect on them. They’re ideologues.
Comment by bmac6446 on 10 October 2011:
I’ve trying to get this very point across to several “zealots” for candidates other than Ron Paul. It seems the media likes to lump people into large lumps.
Comment by Barbara Haney on 10 October 2011:
In case anyone hasn’t figured it out, the Wall Street Occupation is clearly Steve Learner and others operating out of the White House. This is a move by Goldman Sachs to bring down the other two banks (JPM and BOA) to acquire a market share and consolidate their position. Goldman Sachs, ala Timmy G, have been about this for quite a while.
Last week, there was evidence in circulation regarding the payment of the protester to be there. Who knew that Obama’s real jobs program was to pay NGO’s to hire protesters? Of course, we all through “green jobs” meant in the environmental sector… not the color of the monetary kick back to the White House through certain key payers.
Noteworthy was the statement released today by Anons that they had been requested to hack the NYSE with a DDOS that they had previously agreed with LEO’s not to use. I thought it was more obvious earlier (see my last link below). As this situation has developed, it is clear that these protesters are WI part II, and that this is Obama’s re-election campaign.
LaRaza will likely show up in about 3 days… that is my guess. Anyway, here are a few quick links to shore up my assertions, and it is not exhaustive…just current.
________________________
Shows the connection to the White House
http://www.blogster.com/joannemor/occupy-wall-st-orchestrated-not-in-the-street-but-in-the-white-house
Shows the Connection to the Democratic Party
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/10/10/democratic-party-going-all-in-on-occupy-wall-street-protests/
(Noteworthy, the protests turned away from Bernake toward JPM and BOA when their heads made contributions to Republican candidates)
Connection to the Seattle 1999 Protests on the planned violence
http://biggovernment.com/jpollak/2011/10/10/breaking-violence-feared-at-occupychicago-today/
Here is an early Anon message when the movement got hijacked…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g1LIxGoi-k&feature=share
Comment by Libertarian Jerry on 10 October 2011:
The Left(and the radical right for that matter)aren’t interested in logic and reason they are only interested in power. Anything to achieve and keep power. If you could go back in history do you think you could use logic and reason to argue with Lenin,Stalin,Mao or Hitler?;to just name 4 ideologues. These,and many megalomaniacs throughout history,have used the mantra of “power to the people.” Except”the people” is an abstraction. Usually the people that shout”power to the people” are the ones that land up with the power and then they make the people their slaves.
Comment by Bullseye on 10 October 2011:
Sheldon, don’t forget high taxes and the home interest rate deduction. For many people, this is the only tax shelter available to them. It means people carry bigger mortgages than they otherwise would during their working years to reduce their taxable incomes, putting them in a more precarious financial situation. When a bubble bursts, more people lose their homes as a result.
The natural tendency is for people to minimize their indebtedness. The interest rate deduction and high taxes encourages it.
Pingback by To Occupy Wall Street: « OBX Tea Party News on 10 October 2011:
[...] and/or their creditors that if they get into trouble they would be rescued. Read more Op-Ed at FreemanOnline.org LD_AddCustomAttr("AdOpt", "1"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]
Pingback by Corporatism and Power to the People | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 13 October 2011:
[...] a complaint that libertarians should not dismiss; corporations do have too much power. But as Sheldon Richman has noted, the only way they get that kind of power is be in cahoots with government. Corporations, whether [...]
Pingback by Tea Partier Defends Wall St Protesters | Speak American on 14 October 2011:
[...] “Wall St Couldn’t Have Done it Alone” -Describes the State’s role in enabling injustices in the financial sector. [...]
Pingback by Obama to Invoke Anti-Wall Street Feeling in Promoting Jobs Bill | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 17 October 2011:
[...] Timely Classic “Wall Street Couldn’t Have Done It Alone” by Sheldon [...]
Comment by TheTempestnh on 17 October 2011:
Great point! Keep pushing hard!
Pingback by Wall Street Non Avrebbe Potuto Farlo Da Solo | cogito ergo sum…penso dunque sono on 20 October 2011:
[...] di Sheldon Richman1 [...]
Pingback by O corporativismo e o poder do povo | Ordem Livre on 25 October 2011:
[...] uma reclamação que os liberais não deveriam rejeitar; corporações têm muito poder. Mas como Sheldon Richman observou, a única maneira como elas conseguem esse tipo de poder é associando-se ao governo. [...]
Pingback by Unjustified Independence | 077 Coffee & Cigarettes | Coffee & Cigarettes on 25 October 2011:
[...] Wall Street Couldn’t Have Done It Alone | The Freeman | October 07, 2011 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/anything-peaceful/wall-street-couldnt-have-done-it-alone/ [...]
Pingback by Greed with Political Power is Dangerous | Coffee & Cigarettes on 26 October 2011:
[...] Street Couldn’t Have Done It Alone | The Freeman | October 07, 2011 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/anything-peaceful/wall-street-couldnt-have-done-it-alone/ Leave a [...]
Pingback by Occupy Wall Streeters Need to Understand the Ideas of Personal Responsibility, Freedom of Contract and Private Property » ReasonAndJest.com on 29 October 2011:
[...] http://www.thefreemanonline.org/anything-peaceful/wall-street-couldnt-have-done-it-alone/ [...]
Pingback by Unjustified Independence | 077 Coffee & Cigarettes on 1 December 2011:
[...] Wall Street Couldn’t Have Done It Alone | The Freeman | October 07, 2011 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/anything-peaceful/wall-street-couldnt-have-done-it-alone/ [...]
Comment by England Patriots Season tickets on 4 February 2012:
Thanks a lot for that great writeup. Actually, exactly how might we talk?
Comment by a4031006 on 5 February 2012:
I’ve said that least 4031006 times. SCK was here
Comment by beachfront condos in sarasota on 5 February 2012:
Rattling fantastic information can be found on website.
Comment by consultancy information on 6 February 2012:
Today, while I was at work, my cousin stole my apple ipad and tested to see if it can survive a thirty foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My iPad is now destroyed and she has 83 views. I know this is completely off topic but I had to share it with someone!
Comment by maidstone electrician on 6 February 2012:
Hi, Neat post. There’s a problem along with your site in web explorer, may test this¡K IE nonetheless is the marketplace chief and a huge portion of other folks will miss your excellent writing because of this problem.
Comment by photocopier london on 6 February 2012:
Thank you for some other informative site. The place else could I am getting that type of info written in such a perfect approach? I have a undertaking that I’m simply now operating on, and I’ve been at the look out for such info.
Comment by Dannie Derosset on 6 February 2012:
I precisely desired to thank you very much once more. I am not sure the things I could possibly have tried in the absence of the creative concepts contributed by you about my field. It had become a real terrifying difficulty in my opinion, however , discovering your specialized strategy you resolved the issue made me to jump for happiness. I’m happier for the information and thus believe you find out what a great job you have been undertaking educating most people via your website. Most likely you haven’t got to know any of us.
Comment by Cheap Moncler Jackets on 7 February 2012:
i have noted your article in my mind,good job
Comment by kent seo services on 7 February 2012:
I have been exploring for a little bit for any high-quality articles or weblog posts in this sort of space . Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this site. Reading this info So i¡¦m glad to show that I have an incredibly excellent uncanny feeling I discovered exactly what I needed. I so much indubitably will make sure to don¡¦t omit this website and give it a glance regularly.
Comment by Telephone Answering Service on 7 February 2012:
Thanks, I’ve been searching for info about this subject matter for ages and yours may be the finest I have identified so far.
Comment by office photocopier on 7 February 2012:
Someone necessarily assist to make severely articles I would state. This is the first time I frequented your website page and up to now? I amazed with the research you made to make this actual put up amazing. Wonderful process!
Comment by forklifts sale on 7 February 2012:
You’re a very sensible particular person!
http://www.aucklandforktruckhire.getlisted.co.nz/forklifts-sale
Comment by Nancee Adamitis on 7 February 2012:
you have brought up a very superb points , regards for the post.
Comment by what is halitosis on 7 February 2012:
Hey there, I think your website might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog site in Firefox, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, fantastic blog!
Comment by Sala samobójców downloads on 7 February 2012:
My wife and i got delighted that Peter managed to deal with his studies through the entire ideas he made out of the web page. It’s not at all simplistic just to continually be making a gift of tips and hints men and women could have been trying to sell. So we figure out we have the blog owner to thank for this. The type of illustrations you made, the simple site navigation, the friendships you assist to engender – it is everything superb, and it is making our son and us know that that theme is brilliant, and that is quite indispensable. Thanks for the whole lot!
Comment by sciagnij bus on 7 February 2012:
I am just commenting to make you know of the extraordinary discovery my daughter went through viewing your web page. She learned such a lot of pieces, not to mention what it is like to have a great helping nature to let a number of people effortlessly understand certain complicated topics. You really exceeded my desires. Many thanks for presenting those practical, safe, edifying and easy tips on that topic to Evelyn.
Comment by domain coupons on 8 February 2012:
As soon as I discovered this internet website I went on reddit to share some with the love with them.
Comment by odloty on 8 February 2012:
Thanks, I’ve just been in search of information about this subject for evere ? and http://www.thefreemanonline.org/anything-peaceful/wall-street-couldnt-have-done-it-alone/ is the very best I have discovered till now. But, what in regards with the bottom line? Are you certain with regards to the source? |What i don’t understood is at truth how you can be not actually much more neatly-favored than you may just be right now. You are so bright. odloty
Trackback by stop spam plugin on 8 February 2012:
Usefull website…
[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t like spam links? Check this wordpress plugin.[...]……
Comment by psychic readings by phone on 8 February 2012:
I genuinely enjoyed this. It was extremely educational and beneficial. I will return to examine on upcoming posts
Pingback by Mortgage-Relief Scheme Finalized Mortgage-Relief Scheme Finalized Mortgage-Relief Scheme Finalized Mortgage-Relief Scheme Finalized Mortgage-Relief Scheme Finalized Mortgage-Relief Scheme Finalized | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 10 February 2012:
[...] Timely Classic “Wall Street Couldn’t Have Done It Alone” by Sheldon [...]
Comment by Joe Schmoe on 12 February 2012:
Re: Peter
“Again, you put forth a statement that you’re too intellectually weak in order to defend. The basis of your reasoning is an unsupported and wildly conjectural statement that your opposition simply ‘can’t comprehend’ the results of the system you’re advocating.”
Hmm. Can you take a look at YOUR original comment and explain how it is anything more than a few “unsupported and wildly conjectural statements”?
And can you take a look at the very first sentence of the quoted paragraph, above, and explain how that is not an unsupported and wildly conjectural statement?
Maybe the original poster did not want to spent several of the next few days trying to persuade you because he suspected you were a close-minded and ignorant fool. Given that you start debates with unsupported and wildly conjectural statements, one can only assume that you are as such.
And by the way:
“What I did, however, mention was that, in a society where everybody just so happened to agree with everybody else’s property claims, there would be no need for the state, which goes without saying.”
No, what you claimed was that for someone argue for the abolition of the state they require first an “idealized fantasy world” where property disputes were non-existent, and that this was irrelevant to the real world. Please, don’t try and pretend otherwise. You specifically associated calls for the abolition of the state with a prerequisite that there never be conflict.
What you are implicitly claiming is that a state is required for the provision law and justice, and in general, for social cooperation to occur.
This is simply unsupported by the evidence.
For one, well-developed systems of social cooperation is extraordinarily common among animal species that have the cognitive ability to do so and that would otherwise be extinct without it; while insects have fast reproductive cycles and large predators like lions have predatory talents, chimpanzees and other sapiens (including humans) could only flourish through developing cooperative systems of interaction.
What we see among early humans and modern apes is the slow emergence and development of systems of cooperation that were used to resolve conflicts with the least bloodshed, because of course bloodshed was not conducive to survival of the individual members of the group. The development of language was, first and foremost, the biggest example (and let me remind you that this development was both decentralized and unplanned).
Laws, in their earliest manifestations in ancient tribal times, were typically cultural traditions that were passed down by village elders. What is marked among almost all tribal cultures is that the chieftaincy i.e. the role of the village leader, was distinct from the elderly caste who would pass down the traditions (including the laws) of the village.
What a centralized system of law allowed a society to do was primarily to create empires through war. Tribal cultures had wars, of course, but they were typically minor conflicts between two tribes that ended rather quickly. When you couple the ability to define law with an entity designed to lead the country in war, what you predictably get is global empires like the Romans or the Persians during their height. This was primarily because it was not economically viable for the average individual to dedicate such large amounts of resources into the military because it is of course not economical to fight in wars.
The creation of the “state” was, first and foremost, for the purposes of large scale military conflict at the expense of the many and to the benefit of the lucky few in control of it. A merger of the religious caste with the warrior caste was what made murder on a global scale possible. Yes, even Hammurabi of the famous “Code of Hammurabi” only had the power he had because he was also a military dictator, and his Code was merely a written transcript of what were already common traditions among the people he ruled.
But if discussions of the origin of the state aren’t enough for you, how about some more modern examples. After all, “not working in practice” would be a valid complaint if all I had were impoverished and diffused tribal societies (let’s forget for a moment that the reasons they were impoverished were economical, not political). But I have two good examples with lessons and concepts readily applicable in a modern society.
The first is medieval Iceland.
I won’t elaborate in detail as I have things to do and places to be, but medieval Iceland essentially had around 40 privately owned chieftainships (which could be bought and sold) who were responsible for advocating for the interests of independent, land-owning farmers and essentially acting as representatives, lawyers, and enforcers for whomever would pay them. Each chieftainship was basically a seat on the jury that arbitrated disputes, and enforcement was simple: if you didn’t abide by the decision of the chieftains, they wouldn’t arbitrate your disputes and thus you had no protection under the law (you were, in a sense, an “outlaw”).
It worked for around 400 years before collapsing in civil war (which is already a better record than the U.S.) because of the one aspect of the society that was the least anarchic: there were only 40 chieftainships and this lead to an eventual monopolization of them. Given that the modern state has a monopoly over the provision of law and justice, we can see how this isn’t really a strike against my position.
The second is medieval Ireland: this one lasted for around 1000 years before being invaded by the British empire. They basically used a complex web of sureties to enforce disputes; if you didn’t pay for the damage you caused, they would go to your sureties and demand payment, and go to their sureties if they didn’t pay. The sureties acted as a measure of ones trustworthiness: having many trustworthy sureties meant you could be trusted yourself. If someone wouldn’t abide by the decisions of the courts, then his sureties would want to pay it, because they wouldn’t want to lose their sureties, but they would also immediately end their surety relationship.
The courts themselves were also private; the judges, called brehons, were made famous or infamous based on their knowledge of the law and their reputation for being wise and fair arbiters of it. Brehons would basically compete to offer judgments for a particular dispute, and they would often try to overrule another Brehons decision by providing a better one that both parties preferred. You could appeal to any brehon and the reputation of the surety would be influenced by the reputation of the brehon whose decision he enforced; obviously sureties known for only wanting to enforce the decisions most favorable to them would be considered less trustworthy.
There’s important elements common to both systems that a modern society could utilize:
-Cases arise solely from disputes, meaning no victimless crimes.
-The victim or their family pursues justice; everything is plaintiff versus defendant rather than state versus criminal. This means the victims actually have a say in the proceedings and the purpose of the proceedings are to compensate the victims.
-There’s no penal system, only enforcement through ostracism of the criminal, which is of course entirely possible in a modern society.
-The whole system was essentially privately owned, from judge to jury, and no guns or military is required to enforce it.
In a modern sense, not being allowed to walk into a restaurant by the owner because you’re a known child molester is just one such way in which “ostracism” works perfectly as a method of enforcing law.
Anyways, I’ve written more than I intended to write, but for all those of you who happen to see this article years later, I hope this is a useful tidbit of knowledge for you.