Comments on: Peace Through Statism?

By: Rad Geek People’s Daily 2009-04-24 – In counting there is strength.

Rad Geek People’s Daily 2009-04-24 – In counting there is strength. — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:44:19 +0000

[...] few days ago there was some back-and-forth over at Ken MacLeod’s blog, and then also at Roderick’s blog, over the the relationship between large, centralized states and peace. MacLeod originally [...]

By: Blagnet.net » On murder rates in Stateless societies

Blagnet.net » On murder rates in Stateless societies — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:58:18 +0000

[...] latest example and impetus for this post is Peace through Statism?, about the tired claim that anarchy breeds violence, combat, blood-feuds, warlord-led gangs, and a [...]

By: Topics about Buckingham-palace | Peace Through Statism?

Topics about Buckingham-palace | Peace Through Statism? — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:44:11 +0000

[...] Austro-Athenian Empire placed an observative post today on Peace Through Statism?Here’s a quick excerptKen MacLeod has expressed sympathy for anarchism in his novels; but on his blog today he writes this: We already know how to have peace over large areas of the Earth, and that is by having large states covering those areas. … The combat death rate for men of military age in typical stateless societies far exceeds that in inter-state wars, including world wars. So I posted the following comment there: Congratulations on winning the BSFA! On states and violence, though, I’ve got to d [...]

By: Sergio Méndez

Sergio Méndez — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:49:51 +0000

Intesting discusion. As a colombian citizen, I can testify how true is Profesor´s Long point of view. Here in my country, one who has suffered more than 50 years of continous internal conflict, there is this thesis, shared by the left and the right, that violence is the product of the “lack of state”. And no matter how much one shows them the state presence has not only not avoided any of that violence, but that it actually has helped to increase it (for example, the state supporting and allying with paramilitary groups; massacres comitted by paramilitaries with the complicity of the state etc…), nothing seems to move people from that false premise.

By: sarah

sarah — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:00:58 +0000

Thanks! Very informative.

By: Roderick

Roderick — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:35:10 +0000

Although this isn’t especially relevant to anything — it always bugs me when Mises talks about “big-scale” this and that, instead of “large-scale.” I guess because “big” is a relatively informal word (compared to “large”) while “scale” is relatively formal, so it feels unnatural in English to combine them in a single word.

But then he was some kinda furriner, wasn’t he?

By: Roderick

Roderick — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:29:24 +0000

Sarah, Yes! If you want to read more about that, see Kevin Carson's "Economic Calculation in the Corporate Commonwealth." (And if you want to read a LOT more about it, see his Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective, plus various stuff at all-left.net.)

By: Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:43:16 +0000

I should have said, “you don’t have to be “left,” or even buy into the notion that the ideas of leftism, left-libertarianism vs. right-, is coherent at all, to understand that bigness has its costs (as does smallness).”

By: sarah

sarah — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:41:20 +0000

I don’t know much about this, but if we believe a state can have a knowledge problem (no authority knows enough to control production optimally) isn’t it also possible that big corporations have a knowledge problem too? (The executive might not know enough about the details on the ground to manage them optimally from above.) If there’s any truth to that, it’s not necessarily a Marxist point — it doesn’t argue for getting rid of capitalism — it would just say that large organizations have internal drawbacks.

By: Roderick

Roderick — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:58:43 +0000

Yah, that’s a good quote.