Friday, August 21, 2009
Limited Government In Post-Invasion Iraq
In his last guest essay, Edward Gonzalez explained why post-invasion Iraq made him question the feasibility of Rothbardian free-market anarchy. In this post, Gonzalez describes a case where limited government--as opposed to brutal strongman rule--emerged out of the chaos after Saddam's regime fell.--RPM
================
Limited Government in the al Anbar Province of Iraq
by Edward Gonzalez
In a deployment to Iraq, I served in a number of villages in the al Anbar Province of Iraq. All these villages were dealing in their own ways with the consequences of war. Organized crime, terrorism, murder and intimidation campaigns were just a few negative aspects I witnessed while on deployment. I also witnessed some very encouraging scenes in the form of communities uniting in order to provide for their security. Although there is obviously a very large difference between the modern day United States and a farming village in Iraq, I believe the actions I witnessed merit examination, for in my opinion they represent both community and government at its most basic level.
There was a village where I served that developed a system of limited government that I believed to be just. It was a small fishing and farming village along the Euphrates River. This village had a collection of honest, intelligent elders, the most senior of which was the Sheik. Although it was a farming and fishing village, the Sheik owned four rock quarries. He had been running the quarries since he was a young man. He was older; my best guess is early 70s, had four wives, seven children, over a dozen grandchildren, and was a natural leader and entrepreneur. This village was also thrown into chaos in the early months of the war. Al Qaeda cells had made a home in their small village and killed a great many people. I visited a mass grave site that used to be the favorite execution spot of the extremists. I don’t know at what point, but the Sheik did eventually take action.
He gathered the families together and convinced them it was time to retake their town. He outfitted every fighting age male with a rifle, and the Sheik’s eldest son, who was in his mid thirties, led the battle to throw al Qaeda out of their village. The town was retaken. Here, the community decided to take collective, violent action in order to protect their lives and property. That collective action was the birth of their government.
I arrived at this village almost a year later. The system the elders had set up was truly impressive. Every young man was a police officer. Once a week each man had the responsibility of one patrol which usually lasted three to four hours. Apart from that one duty, the rest of the week the young men did their normal jobs of farming, fishing, or working at the rock quarry. There were only three full-time police officers who manned the radio at the police station, a small building with no furniture at which the patrols met. The Sheik's youngest son, who was 17, was the main radio operator. The people of the village paid no taxes, aside from the “time tax,” all the young men had to pay in a weekly patrol. The Sheik supported the only three full time police officers. The Sheik’s oldest son served as the Captain of the police, but his full time job was running the family rock quarries, and he only went to the police station to plan patrols and check in with his baby brother once in a while. However, in case of attack, every one knew he ran the show.
The elders of the village gathered at least once a week to discuss village business. In truth, they gathered almost every night to drink tea. During these meetings, if anything of importance needed to be decided all the men would give their opinion and a collective decision was made. There was no official vote per se, but the amount of people present made it easy to tell what direction the majority was leaning.
The Sheik was the village judge. When neighbors had disputes they went to see him. He was recognized as the wisest, shrewdest man in the village and people did accept his judgment. The Sheik did not accept money for the service he provided. He said it was his responsibility as an elder of the village. If he was away or sick, one of the other elders served as the judge. The Sheik had first established his leadership as a businessman and entrepreneur. He was certainly the richest man in the village, but people did not respect him for his money. They respected his judgment and decision making skills, which had as a great benefit also made him wealthy. Although the Sheik’s eldest son was Captain of the police force, I never witnessed nor heard any rumor of the Sheik’s judgments needing to be enforced. People abided by his judgments out of respect. Note that it was respect for his wisdom, not power.
This was their basic government: The elders of the community acting as leaders and decision makers, the young providing the brute force of police and military action, and the senior elder acting as judge.
The system had many great benefits. There was no divide between police and the people because everyone either was or lived with a police officer. Since every household had a police officer, if a stranger came to town, someone always noticed and notified the patrol. Although surrounded by violence on all sides, in my seven months in Iraq that is the only town where I could walk the streets without body armor and enjoy relaxing dinners without fear of being attacked.
There was a strongman directly to the north of the village who dominated his area as a tyrant extorting money from businesses and households. He never once made a move against this village. If he had attempted to extort money from one house or shop, every able-bodied man would have emerged armed with an AK-47 ready to fight.
As a result of the system in place, there was not a single attack while I was there so I did not see first hand how they dealt with murderers. However, speaking to the Captain of the police I learned how they handled it in the past. I also had a friend serving a few hundred miles away in a very similar village who witnessed it first hand. Two insurgents planted an IED that resulted in the death of a local man. The police captured the two insurgents immediately. The elders of the town and older police officers gathered in the center of town. They held court, had a vote, and the two insurgents were executed.
I also questioned the Sheik and his eldest son on how judgments were enforced and what repercussions a young man would face if he refused to conduct security patrols of the village. In both cases the answers were the same. All individuals were part of the community and had a duty to that community. This meant protecting the village in time of danger and abiding by the judgments of the elders in case of personal disputes. Those who chose to ignore this were shamed. Other individuals and families would look down upon them, refuse to do business with them, and give no assistance in case of need. Then the individual had one of two choices: Become completely self-sustaining and live outside the community or do his part. They both said that police enforcement in either of those cases would be a waste of time and energy. The Sheik also emphasized that forcing an individual to be part of a community that they did not wish to be apart of would be against God’s Law.
The village also had public roads. However, there were no taxes imposed on people for the construction. As security improved in and around the village, the market slowly started to see more people showing up for trade. One evening the elders decided it was time for a good road in and out of the village. The building of the road was decided on because it would provide a path for trucks to move large amounts of fish and crops from the village to the cities. The Captain of the police, the man running the rock quarries, got his trucks together and organized the construction of the road. All the men that stood to benefit financially from the construction of the road, which as far as I could tell was almost everyone, donated personal resources and lent a hand in the construction. It was finished in a single day.
This was also the time of the Awakening in the al Anbar province. Meetings were being called in the larger cities and representatives from villages were being asked to attend. I was not surprised that the Sheik was selected as the village representative. When representatives gathered for these types of meetings, the talks and discussions were on the overall security of the province and how security might be improved along the highways between the villages. The types of things discussed were: What tactics was al Qaeda using throughout the province? What police actions had been most effective in dealing with the threat? If an individual from one village commits a crime in another, how will he be tried? How will the police from one village coordinate with the police of another so there are not unintentional fights? What procedures will be abided by to make coordination more efficient? At no time in any of the meetings that I attended, were there laws established on how cities or villages were to handle their internal affairs. The focus was on coordination.
Although no taxes were collected from the villagers, tax money did come into play. American military personnel provided the towns with standardized police uniforms, a couple of ford pick up trucks painted as police vehicles, training and training ammunition for the young men.
From war and chaos this village, and many others like it, was able to emerge as a free society with a free market and an increasing quality of life. They were able to accomplish this not by treating the use of force and violence as a normal service to be provided by the free market, but by community decision and action. Please do not mistake my obvious concentration on the positive aspects of this village as an implication that everything was perfect. There were many hardships and problems both in the village and in the coordination with other towns and organizations. However, as a whole, this village I served in had the safest and happiest people I met in my time in Iraq.
I am certainly not saying that we should look to adopt this style of village government in the United States, but there are some elements in this style of limited government that I believe to be important to any free society.
First: The use of force was not treated like any other service in a market economy. Justice and police/military action were collective actions taken by the communities as a whole. The power of this government was not focused with a single individual but spread across the community. The process was intentionally inefficient so that no one individual would take hasty/emotional action that would have negative and dangerous repercussions for the community.
Second: Government only used force for community defense. They drew a distinction between what police/military needed to protect with violence and what community needed to enforce with shame. A violent assault on a person’s life or property was collectively defended by the use of force. A “crime” or broken rule of the culture was dealt with through shame and exile from the community.
Third: Government power was decentralized. When the Sheik, as the representative from the village, met with other representatives from other cities and towns, it was to discuss how the towns and cities might work together to deal with shared hardships. They established rules and procedures so that the individuals from neighboring villages and cities might deal more effectively with one another. There were no laws passed dictating to villages or cities how they must run their internal affairs.
Fourth: Government was not a money making, for-profit organization. They were all entrepreneurs who supported themselves. Government was a duty each individual had to his community. The fact that they were all entrepreneurs who supported themselves lent to decisions that were pro free market.
I will not launch into my full theory of limited government here. However, I do believe that certain fundamentals in a just society apply to all societies from a small farming village to a modern day nation.
Edward M. Gonzalez is a graduate of New York University and served on active duty in the United States Marines Corps from January 2004 to August of 2008. He is currently a Captain in the reserves and works for a private school in San Jose, CA. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily endorsed by the United States Marine Corps.
Limited Government in the al Anbar Province of Iraq
by Edward Gonzalez
In a deployment to Iraq, I served in a number of villages in the al Anbar Province of Iraq. All these villages were dealing in their own ways with the consequences of war. Organized crime, terrorism, murder and intimidation campaigns were just a few negative aspects I witnessed while on deployment. I also witnessed some very encouraging scenes in the form of communities uniting in order to provide for their security. Although there is obviously a very large difference between the modern day United States and a farming village in Iraq, I believe the actions I witnessed merit examination, for in my opinion they represent both community and government at its most basic level.
There was a village where I served that developed a system of limited government that I believed to be just. It was a small fishing and farming village along the Euphrates River. This village had a collection of honest, intelligent elders, the most senior of which was the Sheik. Although it was a farming and fishing village, the Sheik owned four rock quarries. He had been running the quarries since he was a young man. He was older; my best guess is early 70s, had four wives, seven children, over a dozen grandchildren, and was a natural leader and entrepreneur. This village was also thrown into chaos in the early months of the war. Al Qaeda cells had made a home in their small village and killed a great many people. I visited a mass grave site that used to be the favorite execution spot of the extremists. I don’t know at what point, but the Sheik did eventually take action.
He gathered the families together and convinced them it was time to retake their town. He outfitted every fighting age male with a rifle, and the Sheik’s eldest son, who was in his mid thirties, led the battle to throw al Qaeda out of their village. The town was retaken. Here, the community decided to take collective, violent action in order to protect their lives and property. That collective action was the birth of their government.
I arrived at this village almost a year later. The system the elders had set up was truly impressive. Every young man was a police officer. Once a week each man had the responsibility of one patrol which usually lasted three to four hours. Apart from that one duty, the rest of the week the young men did their normal jobs of farming, fishing, or working at the rock quarry. There were only three full-time police officers who manned the radio at the police station, a small building with no furniture at which the patrols met. The Sheik's youngest son, who was 17, was the main radio operator. The people of the village paid no taxes, aside from the “time tax,” all the young men had to pay in a weekly patrol. The Sheik supported the only three full time police officers. The Sheik’s oldest son served as the Captain of the police, but his full time job was running the family rock quarries, and he only went to the police station to plan patrols and check in with his baby brother once in a while. However, in case of attack, every one knew he ran the show.
The elders of the village gathered at least once a week to discuss village business. In truth, they gathered almost every night to drink tea. During these meetings, if anything of importance needed to be decided all the men would give their opinion and a collective decision was made. There was no official vote per se, but the amount of people present made it easy to tell what direction the majority was leaning.
The Sheik was the village judge. When neighbors had disputes they went to see him. He was recognized as the wisest, shrewdest man in the village and people did accept his judgment. The Sheik did not accept money for the service he provided. He said it was his responsibility as an elder of the village. If he was away or sick, one of the other elders served as the judge. The Sheik had first established his leadership as a businessman and entrepreneur. He was certainly the richest man in the village, but people did not respect him for his money. They respected his judgment and decision making skills, which had as a great benefit also made him wealthy. Although the Sheik’s eldest son was Captain of the police force, I never witnessed nor heard any rumor of the Sheik’s judgments needing to be enforced. People abided by his judgments out of respect. Note that it was respect for his wisdom, not power.
This was their basic government: The elders of the community acting as leaders and decision makers, the young providing the brute force of police and military action, and the senior elder acting as judge.
The system had many great benefits. There was no divide between police and the people because everyone either was or lived with a police officer. Since every household had a police officer, if a stranger came to town, someone always noticed and notified the patrol. Although surrounded by violence on all sides, in my seven months in Iraq that is the only town where I could walk the streets without body armor and enjoy relaxing dinners without fear of being attacked.
There was a strongman directly to the north of the village who dominated his area as a tyrant extorting money from businesses and households. He never once made a move against this village. If he had attempted to extort money from one house or shop, every able-bodied man would have emerged armed with an AK-47 ready to fight.
As a result of the system in place, there was not a single attack while I was there so I did not see first hand how they dealt with murderers. However, speaking to the Captain of the police I learned how they handled it in the past. I also had a friend serving a few hundred miles away in a very similar village who witnessed it first hand. Two insurgents planted an IED that resulted in the death of a local man. The police captured the two insurgents immediately. The elders of the town and older police officers gathered in the center of town. They held court, had a vote, and the two insurgents were executed.
I also questioned the Sheik and his eldest son on how judgments were enforced and what repercussions a young man would face if he refused to conduct security patrols of the village. In both cases the answers were the same. All individuals were part of the community and had a duty to that community. This meant protecting the village in time of danger and abiding by the judgments of the elders in case of personal disputes. Those who chose to ignore this were shamed. Other individuals and families would look down upon them, refuse to do business with them, and give no assistance in case of need. Then the individual had one of two choices: Become completely self-sustaining and live outside the community or do his part. They both said that police enforcement in either of those cases would be a waste of time and energy. The Sheik also emphasized that forcing an individual to be part of a community that they did not wish to be apart of would be against God’s Law.
The village also had public roads. However, there were no taxes imposed on people for the construction. As security improved in and around the village, the market slowly started to see more people showing up for trade. One evening the elders decided it was time for a good road in and out of the village. The building of the road was decided on because it would provide a path for trucks to move large amounts of fish and crops from the village to the cities. The Captain of the police, the man running the rock quarries, got his trucks together and organized the construction of the road. All the men that stood to benefit financially from the construction of the road, which as far as I could tell was almost everyone, donated personal resources and lent a hand in the construction. It was finished in a single day.
This was also the time of the Awakening in the al Anbar province. Meetings were being called in the larger cities and representatives from villages were being asked to attend. I was not surprised that the Sheik was selected as the village representative. When representatives gathered for these types of meetings, the talks and discussions were on the overall security of the province and how security might be improved along the highways between the villages. The types of things discussed were: What tactics was al Qaeda using throughout the province? What police actions had been most effective in dealing with the threat? If an individual from one village commits a crime in another, how will he be tried? How will the police from one village coordinate with the police of another so there are not unintentional fights? What procedures will be abided by to make coordination more efficient? At no time in any of the meetings that I attended, were there laws established on how cities or villages were to handle their internal affairs. The focus was on coordination.
Although no taxes were collected from the villagers, tax money did come into play. American military personnel provided the towns with standardized police uniforms, a couple of ford pick up trucks painted as police vehicles, training and training ammunition for the young men.
From war and chaos this village, and many others like it, was able to emerge as a free society with a free market and an increasing quality of life. They were able to accomplish this not by treating the use of force and violence as a normal service to be provided by the free market, but by community decision and action. Please do not mistake my obvious concentration on the positive aspects of this village as an implication that everything was perfect. There were many hardships and problems both in the village and in the coordination with other towns and organizations. However, as a whole, this village I served in had the safest and happiest people I met in my time in Iraq.
I am certainly not saying that we should look to adopt this style of village government in the United States, but there are some elements in this style of limited government that I believe to be important to any free society.
First: The use of force was not treated like any other service in a market economy. Justice and police/military action were collective actions taken by the communities as a whole. The power of this government was not focused with a single individual but spread across the community. The process was intentionally inefficient so that no one individual would take hasty/emotional action that would have negative and dangerous repercussions for the community.
Second: Government only used force for community defense. They drew a distinction between what police/military needed to protect with violence and what community needed to enforce with shame. A violent assault on a person’s life or property was collectively defended by the use of force. A “crime” or broken rule of the culture was dealt with through shame and exile from the community.
Third: Government power was decentralized. When the Sheik, as the representative from the village, met with other representatives from other cities and towns, it was to discuss how the towns and cities might work together to deal with shared hardships. They established rules and procedures so that the individuals from neighboring villages and cities might deal more effectively with one another. There were no laws passed dictating to villages or cities how they must run their internal affairs.
Fourth: Government was not a money making, for-profit organization. They were all entrepreneurs who supported themselves. Government was a duty each individual had to his community. The fact that they were all entrepreneurs who supported themselves lent to decisions that were pro free market.
I will not launch into my full theory of limited government here. However, I do believe that certain fundamentals in a just society apply to all societies from a small farming village to a modern day nation.
Edward M. Gonzalez is a graduate of New York University and served on active duty in the United States Marines Corps from January 2004 to August of 2008. He is currently a Captain in the reserves and works for a private school in San Jose, CA. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily endorsed by the United States Marine Corps.
Comments:
Gonzalez,
This is pretty cool! You seem to have stumbled upon a free market law system without even realizing. Heck, you're so convinced of the stories about law and order you learned back in America you tricked yourself into thinking you witnessed a government in action!
Witness:
--No constitution or formal written law
--No coercion to enforce the law or community principles
--A natural order of elite leadership (a la HHH principle of nobilitas naturalis) in which "wise men" of the community are looked to for leadership and guidance out of respect for past demonstrations of sound judgment, fairness and ability
I think the thing you are hung up on, definition-wise, is the 'collective' nature of this response. You seem to conflate 'individualism' with 'anarchy' and 'collective action' with 'government.' Maybe some people think of things this way but I don't. The key for me is FORCE-- does a 'society' operate on a principle of voluntary, willful interaction, or forceful, coercive domination of people by leaders?
There is nothing wrong or non-anarchic about a bunch of villagers all agreeing, on their own, to live under and enforce a system like the one you described. The point at which they transform from a voluntary, anarchic society, to a coercive, governed society, is the point at which the Shiekh imprisons, beats or kills individuals who refuse to go along with his judgment or dictates (and I am excluding from such a scenario obvious villains such as bandits or al Qaeda types who engage in anti-social violations of property rights, personal or otherwise).
Gonzalez, I think you would enjoy reading a (rather short) bookish-type document called Laws of the Jungle, by Allen Thornton. I think it could be helpful if giving you a broader perspective on what 'anarchy' and 'government' mean. It's also possible you'll disagree with the author and his definitions. That's fine, too.
I'd love to get your thoughts on it if you get a chance to read it! In the meantime, hopefully we can all come to some agreement/consensus on how we want to define our terms going forward, as we might end up talking past one another quite a bit if we don't.
This was an exciting read, for an anarchist like me anyway! Thank you!
This is pretty cool! You seem to have stumbled upon a free market law system without even realizing. Heck, you're so convinced of the stories about law and order you learned back in America you tricked yourself into thinking you witnessed a government in action!
Witness:
--No constitution or formal written law
--No coercion to enforce the law or community principles
--A natural order of elite leadership (a la HHH principle of nobilitas naturalis) in which "wise men" of the community are looked to for leadership and guidance out of respect for past demonstrations of sound judgment, fairness and ability
I think the thing you are hung up on, definition-wise, is the 'collective' nature of this response. You seem to conflate 'individualism' with 'anarchy' and 'collective action' with 'government.' Maybe some people think of things this way but I don't. The key for me is FORCE-- does a 'society' operate on a principle of voluntary, willful interaction, or forceful, coercive domination of people by leaders?
There is nothing wrong or non-anarchic about a bunch of villagers all agreeing, on their own, to live under and enforce a system like the one you described. The point at which they transform from a voluntary, anarchic society, to a coercive, governed society, is the point at which the Shiekh imprisons, beats or kills individuals who refuse to go along with his judgment or dictates (and I am excluding from such a scenario obvious villains such as bandits or al Qaeda types who engage in anti-social violations of property rights, personal or otherwise).
Gonzalez, I think you would enjoy reading a (rather short) bookish-type document called Laws of the Jungle, by Allen Thornton. I think it could be helpful if giving you a broader perspective on what 'anarchy' and 'government' mean. It's also possible you'll disagree with the author and his definitions. That's fine, too.
I'd love to get your thoughts on it if you get a chance to read it! In the meantime, hopefully we can all come to some agreement/consensus on how we want to define our terms going forward, as we might end up talking past one another quite a bit if we don't.
This was an exciting read, for an anarchist like me anyway! Thank you!
Edward, thanks for writing that article, that is a fascinating story and I haven't heard any like it regarding Iraq.
I have just finished reading it so I haven't reflected deeply on it but some immediate thoughts have come to mind:
This form of limited government that you speak of sounds more like a group of villagers voluntarily agreeing to a form of governance. Governance being different from government, and voluntary being the key concept. (Pete Leeson discusses this in The Invisible Hook).
With this form of governance or government in place, what can we expect to happen when the main village elder passes away? Assuming everything has remained mostly as it was, it seems like a natural progression would be to determine the new village "elder," yet there could be much disagreement in this regard (amongst villagers) that could lead to disbandment or the use of force to establish the ultimate rule of arbitration in the village. What I'm getting at is that the voluntary nature could be wiped away.
As far as your impression that the system in place was "just," I would have to agree with you based on what you have written. It seems that everyone in the community volunteered time to keep themselves and their families safe (police patrols) and volunteered to have the elder take on the task of arbitration.
The roads aspect is very intriguing. While they were acknowledged as public they were maintained privately by those individuals who could gain most from them.
I suppose what I'm trying to understand is if what you witnessed was really a form of government and not a voluntary association banding together amidst chaos.
Those are just my initial impressions, and I hope I can weasel out of any stupid things I may have said once they are brought to light.
I have just finished reading it so I haven't reflected deeply on it but some immediate thoughts have come to mind:
This form of limited government that you speak of sounds more like a group of villagers voluntarily agreeing to a form of governance. Governance being different from government, and voluntary being the key concept. (Pete Leeson discusses this in The Invisible Hook).
With this form of governance or government in place, what can we expect to happen when the main village elder passes away? Assuming everything has remained mostly as it was, it seems like a natural progression would be to determine the new village "elder," yet there could be much disagreement in this regard (amongst villagers) that could lead to disbandment or the use of force to establish the ultimate rule of arbitration in the village. What I'm getting at is that the voluntary nature could be wiped away.
As far as your impression that the system in place was "just," I would have to agree with you based on what you have written. It seems that everyone in the community volunteered time to keep themselves and their families safe (police patrols) and volunteered to have the elder take on the task of arbitration.
The roads aspect is very intriguing. While they were acknowledged as public they were maintained privately by those individuals who could gain most from them.
I suppose what I'm trying to understand is if what you witnessed was really a form of government and not a voluntary association banding together amidst chaos.
Those are just my initial impressions, and I hope I can weasel out of any stupid things I may have said once they are brought to light.
Okay, now that I see what Taylor wrote I'm a little more convinced of what I was saying.
Still, I was not there, but I'm leading toward governance- not government.
Still, I was not there, but I'm leading toward governance- not government.
Taylor and Jesse,
I am glad you both enjoyed the essay. I went to that village after spending time in a really horrible, dangerous one, so I was even more impressed when first entering it.
I am also glad that we have cleared up some of our miscommunication over our use of language. Being new to these theories, I have to admit that there are many terms thrown around that I have never heard before. I was looking up minarchist yesterday on google. That said, I do consider this government for a couple reasons. First: The village maintained a monopoly on the use of retalitory force and violence. If anyone had decided to exact violent justice on anyone without the villages majority consent there would have been big trouble.
I am glad you both enjoyed the essay. I went to that village after spending time in a really horrible, dangerous one, so I was even more impressed when first entering it.
I am also glad that we have cleared up some of our miscommunication over our use of language. Being new to these theories, I have to admit that there are many terms thrown around that I have never heard before. I was looking up minarchist yesterday on google. That said, I do consider this government for a couple reasons. First: The village maintained a monopoly on the use of retalitory force and violence. If anyone had decided to exact violent justice on anyone without the villages majority consent there would have been big trouble.
The Blackadder Says:
According to Captain Gonzalez's article, the village in question has universal conscription of all able bodied men. I had thought that conscription was considered a form of slavery under anarchist principles.
I suppose the counter-argument will be that living in the village is voluntary, and that if one doesn't want to participate in the police force they could always move. By that logic it's not clear that we have a government here in the United States, since anyone who doesn't want to abide by the rules we've collectively decided on is free to move to some other country.
According to Captain Gonzalez's article, the village in question has universal conscription of all able bodied men. I had thought that conscription was considered a form of slavery under anarchist principles.
I suppose the counter-argument will be that living in the village is voluntary, and that if one doesn't want to participate in the police force they could always move. By that logic it's not clear that we have a government here in the United States, since anyone who doesn't want to abide by the rules we've collectively decided on is free to move to some other country.
# posted by 
: August 21, 2009 5:00 PM
: August 21, 2009 5:00 PM
Second: The Sheik as the judge only gave judgment when it came to personal disputes. A private judicial system in this regard is absolutely feasible and I would never argue agaist it. But when it came to murderers, court was held by all elders in the community and put to a vote. Anyone, even the Sheik, trying to pass single judgment is those cases would have been opposed by the community.
I define government as a society's collective use of force. Whether the government is just or not depends on whether they choose to use force as a means of defense or as a tool to initiate force against others.
My argument against Market Anarchy as desribed by Rothbard and Murphy is that the treatment of the employment of violence at a normal service to be provided by a market economy goes against human nature as I see it. In violent and dangerous situations, honest and just men join together and use their collective strength for defense.
I would like to know if Blackadder, Bobbie the minarchist, or anyone else also believes the situation I described to be government. I would also love to hear from anyone who considers this a form of market anarchy and why they believe the village did not have a government.
My argument against Market Anarchy as desribed by Rothbard and Murphy is that the treatment of the employment of violence at a normal service to be provided by a market economy goes against human nature as I see it. In violent and dangerous situations, honest and just men join together and use their collective strength for defense.
I would like to know if Blackadder, Bobbie the minarchist, or anyone else also believes the situation I described to be government. I would also love to hear from anyone who considers this a form of market anarchy and why they believe the village did not have a government.
I'm afraid that most anarchists here will only refer endlessly to Hoppe...
Before I do so I'll just recommend the recent LRC podcast of one of Hoppe's speeches. http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/ (#130)
Before I do so I'll just recommend the recent LRC podcast of one of Hoppe's speeches. http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/ (#130)
Edward, this is a really intriguing essay. (I couldn't really digest it when I posted it from my office, but now I've had a chance to read it.)
I think we can all agree that whether this is a limited government or market anarchy, it's really close to the dividing line.
Before I give any further thoughts, let me ask you this Edward: Suppose that after an IED attack, the people in the village who knew how to administer medical care would do so out of sense of duty, and that the families of the beneficiaries often would compensate the people, but often they would not (if they were too poor, for example). But for sure, there was no haggling over price before medical care was given to people bleeding from shrapnel wounds.
Would you describe that as a system of government health care? Why or why not?
I think we can all agree that whether this is a limited government or market anarchy, it's really close to the dividing line.
Before I give any further thoughts, let me ask you this Edward: Suppose that after an IED attack, the people in the village who knew how to administer medical care would do so out of sense of duty, and that the families of the beneficiaries often would compensate the people, but often they would not (if they were too poor, for example). But for sure, there was no haggling over price before medical care was given to people bleeding from shrapnel wounds.
Would you describe that as a system of government health care? Why or why not?
Bob,
I would not define that as government healthcare. I define government as society's collective use of force. That to me just sounds like neighbors taking care of one another. Hypothetically, the village could have public healthcare where, like the roads, those that chose to donate funds to a doctor to administer free service could do so out of choice, but I consider public and government two distinct things. I didn't mention it before because the article was already very long, but the village also had medical services. Because it was safe and property rights were protected, to older men travelled occasionally to the city where they bought medical supplies and antibiotics. They owned a pharmacy in the center of the village where they sold "perscription" drugs. They had some training, but not more than a basic EMT might have in the US.
I would not define that as government healthcare. I define government as society's collective use of force. That to me just sounds like neighbors taking care of one another. Hypothetically, the village could have public healthcare where, like the roads, those that chose to donate funds to a doctor to administer free service could do so out of choice, but I consider public and government two distinct things. I didn't mention it before because the article was already very long, but the village also had medical services. Because it was safe and property rights were protected, to older men travelled occasionally to the city where they bought medical supplies and antibiotics. They owned a pharmacy in the center of the village where they sold "perscription" drugs. They had some training, but not more than a basic EMT might have in the US.
Edward,
I want to let this bounce around my head for a while before I make any judgment. In the meantime, can you tell us if the Iraqi central government has asserted (or will soon) its "authority" over these people? E.g. do they pay taxes to Baghdad?
I want to let this bounce around my head for a while before I make any judgment. In the meantime, can you tell us if the Iraqi central government has asserted (or will soon) its "authority" over these people? E.g. do they pay taxes to Baghdad?
Under pure anarcho-capitalist/natural-order standards, both the protector of the plaintiff and the protector of the accused must agree on the sentencing for a crime. In this village there was obviously no way for captured terrorists to have outside protection, and so a general consensus stood in for the division of power and the multilateral use of force.
I will claim that such a system could not in any way be described as a government, as the sheik was in absolutely no position to make any unilateral decisions and impositions. Should he had been the instigator of a conflict, then the other elders would have of course excluded him from being the judge of this conflict. This therefore implies that there was no monopoly of force and none of the features of government.
Neither does the enlistment of all able-bodied men in the police mean that it is conscription. Because there are multiple elders providing security, and a war-time situation requires that all able-bodied men be fighters, serving the security of the village is nothing more than the market price to be paid in exchange for protection from any of the elders.
What does prevent this from being a pure natural order is the village land being held in common. This results in streets being under-capitalized. What prevents it from being anarcho-capitalism is that this type of model is extremely small-scale and could not work to defend an entire country from, for example, the US military.
I will claim that such a system could not in any way be described as a government, as the sheik was in absolutely no position to make any unilateral decisions and impositions. Should he had been the instigator of a conflict, then the other elders would have of course excluded him from being the judge of this conflict. This therefore implies that there was no monopoly of force and none of the features of government.
Neither does the enlistment of all able-bodied men in the police mean that it is conscription. Because there are multiple elders providing security, and a war-time situation requires that all able-bodied men be fighters, serving the security of the village is nothing more than the market price to be paid in exchange for protection from any of the elders.
What does prevent this from being a pure natural order is the village land being held in common. This results in streets being under-capitalized. What prevents it from being anarcho-capitalism is that this type of model is extremely small-scale and could not work to defend an entire country from, for example, the US military.
# posted by : August 21, 2009 11:35 PM
: August 21, 2009 11:35 PM
Bob,
I was wondering if someone was going to ask this and how I would explain it. First, at the time I was there they paid no direct taxes to Baghdad. But, I am ill informed on how the current Iraqi government funds itself.
Second question is, if the current central government has attempted to assert itself over this village. The answer is yes. This is going to take some explaining. First, my job as an advisor was to train, mentor, and advise the Iraqi Army in order to transition American battle space to Iraqi control. I did this so that when I returned to the US, no replacement unit was necessary (fewer American troops in Iraq). My first post was two hours north of this village. It was a very bad area, which I described in my first article on this website. In this village were an Iraqi Army Company, a US Marine Company, and Iraqi Police. Although I was a Marine, I was not attached to the Marines. I was independent and lived with the Iraqis. I did have an interpreter who was born in Iraq but moved to the US when he was a child after the first gulf war. I spent two months in that village and that is where I first began to develop my thoughts and theories of economics. I also developed a simple theory of law. Before I arrived the three units refused to work together. I won't go into the details but I got them to work together, so I developed a reputation as a negotiator.
One evening I got a call from my team headquarters, which was about an hour away, which went something like this: "We are pulling you out tomorrow. An Iraqi Army company tried to move into a village today and they were refused entry. The local Sheik and police captain said that any military personnel attempting to patrol inside the village would be attacked. We need you to go deal with this." Needless to say it was one of the most memorable conversations of my life. I was picked up the next day at noon.
I was wondering if someone was going to ask this and how I would explain it. First, at the time I was there they paid no direct taxes to Baghdad. But, I am ill informed on how the current Iraqi government funds itself.
Second question is, if the current central government has attempted to assert itself over this village. The answer is yes. This is going to take some explaining. First, my job as an advisor was to train, mentor, and advise the Iraqi Army in order to transition American battle space to Iraqi control. I did this so that when I returned to the US, no replacement unit was necessary (fewer American troops in Iraq). My first post was two hours north of this village. It was a very bad area, which I described in my first article on this website. In this village were an Iraqi Army Company, a US Marine Company, and Iraqi Police. Although I was a Marine, I was not attached to the Marines. I was independent and lived with the Iraqis. I did have an interpreter who was born in Iraq but moved to the US when he was a child after the first gulf war. I spent two months in that village and that is where I first began to develop my thoughts and theories of economics. I also developed a simple theory of law. Before I arrived the three units refused to work together. I won't go into the details but I got them to work together, so I developed a reputation as a negotiator.
One evening I got a call from my team headquarters, which was about an hour away, which went something like this: "We are pulling you out tomorrow. An Iraqi Army company tried to move into a village today and they were refused entry. The local Sheik and police captain said that any military personnel attempting to patrol inside the village would be attacked. We need you to go deal with this." Needless to say it was one of the most memorable conversations of my life. I was picked up the next day at noon.
continued...
My first day gave me the situation. The Iraqi Army was growing back after being disbanded by the Americans immediately following the invasion. There were still many al Qaeda cells operating all over the province and the Iraqi Army was doing its best to hunt them all down. When the Iraqi Company attempted to enter this village, the Sheik and his eldest son were having none of it. They informed the Army commander that they had already fought and killed the al Qaeda insurgents and military aid was not needed or welcomed. The Iraqi Commander assumed that because they were refusing to allow patrols in, the village must be full of insurgents. A fire fight almost began. Luckily, the Iraqi Commander fully understood the repercussions of killing a whole bunch of villagers so called our team for a bit of guidance. It took three days, but I did get the two groups working together. The details are worth another seperate article so I won't go into it here. However, the Iraqi Army was able to patrol but the elders remained the sole legal authority within the village.
My first day gave me the situation. The Iraqi Army was growing back after being disbanded by the Americans immediately following the invasion. There were still many al Qaeda cells operating all over the province and the Iraqi Army was doing its best to hunt them all down. When the Iraqi Company attempted to enter this village, the Sheik and his eldest son were having none of it. They informed the Army commander that they had already fought and killed the al Qaeda insurgents and military aid was not needed or welcomed. The Iraqi Commander assumed that because they were refusing to allow patrols in, the village must be full of insurgents. A fire fight almost began. Luckily, the Iraqi Commander fully understood the repercussions of killing a whole bunch of villagers so called our team for a bit of guidance. It took three days, but I did get the two groups working together. The details are worth another seperate article so I won't go into it here. However, the Iraqi Army was able to patrol but the elders remained the sole legal authority within the village.
Stranger,
The village elders held a monopoly on the use of force. No other police force or "court" for murderers would have been allowed. By my definition this is a monopoly. You say it is not a monopoly because the Sheik doesn't have total power, but the the majority of elders do. Why is this not a government in your terms?
The village elders held a monopoly on the use of force. No other police force or "court" for murderers would have been allowed. By my definition this is a monopoly. You say it is not a monopoly because the Sheik doesn't have total power, but the the majority of elders do. Why is this not a government in your terms?
I had invited some libertarian big guns to chime in here, but while we wait with bated breath for their opinions, here's what I just Edward in an email:
===
Well it's borderline. I usually think of a gov't as having a
territorial monopoly on force and raising revenues through taxation.
For me, the distinctive feature of gov't is that it uses force against
people who aren't committing crimes against others. E.g. if you don't
pay taxes, that's a "crime" even though you may not have stolen
anything or killed anybody.
But it seems in the case of the village the only aspect of this would be if someone uses force against someone, and the elders agree that it was an acceptable use, *except* for the fact that the guy didn't first get their permission. Just to show why it's such a narrow case, consider the other possibilities: If a guy used acceptable force and
first got their permission, then that would be fine; it would be in
accordance with the "government" ruling. On the other hand, if the guy used unacceptable force (say, he chopped someone's head off for
looking at him funny), then the guy is clearly a criminal and so the
elders deploying force against him is not indicative of a government;
an ancap defense agency could do the same.
So the way to really determine if it's a government or ancap, in my
mind, is to look at a situation where a guy is acting legally *except* for the fact that he didn't first get the elders' permission. So e.g. maybe he killed a guy who had killed his son. If that would have been permissible, had he first gone to the elders and they ruled on it, then they are clearly showing they have a monopoly if they punish the
avenger when he doesn't seek their permission first.
Can you comment on this nuance, Edward? One last example: I'm assuming you are exaggerating when you say they have a total monopoly. If a thief breaks into somebody's dwelling in the middle of the night, and the man of the house kills him, I'm assuming the elders would have no objection, right? Especially if, say, the thief had a knife to the guy's wife before the guy shot him?
As my discussion above should show, I think you need to spell out a
little more clearly just what authority the elders were claiming, in order for me to decide whether they really formed a government, as
opposed to a customary institution that wielded force only against
lawbreakers.
===
Well it's borderline. I usually think of a gov't as having a
territorial monopoly on force and raising revenues through taxation.
For me, the distinctive feature of gov't is that it uses force against
people who aren't committing crimes against others. E.g. if you don't
pay taxes, that's a "crime" even though you may not have stolen
anything or killed anybody.
But it seems in the case of the village the only aspect of this would be if someone uses force against someone, and the elders agree that it was an acceptable use, *except* for the fact that the guy didn't first get their permission. Just to show why it's such a narrow case, consider the other possibilities: If a guy used acceptable force and
first got their permission, then that would be fine; it would be in
accordance with the "government" ruling. On the other hand, if the guy used unacceptable force (say, he chopped someone's head off for
looking at him funny), then the guy is clearly a criminal and so the
elders deploying force against him is not indicative of a government;
an ancap defense agency could do the same.
So the way to really determine if it's a government or ancap, in my
mind, is to look at a situation where a guy is acting legally *except* for the fact that he didn't first get the elders' permission. So e.g. maybe he killed a guy who had killed his son. If that would have been permissible, had he first gone to the elders and they ruled on it, then they are clearly showing they have a monopoly if they punish the
avenger when he doesn't seek their permission first.
Can you comment on this nuance, Edward? One last example: I'm assuming you are exaggerating when you say they have a total monopoly. If a thief breaks into somebody's dwelling in the middle of the night, and the man of the house kills him, I'm assuming the elders would have no objection, right? Especially if, say, the thief had a knife to the guy's wife before the guy shot him?
As my discussion above should show, I think you need to spell out a
little more clearly just what authority the elders were claiming, in order for me to decide whether they really formed a government, as
opposed to a customary institution that wielded force only against
lawbreakers.
Bob,
I will answer your questions in reverse order. First, the elders claimed a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force, not all force. For example, if a thief wielding a knife broke into my house and I killed him, no problem. However, if the thief robbed me of all my stuff and got away and two days later I saw him at the village market and slit his throat, I would have to answer for my crime. This never happened, but a similar situation did arise while I was in the town. One fisherman "borrowed" another fisherman’s boat without asking. When the owner of the boat went to go to work and found his method of livelihood gone, he became enraged. He fetched his rifle and was shouting obscenities and waving his loaded rifle around, threatening the man who had taken his boat. The police patrol at the time disarmed the man and brought both before the Sheik. First, the Sheik ruled that the man who had taken the fishing boat was guilty and all or most of the fish (I forget the exact ruling) he had caught belonged to the owner of the boat. Second, the owner of the boat was brought before the Sheik and given a serious tongue lashing that went something like this. “Who do you think you are? We live in a peaceful community here and we have a certain way of doing things. If a man takes from you, you come here and we deal with it together. No one man may take justice into his own hands. We have fought too hard for a peaceful community and you would put at risk and risk the lives of those around you over a squabble over fish? You have disgraced yourself and your family.” Granted, I am paraphrasing from a conversation I heard almost two years ago, but I do remember the message. The full tongue lashing lasted over twenty minutes, was public, and brutal.
Now, a free market judge could have done the same thing and the Sheik was essentially a free market judge as defined by ancap, but here is the vital distinction: Had the boat owner killed or wounded the other man, his fate would not have been decided by the Sheik alone, but by all the village elders. Also, had the man chosen to ignore the Sheik’s tongue lashing and continued to use force or the threat of force against fellow villagers, the elders also would have decided the man’s fate. I can only guess what might have happened but my best guess is that they would have expelled him, by force, from the community.
I will answer your questions in reverse order. First, the elders claimed a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force, not all force. For example, if a thief wielding a knife broke into my house and I killed him, no problem. However, if the thief robbed me of all my stuff and got away and two days later I saw him at the village market and slit his throat, I would have to answer for my crime. This never happened, but a similar situation did arise while I was in the town. One fisherman "borrowed" another fisherman’s boat without asking. When the owner of the boat went to go to work and found his method of livelihood gone, he became enraged. He fetched his rifle and was shouting obscenities and waving his loaded rifle around, threatening the man who had taken his boat. The police patrol at the time disarmed the man and brought both before the Sheik. First, the Sheik ruled that the man who had taken the fishing boat was guilty and all or most of the fish (I forget the exact ruling) he had caught belonged to the owner of the boat. Second, the owner of the boat was brought before the Sheik and given a serious tongue lashing that went something like this. “Who do you think you are? We live in a peaceful community here and we have a certain way of doing things. If a man takes from you, you come here and we deal with it together. No one man may take justice into his own hands. We have fought too hard for a peaceful community and you would put at risk and risk the lives of those around you over a squabble over fish? You have disgraced yourself and your family.” Granted, I am paraphrasing from a conversation I heard almost two years ago, but I do remember the message. The full tongue lashing lasted over twenty minutes, was public, and brutal.
Now, a free market judge could have done the same thing and the Sheik was essentially a free market judge as defined by ancap, but here is the vital distinction: Had the boat owner killed or wounded the other man, his fate would not have been decided by the Sheik alone, but by all the village elders. Also, had the man chosen to ignore the Sheik’s tongue lashing and continued to use force or the threat of force against fellow villagers, the elders also would have decided the man’s fate. I can only guess what might have happened but my best guess is that they would have expelled him, by force, from the community.
Bob and Gonzalez,
Another distinction/definition to enter into the discussion:
Governments are predatory, institutionalized bands of thieves. They engage in "acceptable" armed robbery, such as taxation and warfare.
Did the village elders levy taxes or wage war on other communities without unanimous consent?
Post a Comment
Another distinction/definition to enter into the discussion:
Governments are predatory, institutionalized bands of thieves. They engage in "acceptable" armed robbery, such as taxation and warfare.
Did the village elders levy taxes or wage war on other communities without unanimous consent?
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]