StarDestroyer.Net BBS

One of the arguments used AGAINST Voluntaryist's claims that governments have no checks and balances is the fact that modern democracies limit their governments' powers through their constitutions, and by voting corrupt governmental leaders out of power. Most of Voluntaryist's claims about governments being oppressive seem more relevant to feudal societies, e.g., when kings claimed the divine right to do whatever the hell they wanted to their countries and the people they ruled.

So I'm curious: were philosophies comparable to voluntaryism and/or libertarianism in existence during medieval Europe, Japan during/prior to the Tokugawa Shogunate, or other feudal societies? If so, were they widespread, at least before the kings/emperors/shoguns ordered the deaths of the volunaryists and libertarians for challenging their authority?

"Voluntaryists" are basically little more than right-wing anarchists, which were plentiful even in older times I guess. Isn't it so?

It's not like Volly has invented some ideology, really.

Stas Bush wrote:"Voluntaryists" are basically little more than right-wing anarchists, which were plentiful even in older times I guess. Isn't it so?

I looked up "anarchism" on Wikipedia (yeah, I know), and found articles stating that this philosophy had been advocated in Ancient Greece.

History of anarchism wrote:In ancient Greece, the philosopher Zeno of Citium, in opposition to Plato, argued that reason should replace authority in guiding human affairs. In China, the Taoist sage Lao Zi (Lao Tzu) developed a philosophy of "non-rule" in the Tao Te Ching and many Taoists in return lived an anarchist lifestyle. In 300 CE, Bao Jingyan explicitly argued that there should be neither lords nor subjects.[2]

There were a variety of anarchistic religious movements in Europe during the Middle Ages, including the Brothers and Sisters of the Free Spirit, the Klompdraggers, the Hussites, Adamites and the early Anabaptists.[3] Prior to Leo Tolstoy, Christian anarchism found one of its most articulate exponents in Gerrard Winstanley, who was part of the Diggers movement in England during the English Civil War. Drawing on the Scriptures, Winstanley argued that "the blessings of the earth" should "be common to all... and none Lord over others."[2]

I first learned about these anarchistic religious movements when I read the Wiki article. My guess is governmental and religious leaders (in feudal societies, they may be one and the same) had them eradicated.

As for libertarianism, that philosophy apparently arose in the 19th century.

Wikipedia wrote:The first known use of a term that has been translated as "libertarian" in a political sense was by anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque[21], who used the French term libertaire in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857.[22] The word stems from the French word libertaire (synonymous to "for liberty"), and was used in order to evade the French ban on liberty publications.[23]

Wiktionary wrote:Etymology
From French libertaire ("anarchist"), formed from liberté ("freedom", from Latin libertas) and the suffix -aire (from Latin -arius).

N.B. The French term was coined when anarchist publications were banned by law in France. The anarchists invented the synonym libertaire in order to skirt the ban.

No surprise it became popular in Revolutionary France, considering the negative view the French had against authority. (Of course, one wonders why they weren't so opposed to Robespierre's, considering it took almost a year for them to overthrow the men responsible for the Reign of Terror.)

One interesting thing about eastern cultures is that they tend to have much less fascination with anarchy, and they usually value a more ordered society. One possible explanation is that western societies have forgotten what anarchy actually looks like, so it looks more attractive. "Grass is greener on the other side" and all that.

On that Wiki article:

First, Lao Tzu probably never existed, and never invented anything called "non-rule".

More importantly, Taoism does not espouse anarchism; it promotes minimal interferance:

"Ruling a large country is like cooking a small fish; you ruin it with too much poking."

Again and again in Tao Te Ching, you get advice to rulers on how to govern, not advice on how to dismantle government itself, or anything remotely similar.

If they got this much so wrong, I have to wonder at the dependability of the rest of it.

Darth Wong wrote:One interesting thing about eastern cultures is that they tend to have much less fascination with anarchy, and they usually value a more ordered society. One possible explanation is that western societies have forgotten what anarchy actually looks like, so it looks more attractive. "Grass is greener on the other side" and all that.

Not to mention the glossy version of anarchy marketed in various forms to teenagers since the 1950s in the form of music.

Probably goes hand-in-hand with the fact that eastern cultures don't value teenage idiocy, unlike western culture. Stick it to the man, yo.

Sidewinder wrote:One of the arguments used AGAINST Voluntaryist's claims that governments have no checks and balances is the fact that modern democracies limit their governments' powers through their constitutions, and by voting corrupt governmental leaders out of power. Most of Voluntaryist's claims about governments being oppressive seem more relevant to feudal societies, e.g., when kings claimed the divine right to do whatever the hell they wanted to their countries and the people they ruled.

So I'm curious: were philosophies comparable to voluntaryism and/or libertarianism in existence during medieval Europe, Japan during/prior to the Tokugawa Shogunate, or other feudal societies? If so, were they widespread, at least before the kings/emperors/shoguns ordered the deaths of the volunaryists and libertarians for challenging their authority?

No such thing happened. Nobody could CONCEIVE of this lunacy until the 18th century, Sidewinder. Medieval society was ENORMOUSLY communal, and that is the basis of my remaining a conservative today. The village Mir in Russia, for example, was the basis of a cooperative social organization which allowed the peasants to prosper in what would otherwise be conditions of absolute oppression. All business, instead of operating independently like the Voluntaryists would want, were organized into specific trade guilds, which had enormous power.

The philosophy of syndicalism (state syndicalism in particular) is based on the medieval traditions of the agrarian cooperative and the trade guilds and labour unions of the city workers and other specialists, being brought forward into the modern world with industry taken account of. Our society was organized in a far more communal fashion for thousands of years than it has been in the past 300. And it was my realizing the historical facts of social and economic organization in that fashion which killed my own libertarianism; I could no longer presume to dispute with thousands of years of history. A syndicalist society is necessary for human health.

I mean, it went to the point where traditional societies would even provide free bread to the masses in the cities, in a systematic form of welfare. The cooperative in the village guaranteed that the loss of crop of any one farmer would not kill his family; and the guildsmen gained enormous power through acting jointly. The government was organized based on the various orders of society, and guilds even frequently had representation in the parliament of the day, which was far more prominent than we give it credit for today, thinking that the era of "enlightened despotism" was normal rather than aberration that prepared us for the deeper aberrations to follow it.

Heh, the barbarian warlords who established medieval countries were the prime example of fine, well-meaning people that complete anarchy breeds

In fact, the whole feudal order was a bastard child of Roman general-worship and ruthlessly Darwinian social order present in barbarian tribes. Only gradually did it change into something resembling an ordained government structure, with laws and responsibilities for the nobility.

Medieval Iceland is often held up as an example of a Voluntarist state. The people there were free to decide which Godir or great man they'd serve, and the Godirs had an incentive to be effective in order to get more followers at the Ting. Quarrels and lawsuits were private matters, how you ran your household was also a private matter, but your neighbours and relatives might take a dim view of you going against custom or stirring up trouble.

The same was true of pre-Christian, pre-unification (Denmark, Sweden and Norway all had their own unifications) Scandinavia. Indeed it was true whenever the state collapsed, and the Norse communities reverted to their natural state. Iceland however was a tad more anarchic than most.

The system had serious defects, now it's true that a smallholder, or even a landless man, might get justice. Provided of course he had a strong family, a strong sword arm, or a local noble who backed him. However a landless man with little to offer, in short a nobody, who lacked a protector was effectively defenceless. Even if someone did take up his case the killer would rarely be punished by death, but rather he'd be fined, the size of the fine (weregild) depended on the status of the person you killed or wronged.

Justice being a private matter also meant that if you killed everyone who might complain, and that happened more often than you might think, you went off scot-free. Also since it's all a private matter no one would think to interfere in a quarrel, unless it's inconvenient for them.

Did this lead to an age of strong backed individuals? No! It led to an age where every man was bound to his family, and helpless without friends and kin. Indeed you didn't exist except as a member of your family.

So was Iceland a paradise? It depends, there were certainly some advances, they developed their own word for assassin (Flugumann), they wrote some marvellous sagas (which seem a tad violent), and finally they begged the Norwegian kings to annex them. Something about the near collapse of their society I think.

Norseman wrote:...finally they begged the Norwegian kings to annex them.

A fitting end indeed.

Never thought that someone BEGGED to be conquered.

Zixinus wrote:Never thought that someone BEGGED to be conquered.

Annexed not conquered, ironically the same occurred a few centuries later when Norway, for somewhat similar reasons, asked to be annexed by Denmark.

Norseman wrote:... and finally they begged the Norwegian kings to annex them. Something about the near collapse of their society I think.

Let me guess: as Iceland's population increased, it grew beyond its society's ability to use non-coercive measures to keep the peace, a situation that also makes Voluntaryist's ideals impossible to implement in a modern society.

Sidewinder wrote:

Norseman wrote:... and finally they begged the Norwegian kings to annex them. Something about the near collapse of their society I think.

Let me guess: as Iceland's population increased, it grew beyond its society's ability to use non-coercive measures to keep the peace, a situation that also makes Voluntaryist's ideals impossible to implement in a modern society.

Not quite, more like this: As society grew ever more chaotic more and more power accumulated in the hands of the Godir and other great men. It became harder for a commoner to manage without protection, and the great men decided to fight among themselves to become greater. The sheer expense of maintaining yourself as a great man meant that you needed more money, and there were only two sources of money: Squeezing others or gifts from the King of Norway. Those who took the King of Norway's gifts did a lot better than the rest.

In the end things were going so badly that the Icelanders signed a treaty where "The Icelanders were to bear taxation from the Norwegian king, but in exchange they were to receive a code of laws, guaranteed peace and reliable transportation and shipping between Norway and Iceland."

I think that is very apropos.

Darth Wong wrote:One interesting thing about eastern cultures is that they tend to have much less fascination with anarchy, and they usually value a more ordered society. One possible explanation is that western societies have forgotten what anarchy actually looks like, so it looks more attractive. "Grass is greener on the other side" and all that.

Then it would follow that Eastern societies had experienced more anarchy; with the exception of the Taiping Rebellion-Expulsion of the Kuomintang period, I'd say its been more unified than the West. Certainly the endless series of succession and religious wars characterising early modern Europe didn't generate a more fervent rejection of disorder; they actually preceded the violent radicalism of the 19th and early 20th century industrial era.

Weren't Japan and China for a long time under a system which basically amounted to little more than warlordism?

Stas Bush wrote:Weren't Japan and China for a long time under a system which basically amounted to little more than warlordism?

Worse than the Dark Ages or the patchwork of dynastic alliances and tiny princely states of the Austrian, Spanish Successions, or the Thirty Year War? Especially in terms of radical and deep trauma to society?

Stas Bush wrote:Weren't Japan and China for a long time under a system which basically amounted to little more than warlordism?

There are endless tales of romanticism about kingdoms fighting among each other and so forth. In between the dynasties, there was plenty of warring before some stability was achieved.

The chief difference between the East and West was that the Emperor's power was quite absolute and was revered as a God of sorts and was quite unquestionable outside the Royal court, as opposed to the Emperors of Rome and the Kings of Europe. (No king would dare to call himself a son of God. It will first run into the Church, then the fire and brimstone mob). As such, simply put, the Chinese would rather be oppressed than have no order. Something that still lingers even today. I would expect that the Japanese are similar as well.

I've heard some sources say that prior to the 30 Year War the Germans were a rowdy almost anarchistic bunch. Afterwards they gained a deep appreciation of law and order.

Then again in the Elizabethan Era the English were known for being absurdly violent, anarchistic, and so forth and so on. They were also held to be overemotional, and constantly going around kissing people. They too went through a lot of turmoil and oppression.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Stas Bush wrote:Weren't Japan and China for a long time under a system which basically amounted to little more than warlordism?

Worse than the Dark Ages or the patchwork of dynastic alliances and tiny princely states of the Austrian, Spanish Successions, or the Thirty Year War? Especially in terms of radical and deep trauma to society?

If you consider the fact that it took decades for there to be unified rule under the Communist Party and the fact that there was civil war between the different dynasties, perhaps close if not more.

I believe the Feodal micro-state period has been similar in both West and East but there were remarkably different outcomes. Anarchism did not get any prominency in the East.

Well, neither did it really get much in the West.

[quote="Illuminatus Primus"
Then it would follow that Eastern societies had experienced more anarchy; with the exception of the Taiping Rebellion-Expulsion of the Kuomintang period, I'd say its been more unified than the West. Certainly the endless series of succession and religious wars characterising early modern Europe didn't generate a more fervent rejection of disorder; they actually preceded the violent radicalism of the 19th and early 20th century industrial era.[/quote]
The Fall of the Han and recurrent warfare would be repeated up until the Tang Dynasty. And the Song Dynasty was also constantly wracked by warfare.

Certainly, banditry and anarchy were experienced on levels comparable to that in Europe, the difference being that on paper, all lines of authority reverted back to the Imperial Court, a centralised authority comparable to the Roman Empire and the Han Imperial dynasty. No such centralised authority was present in Europe, unless one counts the Vatican Church.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Stas Bush wrote:Weren't Japan and China for a long time under a system which basically amounted to little more than warlordism?

Worse than the Dark Ages or the patchwork of dynastic alliances and tiny princely states of the Austrian, Spanish Successions, or the Thirty Year War? Especially in terms of radical and deep trauma to society?

Aacckkk... Forgot to copy my answer before posting.

Romance of the Three Kingdoms: Destruction of nearly 50% of the Han population, and the resulting demographic shift from North to South, including the trappings of the mercentile culture and rice farming. And of course, the Jin dynasty was unable to put an end to the nomadic invasion and led to the creation of alternative states in the North.

Let's not forget the cultural impact of the Spring and Autumn Period, as well as Warring States era, which called for an end to warfare and political consolidation so as to end the suffering. Sun Tzu Art of War was written not so much as to praise the military arts, but rather, with the goal of ending endemic warfare amongst the various states so that peace would return. Even if the statement was not that of Sun Wu himself, the statement shows how valued peace was and the rejection of anarchy by contemporary authors.

Of course, the Tang Dynasty would require mention. It was preceded by the Sui Dynasty, which did for the Tang what Qin did for the Han. The Sui Dynasty ended the period of anarchy before it, unifying the North and South (well.... in traditional history. In reality, much territory remained in the sinocised states) but eventually collapsed. Another period of active warlordism then emerged, with Gaozu emerging victorious. The Tang dynasty experienced periods of violence and anarchy. Part of this was due to its intergration of the Ughars and other races, as well as the expansion of its territory. It would eventually decline as a series of revolutions decreased Imperial prestige and power, exacerbated by military defeats against Arab forces.. Followed by 5 states and Ten kingdoms and of course, the Song would be defeated by the Yuan and the resulting tolerance policies of the Tang dynasty would be entirely discarded. And while every single Emperor had a war or major border skirmish under his aegis after the fall of the Han, the Song would face continous conflict until its fall.

Impact on society? The entire philosophy of the rejection of anarchy emerged from the Spring and Autumn as well as Warring States period. The continual border conflicts and conquest of the Tang would cause later populaces to become sino-centric and more and more racist towards, with active discrimination becoming the norm during the Ming dynasty.

The popularisation of the Water Margin Bandits should be noted. As an anarchist force, they weren't villied and actually idolised, due to the inept Song Dynasty.

Fingolfin wrote:As such, simply put, the Chinese would rather be oppressed than have no order. Something that still lingers even today. I would expect that the Japanese are similar as well.

That's more the result of the end years of the Qing Dynasty and the warlord period than anything. Fan Qing Fu Ming and the Taiping Rebellion are all examples that prove the contary.
And of course, that whole philosophy of the Mandate of Heaven, and indeed, such revolutionary fervour was espoused by the Communists and used as propaganda up to the Cultural Revolution.

This all reminds me of an article called No Libertarians in the Seventeenth-Century Highlands which is a wonderful indictment of this kind of tomfoolery. Let me quote the best section:

Adam Smith: Withering away of the state? Private profit-making rights-enforcement organizations? Have none of you ever taken a trip to the Scottish Highlands? Have none of you ever read about the form of society that used to exist there? In the Scottish Highlands David Friedman's dream of a society without a state, in which justice was administered by private profit-making rights-enforcement organizations, was a reality. And what a reality! The private profit-making rights-enforcement organizations were called "clan lords" and their henchmen. In the Highlands, everyone was seen as either a clan member to be helped, a clan enemy to be killed, or a stranger to be robbed. With such insecurity of life and property, the system of natural liberty could not operate to create prosperity, and life was... what is the phrase?...

Thomas Hobbes: Nasty, brutish, and short.

Adam Smith: Thank you.

Thomas Hobbes: I know what it's like much better than David Friedman does. I lived through the English Civil War.

Davey Hume: Let me echo the wise sayings of my good (if absent-minded) friend Adam. You need a mighty state to provide security of property. You need a limited state to keep its own exactions from becoming a cure worse than the disease...

Ibn Khaldun: The state is a device that prevents all injustice save that which it commits itself.

Davey Hume: Exactly. That is the key problem of governance: mighty, but limited. It is only after the state has been established and the memory of what life was like in the Highlands disappears that people can even begin to forget why the state is necessary. Under security of property, people begin to view each other--even total strangers--as possible partners in mutually-beneficial acts of exchange. The oxytocin levels in their bloodstreams rise. They feel mutual sympathy toward each other. They feel bound by the moral law, and no longer kill clan enemies or rob strangers even when they can do so in perfect safety...

Adam Smith: I have written a big book about this, which very few of you have read--although everyone here at least claims to have read my other book...

Davey Hume: And it is only after the state has enabled commerce, and only after commerce has sweetened human nature, that one can even begin to entertain the anarchist-libertarian fantasies of the withering away of the state...

Joseph de Maistre: What my good friend Davey Hume is saying, although he is too polite to put it this way, is that behind everything good, peaceful, and prosperous in human society is the shadow of the Public Executioner...

I think Rothbard tries to offer up a (brief) explanation in The Ethics of Liberty.