# Anarchy

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080>\
**Category:** CSG1999\
**Created:** [February 4, 1999, 10:29pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080 "1999-02-04T22:29:12Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 1999, 10:29pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/1 "1999-02-04T22:29:12Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (990204.1530)]

Mike Acree (990204.1440 PST) --

Is there any way you can make a quantitative connection  
between your ideas about anarchy and PCT? Do you have any  
data and/or models that support or illustrate your ideas?  
The private fire department story isn't really data; it's a  
story; I need numbers. Do you have any measures of possible  
controlled variables, disturbances to those variables, etc.  
that might help me see what you are talking about? Perhaps  
you could build a simulation of an anarchistic society using  
S-R and then control systems as elements. I suppose that you  
might predict that such a society would not work with S-R  
systems as elements but it would work with control systems as elements.  
Or perhaps you could build a simulation of a  
governmental society and show how it can't possibly work  
with control systems as elements.

Something more than just words would help me understand  
your point of view, I think.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: [rmarken@earthlink.net](mailto:rmarken@earthlink.net)  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 1999, 10:39pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/2 "1999-02-04T22:39:57Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (990204.1540)]

Mike Acree (990204.1440 PST)--

> ... if you (or anyone else) should in the future be able to  
> show, concretely and specifically, how government is  
> compatible with PCT, I shall remain very much interested.

Martin Taylor (990204 17:47) --

> Vacuous or not, here's my take:
> 
> Control systems exist in an environment in which actions  
> influence perceptions...
> 
> Bottom line, we are dealing with the reliability of the  
> environmental feedback functions that involve other people,  
> and the effect of that reliability on the ability of living  
> control systems to build reliable hierarchies and reliable  
> social structures. It has nothing to do with philosophy.
> 
> I hope that's not too vacuous.

It's not vacuous; it's brilliant. Your analysis is clearly  
based on all the most important aspects of the PCT model  
(which is more than I can say for anything I have heard in  
favor of the notion that PCT supports anarchy). I can  
only hope that any future arguments in support of the  
notion that PCT supports anarchy are up to the lucid and  
scientifically rigorous standard you have set here.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Acree_Mike)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 1999, 12:50am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/3 "1999-02-10T00:50:05Z")

</div>

[From Mike Acree (990209.1651 PST)]

Rick Marken (990204.1530)--

> Is there any way you can make a quantitative connection  
> between your ideas about anarchy and PCT? Do you have any  
> data and/or models that support or illustrate your ideas?  
> The private fire department story isn't really data; it's a  
> story; I need numbers. Do you have any measures of possible  
> controlled variables, disturbances to those variables, etc.  
> that might help me see what you are talking about? Perhaps  
> you could build a simulation of an anarchistic society using  
> S-R and then control systems as elements. I suppose that you  
> might predict that such a society would not work with S-R  
> systems as elements but it would work with control systems as

elements.

> Or perhaps you could build a simulation of a  
> governmental society and show how it can't possibly work  
> with control systems as elements.
> 
> Something more than just words would help me understand  
> your point of view, I think.

The short answer is no.

The longer answer is that I don't think anyone else can, either--and I  
would be skeptical of their claims if they tried. Simulation of social  
phenomena can be useful when the relevant variables are sharply  
delimited--traffic jams, for example. For a political and economic  
system, you're talking about putting the whole world in your computer.  
It's well known that a simulation done on data from a century ago would  
predict that by 1950 New York City would be buried under 600 feet of  
horse manure.

Beyond that, I see no need for a simulation of a governmental society  
when we've got hundreds of them all around us. There are, unfortunately  
for science, no anarchistic industrial societies, but we can still learn  
something from a comparative analysis of how well existing governments  
work.

Your demand for numbers, curiously, comes straight from the positivist  
philosophy of science whose expression in psychology was behaviorism.  
It may be possible to accept one and reject the other, but I always  
found both unappealing and implausible for the same reasons. As a  
statistician, I'm no stranger to numbers, but there's very little  
quantitative research in psychology that I would call science. By the  
same token, I don't think all the nonnumerical work in linguistics,  
botany, anthropology, or geology is necessarily unscientific.

If words don't speak to you, I can only point, much as you pointed Kenny  
to the museum of natural history: go look at the Rural/Metro fire  
department, or at medieval Iceland, if you think these things are  
impossible. You have dismissed all these as "just stories"; but I don't  
understand how you can count the contents of the museum of natural  
history as data--your term (990204.0900)--when they are no more  
numerical than a fire department or a society. And if my real-life  
examples are "just stories," what does that make a made-up (simulated)  
example?

Mike

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Acree_Mike)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 1999, 12:50am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/4 "1999-02-10T00:50:16Z")

</div>

[From Mike Acree (990209.1652 PST)]

Tracy Harms (19990207.2340)--

> In brief, I see Bill's use of the term "rule of law" as making no  
> distinction between using legislation (etc.) primarily to establish

limits

> that prohibit actions, and using legislation to direct actions. There

is a

> great difference, in my view, between using "law" as a bludgeon to

compel

> actions and shape choices into certain directions, and using law in

the

> constrained sense which the phrase "rule of law" traditionally meant.

I accept your distinction as meaningful and important, even though I  
would not have understood "rule of law" in your restricted sense. The  
implication of your distinction, however, is that Bill's criticism of  
the rule of law applies to the sense of law as directing actions but not  
to law as prohibiting actions. If so, I think that remains to be  
demonstrated, and I don't (yet) see the basis in PCT for doing that. I  
would be comfortable with such a government, but Bill gave theoretical  
reasons, supported by historical experience, for expecting it not to  
last very long.

Mike

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Acree_Mike)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 1999, 12:49am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/5 "1999-02-10T00:49:38Z")

</div>

[From Mike Acree (990209.1650 PST)]

Martin Taylor (990204.1747)--

Thanks, Martin. No, I didn't experience your post as vacuous; that was  
a complaint about a couple of previous unelaborated statements defining  
government as a bunch of control systems working together--which  
wouldn't distinguish government from an S-M club.

> I was bringing to your attention that  
> it was once the norm to have private fire departments, at least in the  
> British Empire, of which North America was a part. It is no longer the  
> norm, for the good reason that if a house was insured by one fire  
> department, and another showed up, it would often not put out the

fire,

> or if a fire being put out by the contracted fire department spread to  
> the next door house, which was contracted to a different department,

the

> second house was likely to burn down. People eventually decided that

this

> was unacceptable, and organized public fire departments paid for out

of

> taxes.

One can certainly imagine the scenario of competing fire departments  
that you describe; one would also expect that arrangement to be  
short-lived. I don't know any reason why the problem couldn't have been  
solved by negotiation among the fire departments--perhaps all companies  
respond to a given (big) fire, with reimbursements between companies  
handled later, or whatever. I also don't know the historical reason why  
these areas would have opted for government fire departments instead,  
but that was the arrangement that these countries were instituting with  
respect to many other services (e.g., police, education). For all those  
services provision by government has come to seem necessary and  
unavoidable, as we've lost sight of paths not taken.

This is one area, however, in which we may have learned from history.  
The modern communications industry has required coordination and  
cooperation between businesses on a massive scale, lest they duplicate  
the debacle of private fire departments you described; but in this case  
I think many people were aware that if they didn't act quickly among  
themselves to develop solutions, the government would step in and impose  
its own. Probably everyone on the Net knows more of the details here  
than I do, but my sense is that these privately initiated efforts have  
worked and are still working across a broad range of problems.

> But there's nothing that stops private fire companies from being  
> instituted, just as the security system in my house is backed up by a  
> private security response system in addition to the public police. It

is

> just not cost-effective to have non-monopoly fire services in a area,

and

> if you are going to have a monopoly, it's as well to have it either

owned

> or regulated by some group whose responsibility is to the people

served

> rather than to the profits of the owner(s). When "the owners are us",  
> both interests are served at the same time.

Typically government protection of a monopoly makes it \_harder\_ to  
change providers if the present one is unsatisfactory. Not long ago an  
Oklahoma couple was arrested for hiring someone to deliver payroll  
checks to their employees because the government mail was so slow. When  
you found government police protection inadequate, you didn't have the  
option of simply switching providers, but had to pay twice, for an  
\_additional\_ security system. Had the police been private, they would  
have gotten the message--right in the wallet--from your switching  
providers that their service was lacking. The government police can  
still \_see\_ all the additional security services that residences and  
banks and other businesses are hiring, but the signal is left as a  
dangling wire: it doesn't connect back to any output system. As I've  
pointed out before, the jobs of police or other bureaucrats are  
connected only very remotely to the satisfaction of their supposed  
customers. If you compare bureaucratic with market mechanisms, I think  
you'll find in each case of the former that the feedback function has  
been disconnected, with corresponding consequences for control. It's  
interesting that precisely those systems set up to control others are  
not organized as control systems themselves (with respect to what they  
were supposed to be controlling), whereas those that aren't are.

The rhetoric, familiar from our high-school civics class, about  
regulation by some group representing the public interest may sound  
great; but public choice theory explains what we've been seeing for some  
time: that it doesn't work that way in practice. The devastation of  
Western rangelands and forests, to take just one example, has occurred  
on land owned by the federal government and managed by the Forest  
Service or the BLM. Private property owners, whether ranchers or lumber  
companies, are not destroying the land on which their own livelihood  
depends. The bureaucrats supposedly looking out for the public interest  
haven't intentionally instituted destructve policies, so far as I know,  
but we need to look at what else they are controlling for. Here's a  
simple, generic example: Problems are what guarantee intact or  
expanding agency budgets. If nothing is going wrong, your budget gets  
cut. Usually you don't have to hunt for problems, but it is  
nevertheless good practice to make things sound worse than they  
are--something I see here at the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, for  
example, where a finding of a 2% HIV prevalence rate in some country is  
written up as a crisis requiring an immediate, massive, expensive  
intervention (the evaluation of which happens to be our business).

> In an anarchy, one may be able to predict reasonably reliably the

actions

> of someone with whom you have contracted, in respect of actions about  
> which you have contracted. Under a rule of law, this level of  
> predictability becomes available for a wide range of actions. It

becomes

> easier for people to develop perceptual control hierarchies that work  
> reasonably reliably than it would be in an anarchy. It allows for the  
> development of mutual support structures that are \_not\_ based on  
> contracts, but on the statistically reliable beneficial effects of  
> side-effect influences. These can and will occur even in an anarchy,

but

> it's easier when the environmental feedback systems are stable.
> 
> Bottom line, we are dealing with the reliability of the environmental  
> feedback functions that involve other people, and the effect of that  
> reliability on the ability of living control systems to build  
> reliable hierarchies and reliable social structures. It has nothing  
> to do with philosophy.

Your point about stability is the usual argument in favor of rule of law  
(as opposed to "rule of men"). Stability--the lack of it, that  
is--could be seen as the major reason for lack of development in Third  
World countries. Property claims, in particular, often have a legally  
vague status; and, with no assurance that someone can't come along to  
kick you off your land at any moment, people are reluctant to invest  
very much in buildings or agricultural improvements. These are all  
countries with strong governments, of course.

Instability, or unreliability, has become a serious problem in our own  
society. The success of a business depends on long-range planning, but  
new laws can be passed that put you out of business without warning.  
(Proceeds from the new cigarette tax are going to tobacco farmers to  
compensate them for their loss, but those affected usually aren't so  
lucky.) Legislation nowadays--the Americans with Disabilities Act is  
the best example--is now written deliberately to be vague, with the  
meaning to be worked out in case law. The actual purpose is of course  
to guaranteed a windfall for lawyers, but in the meantime it creates a  
nightmare for employers, who have no way of knowing how to design  
personnel policies that will be found legal.

It may be worth noting that there is countervailing consideration to  
stability. For living control systems, stasis is death. If the  
question of anarchy vs. government is going to turn on the issue of  
stability, we will have to consider more specifically the features that  
need to be stable and those that need to be dynamic, and how these  
features might best be realized. For economic development and  
prosperity, I think one of the most important things to be able to rely  
on is freedom from third-party interference in contracts. For this kind  
of stability, anarcho-capitalism wins hands-down over government. I'm  
not sure what you're thinking of with the statistically reliable side  
effects that are more likely under government than under anarchy, but  
I'm interested in hearing. Otherwise, it looks to me as though the  
spontaneous order of the market, based on negotiation and contract, is  
much more likely to provide the needed mechanisms both for stability and  
for a dynamic balancing of stability with flexibility.

To my mind the most interesting aspect of your argument, however, is  
that it amounts to a secular version of the Argument from Design: If  
there is organization, there must be an organizer--someone or some  
agency in charge, constantly intervening to keep things in proper  
running order, breaking up the monopolies of IBM and Microsoft,  
enforcing the monopolies of the post office and the fire department, and  
so on. The spontaneous order that I believe Hayek discerned in  
biological systems as well as in market economies is the focus of the  
new science of complexity, cutting across many disciplines; what is  
interesting is the horizontal d�calage between its application to all  
sorts of biological and social phenomena on the one hand, and to  
political organization on the other, where centralized, top-down control  
is still unquestioned.

Mike

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 1999, 5:20am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/6 "1999-02-10T05:20:25Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (990209.2120)]

Mike Acree (990209.1651 PST) --

Welcome back to netland!

> I see no need for a simulation of a governmental society when  
> we've got hundreds of them all around us... If words don't  
> speak to you, I can only point, much as you pointed Kenny to  
> the museum of natural history: go look at the Rural/Metro  
> fire department, or at medieval Iceland, if you think these  
> things are impossible.

What would I be looking for when I looked at the Rural/Metro fire  
department or at medieval Iceland? If I am looking at these as  
examples of anarchic societies, what would I look for to see that  
these are, indeed, examples of anarchy? Please explain this in  
PCT terms. That is, please tell me what variables are or are  
not controlled in anarchic societies? What variables are or  
are not controlled in governmental societies? How do we know  
whether or not these variables are, indeed, controlled? Also,  
what makes an anarchic society better than a governmental society?  
And if an anarchic society is better than a governmental society,  
why are there so few (if any) anarchic societies around now? Why  
would societies (like medieval Iceland) go from a nice, anarchic  
(lower ambient error?) situation to a lousy, governmental (high  
ambient error) situation? Again, please answer in terms of PCT.

Thanks

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Acree_Mike)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 1999, 5:20pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/7 "1999-02-10T17:20:49Z")

</div>

[From Mike Acree (990210.0920 PST)]

Rick Marken (990209.2120)--

> Welcome back to netland!

Thanks!

> > I see no need for a simulation of a governmental society when  
> > we've got hundreds of them all around us... If words don't  
> > speak to you, I can only point, much as you pointed Kenny to  
> > the museum of natural history: go look at the Rural/Metro  
> > fire department, or at medieval Iceland, if you think these  
> > things are impossible.
> 
> What would I be looking for when I looked at the Rural/Metro fire  
> department or at medieval Iceland? If I am looking at these as  
> examples of anarchic societies, what would I look for to see that  
> these are, indeed, examples of anarchy? Please explain this in  
> PCT terms. That is, please tell me what variables are or are  
> not controlled in anarchic societies? What variables are or  
> are not controlled in governmental societies? How do we know  
> whether or not these variables are, indeed, controlled?

Actually, I think a limited amount can be accomplished just by pointing.  
When Kenny looks at the contents of the museum of natural history, he  
presumably has one explanation for them while you have another. In the  
present case, I understood your claim (or those of some others on the  
Net) to be that private fire departments and anarchic societies didn't  
work and therefore couldn't exist. Such a simple claim of nonexistence  
can indeed be resolved by pointing, so long as you agree that what you  
are looking at is a private fire department or an anarchic society. In  
the former case I wouldn't see much ground for dispute that Rural/Metro  
was indeed private, and that it had been in business for about 25 years  
(I think). Historical data are often subject to more interpretation,  
though in this case I don't think there's much disagreement about the  
actual arrangements. But my assumption may be naive: it is possible  
that your concept of government is idiosyncratic enough that you would  
see government where others don't. In that case simple pointing would  
fail, and attention would shift to the justification for your  
definition.

> Also,  
> what makes an anarchic society better than a governmental society?

This is what got us started: the idea that negotiation and contract  
(anarchy) work better for conflict resolution than punishment-based rule  
of law (government). The idea wasn't original with me :-); for the  
justification of it I would point you to Chapter 17.

> And if an anarchic society is better than a governmental society,  
> why are there so few (if any) anarchic societies around now?

That's an extremely interesting question, to which I can offer only a  
few thoughts off the top of my head. My sense is that there are still  
some small societies (e.g., the Yequana Indians of Venezuela) which  
could be described as anarchistic, and there were presumably many more  
of those at one time. The modern concept of government arose in larger  
societies/territories which had at some point been consolidated by a  
conqueror/ruler, and the bureaucratic state (whether democratic or not)  
was formulated as an alternative to absolute monarchy. The Founding  
Fathers of this country were pretty radical for their time (and I'm sure  
would be perceived as dangerously anarchistic today--think of starting a  
war over a tax on tea or whiskey, or just of Richard Henry Lee's  
insistence that all children should be trained in the use of guns), so  
it's perhaps not too surprising that they didn't carry the limitation of  
government any further. The Articles of Confederation set up a  
government that was about as minimal as possible; and even when  
advocates of stronger government prevailed in replacing it with the  
Constitution, I think it was widely expected that provisions like the  
Ninth and Tenth Amendments would serve as a strong check on the growth  
of government. We know better now.

> Why  
> would societies (like medieval Iceland) go from a nice, anarchic  
> (lower ambient error?) situation to a lousy, governmental (high  
> ambient error) situation? Again, please answer in terms of PCT.

Again a good question. That society lasted for about 400 years (about  
twice as long as the U.S. so far), and my understanding is that, though  
the circumstances of its demise are somewhat vague, it appears to have  
been the result of foreign conquest--a disturbance they couldn't  
compensate for.

Mike

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 1999, 5:34pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/8 "1999-02-10T17:34:35Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (990210.1030)]

Mike Acree (990210.0920 PST)--

> I understood your claim (or those of some others on the  
> Net) to be that private fire departments and anarchic  
> societies didn't work and therefore couldn't exist.

I still don't really know what you think an anarchic society  
\_is\_ (from a PCT perspective), let alone whether it will work  
or not.

> it is possible that your concept of government is  
> idiosyncratic enough that you would see government  
> where others don't. In that case simple pointing would  
> fail, and attention would shift to the justification for  
> your definition.

I define "government" as a system level \_perceptual variable\_.  
This perception is a function of many lower level perceptions  
including perceptions of the rules and principles that seem  
to be involved in the interactions of groups of people. So I  
perceive various types of government in the behavior of baseball  
teams, kids clubs, private companies and societies, cities,  
states and nations.

Me:

> Also, what makes an anarchic society better than a  
> governmental society?

Ye:

> This is what got us started: the idea that negotiation  
> and contract (anarchy) work better for conflict resolution  
> than punishment-based rule of law (government).

It looks like you are \_defining\_ anarchy and government  
as different approaches to conflict resolution: the word  
"anarchy", by your definition, seems to mean "conflict  
resolution by negotiation and contract"; the word  
"government", by your definition, seems to mean "conflict resolution by  
punishment-based rule of law ". Given these  
definitions it's easy to see why who think B:CP Chapter 17  
is a celebration of anarchy and a condemnation of government.

> The Founding Fathers of this country were pretty radical  
> for their time (and I'm sure would be perceived as  
> dangerously anarchistic today--think of starting a  
> war over a tax on tea or whiskey, or just of Richard  
> Henry Lee's insistence that all children should be trained  
> in the use of guns)

Now I'm confused. I thought your definition of "anarchy"  
is "conflict resolution by negotiation and contract". Now  
you are telling me that the Founding Fathers were anarchists  
because they went to war over a tax on tea or whiskey (War  
instead of negotiation? How is this anarchistic? Sounds like  
the work of a non-negotiable government to me.) and trained  
their kids in the use of guns (I presume this was to solve  
problems by shooting the people with whom they disagree.  
Isn't getting shot a rather severe punishment? If you train  
people to shoot other people aren't you teaching them to be  
punitive? Aren't you training people to act like a government  
rather than an anarchy? Or were the kids just being taught  
to hunt? And, if so, what does hunting have to do with  
anarchy, as you define it?).

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 1999, 6:50pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/9 "1999-02-10T18:50:14Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (990210.1345 EST)]

Rick Marken (990210.1030)

> It looks like you are \_defining\_ anarchy and government  
> as different approaches to conflict resolution: the word  
> "anarchy", by your definition, seems to mean "conflict  
> resolution by negotiation and contract"; the word  
> "government", by your definition, seems to mean "conflict  
> resolution by  
> punishment-based rule of law ". Given these  
> definitions it's easy to see why who think B:CP Chapter 17  
> is a celebration of anarchy and a condemnation of government.

This was my reaction, too. But don't most governments encourage conflict  
resolution by negotiation and contract among citizens? It is only when  
these fail that a punishment-based rule of law is invoked. I wonder what  
happens in an anarchy when negotiations break down and contracts are  
abrogated? I wonder what it would be like to negotiate the speed limit  
on the Mass Turnpike? I suppose that those who were not part of the  
negotiations (visitors from Montana, for example) could legitimately  
feel free to drive at any speed they liked. Come to think of it, that's  
what they seem to do now...

Bruce Gregory

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 1999, 8:25pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/10 "1999-02-10T20:25:53Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (990210.1330)]

Bruce Gregory (990210.1345 EST)--

> But don't most governments encourage conflict resolution by  
> negotiation and contract among citizens? It is only when  
> these fail that a punishment-based rule of law is invoked.

Seems so to me. I don't see what this anti-government thing  
is about anyway. I'm opposed to many government policies  
but I don't see government per se as the problem. I don't  
even see how there can be a society of humans, many of  
who's goals (like building a 747) can only be achieved  
by agreements to control in complex cooperative arrangements,  
that doesn't have some form of government. Maybe the assumption  
is that "government" is synonymous with "coercion" (credible  
threat of force to back up agreements -- the rules of law).

But I am still not convinced that anarchy (whatever that is)  
would be any more free of coercion than government. If anarchy  
really involves no coercion then those who want to govern the  
anarchists will do so and meet with no resistance (since  
resistance is itself a form of coercion). So anarchy would  
be indistinguishable from what we have now -- a bunch of  
people who are ruled by a government they dislike but can  
do nothing about because, as anarchists, they can't coerce it  
to go away;-)

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_Harms](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/5e9695/32.png) [@T\_Harms](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/T_Harms)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 1999, 4:36pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/11 "1999-02-11T16:36:14Z")

</div>

[From Tracy Harms(19990211.0800)]

Rick Marken (990210.1030)]

> I define "government" as a system level \_perceptual variable\_.  
> This perception is a function of many lower level perceptions  
> including perceptions of the rules and principles that seem  
> to be involved in the interactions of groups of people. So I  
> perceive various types of government in the behavior of baseball  
> teams, kids clubs, private companies and societies, cities,  
> states and nations.

This hits me as exceedingly odd. I thought system-level perceptual  
variables occurred within the subjective processes of individuals. We can  
(and have been, and perhaps should continue to) argue about what  
"government" might well mean, but the idea that it is a subjective  
perceptual variable, rather than some sort of public or social  
organization, looks bad to me.

Rick Marken (990210.1330)

> But I am still not convinced that anarchy (whatever that is)  
> would be any more free of coercion than government. If anarchy  
> really involves no coercion then those who want to govern the  
> anarchists will do so and meet with no resistance (since  
> resistance is itself a form of coercion). So anarchy would  
> be indistinguishable from what we have now -- a bunch of  
> people who are ruled by a government they dislike but can  
> do nothing about because, as anarchists, they can't coerce it  
> to go away;-)

This helps me understand why you say "I don't see what this anti-government  
thing is about anyway." You don't seem to have a basic grasp on the line  
of criticism Mike brings to the table. I have my own criticisms of that  
species of political argument, mind you. Yet it is hard for me to generate  
a characterization of this last paragraph in terms which are polite, much  
less kind. You seem to have no idea of what the idea of coercion involves  
in the libertarian vocabulary. Because of this, your criticism falls far  
short of any mark. This idea that anarchists are somehow hobbled, by their  
own political ideals, from striking back at those who impose political  
burdens--it is unconnected with almost any historically argued anarchism.  
There are a few: Robert LeFevre and other pacifists, maybe extending to  
Tolstoi and Ghandi. But by and large this is false in a manner which  
should be obvious to any student of such ideas and ideals.

Tracy Harms  
Bend, Oregon

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 1999, 4:27pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/12 "1999-02-11T16:27:11Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (990211.0930)]

Martin Taylor (990210 17:00) --

Another excellent post. Thanks.

Me:

> I define "government" as a system level \_perceptual variable\_.

Tracy Harms(19990211.0800)--

> This hits me as exceedingly odd.

Everything about PCT is odd (from the perspective of  
"conventional wisdom") when you really start to think  
about it;-)

> I thought system-level perceptual variables occurred within  
> the subjective processes of individuals.

\_All\_ perceptual variables are subjective processes in the  
individual.

> We can (and have been, and perhaps should continue to)  
> argue about what "government" might well mean, but the  
> idea that it is a subjective perceptual variable, rather  
> than some sort of public or social organization, looks  
> bad to me.

The meaning of a word (for me) is the perception(s) with  
which it is associated. "Government" is a word that (for  
me) is associated with a perception of "some sort of public  
or social organization". "Anarchy" is a word that evokes a  
perception of a different sort of social organization.

Governments (and anarchies) aren't "really" out there, any  
more than trees or colors are "really" out there. All these  
experiences (according to PCT) are perceptual constructions,  
based (I am sure) on something that is "really" out there;  
but the perceptions are a map of that reality; constructions  
produced by perceptual functions in the brain. Everything  
(according to PCT) is perception.

Me:

> If anarchy really involves no coercion then those who want  
> to govern the anarchists will do so and meet with no  
> resistance..

Tracy:

> This helps me understand why you say "I don't see what  
> this anti-government thing is about anyway." You don't  
> seem to have a basic grasp on the line of criticism Mike  
> brings to the table.

I'm trying;-)

> You seem to have no idea of what the idea of coercion  
> involves in the libertarian vocabulary.

Help me out. I thought Mike said there was no coercion in a  
a libertarian society; if people want to set up a government  
in that society then nobody will stop them. What am I missing?

> This idea that anarchists are somehow hobbled, by their  
> own political ideals, from striking back at those who  
> impose political burdens--it is unconnected with almost any  
> historically argued anarchism.

That's what I thought. I suggested to Mike that anarchists  
would have to \_enforce\_ their anarchy against mavericks who  
would impose "political burdens" like a government. My point  
was, of course, that anarchists govern by the "rule of law"  
(the law of anarchy in their case) as do non-anarchists.  
Enforcing the "rule of law" is nothing more than control  
of behavior relative to a reference specification (the law)  
for that behavior; it is coercion.

I think "anarchy" is just a verbal trick; it's trying to  
make believe that it is \_not\_ coercive because it says  
"everyone should be free". The coercive nature of anarchy is  
hidden by shouting \_freedom\_ while talking quietly about the  
way things \_should\_ be. As soon as one has an idea about how  
other people \_should\_ behave -- even if the idea is that  
other people should be free -- then what one really has is  
an idea about controlling other people's behavior (coercion);  
anarchists contradict their freedom loving ideals as soon  
as they talk about the way society \_should\_ be; they are  
advocating coercion as much as any advocate of government  
regulation; they are talking about depriving people of  
their freedom to choose non-anarchy.

The solution (I think) is to stop trying to analyze society  
in terms of system concepts (like socialism, capitalism,  
libertarianism, etc) that were developed before we had a  
scientific understanding of the nature of humans as  
perceptual control systems. If we really want to figure  
out how people can best organize themselves I think we  
should start looking at human societies in terms of the  
nature of the systems that make them up.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 1999, 6:35pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/13 "1999-02-11T18:35:03Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (990211.1330 EST)]

Rick Marken (990211.0930)

> The solution (I think) is to stop trying to analyze society  
> in terms of system concepts (like socialism, capitalism,  
> libertarianism, etc) that were developed before we had a  
> scientific understanding of the nature of humans as  
> perceptual control systems. If we really want to figure  
> out how people can best organize themselves I think we  
> should start looking at human societies in terms of the  
> nature of the systems that make them up.

What a refreshing idea. I see that Martin agrees as well.

Bruce Gregory

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_Harms](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/5e9695/32.png) [@T\_Harms](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/T_Harms)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 1999, 3:06am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/14 "1999-02-12T03:06:19Z")

</div>

[From Tracy Harms (19990211.1830)]

I find I have more to say on the paragraph by Rick Marken (990210.1330)

> But I am still not convinced that anarchy (whatever that is)  
> would be any more free of coercion than government. If anarchy  
> really involves no coercion then those who want to govern the  
> anarchists will do so and meet with no resistance (since  
> resistance is itself a form of coercion). So anarchy would  
> be indistinguishable from what we have now -- a bunch of  
> people who are ruled by a government they dislike but can  
> do nothing about because, as anarchists, they can't coerce it  
> to go away;-)

In my hastily-composed message of this morning I omitted some things I'd  
like to say now.

First is to make clear that I don't expect that anarchy does mean absence  
of coercion, especially if you meant to use the term "coercion" with a  
technical meaning formed for PCT.

Secondly, I may have left the impression that the likes of Mahatma Ghandi  
and Robert LeFevre could do nothing about state impositions, as you claim,  
Rick. Not at all. The insight of nonviolent resistance is that the  
impositions in question are relying on the actions of people to support  
them, but those people are in fact autonomous. With the withdrawal of  
support, e.g. non-participation in the alleged "requirements", oppressive  
institutions are at severe risk and often crumble. I'm unsure as to  
whether or not absence of cooperation would count as "coercion" in a  
PCT-specific sense, but I'd be a bit surprised if it did. Regardless, I am  
confident it would not count as a repugnant thing to \*any\* anarchist  
advocacy. Furthermore, theories of nonviolent resistance \*easily\* fit the  
PCT "Chapter 17" idea that a primary fact of social reality is that people  
act in accordance with their values, so when those values are at odds with  
authoritarian commands, the commands will remain unsatisfied no matter how  
strong the insistence.

Tracy Harms  
Bend, Oregon

Tracy Harms  
Bend, Oregon

> **···**
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Evolutionary Epistemology explains that there is progress in  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;the growth of knowledge, but does not assess such progress as  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;increase in the accuracy of depiction or as an increase in  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;certainty. It measures this progress in terms of an increase  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;in universality and abstraction and presents the startling  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;conclusion that we have knowledge of reality even though we  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;cannot represent or depict reality.  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Peter Munz

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory8)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 1999, 10:27am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/15 "1999-02-12T10:27:29Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (990212.0517 EST)]

Tracy Harms (19990211.1830)

> Furthermore, theories of nonviolent resistance \*easily\* fit the  
> PCT "Chapter 17" idea that a primary fact of social reality is that people  
> act in accordance with their values, so when those values are at odds with  
> authoritarian commands, the commands will remain unsatisfied no matter how  
> strong the insistence.

It would be interesting to see how nonviolent resistance would have fared in  
Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia.

Bruce Gregory

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chris\_Cherpas](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Chris\_Cherpas](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Chris_Cherpas)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 1999, 3:28pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/16 "1999-02-12T15:28:56Z")

</div>

[From Chris Cherpas (990212.0730 PT)]

Tracy Harms (19990211.1830)--

> Furthermore, theories of nonviolent resistance \*easily\* fit the  
> PCT "Chapter 17" idea that a primary fact of social reality is that people  
> act in accordance with their values, so when those values are at odds with  
> authoritarian commands, the commands will remain unsatisfied no matter how  
> strong the insistence.

Bruce Gregory (990212.0517 EST)--

> It would be interesting to see how nonviolent resistance would have fared in  
> Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia.

Another example to consider is the early Christians.

Regards,  
cc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 1999, 3:32pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/17 "1999-02-12T15:32:51Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (990212.0830)]

Tracy Harms (19990211.1830)--

> I may have left the impression that the likes of Mahatma  
> Ghandi and Robert LeFevre could do nothing about state  
> impositions, as you claim, Rick. Not at all.

I wasn't claiming that "the likes of Mahatma Ghandi and Robert  
LeFevre could do nothing about state impositions". My point was  
just that anarchy -- like democracy, monarchy, socialism,  
capitalism, Christianity, etc.-- is just another system concept  
that some people believe others should embrace (control for).

Regardless of whether or not one likes (or can find  
intellectual justification for) a particular system concept,  
when people act, by whatever means -- violent or  
non-violent -- to get others to "buy in" to those system  
concepts, they are acting to control the behavior of other  
people and, thus, they are likely to end up disturbing  
perceptions that those other people are controlling. You can  
tell that this kind of interpersonal control is happening  
when there are obvious signs of conflict --war, riots, etc.--  
which is exactly what we saw in the American Revolution and  
Civil War, the French Revolution and the Indian fight for  
independence.

My point, therefore, is not that one system concept (like  
government) is more or less coercive than another (like  
anarchy). My point was that when one tries to get people to  
accept \_any\_ system concept -- even one that says people  
should be free and uncontrolled -- there is control of  
behavior (coercion).

Humans are input control systems; there is no way out of  
this situation. As Bill said in B:CP Ch. 17 "we \_are\_ the  
problem" because we \_are\_ controllers. We can't decree  
this problem away by saying that society \_should\_ work in a  
particular way. We have to solve whatever social problems we  
see (and different person will obviously see different  
social problems since people have different references for  
what various perceptual aspects of society should be) in  
the context of understanding that \_people are input control  
systems\_.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> ------  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 1999, 7:34pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/18 "1999-02-12T19:34:50Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (990212.1430 EST)]

Rick Marken (990212.0830)

> My point, therefore, is not that one system concept (like  
> government) is more or less coercive than another (like  
> anarchy). My point was that when one tries to get people to  
> accept \_any\_ system concept -- even one that says people  
> should be free and uncontrolled -- there is control of  
> behavior (coercion).

I would appreciate it if you would make a serious effort to say  
something that I can disagree with. Thanks.

Bruce Gregory

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fred\_Nickols3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/9de053/32.png) [@Fred\_Nickols3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Fred_Nickols3)\
**Post date:** [February 13, 1999, 12:10pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/19 "1999-02-13T12:10:54Z")

</div>

from [Fred Nickols (980213.0655)] --

I've been following the anarchy discussion. An exchange between Rick  
Marken and Tracy Harms prompts an inquiry on my part.

Rick (990211.0930) writes --

> Governments (and anarchies) aren't "really" out there, any  
> more than trees or colors are "really" out there. All these  
> experiences (according to PCT) are perceptual constructions,  
> based (I am sure) on something that is "really" out there;  
> but the perceptions are a map of that reality; constructions  
> produced by perceptual functions in the brain. Everything  
> (according to PCT) is perception.

Here's the question (and I guess it's for Rick and for Bill P):

Is it the view/belief/theory of PCT that there is nothing out there and, as  
Rick says above, "Everything is perception" or is it the view/belief/theory  
of PCT that all we can ever know of any external reality is what we  
perceive. For what it's worth, I have no trouble with the latter but the  
former gives me fits.

> **···**
>
> --
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred Nickols  
> Distance Consulting  
> [http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm](http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm)  
> nickols@worldnet.att.net  
> (609) 490-0095

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory8)\
**Post date:** [February 13, 1999, 1:20pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/20 "1999-02-13T13:20:15Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (990213.0818 EST)]

Fred Nickols (980213.0655)

> Is it the view/belief/theory of PCT that there is nothing out  
> there and, as  
> Rick says above, "Everything is perception" or is it the  
> view/belief/theory  
> of PCT that all we can ever know of any external reality is what we  
> perceive. For what it's worth, I have no trouble with the latter but the  
> former gives me fits.

You can relax, Fred.

Bruce Gregory

[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080.md?page=2)