Think world wars would be prevented if had anarchy?

[WhoWee]

Why did you include an internet account, health insurance, credit cards and grocery stores in this group? Some of those categories are supplied by private institutions; A person can be an anarchist in the philosophical sense but still live in a world where anarchy is not promoted if he has no choice but to adapt to the given conditions within his environment; There were communists and socialists roaming around in czarist Russia before the Russian revolution ;

Do you honestly believe the internet, the electrical grid, hospital systems, a banking system and a distribution system (trucks and highways) would exist under anarchy?

You sound like Obama telling us that insuring 46,000,000 additional people will save money.

A person who contemplates in a philosophical world often faces difficulties adapting the ideals to the real world.

 

[Galteeth]

Well WhoWe, to answer your question, I have some of those things. I look at anarchist morality as being roughly equivalent to a philosophy of non-violence. So i try not to use violence or support violence, as much as possible.
There are of course compromises one has to make. I obviously pay some tax. I tend to think of it on a very local scale anyway. (For example, there was a dispute at the gas station the other day where i was severely overcharged, and during the subsequent argument, was assaulted by the attendant. Now, if I had called the police, I probably would have "gotten what I wanted" in so far as my money back, but since it wasn't a life-threatening situation, it seemed immoral to me to resort to violence to solve the problem.)

It seems you are suggesting that any philosophy or morality that is not currently one hundred percent applicable and "pure" in all situations is invalid. One can, for example be an environmentalist who is concerned (morally) about climate change, but still have a carbon footprint. The example of non-violence is probably a bit more absolute, but the definition of "supporting " violence, or institutions that lead to violence, can begin to get a bit abstract and impractical given the reality of a violent society. For example, let's say i buy a product. I am giving money to the company that produced it. Do I suspect that these producers have never used violence (or more specifically state power)? No, i don't and when possible i try to support small business and local prodcution. That said, I'll still eat corn that was grown with government subsidies.

For my own purposes, I tend to focus more on the act (or the immediate threat) of violence as oppossed to its consequences.



As far as your question regarding the internet and such, to me that question basically reduces to "Could the internet exist without violence?" I say of course it could.

Now if you want to start talking about whether violence is the most efficient means to organize society (i.e. you could claim that a society that wasn't organized by violence would never spontaneously produce an internet) we can start discussing objective things instead of moral values.

 

[WhoWee]

Well WhoWe, to answer your question, I have some of those things. I look at anarchist morality as being roughly equivalent to a philosophy of non-violence. So i try not to use violence or support violence, as much as possible.
There are of course compromises one has to make. I obviously pay some tax. I tend to think of it on a very local scale anyway. (For example, there was a dispute at the gas station the other day where i was severely overcharged, and during the subsequent argument, was assaulted by the attendant. Now, if I had called the police, I probably would have "gotten what I wanted" in so far as my money back, but since it wasn't a life-threatening situation, it seemed immoral to me to resort to violence to solve the problem.)

It seems you are suggesting that any philosophy or morality that is not currently one hundred percent applicable and "pure" in all situations is invalid. One can, for example be an environmentalist who is concerned (morally) about climate change, but still have a carbon footprint. The example of non-violence is probably a bit more absolute, but the definition of "supporting " violence, or institutions that lead to violence, can begin to get a bit abstract and impractical given the reality of a violent society. For example, let's say i buy a product. I am giving money to the company that produced it. Do I suspect that these producers have never used violence (or more specifically state power)? No, i don't and when possible i try to support small business and local prodcution. That said, I'll still eat corn that was grown with government subsidies.

For my own purposes, I tend to focus more on the act (or the immediate threat) of violence as oppossed to its consequences.



As far as your question regarding the internet and such, to me that question basically reduces to "Could the internet exist without violence?" I say of course it could.

Now if you want to start talking about whether violence is the most efficient means to organize society (i.e. you could claim that a society that wasn't organized by violence would never spontaneously produce an internet) we can start discussing objective things instead of moral values.

Your definition of anarchy is non-violence?

Also, calling the Police because you were robbed and assaulted would have been a violent act?

 

[Galteeth]

Your definition of anarchy is non-violence?

Also, calling the Police because you were robbed and assaulted would have been a violent act?

Yes to both.

On the second one, self-defense is also a violent act, but one I find acceptable. It all comes down to personal value judgements. If someone assaults me, I don't retaliate after the fact.

 

[WhoWee]

I have another definition for you to consider.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pacifist

* Main Entry: pac·i·fist
* Pronunciation: \ˈpa-sə-fist\
* Variant(s): or pac·i·fis·tic \ˌpa-sə-ˈfis-tik\
* Function: adjective
* Date: 1908

1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of pacifism or pacifists
2 : strongly and actively opposed to conflict and especially war

— pac·i·fis·ti·cal·ly \ˌpa-sə-ˈfis-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

 

[Galteeth]

I have another definition for you to consider.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pacifist

* Main Entry: pac·i·fist
* Pronunciation: \ˈpa-sə-fist\
* Variant(s): or pac·i·fis·tic \ˌpa-sə-ˈfis-tik\
* Function: adjective
* Date: 1908

1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of pacifism or pacifists
2 : strongly and actively opposed to conflict and especially war

— pac·i·fis·ti·cal·ly \ˌpa-sə-ˈfis-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

I think the two are closely related.

 

[mheslep]

I think the two are closely related.

Not by definition or in practice.

 

[Astronuc]

I admit, I don't know of any at the top of my head. As I said numerous time already, I wasn't envisioning a utopian society, I was envisioning a society where you had complete control of your life, not the state and a society where you were not dragged into some war or forced to pay for it against your will through conscription/taxation that does not involved you at all. However, do you know of any society/countries ruled by a central government where there was not a tinge of corruption within that government regime and there was no call for any reforms or complete overthrows of the government and people where just content with their government since the formation of centrally controlled society from the far-reaches of a tribe;

I don't know of anyone who is complete control of one's life. Nature can be pretty harsh sometimes.

Perhaps remote tribes in New Guinea, Australia, S. Asia, S. America or Africa might be as close to anarchy as one would find. But many primitive tribes eventually collided over territory or resources.

Humans formed groups for mutual benefit, but then they had to deal with members of the group wanting to dominate. In some cases, elders were sought out to mediate disputes which seem inevitable to human populations. If the elders are simply comfortable to resolve conflicts and nothing more, that's probably as close as one comes to an anarchic society (based on the definition of anarchy inferring the absence of government).

There are also examples of societies in which the group can collectively decide to sanction a member who misbehaves. Is this allowed under the definition of anarchy?

 

[arildno]

Nah, Astronuc.

Anarchy arrives, in its most beautous form, when each individual becomes a law giver and law enforcer in his own right, especially in wielding sanctioning power against the miscreants of his own designation..

 

[Astronuc]

Anarchy arrives, in its most beautous form, when each individual becomes a law giver and law enforcer in his own right, especially in wielding sanctioning power against the miscreants of his own designation..

People in the most beautious form do not lie, cheat, steal, or hurt or harm others - but rather are:

• Trustworthy,
• Loyal,
• Helpful,
• Friendly,
• Courteous,
• Kind,
• Obedient,
• Cheerful,
• Thrifty,
• Brave,
• Clean,
• and Reverent.

 

[noblegas]

I don't know of anyone who is complete control of one's life. Nature can be pretty harsh sometimes.

It was not my intention to imply that if one living within an absolute free society, one person alone had to gather all the goods and services he considered essential to her survival. Since most natural resources are in finite quantities, some people or groups of people will have easier access to one particular natural resource than other groups of people; I would still advocate free trade under this society; What I don't advocate is coercion, i.e. people being forced to pay for institutions like, healthcare, education, roads, Israel's healthcare , etc especially if they do not considered it essential for their own personal survival; When I say I want a person to have complete control over their own life, I am explicitly talking about being able to have full reign over deciding if you want to be of assistance to a person or if you don't that person to have assistance and them to be completely self-reliant;

Humans formed groups for mutual benefit, but then they had to deal with members of the group wanting to dominate. In some cases, elders were sought out to mediate disputes which seem inevitable to human populations. If the elders are simply comfortable to resolve conflicts and nothing more, that's probably as close as one comes to an anarchic society (based on the definition of anarchy inferring the absence of government).

Totally agree.Only I want humans to form groups naturally to form economic and social relationships and resolve their dispute own their own or have a third party to come into assist the two persons who are disputing each other. Government today stills acts as that dominate force you are referring to when you were talking about the third party group that wants to take control of the smaller tribe in tribal communities; The government may prevent us from violently attack one another, at least on the surface, but we are still forced to financially support a number of goods and services the government considers "essential" or if you refuse to pay for the services you don't use, you will be arrested for "tax-evasion";

 

[arildno]

Should it be allowed to coerce a coercer from using coercion in your paradise?

 

[ViewsofMars]

People in the most beautious form do not lie, cheat, steal, or hurt or harm others - but rather are:

• Trustworthy,
• Loyal,
• Helpful,
• Friendly,
• Courteous,
• Kind,
• Obedient,
• Cheerful,
• Thrifty,
• Brave,
• Clean,
• and Reverent.

Yes, that is a very nice list. I like it. However the word "obedient" at my age means being responsible for paying the bills on time.(tee hee)

I think a healthy frame of mind does unleash a feeling of hope and power.

 

[arildno]

Furthermore, noblegas:

Do you feel a teensy weenie titillation at the prospect of DESTROYING the society actually around you, in order to allow your paradise to flourish?

 

[noblegas]

Furthermore, noblegas:

Do you feel a teensy weenie titillation at the prospect of DESTROYING the society actually around you, in order to allow your paradise to flourish?

Again , I NEVER said that the stateless society I am envisioning would be a paradise; Trying to create a paradise is a pipe dream for the obvious reason of the many flaws that are characteristic of the human species,; The only paradise you would be able to create would be a paradise for AI machines that were designed to be morally superior to human beings; I would desire a stateless society , only for the sake of self-governance and for third parties not to be dragged into/ or forced to finance these conflicts that don't pertain to them; (US civil war, WW1, WW2, hundreds years war , vietnam war); Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets; Yes, Let's allow one person to have the potential to destroy and breakdown the society around them,i.e. hitler, mao-zetong, stalin, slaughtering of native americans by the US government(sarcasm) ;

 

[arildno]

Just cherishing the rare* flower your mindset is, noblegas.

Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets

Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets

Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets

Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets

Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets

Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets

Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets

Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets

*Due to inherent tendencies towards self-extinction

 

[noblegas]

Just cherishing the rare* flower your mindset is, noblegas.















*Due to inherent tendencies towards self-extinction

whats wrong with caring more about liberty than security? Its a personal preference; I think people should be in control of there own safety rather than someone else be in control of your own safety unless you want them to.

 

[arildno]

Let the Baby Self-Help Brigade form!

Or what about the Granny Guard?

 

[Astronuc]

It all comes down to can any group of humans get along. I think a lot of people can - certainly when they are friends. But how does one treat strangers?

I'll post later a paragraph I read last night. It's relevant to how societies evolve.

 

[Astronuc]

Yes, that is a very nice list. I like it. However the word "obedient" at my age means being responsible for paying the bills on time.(tee hee)

I think a healthy frame of mind does unleash a feeling of hope and power.

I'd replace obedient with 'self-responsibility'.

 

[WhoWee]

Totally agree.Only I want humans to form groups naturally to form economic and social relationships and resolve their dispute own their own or have a third party to come into assist the two persons who are disputing each other. Government today stills acts as that dominate force you are referring to when you were talking about the third party group that wants to take control of the smaller tribe in tribal communities; The government may prevent us from violently attack one another, at least on the surface, but we are still forced to financially support a number of goods and services the government considers "essential" or if you refuse to pay for the services you don't use, you will be arrested for "tax-evasion";

Have you ever watched the "Godfather" movies?

 

[Astronuc]

John K. Walton, A Social History of Lancashire, 1558-1939, Manchester University Press, 1987.
Authority and Conflict, 1660-1770

The accelerating economic and social changes of this transitional period [1660-1770] brought several kinds of response from those who were concerned with, and interested in, the protection of property and the exercise of authority [king, Parliament, Church, nobles, . . . ]. The power of central government remained very limited in practice at the local level, where the institutions which mattered most were often voluntary and informal. The mainenance of order was pursued not only through the official machinery of the civil and criminal law, and the increasingly complex administration of the Poor Law, but also through religious institutions and private charity. Attempts to influence the wage-earning and smallholding classes in ways conducive to social stability [order] were fuelled by humanitarian and religious motives as well as by coercive authoritarianism and fear of disorder; and the drive to order and control complicated and impeded by divisions within the ruling and propertied groups, especially where religious issues became entangled with national politics [a reason the US preferred a separation of church and state]. When challenged from below, however, Lancashire's leaders remained well capable of closing ranks and defending their interests, and threats to authority remained sporadic, geographically isolated and, for the most part, easily contained, except, perhaps, where disturbances were themselves encouraged by sections by the propertied class and directed against their political opponents.

Of course England (and Europe) had a class structure, with royalty and nobles at the top and landless class (and slaves) at the bottom. But locally, much was done on a voluntary basis or personal choice.

With respect to social development, differentiation and specialization play a role in conferring advantages to those who are fortunate (lucky) find themselves in the right specialty or who happen to get the better piece of land with resources (fertile land for agriculture, or water, or resources like salt, coal, iron, copper, timber, . . .] Resources are not distributed equally, and they are not allocated equitably. Often those with greater advantage wanted still more.

Differentiation seems to introduce a hierarchy of privilege.


It is difficult to find a society in which the individual is his/her own master, but perhaps this was the case for some communities on the open prairies of the US plains in the mid-to-late 1800's [ref. Little House on the Prairie]. The husband and wife had to have many skills in order to be self-sufficient. They could, if they desired, to interact with neighbors or not.

 

[tickle_monste]

Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets;

Personally, if I had all this personal liberty, I would take the liberty of sacrificing said liberty in order to have more security and safety nets for myself, my family, my friends, and everybody in general. In your system, full realization of my personal liberty would be very difficult because of all the people who think there's much more to liberty than security, safety and comfort. I don't want liberty at the expense of those things, and if you try to take those things from me, I will strongly desire to curtail your liberty to do so. If you can come up with a way that I can have this personal liberty AND my comfort and security, that would be pretty cool, but the only way that I'm able to have the pretty decent balance of personal liberty, comfort, and security that I have now is because people aren't generally trying to make a revolution, they're working out the details in order to maintain a certain level of compatibility (and hence comfort and safety) within society, and this comes at the expense of personal liberty. When you've worked out the details, I'll consider your anarchy, but I'm not going to be the one working out the details, because that would be an expense of what's left of my personal liberty after I've given most of it to capitalism, and the probable outcome if the details were to be put into practice would be a significant decrease in my comfort and safety. I'd rather take the personal liberty of getting lost in the comfort and safety of capitalism than getting found in an anarchic society devoid of any promise of these things. In your society, nothing consistent would be done with wrong-doers, such as murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. Consequently, nobody would associate even a relative moral standard to these crimes. I'm glad that we have governments that scare the non-moral individuals amongst us into not committing crime, and for multiple reasons:
1) They would mess with my personal comfort and safety, which are the objectives of my liberty.
2) I despise them for being amoral in the first place, and want them to feel fear and suffer from not being able to fulfill their disgusting desires. These amoral people I speak of only care about themselves, and if it made them feel good and there were no consequences, they would hurt you without remorse. When I do bad, I feel bad; I feel remorse, whether or not I face consequences. If somebody does bad and doesn't feel bad, I feel hate for them, and want them to feel suffering equal at least to that which I feel when I'm remorseful for doing bad myself.
3) If I had all the personal liberty you want me to have, I would probably have killed people by now; amoral people, yes, but people all the same. If I can't be trusted to maintain the value of human life (which I wouldn't if some of that human life were amoral), then I want there to be a system which overrides my personal liberty.
4) If I can't trust myself to maintain the value of human life, I'm not going to trust anyone else individually to maintain the value of human life, and thus have even more reason to want a system to override not just my personal liberty, but the liberty of everyone else as well.
5) If I had all the personal liberty you want me to have, I would probably be working to create the system mentioned in #3 and #4 above.

 

[noblegas]

John K. Walton, A Social History of Lancashire, 1558-1939, Manchester University Press, 1987.
Authority and Conflict, 1660-1770



Of course England (and Europe) had a class structure, with royalty and nobles at the top and landless class (and slaves) at the bottom. But locally, much was done on a voluntary basis or personal choice.

With respect to social development, differentiation and specialization play a role in conferring advantages to those who are fortunate (lucky) find themselves in the right specialty or who happen to get the better piece of land with resources (fertile land for agriculture, or water, or resources like salt, coal, iron, copper, timber, . . .] Resources are not distributed equally, and they are not allocated equitably. Often those with greater advantage wanted still more.

Differentiation seems to introduce a hierarchy of privilege.


It is difficult to find a society in which the individual is his/her own master, but perhaps this was the case for some communities on the open prairies of the US plains in the mid-to-late 1800's [ref. Little House on the Prairie]. The husband and wife had to have many skills in order to be self-sufficient. They could, if they desired, to interact with neighbors or not.

Technically, open prairies would not have existed if acts were not passed by the US federal government liked the Homestead act and Morrill Act that allowed the settlers and explorers access to land with land grants; So technically, the West was not really a 'wild and open' place ; I don't know what the rest of the article you posted say, but does the author discuss why humans throughout history and today have a propensity to create statist regimes where you have little or no recognition or acknowledgment of human rights like the right to own property or personal liberty by the state as opposed to relatively free societies like the United states and all of western europe;

 

[Astronuc]

Technically, open prairies would not have existed if acts were not passed by the US federal government liked the Homestead act and Morrill Act that allowed the settlers and explorers access to land with land grants; So technically, the West was not really a 'wild and open' place ; I don't know what the rest of the article you posted say, but does the author discuss why humans throughout history and today have a propensity to create statist regimes where you have little or no recognition or acknowledgment of human rights like the right to own property or personal liberty by the state as opposed to relatively free societies like the United states and all of western europe;

One needs to check one's historical facts. The Louisiana purchase was wide open when the US claimed it - even though native peoples lived there. The US government claimed it, but settlers found their way onto the land well before acts of Congress were passed. Read D. Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. Between Lewis and Clark Expedition and the Homestead Act (May 20, 1862), individuals and settlers made their way west from the US and bascially lived wherever they felt like. See - Preemption Act of 1841

or how about - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny - if one was not a US citizen - one had little or no rights with regard to property ownership. Not exactly free.

The society of Lancashire in the 1600's/1700's was no less 'free' than Colonial America (where the King owned the land and granted it to whomever), or the US (the national or state governments owned the land and granted it to whomever, except for land already owned prior the establishment of the US), or all of western Europe, which had to evolve from Principalities, Dutchies and Monarchies (1600's-1800's) into Nation States.

For example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Monarchy_to_Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#German_Empire_.281871.E2.80.931918.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany

Or looking back - Charlemagne and the Carolingian Renaissance
http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture20b.html


Humans formed groups/societies - with hierarchical structures - going back to Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonias, Egyptians, Chinese and later Greek, Roman, Byzantine empires up through modern European societies. Outside the borders of the Roman/Byzantine empires were the Celtic/Germanic tribes, Vikings, Turkic tribes, . . . .

Africa had numerous tribes and societies before Europeans entered the picture. South American Indians had highly organized/structured hierarchical societies - Incas, Mayans, Aztecs, Toltecs, . . . . well before Europeans arrived.


A truly 'free' society is the rare exception.

 

[noblegas]

One needs to check one's historical facts. The Louisiana purchase was wide open when the US claimed it - even though native peoples lived there. The US government claimed it, but settlers found their way onto the land well before acts of Congress were passed. Read D. Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. Between Lewis and Clark Expedition and the Homestead Act (May 20, 1862), individuals and settlers made their way west from the US and bascially lived wherever they felt like. See - Preemption Act of 1841

or how about - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny - if one was not a US citizen - one had little or no rights with regard to property ownership. Not exactly free.

The society of Lancashire in the 1600's/1700's was no less 'free' than Colonial America (where the King owned the land and granted it to whomever), or the US (the national or state governments owned the land and granted it to whomever, except for land already owned prior the establishment of the US), or all of western Europe, which had to evolve from Principalities, Dutchies and Monarchies (1600's-1800's) into Nation States.

For example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Monarchy_to_Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#German_Empire_.281871.E2.80.931918.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany

Or looking back - Charlemagne and the Carolingian Renaissance
http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture20b.htmlHumans formed groups/societies - with hierarchical structures - going back to Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonias, Egyptians, Chinese and later Greek, Roman, Byzantine empires up through modern European societies. Outside the borders of the Roman/Byzantine empires were the Celtic/Germanic tribes, Vikings, Turkic tribes, . . . .

Africa had numerous tribes and societies before Europeans entered the picture. South American Indians had highly organized/structured hierarchical societies - Incas, Mayans, Aztecs, Toltecs, . . . . well before Europeans arrived.A truly 'free' society is the rare exception.

I was not disagreeing with you. I said the image of the old wild west that many picture wasn't really wild at all and therefore is a myth; I was saying that the US Homestead act signed by dear old Abe granted land to farmers who did not opposed the US federal government(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_act); Go back and read my post preceding this one

 

[Galteeth]

It all comes down to can any group of humans get along. I think a lot of people can - certainly when they are friends. But how does one treat strangers?

I'll post later a paragraph I read last night. It's relevant to how societies evolve.

They don't necessarily have to get along perfectly, just agree not to use violence to solve their disputes. It may seem like a pipe dream, but considering how far humanity has progressed over centuries (at least in some places at some times), I think it's possible. Consider the example of slavery. There was a time when the near universal recognition of slavery as a moral evil would have seemed like a pipe dream.

 

[Astronuc]

I was not disagreeing with you. I said the image of the old wild west that many picture wasn't really wild at all and therefore is a myth; I was saying that the US Homestead act signed by dear old Abe granted land to farmers who did not opposed the US federal government(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_act); Go back and read my post preceding this one

But the 'wild west' was indeed wild - perhaps more so in some places than others. European Americans began encroaching on 'Indian Territories' well before any act of Congress granted lands. Some tribes in California were wiped out (ref. Dee Brown, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee)

When the cattle industry developed, there was tension and fighting between people who raised sheep and those who raised cattle. There were land disputes and water disputes.

Cattle rustling and claim jumping were problematic in many territories.

The process of "claim jumping," or obtaining by means at least questionable the lands on which others had made settlement, was in frequent practice in 1867. The person who was "jumped" very frequently was a non-resident, and had simply made a claim as a speculation, intending to pre-empt if there seemed a probability of rapid increase in the value of his land, or to allow a lapse if it suited his convenience. Many of those who built their claim-shanties to hold the land for them until they could return with their families from Missouri or Kansas or even far more distant points, returned to find the claim-house demolished and some new-comer fully settled.

Ref: http://www.kancoll.org/books/andreas_ne/richardson/richardson-p2.html#claim

The term 'claim jumping' apparently originated between 1825-1835, somewhere in the western territories, and probably had an association with mining (mostly likely gold and silver).

Look at the case of Johann (John) August Sutter. His land was taken by squatters. He had legally purchased the land in California from the Spanish and Russians, yet the US government did not recognize his claim, but instead recognized the subsequent claims of squatters who were US citizens. And this was before California became a state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_August_Sutter#New_Helvetia et seq.

There were disputes among railroads, one of the most famous being the conflict between the Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe and Denver & Rio Grande railroads, which evolved into gun battles in the Royal Gorge.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know what the rest of the article you posted say, but does the author discuss why humans throughout history and today have a propensity to create statist regimes where you have little or no recognition or acknowledgment of human rights like the right to own property or personal liberty by the state as opposed to relatively free societies like the United states and all of western europe;

There is a wealth of political theory, philosophy and history discussing/documenting this issue. Though political documents, the magna carta and declaration of independence are also political theory writings discussing the issue. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau discuss the issue. Much of the Federalist Papers are about the issue.

In my opinion, the question as you phrased it is relatively straightforward: people are ambitious and some people more ambitious than others. And ambition goes hand in hand with selfishness. In a society with a large number of people, a few people with high ambition will tend to sieze power by whatever means available. Thus a government must be set up with the specific features for preventing individuals from siezing such power. The problem is that governments like those seen in the west don't typically evolve, they must be created from scratch. Dictators follow dictators - and they don't use violence to come to power then suddenly become benevolent. The social contract theory by the likes of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau on which much of our government is based requires that people get together collectively and construct that contract. But getting to that point is extremely difficult.

You might like "The Prince". Machiavelli wrote it primarily as a manual for aspiring middle-ages dictators, but it provides insight into what drives them. And it may help you understand the flaw in your premise. People like Machiavelli and the middle ages princes he was writing to exist and no amount of wishful thinking about people getting along will make them go away. Rights require protection from such people and only a government strong enough to keep such people from siezing dictatorial power can adequately protect them.

 

[Phrak]

I swear, I read The Prince, then reread The Prince specifically looking for what motivation Machiavelli should offer the aspiring prince for doing what Machiavelli proscribed.

I found--and to paraphrase, "to be respected by respectable men." Subsequently, I haven't relocated such a proscription, and distrust my memory.

 

[russ_watters]

I read it in high school and don't remember the "why" or what causes them to have such aspirations. I don't think he was seeking to explore that anyway. But that sounds like something he would say. I don't think he considered princely aspirations at all negative.

I wasn't suggesting the OP read it because it is an acceptable political theory/method (though it is certainly a viable/functional one!), but rather just an insight into how their minds work. Not a lot of murderous dictators sit back and consider 'why am I a murderous dictator?', they just are. Often times, the "why" is just gibberish or rationalizing anyway and not really all that useful.

 

[mheslep]

I swear, I read The Prince, then reread The Prince specifically looking for what motivation Machiavelli should offer the aspiring prince for doing what Machiavelli proscribed.

I found--and to paraphrase, "to be respected by respectable men." Subsequently, I haven't relocated such a proscription, and distrust my memory.

I seriously doubt Machiavelli could be summarized soundly in that way. Machiavelli thought about how to gather and wield power. Respect would only be usable by means of fear. It would have no moral or nobel component - all useless except as PR per Machiavelli.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I think that Machiavelli is often misconstrued, especially as most people know his writing only secondhand. In addition to the debate about the purpose of his writing (there's a common belief among scholars, probably minority but possibly majority, that he *didn't* support autocratic rule at all; this is well-supported by circumstances but little primary evidence remains), he's usually viewed much too narrowly.

Therefore such as these have great difficulties in consummating their enterprise, for all their dangers are in the ascent, yet with ability they will overcome them; but when these are overcome, and those who envied them their success are exterminated, they will begin to be respected, and they will continue afterward powerful, secure, honored, and happy.

[...]

Coming now to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel.

[...]

From these causes it arose that Marcus, Pertinax, and Alexander, being all men of modest life, lovers of justice, enemies to cruelty, humane, and benignant, came to a sad end except Marcus; he alone lived and died honored, because he had succeeded to the throne by hereditary title, and owed nothing either to the soldiers or the people; and afterward, being possessed of many virtues which made him respected, he always kept both orders in their places whilst he lived, and was neither hated nor despised.

[...]

Leaving Pagolo Guinigi in command at Lucca, Castruccio set out for Rome with six hundred horsemen, where he was received by Enrico with the greatest distinction. In a short time the presence of Castruccio obtained such respect for the emperor that, without bloodshed or violence, good order was restored, chiefly by reason of Castruccio having sent by sea from the country round Pisa large quantities of corn, and thus removed the source of the trouble. When he had chastised some of the Roman leaders, and admonished others, voluntary obedience was rendered to Enrico.

Having said that, I concur that Phrak's remembered phrase sounds out-of-character for the man.

 

[Astronuc]

I think Machiavelli was primarily interested in ingratiating himself to the mortal powers that were in order to elevate himself and his standard of living.

 

[mheslep]

... The social contract theory by the likes of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau on which much of our government is based requires that people get together collectively and construct that contract. ...

Whoa, you're throwing together a very disparate salad there. Hobbes and Rousseau go together, but not with Locke. Whether one thinks its valid or not today, Hobbes and Rousseau invented that natural state of man line, a pure fiction. They had no anthropology to speak of and simply fabricated it. To control the man in the state of nature they then require society and government. Neither of them have any time for moral behaviour self imposed. Rousseau in particular with regard to morals practised what he preached and was an utterly amoral bastard, a perfect forbearer for the French revolution and the Reign of Terror. The US founders spent most of their time not on how to subdue the natural state of man, though yes that too is part of their construction, but on how to subdue the institution of government created by man. They (Locke, founders) relied on moral codes, heavily Christian influenced, to look after individual behaviour, and believed democratic government had no chance without it.

Jefferson, concerning the consequences of the practice of slavery, a severe moral flaw in the 18th century US:

...And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.--But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one's mind.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s28.html