Actually Pierre, you have hit upon a discussion that we anarchists and libertarian socialists have quite frequently these days. For example, if all social services were run by mutual aid societies, some people would be too poor to pay the membership fees and therefore would have to be subsidized in some manner. How does one get this subsidy? What if voluntary efforts don’t suffice? One method of dealing with this problem has been proposed by Kevin Carson http://www.mutualist.org/ who feels that the state should be dismantled piecemeal, leaving social services and other beneficial aspects to the very last, only when workers are free of capitalism and these services can be replaced with cooperatives. In some ways though, the question is artificial since, few, if any anarchists these days believe the state will be abolished in one go. In fact, the complete abolition of the state is an ideal and is therefore something that might not ever come about – the anarchist is someone who seeks to minimize statism and maximize voluntary, cooperative, self-managed and communitarian efforts and doesn’t really worry too much about the distant ideal.

I must say that I love many aspects of mutualist thought : being at the same time critical of big government and big business, and proposing a cooperative, civil society, fair approach to economics.

Still, I wouldn't say that abolishing the State is an "ideal". In any society, we need central institutions of power : and I'm still waiting to be convinced otherwise. The question is what kind of State we want, not if we want a State at all.

Nevertheless, I strongly appreciate that people take time to comment and keep the debate going. Keep'em coming!

I would have to agree with Pierre on the necessity of the state; even Adam Smith noted that the free market and the invisible hand was ineffective (alone) at looking after social welfare (If you are going to read the wealth of nations, remember to read the fifth book in the series, which addresses this component).

However, I am weary at addressing the Mutualism addressed by your citation. Why? the citation is poor; there is the manafesto, then the list of texts. Though the list of suggested readings is long and impressive, there is no narrative reference to them--there is no outline as to how they are linked together to derive the Mutualist ideology. Not having read every book on the list, I am weary of making a critique.

Mike, try the "Articles and Essays" section of Mutualism.org then go to the "Mutualist FAQ". This give the basic information on mutualist anarchism. The other articles can fill this out.

My personal feeling is that we'll see the state dissolve just as soon as we experience union with God....until then....

I've always been partial to libertarian socialist thought, probably because the religious tradition in which I was raised is somewhat predisposed me to it. As wonderful as a decentralized libertarian order is however, the dangers of mobocracy would remain, regional disparities could continue to be aggravated, environmental problems could be allowed to mount, force and fraud could continue, when the counterveiling force of a democratic state is withdrawn.

I've always considered myself a federal "conservative" and a state-and-local pinko-commie-lib. In both cases, I'm fiscally conservative, I don't like redistributive taxation and I would in its stead propose tried and true ways of creating wealth, as well as putting capital in its appropriate place by abolishing the employment/self-sale slavery contract.

Dear Alan, Larry, the state is for you. For, without the state, there is no "free market". It comes down to a matter of rights. Who protects them?

The most fundamental right in a free-market based economy is the right of private property; when perfectly defined (such is never the case--but more on this later), private property rights entitle the holder to certain powers. These powers include unrestricted access to the benefit stream from holding property (including on-demand access while you are the holder, and the right to sell this right for whatever price you deem acceptable.

A property right is merely an organized method of establishing entitlement to the benefits of holding property. That is, there is no intrinsic notion of property--it is an instituion, albeit an important and valuable one. But, as we have touched on before (with respect to global governance), rights are only as good as the extent to which they can be enforced.

Again, who protects your rights? Do you? No. The state protects your rights--even your right to own private property. If someone infringes on your rights (steals your sandwich, vandalises your house, uses your computer without your permission), the state is what protects them (Pierre will be more knowledgable about these means and branches than I).

In this context, Alan's "[...] personal feeling is that we'll see the state dissolve just as soon as we experience union with God [...]," is wholly applicable. Without the state, one's only protection from utility-maximizing comrades is in their obedience to a higher power--which is a nice concept but no tangible person has the power to enforce or audit such obedience.

In the meantime, we have the state or, as Garret Hardin puts it, "mutual coersion, mutually enforced"*. Basically, the state is a manifestation of a social contract; here, we acknowledge that pure self-serving will result in a "double-bind" so we make an agreement to set rules and have them enforced by a (hopefully) non-partisan third party.

The effectiveness of a perfect Free Market (never, ever, has there been a perfect market--only in textbooks, I'm afraid) depends on some additional assumptions and requirements that are generally neglected: property rights must be perfectly defined (this has some properties of its own, too) and these rights must be perfectly and costlessly enforced. Without the state (or some governing/intermediary agent), there is no Free Market.

*Hardin, Garrett, "The Tradgedy of the Commons." in Herman E. Daly and Kenneth N. Townsend (eds.) [cite]Valuing the Earth, Economics, Ecology, Ethics,[/cite], 1994, pages 127-144

edits:

need a closing bracket after "holder" 6th line, second paragraph.

"them"="you" 4th paragraph, 4th line

I don’t think you need the state to keep people from stealing etc. Anarchists would have the community do it instead, and if it was something larger than the community could handle, then it would be the federation of communities. As for private property, none of us here are anarcho-capitalists. We prefer a mixed economy of individual, cooperative, stakeholder and community ownership. Property would be based on usufruct principles. Anyway, other than clarifying our positions, I don’t think debating about whether the state ought to or will exist in a future society is as important as what we all have in common, which is to develop forms of economic democracy such as worker coops, and democratic community initiatives.

The state's mandate, different from that of a community group, is to protect rights, where property right protection is merely an extension of this (the point is, not neccessarily a specific property right but a property right that is clearly defined). A more applicable property right, though, is the property right over your own labour: in extension, the right to your own livelihood.

Yes, contracts can be written which hold no higher authority than the local community league. Or perhaps even ones that hold a coop's mandate and consitution as the absolute authority. But, what happens when we need to ensure that rights are being protected for those outside our immediate society; or when we want to travel and know that our rights are protected? The state becomes neccessary--in whatever manifestation you would like to clothe it.

Stealing is not the only thing to be protected by the state, all of your rights are protected. Rights are defined in the legislative branch and enforced by the judicial branch. While some instances (even today, without revlolution, this is the case) are addressed by community organizations and municiplal-level governments, this is not sufficient to ensure nationwide (or even worldwide) standards.

And, as a member of several community groups, I am subject to their laws. But, this does not ensure that everyone is subject to these laws or granted the same privledges; for the universal standards, for the protection of some person, absolved from any allegance, there is only the state.

What I can see of the Mutualist view is an ancient Sparta; only those in the mutualist club are protected. While the apparent strategy is the employement of this disbalance of power to coerce the enrollment of all people, this is not good enough, since it is a betrayal of the Mutualist mission statement. This indicates to me, in the true fashion of neo-Marxist-Leninist thought, that the Mutualist's goal is simply power (though a novel approach).

No, I am happy with a representitive state who protects your rights, asking only for your existence as proof of loyalty.

I am afraid that you misunderstand what anarchism (and Mutualism) is about Mike. I have already pointed out that the economy would be a mixed one. Nor can you reduce everything to mutual aid societies. The other aspect is the community. One way to clarify it would be to say that anarchists believe in “government” but not in the state. Government in the sense of direct democracy and recallable delegates and the large scale effected through federation. Some examples of anarchist (or near anarchist) governance are the New England Town meetings, the workers councils prior to their capture by the Bolsheviks and 19th Century Switzerland. I would add that, from what I can tell, the Zapatista communities in Chiapas are also an example of functioning anarchism. You might also investigate Murray Bookchin’s works on libertarian municipalism for further information.

Mike, the "state" is an institution that holds, or tries to hold, a monopoly on coersive power within a society or region, a.ka. "nation". Anarchists see that monopolist power dispersed through various organizations and institutions throughout society. As Larry said, these formal institutions would constitute a government, or as I would prefer, a "governance".

I would also like to point out that the notion of a "social contract" or "state's mandate" is a falsehood. The terms imply that the rule of the state is somehow consentual, which of couse it is not. As you yourself said, one's very existence in a state is simply taken as a "proof of loyalty".

Mike, I don't see how the state protects your property rights while systematically violating those same property rights. I looked at the Portland, OR budget for public safety and its population and calculated a $615 per capita budget for public safety. This means $2,460 for your typical family of four. I then went to the Dell site and pimped out a computer using their customizer and came out with a really cool computer for $4,787.

What's the point of all this, you might ask, Mike? Well, in order to "protect" my family's property rights, the government will steal my cool computer and provide me with about 23 months of private property protection "service." They will then come back for the replacement computer that I bought for another 23 months of private property protection "service." And yes, it's stealing, because I have no choice in the matter. If I resist, they'll either shoot me dead or haul me off to jail for tax evasion. Essentially, what they do is steal your computer and tell you that they will prevent anyone else from stealing your TV, car, etc. Logically challenging? Definitely.

As for your comment, "Again, who protects your rights? Do you? No. The state protects your rights..." I do think that I protect my rights. I can do it with a padlock, cameras, and if I'm there and so inclined, with a gun or baseball bat. But I'm sure you'll say, "What about if you don't catch him? The state must be there to compel him to be arrested and tried for his crime." Well, at this point, the state ceases to be an immediate protector of your property and merely an evidence collection agency. I can hire someone to do that (just like we do with PI's). If I get proof that a person did take my TV, then I'd be justified in taking the TV or its monetary equivalent back along with some compensation for my PI fees and a punitive damage award as determined by one or two private court opinions. If the criminal was not willing to pay, then there are repo men who would love to provide the service of reclamation of my damages.

The main point is that there is no need for a state to provide protection for your rights; individuals or freely contracting groups can do it just fine. And if there was a need, you couldn't say that you are better off because the existence of the state guarantees that your property will be expropriated.

Bonjour / Hello (English follows),

Je serai bref vu que d'autres ici ont mentionné vaguement ce que je veux vous partager. Dans un système libertaire, il y a une gouvernance qui serait une confédération ou une fédération de regroupements régionaux (il pourrait y avoir une Confédération canadienne par exemple). La différence réelle est que les élu-es reçoivent, dans la mesure du possible, des mandats démocratiquement déterminés par les électeur-trices et, au minimum, les délégué-es élu-es peuvent être révoqués démocratiquement à tout moment.

En fin du compte, je trouve que plusieurs anarchistes ne connaissent pas vraiment les modèles libertaires ou démocratiques lorsqu'ils/elles affirment qu'il n'y aurait pas de 'gouvernement' ou d'État (tout comme ce n'est pas libertaire de décréter que les anarchistes ne doivent aucunement croire en un concept de dieu). Pour ma part, je n'ai pas le droit de me dire anarchiste vu que je suis membre du NPD ;o)

( English ) I will be brief since others here have somewhat mentionned what I would like to share with you. In a libertarian system, there is governance and law, in the form of a confederation or a federation of regional associations (there could be a Canadian Confederation for example). The real difference is that the electorate can democratically impose specific mandats to the elected and, at the very least, the elected delegates can be revoked democratically at any time.

All in all, I find that many anarchists do not really know libertarian or democratic systems/models when they declare there would be no 'government' or State (the same way it is not libertarian to decree that anarchists must never believe in a concept of god). Personally, I am not allowed to call myself an anarchist since I am a member of the NDP ;o)