Scan barcode
agrajag's review
3.0
This reads optimistic and passionate, and I like Gary for that. It's clear to the reader that he is writing about a topic that is near and dear to him, and that the future society that Gary imagines without a state is one that looks clearly superior to societies with states in them to Gary.
The main problem with this book is that (repeatedly) the author simply asserts that better alternatives WOULD exist if we just got rid of the states. He is so convinced of this that he doesn't seem to consider it necessary to actually describe what those alternatives would be, how they would come into being, or how a stateless society would avoid rapidly devolving into pure might makes right.
There's mainly two areas where this is a showstopper:
First, how does a society with no organization holding a monopoly on violence avoid being taken over by a neighboring society that does have an army? Or by some local warlord which has one? Secondly, how do we ensure that there exists some minimum set of rights and services that are accessible to literally everyone? (He might not care about the latter; some anarchists are OK with letting people die if they can't manage to feed themselves or pay for medical treatment for themselves.)
He uses Somalia as an example of a society that do well without a state. It's pretty difficult to take this seriously. Somalia can be found at, or near, the WORST end for living-conditions in the world for most indicators of well-being. At the same time, when he talks about the abuses of the state, he often uses worst-in-class examples while making no mention at all of how untypical these are. As an example he dedicates quite a bit of space to describing the power-abuses and the violence that American police engages in, but at no point does he mention with even a single word that police in most European countries tends to be 2 orders of magnitude less violent. 98% of the Americans killed by the police this decade would still be alive if American police was as violent (on a per-capita basis) as the police in the UK or Germany already are.
This is a problem because he argues that the state is inherently rotten to the core, and that no substantial improvement is POSSIBLE, and that therefore doing without it is the only possible way to have significant progress. But that claim isn't true if problems he describe can demonstrably be reduced by a factor of 10 or more -- most people would consider that to be significant progress.
My problem here isn't just that I disagree with him. That's fine. My problem is that he doesn't even seem to TRY to argue the case that the title claims he is going to argue. Instead he cherry-picks problems that states have, most of which are perfectly true -- and then just asserts that these problems would go away if we simply removed the state; because something better would magically show up. But that latter part can't simply be assumed.
I agree that many of the problems he lists with states are genuine. I just don't see him making any attempt to explain why they can't be solved, or at the very least drastically reduced while still having a state.
Some examples: Overly long copyright-periods and patents are a problem, yes -- but nothing prevents us from having a state but shortening these periods or for that matter eliminating them entirely. Violence from the police is a problem -- but police-forces that are a LOT less violent than Americas exist. The war on drug is unjust and causes a lot of harm -- but jurisdictions exist where drug-laws are substantially less draconian -- he mentions mariuana, but seemingly doesn't find it worth mentioning that you can buy that completely legally in several US states. (and countries in Europe)
Ultimately, I think this ends up being convincing only to the people who are already convinced and therefore do not need any actually supporting argument. For the rest of us it tells us why Gary thinks so -- but without any real attempt at telling us why we should agree with him.
The main problem with this book is that (repeatedly) the author simply asserts that better alternatives WOULD exist if we just got rid of the states. He is so convinced of this that he doesn't seem to consider it necessary to actually describe what those alternatives would be, how they would come into being, or how a stateless society would avoid rapidly devolving into pure might makes right.
There's mainly two areas where this is a showstopper:
First, how does a society with no organization holding a monopoly on violence avoid being taken over by a neighboring society that does have an army? Or by some local warlord which has one? Secondly, how do we ensure that there exists some minimum set of rights and services that are accessible to literally everyone? (He might not care about the latter; some anarchists are OK with letting people die if they can't manage to feed themselves or pay for medical treatment for themselves.)
He uses Somalia as an example of a society that do well without a state. It's pretty difficult to take this seriously. Somalia can be found at, or near, the WORST end for living-conditions in the world for most indicators of well-being. At the same time, when he talks about the abuses of the state, he often uses worst-in-class examples while making no mention at all of how untypical these are. As an example he dedicates quite a bit of space to describing the power-abuses and the violence that American police engages in, but at no point does he mention with even a single word that police in most European countries tends to be 2 orders of magnitude less violent. 98% of the Americans killed by the police this decade would still be alive if American police was as violent (on a per-capita basis) as the police in the UK or Germany already are.
This is a problem because he argues that the state is inherently rotten to the core, and that no substantial improvement is POSSIBLE, and that therefore doing without it is the only possible way to have significant progress. But that claim isn't true if problems he describe can demonstrably be reduced by a factor of 10 or more -- most people would consider that to be significant progress.
My problem here isn't just that I disagree with him. That's fine. My problem is that he doesn't even seem to TRY to argue the case that the title claims he is going to argue. Instead he cherry-picks problems that states have, most of which are perfectly true -- and then just asserts that these problems would go away if we simply removed the state; because something better would magically show up. But that latter part can't simply be assumed.
I agree that many of the problems he lists with states are genuine. I just don't see him making any attempt to explain why they can't be solved, or at the very least drastically reduced while still having a state.
Some examples: Overly long copyright-periods and patents are a problem, yes -- but nothing prevents us from having a state but shortening these periods or for that matter eliminating them entirely. Violence from the police is a problem -- but police-forces that are a LOT less violent than Americas exist. The war on drug is unjust and causes a lot of harm -- but jurisdictions exist where drug-laws are substantially less draconian -- he mentions mariuana, but seemingly doesn't find it worth mentioning that you can buy that completely legally in several US states. (and countries in Europe)
Ultimately, I think this ends up being convincing only to the people who are already convinced and therefore do not need any actually supporting argument. For the rest of us it tells us why Gary thinks so -- but without any real attempt at telling us why we should agree with him.
More...