Can you provide the gist of the interview?

And how he envisions this anarchy would be like?

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
Can you provide the gist of the interview?

edit: Really, the interview tries to disassociate the notion of "chaos" with the idea of the "absence of state".
However, as your added question alludes to, he does not really try to show a real-world effect of anarchy to an established "stable" state, which I was waiting for as well.

-Anarchy is more likely to create a system of checks and balances.
-War can only coexist with an official state.

-Prof. Long uses examples in history and today, even quoting the founding father's positive view of anarchy.

I sincerely apologize for the very un-nuanced and brief summary, but I'm sure you will appreciate that the interview is an interesting and relevant one and it really must be heard to get all the subtleties.

In a (very unsophisticated) nutshell, he argues against the argument that the existence of the state, as opposed to anarchy (the absence of it) brings any added security to the citizen/person.

He uses the examples of similar "nations" where one had an official state and one did/does not to support this argument. Such as medieval Iceland vs. Norway, where, apparently, the anarchic nation of Iceland had very few conflicts compared to Norway where the institution of the state existed.
Today, he points to Somalia, where the violence has actually diminished since the state has crumbled, and when compared to neighboring states has much less internal violence.

I sincerely apologize for the very un-nuanced and brief summary, but I'm sure you will appreciate that the interview is an interesting and relevant one.

the Billmeister

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
what happens when private interests hijack the state. What then? Sing yellow submarine while they restructure the laws to suit them?

Interesting point.
In the interview, prof. Long argues that only private interests should exist, and that the inherent competition between them is it's own control mechanism.

If I understand your view point, it is that within the structure of the state, when private interests essentially hijack democracy, perhaps a little anarchy is not a bad thing to remove this corruption. (please correct me if I'm wrong)

One essential point I would argue with prof. Long is that when we are dealing with large infrastructure, it is unrealistic to depend on private competition. For example, how many different companies could realistically compete for a cities sewer system, or firefighting?
It is traditionally in these areas that corruption did, historically appear however... I'm not sure that the mafia still isn't connected to trash collection for example. So perhaps he does have a valid point.

the Billmeister