First lets define the state: a monopoly on the legal and moral right to initiate force within a geographical area I'm not trying to poison the well. If you object to this definition speak up. Allow me to begin with this quote. "Unlike many observers of history, anarchists see a common thread behind most of mankind's problems: the state. In the 20th-century alone, states have murdered well over 100,000,000 human beings, whether in war, concentration camps, or man-made famine. And this is merely a continuation of a seemingly endless historical pattern: almost from the beginning of recorded history, governments have existed. Once they arose, they allowed a ruling class to live off the labor of the mass of ordinary people; and these ruling classes have generally used their ill-gotten gains to build armies and wage war to extend their sphere of influence. At the same time, governments have always suppressed unpopular minorities, dissent, and the efforts of geniuses and innovators to raise humanity to new intellectual, moral, cultural, and economic heights. By transferring surplus wealth from producers to the state's ruling elite, the state has often strangled any incentive for long-run economic growth and thus stifled humanity's ascent from poverty; and at the same time the state has always used that surplus wealth to cement its power. If the state is the proximate cause of so much needless misery and cruelty, would it not be desirable to investigate the alternatives?" --Caplan No system will be perfect but the one we have now is so terrible I don't see how anyone can possibly be satisfied in thinking that this is the best humans will ever accomplish. As if the above was insufficient the state fails at virtually everything it endeavors to do. It cant fight drugs, poverty, terror, stabilize markets, grow its economy, manage currencies, or what have you. Aside from human imperfection I believe the source of most of its problems is the plan by the few/top down/one-size-fits-all approach, and the violent nature of its policies and the process that determines them (bribery of politicians big business and constituents, fear, sensationalism, charisma, all manner of fallacious reasoning, majority tyranny, irrational voting/team cheering, etc). Just look at the logic behind statism and its commonly believed purposes. 1. -We need to initiate force against people to protect them from the initiation of force.- If your trying to prevent P from happening you cant use P to prevent P. If the purpose of law is to protect ourselves and our property from the initiation of force it cannot be possible that this very same law must initiate force against us in order to protect us from initiation of force. 2. -We need to enforce a involuntary contract to protect voluntary contracts- ??? Again this is impossible. If your trying to prevent P from happening you cant use P to prevent P. 3. -If without the state then there would be chaos- Without arranged marriages there would be chaos. Without monopoly there would be chaos. This obviously does not prove that a state is necessary for order or that there is any correlation between choice and order. 4. -To protect us from a subset of people that are bad we most give near infinite power to a subset of people- How do we know that there is no overlap between the two subsets? What about the people within the monopoly? Who punishes them? In our current system as long as their crimes are committed "legally" (or sometimes even illegally) the worst the have to fear is losing office. No philosophy solves this problem except anarchy which does so by simply not giving all this power to anyone. Whats even worse is that when your talking about a democracy it is not just the small subset of politicians that have the ability to use this monopoly of violence to their own ends but the rest of society can abuse it against each other! We are trying to prevent people from using violence to achieve their ends so we establish this institution that allows people to use violence to achieve their ends. ???? Obviously since people like to use violence to achieve their ends (humans prefer to take rather than give and take) the situation would be more desirable and successful if this giant weapon was removed. Government is basically a giant weapon. The people that hold that weapon change from time to time. Everyone else tries to lobby, vote, or in some way persuade the holders of the weapon to use it in a way that suites them. What often goes unnoticed are the people that the gun gets pointed at. This means is attractive to many and thus the state grows. As the state grows it makes more rules which create more criminals. (trade restrictions begat smugglers/drug wars begat gangs/etc) As the state grows the various unintended consequences of its various actions become worse, then it makes more rules to correct the problems and these in turn create more problems. To me this looks more chaotic than orderly and most people understand that something is fundamentally wrong. I think this is why I hear so many people say they just wish they could just hit a reset button and start over. 5. -The state must initiate force to achieve some virtue (help the poor/greater good/whatever)- If this is true one must explain if virtue can ever come from violence. Two wrongs do not cancel each other out and neither does might make right. If we believe that the initiation of force against non criminals is bad then how can it also be good. Also if people vote for these virtues then they must want these virtues. If people want these virtues then why do we need the state to go about achieving them in some violent way. Considering all of the above and its other atrocities (everyday violence, experimenting with entire economies, killing and jailing people for their personal habits,etc) I conclude that something is terribly wrong here. Not only is it cruel but it isn't even close to working well. This cannot possibly be the apex of humanity. This cannot possibly be the limit of human intelligence. I arrive at that belief by these reasons. The first is that since humanity over the ages has been trending towards greater liberty and the amelioration it brings it is unreasonable to assume that this trend has reached its limit. I am aware that neither possibility is provable. The second is how it appears that as time passes the more sensitive humanity is to peace (not just peace from war) and that not only do they become more sensitive to it but it also appears that they become more aware of the expense of violence. The third is that order and peace come about spontaneously far more often than by design. If you really think about it easily more than 90% of all human interactions are peaceful. Economies and things like the internet do not function because of governments they function on their own. Governments can only manipulate them. Is all this voluntary interaction predicated by or dependent on some amount of involuntary interaction? I think not. See above logic. The fourth is that with knowledge of markets, competition, and an initiative to think impartially outside of the box of statism the alternatives appear not as distant as initially believed. --------------- Quick responses to some of the most common objections--------------------------------------- governments are a result of hierarchy and structure being part of human nature/people appoint their own governments I agree on both accounts however I believe this hierarchy and structure does not need to always and forever be based on oppression and violence. Hierarchy and order is not only possible via voluntary means but is also more common in human interaction and is increasingly more so. The other major point on this is that people choose their own systems. If a state exists because people want it to exist the same is true for statelessness. A stateless society is only possible if the people want a stateless society. Minds do change even if it is over generations and I believe this is likely to happen for reasons already stated. Monopoly To clarify, some monopolies are harmless and some are atrocities. The first coffee shop that opens in town is completely different from say your average utility company or the state. Lasting dominating monopoly (rising prices and falling quality) is achieved only by force. Force is used either in of itself (as with the state) or by persuading those in the state to use it on ones behalf which is why the state does more to create monopoly than prevent it. When I say natural monopolies are a myth I am referring to everything besides force such as utilities, corporations, and the idea that free markets inevitably lead to monopoly. One other important fact is that corporations are creations of the state. Without state help companies would not be able to grow to the size that we are accustomed to. Somalia Somalia is neither a case of total anarchy or statism. There are a few facts that must be respected when discussing Somalia It is not stateless, it is actually 4 states that are in dispute/civil war over controlling Somalia in its entirety or in remaining independent from the others. These are the Republic of Somaliland, the Islamic Emerate of Somalia, the Khatumo State of Somalia, and the Federal Republic of Somalia, It is a developing country and its standards of living are a result of the many factors that make a developing country a developing country Each period of violent chaos in Somalia is generally centered around outside attempts to establish a new government inside Somalia. Despite Somalia being claimed by states, there are regions where they have no presence. In these areas Xeer Law keeps order Relative to other African nations standards of living and economic growth have improved faster than they did before the collapse competition in a security market. I have already touched on the concept that people must want a stateless society in order to have one. You cannot force a stateless society on people. This leads to a crucial factor that must be considered when judging the plausibility of competition in security. When people want service X they will figure out a way to have service X. For example if the government stopped maintaining roads and collecting taxes for them people wouldn't start running around like headless chickens and the economy would not evaporate. People want to get from A to B easily and are willing to pay for it. If the FDA all of a sudden vanished people will only buy products they trust etc. If everyone is scared that a new government might take over any security agency will have to address that anxiety in order to get any customers, which I add, is a prerequisite for any nefarious plans. Furthermore it is not only customers that must be appeased but everyone that provides everything a wannabe state needs. In order to exist a security agency must address the anxieties of the people that feed his guards, provide his electricity, ammunition, fuel, equipment, etc. who are anxious that the security agency could turn against them. Day 2: New headline - Company X just proclaimed the island Z as the nation of X. All travel to and from Nation X is now restricted. Any approach to the island will be met with deadly force. Other companies report the event as unfortunate and is waiting for public support to intervene. If the people and business of this island cared whether the agency could take over they would not allow Company X to have the means to do so. The customers of the island would not subscribe to Company X unless it had certain policies such as -only provides security, does not expand into other markets -publicizing all arms that are in possession -hires auditing agencies to regularly audit your companies stockpiles, number of agents -only deal with arms manufacturers that institute similar policies -offer immediate cancellations and refunds to any customers that become uneasy -whatever else you can think of. Competition is a powerful thing A stateless society has never existed Firstly this is an appeal to ignorance and proves nothing. also: Much of the American West Medieval Iceland Brehon Law in medieval Ireland Xeer Law, despite the warring states and underdevelopment, areas of Somalia, 1680's Pennsylvania Harappan Civilization, bronze age India Various obscure neurotic scenarios I cannot predict the future and I don't really care. Deductive reasoning can only take you so far. You don't need to know how the cotton will be picked to know that the slaves should be free. Also I don't care if the status of statelessness might not last forever. You wouldn't refuse to cure your sickness because you might get sick again sometime in the future would you? You wish for utopia! Understanding the fallibility of human nature and seeking to decentralize power is not utopian. I do not claim perfection I advocate for the ascension from institutional violence just as I advocate for erasing rape and murder as best I can.
This is really interesting. In my second year of uni I wrote an essay with very similar points to these particularly Somalia in explaining how an anarchist state could be achieved and that anarchism does not = terrorism. Have you read a book by Hobsbawm called 'Primitive Rebels'? Its a really good insight on primitive anarchism and consolidating it into small villages in which in many cases it has been successful. You seem really well informed anyway its just lovely to see people constructing logical arguments in threads. *high five*
there are two things too many people wrongly assume to be equal. one is that 'religion' = christianity. the other, is that anarchism = anarchy (and "anarcho-capitalsim" is an uber oxymoron if there ever was one symbolic value is no more a default condition of the universe, then hierarchy these are things that exist, yes, but only within greater contexts then themselves, not things that the universe or even the planet, exist within, not even human society is limited by nor to them)
interestingly anarchy is extremely difficult to be corrupted, states and private corporations acting as state agents are most often born out of corruption.
