[Rei Murasame]

After all this time you still don't understand the concept of "stateless" ?

I understand it in the same way as how I might understand a unicorn.

In your mind if you are removing the state or the power, you MUST be replacing it with another form of centralised power.. true ?

No, just some other form of coercive power, it may or may not be centralised.

My question to you is how are you going to do it? You already said this:

I haven't thought about this at all, but hey...

That's astounding. Is this really the first time you've thought of how to enact anarcho-capitalism?

A sufficient percentage of the population simply stops paying taxes.

And then they'll do like in most of Europe and Asia and simply deduct it from your wages ahead of time, or garnish it from your bank account. Now what?

If required these same people stop using the dollar.

Oh, and who is going to accept your new non-official currency? You would need to actually make organisations that would accept these tokens, and you'd have to do so without law enforcement busting you for some kind of fraud violation, meaning that you would probably need a paramilitary to protect you, and that would also mean that you'd need to make autonomous zones of anarchy.

You see where this is going, right? In order to prevent attacks on your person, you'd have to create hierarchical systems that would compel people to defend your anarchy and attack the state. 60% of your demographic is working class, and they own basically nothing, so you will need to organise them and find a way to keep them from falling to pieces.

So you end up with a recipe for some pretty non-libertarian things to happen, congratulations.

[mikema63]

Ancap systems are usually claimed by left anarchists to not be anarchist because we do use hierchical systems, you just submit yourself to them voluntarily.

If a majority of people just stop paying taxes it begs the question of how a fringe ideology managed to convince the 80% of people (and I'm being generous) who don't know or care for political philosophy at all and react politically based on labels and some social psychology hot buttons to actually do that.

As for money it would of course be commodity based I suppose in this scenario but how you would get state controlled banks to accept them short of force is beyond me as well.

The government holds itself in place by virtue of the force they wield at every level of society, using force against them can certainly be considered self defense, and I see no way to take over or destroy the present order without a fight.

[Rei Murasame]

Well said, Mike.

I'm sure that they won't just believe you on that though, meaning that more ideas are about to be suggested by them, which I am eagerly waiting to hear about.

I'm assuming that the next suggestion they are going to make will be that someone must work to "spread ancap ideology until giant companies realise the error of their coercing ways (but they get to keep everything they presently have without having to agree to any kind of restitution being made to anyone at all)", which is a laughable idea, but I am expecting that someone will say it.

[mikema63]

To preempt slightly, half the population fights over the non existent differences between Obama and Romney characterizing them as night and day, good and evil.

We are not going to convince the bulk of people with theory, they just don't think like that, their day to day concerns are more important, and most people are simply not capable or willing to think about theoreticals at all.

At most I would predict being able to very lossy convince 25-40% of the population, and by loosely I mean align their ideals with ours so they don't automatically assume our evil intentions, if we get 5% of the population to completely understand and adhere to our views I will be incredibly astounded.

[mum]

I understand it in the same way as how I might understand a unicorn.

I thought it was very simple, but maybe I am wrong. This is always going to be a barrier for you then.

My question to you is how are you going to do it?

We kind of need to get past the issue above first. If you cannot even imagine an anarchist society. What point is there discussing how we can get there ? That will make even less sense to you, even if 100% hypothetical.

You already said this:
....
That's astounding. Is this really the first time you've thought of how to enact anarcho-capitalism?

I was referring to my exact example, I was just coming up with the steps as I went. So to answer your question, No of course not.

And then they'll do like in most of Europe and Asia and simply deduct it from your wages ahead of time, or garnish it from your bank account. Now what?

If a significant proportion of the population do this, why would your employer take the taxes out(he is part of the movement) ?
Lets say most people stop paying taxes, and if the govt tries to use the banks to get taxes then everyone just takes out their money and uses gold.

Oh, and who is going to accept your new non-official currency?

Thats the great thing about commodity money (particularly gold). It has always been money, and it always will be.

You would need to actually make organisations that would accept these tokens,

what for? If I work for you you pay me gold, then I go and pay gold to the grocer.

and you'd have to do so without law enforcement busting you for some kind of fraud violation,

Im very sneaky

meaning that you would probably need a paramilitary to protect you, and that would also mean that you'd need to make autonomous zones of anarchy.

No, we will all just be very sneaky. Sure the govt wont be happy, lets just say (for the sake of the arguement) that the govt in my country is much more civilized and more willing to come to an agreement, unlike for instance many of the commie governments where you just get shot or run over by a tank.

You see where this is going, right? In order to prevent attacks on your person, you'd have to create hierarchical systems that would compel people to defend your anarchy and attack the state. 60% of your demographic is working class, and they own basically nothing, so you will need to organise them and find a way to keep them from falling to pieces.

People tend to defend themselves when threatened with death. If MOST people say no to government, the government is almost by definition no longer in service. Government NEEDS the peoples permission.[/quote]

So you end up with a recipe for some pretty non-libertarian things to happen, congratulations.

Defending yourself against violence is not non-libertarian at all.

I'm assuming that the next suggestion they are going to make will be that someone must work to "spread ancap ideology until giant companies realise the error of their coercing ways (but they get to keep everything they presently have without having to agree to any kind of restitution being made to anyone at all)", which is a laughable idea, but I am expecting that someone will say it.

No libertarian is going to say this.
There is nothing wrong with a big company per say, only if they derive benefits from the government such as tax benefits, out-regulating competition, IP law, favourable laws, etc. Without these advantages many large corporations will simply be destroyed by competition. If they are not then they are truly providing a good service and have paying customers.

[mikema63]

A majority of the population is going to do this....and be sneaky?

[mum]

of course not. I was trying to be funny.... guess I'm not that funny
I don't see it progressing this way at all. IMO the only way an an-cap society will come about is through a long term grass roots movement driven by education.

[Joe Liberty]

If you remove the power, you don't have to do anything about their ability to lobby. There's nothing to lobby for.

How do you get the power so that you can use that power to get into the state and become the state so that you can change the state's policy preferences to ones that the lobbyists do not want you to change them to, while not being influenced by those same lobbyists yourself?

This was designed as a representative republic. We already are the state, theoretically anyway. While wealthy interests hold a lot of sway, it's still ultimately voters who hold the power. Which is why I believe the only way to effect lasting change is to convince people, not bludgeon them over the head. Just as you can't force "democracy" on a people who aren't ready for it (or don't want it), you can't force people into freedom. (And, again, my goal is to maximize freedom for all individuals, not just set up another massive power structure with a different group at the helm).

The only question is, what are you going to do about it?

"Let it be" doesn't seem to be a satisfying answer.

Nothing I said could be construed as "let it be". You will never be convinced that grass-roots efforts are effective, just as I will never be convinced that segregating ourselves into arbirtrary groups and waging war against everybody else will be effective.

[Rei Murasame]

I thought it was very simple, but maybe I am wrong. This is always going to be a barrier for you then.

Indeed.

We kind of need to get past the issue above first. If you cannot even imagine an anarchist society. What point is there discussing how we can get there ? That will make even less sense to you, even if 100% hypothetical.

That's exactly the problem, the reason I can't imagine anarcho-capitalism, is because no one in your camp can explain how to get there. How can I imagine something when you can't describe the steps required to build it?

I can imagine anarcho-socialism because they take great pains to describe the precise steps of how their revolution would be carried out to anyone that will hear them, and when I ask "show me one attempt that you have made", they of course point me to CNT-FAI and show me the actual CNT anarchist regions that they forcibly had in the past aggressively established using that plan they had described. So then I can imagine that.

IMO the only way an an-cap society will come about is through a long term grass roots movement driven by education.

And you are hoping that this grassroots movement will do what? Somehow peacefully convert all of your opponents in government and business, to your way of thinking?

_________________

This was designed as a representative republic. We already are the state, theoretically anyway. While wealthy interests hold a lot of sway, it's still ultimately voters who hold the power.

But you are talking about theory, I'm talking about actuality. I think it's pretty obvious that you are not the state and that you have no power.

You will never be convinced that grass-roots efforts are effective

I can indeed be convinced that grass-roots movements are effective, since all movements start out as those, so I support 'grass-roots' activity as a matter of necessity.

The difference is that I can describe how the thing that I advocate for works and what it actually does to people, institutions, social processes, and so on, in order to bring the change.

Your camp never bothers to talk about this. Instead, all you offer up is the idea that somehow you are going to just talk people into all behaving very nicely and that this will somehow bring you victory.

just as I will never be convinced that segregating ourselves into arbirtrary groups and waging war against everybody else will be effective.

You realise that what you are describing there is also grass-roots action, right?

[Joe Liberty]

Rei, we keep going around and around on this particular topic. I've come to believe that you want the "struggle" more than you want to achieve your desired goal (which I also believe is really nothing different than what we have now, you're just replacing one oppressive power structure with another, one group-think with another).

Since I believe that adult human beings are not cattle to be pigeon-holed and herded, yes I believe that convincing people is the only proper and effective way to change anything. It won't be as swift as a violent coup, but it will last a helluva lot longer, since it's a stark difference from what we have now, whereas your goal (to my eyes) isn't. Don't confuse that with having no plan, it's just a different one than yours.

Your goal and my goal are incompatible, and thus our proposed means will be as well.

[Rei Murasame]

No, I really want to achieve my desired goal, which is why I am willing to advocate patiently winning the field in terms of having a system of thought being disseminated, and then rallying the people to apply force or the threat of force to carry out the agenda.

This is not about 'patience' vs. 'sudden violent coup', since I am not calling for a sudden violent coup. This is about the fact that you are basically advocating doing nothing to redress any of the wrongs that have occurred under the present system which you spend so much time criticising.

If you think that what is happening is wrong, then why won't you call for correcting any of it?

Naturally our goals are incompatible, because you refuse to accept that those who are presently in power are even the opponent, and you refuse to accept that they will not willingly remove themselves from power over and within this society when asked to do so.

You say that you have a plan, well, let the people decide that, since clearly you are not interested in targeting the actual thieves for expropriation. In fact, for this entire topic, you, and the people on your side have basically been saying that everything that these people have managed to seize from us up until now, should be left in their hands, and that they ought to be able to continue to maintain their wealth which was based on that previous accumulation, no matter how they accumulated it.

Try and sell that line to the people who you want to radicalise, and see how far it gets you. Quite rightly, anyone hearing that would deduce that you are - for some reason - objectively defending the dominance of finance capital and multinational companies, including those which have grown to their present size and prosperity through the use of state-seized assets and state-seized property.

[Joe Liberty]

This is about the fact that you are basically doing nothing to redress any of the wrongs that have occurred under the present system which you spend so much time criticising.

If you think that what is happening is wrong, then why won't you call for correcting any of it?

That's what I've been doing. I just choose not to use force.

Naturally our goals are incompatible, because you refuse to accept that those who are presently in power who are abusing power, are even the opponent, and you refuse to accept that they will not willingly remove themselves from power over and within this society when asked to do so.

I've never said it would be easy. Of course those in power right now are the opponent, and of course they won't willingly give up their power. What I'm saying is that the power of the electorate is still greater than that of political cronies, and we can mobilize that to enact non-violent change.

Two, I don't think an entire revolution is necessary. I like the Constitution as it was written. That's what I want to get back to. We don't need a new one, we just need to adhere to the one we have. I like capitalism, for a lot of reasons. What I don't like are leftists expanding government power for their Nanny/Welfare State, and rightists taking advantage of that power to enrich themselves and their cronies and their military-industrial complex.

So not only are our goals different, but our analysis of the root cause is different too. You and I will never see eye to eye on any of this.

In fact, for this entire topic, you, and the people on your side have basically been saying that everything that these people have managed to seize from us up until now, should be left in their hands, and that they ought to be able to continue to maintain their wealth which was based on that previous accumulation, no matter how they accumulated it.

How far back do you go? Do you prefer the Mugabe route of ousting and/or killing property owners and then divvying up their property to others? Do we punish all white people and give all their land to minorities? It's an exercise in futility. Better I think to fix the root problem (too much government power), and go from there. I'm content to simply cut them off from the police powers of government and let them truly compete in a free, open market. Those who can survive, deserve to, and those who can't, don't. I think there will be far more existing corporations folding than not.

Quite rightly, anyone hearing that would deduce that you are - for some reason - objectively defending the dominance of finance capital and multinational companies, including those which have grown to their present size and prosperity through the use of state-seized assets and property.

There's nothing objective about that, it's a subjective inference drawn simply because I have chosen a non-violent means. I'm still talking about removing their ability to write the rules and take unfair advantage, which in no way can be objectively described as "defense".

[mikema63]

What steps would need to be outlined in a plan for take over for you to accept it?

If you give me a numbered list so I know what your going for I might be able to find some things, I sometimes think I'm the only one that notices some of the things we actually do.

[Rei Murasame]

I've never said it would be easy. Of course those in power right now are the opponent, and of course they won't willingly give up their power. What I'm saying is that the power of the electorate is still greater than that of political cronies, and we can mobilize that to enact non-violent change.

How can you believe that?

Two, I don't think an entire revolution is necessary.

WHAT?

I like the Constitution as it was written.

WHAT?!

That's what I want to get back to. We don't need a new one, we just need to adhere to the one we have. I like capitalism, for a lot of reasons. What I don't like are leftists expanding government power for their Nanny/Welfare State, and rightists taking advantage of that power to enrich themselves and their cronies and their military-industrical complex.

If that constitution didn't stop it from turning out this way before, what makes you think that it will stop it now? The constitution was written by the same class of people who are presently doing the things that you don't like. It was inevitable that they would grow to this point, the writers of that constitution are not some gods that sent down an idealistic document.

They were the 'IRS' and that 'Halliburton' of their day, and they penned a document which they they thought would most fittingly explain and justify their social order, which involved them using the state which they had just created, to safeguard their own property and to expropriate others as they saw fit, the key and important part in that being that they could do this without any actual input on the matter from any other class of people.

How far back do you go?

As far as is necessary?

Better I think to fix the root problem (too much government power), and go from there.

That's not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is basically that only one class has an input on governing.

I'm content to simply cut them off from the police powers of government and let them truly compete in a free, open market. Those who can survive, deserve to, and those who can't, don't.

Well, that's all very nice for those who have already accumulated lots of assets using the state to start with. You are basically giving all of the thieves a head start by slashing the state and calling for 'peace' after they've finished taking what they want already.

I think there will be far more existing corporations folding than not.

I disagree.

I'm still talking about removing their ability to write the rules and take unfair advantage, which in no way can be objectively described as "defense".

It can indeed be described as a 'defence'. If I have 20 marbles and they use the state to take 19 of them from me, that's bad for me. You then come and slash the state but proclaim that they are entitled to keep all 19 marbles and I should be content to be left with only one.

We then get to start from that point, and "those who can survive, deserve to, and those who can't, don't". I guess by this logic it pays to loot as much as possible before you slash the state?

_________________

What steps would need to be outlined in a plan for take over for you to accept it?

Anything that doesn't involve trying to talk your opponents into seeing the light when it's not in their economic interest to do so, and anything that doesn't involve a million non-organised individualists milling around and refusing to do anything.

[mikema63]

Spread ideals is the obvious first step, one we've gone over a few points on so I won't revisit, set up think tanks and get some funding. Simply going around the government to undermine some of its economic controls could be useful using the black Internet and bit coins, perhaps some more interesting things we need funded could go through that.

The fondly organization we have that seeks immediate power is the LP, which is, for now, fine, we also have been doing some work on taking over some of the GOP apparatus (IIRC we discussed that as well).

Going forward I would like to see more growth in college libertarian clubs and the libertarian youth groups (there has been a great deal already but we need more) an immediate concern should be on expanding the "feminist" libertarians into an actually important thing, our definition of feminism is the popular one already anyway, but we need to work into that demographic.

From there I see three routs. The political route would be difficult to achieve requiring us to gain overwhelming control of the GOP or a much stronger LP and a majority in the political apparatuses. We would then have to implement the suggestion I made above as a first order of business, coupling it with destroyed protective regulations and a few laws removed to destroy union monopolies and to make a cooperative legal status. We would then use the cooperatives funding to try to push through laws and try to get where we want to go, which is not nearly as easily done as said.

The second is more ancap than the aboves more monarchist take, begin moving for the more agorist route of expanding into black markets and try to directly undermine the state and force it into collapse, we would still have to work in the political sphere a good deal but the goal will not be complete control but to protect ourselves and to push for things that will undermine the government in future. We would simultaneously be building some of the necessary institution on the black markets unregulated farme and prepare to use those and apply that prepared infrastructure upon collapse.

The third route would be simple revolution if the government continues on this track, it is the least pleasant option for me because it would be the most bloody if not most difficult path. I also can't say how to go about it which makes me uncomfortable with it in that aspect as well.

I haven't really thought into strategies as much since I'm currently working on catallaxy but I think I can improve on the above once I get to thinking about that stage.

[Eran]

mike,
When a thief is caught with stolen property, our first duty is to restore the property to its rightful owner, rather than homestead it as if it was unowned.

The stolen resources that were handed to GM weren't taken from nature. They were taken from American tax-payers (setting aside the complications associated with deficit-spending). We are lucky enough to have tolerably good record of tax payments (especially at the Federal level, in which sales tax is not a material component), enabling a reasonable effort at restitution.


Rei,
Powerful actors in every society tend to resist changes. Yet societies change all the time. Hence while powerful, their power is obviously limited. We shouldn't ignore or underestimate their power, but we shouldn't overstate it either.

[mikema63]

Perhaps the bank balances and such could be distributed to taxpayers as much as possible but as for the physical things like factories and the wealth created for the company not by direct subsidy but by laws that restrict competition I see no real alternative.

The local community simply being given collective ownership won't really be in a position to run a factory, worse still if the rights were given to all taxpayers. Allowing those with an interest and ability to take over running the factory seems to me to be the most equitable and effective solution.

[Eran]

But then this is exactly the same as privatisation of state-owned enterprises. The property is sold to private parties (e.g. through an IPO), and the proceeds of the sale are used as restitution to taxpayers.

[mikema63]

This was attempted in the liberalization of the USSR, politicians took the opportunity to protect themselves and their friends and essentially cash out.

[Eran]

Obviously the process can be abused, and is quite likely to be abused when controlled by politicians.

But in the context of a societal transition in which politicians lose their legitimacy, it need not be abused.