[| I, CWAS |]

Any mode of anarcho-capitalism in an advanced western society would be bound to be superior to stateless societies of the past, unless one admits that westerners are incapable of existing without the force of government. he does make good points though, at this point in America government spends most of its time regulating consensual lifestyles, torturing citizens and corrupting the market.

Life Without a Government: It’s Not As Distant As You Think
by Stefan Molyneux

I am always astounded when someone rejects even the possibility of a stateless society by demanding that I supply proof such a society has ever existed, or could ever work.

"But I can give you an example of a perfectly functioning non-violent society right this minute!" I reply.

"Oh yeah?" my interrogator will demand skeptically. "Where?"

"Well, it’s… you!"

A great flurry of confusion always follows this very simple statement. "What are you talking about?"

"Well, are you married?" I say.

"Yes, but…"

"Did you force your spouse to marry you?"

"What are you talking about?"

"When you proposed, did you hold a gun to her temple and threaten to pull the trigger if she didn’t marry you?"

"No, but…"

"Do you have a job?"

"Yes…"

"And when you went to that job interview, did you hold a knife to your interviewer’s throat until you got the job?"

"No…"

"Did you go to school?"

"Of course! But what…"

"And if you wanted an ‘A’, did you work hard, or did you kidnap your teacher’s daughter and hold her hostage until you got the grade you wanted?"

"No, but…"

"Do you shoplift when you go to stores? Do you leave restaurants without paying the bill? Do you ‘pump and run’ at gas stations? If you want to have a party, do you herd your guests up at gunpoint?"

The answer is always the same. Of course not! Over the past twenty years, over thousands of conversations, I have never once met anyone who regularly used violence. I’ve met a few people who’d been in bar fights, heard tales of a few bad marriages and seen some fairly nasty parents, but I have never once met a single person who regularly and systematically used violence to force obedience out of others.

So naturally, I am quite confused when people demand that I produce historical proof of functioning non-violent societies. It’s like a panting man asking me to produce proof of the existence of air.

You do not use violence in your life. You do not force people to do your bidding. You do not shoot or stab or poison people who disagree with you.

And I would guess that you don’t know anyone else who does.

Just think about that for a moment. Think of your close and extended family, everyone at work, all your managers, employees and customers. Think of the man who flies your plane, the woman who fixes your car, the teenager who delivers your newspaper. Think of the thousands and thousands of people you have met during the course of your life. How many of the people you have met as an adult have ever used violence against you?

I bet none.

Now that’s quite remarkable when you think about it. Just looking at your own life, you can see a community of hundreds or thousands of people composed entirely of pacifists. A community composed of people who resolve all their disputes without pulling out knives or guns.

People generally respond to this, of course, by arguing that people don’t use force because the State has courts and the police and so on, and without State protection we’d be in that mythical state of nature, stealing and killing each other at will.

That’s an interesting objection, but I have a hard time taking it very seriously, because all I have to ask in return is this:

"Have you ever actually tried to use the State justice system?"

Of course not. If they had, they wouldn’t speak so blithely about how the ‘thin blue line’ is all that separates us from cannibalism. And it’s not fear of the police that keeps you from dumping your garbage on the lawn next door, but rather a natural desire to live in peace with those around you.

And sure, there are people who use violence to get their way – but you can protect yourself against criminals. You can’t protect yourself against the State.

Does this approach prove that a stateless society will work flawlessly? Of course not. However, I hope it helps you see that in your life, a stateless, pacifistic society works beautifully! I don’t expect that this approach will convince you of the practicality of a stateless society as a whole, but in the society that you live in – surely the most important to you – it does highlight the simple fact that non-violence is the norm, and that voluntary cooperation is in fact how most people actually live.

In other words, if we actually look at our own lives, and set aside propaganda and fear, it becomes clear that stateless societies are not only possible in the future, but alive and well in the here and now. To see the future of freedom, we need only look in the mirror today.

Source

[Red Star]

In other words, if we actually look at our own lives, and set aside propaganda and fear, it becomes clear that stateless societies are not only possible in the future, but alive and well in the here and now. To see the future of freedom, we need only look in the mirror today.

Interesting premise and conclusion. Largely, I agree with his opinion - it is true that in our personal interactions the state plays nearly no role: I get along with my neighbour as I want to live in peace with him, not because the police would knock down my door if I punched him - he would do that, he keeps me in check.

However, why do you purport that we need an anarcho-capitalist system to make this work in the future? Weren't the previous stateless societies in Spain based on anarcho-syndicalist and communist ideas, from the ideas of Kropotkin etc?

[SpiderMonkey]

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

Capitalism depends on a minority using force to prevent the majority accessing resources (their 'property') and thus they area a state themselves.

[| I, CWAS |]

However, why do you purport that we need an anarcho-capitalist system to make this work in the future? Weren't the previous stateless societies in Spain based on anarcho-syndicalist and communist ideas, from the ideas of Kropotkin etc?

need? I actually think a minimalist, objective government is needed.

Ditto for spain, but anarcho-collectivism is just as bad as state based collectivism, and those were consensual, an entire society can't be built upon those ideals or we are just back to square one, city-states. Now under anarcho-capitalism one can still be an anarcho-syndicalist and form anarcho-syndicalist or even communist communities.

Capitalism depends on a minority using force to prevent the majority accessing resources (their 'property') and thus they area a state themselves.

Private defense contracters would be used, much the same way they are now. Government in its current manifestation is subjective.

[Red Star]

objective government

How can you have an objective government made out of subjective people?

[| I, CWAS |]

How can you have an objective government made out of subjective people?

By abolishing voting and establishing objective principles, and maintaing a judiciary for the nooks of mediation. One cannot have anemocracy, which is what voting leads to, and Liberty. The objective government is fettered by objective principles, instead of vice versa. For instance with the abolition of compulsory taxation, everything that is produced due to compulsory taxation is stripped, and subject to consensual funding, like the market. A government consisting of organic elites, lends itself far more to maintaining objective government.

The biggest area of debate is the millitary.

[Red Star]

establishing objective principles

Same problem. How do you establish these objective principles? How are they objective? If the government is to abide by these principles, they need to be thought out and written down - againt, by subjects: people. You cannot come to an objective conclusion coming from a subjective viewpoint. Even if these principles existed as a concrete truth, they need to be distorted through the prism of the people who communicate them - thus eliminating their objectivity.

[| I, CWAS |]

Same problem. How do you establish these objective principles? How are they objective? If the government is to abide by these principles, they need to be thought out and written down

They don't need to be written down (i.e constitution) unless it is unamendable. They don't need to be thought out, as government can't regulate government, obejctive government is a result, not causation. As used in the example above, thft is wrong, taxation= theft, and without compulsory taxation the immoral welfare state is pretty much abolished.

againt, by subjects: people

Not subjects, as minimalist government abolishes voting, in lieu of organic elites, that way the religionists/theocrats can have their city-state, and essentially valu-simpatico systems form. The central states only goal is defense/high courts.

You cannot come to an objective conclusion coming from a subjective viewpoint

Which is why voting can't exist, and objective government simply is so from all angles (hence things like graduated tax brackets, heterosexual marriage, et al are all anti-objective)

Even if these principles existed as a concrete truth, they need to be distorted through the prism of the people who communicate them - thus eliminating their objectivity.

It is possible to have subjective values, and be objective (ex a person who loathes alcohol, and never drinks it neither favoring the use of alcohol, nor advocating government proscription.)

[Red Star]

They don't need to be written down (i.e constitution) unless it is unamendable. They don't need to be thought out, as government can't regulate government, obejctive government is a result, not causation.

What would these objective principles be then, do you think? Humour me as I have trouble understanding precisely what you are trying to say.

minimalist government abolishes voting, in lieu of organic elites,

You yourself have used the term 'tyrrany of the majority' - so in effect now it can be 'tyrrany of the minority'?

The central states only goal is defense/high courts.

Putting defence in the hands of a state will simply result in a weapon against all other people in this society. The state will still be made out of people, and as Freud has shown us, Thanatos (the death force, the drive for power) is present in each of us - so the people who are left with the defence of this state, can just as easily turn this weapon back on the other city-states, communities etc and bring back the old system that you have just abolished in favour of your free-market world.

[| I, CWAS |]

What would these objective principles be then, do you think? Humour me as I have trouble understanding precisely what you are trying to say.

Soverign rule of the Individual,qua, Individual-- Liberty-- (non-initiation of aggression in irenic circumstances or the absence of implied initiation from others. Proscription of fraud and coercion)

Pretty much everything else stems from Liberty (capitalism, free association, somatic freedom, etc).

Courts are a valid function of the state, and the state can handle the obscure points or grey areas or disputes.

You yourself have used the term 'tyrrany of the majority' - so in effect now it can be 'tyrrany of the minority'?

Nope, as the a minimalist government doesn't amount to Rule, but management. And there is little to manage and oversee.

Putting defence in the hands of a state will simply result in a weapon against all other people in this society. The state will still be made out of people, and as Freud has shown us, Thanatos (the death force, the drive for power) is present in each of us - so the people who are left with the defence of this state, can just as easily turn this weapon back on the other city-states, communities etc and bring back the old system that you have just abolished in favour of your free-market world.

Frued is a charlatan. Defense is justified, as borders are, and the maintainence of those borders are valid. The "free-market" world is an improper classification, as the free-market is simply an economic corollary of Liberty (Private ownership + free association + free trade). Opposition governments may not be objective, and unless they are then I see no causation for the abolition of defense.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Private defense contracters would be used, much the same way they are now. Government in its current manifestation is subjective.

And the richer people can buy more merceneries than the poor people and can safely order their payed minions to do whatever they feel increases their wealth, even loot and kill.

In fact it is the nature of the situation, that those wealthy individuals would quickly establish a monopoly on force, beacause the private contractors of poorer individuals, will not stand up to them, beacause they will be vastly outnumbered.