24 votes

I am an advocate of a stateless society... Anyone want to debate? I would love to improve my arguments.

I just saw a thread that prompted me to offer a place to go to debate this topic.

Feel free to join in.

A little bit of background. I spent over a decade as a Libertarian/Constitutionalist. Recently I have been reading a lot of information about a voluntary government.

I realized that the Mad Max zombie apocalypse picture I had in my head about a voluntary society was indoctrination and so began reading even more.

Here are a few points to get things rolling.

1. It helped me to think of a stateless society as a voluntary government/s society. Removing the word anarchy changed my feelings and allowed me to think more clearly about the topic and beat indoctrination I did not even know I had.

2. I believe the phrase voluntary government/s is an accurate description of how we would choose to organize ourselves. Clearly we enjoy some services offered by government. A)Defense from foreign enemies B) Defense from domestic enemies. C)Court/Arbitration system, etc. If the vast majority of people (I would think over 99%) want these services, then several entrepreneurs will offer them. Effectively becoming a voluntary government as we know it. With the principle in place that they must earn our business with superior products or services, and not steal at will, a better product at a cheaper cost is likely.

3.The burden of proof in this debate: If you do not agree with a stateless society, then what you are saying is, "I am willing to send men with guns to your home and take your property to give myself these services because I think society will be unlivable without this force" I would argue that in order to initiate force, the burden proof is on you to explain why the world will go to hell without our wonderful government. AS a reminder, when it was suggested that slavery be abolished on moral grounds, there were plenty who said, "Society will collapse", "the economy will collapse", "Who will pick the cotton?" fortunately the world decided that this fear mongering was not a valid justification for being immoral and making slaves of free men.

Plenty more to say of course, but I don't want to write an essay. :) What are your thoughts? Any voluntarists here?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Why debate with fellow allies and free thinkers? RUN FOR OFFICE!

Its one thing to talk, it is another to walk and provide fellow like minded individuals an option at the ballot box!

I think you miss the point....

There is no ballot box in a voluntary society.

I just finished a video on how the police force might work in a voluntary society. I think it might help people begin to understand.

http://www.dailypaul.com/296217/success-council-video-will-a...

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

Has anyone done the Piers Morgan method on you yet?

No I don't imagine they have because it would be a waste of time you see because people like you are so very very stuuuupid, you are so very stuuuupid that it almost hurts my ears now in a moment I'll attempt to ask you a question to see if you aren't too ignorant to understand but then I already know you are don't I because you are so very stuuuupid you are so stuuuuupid and look now it's time for tea, ta!

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

I dont think the down voters got the sarcasm....

I thought it was great.

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

Voluntaryism

I am with you. Once you understand that the state is nothing but force and creates a privileged class, who rules and exploits their subjects, I don't see how a moral person could still support it.
It is illogical to say people have inalienable rights and then set up a system to protect them, which violates all those rights as its foundation.
And how can somebody create a government to act for them by bestowing it with powers and rights they never had to give?
How can you delegate or give what you don't have?
The belief in the fraud and myth of authority is the greatest impediment on the earth to liberty and freedom.

Ah, but can technology save us?

Just like the gun became the equalizer among the powerful and the weak for those who used it, I would think that technology can do the same in this era. We just have to think a little outside the box.

Before doing so, let's define better what this meant. Once weaponry and fighting power became equalized, people came into a stage where they respected each other's rights. Private property became more sacred because if you broke that bond, you got shot. ...and death is a bit of a deterrent.

Also, crime of other sorts waned quite a bit. This was a strong but generalized trend until the introduction of the next incentive. The mobs and other organized crime syndicates formed because there was now a much larger incentive to chase down. Prohibition of alcohol, prostitution or other things played their part and the stakes were raised to the point where it was PROFITABLE to hire thugs to perform those violent acts. At this point, the tables were turned once again. Fortunately for us, organized crime requires this large jump in incentive. No one is going to rob a self sufficient farm that has little cash, gold, food or other cool toys. They're going to focus on those with lots stashed. So, those of us going local, off grid and starving the big banks have little to fear.

With all that said, here's a completely viable way to re-equalize the power of the individual. Every single one of these examples can be purchased off the shelf today. Some assembly may be required and your mileage may vary but as it advances, it can only get easier and cheaper.

Say you live on your owned land and you self produce the majority of what you need to survive. Say you have a home sized concentrating solar system which provides all your energy needs (not just electricity). Say you recycle your waste to get fertilizer and feedstock for a water treatment / fishing / swimming pond. Say you store a healthy stockpile of water, gold, bitcoins, fish, produce, beef, dairy, fruit and whatever else. Your daily life is based on trading produce which you produce in abundance for dairy which you aren't interested in producing. Now, say your land gets invaded. Your motion sensors pop up a window on your tv screen, allowing you to skype with the intruder. You determine you want them to leave but they refuse. You press a button and another window pops up where you launch a dozen antonymous video recording, armed quad-copters. They scare him off in most cases but this time, they don't. He advances so you hit his vicinity with a directional EMP gun mounted on one of the drones. His electronics are now toast. Still he advances, having shot down your drones with some other crazy aiming system. Now he approaches your home and you take the next step. You pop up yet another window and take control of your home-mounted turrets. Pressing a button, your roof eaves open up and down come a number of multi-axis air cannons and rail guns, each fitted with auto-target-following technology. Your screen allows you to select a target such as his gun, his hand, his knee, his shoulder or other and then it follows it impeccably. Upon a warning shot, you let loose, removing those threats one by one. Should multiple people be involved outside, the final defense could simply track faces and lay them out at a combined rate of more than 10 per second.

With no electronics, it would take millions of dollars to penetrate this scenario, yet the entire setup only cost you a couple thousand to install. Who is going to go up against that for the measly gain they have available?

This is all possible now. It just hasn't been done because no one thought they had the need. If anarchy took place, that would change and it would quickly become the standard. And I'm comfortable with it.

sharkhearted's picture

AGREE WITH YOU 100%

~

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Who, what, when, where, why?

"Clearly we enjoy some services offered by government." "B) Defense from domestic enemies."

No, there is no such thing now-a-days. In fact, the internal enemies are... "runnin', the show".
..
"If the vast majority of people (I would think over 99%) want these services, then several entrepreneurs will offer them."

Sounds like a sales pitch.
..
O.k., when in doubt, start at the beginning; "SuccessCouncil"?

It may already be the case...

You should check out the One People's Public Trust OPPT. www.oppt-in.com They filed UCC documents that foreclosed on all corporations acting as governments and quasi-govt agencies and returned all people to common law. (Did you know that all governments were set up as corporations which did away with the Constitution in 1933?) It basically is a global declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. It says that no one can be above you - no government, no state, no group or individual, only the Creator is above you AND totally unbutted, it stands as law.

It is government from the ground up. Max Keiser pointed out that the "UCC filings were causing global ripples," A PM from South Australia is noticing her own prime minister that Australia is no longer a corporation privately run for profit. You are already free, so BE and DO accordingly, as many thousands are doing now.

You want to see what a stateless society would look like?

Look to the Middle Ages. Corporate feudalism would be the result with us peasants falling under the "protective" arm of whichever conglomerate we felt had the most bullets, or better yet, whichever conglomerate happened to be closest. International relations is another example of a stateless society.

Exactly

Please look to the Middle Ages, a truly unique history of Anarchy does exist!

"The Dark Ages is a historical period used for the first part of the Middle Ages. The term emphasizes the cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire. The label employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the "darkness" of the period with earlier and later periods of "light"." -Wikipedia

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2013/02/decentralization-...

This is not the first time

This is not the first time someone has made the reference to feudalism; you however, are the first to say Corporate Feudalism. I don't think you people who are making that claim actually know what feudalsim was or is. Either that or you really have no idea what Voluntary interactions between individuals means, or what Voluntary associations are, or What Market-Anarchism(Anarcho-Capitalism) is.

The funny thing is that when Voluntaryists and Market-Anarchists talk about government, the vast majority have actually studied different government forms somewhat to be able to understand them. However, when Pro-Government people talk of Voluntaryism, Market-Anarchism/Anarcho-Capitalism, none of you have any idea what you are talking about; you have read no books or articles or anything on the subject which you are talking about. You utilize fear and misuderstanding -just like the, "terrorists are going to get us," MSM crowd- to try and shut down conversations because of a lack of understanding.

I agree with you at some

I agree with you at some level for the sake of argument let's try the following example.

At year 2015 Success Councils' (SC) - your DP handle - revolution triumphs and state is abolished in the American continent. In year 2016 there is a water drought in what used to be Chile and a water drought in what used to be Dallas, TX. A lot of people suffer and let's suppose that as a result the survivors want to take some action. The people in Dallas decide that they want to set aside a portion of their money to prepare for future catastrophes. They set a small council to oversee that everyone contributes to this fund, etc, etc, etc. The people in Chile decide that they will continue to live freely and bear the brunt of disasters if they come or wait for some free market solution to their problems, etc, etc, etc.

My point is, at any point everyone in a town or city may agree to form some kind of government. And if you wanted to keep a stateless society you would have to use force to avoid the formation of a state. See the paradox and how easily you can get there???

The point which you are

The point which you are missing is that if a town, city or whatever decide to group together, it is a -hold for it- Voluntary act; nobody is forced into it. This voluntary organization which you are speeking of is no different then a voluntary Fire Department, or a rotary club or any other group of individuals who voluntaryily cooperate. The point being is that it is voluntary; and as such it is not a State -which by its very nature is not voluntary. The State at best will allow someone to opt-out -not much any more but it used to- however a voluntary oganization allows one to opt-in and opt-out.

Thanks for your answer. What

Thanks for your answer. What I am saying is that a stateless society by voluntary decisions can converge into a state. My two examples were meant to illustrate a same set of circumstances that would drive one region to become a state and the other one to keep freedom. Both without coercion.

state

A state is by definition a group which has a monopoly on the intitiation of force over a certain geographic area.

In a stateless society NOBODY has a right to initiate force and their are no RULERS.

You are still missing

You are still missing something. The area which you think in your example became a State, didn't become a State at all. You calling a voluntary group of individuals a State doesn't make it a State. As I stated, a State by its very nature is not voluntary. Is the Rotary club a State? Is a Volunteer Fire Company a State? Is a Social Club a State? Is the Chamber of Commerce a State?

Your two examples don't illustrate that one can become a State, and that is a big problem because you think it does.

Just a side note, but Chile

Just a side note, but Chile is the only country that I know of that uses free-market mechanism to manage their water resources, very successfully too.

I am sure Texas can learn a lot from Chile about the advantages of using free markets to manage natural resources.

I found your example to be good.

How would you protect property rights?

Especially with populations as large as they are now, how are you going to divide the land? If someone wants to take your land or other property and they have more strength, resources than you how are you going to defend what is yours. Taking the free-market approach in that demand for arbitration or enforcement of property rights would create services for these areas, I am sure it would. But I think it would quickly devolve into the one with the most money for enforcers (hired thugs) would end up with the most property.

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson

Book

If you really want answers to questions like that read, "Practical Anarchy" by Stefan Molyneux. It is free. Google it.

Socialist

To be sure no one person can exactly, or precisely, show how property rights would be protected in an Anarchist society.

So it does not follow that because whatever answer, or suggestion, has been offered and is not readily accepted as proper or conceivable is in some way allowing the state back into the equation in a different form.

No single person can truly know how the services, now currently provided, and enforced - at the point of a gun - by the state, would operate under a stateless society. The argument should therefore be over the states monopoly of aggression. Without this basic tenet, it would not exist very long.

I'd suggest looking upon those who are foremost in the field of such thought such as Hoppe:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

Also, Butler Schaffer has some interesting thoughts to add:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html

Then there's some good material that has recently come to light, covered by the Bionic Mosquito blog:

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/03/anarchy-unknown-i...

And finally even Rothbard had trouble convincing everyone about his ideas regarding Anarchy:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon88.1.html

Hope this helps to forward the conversation.

It would be

a lawless society ruled by those with the most strength. It's not a new concept it's been done before, the western frontier in early American history. Lincoln County wars and many other land wars that were resolved by who had the most money and fire power.

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson

Wild west

That is not correct. What you think you know about the "lawless west" is incorrect. Here is a short paper explaining why: The Culture of Violence in the American West Myth versus Reality
by THOMAS J. DILORENZO
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_15_02_04_dilorenzo.pdf

I'm astounded to learn this info!

Thanks so much for posting this. I really think this should begin it's own topic. People need to know how incredibly horrible our past really was. I wouldn't, however, call that paper too short. At 13 pages of small type, it's kind of drawn out but certainly well worth reading.

Short synopsis IMO: The West as we regularly refer to it was actually a pretty peaceful, harmonious place. People got along very well without violence or government. If they had higher stakes like a cattle ranch or gold mine, they organized groups of interdependent security as long as the member abides by their unanimous rules. This lasted until the US government took over and made it chaotic. (Mostly from corrupt high finance deals.

Then the railroad scam came along and created incentive to exterminate the Indians. They were even very vocal that this was their goal all the way up the chain to Lincoln and later presidents. Killing the existing cooperation of trading with these people, they labeled them barbarians and went on a spree of tribe exterminations one after another. They even went so far as to encourage the extermination of the buffalo to starve Indians of their food source. Men, women, elderly and children were killed, with villages burned to starve any survivors while newspapers were encouraged to post this as a great success.

I call it a great tragedy. THIS history should be taught in schools, not the revised version. I also stumbled on the actual shooting death rate for "the wild west" time frames. Dodge City was known as the worst of the worst, yet it's death rate from firearms peaked at only 3 deaths per 100,000. That's around 1% of current rates. I really hate learning that some 'well known' piece of history was revised so terribly backward... but it does motivate me!

Decentralization

To be sure, and hopefully I'm not coming across as repetitive, but simply because there wouldn't be a central authority on property rights doesn't mean that chaos would ensure.

I would gather that alot of local communities would already have records on hand to deal with issues of property dispute, this doesn't mean that the local government would still be in use obviously. But truly not all of history is littered with instances of profound lawlessness, such would mean that our historical background was always chaotic, I don't support such a view.

"Feudal lords and kings did not typically fulfill the requirements of a state; they could only "tax" with the consent of the taxed, and on his own land every free man was as much a sovereign (ultimate decision maker) as the feudal king was on his." Hans-Hermann Hoppe

http://mises.org/daily/2874/On-the-Impossibility-of-Limited-...

Overview here:

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2013/02/decentralization-...

They would need constant

They would need constant income; without the legitimacy of being the sacred cow called Government who would tolerate a violent group of thugs. You may point to the current Mobs, but the vast majority of their money comes from selling illegal drugs and also prostitution and gambling. Without those ot make money they are broke; and if they try to hit the shops for more money then they already take, they would be looking at more of their people leaving either via bodybags or due to the higher possiblity of leaving via a bodybag.

Massive violence -for that matter most if not all violence- is unsustainable without government.

How many Hawiians do you think would bow to a NY Mob?
How many Hawiians bow to the Washingtod DC Mob?

The difference between the two is one is called Government which apperantly gives it legitimacy to do what the NY Mob is not give the authority to do.

How can an organization created to commit immoral, unethical, and 'evil' acts -such as government- be considered good? What does that say about those who advocate for government?

Well Spoken

Excellent point, it shows how much people, who advocate against Anarchy no matter what form they think of, are mislead over their ideas of decentralization.

Boetie put it most eloquently with his thoughts on the subject:

"I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him. Surely a striking situation! Yet it is so common that one must grieve the more and wonder the less at the spectacle of a million men serving in wretchedness, their necks under the yoke, not constrained by a greater multitude than they..."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard78.html

Who would tolerate them?

In the land wars of the west the people certainly didn't stand up to stop them. The people were burned out of there homes and farms by the big ranchers. They made constant money by monopolizing the beef market. It wasn't until towns people started hiring sheriffs and deputies to enforce laws that they were able to fight back, but even then a lot of the sheriffs just ended up on the big rancher's payrolls and became hired thugs themselves. People think the mob just made money off of liquor, drugs gambling. The mob made money off of everything. In Kansas City where I grew up they monopolized the produce market and beef market. My grandpa used to tell me stories all the time about the Italians burning down each others produce warehouses and beef lockers in Kansas City all to monopolize the market. In an anarchist society it will always be the strong preying on the weak.

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson

You are misinformed.

read this: http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_15_02_04_dilorenzo.pdf

And if you are really interested this is an awesome debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvo-yEymNuQ

If you watch this and still believe in authority and the state then you aren't capable of logical thought.

THere is a serious problem

THere is a serious problem with your point. First you start out talking about before there were sheriffs and saying how bad it was, and then you continue talking about how your grandfather told you stories about it -or something, not sur eif he was supposed to be a first person witness. If your grandfather was a first person eye witness, then are you in your eighties or later; or did your grandfather live into in 100's? The timeline of your story doesn't add up. Anybody who has studied the westward expansion, knows that the 'Wild West' was created by Hollywood. The Italians also didn't make their way inland until around the 1910 to 1920's in any significant numbers.