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.


No problem I was simply stating two separate examples in history of the weak being preyed upon by the strong. My grandfather didn't know any cowboys and wasn't part of the wild west. Which wasn't made up by Hollywood, romanticizing the wild west, with shootouts at noon on the town square, and vigilante gunslingers saving the town was what Hollywood did. The reality was much more brutal for many involved.

My grandfather was born in 1915 and in the 1940s-50s made deliveries for one of the mob families in Kansas City, he was just a truck driver delivering produce and beef from their warehouses.

Not sure why this anarchist non-sense is even on the DP, Ron Paul isn't an anarchist nor are libertarians. Seems like a pointless discussion.

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

The point I was making was

The point I was making was that since your grandfather wasn't around back in the 1800's, then the places he told you about had government and law enforcement. If those places had government and law enforcement, then how can you use them as an example of an area without government or law enforcement? It shows that government and law enforcement doesn't do what you want it to do; it(government and law enforcement) doesn't prevent or even dispose of what you wouldn't want in your area.

Also, you shouldn't have said "just a truckdriver," to many people are dependent on truck drivers to deminish their value by saying "just a truck driver;" this is just as ridiculous as people who say "just a mom." Truck drivers are extremely important in our society as are moms, and there is no reason to try an demean the occupation or position by saying "just a."

Point Taken

No, it is not a pointless discussion. And people should allow themselves the decency of looking for the facts surrounding the history of Anarchy:

"It is said that the history of peoples who have a history is the history of class struggle. It might be said with at least as much truthfulness, that the history of peoples without history is a history of their struggle against the state."

Pierre Clastres, La societé contre l’état


I have a few points for you to consider:

I have a few points for you to consider:

1. The notion of "Stateless" society, or "Internationalism", or "One world", etc., is not a new idea. This is one of the pillars of the cult of humanism. Carl Marx defined the Marxist humanism and denied nationalism - "Workers have no fatherland," "Proletarians of all countries, unite!" (The Communist Manifesto, 1848)

2. Carl Marx also considered the state to be an oppressive institution which inevitably lead to dictatorship. (Letter to J. Weydmeyer, 1852)

3. Carl Marx also believed that the answer to the above is the "free association of producers" and that association of producers will make the decisions needed for the common good. (Manifesto of the Communist Party, NY 1968, p. 53)

4. Stalin took the above and customized the whole idea of socialism and communism that each nation must conform to a centralized ideal, which requires full subordination of the nations. No need for citation, most Eastern Europeans who witnessed the cold war can speak volumes about this.

5. How do you defend private property, as private property is a pillar of Liberty, while refusing to define borders of a state?

6. Consider the fact that people have ambition. How are you going to control other people's ambitions? Through the barrel of a gun? Drugs? Propaganda? Concentration camps? Monetary sanctions? Inflation?

7. And there are a few facts that no one with proven record in the utopia of stateless societies has given an answer to:
* Nations have different history and heritage
* Nations are not equally developed
* Some nations and cultures refuse to "develop" to the standard of the nations that are perceived to be "developed"
* The utopia of equality promotes brutal inequality
* The biggest and strongest nation/s (the centralized ideal) dominate and suppress resistance
* History shows that the utopia of stateless society inevitably leads to a dictatorial state.

What if we simply continue with the restoration of the Constitution of the United States of America and stick with it? The Founders of this country knew history and economics very well and did agree that the Federal Government was a necessary evil, which must be restrained by The People, hence they left us with the Republic (if we can keep it) and the Constitution.

Your logic is flawed. You

Your logic is flawed. You are the like the slave owners who said, "Sure slavery is wrong but how would our cotton get picked"?

You believe the statist lies telling you there is no other way to have a peaceful orderly society. Why would you believe the people who enslave and exploit you to tell you the truth about anything?


I think you are mistaken in the belief that should we allow for the gradual return to Constitutional authority we'd be better off. However, I agree that Ron Paul consistently points this out with his comments on the subject of limited government, but it does not follow that his message was meant as what most of the posters here think it is, Minarchy.

I believe it is Rothbard that Ron Paul regularly uses in conversation, and as you know Rothbard considered the "State" the enemy.

"But whether the constitution be really one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

Lysander Spooner, "The Constitution of no Authority"

"History shows that the

"History shows that the utopia of stateless society inevitably leads to a dictatorial state."

History shows entirely the opposite. Government including the current one that started as a constitutional republic has lead to a state of of ever increasing dictatorial power and oppression.

Geezus look around you man. The whole idea of some group having authority the people do not to steal plunder and murder with impunity in the name of law order and protection is the major flaw with government. You are living in the midst of the proof right now and you can't see the forest for the trees!

No one calls Voluntaryism utopia that is a strawman argument. In fact Voluntaryism recognizes that everyone is different and equality is subjective. But equal opportunity to be all that you can achieve on your own merit is the true meaning of equality. That does not guarantee utopia and there will always be criminals who try to take advantage of others.

Everything you claim stateless society will cause is already in effect from the result of false authority claiming governments

A thousand years of history has proven men can live in a sophisticated society of freedom peace law and order without all the trappings of the state that leads to oppression theft and murder on the name of law and order.


Did you hear that a thousand years! That trumps a measly 2 hundred years of constitutional republic the last hundred of which has morphed into a tyranny like all false authority controlled societies have.

When you base a society on theft force and murder to maintain so called order it is doomed to fail!

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

Sorry, but the idea dates to

Sorry, but the idea dates to before Marx.

Secondly, most -if not all- of your questions have already been answered. Why should we Voluntaryists continually repeat ourselves? If you have no desire to look for answers, then we would just be wasting our breath anyway; wouldn't you agree?

The only thing different that you stated than anybody else is the Carl Marx stuff; but if you look to the history of anarchism, then you would see that it dated before Marx. If you look to Anarcho-Capitalism it dates to 1970's; however, a lot of the philosophical roots date to before Marx.

While you claim that the Founders knew history; appearantly you do not. The Voluntaryists know 220+ years more history than the Founders did. We know that their Constitutional Republic did not last. George Washington violated it, and it has been violated almost every year since. If the people who created it, then turned around and violated it; there is no way possible for it to ever last.

Also, governments are created and sactioned to do immoral, unethical, and 'evil' acts, which people would in no way accept another person doing. How is an entity created to commit immoral, unethical, and 'evil' acts is concidered good? What does it say about the people who advocate for the existence of government?

Allow me to point out something of importance.

Allow me to point out something of importance. In this case I am in a position to defend my factual arguments about how stateless society mixed with voluntarism has striking similarities with socialism and communism. However, nowhere in your rebuttal do you address my points...

What I did was present specific facts and questions and what I got was disagreement and rebuttal regarding Voluntarism, a topic I never mentioned though I was accused of not knowing anything about.

Obviously, you and I are speaking different languages, even though phonetically it is English. The need to learn how to agree to disagree is palpable. I respect your opinion and to say that I know not about "voluntarism" and would be a gross speculation.

I would reserve my right to stick to my guns and point out the obvious fallacy from a practical point of view, not only from pure theory and ideology.

Please accept my respect for your genuine desire to experiment and to learn. It is a step away from the status quo, although not necessarily in the right direction. Some time ago I heard a wise man say that the believe in absolutes could be unhealthy. And I kind of liked that.


Watch this debate and then tell me you still believe in the state and authority: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvo-yEymNuQ

I didn't actually say that

I didn't actually say that you didn't know anything about voluntaryism -it was implied by the fact that you don't know the answers to the questions you asked. I said you didn't look for the answers to your questions in the thread. I'm sorry but you cannot know about voluntaryism and ask those questions, they are mutually exclusive points of view.

The facts which you say you presented, I stated were found throughout the threat, which you desire not to look for. You are not interested in learning anything about voluntaryism and I said that is why I didn't personally answer your questions. They have been answered over and over and over again.

You still haven't answered the question, about how an entity created to commit immoral, unethical, and 'evil' acts can be considered good; nor have you answered what it says about those who advocate for the existence of a government to commit immoral, unethical, and 'evil' acts. The answeres to these questions are not found throught the thread; so if you wouldn't mind. It would be great if you would answer them; thanks.

Also, in your first two sentences you say:

Allow me to point out something of importance. In this case I am in a position to defend my factual arguments about how stateless society mixed with voluntarism has striking similarities with socialism and communism.

However, you never actually defended you assertion about the link between them(Voluntaryism and Marxism). The second sentence made it sound as if you were going to make your case; why didn't you?

Thank you for the follow up.

Thank you for the follow up.

When asking questions in my first post, I simply used the Socratic method to identify the contradicting arguments. Finding an answer was not my goal. My case is in my first post. I can't read the works of Marx, Engels, Stalin, Lenin and other utopian communists, dictators and murderers for you, unfortunately. As for the assertions, these are facts listed in order with citations from the original sources. There are 7 points in my post. Which one do you object?

To answer your question - very superficially put, the general consensus is that Government is a necessary evil that when controlled and restrained by a moral, educated and Liberty loving society could be very good. That's why I believe that our best bet right now is to continue to restore the authority and the trust in the Constitution.

Your points -as I've stated

Your points -as I've stated- have already been answered. If you object to the answers given then you should object to the answers; in that particular post. However, you do not want to do that. Is it possible for me to answer your questions; yes, but I need not do so if the answeres have already been presented for all who would like to see them. You do not want to see them, therefore you are resorted to trying to make an argument over nothing.

The fact that you desire to create an immoral, entity to conduct immoral activities can sy nothing about you than you approve of immorality or you are unethical. The fact that you know that your unethical entity will devolve into a totalitarian tyrannical entity which subjugates, loots, enslaves, and murders those it was created to protect and yet you still desire it, speeks volumes of who you really are.

I saw a comment by one of your kind -government advocator- speeking about how Voluntaryists are like a drunk businessman passed out just asking to be taking advantage of. My comment to that person was, it indicates what kind of person -one who would have to think about not taking advantage of a passed out person- is and why they would advocate for a government. This individual would not have taken advantage of the drunk, not because he is a moral individual but because he would probably be afraid of getting caught; however, he would authorize an entity called Government to be able to do it.

This is why I asked the question about what it says about a person who advocates for an entity to be able to commit immoral, unethical, and 'evil' acts. To show you that basically you are that immoral, unethical, and 'evil' entity; you're just afraid of getting caught in the act so you create an entity call Government and give it fuctions, which no person would ever dream of doing to another person.

You label another individual as "evil"? Really?

You label another individual as "evil"? Really? Without even daring to address any of the arguments? "A government advocator," "immoral, unethical, and 'evil' entity"? Really?

So only based on the context of all the posts, you are judging a position to be wrong, incorrect, and already answered? What if I intentionally chose not to read all the opinions before I posted my original post?

And you choose to discuss a topic of Liberty and at the same time you associate individuals against their will with "others of their kind" without having any sort of clear understanding and even after you were told that the Socratic method was used?

Are you so blindly passionate about a cause that you claim to advocate Liberty, but yet you permit yourself to associate another individual with what you perceive to be "their kind" (against their will) and to execute a judgement against them on a personal level?

Who are you to decide who is right and wrong based on your own subjective interpretation of what the rules are?

Let me make it easier for you this time around - I am again using the Socratic method to expose a logical contradiction. I hope you can see it.

Yes, government is immoral,

Yes, government is immoral, unethical, and 'evil.' Is there something which you do not understand about those words? If I stole your money, is that moral, ethical, or saintly? What if I, imprisoned you because you refused to allow me to steal your money; is that moral, ethical, or saintly? What if, I killed you, because you wouldn't permit me to imprison you after you refused to let me steal your money; is that moral, ethical, or saintly? These are the things which government does; these are the things which you applaud government for doing; what else can be said about a person who applauds the immoral, unethical, and 'evil' acts? I asked you that last question before, but you never answered it.

You do advocate for the existence of government do you not? Then can it not be said that those who share the same desire are similar in kind? All Voluntaryists are not the same, however, in the instance of arguing against government we are in kind. There was a direct coorolation between being an advocate of government and the anecdote; for it was only applicable to those which advocate for government. The only way this would not apply to you is if you are not an advocate for government; which I think most of your posts would betray any statement of the kind.

If you chose to make the comment without reading the previous comments, then my first comment to your comment should have sufficed to get you to do so; if you refused, then one can deduce that you are not that very interested in learning about what you asked. Therefore, I would not be obligated to repeat what had already been said several times; especially since there is a written record.

Who are you to decide who is right and wrong based on your own subjective interpretation of what the rules are?

Do you think theft is subjective; can it ever be good? Do you think enslavement is subjective; can it ever be good? Do you think murder(note, I did not say killing, I said murder) is subjective; can it ever be good? I'm sorry to tell you but these three things are not subjective, and these three things you desire to give to an entity which you know in time will completely abuse these abilities; as if the fact that government was given these abilities weren't bad enough, and yet you and your pro-government freinds cheer for this. Like the Romans cheering the Christians being fed to the lions.

I hope that you can see that government is by its very nature immoral, unethical, and 'evil.' How can an organization created to do immoral, unethical, and 'evil' acts be anything else?

Also, there exists no logical contradiction within Voluntaryism, for if there were then there would have to be a logical contradiction within voluntary interactions between individuals; now wouldn't there?

There is no structure to Voluntaryism, there is only the fact that all interactions are voluntary between individuals -anything esle would violate the initiation of force of NAP, and the initiation of force negates any contract or agreement which otherwise bound the aggressed to the aggressor; which leaves the aggressed able to retaliate against the aggressor without violating NAP. Yes people don't have to follow that, however, I don't think violating NAP would end very well for any person or company; so it would be wise to follow it.

Roads Man, Roads

WHo will build the roads?


History has proven people can

History has proven people can live in peace and freedom solve there differences and contract defend their rights etc without the theft and coercion governments use and most think is necessary for society.

The Ancient celt society endured a thousand years in relative peace and freedom and were the most sophisticated society of their time. yet fools think they know better after only a couple hundred years of the American experiment the last hundred of it morphing into tyranny. You'd think they might get a clue...

We could learn a lot from this society!


Governments have murdered robbed and plundered more peoples then all criminals combined. Yet some cannot see passed their narrow brainwashing that government must steal coerce and even kill to keep supposed order in society. They can't see all the things they seem to fear from so called Anarchy are already being perpetrated on them and the people by the very government think is necessary to prevent it. Its amazing how so many believe such blatantly false illusions of protection.

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

The path to the top of the stairs..

The path to the top of the stairs makes it impossible to jump that high.

The Libertarian/Conservative way is a path to Freedom but before we get to have Freedom, we must defend Liberty to give folks time to catch up. :)

Once the vast majority of our fellows are awake, there will not be any need for a government.


P.S. Radical change does not happen often and history provides plenty of proof of that. We need to learn how to boil the frog slowly like the "authoritarians" have demonstrated to master and hope that one day most people will be awake to their greatness.


I try to change people every day. Do You?

You are wrong

Freedom is impossible when you are ruled.
libertarian/conservatives are for rulers and being ruled.

Freedom is..

What I will fight for once Libertarian/Conservatives have become a majority in society.

Till then I will take it one step at a time, because as much as I would like to do it, I can't jump over 20 steps on a stairway that has 50.

(This subject is an unspoken truth for many, but those that "get it" (IMO) know that the path we are following will make it inevitable for us to defend a voluntarist society. In the same way that Socialism due to it's economic unsustainability leads to Communism or Fascism, Libertarianism inevitably leads to Anarchism (Not chaos like many would like you to believe) once the People realize that there is really no need for anyone to be controlled by an other.)



I try to change people every day. Do You?

I lived in a northern California...

community where many political activists and civic leaders were openly anarchist. They were very controlling and used local government to coerce conformity. They justified their coercive tactics by claiming the need for social and economic justice. I hear the same sentiments from DP anarchists who claim to oppose all government, but in reality, they're advocating for "privatized" government based on market principles. And all markets have some form of bureaucracy similar to Wall Street.

There's a saying on Wall Street: The bulls make money and the bears make money, but the pigs get slaughtered. The pigs are in control for now, and there's no doubt in my mind that voluntaryism/anarchism are nothing but a front for the pigs. So if I were an anarchist, I would cut my losses and get out of the pig pen before the slaughter.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

You don't know what you are

You don't know what you are talking about. Read the free book, Practical Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux and or watch this debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvo-yEymNuQ

Then you will be able to talk sensibly about this topic.

decent article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe


The idea of stateless social cooperation really starts to make more sense when you think of the eleveated standard of living that would be achieved rather quickly in the absence of obstructionist government involvement in ecnomic matters. The greater capital in society would mean that even the poor would have access to much more efficient and effective services which today are rendered by government. Just as the competition in technologies has allowed for the ownership of cell phones, computers and televisions by nearly all people living under the poverty line in the United States today.

Government has and always will be a nessecary evil.

Anarchy is no different than anything else that has as it's foundation the premise that might makes right.

Merely 'debating' anarchy as a possibility is total pie in the sky utopian pablum.

Don't like your house but do like the neighbors? Just go kill the neighbor and take his home.

Groups of people will always band together under some form of government as protection against whatever.

And there is no historical precedent, banished people or people living years in solitary confinement are the only examples of anarchy available, ALL other humans have always banded together just like our founding fathers did.

You would have been laughed out of the constitutional convention for postulating anarchy as a way to throw off the yolk of the British empire.

This is misconception of what anarchists believe....

Of course anarchists will band together in groups. They just wish to do so via voluntary means as opposed to force.

This is part of the propaganda we get fed from state run schools that anarchists are selfish and anti social because they don't want to have their stuff stolen and given to others.

I am very social and very charitable. these concepts are not in congruent with Anarchists. I Suspect that we would choose to organize ourselves in a very similar way to the way Libertarians would like to see the world organized.

I don't want to live on a street, where the neighbor has a nuclear reactor so I would probably buy my home in a community governed by rules, much a like a HOA. I would pay my dues voluntarily, have my votes and create rules probably very similar to the ones we have now. If I did not like those rules I could sell my house, and live in a different community or no community at all. (kind of like local government.

Given I don't want the river that services that community to be polluted I might pay into a voluntary state government.

And given I don't want to be attacked by a foreign enemy, I may choose to pay into a larger group. something similar to a nation.

Given I don't want to be murdered by someone in nearby jurisdiction, I might enter into an agreement.

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

No I do understand what anarchy means...

No misconception at all.

All your are doing is splitting hypothetical hairs with these free or forced association ideas.

How could you, and why would you want to pay someone to be a part of nation thing in a stateless world?

You don't have a clue. All

You don't have a clue. All you are doing is stating arguments created by statists who want to maintain their monopoly on the initiation of force.
What books have you read on Anarchy or Voluntaryism?

The problem is

One problem is our National Defense. I am not for interventionist policy, but we need the defense now that we will suffer from what Ron Paul calls Blow Back. We will be the punching bag of the world, and we need to be able to fend off nuclear missile attacks. Having a national force that can defend against drones and Darpa Robots would be in our interest.

Ron brought the Liberty movement together, Rand is expanding the crap out of it! :)

like a drunk businessman passed out at the train station

It really becomes difficult to imagine a stateless society of Anarchists as anything other than easy pickings. It's kinda like trying to imagine how your going to be free with your liberty when surrounded by toll collectors. Being an Anarchist requires a total commitment to denying objective reality.

Who's the evil one, those who retake any stateless society that may somehow fall into Anarchist hands, or the Anarchists who tempted those to take because they couldn't defend themselves?

There are no "stateless societies" filled with Anarchists, because they give government less than no value, and that which they volunteer to contribute wouldn't be enough in wealth, effort, or resolve to keep their society.

They're easy pickings. They're like a drunk businessman passed out at the train station. They're so incompetent it could be described as entrapment.

You prove the adage,

You prove the adage, "ignorance is bliss".

You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Name the books you have read on anarchy or voluntaryism.