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?

Comment viewing options

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


Slavery is immoral. Persuasion is moral.

Do you disagree with either of those 2 statements?

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


However, morality is only relevant to the extent that it influences reality.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Morality and immorality

Morality and immorality always influence reality. So, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say.

It is immoral to take someone elses money; but you grant an entity which you call 'government' this ability. Therefore you created an immoral entity for the purposes of commiting immoral acts; and you think this is good? Why; is it because you believe that you are far enough removed from the actual desicions of government to claim that you are not complicit in those actions?

The desire to create government is the desire of individuals to commit immoral acts; for that is all the entity called 'government' has the ability to do.

The individual imbues their immorality in an entity it(society) created called 'government,' thinking this will absolve them; this entity is granted acts to perform -all of which would otherwise be considered immoral. The only time an individual complains is when the 'government' uses its authority to commit the immoral acts against the person complaining. When those same immoral acts are performed against others, then the people not effected cheer like the Romans cheering the feeding of Christians to the lions.

I'm sorry but if an action is immoral, unethical, or 'evil' if ordinary people commit such acts, then please explain how an entity can be created to perform those acts explicitly and be considered a 'good' institution? If the actions taken by this organization are condoned by the greater whole, then why do people complain when that organization are commiting those acts on them?

In reality, government is created to commit acts of violence, and other immoral, unethical and otherwise 'evil' acts which the people would feel ashamed and dirty commiting themselves. The government reflects the immoral desires of the people who desire government; because government can only do the things the people who want it(government) allow it(government) to do.

Therefore the immoral, unethical, and otherwise 'evil' acts of government are the deep down desires of those who support government; the only difference between one group and another is how evil they are: meaning how much power -the ability to commit immoral acts- the people want to give the government.



Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Hairydodger --- The biggest challenge to a Stateless society

or Anarcho-capitalism, is today found in a book. That book is talked about here: http://www.dailypaul.com/275979/biggest-challenge-to-anarchy...

For anarcho-capitalist like myself, the book deserves serious reading, not flippant remarks. It begs a response from us Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalists / voluntarism tradition.

Moreover, the response has to be "in kind", meaning, Dr. Pinker's theory of the "civilization process" that plunges human violence to all time lows coming from a big govt Leviathan and open & free market is an "IS" argument.

As in, "this is a red rock". He is not saying, "you OUGHT to like this red rock". He is saying the "Civilisation Process does this, lowers human violence to all time lows (taking the whole of mankind history into view). So to answer Dr. Pinker in kind, we must answer with an IS and not any moralistic foaming at the mouth reply. For all we know, he may fully agree with the sentiments of a stateless society. Its not about what OUGHT to be, its about what IS happening.

We stateless society advocates, rothbardian anarcho-capitalists, we all must take to the time and read this book. You say you want to perfect your arguments, I can think of no better way than to address the best book that seems to legitimize the State.


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

argumentum ad antiquitatem

argumentum ad antiquitatem

Thanks Treg,..

I changed my handle. Finally went looking for how to get rid of that silly one. :)

I have not read the book, but I Agree I should. It is on my list. I have heard his TED talk, and here are my thoughts.

1. If a gang of bullies in the playground threaten to beat a weakling for his lunch money and the kid gives his lunch money was he not a victim of violence? Even though no blood was spilled?

Does Pinkers statistics take into account the threat of violence that we are subject to every single day from a militarily superior gang of bullies(government). Add that at of violence into the equation and see what happens to his statistic?

If we went stateless,and violence by his statistic increased 1 million fold, it would still not surpass the invisible violence of every act of taxation.

2. I would expect violence to reduce over time as we become more enlightened. It's hard to undo knowledge, although government has shown it is possible. As man matures, and builds upon his philosophical understandings you would expect violence to reduce. Also as technology creates greater productivity, and its easier and easier for the average mane to take care of the basics of life I would expect violence to reduce.

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


1) Yes. Yes. No.

Your last sentence in part one; "If we went stateless,and violence by his statistic increased 1 million fold, it would still not surpass the invisible violence of every act of taxation."

We may want to think that one over. "a million fold"? How about something like this: violence -- rape, assault, muggings, burglary, homicide --- are at an all time low in 1990's and 2000's. For 20 years its be like 6 victims of violence per 100,000 individuals. Yet in the 1960's, 70's and 80's it was like 20 victims per 100,000 individuals. New York City, once considered horribly unsafe place where even comedians would make fun of daily muggings and murders, is today a very safe city. (don't quote me or use me as a source, go to Pinkers book instead). Ok but I get your point which is that the violence of taxation has to be factored in, and in your opinion, if one does that, the scales tip in favor of a stateless society even if violence goes up to say 1,000 victims per 100,000 individuals. Better 1,000 people suffer bad fate rather than 99,000 get taxed, is that your point? Well I am afraid most people everywhere would disagree with you. And this is why we anarcho-capitalist may be running up against more than just a philosophical miss-understanding.

But here is my reply, not Pinkers, mine is that it appears we humans have already internalized that calculation and we choose government, we choose the state or the king or the great Leviathan BECAUSE we all feel safer with the annoying taxing shake down vs the wild world of a stateless society whereupon the results (for me) might be great, ie I might become one of those 1,000 victims, if not this year, next year.

Further, as Pinker points out, once a Stateless environment ensues, its logical reasoning goes like this, Better to be a Mugger than get Mugged. Or, better to hit that tribe first and take its women and things than wait around for them to come hit me/us.

The balking up of individuals into "US" vs "them" groups, is done just for that reason, groups beat individuals: gangs form, tribes form, clubs form, and these intern have 'memories' of wrongs and seek out long term vengeance. Think Hatfields vs McCoys or crips vs bloods or Mafia families vs Mafia families. The field studies of Chimp life show that gangs support territories and will quickly gang up on a lone out group male, kill him, and tear him from limb to limb, if not eat him too.

SO again, it seems that we humans have internally done this calculation, and we choose a State, a King, a Leviathan to keep the order and to be the appeal of last resort (vengeance stops here -- and it is THAT which gives govt its legitimacy in most peoples eyes). Its has if Mankind knows somewhere in his being that a Stateless society is a society of runaway violence, filled with personal vendettas and making the world unsafe and murderous. In all peoples everywhere across the globe and across time, Humans choose to live under a leviathan of one kind or another.

Evolutionary wise, anthropologically wise, it does not appear that Mankind chooses Stateless societies, though he may have evolved inside one where the warfare (think about those chimps) was a huge factor in Man's variation and selection.

Not to say that Stateless life has not existed. It has come to exist but then soon goes out. We only have 10,000 poorly recorded years of human life to reflect on.

But here is what I see. Stateless societies been tried due to changing situations economically and especially, via the technology-cost of war. There, the technology-cost of war, is a real insight into what shapes societies and governments. Make the technology-cost of war HIGH, as in higher that 100 men's wages in one lifetime, and you have several eras in Mankinds history. Those are: Imperial China, Pharaohs of Egypt, the Roman Empire, and the 21st Century of TODAY. But lets look at technology-cost of war when it was just 3 months wages of ONE man. That is, just one man had all the power in his hands. That was late 1700s and early 1800s. The colt 45 cost about 3 months wages. Not until the end of the 1800s when the Gatling machine gun and steal ships loaded with cannons change the equation back again to 100 men's wages in one life time. And, as this equation changed, technology-cost of war ROSE or SHRANK, so did Leviathan grow or shrink. I wish I could find someone who could help me display this in a moving graphic, as the cost goes up and time moves the empires grow, and as the cost goes down and time moves the empires shrink or fall into near stateless anarchy or indeed, total anarchy.

Again, Mankind himself, a product of evolution for over 3 million years, appears to have lived in a state of anarchy or near anarchy for 90% of his time on earth. The weapons of war were cultural artifacts, brought on by lackmarian selection, and it seems to me, though I could be wrong, that these weapons where like the colt 45, not too costly, thus the "state" did not get too big. So 90% of human life on earth was a cultural group vs cultural group game of selection for most of man's life on the planet...or so it appears. And its been that culture, that begets that weapon, and its been that weapon that shapes our cultural success over our cultural neighboring enemies. One might even ask, who is evolving who here. Is man evolving or is it the weapon who is evolving man's culture?

So, you might ask, is the technology-cost of war, rising or decreasing. That is a great question and I will get into it, if anyone is interested.

Your 2) I will address later.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

The logical step forward in the evolution of individual freedom

I think that the only logical step forward in the evolution of individual freedom is a government-less society. A state is defined as the group of people, or body Politic, that inhabits a geographic area. they must share some common unifying purpose. It's how they choose to be governed that is at issue, it seems to me. So statelessness is different and very complicated issue.

If one were to think of the evolution of government in the western world it would look something like this:

Clan Chief
King (Centralized Power)
Emperor (Centralized Power)
Oligarchy (Centralized Power)
Parliamentary representation (Distribution of Centralized Power)
Self government with limited government (distributed power of Centralized authority)
Usurpation of self government by the limited government. (Centralization of Distributed Power and Authority - No Responsibility)

The next step HAS to be the elimination of any centralized power, and the cultural codification of self governance through voluntary interaction and the non aggression principle. This will make Men and Women responsible for their actions, but does not eliminate liability, compassion, or generosity.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Just read some of the comments here...

I love a good debate, but, honestly, right now I'm not in the mood. I do think there are a lot of libertarians that need to do further research and thinking on this topic. The fact is that anarchy HAS worked (to great effect, and in some cases for hundreds of years) in the past. But even if that were not the case, the bottom line for me is that the state is illegitimate. Where does it get its authority? I can go buy a metal badge and wear it around; it doesn't give me any magical powers. I could also have my friends vote me the president of my own society; THAT doesn't give me any authority to steal from or hurt other people either. The state claims authority simply because it says so. That is not legit.

I accept that minarchists, constitutionalists, and libertarians in general are on the same side as me.

For those who disagree with the voluntaryist attitude, I can only suggest the writings I've read, which include Rothbard, Chodorov, Dr. Paul (who has had a BIG, BIG hand in shaping my opinion of voluntaryism), Robert P. Murphy (especially "Chaos Theory"), Lew Rockwell, and even Mises. No one can say for sure, but I think if Mises had hung around with Rothbard long enough, he would have taken on his opinions, too.

For me, voluntaryism was a logical conclusion. And I have no problem with the word anarchy. I'm sick of governments twisting words to lead us to believe they mean something they don't.


I'd add Spooner, Thoreau, and Boetie.

I recently added Hoppes book "Democracy: The God That Failed" to my library and am looking forward to adding James C. Scotts book "The Art of Not Being Governed".

Thought provoking to say the least!

Spooner, I've only read

a little in excerpts in others' writing. But what I've seen is absolutely devastating to the state.


Just to suggest more devastating evidence be sure to look up the blog site "Bionic Mosquito". He does an overview of a recently published book on anarchy in the Southeast Asian central highlands.

Voluntaryist here.

You'll get no debate from me.

We were all plopped into a

We were all plopped into a world with no laws beyond physics. Where we are at now is a direct result of that. What we have now is the natural result of anarchy.

I place too high a value on liberty to allow people to take it away completely unhindered.

I also reject the idea that initiation of violence is necessary in order to enforce a rule of law. This is a very popular, but completely baseless assertion. Just because there are problems with our current system does not mean that all of those problems are inherent to any system of government.

The image of anarchy is not pure propaganda. Several states HAVE tried it. It doesn't work. You act like I have to prove this, but I don't. Somolia exists. YOU have to prove it CAN work, not only because you are the one making a claim contrary to popular belief, but also because the concept of disproving is an impossibility, and that's WHY we put the burden of proof on te plaintiff. YOU are the one who needs to demonstrate that it can work.


Just to understand, you think Anarchists have to justify their beliefs by showing without reservation and 100% how Anarchy would work with every last service offered by the State currently?

But shouldn't the real question be how did the State come about in controlling all these services? Wouldn't that entail those proponents of government, even the minarchists, to explain their support of centralization of services?

Just to clarify.

What? Um, I'm not really sure

What? Um, I'm not really sure whose comment you intended to reply to. I'm guessing not mine.

What people have asked me

How does someone who is raped get justice? (do they turn to another crime themselves)

How does a family of a murdered loved one get justice?

In regards to gangs and the mafia, do they inherit the power structure created by governments?

What happens if a government invades us?

Those question above have been asked of supporters of liberty, here are ones that have been asked by opponents of liberty most of which are stupid in nature.

Who will build the roads?
Corporations will have too much power, they will make everyone else poor.
Do you want poor people to die?
Do you want old people to die?

These are all great questions... the answers are long, but...

I will try to keep it short. If you want the long answer, I suggest reading Practical Anarchy, available for free on this page.

First, millions of people working in freedom will come up with a better answer than I possibly could, so this is just a guess at how it might be... consider it a worse case scenario.

Your questions, are all about the judicial system, except for the invading army. You already pay for a military, what make you think you would not want to pay for it under freedom? the difference, when you choose to pay for it, you most likely will not be starting wars of aggression against non threatening states like we do. Again, you will have a superior product for far less money.

Onto the judicial system. Lets start small, and move up to murder.

1. Enforcing contract. Ebay has proved that the threat of ostricism is a far greater deterrent than a judicial system. If I send you money, and you don't send me the product, that -1 rating will cost you many thousands of times more money in future profits. Yelp, Angieslist, credit rating system, and tenant rating system prove the same, in restaurant, services, loan repayment, and leasing industries respectively.

These Systems work great for small purchases... but what about million dollar transactions. Well lets extend the idea. I want to buy 1000 cars off of a car manufacturer, and he requires money up front to start building. Without a judicial system I have no recourse if he flies to Bermuda with my money. So I would want to take insurance against him doing that as part of the contract. The premium he pays for that insurance will depend on his history of him honoring his contracts. The insurance company/industry will begin tracking each individuals history of honoring contracts. A few breaches and the premium for insurance is so high that the person can never do business again. The economic cost to screwing someone is too high. Just like screwing someone on Ebay, it is not worth it. And if the customer was screwed, the insurance company pays it out. For simplicity this Insurance companies will be called DRO's(Dispute Resolution Organizations)

Lets compare that to now.... we pay taxes for a judicial, sheriff and prison system. Usually any crime committed requires a fine paid to the government instead of the victims. And the punishment is less than the crime, providing incentive for future crime. Eg: MF global steals money off its customers. They pay a small fine to government, get a slap on the wrist, and the victims get screwed.

Moving on to murder as fast as possible.
Lets split this up. I think 90% or so of murder is because there is an economic incentive to do so. (Gang warfare, organized crime etc.) Hopefully from the above you can see there is no longer an incentive to commit these crimes, but the victims family does receive compensation and the cost will be paid by the murderer.. The other 10% of murders are crimes of passion. Nothing will stop them. But via the same mechanism from above, if a murderer does not agree to the terms of the punishment/payback method prescribed by the DRO, then they will be economically cut off from society.

Remember there are no public places. All property is private. The roads, the grocery stores, the parks will not accept customers without DRO insurance. They are ostracized from life. If they turn to a life of stealing and thuggery, eventually they will get shot by some private guard or responsible citizen protecting their property.

That is what I have as quickly as I can for you... As I said... read the book I suggested if you want a more thorough solution.

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

Maybe I misunderstood what

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but when you said
"The other 10% of murders are crimes of passion. Nothing will stop them. But via the same mechanism from above, if a murderer does not agree to the terms of the punishment/payback method prescribed by the DRO, then they will be economically cut off from society,"
I got "You can't stop killers, but if a murderer doesn't buy murder insurance we will stop buying from him." How the hell will that prevent further crimes? Did I miss something? Please clarify.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

If the murder does not volunteer to the punishment....

he will be outcast.

For example as a road owner, grocery storeowner or park owner for example, anyone wishing to use your property would have to abide by your rules and you may even charge for these services directly to the customer.

Therefore in order to use your property you would require that each individual has DRO insurance. Do you want a vigilante coming into your shop or on your road? If a person does not have DRO insurance they would be cut off from society.

If a person murdered someone, then had the DRO come to them and say, "AS you may recall at your hearing, you were found guilty, we paid the families victims on your behalf. You are now indebted to us as per the terms of your contract with us. You can now follow me to your labor camp, where you can work off the debt you owe us over 20 years, or we can cancel your policy. The consequences of having your policy cancelled for failure to pay a debt to your DRO means that no other widely accepted DRO will take you on as a customer. as a result you will be ostracized from all economic activity. The moment you leave your house you will be guilty of trespassing. No other person will interact with you economically, you will be forced to steal to survive, and probably be shot by the end of week by someone protecting their property. What would you like to do?

Something like that. :)

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

Two questions:

Two questions:

1. How much payment would be given the victims families to compensate and how would that be agreed upon (how much exactly is someones life worth)?

2. Do you really think saying "I hate you!" with zero enforcement will protect me from a crazy killer?

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

answers here

1. That would be in your insurance contract.
2. No. But I am not sure of your point.

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

Sorry, I didn't understand

Sorry, I didn't understand whose insurance contract did you mean? The Killer or the victim or the victims family?

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Cartesian backdrop

Sure, if we could be confident that every human being understands Cartesian thinking, then I'd be cool with a stateless society. I'd also be out of a job, though, as I am currently a mapmaker.

It's important to understand why lines of demarcation ever amounted to possession--albeit there is no land unclaimed on Earth, a world without boundaries would lead to a quicker destruction of natural resources and peace.

there will still be boundries. (In fact many more)

In a stateless society all land is privately owned. Every road, park, beach, house, apartment and suburb is owned and can only be used by people the owner allows, either a friend or customer. And before you freak out at how expensive life will be paying for these things, remember... you already pay for them, and you know full well it could not possibly be more expensive than what government charges you.

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

In that system, what right

In that system, what right does someone have to own something? I mean, HOW do things (e.g. property) become owned?

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77


I have not read anything on this topic so this is just me having a go.

All public property would be auctioned with the proceeds going to each citizen in equal shares.

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

What property is public?

What property is public? Obviously nothing already auctioned/owned, but is it the whole earth? The land we (our people/nation/society own)? If it's the earth, it might be hard to divide the proceeds up among 7 billion people (not impossible, just hard). If it's the land we collectively posses, how did we come to posses it?

Also, who conducts the auctioning?

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Ding ding ding

Thank you for illustrating my point most beautifully. If it's all private, then what was land before it was privately owned? Already, all land is privately owned by different nationalities of people who abide by the same societal behaviours. Thus, demarcation is privatization. Nothing on earth is public land. Open to certain publics, sure.