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.

I tried to reply to your email, but it was returned...

In regards to your question about the raw data on the Afghan maps from my other post, here's my reply to your question. Not sure, but your Yahoo email account doesn't like me. :/ Email me at revolutioncarbadges [at] gmail [dot] com if you want to continue the discussion on Africa.

Here's my reply to your question:

Simple Google search: Afghanistan minerals resources data 1976 (since the map says Data 1976)


That link appears to have GPS coordinates with raw data (see page 12) where presumably a skilled person might be able to map the mineral deposits. I can offer my graphic design skills and numchuck skills if needed! ;)

Some more info can be found here on Afghanistan, which might give you a lead on where to begin getting the raw data for Africa: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1204/pdf/16A.pdf
With regards to African minerals, here's a link I found on Google. Perhaps it may be of use to you.

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/country/africa.html (the excel files might have all the info you're looking for!)

Seriously though, if you want to do all the research and plot all the points on a map, I'll Photoshop it up really nice for you! :)

Just let me know.


Edit: Just read you were a mapmaker! Never mind then! :P

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!


We need to study the

We need to study the libertarian/anarcho society of the Ancient Celts Murry Rothbard spoke about


They endured a 1000 years in relative freedom an peace without all the trappings of the state we know today and were the most sophisticated society of their time... Had a private arbitration system and used contracts with sureties for business. I'd take their rare tribal spats over the wars of nations we have seen in the 20th century and now any day! We could learn a lot from them

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

Get Prepared!

Ah cool, thank you, I have been looking for something like this.

Technology makes life better anyway you look at it. Trying a free society now with current technology blows my mind with possibility.

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

No thanks

I'll have a discussion or debate with someone who is interested in finding the truth, but it's a waste of time if they are only looking to "improve arguments".

That is a really good point...

Thank you for helping me phrase it better.

The reason I miss-spoke is a personal philosophy I adopted a long time ago that has served me well.

Knowing that it is human nature, to protect your model of the world and attack those challenging it, I made a commitment to argue for any new idea for at least 15 minutes, before assessing it. for a big idea like this, I think 6 months is appropriate. I am still in the learning and arguing for an idea phase without necessarily being convinced of it.

Although my conviction is getting stronger with every discussion. Thank you for contributing to that.

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

Minarchists have trouble with anarcho-capitalism...

...because the anarcho-capitalists have not, in my opinion, adequately or correctly explained how a stateless society would/could/must function. People sense a problem somewhere in the logic of the polycentric legal order (which manifests in the much-hated "what if the DROs fought..." type arguments), but neither the critics of anarcho-capitalism nor the anarcho-capitalists themselves can properly articulate this problem in order to solve it. In a nutshell, the problem is this. Every anarcho-capitalist, from Molinari to Rothbard and beyond, has taken the normal economic argument in favor of competition and against monopoly and applied it unchanged to dispute resolution. What they fail to realize is that dispute resolution is a special case, unlike all other industries in a crucial respect. It necessarily involves violence - not all disputes can be resolved through mutually voluntary arbitration. It is conceivable to have a polycentric legal system which does not involve aggression, but not one which does not involve violence. A free market is usually considered by ancaps to be a market sans aggression, but they fail to notice that there is no functional difference between violence and aggression: only an ethical difference. Economic law does not rest on ethics, it rests on factual happenings. The economic arguments about monopoly and competition (on the basis of which ancaps claim that competitive markets for dispute resolution services are possible) rest on an assumption of free markets - but there cannot be a free market in dispute resolution services, since dispute resolution necessarily involves violence, and if violence is a factor in competition between firms in a market, that is not free competition, that is not a free market. To fully explain this problem, what is needed is a praxeology of involuntary interaction.

I could elaborate significantly, and am working on an essay on this topic (which I'll post if I ever finish it), but this is enough for the moment.

P.S. I'm an ancap myself, but I do not believe that a competitive market of DROs is possible - for the stated reason (basically, violence is inherent to the business, and so there cannot be free competition between DROs in the same way as between, for example, shoe companies). I think monopoly in dispute resolution is inevitable. However, I also think that it is possible for this monopoly to be non-aggression: i.e. not a state. In short, one government handling dispute resolution, but a voluntary government.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Addition only

Just to help move the discussion along, I think this post by Wilton Alston stimulates a little more in the area of services provided in the Anarchist society versus the State, but first, a short paragraph from the article:

"Thus, I am puzzled when I hear questions, even by fellow libertarians, that take the following form: "In a libertarian society, how would X work? How would problem Y be solved? What guarantees would there be that Z would/would not happen?" … The problem starts when the "viability" of freedom becomes contingent upon the "answer" to those questions. That is, if the "right" and fully satisfactory answer is not achieved (ignoring that no such answer could ever be 100% correct), then somehow the desire for liberty is lessened and statism creeps back in."


I think I understand your point about it ending in violence....

I added a sentence to an answer above that I have not read in any of my limited reading about ancaps.

copy and pasted from above.....

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.

It is true that it eventually ends in violence. But it is so unattractive, only the most self destructive individual would choose it. Especially when you consider the prosperity and freedom as the alternate possibility.

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

All Real libertarians become Anarchists


There is a further step in this progression.

Keep searching.

Sing it brother!!!

Sing it brother!!!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown


Is this about me? (jk) I followed this same exact progression, lol.

My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

Me too. this was my progression.

Me too. this was my progression.

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

Step by Step

"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."



Another of Proudhon's startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others. Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing. There is a loss it is true in the temporary obfuscation of the mind of the reader, but, it may be, a more than compensating advantage in arousing deeper thought, or in furnishing a securer technicality. But in this ease the disadvantage is certainly incurred; and neither advantage is secured. There are two very different things covered by the term government: personal government by arbitrium , and the government of inherent laws and principles. Proudhon is denying the rightfulness of the former, and affirming the latter. Now the Greek arche meant both of these things; but if either more peculiarly than the other, it meant the government of laws and principles, whence the negation of such rule by the prefix an has meant, and rightly means, chaos. Proudhon undertakes to make the Greek word mean exclusively the other idea, whereby he spoils one excellent technicality without getting for his other purpose a secure and good one in place of it.

Examples exist

A. Many past and present tribes not destroyed by aggressors - see Erich Fromm for one reported.

B. The Icelandic Commonwealth

C. England under Magna Carte and Trial by Jury based upon sortition

D. Holland and Switzerland during the time of the American Revolution

E. Each Sovereign State limited by Constitutions between 1776 and 1788 - including Trial by Jury based upon sortition.

F. The Articles of Confederation, a Confederation, or Democratic Federated Republic.

"If you do not agree with a stateless society"

I do agree with a society that pays into a State government and I don't agree with someone else telling me what I think.

"then what you are saying is..." NOT what you put in my mind by some magic trick.

Voluntary government is easy to understand if the person wanting to understand is capable of knowing how insurance works, and so an potential shopper for Anti-Despotism insurance finds the least cost and the most benefit out of all the insurance providers providing an Anti-Despotism insurance policy.

Where can I go shopping?

Ask the despots for a license to produce the first product allowed to exist?


I wont argue against all

I wont argue against all points with detailed paragraphs and such, but I will say this.
The one problem with anarchy, or stateless type constructs, is that it goes against human nature. For thousands of years people have banded together and in many cases, you end up with warfare between these "tribes". And on that note, just look at indian tribes and those from Africa. How often would they go to war with each other? These types of tribes are just a step up from a governmentless society. They do it for safety and to share resources. War in most cases is started over land and the resources on that land. We are not yet to a point where we all have all the resources we need to live, where we can all just sit back and not worry about things.
When we get to that point where everyone is cared for and people can want-not, then we can have a conversation about no government. Until taht point in time that, it is completely against human nature.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

warfare between tribes is seriously overstated

Let's look at the Yanomami example. Napoleon Chagnon made them famous by claiming they were the most violent people in the world whose lives were dominated by violence. Several decades of research later, we get this, from a 1995 study by Brian Ferguson:

""Although some Yanomami really have been engaged in intensive warfare and other kinds of bloody conflict, this violence is not an expression of Yanomami culture itself. It is, rather, a product of specific historical situations: The Yanomami make war not because Western culture is absent, but because it is present, and present in certain specific forms. All Yanomami warfare that we know about occurs within what Neil Whitehead and I call a "tribal zone", an extensive area beyond state administrative control, inhabited by nonstate people who must react to the far-flung effects of the state presence."

Regardless of how violent tribal societies are, we are not arguing for a tribal society. We are arguing for a society with privatized security, arbitration, and judicial services. I hope you can see that tribal violence is inapplicable to this proposal.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

What I don't understand...

...is how you can ensure that no corruption or authoritarian streak will ever seep into those privatized security, arbitration and judicial services. How do you guarantee that this would be dealt with in such a way that it would not just devolve into something similar to what we have today or any of the other variations of tyranny that history has seen?

It seems like 'the weak are meat; the strong do eat' tendencies will corrupt things eventually without something to effectively keep it in check. Can market forces alone do that? I think the societies with the strongest voluntary bonds due to Love for each other and their enemies are the ones that will tend to keep Liberty the longest. Note I don't say, necessarily, the most 'religious', as religion (and lack of religion) can be used as an excuse to oppress others, through a twisting of it away from Love as its chief aim and focus. If a society is not spiritually healthy, and there isn't something to keep the cancer of spiritual decay at bay, the whole society will rot from the inside and fall apart. This is where we're at today in the West. The country has rotted from the inside, as did Ancient Rome. Unless there is a moral, spiritual awakening among the People, I think any political victory for Liberty we may muster will be short-lived.

Clearly there can be no guarantees.... but...

to not try something noble and promising because it may decay into what we have now, is not much of deterrent to trying it.

A few things, I hang my hat on....

1. Competition breeds excellence. Competition among governments/DRO's will breed the most superior government/DRO

2. If something is philosophically and morally sound, then I think it works out for the best. See my slavery argument in the original post.

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

You cannot “reason” with an OBJECTIVIST

The people sold their ideas very well on the other thread and put you in your place. I see you moved over here to espouse you elitist crap. Mark did you really say ”survival of the fittest will prove that those who believe in a Creator are the most fit.”…….Your hold yourself out to be a Christian……either you are disappointing Jesus or Ayn Rand…..you can’t serve two master.
Please don’t even waste your time on this guy, he is an Objectivist Troll. These people hate Rothbard because he exposed Rand for being nothing more than the elitist she was. Their reality has no truth……it’s a religion to them…….just like Scientology……..hey wasn’t that religion started by a fiction writer too!
You cannot reason with them because if Rand didn’t say it they won’t believe it……man talk about “parrots”

There’s no “reason” for me to defend Rothbard ……when he does it so well himself.

Neither Liberty Nor Reason
There seems to be only one way to resolve the contradiction in the Randian strategic outlook of extreme sectarianism within the libertarian movement, coupled with extreme opportunism, and willingness to coalesce with slightly more conservative heads of State, in the outside world. That resolution, confirmed by the remainder of our analysis of the cult, holds that the guiding spirit of the Randian movement was not individual liberty – as it seemed to many young members – but rather personal power for Ayn Rand and her leading disciples. For power within the movement could be secured by totalitarian isolation and control of the minds and lives of every member; but such tactics could scarcely work outside the movement, where power could only hopefully be achieved by cozying up the President and his inner circles of dominion.
Thus, power not liberty or reason, was the central thrust of the Randian movement. The major lesson of the history of the movement to libertarians is that It Can Happen Here, that libertarians, despite explicit devotion to reason and individuality, are not exempt from the mystical and totalitarian cultism that pervades other ideological as well as religious movements. Hopefully, libertarians, once bitten by the virus, may now prove immune.


Lol your burden of proof is

Lol your burden of proof is preposterous and no court of law would ever accept such a thing. The person who is COMPLAINING files a COMPLAINT and is called the PLAINTIFF. The PLAINTIFF bears the burden, always. The only time the burden shifts is when the PLAINTIFF makes his prima facie case. In this case, the prima facie case is as follows: 1. A hypothetical society without government is desirable(I think its not too hard to do this) 2. A society without government could exist hypothetically 2. A society without government is achievable in practice

You say you want an honest debate, act like it.

Ventura 2012


no court of law would ever accept such a thing

You should qualify that with "No statist court of law would ever accept such a thing."

The burden of proof is on the person advocating violence against the innocent, stop being silly.

Not even a neutral arbitrator

Not even a neutral arbitrator relying on hundreds of years of common law and best practices, toolbox.

Ventura 2012

In a criminal case...

The burden of proof is with the plaintiff, because he is attempting to take away someones freedom.

In a civil case the burden proof is on both parties equally.

Clearly in an instance of advocating government, you are taking away someones freedom, therefore the burden of proof is on that party.

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

Totally false.

Totally false.

Ventura 2012

Just how powerful is freedom?

I like the Ebay example. Prior to paypal, Ebay was a purely anarchist society. There was no police and no way to get your money back if you got ripped off and contracts were not honored.

People sent money to unknown parties and hoped they got their product. The customers recourse was one thing and one thing only... Negative feedback.

Did some people get ripped off... Of course. But the economic cost in ostracism from the community was so great, that is was a very very very low percentage.... and in just a few short years. (6 I think) Ebay became the 32nd biggest economy in the world. (Bigger than Greece, when Greece was humming along.)

That is the power of removing bureaucracy and force, and relying on markets to punish dishonorable people.

Compare that to the massive theft that goes unpunished by bankers, big pharma, military industrial complex, and politicians. And the horrific economy that follows.

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

I did not realize the level of folks here who

thumbed up your lame post below. So I admit I was naive thinking that my "okie-dockie" reply would be understood "think and you will see mistake in your post."

YOUR Q: But in answer to your question: You could stop using the insurance company and detective agency and tell your friends to do the same. Competition breeds excellence. With many "voluntary governments" insurance agencies, etc vying for your business, you stand a much better chance of getting good service than now.

A: You may have 10 daughters you can go around with trial and error regarding their well-being. But normal people will stay with UNIFORM LAWS and more or less PREDICTABLE courts and police. At least their leaders are electable. If you still have brains left, you will understand that anarchism collapses into mafia-controlled dispair. There will be no freedom to chose from in the field of force (security, imprisonment, etc.) Only one option - for a new mafia to fight in for security market share (power.)

free markets

The beauty of free markets is that it is peaceful, and also produces the best results for all.

From p. 273 of Conscious Capitalism:

We believe that business is good because it creates value, it is ethical because it is based on voluntary exchange, it is noble because it can elevate our existence, and it is heroic becuase it lifts people of of poverty and creates prosperity.

LOL, I read your title as "stainless society"....

and had to reread it again!
Sorry for being off-topic, rebuilding my house and got stainless steel sinks on the brain.

The more I learn and experience...

The more I realize that there are only two types of political affiliation.

You're either a Tyrannist or an Anti-Tyrannist. To support ANY form of government is to support Tyrannic gradualism. Therefore, the only logical solution is militant individualism (a minority of armed citizens willing to resist all coercion).

It's really a simple and effective fix. We've been taught to believe that the absence of law is the destruction of peace and freedom. Wrong. Total anarchy is the only path toward true freedom. Liberty is a fabrication. Government cannot protect you; it can only enslave you. Government tells you that it must exist in order to save you from the dog-eat-dog law of the jungle. Self-preservation, personal responsibility, and complete independence are the laws of the jungle. THIS IS THE JUNGLE. Our DNA has not magically reorganized itself into a conformance with global civilization.

Segregation is the natural and welcome result. People with so much ideological variance should not be expected to create a functional society. I suggest tribal stratification. Let the "socialists/communists" have their utopia. Let the individualists exist independently and form a natural system of leaderless cooperation.

Natural selection will be the judge.

The forced, unnatural coalescence we endure today will only fuel the early eradication of our species.

You're avoiding the reality...

that most people on the planet believe in a Creator and the resulting morality transcends the law of the jungle. Given this reality, survival of the fittest will prove that those who believe in a Creator are the most fit.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1264 (second amendment rights)

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