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.


1. Most people do believe in a Creator, however, there are an incredible number of interpretations of what this Creator is and for what it stands. Which of these denominations are the most fit?

2. My solution in no way conflicts with the beliefs of worshipers. It is based on the truth of individuality. We are not the same. Some worshipers would agree that the abolition of government is the greatest step toward protecting their beliefs. Other might not. That's precisely why I advise natural segregation.

3. You've failed to explain how worshipers are in some way more fit than non-worshipers and how exactly this pertains to my comment.

The fact that most people...

on the planet believe in a Creator means they've successfully reproduced because they're the most fit. And the reason they reject anarcho-voluntarism is because they believe it rejects God and God's moral Laws that are intended to govern society.

Good and evil exist, so people can choose to do what they know is wrong. Limited government, although flawed because the humans who create them are flawed, has proven to be the most effective at mitigating the dark side of human nature and promoting the good. An example is all nation states have abolished slavery based on universal agreement that it's immoral. In the dog eat dog world you describe, slavery would still be a "legal" thriving business.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=917 (Morals, Ethics, and the Role of Gov't in a Capitalist Economy)

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

1. The fact that worshipers

1. The fact that worshipers are the majority in no way leads to a conclusion that worshipers are the "most fit", as there has never been a proportionally congruous control group of "non-worshipers" with which to compete (of course, this hypothetical competition would be irrelevant, unless it is your assertion that worshipers are more fit because they are more likely to murder holders of alternative beliefs). It only proves that most people are worshipers and that the propensity of religion is a natural human trait. Religion is a part of our common heritage. Travel back to the paleolithic era and you'll most likely find the same levels of deistic worship.

2. If the "good" religious people are the "most fit", why is it that they live as slaves in a a society manipulated by overlords whom adhere to Luciferian doctrine? Wouldn't they be the "most fit"?

3. Why have "God's moral Laws" been bastardized and polluted with inflated government laws? Don't you think that God's laws should be left up to God to police and punish? What makes you think that man has the authority to properly interpret and rule on the laws of God? How does man and his government, in any form it my take, respect the laws of God without those laws being twisted by the fallible nature of man? Wouldn't each follower of God be more righteously justified in applying the laws of God to his or her own life rather that by forcing a flawed human interpretation of God's laws upon others?

4. Do you really believe that the governments of the world have been "promoting the good"?

5. Slavery was never abolished. Have you ever heard of human trafficking, sex slavery, forced labor, and ritual abuse? These practices are supported and proliferated by the very governments you defend.

6. As I believe in voluntary segregation, not enslavement, I still fail to see how your comments about who is most "fit" are a reply to anything I've said. I'm far from an anti-theist, as I believe in the individualistic nature of man, and I posses my own spiritual beliefs, although I'm sure they differ quite greatly from your own. My comments are not an attack on any belief other than Tyrannist thought.

I see no reason

for the majority to agree with your utopia. I even can envision that people (under capitalism upon hearing your ideology) can refuse to give any employment to such a "militant minority" and refuse selling any food or ammunition. No coercion, no violence on their part - just excercising their own freedom and private property. I wonder if the militant minority would still stick to non-agression principle then, especially those who do not own land.

Excuse me?

I haven't mentioned any sort of "utopia". In fact, what I said is decidedly anti-utopian. I'm fully aware of the fact that all human beings are different and that one man's "utopia" is another man's totalitarian hell. That's exactly why segregation is the most peaceful resolution and globalization the most inherently violent.

Furthermore, I don't think you fully comprehend the concept of capitalism. Whether or not you "envision" a group of people to be for or against any particular ideology, the incredible variations of identity which exist will never allow universal compliance without government intervention and regulation.

Morality transcending...

That may be reality, but it doesn't have anything to do with survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest simply means, he who is most healthy will survive and reproduce the most successfully. That's it. Believing in God fulfills the spiritual aspect of many lives, but it definitely has nothing to do with survival. Unless your religion gets you martyred, or you martyr others for their religion.

-Matthew Good

You said survival of fittest means...

those most healthy will survive and reproduce the most successfully. Well, those who've survived and reproduced the most successfully are those who believe in a Creator.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1026 (pdf: Knowledge is Power)

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

False Correlation

Atheists can and have lived just as well as any theist. Please tell me how believing in a God has anything to do with survival besides "life after death". I'm talking about here on Earth. From my experience, people who suffer diseases and die from them fall all over the spectrum of God belief. You do not need God for sperm to fertilize the egg. You only need healthy and adaptable genes. You do not need God to make somebody healthy. You need good sense, a proper diet, exercise, and plenty of rest. Where does God fit in the survival aspect?

-Matthew Good

You cannot, you can only parrot fantasy

of other anarcho-capitalists you trust, say Stefen M., Block, Hoppe.

We (who studied Ayn Rand) do not argue with the parasitic nature of the government. We argue with Rothbard's assumption that natural rights is an axiom. We also argue against non-agression principle as the self-serving cognitive tool without reference to reality - reason. We also do not believe in a "perfect man of the future" or "emergence" miracle of another dialectics.

Here is the CONTEXT: a fraudulent company defrauded you and left the state witout a trace. After half a year, an insurance company that covers detective work informs you that your policy limit has been exceeded without a success. You have no money to hire investigators to check if the insurance company tells the truth and they (along with detectives) did not simply pocket the money. In any case, you wont be sure the same wont happen again and again.

Substitute the fraudulent company with gangsters who abducted your daughter to harvest her kidneys for black market. Now you might start grasping why Ayn Rand sneared at Murray & Co. and ... parrots.

Tone it down a little.

You would be well served to avoid generalities. An intelligent interest in the works of Rothbard, Block, and Hoppe do not equal a blind devotion to their teachings.

I enjoy reading all of the above authors, yet I disagree with all of them on many issues. Like you, I reject much the concept of natural rights (outside of the undeniable precept of self-ownership) and have issues with the NAP. I also enjoy Rand although I find fault with much of her Objectivist theory as well.

Precisely whom am I parroting?

Imagine we lived in a voluntary society, and....

we were debating whether or not we should have a government. I could say, "The government grow outof control... it could steal your money, any number of bureaucrats could freeze your bank accounts, they could make as many laws as they want to make you a criminal, steal your money to invade other countries in wars of aggression... on and on and on.... and you would have no recourse" Its not like you live in the perfect system now???

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.

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



way too many "we"s in that comment for an Objectivist :)

think on that

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

If that is YOUR only

argument, you are the majority of this collective - those who do not use their own rational mind consistently (parrots who are the majority of the RP Libertarian movement who preach false ideology thinking they have discovered the truth.)

if you want to talk rationality,

let's start with your false assumptions:

1) My only argument is making a jest out of your overuse of "we"

2) I disagree with you, therefore I am not consistently rational

3) the majority of RP supporters are anarchists

4) RP supporters only parrot what they read/hear and do not have original thoughts

You crammed quite a few into one sentence :)

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


But diverting from the topic wont get you a recognition. Looks like you are a very young man - you fit the profile of modern graduates of progressive schools. Lick your hurt feelings up. As a free man, you can resent me for ever.

I wish I was a young man :(

and no worries about hurting my feelings :) I have thick skin. And I don't hold on to resentment. Whole religions have been founded on that feeling!

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

let's argue private police first

Usually, minarchist libertarians will argue that government is necessary to provide the police, the courts, and the military. The minarchists will, in general, agree that every other service that is currently provided by the government can be privatized. Sometimes, people argue roads, but most serious libertarians will agree that roads should be privatized.

So, we are left with the three functions of police, courts, and the military. I believe this triarchy goes back to Ayn Rand. Anyway, rather than arguing for anarchy, which pushes all kinds of buttons, conditioning, and deep neurology (think Julian Jaynes), I propose we break this argument into three arguments: arguing for the privatization of police, arguing for the privatization of defense, and arguing for the privatization of the courts.

Of the three, arguing for privatizing the police is the easiest. Most people can imagine a private police agency patrolling the neighborhood, worrying about competing agencies and being accountable to their customers. The recent rampant abuses of police power, with no accountability to anyone, make this argument even easier.

So, who is up for arguing about privatizing neighborhood security?

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


We're practically on the same side, so I'm just adding in my own two cents on these issues.


1. Police

The very idea of "police" is an illusion created by government. Police organizations have been used as tools of control throughout history, not as means of crime prevention. Every person should be responsible for the safety of themselves and their loved ones. In a stateless society, people would take the responsibility of self-defense much more seriously, and crime would fall as a consequence. Criminals look for victims, not challenges. Of course private security would be a part of it, but it already is.

2. Courts

Courts are equally an illusion. The root word of arbitration and arbitrary are the same, and I believe this puts the courts into perspective.

arbitration - Law, the hearing and determination of a dispute, esp an industrial dispute, by an impartial referee selected or agreed upon by the parties concerned

arbitrary - Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

I would have to write a detailed essay to even come close to explaining why a judicial system is completely irrelevant and counter-intuitive to a free society.

3. Military

For an anarchic society, a standing military would be pointless. Expeditionary war for such a society would not exist. If threatened with invasion, voluntary, militant resistance would be a natural result.

If you could wave...

...a magic wand and reset the world to these conditions, what would prevent these police forces, these courts, these militaries from just bubbling up all over again before long? Seems like a perpetual struggle against that theme meditated upon in 'Cloud Atlas': the weak are meat; the strong do eat. I guess this is all a discussion of what system will slow down this decay the most effectively, though, since it can't be avoided completely.

I think the most crucial ingredient is spreading and multiplying Love: love of neighbor, love of enemies. If that is lacking, after a 'reset' things will just crumble rapidly. If it is abundant, then there is little need for manmade law, as Love will automatically seek to fulfill the higher natural law. So promoting the source of Love is key to preserving Liberty.

You're right.

Our common history has been a constant tug-and-pull between freedom and tyranny. As soon as one great victory is achieved, the plotters adjust their strategies.

That's just life. But it isn't hopeless. The fact that we must fight for every scrap of freedom and individuality we enjoy is one of the most life-affirming traits of our race. Each generation must be responsible for the salvation of the next.

Thankfully, we now live in the age of information. We don't have to be cogs anymore, operating blindly in the darkness of a machine's belly. Through the sharing of knowledge we are creating a new, more liberating Enlightenment, and the tyrants are in fear of it. A dedicated minority has enslaved this world. A dedicated minority can save it.

Love is a necessary component, but it's much more complicated than that. Love has become a weapon. It's been twisted and corrupted by our controllers so that it can be used against us. The meaning of love has been redefined in our times. We can rediscover it, but not without the massive "reset" you mentioned and the unavoidable "crumbling" which will occur as its consequence. After any important regime change or dissolution, a period of chaos will ensue as the mistakes of the past naturally adjust to either the new mistakes or the new responsibilities of the present depending upon the direction of change. Freedom is a tough pill to swallow for those who've been bred and indoctrinated to reject it.

tasmlab's picture

Once the "sovereign" is small enough...

In my opinion, once the group of people is small enough where you can move away and be somewhere else in a half hour after packing, how private or public things are become delightfully trivial.

I'm an anarchist myself, but I would totally imagine joining a community that had a neighborhood association fees to cover communal security, perhaps fire, garbage removal, wastewater and maybe some recreation facilities. Public grounds maintenance. Maybe not school, but maybe.

The fees would sort of look like taxes and the association rules would resemble laws and the council - probably democratic - would look like governors, etc. But if you could leave easily and find another neighborhood or even somewhere disorganized (if that suited you - or even the wilds) than it would be pretty voluntary at that point.

So, oddly, once you clobber the warfare/welfare state, get rid of the 300MM sovereign, kill corporatism, get rid of taxes, get rid of big centralized regulatory agencies, et al, the debate of how drunk teens and random thugs are shooed from neighborhood streets probably becomes a kind of boring debate. In a good way!

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

What's the difference between...

a stateless society labeled "voluntary" and a stateless society labeled "anarchist"? It seems like the use of "voluntaryism" is an attempt to avoid the reality that most people reject the anarchist ideology. Anarchists/voluntaryists recently failed to sell their ideology in another post titled "Is Ron Paul an anarchist. I didn't think so but...", http://www.dailypaul.com/276369

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

As I pointed out in the post...

the only difference, is that is liberates people from their indoctrination.

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

It may help if you use e-prime to express yourself

Thus, rather than saying "Anarchists/voluntaryists recently failed to sell their ideology in another post....", you probably meant to say that "I personally found the anarchist/voluntarystist arguments in another post unconvincing." Or do you speak for everyone that read that post?

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

I would not recommend his thread.

He was proven wrong time and time again, by multiple posters, on every argument. Every comment he posted was down-voted. And he still claims he is won the debate.

Based on the comments...

not one person was converted to anarcho-voluntarism. I consider that a failure to sell their ideology. There were however, some interesting discussions between those claiming to be voluntarists and anarchists. But after all was said an done, I couldn't see a measureable difference between anarchists and voluntarists liberated from anarchist doctrine.

Page four of the comments had the best exchange between anarchists and voluntarists. http://www.dailypaul.com/276369

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

Ever tried to convert a replucican or democrat to libertarianism

ever succeeded in 3 paragraphs via text?....

Libertarianism must be a failure then.

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

Thoreau says:

I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least";(1) and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.

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

So for you the goal is clear....

For you the question becomes how do we arrive at this destination?

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