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.

see my comment above

let's argue private police first

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Such a society can't protect itself from state societies

Weren't the thousands of tribes plundered by the Europeans basically stateless societies? I think you would lose the freedom you have now to internal and external security threats.

I have already posted my arguments as to why defense spending, internal and external, are grossly over-consumed now and would be grossly under-consumed in a voluntarist society here http://www.dailypaul.com/273348/answers-on-defense-spending-...

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Your argument relies on the ignorance of the transgressed.

Thankfully, we have a knowledge of history. Any modern society (especially a hypothetical anti-state society) would fully understand the tactics and abilities of state societies.

Also, let us compare the ambitions and cohesiveness of society one, which is founded upon indoctrinated submission and offensive, soulless violence, and society two, founded upon voluntary cooperation and defensive, impassioned violence.

It's really no contest.

Did you even read the thread?

My argument relies on individual self-interest.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Europeans had superior technology

invading a well-armed populace with equivalent technology is a much different story

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Yes they did, and state societies will tend to have

superior weapons technology to an anarchist society. Mandatory societies will over-invest in military, anarchist societies will under-invest. A decentralized society will get it about right. It is all in the link I posted.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

I think it would be just the opposite

Think of all the waste that goes on in the military. They don't know how to best spend their money, because there is no price mechanism. Defense agencies that have to respond to customer satisfaction would spend their money much more wisely and effectively.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

The pricing mechanism is exactly what is broken

in voluntarism when it comes to "public use" goods. http://www.dailypaul.com/273348/answers-on-defense-spending-...

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Enslaving people by force is not ecnomical anymore.

Today the enslavement process only works because they have convinced us we are free. Even China has come on board with that. However, if the threat was real enough, I think people would volunteer resources to maintain an army.

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

And it would again for most people

And remember, invading Iraq was not "economical" for us as a whole people, but certain defense contractors and energy interests made a mint off of it. Conclusion: it does not have to be economical for the whole society before one state will launch a war of aggression on another, it just has to be profitable for certain well-connected interests.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

However, that would have

However, that would have never been possible without government stealing our money to give it to those defense contractors. If people -individually- had to pay out of their own pocket for that nonsense, do you really think it would have happened?

I don't think so either

but I already agree that voluntary society would solve the problem of a war of aggression. My fear is that is cannot win a war of defense.

Again, a balanced approach will preserve whatever liberty a society has. http://www.dailypaul.com/273348/answers-on-defense-spending-... for the reasons why.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

It all comes down...

...to 'love your neighbor as yourself' and 'love your enemies'. Are not the problems we face in society, both foreign and domestic, the result of these basic tenets being violated? If more than one sovereign individual bands together to protect themselves against these violations, isn't that a type of government, or state, or alliance? It seems like 'no government' would have to mean no such joint protections, and then the debate about anything beyond that is just a debate about how many people band together and what mechanisms they put in place.

To the degree that people don't need these mechanisms, their Liberty correspondingly abounds. And the only way they don't need these mechanisms is if they have Love in their hearts. Love fulfills natural law. Manmade law does not fulfill Love.

When this Love decays, Liberty will decay and the sense of statism and tyranny will rise. No way around it except to get back to the Source of Love.

I agree.

Hence I suggested we have a voluntary government, not no government. Nothing says love like voluntary. nothing says hate, like men pointing guns at you.

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

In theory...

...isn't our current government supposed to already be a voluntary government: by the 'consent of the governed'? I say in theory because obviously the banksters, etc. running the show now couldn't care less about that ideal.

Once you voluntarily grant power to your entrepreneur of choice to provide those services, how are they not becoming the 'men with guns' at that point? How are you sure these various 'gangs' will give back power or let you voluntarily leave or not come after you if they have a beef against you? Are not political parties, in a sense, these entrepreneurs for providing 'voluntary' government services already?

I'm having a hard time seeing how these voluntary, competing services do not still devolve into what we have today. Feel free to enlighten me, as I honestly haven't spent much time pondering all the facets of anarchy/voluntarism yet. :)

monopoly vs. competition in services

What we have today is a monopolization of the services of defense and courts. With free market anarchism/voluntarism, you will eliminate the monopoly and have competition.

What would then...

...prevent some of these groups from merging and forming a stronger bloc better able to provide services? What keeps these groups from becoming tyrannical and just scrapping your voluntarism?

Unlike government, these

Unlike government, these companies would have to prove their legitimacy to get the money. Government has so many people dependant on its existence for their survival that these people will take whatever they 'need'. A company will never have that kind of power. It would start out small, and in so doing, it would have limited profit, and therefore, limited capital to expand. Without the ability to autom,atically take money out of your pocket -like government can- these companies would have to earn it.

THe only way something like what your talking about could happen, is if every company was aligned with this mysterious cartel. They would need this to be able to automatically take money from people -even if it is against there will. This is the power which many people unthinkinly give government, and it is this power which allows government to expand beyond control.

However, as long as there is a government, then the government will always seek this power; and sooner or later the government acquires this power and it is the beginning of the end for a sustainable controllable government.

When someone can just take as much as they need or want right out of your paycheck -with or without your permission- to be able to fund a military and police force and court system to prevent you from being able to do anything about it, what makes you think that they are ever going to follow your guidelines? Once they have a military and police and court system, which is all funded by money which they take from you, why would you matter to them other than to keep paying their salaries?

So it would be impossible...

...for corruption to seep into any of these entities, beyond all of them simultaneously colluding? I'm not just trying to be difficult or obnoxious. I would actually prefer to not have to have any government at all.

The government forces your

The government forces your employer to take taxes out of your paycheck. A single company will never have the power to force every other company to withhold money out of your paycheck. Therefore, whatever money they would collect would be voluntarily given to them from you; or, every company would have to have coluded to steal money from everybody to purpatrate this act. Without money from millions of people they would never be able to sustain a large enough organization to supress the individuals. Plus, even if all of the companies coluded, how many people do you think would quit their jobs if the company which they worked for, was taking money out of their paycheck without permission?

The funding for such a quasi-government is huge, and the only way it is even remotely paid for is by taking money from millions of people. Companies have no mechanism to do such a thing, and therefore, it becomes impossible for a company-government to emerge.

It Won't Happen

I lean closer to a voluntary society than what we have now.

But the problem that needs focus concerns the mob rule that has made it politically impossible to get there.

Gene Louis
http://www.survivaloftheslickest.com/
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

But that is what gevernment is Mob Rule....

And I agree, as long as it is instituted among us we will never be rid of it.

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

I don't want to be classified as anything--

I'm getting really tired of 'isms', too--

but I will say that only a 'virtuous' people can handle liberty/freedom.

I think John Adams said that.

If people are morally/spiritually very mature . . . and have no evil in their hearts (which is pretty hard to see happening in today's world), then and only then can they either govern (themselves or anyone else) or be governed (by themselves or anyone else)--

It's a conundrum.

I wish there were an answer, but I'm trying to learn at this point.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Digging a little deeper

I'm not completely convinced that people would be so quick to lose their morals. Follow along and I'll explain.

To my way of thinking, the most base root cause of every problem I can find in the world (and I've been watching for years now) is comparative poverty. I don't mean people are actually poor but more like they're poorer than they think they should be. In short, we have been duped into tying our social standing to our personal (and controlled) wealth. We need to see our social ladder stand on its own, apart from any monetary issues.

If this were the case, then we would only have to fear those psychopaths that truly want to amass wealth/control for their personal power. I tend to think that's a pretty small percentage of people. (like less than 0.001%) In all other cases, should a person earn what they believe fair for their effort, they will likely choose work over theft.

The rest of the problems, like rape, molestation, murder and even war or the lesser degree social ones like welfare, abortion, gay rights, etc. all seem to stem from unrest (on one side or the other) over what others are doing because someone feels short changed.

If you haven't seen in yet, you might want to watch Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. Not for it's solutions but for it's research on how people respond to being suppressed financially. Scarcity has trickle down effects that I believe have wrongly become labeled human nature.

So, if we can solve the monetary problem (easy from my perspective), we will have eliminated the vast majority of problems with people ruling over others. We might even be able to accept that any form of government, operated under altruistic motives, would yield equal results. At that point, it's a simple decision to ask for on whether we should take a big leap or remain under the Constitution. I just feel very strongly that the former underlying question needs solved before we even ask the latter one.

it is a theory--

it is what I was taught in school--

that unrest stems from dissatisfaction. The fact is that changing society involves in engineering, and who will be in power/in charge of the engineering?

I'm skeptical. You may have good premises, but the solutions are complicated.

And, I do believe, there are people who are evil or just psychopathic.

And greed is a very real problem. I've seen rich and poor people who do have enough who are very greedy. At some point an individual has to decide to be different. But many don't get to that point; they live lives of pointlessness.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I don't really agree with your basic premises

"The FACT is that changing society involves in engineering..."

I don't see that as fact or even true at all. If we changed the one socially 'learned' trait that money equals power or that wealth equates to higher social standing, people would treat too much money in the same way as they treat too many cookies. Once you take more than you really want, the rest just become a burden to carry around and protect.

"...and who will be in power/in charge of the engineering?"

This is an irrelevant question if you accept that we don't need any engineering. But if not, then the answer is that this is more like UN-engineering it - i.e. letting it return back to natural human nature before wealth became stored in money and scarcity of money drove economies.

"...but the solutions are complicated."

Again, it's not complicated to solve the money problems and the rest will fix themselves if that was to be fixed. Just offer shining examples of how massive wealth simply happens organically to a community that stops sending any profit/labor to the big banks.

My little town (12,000 pop) struggles to pay a $3M bond for various community things. My back-of-envelope calculation found that the entire community collectively wastes that much in 1-2 days by paying fees/services/interest, etc. that were unnecessary and made up by the big bank system. Just think if a year's worth of that was saved.

"...there are people who are evil or just psycho..."

This is why I mentioned watching the movie. They debunk this better than I could. Basically, those people (barring the mentally ill) are trained into that life by their surroundings and chance life experiences.

Greed is one of the easiest to solve too. Picture a world where there was no .001% and that money we send to them now remained with us. Now include the next .99% or so (because the people would use their newfound wealth to retain more bargaining power). Spread that wealth across the country proportional to productivity and you find that people end up only needing to work 8-10 years to retire with comparable lifestyles to today. At that point, more people would trade a life of retirement for the rat-race of working. After the dust settled of unemployment going negative, excess greed would quickly become socially frowned upon. Peers would say, "If you wanted more money to go buy a new car, go back to work for 4 months and buy it with cash!"

So, by breaking this tie that society has between money and 'better person in some way', the people do decide to be different but it's not because they were engineered to do so. It's because the false incentive to become broken in the first place (for the last few thousand years) has finally been removed.

BTW: I believe through keeping our money local and including the benefits of technological advancements in that list of what we keep local, that this is exactly what would result. Basically it gives the people about a 500% raise. This isn't a lottery win which usually incites blowing the money, because they still have to earn every dollar. It's still hard earned money, just not as hard to earn. After that, the free market truly can balance things out fairly.

then you obviously don't believe that there are . . .

banker elites who 'engineer'. You don't believe that the Bildergers 'engineer'.

Have you studied eugenics (and other forms of social engineering) very much? And their impacts upon both the public education system and on medical system?

I have, and I have had 'close encounters' with eugenics (can't go into more detail than that)--

the fact is that, whatever their motives might be, there are those who want to interfere in others' lives in ways that are malignant.

If you don't believe that, then there isn't much more I can say. If you know someone who has been permanently damaged by social and medical engineering--

then--

you might have a different perspective. Again, I suspect you have not had personal experience with those who 'push' eugenics--

and the results of it.

The idea that this is truly a free society in terms of ideas is what I believe is faulty. There is a lot of manipulation that goes on in education and medicine, not to mention in production (food, etc.).

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Clarifying

This is why you should really focus on reading what people say. I was extremely careful on what words I used. They were:

"Basically, those people (barring the mentally ill) are trained into that life by their surroundings and chance life experiences." (emphasis added)

In other words, as young kids, they were taught a certain mentality towards others that eventually became the education of how to carry on the problems you cite.

I didn't say it didn't exist but rather that it was a learned trait.

Now, I'm saying that by removing the incentive, they may just learn to not do it. No, that's not going to be an overnight thing because they truly believe it. It is going to have to be a result of a generation or more getting treated a certain way by a general populace that is no longer beholding to anyone just because they have more of that ancient 'currency' stuff. We don't glorify the high techie guy any longer just because he has a big screen, flat screen, Pentium computer or 100 megabyte hard drive. We don't clamor over our one neighbor who has air conditioning. We don't even get all interested or excited because someone got a refrigerator, radio, television or indoor plumbing. We've progressed beyond that and it's become passe`.

If we stop feeding the monopolies that keep scarcity rampant, we'll learn that we can have abundant money just as easy. When that day arrives, the banks begin the death spiral of their existence. And those pushing NWO type control structures will have to learn to live under another master for a change.

I do think you have some valid points--

you are right, though; there are exceptions--

I suppose psychopaths are mentally ill, correct?

*wink*

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Hey, just look at who is currently being labeled mentally ill

Anything with PTSD, returning vet, constitutionalist, anti-big government, and so on and so on is now labeled with such a horrible term as to stop those people from enjoying their natural born rights.

So why wouldn't we allow a few 'mistakes' to take place? ;-)