The idea of real self-governance is intriguing, and let’s say the moon, stars and planets align creating the ability to build from scratch.
What about prisons? Privatizing prisons did not work well due to the usual human trait of greed, so while I totally get the idea that private free market works best (and I agree) there are things that could easily go south.
Suppose millions of immigrants flood into America illegally. (Yeah, right.) What if China, Iran and Russia unite and invade America? What about National Defense?
And, there’s the (uncomfortable) fact that America is a very big and diverse country, unlike the countries that always win the happiest country rankings that are the complete opposite: homogenous and small. Like-minded people with a common culture tend to get along better. America’s diverse bubbling lava is just waiting for the next spark to ignite into madness. How do we even get people to the table?
Good points. Mankind has not yet evolved to the point of seeing past greed and avarice. Not that a system based on capitalism couldn't freely exist, it just might if there was no government to interfere with it and rape its wealth.
I am delighted that you have begun asking these questions!
Prisons: Privatized prisons within the context of a government system is not in any way the same as what would arise in a condition of market anarchy. All of the incentives would be different. And it would all be part of a different way of doing justice. The system would be focused on restitution rather than retribution. Incapacitation would not be necessary in as many cases. The absence of victimless crimes would reduce the criminal population. The increase in people deploying personal self-defense and property defense (and the market incentives to do so) would serve the same purpose. This is a huge topic—how incarceration and criminal justice would work piggybacks on a larger discussion of how justice and security would work in a condition of market anarchy. But privatized prisons now is not in any way a benchmark of comparison. Those are just crony capitalist monstrosities with the worst of incentives.
Immigration: The immigration problem we have now exists BECAUSE we have a single government with a single border over which it exercises sole authority. If its policies say to let 'em in, and you will be prosecuted, Mr. Rancher, if you defend your ranch, then that's that. Now imagine the government is gone. What happens? Every ranch is sovereign territory. Every rancher defends his property. So does the ranch to the north, and the next one. Because now everything is private property. The roads are private, and you have to be a customer of the roads corporation to drive on the roads. Instead of one border, there are millions of borders.
Indeed, the whole notion of letting them "in" vanishes. There is no more "in." There is just property. And no one is just going to let people traipse across the property in order to get to the next piece, and the next piece, and so on.
Also, every region will be covered by multiple private protection and aggression-insurance agencies, who all have a fiduciary responsibility to their customers. Their jurisdictions are largely coterminous, which means there isn't just one government police force lamely policing one area—there are many different ones, all with a market incentive to keep their customers safe and happy. The area where you live didn't get more dangerous by getting rid of government; it got ten times safer.
Invasion/national defense: This is another topic that is extremely difficult to sum up quickly. A few aspects here: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/people-allowed-own-nuclear-weapons. Read Hoppe, Friedman, and the Tannehills. Note also Harry Browne's brilliant point: if there is a government, then all an invading power needs to do is defeat its military, and then it is in charge of the whole country. The invader simply uses the layered system of government divisions to transmit its authority to every state, county, and town. Now imagine an invader trying to gain control of a region in a condition of market anarchy. They are up against multiple agencies with a fiduciary responsibility to protect their customers. They are up against guns behind every blade of grass. From every farmhouse window. The farmer's daughter will lure their soldiers in by showing her ankles and then her brothers will gut every one of them as soon as they walk through the door. Or maybe she'll just shoot them herself. And invading power would have to pacify every square inch, and the resistance would never end because everyone has allodial title to their own property and has the responsibility of holding and defending it themselves. The Soviets couldn't beat the Afghanis and neither could we. We couldn't beat the Vietnamese and neither could the French. What hope would anyone have against 300 million people all shouting "WOLVERINES!"? An invader would have an EASIER time taking us down if we had a government.
Your last paragraph actually makes the anarchist point in several ways.
1. We are too big. It is immoral to impose a single system on a single people over such a large area. It would be more moral, and produce greater happiness, to allow people to decentralize and form smaller units…each one finding its own way, based "on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
2. We are ready to spark into madness. What better reason to let people choose?
3. The whole idea of getting a whole people to a single table is the wrong idea. That is the old way of thinking. The people currently sitting at that one table just need to let those who want to go…GO. No negotiation. No imposing anything on anyone else. Just go.
The entire notion that allegiance and authority must be geographically based, imposed, and encompass everyone is deprecated and unnecessary now. All the technology and philosophy exist in order to make market anarchism and panarchism work.
IDK. Emulating a tribalistic society like Afghanistan does not sound promising. What’s to prevent warlords from dominating a Darwinian world? I see Federalism prevailing in a somewhat civilized society, where some states would nullify unconstitutional laws and thus separate (like what’s happening at the border with Texas, et. al.) But that brings up other questions like, what about Social Security? Future generations who never had to contribute are ok, but how many of us can or would walk away from what we have at least contributed to all our lives (forced to contribute)? But, if there is a crazy market crash, that issue might go away. And, then it would be chaos.
And, there is the vision of what America was, or at least what basically worked post WWII until we created dependency on the government. But, dependency could be an argument for market anarchy since no one would be dependent on a government that doesn’t exist. Or, individual states could end dependency through federalism.
And what about the fact that Americans have collectively done some good things – like help Europe defeat Nazism in WWII.
But, assuming that the planets, moon and stars do not align, how does one begin the market anarchy society? Is it a concept that would begin when the heaps of ashes are before us?
"dependency could be an argument for market anarchy since no one would be dependent on a government that doesn’t exist."
—There are many good resources on what private charity was, and what it would be now in the absence of the government stealing 40% of private welath every year. (A few aspects are discussed in the second half of this: https://underthrow.substack.com/p/can-we-have-welfare-without-the-threat)
"Or, individual states could end dependency through federalism."
—But they won't, and deep-down, you know they won't. "Democracies" always trend towards half the people voting to take money from the other half, and then it becomes more than half, and more and more, who are voting to fleece an increasingly smaller working population. U.S. states are more diverse than the federal government, but on their own, if they continue to use a system of democratic voting, they will all be subject to the same pressures.
" But that brings up other questions like, what about Social Security?"
—The current Social Security is an unsustainable ponzi scheme and a ripoff. If you were to invest the same amount into indexed stock accounts earning 5% or better, everyone retires a millionaire. Waitresses and truck drivers. And there has been no 20 year period (let alone the 40+ working years for most people) where the stock market has not been a gainer. Indeed, 5% is a conservative estimate.
"But, if there is a crazy market crash, that issue might go away. And, then it would be chaos."
—Study Austrian economics. Governments are the cause of major crashes. Without governments, you have quick downturns and recoveries, not the big boom and bust caused by central banking.
"What’s to prevent warlords from dominating a Darwinian world?"
—Everyone makes this argument at first. I did.
Then they realize…
Warlords dominate the world NOW. And they are able to command infinite resources through taxation and money-printing, conscript millions of soldiers, and build would-destroying weapons. And they killed 400 million people in the 20th century alone. Warlords could never even come close to that. Governments are far worse and more dangerous—exponentially—than any private warlord could ever be.
"Emulating a tribalistic society like Afghanistan does not sound promising."
—Why do you see what I have described as emulating a tribal society? Large, well-capitalized agencies providing aggression insurance, security services, adjudication of disputes, etc., and other providing roads and infrastructure, all competing to attract customers hardly sounds like Afghanistan.
Is it the notion that people would be free to form small polities, and to choose to exercise their rights of consent and association? You yourself acknowledged that diversity is not helpful. One reason for that is because people did not choose it; it is being forced on them. As far as I can tell, you are stuck on the notion that the modern nation state is the only way we're allowed to do things, even though some part of you is quietly screaming that it doesn't work. Why must everything and everyone from Bangor to El Paso to Olympia all be forcibly crammed into one system? Why is that the only way to do things.
(The reason, by the way, that I mentioned Afghanistan is just the notion that asymmetric warfare works. Large empires cannot defeat guerillas. How on Earth would Russia or China defeat a country in which everyone were armed and they had to pacify every square inch and were subjected to constant war. If they could not defeat the VC or the Taliban that way, there is no way they defeat a technologically sophisticated "country" full of well-armed people who believe stridently in an allodial right to their property.
There is not even an incentive to try. I mean, why would they bother? Their populations will be declining soon, so they don't need more room. It's not worth the effort.)
"But, assuming that the planets, moon and stars do not align, how does one begin the market anarchy society? Is it a concept that would begin when the heaps of ashes are before us?"
—Collapse is one scenario.
Gradual change, people opting out, negotiation, etc. is another.
Progressive decentralization is another—states seceding, new states forming form existing states, national divorce—lather rinse repeat smaller and smaller.
Also, some of this is already underway worldwide. Ciudad Morazan and Prospera in Honduran, various special economic zones, and so-called "free cities" are early forays, and they are already forming. Cheran, Mexico has been quasi-anarchist (and very peaceful!) for quite a few years.
Stuff is underfoot—stuff you would never hear about until you start escaping from the modern-state paradigm and looking for it. Eventually everyone will hear of it, though, because it is the wave of the future.
How long will it take? Will you and I merely carry the torch, or will we live to see the bonfire? What will it look like, exactly? I don't know. This may be quick, or it may be a generational project. Either way, it is the moral thing to do.
"how many of us can or would walk away from what we have at least contributed to all our lives"
—That would mean that somehow, the U.S. government had agreed to dissolve itself tomorrow afternoon and allow market anarchism to replace it. That is not what any transition will look like.
But also—social security is going to collapse anyway. It's just a matter of when.
"I see Federalism prevailing in a somewhat civilized society, where some states would nullify unconstitutional laws and thus separate (like what’s happening at the border with Texas, et. al.)"
—That'd be a fine downpayment, sure. But it's only a downpayment.
One other thought: America and western civilization have become a spiritually vacuous society, ignoring the laws of the universe, and that reflects the types of people we elect to represent us and we the people ourselves. I don’t see getting rid of the government solving that problem.
People, on their own, are far more likely to observe the laws of the universe. Toddlers understand the laws of the universe. It's governments that distort everything.
Besides, governments amount to some people grifting off of others. It's a protection racket and an exsanguination machine. We can do better.
You have good arguments, no doubt about it. The underlying theme I see is that people are self-serving, and people make up the government, so of course government will end up being self-serving for the people creating it. And our reality is that our Constitutional Republic turned into corporatism, which is harming a lot of people.
Ironically enough, I was reading Emma Goldman when I was a teenager, but turned away from the idea of owning no property and Victor Frankl resonates with me too: the idea that freedom without responsibility is no freedom at all.
It’s all very interesting to contemplate, but, now it’s time to get back to the real job that pays the bills.
Yes. But it is worse than that—government attracts the worst people: control freaks, sociopaths, and psychopaths, and then gives them power over their fellow humans, and unlimited resources. If people are self-serving, government just makes the situation worse. At least the incentives are better in a market scenario.
You're on the road. Keep thinking and keep the questions coming!
Everything in this article is true. And yet, there is a third option between being ruled by the elite and anarchy. That is the people ruling themselves while retaining a government structure. Through innovative yet practical changes to two government processes, we could legally create a nonpartisan direct democracy called a Collaborative Democracy. It is based on collective intelligence and it protects the government from outside influences such as lobbyists, special interests, the WEF, political parties, and the ultra wealthy elite who control them and fund their candidates. https://endpoliticsnow.com/
The main parts of it have been used around the world with real success, demonstrating that it does work. It is not based on yes and no voting. It is a new process that guides citizens to create laws and policies through collaboration and consensus. It would allow the people to make decisions at a national level about laws and policies while naturally driving local decisions to local authority.
It could be implemented by electing those who promise to support it in a constitutional amendment through a grassroots movement. Maybe it's too early to ask in these articles on anarchy, but is there a way to implement anarchy aside from a revolution? If that happened, what would ensure that anarchy would remain rather than a military dictatorship?
the constitution is amendable. or as with the colonial legislatures, and the articles of confederation - as per the declaration of independence - is capable of being disposed/deposed. the question is, what could replace it?
i’ve read suggestions that the current fifty states (no longer repped by legislature-appointed senators) and the capped form of representation (435 reps total divided by pop among the states) is no longer manageable from a rep-to-constituent ratio. thats probably accurate.
the thing that i find amazing is how people buy in to media howling about “gridlock”. thats exactly how it is supposed to be, otherwise all that occurs is continual legislating by reps who are no longer afraid of living among and facing their constituents daily, up close and in person.
“government” has become too permanent, is “in session” too often, and “managed” by career bureaucrats.
astounds me that more people do not seem to realize that EVERY time government is in session, laws are being written that keep you from doing some things, or coercing you to do other things. none of that is possible without government confiscation…taxes. it ALL goes back to that. every. time.
keep stirring the pot. if its not stirred, something burns. thats what were smelling now.
All such governments as ours will always trend in this (bad) direction. They will always get larger. They will never get smaller. They will be in session more, not less. Improvements will be temporary and smaller than the overall trend.
Heck, we almost had a balanced budget amendment at one point. Who killed it? Shlafly and the Eagle Forum. Conservatives.
The toothpaste is NEVER getting put back in the tube. Time to think about entirely new options.
Yep. So do legislatures and presidencies and monarchies. We want to think of it as some sort of collective decision we made, but it's not. It's just a system by which some benefit at others' expense…by which some are made masters and others are made slaves.
Government cannot exist if the citizen has rights. It has to be one or the other...government as master and citizen as slave. If we are the masters, government would refuse to be a slave to us. No control freaks and psychos would work in a government that didn't have the power to control and destroy the citizens.
I am still searching for reasons that government should exist if we can provide everything we need for ourselves.
I agree with your premise that governments are the greatest violators of freedom, but I can see no mechanism to replace it short of a biblical one. Does not government stand in defense of system that is slightly better than godlessness? My guess is, that is what our founders concluded.
That is, in essence, what the Founders concluded. They were following on from assumptions made during the Enlightenment, by Locke and the other natural lawyers.
The Founders, and the natural lawyers who preceded them, were brilliant men. They had the right core ideas, and they were correct about most things. But they were
a) not infallible, and
b) products of their time.
For example, they made statements about the reasons why people form governments, to wit—exchanging a small amount of freedom and property in exchange for protection of the rest. But that is not necessarily the way many governments did form throughout history. They were positing one possible way—the way they were trying, which was a significant improvement on other ways.
Also, the state-of-nature argument—that the absence of government is definitely worse than the presence of a limited government—was very much colored by their moment in time. They were brilliant, but their ideas were not the end of the line for classical-liberal thought. Since that time, brilliant people have picked up the ball and moved it further down field. Herbert, Spencer, and Spooner. Rothbard, Nozick, Hoppe, and D. Friedman. There are new ideas, which have been percolating and developing for almost 200 years, that put the lie to the notion that our choice is binary: government or chaos. Understanding these ideas requires a bit of reading, with an open mind at first, but once you see it—really see it—you're never the same again.
Also, the Founders knew they were trying an experiment, and the results are in: limited government does not stay limited. It cannot. And there is no THE Founders. They were all different people. Hamilton would look at what we have now and say, "Yeah, this is great!" Jefferson would be saying, "What they heck are you people waiting for? This situation is FUBAR!" So would Henry and the rest of the Antifederalists. They knew the score.
I believe we'd be in a less oppressive state IF our courts did their jobs or maybe that's our representatives jobs. We're left with an unelected, fraudulent so-called leader who's the most criminal-laden idiot ever - a puppet with obama's hand up his arse and soros financially covering any and all opposition. What do we do with that when silence permeates intelligence? All the so-called Republicans, held in a close huddle, shuddered while looking the other way (unless of course, there was something in it for them) while the CDP (Communist Democratic Party) swallowed up any lingering opposition and at the same time spread their control, censorship, opened the southern border allowing millions of who-knows-what into this country, defunded police which helped destroy all our large and prosperous cities, supported trannies, removed control from parents, bought the DOJ, and spent our money - not with our approval or knowledge, but sponsoring more wars - FOR America's enemies. Schools teach shyt now, kids are lazy good-for-nothings but protests encouraged and probably initiated by their instructors, meanwhile we lose our privacy and data to support their total control which will include eliminating cash. So, what's to like about the government?
Yep. Nothing is to like about the government. Nothing.
But this is also nothing new!
Wilson turned America into a proto-fascist nation—imprisoning hundreds of thousands of people for opposing the war, closing down media sites, and whipping up anti-German hysteria.
FDR turned our economy into a fascist-corporatist system, and it remains so to this day.
Read Spooner's description of why the wart really started in 1861. Read Mencken's description of the corruption of the DOJ…in 1926!
And don't even get me started with Adams trying to pull that Sedition Act garbage on us. Or the shady ways in which the Constitution was rammed through, destroying the Articles of Confederation.
This is not some situation that cropped up recently, because of some sudden upsurge in corruption and leftism. It goes back to the beginning. And it exists with every involuntary government. We were a little better for a while, but we were never an exception.
Of course government is the greatest rights violator.
1) According to the constitution, only the congress can pass a bill, which the president signs into law. However, the ATF,FDA, EPA, FDA, and other three letter agencies create rules that people are put in prison for running afoul of.
2) These rules, which are not laws, carry the weight of law and you can't fight them, as the congress didn't go through the billing process.
The government agencies can put you in prison even though you didn't commit a crime. They can prevent you from flying, driving, or owning a weapon. They can even kill you and get away with it.
After all, who's going to arrest the government or sue them?
Once again proving that libertarianism is the delusional preference for unelected private tyranny over unelected government tyranny...as if there was any difference worth preferring.
You will find libertarians who are pro anarchy, but that does not mean they are pro private tyranny. Best to think of anarchy as a direction not an end-state. Overarching the direction of anarchy is anti-tyranny.
Of course, generations have dreamed of and have even established other ways of maintaining order. Consider native American history for a start. The suggestion that no social/political organization is necessary is naive. (Maybe you didn't intend to give that impression?)
I am still learning about you. After the discussion surrounding absolute NAP, I'm still unsure where your line is drawn. Trying to learn, so that I can ask questions that are relevant.
Rights aren’t as important as responsibilities; and every right can be transmitted into a responsibility beholden to the individual with a back-end understanding of “we all must do this,” and “we are all accountable.” Which fundamentally means Dostoyevsky was correct.
A lot of people's definition of "rights" is just plain incorrect.
FDR, for example, proposed a "right" to housing, work, etc., including the notion that if the person did not acquire those things for himself, he has a "right" to have it provided at another's expense. Those are not rights.
A right, properly understood, is rooted in one simple, morally provable fact: that each person is a sovereign being whose consent must not be violated and who must not be subjected to the initiation of coercive force.
Responsibilities exist. Responsibilities are important. And there are better and worse ways that one can exercise one's freedom and rights. But respect for the individual human person—which means, not violating his consent or initiating coercive force upon him—must be the universal moral baseline.
If you try to build upon anything else—even if erecting a strong structure of proper responsibilities—it will collapse for want of the correct foundation.
We all have a responsibility to uphold free speech.
We all have a responsibility to keep federal, state, and local government separate.
We all have a responsibility to help each other in the best manner possible with the presupposition of reducing suffering and chaos to a manageable degree.
We all have a responsibility to love each other, converse properly, and hold the highest ideal in anything we do.
Yes, the the right not to have one's consent violated or to be subjected to coercive force implies the responsibility of others not to do those things.
That is an ENFORCEABLE responsibility. If you initiate force against me, that is a violation that is actionable. But several of the others are not enforceable.
For example, failure to live up to one's responsibility to love others in not actionable.
The aspirational morality is good stuff. But my primary focus is on the baseline actionable stuff. I cannot say exactly how much you should love others or give to charity, but I can say that you may not initiate force against me, or subject me to transactions to which I did not consent.
We all have a responsibility to seek out voluntary agreements and strive to become better negotiators; it is up to us, the more understanding individuals, not to fall prey to bitter objectivity or resentful subjectivity but to unite all of us. I said nothing of charity or giving to others; you know full well that your presence in the world, plus your behavior and attitude paint the picture of the world in some people's minds. Therefore, if you were to be bitter and resentful, those of who rely on you as a constituent part of reality will start to fall down the same path of bitterness and resentment... usually those closest to you first.
We are told that government creates freedom, rights, jobs, prosperity... The only thing that government really creates is more government.
Well and rightly said!
The idea of real self-governance is intriguing, and let’s say the moon, stars and planets align creating the ability to build from scratch.
What about prisons? Privatizing prisons did not work well due to the usual human trait of greed, so while I totally get the idea that private free market works best (and I agree) there are things that could easily go south.
Suppose millions of immigrants flood into America illegally. (Yeah, right.) What if China, Iran and Russia unite and invade America? What about National Defense?
And, there’s the (uncomfortable) fact that America is a very big and diverse country, unlike the countries that always win the happiest country rankings that are the complete opposite: homogenous and small. Like-minded people with a common culture tend to get along better. America’s diverse bubbling lava is just waiting for the next spark to ignite into madness. How do we even get people to the table?
Good points. Mankind has not yet evolved to the point of seeing past greed and avarice. Not that a system based on capitalism couldn't freely exist, it just might if there was no government to interfere with it and rape its wealth.
I am delighted that you have begun asking these questions!
Prisons: Privatized prisons within the context of a government system is not in any way the same as what would arise in a condition of market anarchy. All of the incentives would be different. And it would all be part of a different way of doing justice. The system would be focused on restitution rather than retribution. Incapacitation would not be necessary in as many cases. The absence of victimless crimes would reduce the criminal population. The increase in people deploying personal self-defense and property defense (and the market incentives to do so) would serve the same purpose. This is a huge topic—how incarceration and criminal justice would work piggybacks on a larger discussion of how justice and security would work in a condition of market anarchy. But privatized prisons now is not in any way a benchmark of comparison. Those are just crony capitalist monstrosities with the worst of incentives.
Immigration: The immigration problem we have now exists BECAUSE we have a single government with a single border over which it exercises sole authority. If its policies say to let 'em in, and you will be prosecuted, Mr. Rancher, if you defend your ranch, then that's that. Now imagine the government is gone. What happens? Every ranch is sovereign territory. Every rancher defends his property. So does the ranch to the north, and the next one. Because now everything is private property. The roads are private, and you have to be a customer of the roads corporation to drive on the roads. Instead of one border, there are millions of borders.
Indeed, the whole notion of letting them "in" vanishes. There is no more "in." There is just property. And no one is just going to let people traipse across the property in order to get to the next piece, and the next piece, and so on.
Also, every region will be covered by multiple private protection and aggression-insurance agencies, who all have a fiduciary responsibility to their customers. Their jurisdictions are largely coterminous, which means there isn't just one government police force lamely policing one area—there are many different ones, all with a market incentive to keep their customers safe and happy. The area where you live didn't get more dangerous by getting rid of government; it got ten times safer.
Invasion/national defense: This is another topic that is extremely difficult to sum up quickly. A few aspects here: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/people-allowed-own-nuclear-weapons. Read Hoppe, Friedman, and the Tannehills. Note also Harry Browne's brilliant point: if there is a government, then all an invading power needs to do is defeat its military, and then it is in charge of the whole country. The invader simply uses the layered system of government divisions to transmit its authority to every state, county, and town. Now imagine an invader trying to gain control of a region in a condition of market anarchy. They are up against multiple agencies with a fiduciary responsibility to protect their customers. They are up against guns behind every blade of grass. From every farmhouse window. The farmer's daughter will lure their soldiers in by showing her ankles and then her brothers will gut every one of them as soon as they walk through the door. Or maybe she'll just shoot them herself. And invading power would have to pacify every square inch, and the resistance would never end because everyone has allodial title to their own property and has the responsibility of holding and defending it themselves. The Soviets couldn't beat the Afghanis and neither could we. We couldn't beat the Vietnamese and neither could the French. What hope would anyone have against 300 million people all shouting "WOLVERINES!"? An invader would have an EASIER time taking us down if we had a government.
Your last paragraph actually makes the anarchist point in several ways.
1. We are too big. It is immoral to impose a single system on a single people over such a large area. It would be more moral, and produce greater happiness, to allow people to decentralize and form smaller units…each one finding its own way, based "on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
2. We are ready to spark into madness. What better reason to let people choose?
3. The whole idea of getting a whole people to a single table is the wrong idea. That is the old way of thinking. The people currently sitting at that one table just need to let those who want to go…GO. No negotiation. No imposing anything on anyone else. Just go.
The entire notion that allegiance and authority must be geographically based, imposed, and encompass everyone is deprecated and unnecessary now. All the technology and philosophy exist in order to make market anarchism and panarchism work.
You ready to take the next step?
IDK. Emulating a tribalistic society like Afghanistan does not sound promising. What’s to prevent warlords from dominating a Darwinian world? I see Federalism prevailing in a somewhat civilized society, where some states would nullify unconstitutional laws and thus separate (like what’s happening at the border with Texas, et. al.) But that brings up other questions like, what about Social Security? Future generations who never had to contribute are ok, but how many of us can or would walk away from what we have at least contributed to all our lives (forced to contribute)? But, if there is a crazy market crash, that issue might go away. And, then it would be chaos.
And, there is the vision of what America was, or at least what basically worked post WWII until we created dependency on the government. But, dependency could be an argument for market anarchy since no one would be dependent on a government that doesn’t exist. Or, individual states could end dependency through federalism.
And what about the fact that Americans have collectively done some good things – like help Europe defeat Nazism in WWII.
But, assuming that the planets, moon and stars do not align, how does one begin the market anarchy society? Is it a concept that would begin when the heaps of ashes are before us?
"dependency could be an argument for market anarchy since no one would be dependent on a government that doesn’t exist."
—There are many good resources on what private charity was, and what it would be now in the absence of the government stealing 40% of private welath every year. (A few aspects are discussed in the second half of this: https://underthrow.substack.com/p/can-we-have-welfare-without-the-threat)
"Or, individual states could end dependency through federalism."
—But they won't, and deep-down, you know they won't. "Democracies" always trend towards half the people voting to take money from the other half, and then it becomes more than half, and more and more, who are voting to fleece an increasingly smaller working population. U.S. states are more diverse than the federal government, but on their own, if they continue to use a system of democratic voting, they will all be subject to the same pressures.
" But that brings up other questions like, what about Social Security?"
—The current Social Security is an unsustainable ponzi scheme and a ripoff. If you were to invest the same amount into indexed stock accounts earning 5% or better, everyone retires a millionaire. Waitresses and truck drivers. And there has been no 20 year period (let alone the 40+ working years for most people) where the stock market has not been a gainer. Indeed, 5% is a conservative estimate.
"But, if there is a crazy market crash, that issue might go away. And, then it would be chaos."
—Study Austrian economics. Governments are the cause of major crashes. Without governments, you have quick downturns and recoveries, not the big boom and bust caused by central banking.
"What’s to prevent warlords from dominating a Darwinian world?"
—Everyone makes this argument at first. I did.
Then they realize…
Warlords dominate the world NOW. And they are able to command infinite resources through taxation and money-printing, conscript millions of soldiers, and build would-destroying weapons. And they killed 400 million people in the 20th century alone. Warlords could never even come close to that. Governments are far worse and more dangerous—exponentially—than any private warlord could ever be.
Are you starting to see it?
Thanks for continuing to think about this!
"Emulating a tribalistic society like Afghanistan does not sound promising."
—Why do you see what I have described as emulating a tribal society? Large, well-capitalized agencies providing aggression insurance, security services, adjudication of disputes, etc., and other providing roads and infrastructure, all competing to attract customers hardly sounds like Afghanistan.
Is it the notion that people would be free to form small polities, and to choose to exercise their rights of consent and association? You yourself acknowledged that diversity is not helpful. One reason for that is because people did not choose it; it is being forced on them. As far as I can tell, you are stuck on the notion that the modern nation state is the only way we're allowed to do things, even though some part of you is quietly screaming that it doesn't work. Why must everything and everyone from Bangor to El Paso to Olympia all be forcibly crammed into one system? Why is that the only way to do things.
(The reason, by the way, that I mentioned Afghanistan is just the notion that asymmetric warfare works. Large empires cannot defeat guerillas. How on Earth would Russia or China defeat a country in which everyone were armed and they had to pacify every square inch and were subjected to constant war. If they could not defeat the VC or the Taliban that way, there is no way they defeat a technologically sophisticated "country" full of well-armed people who believe stridently in an allodial right to their property.
There is not even an incentive to try. I mean, why would they bother? Their populations will be declining soon, so they don't need more room. It's not worth the effort.)
"But, assuming that the planets, moon and stars do not align, how does one begin the market anarchy society? Is it a concept that would begin when the heaps of ashes are before us?"
—Collapse is one scenario.
Gradual change, people opting out, negotiation, etc. is another.
Progressive decentralization is another—states seceding, new states forming form existing states, national divorce—lather rinse repeat smaller and smaller.
Also, some of this is already underway worldwide. Ciudad Morazan and Prospera in Honduran, various special economic zones, and so-called "free cities" are early forays, and they are already forming. Cheran, Mexico has been quasi-anarchist (and very peaceful!) for quite a few years.
Stuff is underfoot—stuff you would never hear about until you start escaping from the modern-state paradigm and looking for it. Eventually everyone will hear of it, though, because it is the wave of the future.
How long will it take? Will you and I merely carry the torch, or will we live to see the bonfire? What will it look like, exactly? I don't know. This may be quick, or it may be a generational project. Either way, it is the moral thing to do.
"And what about the fact that Americans have collectively done some good things – like help Europe defeat Nazism in WWII."
—Complex topic, but at worst, we can say that even a broken clock is right once in a while.
"how many of us can or would walk away from what we have at least contributed to all our lives"
—That would mean that somehow, the U.S. government had agreed to dissolve itself tomorrow afternoon and allow market anarchism to replace it. That is not what any transition will look like.
But also—social security is going to collapse anyway. It's just a matter of when.
"I see Federalism prevailing in a somewhat civilized society, where some states would nullify unconstitutional laws and thus separate (like what’s happening at the border with Texas, et. al.)"
—That'd be a fine downpayment, sure. But it's only a downpayment.
One other thought: America and western civilization have become a spiritually vacuous society, ignoring the laws of the universe, and that reflects the types of people we elect to represent us and we the people ourselves. I don’t see getting rid of the government solving that problem.
People, on their own, are far more likely to observe the laws of the universe. Toddlers understand the laws of the universe. It's governments that distort everything.
Besides, governments amount to some people grifting off of others. It's a protection racket and an exsanguination machine. We can do better.
You have good arguments, no doubt about it. The underlying theme I see is that people are self-serving, and people make up the government, so of course government will end up being self-serving for the people creating it. And our reality is that our Constitutional Republic turned into corporatism, which is harming a lot of people.
Ironically enough, I was reading Emma Goldman when I was a teenager, but turned away from the idea of owning no property and Victor Frankl resonates with me too: the idea that freedom without responsibility is no freedom at all.
It’s all very interesting to contemplate, but, now it’s time to get back to the real job that pays the bills.
Yes. But it is worse than that—government attracts the worst people: control freaks, sociopaths, and psychopaths, and then gives them power over their fellow humans, and unlimited resources. If people are self-serving, government just makes the situation worse. At least the incentives are better in a market scenario.
You're on the road. Keep thinking and keep the questions coming!
Everything in this article is true. And yet, there is a third option between being ruled by the elite and anarchy. That is the people ruling themselves while retaining a government structure. Through innovative yet practical changes to two government processes, we could legally create a nonpartisan direct democracy called a Collaborative Democracy. It is based on collective intelligence and it protects the government from outside influences such as lobbyists, special interests, the WEF, political parties, and the ultra wealthy elite who control them and fund their candidates. https://endpoliticsnow.com/
The main parts of it have been used around the world with real success, demonstrating that it does work. It is not based on yes and no voting. It is a new process that guides citizens to create laws and policies through collaboration and consensus. It would allow the people to make decisions at a national level about laws and policies while naturally driving local decisions to local authority.
It could be implemented by electing those who promise to support it in a constitutional amendment through a grassroots movement. Maybe it's too early to ask in these articles on anarchy, but is there a way to implement anarchy aside from a revolution? If that happened, what would ensure that anarchy would remain rather than a military dictatorship?
the constitution is amendable. or as with the colonial legislatures, and the articles of confederation - as per the declaration of independence - is capable of being disposed/deposed. the question is, what could replace it?
i’ve read suggestions that the current fifty states (no longer repped by legislature-appointed senators) and the capped form of representation (435 reps total divided by pop among the states) is no longer manageable from a rep-to-constituent ratio. thats probably accurate.
the thing that i find amazing is how people buy in to media howling about “gridlock”. thats exactly how it is supposed to be, otherwise all that occurs is continual legislating by reps who are no longer afraid of living among and facing their constituents daily, up close and in person.
“government” has become too permanent, is “in session” too often, and “managed” by career bureaucrats.
astounds me that more people do not seem to realize that EVERY time government is in session, laws are being written that keep you from doing some things, or coercing you to do other things. none of that is possible without government confiscation…taxes. it ALL goes back to that. every. time.
keep stirring the pot. if its not stirred, something burns. thats what were smelling now.
All such governments as ours will always trend in this (bad) direction. They will always get larger. They will never get smaller. They will be in session more, not less. Improvements will be temporary and smaller than the overall trend.
Heck, we almost had a balanced budget amendment at one point. Who killed it? Shlafly and the Eagle Forum. Conservatives.
The toothpaste is NEVER getting put back in the tube. Time to think about entirely new options.
yep. human nature does not change. bureaucracies exist to sustain themselves.
and the human heart cannot be legislated.
Yep. So do legislatures and presidencies and monarchies. We want to think of it as some sort of collective decision we made, but it's not. It's just a system by which some benefit at others' expense…by which some are made masters and others are made slaves.
Legislation is the problem... none of the reps are empowered to create laws. The country could function on the constitution.
Abso- phuquing-lutely
Government cannot exist if the citizen has rights. It has to be one or the other...government as master and citizen as slave. If we are the masters, government would refuse to be a slave to us. No control freaks and psychos would work in a government that didn't have the power to control and destroy the citizens.
I am still searching for reasons that government should exist if we can provide everything we need for ourselves.
sharing!
I agree with your premise that governments are the greatest violators of freedom, but I can see no mechanism to replace it short of a biblical one. Does not government stand in defense of system that is slightly better than godlessness? My guess is, that is what our founders concluded.
That is, in essence, what the Founders concluded. They were following on from assumptions made during the Enlightenment, by Locke and the other natural lawyers.
The Founders, and the natural lawyers who preceded them, were brilliant men. They had the right core ideas, and they were correct about most things. But they were
a) not infallible, and
b) products of their time.
For example, they made statements about the reasons why people form governments, to wit—exchanging a small amount of freedom and property in exchange for protection of the rest. But that is not necessarily the way many governments did form throughout history. They were positing one possible way—the way they were trying, which was a significant improvement on other ways.
Also, the state-of-nature argument—that the absence of government is definitely worse than the presence of a limited government—was very much colored by their moment in time. They were brilliant, but their ideas were not the end of the line for classical-liberal thought. Since that time, brilliant people have picked up the ball and moved it further down field. Herbert, Spencer, and Spooner. Rothbard, Nozick, Hoppe, and D. Friedman. There are new ideas, which have been percolating and developing for almost 200 years, that put the lie to the notion that our choice is binary: government or chaos. Understanding these ideas requires a bit of reading, with an open mind at first, but once you see it—really see it—you're never the same again.
Also, the Founders knew they were trying an experiment, and the results are in: limited government does not stay limited. It cannot. And there is no THE Founders. They were all different people. Hamilton would look at what we have now and say, "Yeah, this is great!" Jefferson would be saying, "What they heck are you people waiting for? This situation is FUBAR!" So would Henry and the rest of the Antifederalists. They knew the score.
We are Herd (heard) animals rushing towards any barriers or cliffs we can find!
THEY are herd animals. WE are eagles.
This post made me curious enough to subscribe!
I am glad to have you here. As you will perceive upon examination of my work, I answer most comments and questions. So feel free to ask!
I believe we'd be in a less oppressive state IF our courts did their jobs or maybe that's our representatives jobs. We're left with an unelected, fraudulent so-called leader who's the most criminal-laden idiot ever - a puppet with obama's hand up his arse and soros financially covering any and all opposition. What do we do with that when silence permeates intelligence? All the so-called Republicans, held in a close huddle, shuddered while looking the other way (unless of course, there was something in it for them) while the CDP (Communist Democratic Party) swallowed up any lingering opposition and at the same time spread their control, censorship, opened the southern border allowing millions of who-knows-what into this country, defunded police which helped destroy all our large and prosperous cities, supported trannies, removed control from parents, bought the DOJ, and spent our money - not with our approval or knowledge, but sponsoring more wars - FOR America's enemies. Schools teach shyt now, kids are lazy good-for-nothings but protests encouraged and probably initiated by their instructors, meanwhile we lose our privacy and data to support their total control which will include eliminating cash. So, what's to like about the government?
Yep. Nothing is to like about the government. Nothing.
But this is also nothing new!
Wilson turned America into a proto-fascist nation—imprisoning hundreds of thousands of people for opposing the war, closing down media sites, and whipping up anti-German hysteria.
FDR turned our economy into a fascist-corporatist system, and it remains so to this day.
Read Spooner's description of why the wart really started in 1861. Read Mencken's description of the corruption of the DOJ…in 1926!
And don't even get me started with Adams trying to pull that Sedition Act garbage on us. Or the shady ways in which the Constitution was rammed through, destroying the Articles of Confederation.
This is not some situation that cropped up recently, because of some sudden upsurge in corruption and leftism. It goes back to the beginning. And it exists with every involuntary government. We were a little better for a while, but we were never an exception.
Will do!!
Of course government is the greatest rights violator.
1) According to the constitution, only the congress can pass a bill, which the president signs into law. However, the ATF,FDA, EPA, FDA, and other three letter agencies create rules that people are put in prison for running afoul of.
2) These rules, which are not laws, carry the weight of law and you can't fight them, as the congress didn't go through the billing process.
The government agencies can put you in prison even though you didn't commit a crime. They can prevent you from flying, driving, or owning a weapon. They can even kill you and get away with it.
After all, who's going to arrest the government or sue them?
"Hello government, I am calling to report a problem with government."
"This is government speaking—what seems to be the problem?"
"Government is oppressing me."
"Oh, I see, I am very sorry to hear that. Here, let me transfer you over to government for further assistance."
Since it's the government, the wait time is longer than any DMV.
Yeah, and you're gonna be waiting for a long time indeed if you expect government to do anything about government oppression.
"Hello foxes? Tell your fellow foxes not to eat anymore chickens"
"Yeah, we'll get right on that."
“…if we just vote heard enough”.
sorry. i tried not to. but here i am. sorry.
Oops, sorry for the typo, and thank you for catching it.
o7
Once again proving that libertarianism is the delusional preference for unelected private tyranny over unelected government tyranny...as if there was any difference worth preferring.
You will find libertarians who are pro anarchy, but that does not mean they are pro private tyranny. Best to think of anarchy as a direction not an end-state. Overarching the direction of anarchy is anti-tyranny.
At least the private tyranny isn’t masquerading as a moral good.
You ever heard of 'Woke'?
Of course, generations have dreamed of and have even established other ways of maintaining order. Consider native American history for a start. The suggestion that no social/political organization is necessary is naive. (Maybe you didn't intend to give that impression?)
Anyone familiar with my writing knows that I do not contend, nor have I ever contended, that no sort of organization is necessary.
I am still learning about you. After the discussion surrounding absolute NAP, I'm still unsure where your line is drawn. Trying to learn, so that I can ask questions that are relevant.
If you read backwards through my archives, you cannot easily mistake my stance on things. I make it quite plain.
Rights aren’t as important as responsibilities; and every right can be transmitted into a responsibility beholden to the individual with a back-end understanding of “we all must do this,” and “we are all accountable.” Which fundamentally means Dostoyevsky was correct.
How do you define rights in the context in which you are using the word?
However you define rights. My definition within this context is open for interpretation because my statement is obviously universal.
A lot of people's definition of "rights" is just plain incorrect.
FDR, for example, proposed a "right" to housing, work, etc., including the notion that if the person did not acquire those things for himself, he has a "right" to have it provided at another's expense. Those are not rights.
A right, properly understood, is rooted in one simple, morally provable fact: that each person is a sovereign being whose consent must not be violated and who must not be subjected to the initiation of coercive force.
Responsibilities exist. Responsibilities are important. And there are better and worse ways that one can exercise one's freedom and rights. But respect for the individual human person—which means, not violating his consent or initiating coercive force upon him—must be the universal moral baseline.
If you try to build upon anything else—even if erecting a strong structure of proper responsibilities—it will collapse for want of the correct foundation.
Look at it this way Mr. Cook.
We all have a responsibility to uphold free speech.
We all have a responsibility to keep federal, state, and local government separate.
We all have a responsibility to help each other in the best manner possible with the presupposition of reducing suffering and chaos to a manageable degree.
We all have a responsibility to love each other, converse properly, and hold the highest ideal in anything we do.
All you did was layout a format of responsibility of the citizen.
Yes, the the right not to have one's consent violated or to be subjected to coercive force implies the responsibility of others not to do those things.
That is an ENFORCEABLE responsibility. If you initiate force against me, that is a violation that is actionable. But several of the others are not enforceable.
For example, failure to live up to one's responsibility to love others in not actionable.
The aspirational morality is good stuff. But my primary focus is on the baseline actionable stuff. I cannot say exactly how much you should love others or give to charity, but I can say that you may not initiate force against me, or subject me to transactions to which I did not consent.
We all have a responsibility to seek out voluntary agreements and strive to become better negotiators; it is up to us, the more understanding individuals, not to fall prey to bitter objectivity or resentful subjectivity but to unite all of us. I said nothing of charity or giving to others; you know full well that your presence in the world, plus your behavior and attitude paint the picture of the world in some people's minds. Therefore, if you were to be bitter and resentful, those of who rely on you as a constituent part of reality will start to fall down the same path of bitterness and resentment... usually those closest to you first.