Christopher I so much appreciate how succinctly and accurately you write and get big "complex" ideas across very simply! That is an amazing talent. I fully agree with your points in this article.
Though the Founders way got us on a much better road then Tyrannical Monarchy it had plenty of flaws. I know you know well, but most people do not know, how Jefferson with Franklin's support had the abolishment of slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence but would not be approved by the southern slaveholders and northern slave transporters so Jefferson had to dumb it down to get it approved. The Constitution actually made slavery in stone until 1809 and much of the Constitution is about government control of the people. Jefferson pushed Madison to add the Bill of Rights - the Amendments which are what is unique and preserved some semblance of Liberty until now.
Yes, so true - we appreciate Christopher's beautifully crafted prose trying to help us understand this complex subject. Still, I am haunted by Viktor Frankl's wisdom about needing responsiblity with freedom - and how many people in the 21st century refuse to have responsibility for their actions?
But, that said, most people do not realize that Alexander Hamilton did not believe that the Bill of Rights was necessary and even thought it could be dangerous! See Federalist #84.
Liz from your article on Jefferson and Hamilton from September 2024 which clearly exposes Hamilton's focus of protecting rulers and tyrants - Thank you:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.
I approve this message. Both parts. We must remember to not allow the perfect to disparage the good in what has come before. We are all works in progress individually but also as a people, and I am so appreciative of those who had a glimpse of something better, and although they were not perfect they left something better than what had come before. It's up to us to take the next important steps toward that golden perfection.
I share your frustrations Christopher. When outlining possible stateless solutions in conversation I generally find otherwise dynamic and intelligent thinkers become extremely closed minded, predisposed, and strangely incapable of envisioning anything beyond one step changes to current society. For those interested I have tried to bridge the gap for people in a number of articles:
The free townships that you mentioned in one of your urls made me think of Christopher's distributed nation. Although I don't yet know how that can be brought about in this world where coercive force and intimidation is so institutionalized and prevalent. I am afraid things may have to become even more chaotic before people able to do anything without being crushed by these monopolists and statists. I don't think that means that we must not continue to strive for it. I see this growing number of people who are awakening to the evils of this system and looking for something better.
Yes, the path to freedom is not an easy one and the strategy on how to get there is hard to arrive at today. Most likely it will be through a series of small incremental steps, probably enabled by technology, rather than a single big revolutionary event. But either way, if we can convince enough people that stateless societies are at least possible, then we will have a better chance of bringing about the changes we so desire.
I absolutely love Chaos Theory, and I based a setting for a young adult fantasy novel of mine (won't be released 'til September 2026) around Murphy's work. Looking for creative ways to spread the message of Anarchism to hopefully reach mainstream audiences. Especially in the literary world, where I've felt many are inclined to the Left. Just my own observation.
It is. And I CANNOT WAIT until September 2026 rolls around. So far, Book I's been about a year in the making, but I'll be hitting hard on finishing the developmental edits and adding background info to my blog - may transfer a post or two over to SS in the meantime - once I wrap up a couple more projects.
Not yet. I'm building a backlist of articles on my blog about my books, their inspirations, themes, etc., then I'll transfer some of them over onto Substack.
Of the manuscript? You can beta read it if you'd like! Here's the section I have on the work from my blog. Starting at the 12-month to go mark, I'll be ramping up the content here on characters, inspiration, everything!
Well... You know My issues with ANY market economy. First, it presumes We need to account for Our energy added into a system. Second, it presumes We need everyOne working to afford to live. Third, there is no way to stop the psychopaths from garnering the most and then having the power to buy the things and the People They need to forward agendas.
And fifth, We have tech that obsoletes the practice of accounting for the energy We add into a system.
Thus I work to get those technologies out in the open and free Humanity from having to work to survive. Free Us to do what We love to do, free Us to fulfill Our potential. We only need about 20% doing needed work - 80% of Us just move money around and overall upwards to the psychopaths in control by virtue of money - and as work no One WANTS to do is automated, We will see that drop to 10%, or maybe even less.
I aim for a world where We can fulfill Our potential, not having to add Our energy somewhere to get tokens that account for it so We can worry about food/clothing/shelter for the moneyed psychopath masters.
With the Betterment Ethic - looking for ways to make things better for Those around Us to around the globe - in place of the industrial revolution's slave's creed, the work "ethic."
You seem to assume away scarcity. That is the reason why people need to work, contribute energy, however you want to put it. Also, I am not sure why you assume psychopaths will garnering the most. In a free market, those who add the most value for others are the ones who garner the most, so to speak. Does not seem problematic. Add the state into the mix, and all the problems you outline come to the fore.
If You took everything sitting in stores and warehouses, and gave it all to Us, We each would be buried in stuff. Hardly "assum[ing] away scarcity." We have the tech to transmute elements, and free energy tech to power that.
And... You do grasp that presently 80+% of Us do no work needed for society to function beyond that moneyed mess, pushing money around?
That You are a multimillionaire and so am I and so is every One born here on Our planet? But They declared Humanity "incompetent" and put Our share of Our planet's wealth into "trusts...?"
Though I suspect You did not read My articles, I will provide another two. I will humbly hope You choose to read them before commenting further.
I really enjoy your essays, but in practical terms, I'm still of the opinion an anarchist society (and government), just as a libertarian society, is an impossibility in today's world.
What these theories and their ideas can do is inform "the people" to alternatives, helping to create solutions to problems arising in the practical application of governance.
I think it's worth noting that ideas on anarchism and libertarianism were more suitable to a world without the current technologies, especially military related. Within a preexisting state or empire, it's possible to think about alternatives and improvements, drawing inspiration from genuinely good ideas. But the key element is the state must preexist, and there shouldn't be the possibility of a big bad wolf outside the gates coming around for a clean sweep (or pillaging).
We humans are currently stuck in a simulated existence of daily living whereby we're unable to switch to alternative versions of life. It's sad, but it is what it is. If anything, personally I'm optimistic that all the current conflicts are indicative of the inevitability of a coming reset, as has occurred at regular irregular intervals in the past (without getting into the weeds, but the combined unsustainability of the infinite growth models of capitalism and Fiat money credit/debt financialization, have run their course, and right now are in pure simulacra fantasyland (bullshit jobs are a good indicator)).
But my main point is libertarian and anarchist ideas emerged in an age pre-nuclear world, pre-computer information age, pre-robots. They survive as a sort of luxury belief we can indulge in the West because the West has run the world since the 17th century (and we can draw a line back to the Greeks with everything in-between). I think they're great inspiration for suggesting changes to the (unnecessarily) complex systems we have today, but the powers that be running the show behind the political sphere, they're not going to abdicate their power (or "wealth") voluntarily. Which is kind of why, ironically, a multipolar world will help correct the extremes of the grand plans to reduce Western democratic societies to an aggregated whole technocratic feudal ai-cbdc-social credit authoritarian shit show (because outside the gates there's some bad wolves tired of getting shafted by a West not practicing what it preaches).
You're right about a golden age never existing, but the world back then was different, and we can literally see glimpses of this difference when we physically step outside the West and visit countries whose cultures are still intact and haven't given into the whole capitalist hyper technological novelty paradigm feeding off American culture. In the west we kinda get glimpses if we move to the countryside where life has a different rhythm, but we're still stuck within the modern simulation of life.
I am glad to hear that you do not think that the situation is hopeless.
I think that we can do more than wait for collapse and reset, though. And even if those were our only hope, shouldn't we start planning for what comes after the reset, to avoid just reverting to the same fate?
To be honest I'm not sure there's enough time or opportunity to enact something before the collapse and reset. In terms of planning to avoid a repeat, there's always time, but the kicker will be riding out the storm.
Regarding the Golden Age, I wonder if that is the narrative we have bought without questioning. People have been conditioned to stop questioning things. I think humans need to differentiate the time before the various "Government" documents and after the complete implementation of the apparatus. We did have more freedom then because the government did not have the reach it has today. However, what we often do not see is that coercive government is the problem in all its shapes and forms because it violates the individual and forces compliance.
Regarding the lack of creativity and imagination, studies have shown that children (all of us at one time) rate 98% at the genius level for creativity. By the time we become adults it drops to 2%. The cause for the drop should be obvious!
One of my highly regarded mentors says, very few people care how a TV works, they simply want it to work when they turn it on. This idea applies to humans wanting our relational and social interactions to work. Very few care how society is constructed. Those of us who do care and do understand must build alternatives or parallel societies that do work and that humans actually want. Others, then, opt in or not.
Another resource that expanded my thinking on possibilities is the book, The Voluntary City. It is a historical documentation of how humans have voluntarily organized themselves in ways that work for them at the time. I love this book!
"We did have more freedom then because the government did not have the reach it has today."
—True!
"By the time we become adults it drops to 2%"
—Sad! I try to stay as childlike as possible.
"Those of us who do care and do understand must build alternatives or parallel societies that do work and that humans actually want. Others, then, opt in or not."
I agree with you largely...and then I run up against the practical knowledge of the people I know who coudln't handle an anarchist society. Let's set aside the people who can't take care of themselves. Another topic for another day.
I do this thought experiment from time to time. What would happen if anarchy were magically created tomorrow? No government, no hierarchies, everybody has the non-aggression principle and the resources they have right now. It's easy to imagine--for a few minutes.
I look around my block and I see that 80% of us would cooperate with each other fairly immediately. We already do cooperate voluntarily to a large extent. We're just none of us aggressive toward others -- although I suspect I'm the only one familiar with the NAP.
About 20% of those cooperative people would be leeches on our little society -- they'd overrun their resources and need bailouts from the rest of us...or else we'd have to be tough and let them starve, which theoretically I'm okay with, but that would put me at odds with most of my neighbors who are likely more giving than I am.
So we've got 80% handling anarchy okay, except now we're discussing charity and we could disagree on that. But there's that 20%....
Maybe 10% would try to do it all on their own and would maybe need a bailout from those of us who believe in cooperation, but they'd come over to our side eventually. So that leaves 10%.
Maybe 5% would look around and say "well, I NEED stuff and they have stuff and I'm going to take their stuff because I have a RIGHT not to go hungry." So, do we shoot them on the lawn or do we start discussing a police force to keep them in hand?
And that gets us to the last 5% who are born dictators. They can't handle anarchy because they're sure THEY know better than the rest of us how things ought to go. So while the 80% are trying to cooperate and the 10% of really rugged individualists eventually come around, the 5% of dictators are going to look at the 5% of criminals and say "Well, we have to deal with them, so those of us who see this issue are in charge and you all have to listen to us now." And they'll hold elections or just pronounce themselves dictator and enforce their will at the point of a gun if necessary. And the people who just want to cooperate peacefully will let them because they just want to have peaceful lives.
This is what always screws up anarchy in the end. If men were angels, government wouldn't be necessary. But humans are not angels.
"No government, no hierarchies, everybody has the non-aggression principle and the resources they have right now. It's easy to imagine--for a few minutes."
—Right, but we don't need to imagine it JUST being that way. Market anarchism is not a free-for-all. Mechanisms arise to provide security, justice, roads, and charity. I earnestly encourage that you listen to this video!
I appreciate the quote from a book, Let This Radicalize You. It invites us to stop buying the promoted narrative that we tend to believe: We should fear other humans rather than the governments and corporations that actually create the problems. Most of us would not cut off the hands that feed us.
Incentives play out well for keeping humans at bay.
"So, do we shoot them on the lawn or do we start discussing a police force to keep them in hand?"
—If they come to steal from you, shoot them on the lawn. But we do not need to resort to a government police force. Again, please listen to or read the monograph. I can also give you other great resources. Until I delved into this topic, I felt the same as you. But once I did, I became entirely satisfied that it can be done!
"About 20% of those cooperative people would be leeches on our little society -- they'd overrun their resources and need bailouts from the rest of us...or else we'd have to be tough and let them starve, which theoretically I'm okay with, but that would put me at odds with most of my neighbors who are likely more giving than I am."
—If we take away the coercive safety net of government, far fewer would be leeches. A welfare reform package went through (in the state of Maine, IIRC) a few years back that required able-bodied young people to prove that they needed welfare. Welfare rolls cratered the day it went into effect. Most are leeching because they can. The tiny fraction that remains—the genuinely needy—can easily be handled by private and charitable means: mutual aid societies, private charities, families, etc.
In a market-anarchic condition, without governments taking 40% off the top, the society would be massively richer. Plenty of disposable income for those who want to give to help others.
And in such a condition, charity really would be focused on the truly needy. In a scenario in which government's Magic Money Tree is no longer there, almost everyone would say "#$@% you, I have to work to survive; you can too." As such, other than a smaller percentage of idiots, no one would give to obvious moochers. Just as it was in the past, before government's Magic Money Tree.
I agree with you that far fewer would be leeches — eventually. It would take years to convince the leeches that government no longer existed to rescue them and then they’d leech off their neighbors and churches. As I said, my neighbors would feel sorry for at least some of them and it would be a drain on the society as a whole — not unlike what it is with government. And the leeches would combine with the criminals to try and take what the honest people have. Yeah, shooting them on the lawn is a way to deal with it…and just gives statists more of an argument of why we “need” government. Yeah, maybe you could get past it and overcome it, but you’d have a lot of bodies piled up on a lot of lawns…or (likely) a lot of honest people dead by those who think what is theirs ought to be everyone else’s.
I’m not saying it’s not a worthy goal. There are times when I think it can work. Then I run up against the real world and…I just think a lot of people would have to die or kill others to make it happen and that reality is why people won’t let it happen.
And even if it doesn’t fall to violence—people are going to oppose it because of their misperceptions of what an anarchist society is.
I saw a short documentary on Prospero and a similar movement in the US called “Greater California.” I don’t know enough about GC to comment on it, but I know enough about Prospero to say they’re doing it the right way—but the people around them are dead-set against it and I think it will eventually fail if this documentarian is successful in his arguments against it. It’s not that his arguments are right. It’s that a whole lot more people believe his arguments than believe the truth. Essentially, they’re believing two things — the leaders are all rich people seeking to enslave others and the system to be created won’t be a democracy, therefore it will be slavery for all but the leaders. They cannot conceive of a society where people cooperate without being forced to do so. And while I can conceive of such a society, I also concede that the majority of society can’t and therefore won’t allow even example communities to form to show that it can.
It sounds to me like we need to increase the number of such communities, and the number of those of us who refuse to consider ourselves slaves any longer. Once we reach a certain number, we won't need to fear them shutting us down anymore, because there will be too many of us.
As far as the leeches go, I am not convinced. I think if the magic money tree shrivels, they get jobs or die a lot quicker than one might think. And I believe fewer would have sympathy for them.
But also, we don't need to think in terms of changing "society" as some sort of whole entity. We just need to go. We need to build a new world, bit by bit. By the time we're done, it'll be too late for them to do anything about it.
"Let's set aside the people who can't take care of themselves. Another topic for another day."
—Yep, that's a tough one. First reply, of course, is that we cannot engage in the fallacy of argument from the brochure. (https://christophercook.substack.com/p/new-logical-fallacy-argument-from-brochure) People who cannot take care of themselves are not uniformly and perfectly taken care of by government now. In a market-anarchic condition, other mechanisms would arise. They too would not be perfect. But they would have two benefits: pure market forces lead to efficiency AND they would not be coercive, like government is.
I like, delight in, your expressed ideals Christopher but as I've noted or suggested in many of my past posts I suspect we just can't get there from here.
I will, of course be rather pleased if you and others prove me wrong.
None the less I do see, as a viable alternative, your distributed nation flourishing in the cracks within and twixt existing societies, giving unto Cesar but as grudgingly and as niggardly as absolutely possible. For such to work however trust and communication are paramount.
As a rather trivial way of developing such, I've been dinking around making drinking woodies (https://substack.com/@jiminalaska/note/c-126816064). I'm thinking of posting a set of four that I'll give away as a gift to someone that sends me an address to mail them to.
The understanding would be it's a gift, nothing expected in return, hence not a barter and thus not subject to government review or taxation. None the less if the receiver decides to send me a gift in return it would be crass and unmannerly for me not to accept such.
Yes my little thought experiment above leaves room for a lot of 'ya buts', however as relationships develop the answers to the ya but would become evident.
As far as getting there from here, it will likely be incremental/evolutionary rather than sudden/revolutionary. And yes, I think that the distributed nation concept offers one excellent pathway through that forest.
Did you get a chance to read/listen to this monograph? It paints a solid picture of what market anarchism could look like.
Yes, there are lots of ways to skirt the greedy hands of the state, and the type of exchange you just described is one of them. Angela Morris has been telling me about private membership associations, which seem to offer another cool pathway.
As far as the woodies go, they look beautiful! I personally worry about claims that a company might make that their epoxy is “food grade,” given all that ends up being revealed about other such products. (Recently, it was the revelation that temperature-resistant silicone might not be as safe as it was claimed.) I may be over-cautious, though, as I have come to have a lack of ex ante trust in ANY institution or claim. Others won’t care. And they are beautiful!
The more I read the more I thought we've been there done that.
Every society, social grouping starts out that way; Ogg has two goats, Ugh has two daughters. they ponder discuss, decide, contractually agree, spit on their hands and shake to seal the deal and the daughter for a goat trade made.
Sadly the historical record shows every society, social grouping ends up with a Caesar Augustus, Genghis Khan, Iatollathemeanie or Blackrock defining, taxing, delimiting each and every daughter/goat exchange.
Bottom line; The majority has spoken over and over throughout history, they want to be ruled, they don't want to make the hard decisions such as what time to get up each morning.
Which leads me to your distributed nation flourishing in the cracks within and twixt existing societies, ignore the morejority, they wanna be bossed let them be.
I oft repeat Albert Camus; "The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion."
Call me wild and crazy if you want, they can have their safety and security, me, I'm quite willing to even risk a sip from an epoxy lined cup! Grin.
"The more I read the more I thought we've been there done that."
—I understand the fear and concern, but there is a difference. If people (even just some people—your ten stout men!) decide that we are not slaves in need of masters, then the market-anarchic "system" described in the monograph can certainly work. A consciousness shift will help end the ability of Caesars and psychos to rule over us.
Indeed, it is just like those ten stout men. What do we keep saying? "It is hopeless. We cannot win. Psychopaths will always rule us." And then, proceeding on that assumption, we surrender without even trying.
Not me. I am done living on my knees. I might not be able to resist them fully, but I will be damned if I keep saying that endless slavery is the only condition possible to mankind, forever.
And then, as you say, we can begin the process of flourishing in the cracks, and then widening those cracks over the next decades and centuries until we finally have our full independence. And it will be because of people who decided to stop saying and believing that slavery and the rule of psychopaths is the only possible state for mankind.
There were a few relatively peaceful time, at least compared to today, but I see no historical record of a truly golden age of justice, peace and abundance, although there are legends of course, and I believe they do exist, just not here and now. This is a great resource Christopher and I have downloaded a copy of the pdf. Such a society would do more than bring in a golden age, it would greatly raise the standards of awareness, creativity and personal responsibility. Teaching it in a way that can be understood in a practical way even by pretty dense people down to their shoe soles, maybe even to their inner souls in many cases.
I typed "stateless society near me" into Google maps and it showed me a street mission. Interesting that Google's algorithm recognized it as Christian ethics. Seems correct to me.
I agree as someone who relies on Something a little higher, that I truly believe in, and have successfully put my trust in despite my weaknesses and failings, I presently have no insurance for either health or property. However I do believe that this is an important step forward for our society which helps those without understanding to have those guide rails or training wheels necessary for them to begin the process of learning what personal responsibility really means. For a technically advanced civilization this is necessary because most people do not have trust in others or in that Divine Presence within and insurance is a way to be confronted with the realities of natural law and its consequences. Competition allied with non-aggression is a way of insuring we can live with those who are in the state of fear and disconnection without needing to worry that people will not be accountable. This puts the control of your own decisions and property back in your own hands. There will be those who will not pay for insurance and will learn the painful lessons of accountability. I also think that when people are less fearful and abundance they will voluntarily contribute to causes that they see as loving and helpful. There could be environmental funds, there could be funds for people who were harmed by someone without insurance because of some reason that is understandable.
What Hat says below is solid. Not everyone will behave themselves in any society, so some mechanism is required to create needed security and justice. Most visionaries of market anarchism focus on something analogous to insurance agencies. But there would also be key differences. (For one thing, those agencies would not have the benefits of government protection of their industry that insurances agencies do now.)
Maybe I’m just focusing on what I see as flaws, but I don’t see this as at all feasible. The “insurance companies” necessary to provide some semblance of accountability in a market-anarchist society - they are expected to be fair and just (because if they’re not, customers will take their business elsewhere, right?) But nothing in the society works without an insurance company, so the insurance company is incredibly important in this society and with that importance comes power. Would there be any way of preventing the insurance company from running the whole society like a “company town”? Even if you don’t know much about “company towns” it’s easy to see that it wasn’t always a good deal for the people living in them.
I think I’d rather take my chances with a limited (very limited!) government.
Life would certainly be quite tolerable in a scrupulously limited government. Still morally impermissible, in that it violates human consent, but quite tolerable nonetheless. The problem is, I do not believe it is possible to keep a government in a limited state. It will always grow.
Now, maybe the same can be said of a market-anarchic condition. Maybe what starts with real market forces and competition ends in company towns and private agencies becoming de facto governments. Maybe we are doomed to revolutionary cycles no matter what we do.
BUT…
I am not prepared to concede this out of the gate. I am not prepared to say, "Psychopaths will always take power; therefore, our only solution is to create a system that surrenders them that power automatically—a power that we cannot escape or resist." (I am not saying that you are saying that, but that IS the general human attitude.) I will not start out by conceding that we are slaves in need of masters.
I would rather take my chances with insurance agencies to whom I CAN say no rather than governments to whom I cannot.
Whatever evolves beyond government, it must come from a place beyond man's thinking. I do not like the idea of any society since to me that infers a cult. I don't think mankind has evolved enough to get past the idea of needing a government or some leaders.
The ego, pride, one-up-man-ship and arrogance still rule the day. Anarchy allows one to bypass government tyranny and that is a decent start.
Government has failed since it needs watchers and the watchers need watchers and so on. We need people evolved enough who do not need watching because they have no ulterior motives or care about how they are perceived. They have evolved beyond human pettiness.
Well, I will say that "government" puts power into the hands of people who have no or little understanding and no personal investment or accountability for the coercive force that is utilized to do the will of the government monarchs, oligarchs, or a majority which includes vast number of those ego, pride driven, one-up-man-ship, arrogant, entitled people who think the world owes them a living at the cost of others productivity. It may be that this place is designed for those who need to learn the painful lessons that will finally teach them the valuable commodity of self respect, which is earned because they have evolved beyond human pettiness. Maybe some of us are getting to that point where we actually may qualify for that golden age wherever it may be established. Your comment made me think of the statement that is often attributed to Albert Einstein I believe which says, "you can't solve a problem from the level of mind that caused the problem.' As you said, "it must come from a place beyond man's thinking." We have to gain that inspiration that comes from the Divine Presence within.
Anarchy will without exceptions end up in some Lord of the flies dystopia. It doesn’t matter how many smart, awesome looking theories men or women come up with. Except the very nature of Homo sapiens would change dramatically at the same moment, getting lost of ego,envy,desires,laziness etc, it wouldn’t even take more than a couple of days before new hierarchies were set.
The strongest, the street smartest,the “best” manipulators will inexorably get in charge very soon.
Christopher I so much appreciate how succinctly and accurately you write and get big "complex" ideas across very simply! That is an amazing talent. I fully agree with your points in this article.
Though the Founders way got us on a much better road then Tyrannical Monarchy it had plenty of flaws. I know you know well, but most people do not know, how Jefferson with Franklin's support had the abolishment of slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence but would not be approved by the southern slaveholders and northern slave transporters so Jefferson had to dumb it down to get it approved. The Constitution actually made slavery in stone until 1809 and much of the Constitution is about government control of the people. Jefferson pushed Madison to add the Bill of Rights - the Amendments which are what is unique and preserved some semblance of Liberty until now.
Yes, so true - we appreciate Christopher's beautifully crafted prose trying to help us understand this complex subject. Still, I am haunted by Viktor Frankl's wisdom about needing responsiblity with freedom - and how many people in the 21st century refuse to have responsibility for their actions?
But, that said, most people do not realize that Alexander Hamilton did not believe that the Bill of Rights was necessary and even thought it could be dangerous! See Federalist #84.
Get in the Ring, Alexander Hamilton: https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/get-in-the-ring-thomas-jefferson?r=76q58
That is a great point Liz. No responsibility and let the government handle it for me - what an opportunity for disaster.
You are so right about Hamilton. Hamilton was/is a disaster for America.
Liz from your article on Jefferson and Hamilton from September 2024 which clearly exposes Hamilton's focus of protecting rulers and tyrants - Thank you:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.
Thanks for reading!!
I approve this message. Both parts. We must remember to not allow the perfect to disparage the good in what has come before. We are all works in progress individually but also as a people, and I am so appreciative of those who had a glimpse of something better, and although they were not perfect they left something better than what had come before. It's up to us to take the next important steps toward that golden perfection.
I share your frustrations Christopher. When outlining possible stateless solutions in conversation I generally find otherwise dynamic and intelligent thinkers become extremely closed minded, predisposed, and strangely incapable of envisioning anything beyond one step changes to current society. For those interested I have tried to bridge the gap for people in a number of articles:
1. Here I give a general summary of how to think about a stateless society: https://appliedlibertarian.substack.com/p/thinking-outside-the-state?r=ad948
2. Here I focus on the important distinction between government and the state: https://appliedlibertarian.substack.com/p/government-outside-the-state?r=ad948
3. And here I show where we can look to find statelessness taking place historically: https://appliedlibertarian.substack.com/p/successful-statelessness-in-history?r=ad948
The free townships that you mentioned in one of your urls made me think of Christopher's distributed nation. Although I don't yet know how that can be brought about in this world where coercive force and intimidation is so institutionalized and prevalent. I am afraid things may have to become even more chaotic before people able to do anything without being crushed by these monopolists and statists. I don't think that means that we must not continue to strive for it. I see this growing number of people who are awakening to the evils of this system and looking for something better.
Yes, the path to freedom is not an easy one and the strategy on how to get there is hard to arrive at today. Most likely it will be through a series of small incremental steps, probably enabled by technology, rather than a single big revolutionary event. But either way, if we can convince enough people that stateless societies are at least possible, then we will have a better chance of bringing about the changes we so desire.
Yes. Incremental/evolutionary rather than sudden/revolutionary.
And yes, consciousness change is needed. People need to stop believing that they are slaves in need of masters.
I absolutely love Chaos Theory, and I based a setting for a young adult fantasy novel of mine (won't be released 'til September 2026) around Murphy's work. Looking for creative ways to spread the message of Anarchism to hopefully reach mainstream audiences. Especially in the literary world, where I've felt many are inclined to the Left. Just my own observation.
Fiction is a most powerful way to spread the message!
It is. And I CANNOT WAIT until September 2026 rolls around. So far, Book I's been about a year in the making, but I'll be hitting hard on finishing the developmental edits and adding background info to my blog - may transfer a post or two over to SS in the meantime - once I wrap up a couple more projects.
So you do not do regular installments on Substack?
Not yet. I'm building a backlist of articles on my blog about my books, their inspirations, themes, etc., then I'll transfer some of them over onto Substack.
Is there a short installment I could read?
Of the manuscript? You can beta read it if you'd like! Here's the section I have on the work from my blog. Starting at the 12-month to go mark, I'll be ramping up the content here on characters, inspiration, everything!
https://tcmarti.com/category/arcane-elemental-academy/
Well... You know My issues with ANY market economy. First, it presumes We need to account for Our energy added into a system. Second, it presumes We need everyOne working to afford to live. Third, there is no way to stop the psychopaths from garnering the most and then having the power to buy the things and the People They need to forward agendas.
And fifth, We have tech that obsoletes the practice of accounting for the energy We add into a system.
Thus I work to get those technologies out in the open and free Humanity from having to work to survive. Free Us to do what We love to do, free Us to fulfill Our potential. We only need about 20% doing needed work - 80% of Us just move money around and overall upwards to the psychopaths in control by virtue of money - and as work no One WANTS to do is automated, We will see that drop to 10%, or maybe even less.
I aim for a world where We can fulfill Our potential, not having to add Our energy somewhere to get tokens that account for it so We can worry about food/clothing/shelter for the moneyed psychopath masters.
With the Betterment Ethic - looking for ways to make things better for Those around Us to around the globe - in place of the industrial revolution's slave's creed, the work "ethic."
Electrogravitics – My Knowledge of Free Energy (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/electrogravitics-my-knowledge-of
Is Gold the Next Fiat? (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/is-gold-the-next-fiat
You seem to assume away scarcity. That is the reason why people need to work, contribute energy, however you want to put it. Also, I am not sure why you assume psychopaths will garnering the most. In a free market, those who add the most value for others are the ones who garner the most, so to speak. Does not seem problematic. Add the state into the mix, and all the problems you outline come to the fore.
If You took everything sitting in stores and warehouses, and gave it all to Us, We each would be buried in stuff. Hardly "assum[ing] away scarcity." We have the tech to transmute elements, and free energy tech to power that.
And... You do grasp that presently 80+% of Us do no work needed for society to function beyond that moneyed mess, pushing money around?
That You are a multimillionaire and so am I and so is every One born here on Our planet? But They declared Humanity "incompetent" and put Our share of Our planet's wealth into "trusts...?"
Though I suspect You did not read My articles, I will provide another two. I will humbly hope You choose to read them before commenting further.
80% of Us Merely Move Money (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/80-of-us-merely-move-money
You Are a Multimillionaire (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/you-are-a-multimillionaire
I really enjoy your essays, but in practical terms, I'm still of the opinion an anarchist society (and government), just as a libertarian society, is an impossibility in today's world.
What these theories and their ideas can do is inform "the people" to alternatives, helping to create solutions to problems arising in the practical application of governance.
I think it's worth noting that ideas on anarchism and libertarianism were more suitable to a world without the current technologies, especially military related. Within a preexisting state or empire, it's possible to think about alternatives and improvements, drawing inspiration from genuinely good ideas. But the key element is the state must preexist, and there shouldn't be the possibility of a big bad wolf outside the gates coming around for a clean sweep (or pillaging).
We humans are currently stuck in a simulated existence of daily living whereby we're unable to switch to alternative versions of life. It's sad, but it is what it is. If anything, personally I'm optimistic that all the current conflicts are indicative of the inevitability of a coming reset, as has occurred at regular irregular intervals in the past (without getting into the weeds, but the combined unsustainability of the infinite growth models of capitalism and Fiat money credit/debt financialization, have run their course, and right now are in pure simulacra fantasyland (bullshit jobs are a good indicator)).
But my main point is libertarian and anarchist ideas emerged in an age pre-nuclear world, pre-computer information age, pre-robots. They survive as a sort of luxury belief we can indulge in the West because the West has run the world since the 17th century (and we can draw a line back to the Greeks with everything in-between). I think they're great inspiration for suggesting changes to the (unnecessarily) complex systems we have today, but the powers that be running the show behind the political sphere, they're not going to abdicate their power (or "wealth") voluntarily. Which is kind of why, ironically, a multipolar world will help correct the extremes of the grand plans to reduce Western democratic societies to an aggregated whole technocratic feudal ai-cbdc-social credit authoritarian shit show (because outside the gates there's some bad wolves tired of getting shafted by a West not practicing what it preaches).
You're right about a golden age never existing, but the world back then was different, and we can literally see glimpses of this difference when we physically step outside the West and visit countries whose cultures are still intact and haven't given into the whole capitalist hyper technological novelty paradigm feeding off American culture. In the west we kinda get glimpses if we move to the countryside where life has a different rhythm, but we're still stuck within the modern simulation of life.
I am glad to hear that you do not think that the situation is hopeless.
I think that we can do more than wait for collapse and reset, though. And even if those were our only hope, shouldn't we start planning for what comes after the reset, to avoid just reverting to the same fate?
To be honest I'm not sure there's enough time or opportunity to enact something before the collapse and reset. In terms of planning to avoid a repeat, there's always time, but the kicker will be riding out the storm.
True, but we never know when the storm will actually arrive. So there's no sense in failing to plan—or to live!—in the meantime.
Another great piece of work, Christopher!
a few thoughts:
Regarding the Golden Age, I wonder if that is the narrative we have bought without questioning. People have been conditioned to stop questioning things. I think humans need to differentiate the time before the various "Government" documents and after the complete implementation of the apparatus. We did have more freedom then because the government did not have the reach it has today. However, what we often do not see is that coercive government is the problem in all its shapes and forms because it violates the individual and forces compliance.
Regarding the lack of creativity and imagination, studies have shown that children (all of us at one time) rate 98% at the genius level for creativity. By the time we become adults it drops to 2%. The cause for the drop should be obvious!
One of my highly regarded mentors says, very few people care how a TV works, they simply want it to work when they turn it on. This idea applies to humans wanting our relational and social interactions to work. Very few care how society is constructed. Those of us who do care and do understand must build alternatives or parallel societies that do work and that humans actually want. Others, then, opt in or not.
Another resource that expanded my thinking on possibilities is the book, The Voluntary City. It is a historical documentation of how humans have voluntarily organized themselves in ways that work for them at the time. I love this book!
"We did have more freedom then because the government did not have the reach it has today."
—True!
"By the time we become adults it drops to 2%"
—Sad! I try to stay as childlike as possible.
"Those of us who do care and do understand must build alternatives or parallel societies that do work and that humans actually want. Others, then, opt in or not."
—This is an essential point!
Here’s my contribution … https://marolitango.substack.com/p/chapter-21
I agree with you largely...and then I run up against the practical knowledge of the people I know who coudln't handle an anarchist society. Let's set aside the people who can't take care of themselves. Another topic for another day.
I do this thought experiment from time to time. What would happen if anarchy were magically created tomorrow? No government, no hierarchies, everybody has the non-aggression principle and the resources they have right now. It's easy to imagine--for a few minutes.
I look around my block and I see that 80% of us would cooperate with each other fairly immediately. We already do cooperate voluntarily to a large extent. We're just none of us aggressive toward others -- although I suspect I'm the only one familiar with the NAP.
About 20% of those cooperative people would be leeches on our little society -- they'd overrun their resources and need bailouts from the rest of us...or else we'd have to be tough and let them starve, which theoretically I'm okay with, but that would put me at odds with most of my neighbors who are likely more giving than I am.
So we've got 80% handling anarchy okay, except now we're discussing charity and we could disagree on that. But there's that 20%....
Maybe 10% would try to do it all on their own and would maybe need a bailout from those of us who believe in cooperation, but they'd come over to our side eventually. So that leaves 10%.
Maybe 5% would look around and say "well, I NEED stuff and they have stuff and I'm going to take their stuff because I have a RIGHT not to go hungry." So, do we shoot them on the lawn or do we start discussing a police force to keep them in hand?
And that gets us to the last 5% who are born dictators. They can't handle anarchy because they're sure THEY know better than the rest of us how things ought to go. So while the 80% are trying to cooperate and the 10% of really rugged individualists eventually come around, the 5% of dictators are going to look at the 5% of criminals and say "Well, we have to deal with them, so those of us who see this issue are in charge and you all have to listen to us now." And they'll hold elections or just pronounce themselves dictator and enforce their will at the point of a gun if necessary. And the people who just want to cooperate peacefully will let them because they just want to have peaceful lives.
This is what always screws up anarchy in the end. If men were angels, government wouldn't be necessary. But humans are not angels.
"No government, no hierarchies, everybody has the non-aggression principle and the resources they have right now. It's easy to imagine--for a few minutes."
—Right, but we don't need to imagine it JUST being that way. Market anarchism is not a free-for-all. Mechanisms arise to provide security, justice, roads, and charity. I earnestly encourage that you listen to this video!
I appreciate the quote from a book, Let This Radicalize You. It invites us to stop buying the promoted narrative that we tend to believe: We should fear other humans rather than the governments and corporations that actually create the problems. Most of us would not cut off the hands that feed us.
Incentives play out well for keeping humans at bay.
"This is what always screws up anarchy in the end. If men were angels, government wouldn't be necessary. But humans are not angels."
—Please read this. It deals with that objection:
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/youre-rotten-person-deserve-freedom
"So, do we shoot them on the lawn or do we start discussing a police force to keep them in hand?"
—If they come to steal from you, shoot them on the lawn. But we do not need to resort to a government police force. Again, please listen to or read the monograph. I can also give you other great resources. Until I delved into this topic, I felt the same as you. But once I did, I became entirely satisfied that it can be done!
"About 20% of those cooperative people would be leeches on our little society -- they'd overrun their resources and need bailouts from the rest of us...or else we'd have to be tough and let them starve, which theoretically I'm okay with, but that would put me at odds with most of my neighbors who are likely more giving than I am."
—If we take away the coercive safety net of government, far fewer would be leeches. A welfare reform package went through (in the state of Maine, IIRC) a few years back that required able-bodied young people to prove that they needed welfare. Welfare rolls cratered the day it went into effect. Most are leeching because they can. The tiny fraction that remains—the genuinely needy—can easily be handled by private and charitable means: mutual aid societies, private charities, families, etc.
In a market-anarchic condition, without governments taking 40% off the top, the society would be massively richer. Plenty of disposable income for those who want to give to help others.
And in such a condition, charity really would be focused on the truly needy. In a scenario in which government's Magic Money Tree is no longer there, almost everyone would say "#$@% you, I have to work to survive; you can too." As such, other than a smaller percentage of idiots, no one would give to obvious moochers. Just as it was in the past, before government's Magic Money Tree.
I agree with you that far fewer would be leeches — eventually. It would take years to convince the leeches that government no longer existed to rescue them and then they’d leech off their neighbors and churches. As I said, my neighbors would feel sorry for at least some of them and it would be a drain on the society as a whole — not unlike what it is with government. And the leeches would combine with the criminals to try and take what the honest people have. Yeah, shooting them on the lawn is a way to deal with it…and just gives statists more of an argument of why we “need” government. Yeah, maybe you could get past it and overcome it, but you’d have a lot of bodies piled up on a lot of lawns…or (likely) a lot of honest people dead by those who think what is theirs ought to be everyone else’s.
I’m not saying it’s not a worthy goal. There are times when I think it can work. Then I run up against the real world and…I just think a lot of people would have to die or kill others to make it happen and that reality is why people won’t let it happen.
And even if it doesn’t fall to violence—people are going to oppose it because of their misperceptions of what an anarchist society is.
I saw a short documentary on Prospero and a similar movement in the US called “Greater California.” I don’t know enough about GC to comment on it, but I know enough about Prospero to say they’re doing it the right way—but the people around them are dead-set against it and I think it will eventually fail if this documentarian is successful in his arguments against it. It’s not that his arguments are right. It’s that a whole lot more people believe his arguments than believe the truth. Essentially, they’re believing two things — the leaders are all rich people seeking to enslave others and the system to be created won’t be a democracy, therefore it will be slavery for all but the leaders. They cannot conceive of a society where people cooperate without being forced to do so. And while I can conceive of such a society, I also concede that the majority of society can’t and therefore won’t allow even example communities to form to show that it can.
It sounds to me like we need to increase the number of such communities, and the number of those of us who refuse to consider ourselves slaves any longer. Once we reach a certain number, we won't need to fear them shutting us down anymore, because there will be too many of us.
As far as the leeches go, I am not convinced. I think if the magic money tree shrivels, they get jobs or die a lot quicker than one might think. And I believe fewer would have sympathy for them.
But also, we don't need to think in terms of changing "society" as some sort of whole entity. We just need to go. We need to build a new world, bit by bit. By the time we're done, it'll be too late for them to do anything about it.
"Let's set aside the people who can't take care of themselves. Another topic for another day."
—Yep, that's a tough one. First reply, of course, is that we cannot engage in the fallacy of argument from the brochure. (https://christophercook.substack.com/p/new-logical-fallacy-argument-from-brochure) People who cannot take care of themselves are not uniformly and perfectly taken care of by government now. In a market-anarchic condition, other mechanisms would arise. They too would not be perfect. But they would have two benefits: pure market forces lead to efficiency AND they would not be coercive, like government is.
I like, delight in, your expressed ideals Christopher but as I've noted or suggested in many of my past posts I suspect we just can't get there from here.
I will, of course be rather pleased if you and others prove me wrong.
None the less I do see, as a viable alternative, your distributed nation flourishing in the cracks within and twixt existing societies, giving unto Cesar but as grudgingly and as niggardly as absolutely possible. For such to work however trust and communication are paramount.
As a rather trivial way of developing such, I've been dinking around making drinking woodies (https://substack.com/@jiminalaska/note/c-126816064). I'm thinking of posting a set of four that I'll give away as a gift to someone that sends me an address to mail them to.
The understanding would be it's a gift, nothing expected in return, hence not a barter and thus not subject to government review or taxation. None the less if the receiver decides to send me a gift in return it would be crass and unmannerly for me not to accept such.
Yes my little thought experiment above leaves room for a lot of 'ya buts', however as relationships develop the answers to the ya but would become evident.
As far as getting there from here, it will likely be incremental/evolutionary rather than sudden/revolutionary. And yes, I think that the distributed nation concept offers one excellent pathway through that forest.
Did you get a chance to read/listen to this monograph? It paints a solid picture of what market anarchism could look like.
Yes, there are lots of ways to skirt the greedy hands of the state, and the type of exchange you just described is one of them. Angela Morris has been telling me about private membership associations, which seem to offer another cool pathway.
As far as the woodies go, they look beautiful! I personally worry about claims that a company might make that their epoxy is “food grade,” given all that ends up being revealed about other such products. (Recently, it was the revelation that temperature-resistant silicone might not be as safe as it was claimed.) I may be over-cautious, though, as I have come to have a lack of ex ante trust in ANY institution or claim. Others won’t care. And they are beautiful!
"Did you get a chance to read/listen to this monograph? " I started listening but went over to https://cdn.mises.org/Chaos%20Theory_2.pdf and read it.
The more I read the more I thought we've been there done that.
Every society, social grouping starts out that way; Ogg has two goats, Ugh has two daughters. they ponder discuss, decide, contractually agree, spit on their hands and shake to seal the deal and the daughter for a goat trade made.
Sadly the historical record shows every society, social grouping ends up with a Caesar Augustus, Genghis Khan, Iatollathemeanie or Blackrock defining, taxing, delimiting each and every daughter/goat exchange.
Bottom line; The majority has spoken over and over throughout history, they want to be ruled, they don't want to make the hard decisions such as what time to get up each morning.
Which leads me to your distributed nation flourishing in the cracks within and twixt existing societies, ignore the morejority, they wanna be bossed let them be.
I oft repeat Albert Camus; "The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion."
Call me wild and crazy if you want, they can have their safety and security, me, I'm quite willing to even risk a sip from an epoxy lined cup! Grin.
None the less,I could be wrong,you might be able to find ten; https://youtu.be/1vjqfvZVReM?si=KtkgzkwkGWnKyPOU
"The more I read the more I thought we've been there done that."
—I understand the fear and concern, but there is a difference. If people (even just some people—your ten stout men!) decide that we are not slaves in need of masters, then the market-anarchic "system" described in the monograph can certainly work. A consciousness shift will help end the ability of Caesars and psychos to rule over us.
Indeed, it is just like those ten stout men. What do we keep saying? "It is hopeless. We cannot win. Psychopaths will always rule us." And then, proceeding on that assumption, we surrender without even trying.
Not me. I am done living on my knees. I might not be able to resist them fully, but I will be damned if I keep saying that endless slavery is the only condition possible to mankind, forever.
And then, as you say, we can begin the process of flourishing in the cracks, and then widening those cracks over the next decades and centuries until we finally have our full independence. And it will be because of people who decided to stop saying and believing that slavery and the rule of psychopaths is the only possible state for mankind.
There were a few relatively peaceful time, at least compared to today, but I see no historical record of a truly golden age of justice, peace and abundance, although there are legends of course, and I believe they do exist, just not here and now. This is a great resource Christopher and I have downloaded a copy of the pdf. Such a society would do more than bring in a golden age, it would greatly raise the standards of awareness, creativity and personal responsibility. Teaching it in a way that can be understood in a practical way even by pretty dense people down to their shoe soles, maybe even to their inner souls in many cases.
Whether or not a golden age has existed or is possible, we should always strive for it!
I typed "stateless society near me" into Google maps and it showed me a street mission. Interesting that Google's algorithm recognized it as Christian ethics. Seems correct to me.
That is interesting!!
Thanks for sharing that video Christopher, I will check it out.
It’s a good one!
Awfully reliant on “insurance”!
I agree as someone who relies on Something a little higher, that I truly believe in, and have successfully put my trust in despite my weaknesses and failings, I presently have no insurance for either health or property. However I do believe that this is an important step forward for our society which helps those without understanding to have those guide rails or training wheels necessary for them to begin the process of learning what personal responsibility really means. For a technically advanced civilization this is necessary because most people do not have trust in others or in that Divine Presence within and insurance is a way to be confronted with the realities of natural law and its consequences. Competition allied with non-aggression is a way of insuring we can live with those who are in the state of fear and disconnection without needing to worry that people will not be accountable. This puts the control of your own decisions and property back in your own hands. There will be those who will not pay for insurance and will learn the painful lessons of accountability. I also think that when people are less fearful and abundance they will voluntarily contribute to causes that they see as loving and helpful. There could be environmental funds, there could be funds for people who were harmed by someone without insurance because of some reason that is understandable.
What Hat says below is solid. Not everyone will behave themselves in any society, so some mechanism is required to create needed security and justice. Most visionaries of market anarchism focus on something analogous to insurance agencies. But there would also be key differences. (For one thing, those agencies would not have the benefits of government protection of their industry that insurances agencies do now.)
Maybe I’m just focusing on what I see as flaws, but I don’t see this as at all feasible. The “insurance companies” necessary to provide some semblance of accountability in a market-anarchist society - they are expected to be fair and just (because if they’re not, customers will take their business elsewhere, right?) But nothing in the society works without an insurance company, so the insurance company is incredibly important in this society and with that importance comes power. Would there be any way of preventing the insurance company from running the whole society like a “company town”? Even if you don’t know much about “company towns” it’s easy to see that it wasn’t always a good deal for the people living in them.
I think I’d rather take my chances with a limited (very limited!) government.
Life would certainly be quite tolerable in a scrupulously limited government. Still morally impermissible, in that it violates human consent, but quite tolerable nonetheless. The problem is, I do not believe it is possible to keep a government in a limited state. It will always grow.
Now, maybe the same can be said of a market-anarchic condition. Maybe what starts with real market forces and competition ends in company towns and private agencies becoming de facto governments. Maybe we are doomed to revolutionary cycles no matter what we do.
BUT…
I am not prepared to concede this out of the gate. I am not prepared to say, "Psychopaths will always take power; therefore, our only solution is to create a system that surrenders them that power automatically—a power that we cannot escape or resist." (I am not saying that you are saying that, but that IS the general human attitude.) I will not start out by conceding that we are slaves in need of masters.
I would rather take my chances with insurance agencies to whom I CAN say no rather than governments to whom I cannot.
Whatever evolves beyond government, it must come from a place beyond man's thinking. I do not like the idea of any society since to me that infers a cult. I don't think mankind has evolved enough to get past the idea of needing a government or some leaders.
The ego, pride, one-up-man-ship and arrogance still rule the day. Anarchy allows one to bypass government tyranny and that is a decent start.
Government has failed since it needs watchers and the watchers need watchers and so on. We need people evolved enough who do not need watching because they have no ulterior motives or care about how they are perceived. They have evolved beyond human pettiness.
Well, I will say that "government" puts power into the hands of people who have no or little understanding and no personal investment or accountability for the coercive force that is utilized to do the will of the government monarchs, oligarchs, or a majority which includes vast number of those ego, pride driven, one-up-man-ship, arrogant, entitled people who think the world owes them a living at the cost of others productivity. It may be that this place is designed for those who need to learn the painful lessons that will finally teach them the valuable commodity of self respect, which is earned because they have evolved beyond human pettiness. Maybe some of us are getting to that point where we actually may qualify for that golden age wherever it may be established. Your comment made me think of the statement that is often attributed to Albert Einstein I believe which says, "you can't solve a problem from the level of mind that caused the problem.' As you said, "it must come from a place beyond man's thinking." We have to gain that inspiration that comes from the Divine Presence within.
Anarchy will without exceptions end up in some Lord of the flies dystopia. It doesn’t matter how many smart, awesome looking theories men or women come up with. Except the very nature of Homo sapiens would change dramatically at the same moment, getting lost of ego,envy,desires,laziness etc, it wouldn’t even take more than a couple of days before new hierarchies were set.
The strongest, the street smartest,the “best” manipulators will inexorably get in charge very soon.
Anarchy, in this sense, is not the absence of order. It is order produced in a different way. Did you watch the video or read the monograph?