Another intriguing question would be as to how a free society would address the question of currency. Of course, the state's guilty of FIATing humanity into infinity, but it's tough for me to see how practices like coin clipping could be restricted in a decentralized society, haha.
Tet no one ( or at least only a few ) ask themselves how do we protect ourselves in a society where we gave an unaccountable monopoly of violence power over us. And even then most peoples answer to this is voting.
Yessir. It is so frustrating. Once one has seen the truth of this, one feels a bit like Cassandra screaming into the wind. BUT…many people are starting to catch on.
Big fan of that lecture for sure. Shortly afterward, I read his book Chaos Theory, and I refer back to it every now and again. A short but powerful read, and one that might just start rewiring the mind.
I've heard Bob explain the decentralized, distributed development of language before (and cited in in my own writing). This Mises lecture was a really good presentation on all the topics he covered, even if he was wearing a speedo.
What need for protection would there be in a truly free society? Most of the behavior we see a need for protection from originates in precisely the *opposite* of freedom: the violation of freedom. The violated violate. The unviolated (and freed from the effects of former violation) *do not*. If we've done what it would take to create a free society, what would still threaten us?
Certainly not the same things that threaten us now.
We need to think these things ALL the way through before we prognosticate problems and conjure "solutions".
I agree with the former part. Much of the need for security evaporates as soon as we eliminate the biggest threat: government.
But on the latter, we cannot think everything through all the way. That is not possible. All we can do is do our best, head in a better direction, learn from our mistakes, adjust, and continue heading in a better direction. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the better—if we do, we will remain paralyzed. Best theories on the table and then we march.
There is n quantity of things that we can think through now. I meant ALL the way through those we can, not all the way through those we can't. I said it because most of the stuff I've heard/read involves posing elements from the old paradigm as if they're relevant in the new. That kind of failure to think it through. From the biggest view I can manage, we're talking about going from a paradigm/ethos where self is always #1, self-interest is assumed to be primary, and the priority, always, is to deprive first and ask questions later to a paradigm where all that's reversed because how we do it now is the opposite of functional and effective, and because it violates the natural design of human psyche and opposes our aspirations. When making paradigm shifts, we can't just assume that what's integral to the old one will be extant in the new one. That's all.
I’m okay, and you’re okay, we think, but there are still some people out there who mean us harm—people who want to hurt us or take our property. How would a free society of self-governing individuals deal with that?
With a gun. In a free society, a man would learn to use his weapon and defend himself to the death with it. Dead bodies could be buried in Potter’s field or left beside the road as a warning to other criminals.
Like-minded men could form private security police forces, although I prefer that they be chosen by the people in the sheriff’s model.
A responsible community could create a private jail into which criminals get placed after being placed there by a council of like minded men. This jail could staffed by the aforementioned sheriff’s deputies or trained jailors.
The inmates would serve a set time for the crimes. Theft of any type would result in restitution by time or service to the one stolen from. The penalty for rape could be anything from restitution in the form of time served up to castration or even death. The executions would be carried out by physicians who could make it merciful and quick, or we could just go back to precise hanging or firing squad.
These are among a plethora of both theoretical, real, and historical methods for a private-law society. Murphy is just one of money. I highly recommend Hoppe to you. His refinements of some of these concepts are pretty amazing.
Well, You know My solution... Add free energy, making accounting for Our energy added into a system pointless, freeing Humanity to Our rightful wealth, and then... The motive to break the Laws nigh vanishes.
And with all of Us responsible to arresting (or calling for help in arresting) anyOne We see has broken the Laws, any One who breaks them is a mere petty criminal. And then We see:
I am not suggesting any specialized market agencies per se. But sure, communities may come together and be available to help when a crime is committed. I also envision People in general armed, and willing to drop what They’re doing (no need to worry about getting fired or losing money in a moneyless society) and come help if called.
“Specialized market agencies” suggests money is in use, motivating 99% of all crime…
I wrote an article on the distinction. Basically governing bodies can be part of any organisation. States are a subset of government where a monopoly on the use of force is held by the government.
Thanks Chris, it seems I can't read the book with my subscription level, but I love the point you make about not having to move to a be entitled to freedom. I could not agree more!
I have gone through most of your book and I think its great. I really can't find anything substantial to disagree with and am very excited by the ideas and the way you discuss the ideas. I do find reading it on substack a bit cumbersome, but that is clearly not your fault. Have you thought about getting it published?
“can self-government be scaled up?” Most people think that’s what we have now. We self govern. We, the majority, the mob, the 51% decide, elect professionals, aka politicians, to represent us, to serve us. Only those who see the evil of government can conceptualize society without it.
We live in a society of paid security now, in every aspect that the government doesn't provide for. Including forced arbitration instead of court. How is that working for us?
It works very poorly when the two parties are mismatched economically. It works great when they are roughly equal. A number of reports have shown that the big company wins almost all of the time in arbitration because they are there all the time paying the fees so the arbitrators tend to favor them. That's why arbitration isn't recommended now like it was originally. In practicality, it isn't a good thing.
How about insurance? How about private security? If a big company hires BlackRock for millions of dollars and I hire Joe because all I can afford is $100 a month, who do you think is going to win? Without the current court system and juries, do you think insurance companies would ever be forced to pay? No. Do you think all of this would be cheaper than taxes? Probably for the big guys but I question whether it would for the little guys.
If collectively we can all decide the laws and enforce those lies, then we can take on the big guys. But that is called a government. If we have a government run by the people, then we have the advantages of a government and combined strength. Otherwise, we are just individuals with no power against anything bigger. Regardless of these examples, that aren't realistic in the real world.
And yes, if we all ruled together it would require decisions by consensus just like it does in groups now in the real world. That means some people will be disappointed in some decisions and happy about others. In places like Switzerland where they have more democracy than we do, my friend who lives there reports that people are generally satisfied because they know you can't get everything you want all the time.
I know this is an article on libertarian anarchy and most of the readers and your followers believe that ideology. After studying all of this and some of the references, that individuals having equal power with those who have massive wealth is an illusion. We could spend all of our money on security and it wouldn't matter. The free market concepts used only apply when wealth is relatively equal. Without every one combining together to voluntarily form a direct democracy, the people simply don't have enough power. And that is the only way they ever would have power. We are preyed on now continually by the government and big corporations because they have power. Doing away with the government would increase our wealth and power individually by somewhere between 0% and 25% depending on our income, which means we would still be powerless except against each other. I would prefer individual sovereignty. It just isn't real in the real world and has no power to get there and it never has.
It has to be made to work. The alternative? More of what we got now...YUCK!
Keep spreading the word. People's minds are changing. Not enough to change everyone's, but we don't need to. As long as there are some of us…
Another intriguing question would be as to how a free society would address the question of currency. Of course, the state's guilty of FIATing humanity into infinity, but it's tough for me to see how practices like coin clipping could be restricted in a decentralized society, haha.
Unless we just return to bartering, hahaha.
Technology: trusted money would drive out untrusted money. https://valaurum.com/
Tet no one ( or at least only a few ) ask themselves how do we protect ourselves in a society where we gave an unaccountable monopoly of violence power over us. And even then most peoples answer to this is voting.
Yessir. It is so frustrating. Once one has seen the truth of this, one feels a bit like Cassandra screaming into the wind. BUT…many people are starting to catch on.
Big fan of that lecture for sure. Shortly afterward, I read his book Chaos Theory, and I refer back to it every now and again. A short but powerful read, and one that might just start rewiring the mind.
Is this all of it?
https://youtu.be/O7_ztV10H2o
Seems like it. It's a very short read - I'd say about 70 pages with footnotes included.
Perfect—thanks!!
I've heard Bob explain the decentralized, distributed development of language before (and cited in in my own writing). This Mises lecture was a really good presentation on all the topics he covered, even if he was wearing a speedo.
When you add it into the ideas of some of the others, an amazing picture begins to form. It really is possible!
Thank you Christopher that was great!
What need for protection would there be in a truly free society? Most of the behavior we see a need for protection from originates in precisely the *opposite* of freedom: the violation of freedom. The violated violate. The unviolated (and freed from the effects of former violation) *do not*. If we've done what it would take to create a free society, what would still threaten us?
Certainly not the same things that threaten us now.
We need to think these things ALL the way through before we prognosticate problems and conjure "solutions".
I agree with the former part. Much of the need for security evaporates as soon as we eliminate the biggest threat: government.
But on the latter, we cannot think everything through all the way. That is not possible. All we can do is do our best, head in a better direction, learn from our mistakes, adjust, and continue heading in a better direction. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the better—if we do, we will remain paralyzed. Best theories on the table and then we march.
There is n quantity of things that we can think through now. I meant ALL the way through those we can, not all the way through those we can't. I said it because most of the stuff I've heard/read involves posing elements from the old paradigm as if they're relevant in the new. That kind of failure to think it through. From the biggest view I can manage, we're talking about going from a paradigm/ethos where self is always #1, self-interest is assumed to be primary, and the priority, always, is to deprive first and ask questions later to a paradigm where all that's reversed because how we do it now is the opposite of functional and effective, and because it violates the natural design of human psyche and opposes our aspirations. When making paradigm shifts, we can't just assume that what's integral to the old one will be extant in the new one. That's all.
I’m okay, and you’re okay, we think, but there are still some people out there who mean us harm—people who want to hurt us or take our property. How would a free society of self-governing individuals deal with that?
With a gun. In a free society, a man would learn to use his weapon and defend himself to the death with it. Dead bodies could be buried in Potter’s field or left beside the road as a warning to other criminals.
Like-minded men could form private security police forces, although I prefer that they be chosen by the people in the sheriff’s model.
A responsible community could create a private jail into which criminals get placed after being placed there by a council of like minded men. This jail could staffed by the aforementioned sheriff’s deputies or trained jailors.
The inmates would serve a set time for the crimes. Theft of any type would result in restitution by time or service to the one stolen from. The penalty for rape could be anything from restitution in the form of time served up to castration or even death. The executions would be carried out by physicians who could make it merciful and quick, or we could just go back to precise hanging or firing squad.
These are among a plethora of both theoretical, real, and historical methods for a private-law society. Murphy is just one of money. I highly recommend Hoppe to you. His refinements of some of these concepts are pretty amazing.
Well, You know My solution... Add free energy, making accounting for Our energy added into a system pointless, freeing Humanity to Our rightful wealth, and then... The motive to break the Laws nigh vanishes.
And with all of Us responsible to arresting (or calling for help in arresting) anyOne We see has broken the Laws, any One who breaks them is a mere petty criminal. And then We see:
Stigmergic Emergence of Civilization (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/stigmergic-emergence-of-civilization
"calling for help in arresting"
—Yes—I prefer specialized market agencies. There's no way my 86-year-old mom is going to arrest anyone. 🤣
I am not suggesting any specialized market agencies per se. But sure, communities may come together and be available to help when a crime is committed. I also envision People in general armed, and willing to drop what They’re doing (no need to worry about getting fired or losing money in a moneyless society) and come help if called.
“Specialized market agencies” suggests money is in use, motivating 99% of all crime…
It is important to distinguish between government and the state when thinking about these concepts.
I wrote an article on the distinction. Basically governing bodies can be part of any organisation. States are a subset of government where a monopoly on the use of force is held by the government.
Reasonable distinction; thank you for clarifying.
Free people should be allowed to coordinate themselves into a multitude of governing structures.
Yessir. Panarchism, if you prefer. It's the only way to truly respect human consent.
This, and the five installments before it, are where I discuss the same thing:
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/should-not-move-free-distributed-nation
Thanks Chris, it seems I can't read the book with my subscription level, but I love the point you make about not having to move to a be entitled to freedom. I could not agree more!
I have given you a month comp. Check it out (and if you think it's worthy of support, please let me know).
I have gone through most of your book and I think its great. I really can't find anything substantial to disagree with and am very excited by the ideas and the way you discuss the ideas. I do find reading it on substack a bit cumbersome, but that is clearly not your fault. Have you thought about getting it published?
https://open.substack.com/pub/appliedlibertarian/p/government-outside-the-state?r=ad948&utm_medium=ios
How do you forge that distinction?
I do think we can work out ways to defend ourselves without the state. For a brief outline of how this could work and some historical examples see my article here: https://substack.com/@appliedlibertarian/note/p-158936485?r=ad948&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Got to go make dinner, but I am queuing this to read!
“can self-government be scaled up?” Most people think that’s what we have now. We self govern. We, the majority, the mob, the 51% decide, elect professionals, aka politicians, to represent us, to serve us. Only those who see the evil of government can conceptualize society without it.
Sure. But people can change. I did!
We live in a society of paid security now, in every aspect that the government doesn't provide for. Including forced arbitration instead of court. How is that working for us?
It works very poorly when the two parties are mismatched economically. It works great when they are roughly equal. A number of reports have shown that the big company wins almost all of the time in arbitration because they are there all the time paying the fees so the arbitrators tend to favor them. That's why arbitration isn't recommended now like it was originally. In practicality, it isn't a good thing.
How about insurance? How about private security? If a big company hires BlackRock for millions of dollars and I hire Joe because all I can afford is $100 a month, who do you think is going to win? Without the current court system and juries, do you think insurance companies would ever be forced to pay? No. Do you think all of this would be cheaper than taxes? Probably for the big guys but I question whether it would for the little guys.
If collectively we can all decide the laws and enforce those lies, then we can take on the big guys. But that is called a government. If we have a government run by the people, then we have the advantages of a government and combined strength. Otherwise, we are just individuals with no power against anything bigger. Regardless of these examples, that aren't realistic in the real world.
And yes, if we all ruled together it would require decisions by consensus just like it does in groups now in the real world. That means some people will be disappointed in some decisions and happy about others. In places like Switzerland where they have more democracy than we do, my friend who lives there reports that people are generally satisfied because they know you can't get everything you want all the time.
I know this is an article on libertarian anarchy and most of the readers and your followers believe that ideology. After studying all of this and some of the references, that individuals having equal power with those who have massive wealth is an illusion. We could spend all of our money on security and it wouldn't matter. The free market concepts used only apply when wealth is relatively equal. Without every one combining together to voluntarily form a direct democracy, the people simply don't have enough power. And that is the only way they ever would have power. We are preyed on now continually by the government and big corporations because they have power. Doing away with the government would increase our wealth and power individually by somewhere between 0% and 25% depending on our income, which means we would still be powerless except against each other. I would prefer individual sovereignty. It just isn't real in the real world and has no power to get there and it never has.