ILO Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 If society demanded that government be based on the principle of non-aggression, and all of it's services were funded voluntarily, is it still government? Myself, and others get hung up on the anarchy bit, feeling a need to maintain a public organization for, and by the people, but also agree that it must adhere to the principle of non-aggression. Other organizations, private or public, should be able to compete, and everything must be done in adherence to voluntarism, free of coercion/extortion. Why draw an anarcho-capitalist line, when we could draw a non-aggression capitalist line?
powder Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 "Coercion free government" is an oxymoron. I believe that the definition of 'government' as it is defined around here is: "a group of individuals with a monopoly on force and the legal right to initiate force (coercion) in a geographical area" So no, if services are provided voluntary and the NAP is respected, then it is no longer government.
Wuzzums Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 You can no more have a government without aggression than you can have a religion without faith.
ILO Posted October 25, 2013 Author Posted October 25, 2013 If we're changing society's opinion of the initiation of force, why not simply update the definition of government? Most people that I know don't think of government in terms of that definition, rather they think of it as an organization of public services. Government: The organization of public services voluntarily funded & managed by a democratically elected administration, adherent to the principle of non-aggression.
ThinkSkeptic Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 ILO, I belive you're confused by the definition of government, and understandably so. There are two words we shouild use when discussing thsit topic. "Government," which means an organizational structure of society, including institutions, justice system, security services, and so on; and "state," which is a type of government that uses force to survive. In an Anarcho-Capitalist society, there would be a government because there would be a structure of insitutions that serve to organize society, such as dispute resolution organizationss, securityu companies, notaries, whatever. So, yes it's possible to have a government without violating the NAP, but is it not possible to have a state that does not violate the NAP, because a state, by definition, must forcefully assert authority to resolve disputes in a certain geographical area, and most of the time also steal wealth from the people.
ILO Posted October 25, 2013 Author Posted October 25, 2013 @ThinkSkeptic Thanks, I see what you're saying. I wonder if arguing against "the state" and "government" in favor of "anarchy" or "anarcho-capitalist" is less effective than simply speaking out against coercion, extortion, and the initiation of force. If we convince enough people of the virtue of coercion-free society, then it doesn't matter whatever we call an organization that seeks to enforce dominance & control through coercion, it is simply immoral. I think there is more power in communication that focuses on the advocation of the principle of non-aggression, than there is in railing against "the state" or whatever we call whatever institution/organization is using coercion & initiation of force. For example if I lookup "state" in the OSX dictionary I get: A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. The civil government of a country. Those are fairly benign definitions, adding to the confusion of any argument against "the state". Argue for coercion-free society, and against the legitimization of coercion, and I think we have more power than muddy arguments against "the state".
ribuck Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 You can no more have a government without aggression than you can have a religion without faith. You can't have a state without aggression, but you can most certainly have voluntary government without aggression. Pete Sisco's little book "The Freedom App: Building True Freedom Through Contractual Republics" describes this model, and is a great read. It only costs a couple of dollars on Kindle. I must admit I looked around for a freely downloadable PDF first, so that I could see if it was worthwhile before I bought it. I didn't find a PDF, but it was so cheap that I bought it. It's a tremendous book! Pete very enthusiastically and carefully explains his concept, which is basically the same as the DRO model that Stefan embraces, but he takes the idea one step further. Instead of abandoning the initiation of violence, his "contractual republics" abandon all violence, relying instead on collective ostracism. When enough people have signed up, the economic and social ostracism of a large enough group of people can provide the structure for a peaceful and prosperous society. I have never been happy with the implied violence in the DRO model, even though the DRO is not the initiator. I have always preferred the model of multiple overlapping "voluntary governments", and Pete Sisco is the first person who has put together a coherent story of how this would work. The main disagreement I have with him, is that he is a strong-IP guy. But it doesn't matter, because the "contractual republics" model happily accommodates a subset of society that is free of IP.
powder Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 You make a valid point ILO. The definition of 'state' or 'government', or 'anarchy' for that matter, all have very different meanings to the general population and in mainstream definitions. Like you say, I think it is helpful to stick to discussing the NAP and voluntarism instead for the most part.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 You can have that and call it government but it appears to be no different from services we already use. Aaron clarey has writen a book called Privatizing Governments that argues for this idea.
Mick Bynes Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 I am not for any government period. No government at all. No more government.
Existing Alternatives Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 Anti-government or anarchy is a tough pill for most to swallow (not here, obviously), but no “normal” person can argue with NAP. The labels are always used to manipulate people and their opinions, which is why it is always important to define them upfront. You can call your cat “government” and tell everyone how cute and fuzzy it is (yes, I’m looking at Powder’s picture). There was a nightclub in Toronto called “Guvernment” and things that went on there were simply amazing! My point is being anti-government could be highly confusing, but violence is pretty well understood by most.
LanceD Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 ILO I suspect what you want is simply a "community" and not a government. In a free society you would inevitably get groups of people who pooled their resources in order to provide the group services that would be difficult to get on your own. Since such an arrangement would be completely voluntary it could provide certain services to a community, similar to a government, except without all the stealing and guns to people's heads.
Wuzzums Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 You can't have a state without aggression, but you can most certainly have voluntary government without aggression. Pete Sisco's little book "The Freedom App: Building True Freedom Through Contractual Republics" describes this model, and is a great read. It only costs a couple of dollars on Kindle. I must admit I looked around for a freely downloadable PDF first, so that I could see if it was worthwhile before I bought it. I didn't find a PDF, but it was so cheap that I bought it. It's a tremendous book! Pete very enthusiastically and carefully explains his concept, which is basically the same as the DRO model that Stefan embraces, but he takes the idea one step further. Instead of abandoning the initiation of violence, his "contractual republics" abandon all violence, relying instead on collective ostracism. When enough people have signed up, the economic and social ostracism of a large enough group of people can provide the structure for a peaceful and prosperous society. I have never been happy with the implied violence in the DRO model, even though the DRO is not the initiator. I have always preferred the model of multiple overlapping "voluntary governments", and Pete Sisco is the first person who has put together a coherent story of how this would work. The main disagreement I have with him, is that he is a strong-IP guy. But it doesn't matter, because the "contractual republics" model happily accommodates a subset of society that is free of IP. From the description it sounds like a more generalized job contract. As in you choose to be there and agree on certain terms, etc. Am I far off? Also does it address the implication that in order to have a voluntary government you have to first be able to live without having to choose any voluntary government? Which means that a stateless society already exists in that scenario.
ribuck Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 From the description it sounds like a more generalized job contract. As in you choose to be there and agree on certain terms, etc. Am I far off? It's basically a combination of a non-aggression contract ("I won't aggress against you if you don't aggress against me"), an economic engagement contract ("I will trade with you provided you don't defraud me, don't pollute my air and water, agree to use arbitration to settle disputes, or whatever"), and optionally a personal engagement contract ("I will interact with you only if you share my religion, don't abort your babies, or whatever"). Also does it address the implication that in order to have a voluntary government you have to first be able to live without having to choose any voluntary government? His book mentions in passing that the implication is false, but doesn't discuss it in detail. That would make a fine follow-up book in my opinion. The general idea is that you can mutually contract out of certain aspects of society. Consider, for example, how authors can use Creative Commons licensing to contract out of certain aspects of copyright law. Then, when it gets to the point where say 10% of the productive members of society have contracted to interact non-violently, an existing state will have to accommodate them because it can't afford a 10% hit to its GDP.
ILO Posted October 26, 2013 Author Posted October 26, 2013 What is DRO? Google is only coming up with weed and Debt Relief Order.
Cosmin Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 DRO = Dispute Resolution Organization More details in Stefan's article here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/10/stefan-molyneux/the-stateless-society-an-examination-of-alternatives/ How can the free market deal with the problem of dispute resolution? Outside the realm of organized crime, very few people are comfortable with armed confrontations, and so generally prefer to delegate that task to others. Let's assume that people's need for such representatives produces Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs), which promise to resolve disputes on their behalf.Thus, if Stan is hired by Bob, they both sign a document specifying which DRO they both accept as an authority in dispute resolution. If they disagree about something, and are unable to resolve it between themselves, they submit their case to the DRO, and agree to abide by that DRO's decision.
ILO Posted October 26, 2013 Author Posted October 26, 2013 @Cosmin Thanks for the link & name. I believe I just heard a bit of it in this podcast episode 1. http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/stateless_society_take_2_320.mp3 It is fascinating, and seems plausible especially with current technology. I think incentives can also be a powerful tool, where participating businesses could offer 10% discount to members with a certain rating.
Recommended Posts