~ Complete society without a State ? Is it possible ? ~

[Fleedoom]

I would like to know how others would formulate a society without a State.

 

Please be detailed and significant.

 

1. Crime ? Defining & Enforcement.

2. Military Defense ?

3. Border Control ?

4. Contracts ?

 

Lets start with these basic 4 and then progress to more complex human interaction.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/PA/Practical_Anarchy_by_Stefan_Molyneux.mp3

[AncapFTW]

 

I would like to know how others would formulate a society without a State.

 

Please be detailed and significant.

 

1. Crime ? Defining & Enforcement.

2. Military Defense ?

3. Border Control ?

4. Contracts ?

 

Lets start with these basic 4 and then progress to more complex human interaction.

 

I haven't listened to the clip above because I have no idea how long it is, but here's my answer:

 

1)  DROs are the best option as far as I can see, as they will work as a kind of direct substitute, but without the need for taxes to pay for them.  People could also decide not to hire them, but would deal with crimes on an individual basis as they happen, like how you would deal with traffic accidents or medical bills if you didn't have car insurance or medical insurance.  Those that couldn't afford a DRO membership (which would be very rare) would likely have the services covered by charities.

You could also go with a system similar to the ancient Norse or pre-colonial Somalia, where family units or groups or people got together and defended each other when they were wronged.  They would then go to a neutral arbiter to have the issue resolved.

2)  What's the difference between a criminal organization and an invading army?  A DRO could also cover this, though I suspect that militias would also form to help deal with such issues due to the large numbers or criminals involved.

3)  Not really needed, as there wouldn't be large numbers of handouts for anyone who came in, and they would have to contribute to get anything out.  Because things would be privately owned, though, it would be a case of the owner allowing them/not allowing them and trespassing.

4)  People would enforce their own contracts.  If you violated the terms, there would be punishments in the contract for such occurrences.  If you refused to abide by those written punishments, you would be letting everyone know that you don't honor contracts it would become more difficult to get others to contract with you in the future.

 

Crime and Contracts could become something like a credit rating.  If you respect people's rights and therefore don't face charges, your rating goes up over time.  Be found guilty of a crime, and it goes down.  Break contracts and/or refuse to abide by the punishments laid out in them, your contract rating goes down.  Abide by them, and it goes up.

[Mister Mister]

Nobody "formulates" society in the absence of a State, that's the point.

 

Without a state, society is organized around clear, rational, universal principles, which are understood and agreed upon by most everyone in society.  In the same way that language tends to be universal and agreed upon by a society, though it makes small changes each generation, but doesn't need a centralized institution of some Grammar Nazi Police banging on everyone's door to get them to obey language.  Rather, the central ethics of Peaceful Parenting, Reason, Empiricism, Non-Aggression, Negotiation, Private Property, Trade, must replace the current culture of Statism, Democracy, "Disciplining" Children, Emotional Manipulation, Propaganda, and Taxation, in order for a free society to come about.

[dsayers]

 

I would like to know how others would formulate a society without a State.

There's nothing that you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence other than violence itself. So whatever you think the State is providing, we can provide it without pointing guns at people.

[Donnadogsoth]

There's nothing that you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence other than violence itself. So whatever you think the State is providing, we can provide it without pointing guns at people.

 

Win World War Two nonviolently.

[Fleedoom]

 

AncapFTW 

1. DROs equates to MOB rule. The strongest DROs ( War Lords ) would have the monopoly of violence and crush all opposition. Plenty of ppl would align with the strongest for benefit or self preservation. WLs would selectively enforce their mandates on the weak while the rest looked the other way. Formed through protection money, those that would NOT paid in GOLD would pay in BLOOD. Society NEEDS an independent monopoly of violence organized by elections with separation of power through courts.

 

2. Who determines what a DRO does. What if the MOST VIOLENT DRO wanted to landmine the border and snipe the crossers ? Who would stop them ?

 

3. Why would a DRO try to defend a demographic ? It would partition the land like Charlemagne. Borders are where one War Lord could NOT defeat another. MOST DRO management would NOT risk their life for protecting the weak where plunder and pillaging would ravage the landscape.

 

4. Most ppl cannot enforce their own contract. DROs would side with their best interest. The weak would revert to violence and retribution for grievances like the 3rd world does now. Ever heard the motto No Justice NO Peace ?

 

EROCK is the prefect example what happens when the GOVT is removed from society. There will never be peace until ONE faction subdues all competition. The main reason USA is peaceful is due to the fact that BOTH  parties are controlled by the same WLs. Only the masks chance the real face of the Elites stay constant. The Main reason for the US Civil War.

 

* all my posts are my opinions.