Anarchism, or Min-archism.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

The main question is this: How can an anarchist society flourish (or even survive) surrounded by statist societies?

 

The main reason I bring this up is because the only two things I see a government capable of doing right at least most of the time are national defense and law enforcement. While I can conceive of more localized law enforcement under an anarcho-capitalist society much like of Stef's vision, I simply cannot see how such a society would remain free so long as "enslaved" (I will use to Greek definition of liberty: free from rule) societies remain. 

 

If America were the site of a free society, the main obstacle would be a heavily militaristic and morally relativistic Mexico. Should Mexico actually transform from a crime infested hell to some kind of nation state, I would say Mexico would probably repeat old history an attempt to invade America, at least to reclaim their old territories and gain some more as a bargain. If there is no standing army in this hypothetical on the part of the Americans, then the Americans would be doomed to fail as history does not favor a mass of localized militias (I assume militias would act as armies in times of need in an anarchist society) without central authority or military discipline. 

 

I use America as my prime example mainly because I am American and feasibly the only statist society that might invade for *inset reason here* is Mexico, whereas in Europe the political dynamic would be a bit byzantine in that essentially every European country has historically been under pressure to be the local hegemonist or be conquered by another hegemonist. In America I see a  free society being the most feasible as the only historically militaristic society liable to invade that could not be handled by a couple of cities' militia would be Mexico.

 

My own answer to this problem, which I will subject to change if you guys can give me the arguments, is something like this: We need states so long as states exist, therefore states will always exist unless one state conquers every other state and disbands itself (by state I mean government, not a Germanic province).

 

As a side question: has Stef written a book on what his vision of anarcho-capitalism might be? If so please give me a name so I can read/listen and give myself a better picture on what anarcho-capitalism applied might look like.

[Tyler H]

Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy will answer a lot of these questions. If you have questions after I'd be happy to offer my opinions.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

So those are the books? I'll give them a read/listen when I have the chance. Of course I'd appreciate a few bed crumbs to munch while I float about until I hear/read Stef's theory on it.

Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy will answer a lot of these questions. If you have questions after I'd be happy to offer my opinions.

 

I just got back from reading the chapter and a half in Practical Anarchy involving Collective Defense Agencies. While it is possible, even with the highest scrutiny, that the chief of the C.D.A. seizes power and restores the state the same could be said of any experimental society, so I wouldn't bother holding that up as objectionable. 

 

There are two parts I do find troubling.

 

1: The example used France and Germany, but realistically I don't think Germany would ever invade stateless France if the rewards are dubious and the costs obviously high. However...most often, the worst invasions aren't mere loot or seize invasions but mass genocides. I'm going to swap France with Greece and Germany with Turkey, since ideologically they're more opposed historically than the rather similar French and German populations.

 

Therefore, in this scenario my main issue would be what if the Sultan or President or whomever of Turkey decides to declare jihad and exterminate all Greeks into oblivion? Well, with C.D.A.'s it is not like they don't have a chance in losing. But if I were smart about invading I'd use the C.D.A's competitiveness to spur on betrayal. Admittedly this "What-if?" isn't fundamentally different than the prior, however I do not know of any national army betraying its country whereas treacherous mercenaries are a bit easier to find, and therefore more likely. 

 

Supposing the C.D.A's are beaten, the result is admittedly much like the defeat of a national army. The victor can do as he pleases. If the cause was genocide, well...even the best armed populace is helpless against a well-disciplined force of killers.

 

That brings us to number 2.

 

2: Because no country with nuclear bombs has ever been directly invaded (Well, 9/11 not counted as a direct invasion apparently. Admittedly it is a different kind from boots on the ground, but the raid alone should have theoretically provoked a nuking, otherwise the "bluff" was called), having some will be a cheap way to guarantee peace. For the most part, this is true, but the glaring exception is the Islamic bombing of several places in and around 9/11. While they're hardly wreaking the kind of havoc they're literally dying to wreak , they were the first to "call our bluff" on whether or not we'd nuke a country that invaded us. Therefore, it affirms my suspicion that nuclear weapons are merely decorations never intended for practical use. 

 

My conclusion being: What can an anarchic society achieve that a largely hands-off military-and-law-enforcement only kind of government fail to achieve? It seems very similar. The only glaring difference from anarcho-capitalism and capitalism with a practically non-existent state is the mere existence of an official institution on high. 

[aviet]

If the people of the world were evolved enough to live in a voluntary fashion, I doubt there would even be any real need for much of what I see as the anarcho-capitalist state apparatus of rules and DROs. Such a state is far beyond where we find ourselves.

Much of global stability is derived from the US-NATO world order, in which most sectarian tendencies are kept in check. Many nations have had their development given and foisted on them by the west in the form of aid, technology, enforced human rights etc. Yet many of those nations have not gone through the appropriate pyscho-emotional and intellectual development that led to their creation. Give a third-world nation plastic and guns and you will see cities of garbage and bullet-ridden buildings; give them to the people of Hong Kong and you will see recycling plants and skyscrapers.

If you think third-world governments are bad, look what happens when they collapse - think machetes being wielded by illiterates. Right now, unless you are willing to put up a wall, you will have people well below the level required to sustain your country moving in and turning it into theirs. If globalism continues, the reality in much of America will be that of Detroit or Baltimore.

Right now practical anarchy is just a theory. There isn't a practical question, 'Would a voluntary society get taken over?' right now. There is only 'Is my country being taken over?' And it's not foreign governments that are doing the taking over. The same would go with a voluntary society that  somehow managed to exist in a vacuum. Unless it was protected against both inappropriate outsiders and internal generational decay, it wouldn't last.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

If the people of the world were evolved enough to live in a voluntary fashion, I doubt there would even be any real need for much of what I see as the anarcho-capitalist state apparatus of rules and DROs. Such a state is far beyond where we find ourselves.

 

Much of global stability is derived from the US-NATO world order, in which most sectarian tendencies are kept in check. Many nations have had their development given and foisted on them by the west in the form of aid, technology, enforced human rights etc. Yet many of those nations have not gone through the appropriate pyscho-emotional and intellectual development that led to their creation. Give a third-world nation plastic and guns and you will see cities of garbage and bullet-ridden buildings; give them to the people of Hong Kong and you will see recycling plants and skyscrapers.

 

If you think third-world governments are bad, look what happens when they collapse - think machetes being wielded by illiterates. Right now, unless you are willing to put up a wall, you will have people well below the level required to sustain your country moving in and turning it into theirs. If globalism continues, the reality in much of America will be that of Detroit or Baltimore.

 

Right now practical anarchy is just a theory. There isn't a practical question, 'Would a voluntary society get taken over?' right now. There is only 'Is my country being taken over?' And it's not foreign governments that are doing the taking over. The same would go with a voluntary society that  somehow managed to exist in a vacuum. Unless it was protected against both inappropriate outsiders and internal generational decay, it wouldn't last.

 

Hmm...The problem is, for the world to evolve voluntarily the world must be roughly compatible IQ-wise. Because, unless we're talking some kind of sci-fi era genocide projects are being undertaken, there will always be "barbarians at the gates", and sometimes "savages in the streets".

 

Of course East Asians are simply a superior race to Indians or Africans. Why? The cold-climate natural-selection based theory makes sense, in that the least fit genes would have been killed off early. Perhaps the Africans were unable to weed out the bad among them since to be bad in a White/Eastern society is to be "good" in an African/Indian society. Although people's outcomes are hardly pre-ordained, there is a lot of limitations for non-First or Second-world countries.

 

On third world governments; Yep, they're bad. At best we can ally with a "steady dictator" who doesn't mind being a pacifist in exchange for having us keeping our noses to ourselves. Not a bad deal to me.  Of course, no-rule in the third world tends to result in a new contest for supremacy, wherein you can't be certain the new dictator is any better (if not worse) than the old.

 

Agreed, anarchy is a theory as it stands. Therefore, this question was based largely on theoretical grounds. While I find I have a lot in common ideologically and in terms of life experience with the people who subscribe to Stef, I do not personally advocate for his vision of the future---at least not the package deal. I am certain monarchism will replace the corrupted democracies down the line, and from what I can tell the best system (proven to work) is a Year 0 to 2nd century era Roman Empire; Wherein the government is as limited as can be and the free market handles all matters economical, resulting in an effectively bottomless tax revenue for the government so that it can afford to raise a large, disciplined army in times of war.

 

However, society is not something that can stay in orbit. It must continue flying in one direction or another, otherwise it will simply crash.

 

Stefan Molyneux's vision of a free society is rather attractive. His teachings of peace parenting are very actionable, which I would say are the most useful to me down the line. However, I also respect his vision and think that while it is bound to be difficult to execute, it is not impossible. First thing's first though: We have to save our people in the present, or at least be ready to pick up the pieces after the storm of war has blown us through.

[Mister Mister]

privatize the border

[Tyler H]

It seems, correct me if I'm wrong, that there are two different concepts floating around in the thread: what will a free society look like in the future, and how do we deal with problems now.  Philosophy is like nutrition; it helps us make good decisions on a daily basis to avoid disasters in the future caused by the build-up of bad decisions.  Nutrition can't help you during a heart attack and philosophy can't do much when we are in the middle of a statist cluster-f**k of violence and quasi-slavery.  The OP was directed at possible atmospheres conducive to a hypothetical free society in the future so I will focus on that.

 

The most important thing to remember when contemplating a free society, in my humble opinion, is that it will not come about until there is a philosophical and moral revolution.  Just like slavery is outright rejected by all civilized societies today, so will be the initiation of force in the free society of the future.  A free society and a majority of enlightened citizens (for lack of a better term) go hand in hand; you cannot have one without the other.  This is such a gradual transition that I can't believe there would be such a huge disparity between  nations that one the size of America would go an-cap and any of the others would have the resources or global support to invade, but it's fun to play with the ideas anyways.

 

So how do we protect this society from invasion?  The nuclear option is probably an emergency action of last resort even though historically it seems to be an effective deterrent.  Assuming we all agree on the benefits of free markets, we know that the wealth created by this society will be unimaginable to us.  If there is a need to amass a significant amount of resources to mount a defense then there will be no problem in their procurement.  It appears that we will have terminators (hopefully without the associated A/I) to help with that long before we get a free society so it's hard to judge what the defense would even look like, but you can see how being the wealthiest society would significantly deter other societies from attacking. 

 

Keeping in mind that the population of a free society has rejected statism, the invading nation has a significant problem in controlling the populace.  There is no system in place to extract taxes from people. It will need to be taken at gunpoint or looted. Considering what's possible with bitcoin if wealth is stored digitally theft will be practically impossible.  

 

These are just a few of my thoughts, let me know what you think.  To me, maintaining a free society is the easy part - getting there though... It's a tough row to hoe for sure.

 

A note on the thread title - I don't understand why minarchists hold the position they do; they understand that competition and free trade are beneficial in all areas of human interaction, but when it comes to defense suddenly a forced monopoly somehow transcends this natural phenomenon to produce the best possible result.  If you allow for the initiation of force in any area at all, it can always be justified by power-hungry sophists to be necessary for some other reason in some other area.  The is the very reason why the minarchy the United States started as has become the empire we see today. 

[Will Torbald]

privatize the border

Extort border owners, kidnap their families, bribe them, buy them outright and then open it for your interests.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

It seems, correct me if I'm wrong, that there are two different concepts floating around in the thread: what will a free society look like in the future, and how do we deal with problems now.  Philosophy is like nutrition; it helps us make good decisions on a daily basis to avoid disasters in the future caused by the build-up of bad decisions.  Nutrition can't help you during a heart attack and philosophy can't do much when we are in the middle of a statist cluster-f**k of violence and quasi-slavery.  The OP was directed at possible atmospheres conducive to a hypothetical free society in the future so I will focus on that.

 

 

Agreed. 

 

 

The most important thing to remember when contemplating a free society, in my humble opinion, is that it will not come about until there is a philosophical and moral revolution.  Just like slavery is outright rejected by all civilized societies today, so will be the initiation of force in the free society of the future.  A free society and a majority of enlightened citizens (for lack of a better term) go hand in hand; you cannot have one without the other.  This is such a gradual transition that I can't believe there would be such a huge disparity between  nations that one the size of America would go an-cap and any of the others would have the resources or global support to invade, but it's fun to play with the ideas anyways.

 

Certainly. We cannot expect anarchy, or min-archy, to be sustained unless there is a conscious objection to governmental power, especially in its inefficiency. 

 

So how do we protect this society from invasion?  The nuclear option is probably an emergency action of last resort even though historically it seems to be an effective deterrent.  Assuming we all agree on the benefits of free markets, we know that the wealth created by this society will be unimaginable to us.  If there is a need to amass a significant amount of resources to mount a defense then there will be no problem in their procurement.  It appears that we will have terminators (hopefully without the associated A/I) to help with that long before we get a free society so it's hard to judge what the defense would even look like, but you can see how being the wealthiest society would significantly deter other societies from attacking. 

 

Well, I cannot predict the technology. However uniform armies, particularly in stable chains of command, have historically performed the best. A great example being the Swedish Caroleans. Only 30,000-50,000 during the Great Northern War, but capable of devastating grossly inferior conscript armies led by North Germans, Poles, and Russians, until it was over-stretched and exhausted. 

 

A free society may have C.D.A. (Collective Defense Agencies, which I read either in Practical Anarchy or Everyday Anarchy, I think it was the former. Theoretically it could serve, but I question the value of mercenaries. I doubt the Mexicans (in the example I provided) would beat high quality mercenaries, however I don't know if in a more convoluted European example if say, Denmark, could depend on mercenaries to protect itself from say, Sweden or Germany (especially if they are min-archists, using the power nationalism, martial discipline, and the largess of a free market).

 

Keeping in mind that the population of a free society has rejected statism, the invading nation has a significant problem in controlling the populace.  There is no system in place to extract taxes from people. It will need to be taken at gunpoint or looted. Considering what's possible with bitcoin if wealth is stored digitally theft will be practically impossible.  

 

Certainly. However a genocidal motivation would be on the table. A good example might be the Turks invading Free Greece. 

 

These are just a few of my thoughts, let me know what you think.  To me, maintaining a free society is the easy part - getting there though... It's a tough row to hoe for sure.

 

Agreed. I'm not as worried anymore as mercenaries may not be so bad compared to Leftist statism, but compared to min-archsim's military I'd be worried. 

 

A note on the thread title - I don't understand why minarchists hold the position they do; they understand that competition and free trade are beneficial in all areas of human interaction, but when it comes to defense suddenly a forced monopoly somehow transcends this natural phenomenon to produce the best possible result.  If you allow for the initiation of force in any area at all, it can always be justified by power-hungry sophists to be necessary for some other reason in some other area.  The is the very reason why the minarchy the United States started as has become the empire we see today. 

 

As someone who might be a min-archist, given I agree that the State is either inefficient or incapable of substituting the free market but great with the military and law enforcement, my position is that the America until 1916 and the Rome until circa 250 were ideal societies (although the slavery bit was not ideal, at least it was small in Rome's case until...it wasn't.)

 

I would argue America's minarchy becoming the most powerful empire a great example of why min-archy is so great. Unfortunately the Empire is no longer min-archic but becoming more Leftist and anti-self. If it wasn't becoming Leftist, gynocentric, globalist, anti-self, etc. (basically if feminism and Communism never corrupted the system) it might be perfect.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Extort border owners, kidnap their families, bribe them, buy them outright and then open it for your interests.

 

I was just thinking that'd be the problem. Although if a "C.D.A" were managing the border, it might be capable although hardly incorruptible. Although an army isn't incorruptible it is much less so than mercenaries or local warlords.

[Mister Mister]

Extort border owners, kidnap their families, bribe them, buy them outright and then open it for your interests.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at

[thebeardslastcall]

Extort border owners, kidnap their families, bribe them, buy them outright and then open it for your interests.

 

Congratulations, you successfully bribed and raided your way into a single plot of land. You failed to understand when land is privatized every piece of land is another border. If you invade one piece of land and people see what you've done you've just pissed off the hornets nest to gain an inch past the "border". In a free society you don't get in and then have free reign. You get half an inch in and then realize you can't travel around freely because everything is owned and you can no longer travel around anonymously, because there are no public roads or spaces. Bribing your way into one piece of land grants you no further access because there is no government to bribe to get yourself free access over everyone. Trying to cross any border by force in a free and prosperous society like America would be risky as all hell and you'd probably get some serious backlash unless the people in the area decided to take mercy on you for your extreme stupidity, but if you were brutal or murderous you're probably just fucked.

 

With the government you have to give quarter to any if you run a hotel or apartment building and can't discriminate against buyers, by threat of force, but without a government you lose the national borders, but gain hundreds of millions of private borders that can suddenly possess their own land previously dominated by governments denying their free association rights. The land border paradigm and how travel and trade occur would change drastically with a free society compared to a government society. With a government you are denied personal borders and free association, while they create an illusory national border, that they don't even guard in many cases. With a free society the illusory borders vanish and countless real ones emerge.

 

[shirgall]

There is another category: minimal rulers. It is not enough to limit the power of the state, it is necessary to limit the power any person or group has over you. I can chose to give Amazon some of my privacy, for example, but I don't want them to share it with others. I can give my landlord access to my credit history and my obligation to pay rent, but I don't want them limiting my speech, where I work, or who I associate with. It's not enough to have only chosen positive and negative obligations on my action, I also have to make sure not too many of those obligations end up in the hands of one entity.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

There is another category: minimal rulers. It is not enough to limit the power of the state, it is necessary to limit the power any person or group has over you. I can chose to give Amazon some of my privacy, for example, but I don't want them to share it with others. I can give my landlord access to my credit history and my obligation to pay rent, but I don't want them limiting my speech, where I work, or who I associate with. It's not enough to have only chosen positive and negative obligations on my action, I also have to make sure not too many of those obligations end up in the hands of one entity.

 

 

True. Theoretically, at least from the sect of minimalist rule I subscribe to, the King, Kaiser, or President is beholden to the land owning class. More precisely, if the Kaiser wants men for the army, the landlords must consent as a majority that the war (if aggressive) is justified. If defensive he would have full power to conscript men to protect the border. 

 

Law enforcement would be a communal matter, i.e., the land owning class would vote locally for which laws they prefer after the nation as a whole carved out its golden tablets at the nation's inception for what cannot be disputed as law.

 

Note: I also subscribe to the idea that if there must be voting or political activism, it must only be by those who have a vested interest in the minimizing of the government; which is to say the land-owners, which vaguely encompasses all businessmen who own land and the specific person (not family) who legally owns the house their family lives in.

[Tyler H]

Congratulations, you successfully bribed and raided your way into a single plot of land. You failed to understand when land is privatized every piece of land is another border. If you invade one piece of land and people see what you've done you've just pissed off the hornets nest to gain an inch past the "border". In a free society you don't get in and then have free reign. You get half an inch in and then realize you can't travel around freely because everything is owned and you can no longer travel around anonymously, because there are no public roads or spaces. Bribing your way into one piece of land grants you no further access because there is no government to bribe to get yourself free access over everyone. Trying to cross any border by force in a free and prosperous society like America would be risky as all hell and you'd probably get some serious backlash unless the people in the area decided to take mercy on you for your extreme stupidity, but if you were brutal or murderous you're probably just fucked.

 

With the government you have to give quarter to any if you run a hotel or apartment building and can't discriminate against buyers, by threat of force, but without a government you lose the national borders, but gain hundreds of millions of private borders that can suddenly possess their own land previously dominated by governments denying their free association rights. The land border paradigm and how travel and trade occur would change drastically with a free society compared to a government society. With a government you are denied personal borders and free association, while they create an illusory national border, that they don't even guard in many cases. With a free society the illusory borders vanish and countless real ones emerge.

 

I think this is a great point. With the government, once you get past "the border" things get easier, but in a free society "the border" just moves once you take over some piece of land - a rubber band border if you will.

[Will Torbald]

Congratulations, you successfully bribed and raided your way into a single plot of land. You failed to understand when land is privatized every piece of land is another border. If you invade one piece of land and people see what you've done you've just pissed off the hornets nest to gain an inch past the "border". In a free society you don't get in and then have free reign. You get half an inch in and then realize you can't travel around freely because everything is owned and you can no longer travel around anonymously, because there are no public roads or spaces. Bribing your way into one piece of land grants you no further access because there is no government to bribe to get yourself free access over everyone. Trying to cross any border by force in a free and prosperous society like America would be risky as all hell and you'd probably get some serious backlash unless the people in the area decided to take mercy on you for your extreme stupidity, but if you were brutal or murderous you're probably just fucked.

 

With the government you have to give quarter to any if you run a hotel or apartment building and can't discriminate against buyers, by threat of force, but without a government you lose the national borders, but gain hundreds of millions of private borders that can suddenly possess their own land previously dominated by governments denying their free association rights. The land border paradigm and how travel and trade occur would change drastically with a free society compared to a government society. With a government you are denied personal borders and free association, while they create an illusory national border, that they don't even guard in many cases. With a free society the illusory borders vanish and countless real ones emerge.

 

 

Yeah, I read the book too. It is however, totally mistaken. First of all, I was talking about a scenario where the current border of the current society would be privatized - say, the US border with Mexico. Build a wall and it isn't illusory. Second, a society without commons where no one can step outside without permission of someone else will never work, implodes, and would be a nightmare to live in. Quality of life matters, and not being able to have common spaces is the worst idea ever. Finally, you ignore fanaticism and imperialism. People conquer because their god tells them to, or their egomaniac ruler tells them too. A free society is fresh meat for savages, barbarians, islamists, and tyrants. Whether you like it or not.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Yeah, I read the book too. It is however, totally mistaken. First of all, I was talking about a scenario where the current border of the current society would be privatized - say, the US border with Mexico. Build a wall and it isn't illusory. Second, a society without commons where no one can step outside without permission of someone else will never work, implodes, and would be a nightmare to live in. Quality of life matters, and not being able to have common spaces is the worst idea ever. Finally, you ignore fanaticism and imperialism. People conquer because their god tells them to, or their egomaniac ruler tells them too. A free society is fresh meat for savages, barbarians, islamists, and tyrants. Whether you like it or not.

 

Hence why a Nationalist society that only allocates the military and law to the government is one that can both maximize profits from the free market and also support the finest and possibly largest military in the world. 

 

Invaders who could be called "savages, barbarians, Muslims, and tyrants" would be met with extreme retaliation. However I don't think we can rely on mercenaries (a C.D.A. is essentially an open-books mercenary organization), and if for some reason they appear "too big" or "too expensive" then the country hiring them will suffer for it. Better than nothing, as the draw backs tend to be similar with most statist armies, but not as good or efficient as a tax and local fed machine wherein everyone has a vested interest in its perfection. Combined with low taxes and either low or no regulations, the revenue for spending on an army would be enormous if not wholly unprecedented. So long as the spenders are wise and not like drunken sailors, I'm certain it will be effective.

[Tyler H]

Yeah, I read the book too. It is however, totally mistaken. First of all, I was talking about a scenario where the current border of the current society would be privatized - say, the US border with Mexico. Build a wall and it isn't illusory. Second, a society without commons where no one can step outside without permission of someone else will never work, implodes, and would be a nightmare to live in. Quality of life matters, and not being able to have common spaces is the worst idea ever. Finally, you ignore fanaticism and imperialism. People conquer because their god tells them to, or their egomaniac ruler tells them too. A free society is fresh meat for savages, barbarians, islamists, and tyrants. Whether you like it or not.

You should call in and enlighten the whole community through debate with Stef, unless you've already done that I'd love to listen.

[thebeardslastcall]

Yeah, I read the book too. It is however, totally mistaken. First of all, I was talking about a scenario where the current border of the current society would be privatized - say, the US border with Mexico. Build a wall and it isn't illusory. Second, a society without commons where no one can step outside without permission of someone else will never work, implodes, and would be a nightmare to live in. Quality of life matters, and not being able to have common spaces is the worst idea ever. Finally, you ignore fanaticism and imperialism. People conquer because their god tells them to, or their egomaniac ruler tells them too. A free society is fresh meat for savages, barbarians, islamists, and tyrants. Whether you like it or not.

 

Not too. I'm not even sure what book you are talking about, but I haven't read, or listened to, any of Stefan's books. You can't really fully privatize a border without eliminating the government, otherwise you haven't changed much except possibly given the property to someone who would have no particular reason to build a wall for land they had no need or point to guard. Who would buy this land and why? I mean how much is this "border" space you're selling. Yes a wall makes a real border, but you still need a nation for that to be relevant, otherwise it's not a national border, but just a property line, and  one of many. Have you ever been to one of those places called a mall? How about just about any business ever really. Or you know a neighborhood gathering. Businesses welcome in as many people as they can because they want to sell stuff. In a free society people will have common and shared spaces to enhance quality of life and trade. Doesn't become some permanent martial law like state where no one can interact with others. You are acting like no one will ever give permission which seems ridiculous and your conclusions follow from these inaccurate deductions of how a free society will function and thus aren't worth addressing at this point.

[KenBrace]

I've been thinking along the same lines as the OP. While anarchy would be great, I don't think it's really possible. If you don't have a military then you're basically at the mercy of other countries. If Russia decides that it wants our resources then our country would pretty much be up for the taking. If our government suddenly disappeared then the power void would quickly be filled by another government(s). It might even spark a world war.

 

Another problem I see with anarchy is that the majority of the population isn't very intelligent or idealistic. Most people in the world are followers. A small majority are leaders. Those followers will always look for a leader and there will always be leaders that are happy to take the job. 

[Tyler H]

I've been thinking along the same lines as the OP. While anarchy would be great, I don't think it's really possible. If you don't have a military then you're basically at the mercy of other countries. If Russia decides that it wants our resources then our country would pretty much be up for the taking. If our government suddenly disappeared then the power void would quickly be filled by another government(s). It might even spark a world war.

 

Another problem I see with anarchy is that the majority of the population isn't very intelligent or idealistic. Most people in the world are followers. A small majority are leaders. Those followers will always look for a leader and there will always be leaders that are happy to take the job. 

Have you read Stef's books Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy?

[KenBrace]

Have you read Stef's books Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy?

 

No, I haven't.

[Tyler H]

No, I haven't.

They're fairly short and provide a good introduction to the basic arguments. They are available for free in many formats. From what I understand the major difference between a free society and a minarchist society is that the former rejects the initiation of the use of force as a legitimate and moral avenue to fund the organizations providing services. If the citizenry is smart enough to resolve complex social problems without coercion then they are smart enough to know whether or not they should voluntarily fund a form of police/military for defense of their property/homeland. We don't know that a military won't exist in a free society, but we do know we won't be taxed to pay for it. If a military has value to people, they will pay for it; if it does not, they won't.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

I've been thinking along the same lines as the OP. While anarchy would be great, I don't think it's really possible. If you don't have a military then you're basically at the mercy of other countries. If Russia decides that it wants our resources then our country would pretty much be up for the taking. If our government suddenly disappeared then the power void would quickly be filled by another government(s). It might even spark a world war.

 

Another problem I see with anarchy is that the majority of the population isn't very intelligent or idealistic. Most people in the world are followers. A small majority are leaders. Those followers will always look for a leader and there will always be leaders that are happy to take the job. 

 

Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy are books I'd recommend for getting Stefan's ideas in one place.  For the military he recommends "Collective Defense Agencies", which are essentially mercenaries paid for via subscription. In order to keep them honest, he suggests that they would most likely (if they want subscribers) have to be very transparent with their book keeping and charge as little as possible for as much as possible.

 

Although I think in terms of handling masses, competitive Dispute Resolution Agencies/Organizations would seem reasonable. However I'm of the opinion that homogeneity must be established before anarchism can be formed.

 

While I'm mostly in favor of AnCap, I will clarity my main issue is both martial and cultural.

 

I fear if left to their own devices the masses would become pacifists and anti-nationalist, would would make them weak compared to the predators on the planet. Therefore with a minimal-government focused only on the military would handle the  defensive problem (as I doubt C.D.A.s will ever amount to more than Hessian-style mercenaries at best) while good parenting (which is required for anarchy to even be conceivable) would instill the necessary nationalism in the people.

 

However the latter part (i.e. good childhood=nationalism) is the part I'm unsure of. My main concern is that it might result in a natural egalitarianism that could only be broken by the blunt trauma of reality. While I am not suggesting we abuse our children, I am suggesting we might need an agency to indoctrinate the masses into nationalism, especially so long as the planet remains populated by violent and aggressive predatory races.