To all my hyper-sovereign sateless anarchist frens: can you recommend something for me to read that will help me understand how a stateless society is feasible and prosperous? I hate government, but I can't imagine such a world. Maybe because I live in a freedom loving society where we have the opportunity to create sovereign enclaves under the warm embrace of the dragon that is the US governement. I'd love to hear more about your perspectives. nostr:nprofile1qydhwumn8ghj7mn0wd68yetvv9uju7t9va58ymewvdhk6tcprfmhxue69uhhq7tjv9kkjepwve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5hsqgrwwhmewguhegeftc85eg8mcm4ee3umapd6lh2kh5mcygx23mh8fcrcqf9x
Discussion
Maybe listen to more of nostr:nprofile1qqsdqlwdneyw30zpptre9rk0fryc3y9vyu3ac0y4r4zpp5haah7gxgsmyn5pw . He said one thing that made me transition from a minarchist to an anarchist:
“The US was the least intrusive and minimal government but over a very short time period became the most powerful and expensive and intrusive given in the history!”
I'll check him out.
I’ve found that if I jabber into a mic for enough hours, some of the stuff I say accidentally sounds smart. Kinda like having a bunch of monkeys banging on typewriters & eventually one of them writes Shakespeare. 😆
Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes is a good place to start because it's goes pretty deep into what's the role of the state. I'm also interested in reading materials regarding a stateless future.
It’s not possible.
There, saved you the time it’ll take to read some books.
I think Hayek was right that stateless doesn't actually work, you need some kind of court system
That said still would be 99% smaller state than today
It’s not just about courts. You need to be able to take and defend. There’s a reason we have states now … that don’t randomly happen.
I’m here for the discussion. Without some kind of police power and rule of law strong psychopaths become kings but a reduction in the size of that police power is welcomed.
"Why we have States now" is as much a product of historical accident as some inherent law of nature. Yale historian James C. Scott wrote several books about this in the historical context of medieval Southeast Asia.
"Take and defend" reflects a contingent condition in which States have (a) the ability to credibly project coercive authority over some geographic area and (b) populations engaging in legible economic activity from which said States can derive taxation.
Bitcoin, among other technologies, starts to change this. The more economic activity moves into the anonymous, semi-anonymous, and uncensorable realm of crypto/Bitcoin, the less capability States will have to tax and ultimately rule.
Bitcoin is neither anonymous nor uncensorable. There are plenty of blacklisted addresses already. The state doesn’t need to apply technology to censor - just force or the threat of force.
Things aren't absolute. It's orders of magnitude more anonymous and uncensorable than the fiat money system. That's a huge change from the current system if anything like mass adoption occurs.
And "blacklisted addresses" -- I'm sure they exist on Coinbase or whatever, but are you saying those addresses won't have transactions mined? I seriously doubt it...
It would be pretty hard even in a wide adoption scenario to avoid having an address tied to some traceable transaction- ether though a personal interaction or an online order.
It’s common for people to focus on the technical details while ignoring the social ones. Most hacks are not technical and involve social engineering. Bitcoiners fall for this too, focusing on how they will be technical private while ignoring all of the barriers that can be put in place on the legislative / social side. And sometimes just by stoking fear.
imo states are the result of our human instinct/need of belonging to a tribe. Everyone wants to belong to a tribe or group and they always belong to the best tribe, the best country, the best bitcoiners, the best whatever. Yet, their tribe isn't the best. It's just the most popular at that time or the most powerful.
its more than that tho,
if the Chinese can band together and exploit Russian resources or vice versa, there's a survival advantage.
so that makes a convincing imperative to be a member of the "strongest" group
ie the group with the meanest leader and the biggest stick
its a mistake I think that nice people have begun to make more and more in the 20th century,
enlightened leaders would be great,
but politics is about force projection.
as soon as one state breaks the truce theres a race to the bottom to see who can be the most vicious.
it continues in this fashion until individuals themselves change.
Not YET, IMO.
Once we become truly libertarian for a while, it will become more clear how decentralized court systems, etc. could work.
Just like competing rating agencies could replace the FDA once we eliminate the corrupting effect of fiat and biased top-down regulation. Listen to whoever you trust, and let their records compete.
A 'justice provider' would have incentive to keep its clients happy and play nice with other 'justice providers....' But only if we first remove perverted fiat incentives.
"Among the most advanced topics in the literature in the Austro-libertarian milieu is that which deals with the workings of the fully free society, that is, the society with no state, or anarcho-capitalism. Robert Murphy deals with this head on, and makes the first full contribution to this literature in the new century. Working within a Rothbardian framework, he takes up the challenge of Hans Hoppe regarding the role of market insurance in property security to extend the analysis to the security of person.
His applications are part empirical and part speculative, but unfailingly provocative, rigorous, and thoughtful. The title itself refers to the supposed chaos that results from eliminating the state but Murphy shows that out of chaos grows an ordered liberty. Anyone interested in exploring the farthest reaches of anarchist theory must come to terms with Murphy’s account."
Neat I’ll check this out today
For a new liberty by Murray Rothbard
Just listen to Michael Malice. Most arguments he breaks down seem very obvious. But, for the most part you have to narrow your focus. The point of Anarchy is that no one else speaks for you. Applying that to the world in a top-down fashion is oxymoronic. It's sort of like this question: So, you don't like central planning? How would you centrally plan everything, then?
The question makes no sense.
I’m so glad to see other folks’ recommendations 😊 I wanted to wait and make sure you got some solid stuff before I shared my recommendation.
It’s not particularly easy to find anymore (though it used to be a free ebook, which is how I found it) or part of the Ancap “canon,”but it was the one thing that singlehandedly turned 17-year-old me from libertarian to anarchist.
Natural Rights: A New Theory by Richard Fuerle
It’s more of a comprehensive “why anarchy” than a focus on “how anarchy,” but there was enough in there that it made me think “this could possibly work” enough for me to look into it more.
The New Libertarian Manifesto by Samuel Edward Konkin, III
Just about anything by Larken Rose
Someone ITT mentioned Michael Malice, who has always said that anarchy doesn't need to have mass scale adoption to work, just an individual who decides to live as freely as he can within the confines of this so-called "free country" (paraphrased).
nostr:note1kqg695h2kldgv86stefn3flannmaeufq3qm8xgalfz24659yvegqy4xqp4
The New Libertarian Manifesto by Samuel Edward Konkin, III
Most anything by Larken Rose
Oh, and as much as I don't like Stephan Molyneux, Practical Anarchy was a good read, from back before he was a nutjob yelling at women about their eggs.