One needn’t be a statist to celebrate this.
nostr:nevent1qqs0mwxz679gvvyxuqsyunnzvku9fwuf47mz33rrsgjlap3au87mexqppemhxue69uh5qmn0wvhxcmmvetzprr
Discussion
Are you saying that you aren't a statist then?
Correct. I am not a statist. However, I am also not a full blown anarchist.
There is a Middle Way.
Sometimes it’s called Minarchy. Sometimes it’s called a Watchman State. And if you look at historic examples, the most prosperous civilizations fall under this type of rule (eg. The height of the British Empire, The Gilded Age of America).
Bitcoin will naturally bring the state down in size, as it will no longer be able to spend more than it takes in taxes once the fiat money printer is obsolete. Though I don’t believe the state will disappear entirely.
The problem with minarchists is that they see the symptoms but do not understand the underlying cause. The intention has always been to have a small government with limited authority, but as soon as you give a small group any authority to rule over you, there is not much stopping them from claiming total authority, as history has shown over and over again.
How do you enforce the non aggression principle without central coordination? If you have small bands of security forces protecting small, Balkanized areas, you eventually end up in a situation where the more powerful of these groups take over the other groups, and then you end up with a centralized state yet again. Anarchy is unstable.
Asked another way, how would you restore order in a place like Somalia without some form of a centralized state?
You are right that Minarchy tends to lead to government growth and bloat, though that was under the fiat paradigm. With Bitcoin, statist growth will be limited.
The assumption that small, decentralised security groups will inevitably consolidate into a state-like entity presumes that people will allow such monopolisation to occur. However, if individuals and communities recognise the inherent illegitimacy of aggression... even when labeled as "government"... they would reject any group attempting to centralise power by force.
As long as you believe in authority, this is a very difficult concept to wrap your head around. I recommend you read the book, Most Dangerous Superstition, by Larken Rose.
The key part of what you said is, “if individuals and communities recognize…”
A stateless society only works if everybody is already principled and on board with the libertarian / anarcho-utopian vision.
In practice stateless societies look more like this video.
If you cannot find historic examples of prosperous, advanced societies without any form of a state, it is likely not to work today, per the Lindy Principle. https://video.nostr.build/9da35f6e5f4f143a17c28f79ee22f2ac949cdbbbbe6682bcc71c6f7800a0a4b5.mp4
So you're saying that the state is necessary because people are unprincipled and the only thing that can keep you safe from the flaws of human nature is taking some of those flawed humans... some of the most flawed, in fact... and appointing them as gods, with the right to dominate all of mankind, in the absurd hope that, if given such tremendous power, such people will use it only for good?
I'm from Africa. The plank being used in the video as a makeshift bridge is merely a staged spectacle to entertain Westerners.
As for the chaos and filth in the streets in that video, that’s what it looks like WITH a government. The presence or absence of a government doesn’t cause that; it’s the people themselves. If you think a government can solve that, you lost touch with reality.
*today