Trying to be realistic
Discussion
Society is coordinated by individual people. The market, including the political market, produces a sum of what these people want, restrained by what they are willing and able to sacrifice to get it. When a lot of people want rulers, we get rulers. When that is no longer true, why do you think that the political market would still have small states across the board? I mean, yes that is a likely outcome, but why stop there? For people to believe government should be local and limited, and for people to believe that government should be of the individual over himself, is not that huge of a leap. It is only a rational leap in the mind, and I see the two to be just about as likely as each other.
So in my view, both Anarcho-Capitalism and Anti-Federalism are equally difficult to achieve, but one is more preferable to the other. Something being closer in its end result to the status quo does not necessarily make it "practical." And by adhering to inconsistent ideology, you weaken and complicate the simple libertarian message: no hierarchy of authority, consent-based society where even those who enforce the law are subject to that same law.
I mean I realize this was about what you can do as president, so it's a different ballgame. I guess I should have saved this for nostr:npub1uw6lgv5qyexx68fwgdmwt3w7v3dwv679sray2ncpkug70ad7a8gqut3tay who also respinded but said AnCap is kinda Utopian.
Which in turn I think I misunderstood, now that I've reread it lol! I'm all over the place.
Yeap, ANCAP is utopian today, very few people share the values and way of thinking... even if I have never seen an ANCAP society in my life, I hope my children or grandchildren can see it and I will feel proud to have contributed…I think this is the way
Ancap is not about politics, I think.
It's about ghosting the State in all possible aspects of life.
Educating people so that everybody understands how it's just a big scam.
At some point people will stop participating in the scam, and those who do participate will be shamed in public and ostracized.
Personally, I do not believe that anarchy can be achieved just by ignoring the state. Venezuela and Cuba are examples of countries where a large part of the population lives off the black market and are not even close to anarchist thinking... without a cultural battle there is nothing (and I I would even go so far as to say that violent action against the state is needed)
Maybe deterrence will be enough.
And armed, highly cohesive population deciding that paying taxes doesn't make sense anymore.
*An armed
That's fine, this is my point of view, for someone to stop paying taxes (at least on a large scale) you need a cultural battle, in other words, making them wake up... on their own (I repeat on a large scale) it is very difficult, all people don't have the ability to wake up on their own (at least I didn't). My point is that there is no magic formula to do it, for now, with cultural battle and counter-economics I am satisfied, the time for armed struggle will come. Minarchism is one of the few tools that seems deceptive to me
I think it's achievable in small isolated areas this decade. For it to be widespread, yeah, a little further down the road. Anarchy is a relationship and a recognition of no authority, no legitimate coercion. A community of anarchists, or a family of anarchists, is already free.