I honestly think that the system you just described is close (in spirit at least) to the original American idea. The entire concept was a federal government that protected the borders and handled disputes between states.

Everything else was “left to the states.” Granted, people living in those states voted and enacted laws that applied to everyone, but governments handled much less, meddled much less, and the culture and values were much more homogeneous (along with population being much smaller).

It puts me in mind of a point from Montesquieu:

“It is in the nature of a republic to have only a small territory; otherwise, it can scarcely continue to exist. In a large republic, there are large fortunes, and consequently little moderation in spirits: the depositories are too large to put in the hands of a citizen; interests become particularised; at first a man feels he can be happy, great, and glorious without his homeland; and soon, that he can be great only on the ruins of his homeland.

In a large republic, the common good is sacrificed to a thousand considerations; it is subordinated to exceptions; it depends upon accidents. In a small one, the public good is better felt, better known, lies nearer to each citizen; abuses are less extensive there and consequently less protected.”

I am also put in mind of Franklin’s first fire department, and library.

I certainly don’t disagree on the need to reduce and decentralize government - I think my difference with anarchists then is an issue of scale. I don’t believe man left entirely to his own devices will live peacefully (indeed I believe we would devolve into tribal warfare, and a might makes right attitude) but I agree that the current state of government is both too large to represent the best interests of any citizen, and far to powerful to prevent becoming abusive to the natural rights and freedoms of humankind.

Thank you for the education on some points on anarchism. I feel less put off by the word now, and see some common ground.

Yeah, they haven't interacted with the real world. I have heard arguments for both small government and large government, and each has some legitimate points. However, anarchy makes no sense.

Anyone who believes that will work has never interacted with organized crime groups or extortion schemes.

Basically they argue that local voluntary law systems would emerge and arbitration would resolve differences across localities. It's basically government with extra steps, time and energy.

Our guns, for example. If you try to take away our #freedoms, we will take yours. We just want to be left alone. #Anarchism doesn't mean no rules, it just means no leader.

strong man rule is a great threat

mafia is also a kind of government, there's no practical anarchism without EVERY individual practicing total sovereignty on themselves.

so to speak, #anarchism is quite utopia which might only happen if there's another May Flower landing on a new land.

I can conceptualize how it has worked in rural communities or small towns (think frontier societies) but I’ve never fully wrapped my head around how it scales in large urban environments. I would think you just get the emergence of city states.

right now you are extorted 50%, were not allowed to fly with your own medical choices, not allowed to even drink raw milk, if you stop paying property taxes wirh your taxed income you lose your house, they use that money to bomb ppl, I could keep going but you get the gist

I understand your perspective, but let me play devil's advocate. What if one of the province allows or engages in a child trafficking ring?

Do you think other provinces should have the authority to intervene and shut it down? Should there be some minimum moral principles that everyone must follow, or would you advocate for letting them run it with no oversight, which side you will be?

You don't have to answer it, it's also not a trick question, I am really just trying to understand.

I've read some of it and also bookmarked it. From what I've understood so far, it appears to be a very high-trust society. Everyone was working responsibly, even if it was for their own interest. Do you think this kind of system can also be applied in societies that are not high-trust? Is it universal human behaviour acting responsibly without laws?

You don't have to give any scientific answer and just trying to understand your opinion.

Yep, I’m not denying many of todays government functions are useless, but complete anarchy is almost impossible to sustain. In an anarchic state all it takes is one bad actor/group to commit a crime before people decide they need some form of organized protection. A group of protectors forms and needs to be paid by the people they are protecting one way or another. For the group of protectors to work efficiently they need a leader/leadership group. Now you have an armed group with a leader. Who will the leader be? Will he be self appointed? Will he be elected? How do you keep the leader from abusing this position? What are the crimes this group should protect against? Who will decide whether someone is guilty? Shouldn’t there be a process for the people to decide the answer to all those questions? Shouldn’t the people be able to decide who runs the courts and what the laws are? Eventually legal system forms, courts form, an election process forms, rule making forms. Now you’ve already left anarchy and have entered the “night-watchman state” AKA minarchy. One bad person enters this minarchal system, abuses it and it expands - “what if I can convince these people to give me a little more money and in exchange I’ll build some roads for them, I’ll pick up their trash, etc?” People will buy in. The rest is history.

I couldn't agree more with you. I believe there's a strong biological explanation for this phenomenon. The power vacuum is indeed a very concerning issue, as we've witnessed examples of it worldwide. In many instances, it ends up being filled by some of the worst individuals (for that society)

All societies naturally trend towards some form of hierarchy/governing body. Even animal species have a natural order of hierarchy. If government was completely eliminated, some replacement form of a governing body would eventually form in its place. So there could never really be prolonged anarchy in the true sense of the word.

Sometimes I wonder what a world would look like if everyone had a magic wand to make them invulnerable to attack of any sort. Then there would be no need for the state or protection agencies or whatever. Maybe this is the utopia that anarchists yearn for? Obviously this is impossible. But perhaps it is possible to move in that direction by giving us tools so we can better protect ourselves. One might even say that this is precisely the reason that Freedom Tech exists.

The first step to an anarchist society is for the individuals to take on the responsibility of security, welfare, health etc. probably why it will never happen everyone likes the idea but doesn't want the responsibility

I still don't understand the anarchist position. Do they want all the rights and no government? If so, who would protect their rights? Mafia?

I'm not a fan of reproduction raised on my tax dollars.

Some in the BSV crowd have pivoted to saying Craig is now going to lose the court case on purpose 🤣