What we all take as a given is that the state exists only by coercion. Could it possibly exist without coercion, though? Say a Mormon model?
The Mormons have a very effective setup. The members are tight knit and many (most) give a tithing of 10% or more to the church. When new churches are built, it’s with donated materials and land paid for by local community members, so the church doesn’t have any outlays, not even the missions the Mormon members all go on. It’s an awesome money making machine, that church. It’s one of the wealthiest in the world. And It doesn’t need to coerce its members for money; they happily give.
Would this be a clever model for a free thinking statist? If so, would Libertarians be able to complain if they were in a society like this that didn’t require them to pay taxes since others around them would happily? I do see a real possibility non-payers or non-statists would be seen as ‘outsiders’ and might be effectively purged. But if not, maybe this is how the non-coercive state would come about. Maybe it will emerge in Utah sometime in the near future when all economic hell breaks loose.
Just me bouncing an idea around that I found interesting. I’m also curious to as whether natural rights may include protection of ‘the mind’ sometime in the future. Right now we barely know anything out our minds. Psychology is practically in its infancy. What would happen if (sometime in the future) we find ways to manipulate or control people without invading the physical body or through drugs? What if the state learns it can control minds through simple sounds or color patterns or hypnosis methods that can be done on a mass scale - like through TV or the Internet. Does the mind then become part of our natural rights then (body, property, mind)? I know it’s sci-fi-ish, but it’s interesting to ponder.
State is state because of coercion. Without it it is just another business/business model. Mormon model you provided is 100% anarchist/voluntary/free market.
I suppose if your idea of coercion does not include threats of violence by a “higher power” than I suppose the Mormon church is voluntary. I would not say it is entirely a idealistic model either, the church is for all intents and purposes a well dressed pyramid scheme. The 10% salvation tax is sent directly to the central church offices in Salt Lake City. A common myth propagated by mormons is that their clergy and internal bureaucracy do not recieve monetary compensation, this is midway between being a half truth and flat out fabrication, though I doubt many of them know so. The truth of the matter, which may be difficult for someone to understand who has not studied the subject for a length of time, is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Saints has no trained or professional clergy. All, and I mean all, work within the structure is assigned to the general laypeople. They are selected by “revelation” (random hat drawings) to perform the logistics of the operation at no pay. The leadership positions at the local level are also chosen in this manner, and their jobs are to pick more people to do work under them, and so on from Regional, Stake, and finally to the Ward level. So if no one is being paid, is all that money just going to the communal expenses? Nope, that money is going straight to the top.
Everyone working within the Central Church Offices are paid, and of course the executives (called General Authorities and Apostles) have completely subsidized living expenses and large salaries estimated to be higher than $400,000 dollars a year. This is not including the gains from seats on the boards of many church financed businesses which the membership indirectly pay for. Non profit, my butt.
Of course, the primary mission statement of the Mormon church is to convert more people, and make them “worthy of the celestial kingdom”, which can only be achieved by paying the 10%. Ponzi scheme I tell you!
EDIT: I was far too harsh on the Mormon church before, I forgot to mention that not all of the money is laundered to the top, a small sum of it is given to charity, AKA Public Relations, building new churches and temples, and giving missionaries something to live on while they serve ($100 to $150 dollars a month, yo).
I used the Mormon example the other day against some statist. I think Rothbard had some pages on this in For A New Liberty. I also used the Amish example, since I see their way a living even more seperated from, yet voluntary, from everyone else.
In arguments about morality and ethics being lost in the free-market, one of the two examples works great. Any statist/socialist can’t comeback from the fact they still live in a free-market, but their own community and culture stays in tact. In which, I’ve been taking on debates from another forum, and they like to bring up about the degeneration of society due to free-markets, and there must be law and order (no matter how much I explain my position, they believe I’m against any law and order). Their arguments fall apart when you show that the morality and ethics they are trying to “teach” are only forced, and are not learnt.
I agree with Bert. The Amish don’t pay into Social Security because they’re all self-employed but still manage to fully well take care of their own communities. Everyone is a person instead of a number.
Some would hold it against the church that it only survives thanks to indoctrination at a young age, but that in no violation of the NAP (although is reprehensible morally, to my mind). Thus, a voluntary state could well emerge with enough indoctrination. Perhaps the needed level is already here, and enforcement by the state has never been lower. Think of places like Switzerland where people pay taxes on their own (of course, tax rates are quite low there).
But the threats of violence from God, Merlin! In your opinion sir, should not all verbal or written threats that seem “not likely to happen” be simply ignored?
Lets put it like this: if I had an insurance company and a guy walked in trying to sue God over threats, I’d laugh him out of the room. While if someone tried to sue his own parents (my clients) for damages since they indoctrinated him into being a devout Muslim at 3, I’d again decline any payments whatsoever.
Now let a company who’d work out these instances otherwise beat me out of the market, than we’ll see.
But its not a “god” threatening you per say, it is someone claiming to speak for him/her. Now it is not only a verbal or written threat, it is a possible act of fraud!
For the threat part: does the priest say “I’ll friggin’ kill you with these bare hands if you don’t pray 7 times a day?” because that would be a threat. The thing with threats, as I see it, is that if A is credibly threatening you, you’re free to wack him where he is. But if I am telling you that Enki (just assume that we know for sure that God exists) will shoot you, how on earth would it be all right for you to kill me? Thus, “third person threats” are inconsequential to my mind (I’d certainly pay damages to whoever was harmed by my client for delivering ‘third person threats’).
As for fraud, the case is less clear. The priest says: abide by the laws of this or that book, or you’ll burn in hell forever. Here, no fraud is possible as you aren’t giving anything to this guy, he’s just advising you. But if you gave in nothing, than he cannot have committed fraud.
If he says “give me 5000 bucks a year or you’ll burn in hell forever”, for you to claim fraud here, it is you who must prove that, in fact, you won’t burn in hell anyway. The burden of proof is, of course, on you and the guy is considered innocent until proven guilty. Now, can you prove to me that you will not be roasted in hell by some devilish thing, unless you pay? Sure you can’t (unfalsifiable claims are the basis of every cult that ever was), and thus your claim is unproved and indeed unproovable. If you try to extort money form the priest by force, he’ll be right in shooting back, or hiring someone to do it for him. If you’re my client, I’ll pay him back whatever you stole form him.
Again, indoctrination might be very immoral, but its’ not a violation of the NAP.
Seems like a paradox then. You can’t have a state without coercian, but if you do manage one, then it’s not a state. Hmm. Can’t agree there.
The trick seems to be indoctrination and replacing the God/Heaven sales approach (you get everlasting life if you follow and/or an eternal punishment if you don’t) to a state-centric approach. This has always failed historically, but we’re infants thus far when it comes to our knowledge of psychology and how to make it work. I can only assume later approaches will be much more sophisticated than what we have had in the last 100 years or so. Maybe the smart, less coercive state mixes religion with the state and gets a state that operates on voluntary obediance by the citizens within it. Interesting but scary thought for a libertarian aetheist like me. Cool idea for a movie or book, though.
I rather be an indoctrinated Mormon living in ancapistan then living a coercive indoctrinated state. At least indoctrination would be easier to escape, unlike the state, where the effects of it’s indoctrination follow you everywhere.
Yeah, I’ll say that I’ll be the opposite of our local Iranian American friend - I’d rather withstand the pseudo-Marxist social engineering being imposed in parts of Quebec or the insanely managerial state of a Finnish local government than live near Mormons or other crazies.
You see, even though Quebec has an elite with lots of stupid social engineering ideas for society, the ordinary folk there are smarter, healthier, nicer, more interesting and more conversative than the kind of bland, soulless people whom you see in the myriad cultist groups of America.
And Finland, where some regional governments have crazy rules, like which hospital you can use where, is still a society of smart, funny, easygoing, and cool people who like metal music and sunning themselves.
Yeah, I’ll say that I’ll be the opposite of our local Iranian American friend - I’d rather withstand the pseudo-Marxist social engineering being imposed in parts of Quebec or the insanely managerial state of a Finnish local government than live near Mormons or other crazies.
Alas, there it is: “I’d rather…”. Because that’s the whole point, allowing people to choose. The Vatican allows you to (if you don’t like it here, get of my property), Canada is a trap.