This is a good point. Statism persists due to ideology and inertia, and the free market is a relatively new concept. Today’s technology also makes the distribution of information significantly easier than in the past, thus empowering decentralization. Agricultural societies and native americans did not have the benefit of any of these ideas or technologies, and at least in the native american’s case, nor did they want it.
I want to know what you think. I’m interested in the discussion, though sure, point me to transitional material as well, as long as it’s not a whole book, cause that will take me a while to read
People will follow the NAP so long as the benefits outweigh the costs. For many elements of private society, it does.
How about nanodust with little ears and eyes spread over every square meter of the country? That’s 1984^2 for you. Keeping such a thing a secret might be a bit difficult, though, since humans are ever fallible. I somewhat agree with you here.
I’m not sure what you mean by that question. If point B is global anarchy, and point A is where we are today, then my question is about the path from A to B. Any step along the way that is an improvement over today is also a desirable point to be.
Except that NAP adherents all oppose this invention, right? And perhaps with good reason, as the chances of an accident go up as the power relationships increase exponentially… on the other hand, so long as states have this power, non-states lack a crucial bargaining chip.
Perhaps the ancaps will be inventive, and can find a better bargaining chip than nuclear MAD.
Yeah i won’t even link you anything… there are a lot of ideas out there about how we could transition from statism to anarcho capitalism, but many of them are unlikely. For example, some propose that we divide government’s junk into shares and distribute them to the public, where they will be bought up by entrepreneurs able to make the best use of the resources.
But that requires everyone to basically admit that the free market is the best thing ever. Even after the collapse of totalitarian communism people still believed in the effifacy of the state. All those countries basically now have right wing authoritarian governments that are basically more prudent versions of the previous regimes.
So, since it has been pointed out to me, it has become increasingly obvious. The market cannot be argued into existence. Markets will have to outcompete states. I don’t think any state could persist very long if it were neighbored by a rock and roll ancap land. All their people would want to leave for it, and their protectionist efforts would lead to even greater impoverishment, making it even more obvious how bad statism is. Unfortunately, few states are neighbored by ancaplands, and most “good” states do not allow free immigration.
The seasteading institute is trying to get around this. They basically want to set up businesses and communities on the ocean, in international waters. They are trying to think of things that you can do on water that will be cheaper than on land. They have a built in advantage of no taxes/regulations. Its not something people are just talking about in books. The seasteading institute is very new and are developing business models as we speak.
My personal opinion is that it would be best to fill seasteads with really poor people from war torn countries. It will be easier to get them to want to actually live at sea. If you have American workers commuting on/off shore you still pay american taxes…
I have this other idea that I’ll be writing about eventually. I actually think its better than seasteading and wouldn’t require as much time to work. I won’t spill the beans just yet because its still in its infancy… we’ll see.
I’m actually of the opinion that information doesn’t really matter. At least more information doesn’t matter. If the government wanted to arrest everyone here on mises.org I’m sure they could get 80% of the American citizens. They don’t because it would be a giant PR disaster for them. People can’t see the government as a bunch of warlords. If it does not collapse the whole thing, it will at least raise their costs of staying in business. Warlord government like Saudi Arabia/Iran/Kuwait have to bribe their middle - upper class citizens to keep them happy. In kuwait, its something like every year they give kuwaiti kids between $300-$600 on kuwaitday. Expensive stuff.
We have seen a Rothbardian social order before and its called non-state feudalism. It was the most libertarian social order mankind has ever had. State formation is due to the monopolistic tendencies of natural elites. The social contract between different defense agencies, over time, lose their voluntary aspect. This is necessary for the development of customary law, commercial integration, security, and therefore modern civilization. Primitive agricultural societies were not hierarchical but they were definitely statist in the sense that politics has far reach in everyday life, for example, children are assets used by the tribe. There is no concept of family in agricultural tribal societies because everybody belongs to the collective tribe, this is why they are primitive and could not defend themselves.
BTW, AnCap USA would perfectly be able to defend themselves. AnCap-like, self-directing guerilla fighers in Vietnam managed to give highly organized USA military a run for their money in the Vietnam war. The USA military today has such difficulty in the Middle East also because terrorist cells operate as self-directing, decentralized entities.
The only way we can achieve AnCap is through nullification, then secession, then further secession to the point of the individual himself.
A hypothetical AnCap society would be vastly superior to any state military force. The formation of a centralized government is inevitable due to historical patterns and the mechanics of human power relations, the formation of a state however is not.
I notice people here ask questions like this all the time. I want to recommend Hoppe’s essay on “Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State”. It really answers a lot of these inquiries. Also, check out mises media for Marco Bassani lectures. PFS speeches are very insightful for knowing about how culture and sociology fits into the picture, esp. the Q&A portion.
I am a big proponent of seasteading and charter cities, and I see this as one very valid and viable way to move toward less statism.
Be careful… you don’t want the public to think you’re exploiting people, and give the navy a reason to invade your seasteads and scuttle them.
They could always paint certain as terrorists and rebels, but the point is quite valid. The more widespread the production and dissemination of information is, the more difficult it is for the state to fool most of the people, most of the time. Without that consent, their case becomes weaker and less valid.
I would really like to read about this someday. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Sieben.
What is “non-state feudalism”? I would not want to see a return to serfdom.
Let’s just hope that you’re not undermining your own argument later in the post for Ancap with this quote here
Is this really how it was? I’m not an expert anthropologist, but I simply find your assertion that there was no concept of family pretty hard to believe.
Or maybe it’s simply because the USA didn’t nuke them or burn entire cities to the ground, roasting hundreds of thousands of people alive, like they did in WW2.
That is a valid way, yes. I agree.
I’m not sure I see the difference. A centralized government cannot be voluntary if it encompasses all meaningful powers, including a monopoly of territory and force. We’re just back to where we are today.
So would an Ancap society have to rely on an insurgency strategy of defense? Mobilization and attacking via anything resembling a modern army wouldn’t be possible, right? And the ancap soldiers would be operating under their own directives and self-supplied? It’s weird to think of warfare without the state. Like imagining how life forms would evolve on different planets. A real workout for the mind.
There is nothing to protect. It’s simple, really. If you can get an Ancap system to begin with, you needn’t worry about “invasion” because they won’t be able to do anything when they get “there” and there is no “there” to “invade”. It isn’t a war of gun again gun. It’s a war of wisdom against foolishness. Ditto for PDA’s becoming states. In short, the question of how an Ancap system defends itself, more accurately, how people defend their selves, is exactly the same as the question of how to get one to start with.
The concept of “invasion” in the context of war involves one state expanding its jurisdiction at the expense of the jurisdiction of another state. Not applicable here.
Because we have never had enough people in one location willing to disobey bad laws, which includes not paying taxes. I have no fear that there will be some “superior force” wanting to hurt me. Freedom does not invoke hostility. Hostility invokes hostility. The reason the people in the MIddle East hate America is because of American hostility.
An-caps would not survive. What people always negelct is the time domain. It takes time for the infrastructure to build. It’s like starting from scratch an Ancap society in a game of civilization. They would be eaten in seconds by an enemy state.
All things being equal,ancaps would be on top. But nothing is ever equal.
Feudalism does not necessarily mean serfdom. You have to recognize the situation was very different 800 years ago. At a time where might often meant right it is beneficial to put in place a strong leader that can defend your property. Hierarchical social structures were advantageous back then because of primitive markets( primitive monetary systems and such). Having a paternalistic relationship with your leader might be a good situation when you have very limited options and the alternative is fending off the beasts and barbarians on your own.
Regarding family, origins of the state and natural elites please consult these references.
“Or maybe it’s simply because the USA didn’t nuke them or burn entire cities to the ground, roasting hundreds of thousands of people alive, like they did in WW2.”
The capability of the US government to nuke cities to the ground is out of the question. The fact that the US government does NOT nuke cities to the ground because 1.) High chance of a revolution 2.) War profiteers will not profit or they are afraid of uncertainty. The problem with nuking is that it gives governments a bad image. And image is very important to the state.
“I’m not sure I see the difference. A centralized government cannot be voluntary if it encompasses all meaningful powers, including a monopoly of territory and force. We’re just back to where we are today.”
The problem with voluntarism is that it seems to imply that you can just get in and out of relationships any time you want and you have complete power. Well, for the same reasons that most people have a different behavior when with their parents and when with their friends, civilization is not that simple. Customs will have to develop in order for their to be social cohesion and economic integration. From customs are polycentric legal systems generated. Sure, you are not ‘forced’ to be under the authority of a ‘government’, but expect consequences such as ostracism and economic exclusion. This is the line where ‘voluntariness’ and ‘involuntariness’ is blurred. Why? because most people are not libertarians. And even if they can become libertarians, they are definitely not Austrian economists.
