(I noticed thread Where did the state come from? posted after I finished writing this, so I will go and check that out as well.)
The original hunter gatherer tribes could be called anarcho-communistic, as they lived in anarchy with one another, had just about no capital, and lived a life of relative equality with one another. In the future, we may return to our anarchic roots, but with an immense abundance of capital, without equality, but without poverty.
Technological trends are reducing the barriers to entry in many domains, from information publishing and access to material production. I believe that the long-term trends of technology, and what can be done with it, will eventually lead to a panarchic state of affairs.
However, I would like to bridge this with the awareness that we live in a highly centralized and bureaucratic world today. From the Egyptians, to the ancient Romans, and beyond, powerful centralized states have made their mark on history.
Empires such as the Roman empire were able to span vast regions, unite them under a common tongue, and integrate them through a vast network of roads. The world saw a flourishing of culture and civilization.
Eventually, it went to hell and collapsed, but the legacy lives on to this day. We know from Austrian economics that the most economically prosperous society will be the one that most respects property rights and freedom. If this is true, how could states ever have arisen in the first place?
Technological trends are reducing the barriers to entry in many domains, from information publishing and access to material production. I believe that the long-term trends of technology, and what can be done with it, will eventually lead to a panarchic state of affairs.
However, I would like to bridge this with the awareness that we live in a highly centralized and bureaucratic world today. From the Egyptians, to the ancient Romans, and beyond, powerful centralized states have made their mark on history.
Could it be that people had significantly more protection of property (due to rule of law, a strong military, etc…), in spite of having less absolute liberty? There are no rich, powerful anarchic societies in existence today; have there ever been such societies in the past? Instead of being a parasite on society, is the reason the state became the most popular method of social organization because it was the one people desired the most, as it conferred the most benefits and allowed the greatest wealth accumulation and growth? In the free market of ideas, strength, and wealth, it is this method of social organization that has been chosen again and again.
If economics tells us that an ancap society should be wealthier and more successful than a state, then what is the unseen variable that has given us a history of economic progress and power under states, not ancap? We would already be living in ancap if economics was all there was to it, so what are the missing variable in this analysis?
What do you guys think? I’d like to learn more, so I can bridge my disconnect between what economics tells me, where I’d like to go, and what the history and reality of our world actually is.
Technological trends are reducing the barriers to entry in many domains, from information publishing and access to material production. I believe that the long-term trends of technology, and what can be done with it, will eventually lead to a panarchic state of affairs.
However, I would like to bridge this with the awareness that we live in a highly centralized and bureaucratic world today. From the Egyptians, to the ancient Romans, and beyond, powerful centralized states have made their mark on history.