Ever think about joining the Seasteading Institute?
Sam Armstrong:
“Ever think about joining the Seasteading Institute?”
Lordy, lordy Sam! Talk about a method of selling off your birthright for a bushel! Pity the poor dupe who would sail out there expecting a kind, benevolent set of state employees to provide one with a kind of “social system” that would be oligarchy and tyranny proof! Think I’d as soon take my chances moving to New Hampshire. Or is it Vermont? At least I could get out of Dodge ahead of the white man if push came to shove. Faith in “government” at any of those places would be a free ticket out of whatever sovereignty one might have built for himself and his family.
Read Murray Rothbard’s “Anatomy of the State”, then secede. At least you’ll know what you’re seceding from. Regards,
Samarami
Intended to post the link for “Anatomy of the State”. Sorry. Here it is:
The bottomline seems to me that
(1) anarchism is a logical possibility (as proven by Rothbard in Power & Market); but it doesn’t follow that it’s likely.
(2) Just because it’s logical possible; doesn’t follow that it’s in any way desirable - if one looks at values like wealth and security. (Some might prefebeing a slave in a Bill Gates society than a ‘free man’ in Sub Saharan Africa; figure of speech.)
(3) There are pretty intelligible theoretical and empirical reasons why an anarchist society might be viable and desirable.
(4) It doesn’t follow however that there might not be any exogeneous effects - coercive or voluntary - that might lead to a state.
(4bis) Although I would argue that the decisive step towards a state always ‘will’ be coercive.
(5) It’s clear (to me) that we can construct theoretical arguments concerning certain exofeneous effects - coercive and voluntary - that might aid in the formation of a new state.
(6) Therefore: it becomes an empirical question.
(7) The question of viability isn’t the same as the question wether or not anarchy or the state are morally justified institutions and should be kept separate.
(9) No ‘institution’ is likely to last ‘forever’ - even if it might be logically possible. The question is; are their reasons to conclude that a anarchist society might be viable and desirable? I would say yes.
And this is why I’m an anarchist. But I’m perfectly oke to accept the fact that I can’t prove this a priori. But there are some good reasons for it; even if someone thinks they aren’t as dominantly true as 1 + 1 = 2.
See new thread:
“Why coercion and absolutism will be present in anarcho-capitalist society”
Rettoper is under the illusion cartels and coalitions of PDAs do not already form and assume absolutist power. Rettoper is under the illusion cartels and coalitions of PDAs that already exist in the geopolitic can survive without other considerations such as satisfying the market. This naivete and ignorance explains why Rettoper’s PDA is on a power decline and Austrian economics and free markets are on the rise. If they weren’t why would Rettoper have any interest in bringing unsubstantiated assertions, strawmans, and ad hominems to a forum frequented by Anarcho Capitalists?
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
The fact you are going to reply to this proves my point. The reason your PDA is on the decline is because In your naivity and ignorance you spend your time seeking out Anarcho Capitalists you are not going to convince arguing against the free market while Anarcho Capitalists are out selling the free market and Austrian economics to people who are unhappy with the present PDA.