What then?

Economics Economics Questions
1

Suppose that, in a near future, an anarcho-capitalist movement actually succeeds in overthrowing the government of some country, ex. (this is just for scale’s sake).

Thus Danes proceed to liquidate their government, try to work out the mess of public property that ensues, and, after a few months of unrest, a true anarcho-capitalist society is in founded.

Let us, furthermore, assume that the EU acts only now, and it chooses not to attack the new commonwealth (after all, politicians know very wwell how suicidal that would be), but simply to encircle it, and impose a strict immigration barrier into . Thus, we can easily assume that the revolution won’t spread, for the time being, beyond Danish borders.

Now, after a few years of this situation, I believe we’d agree that would reach an unheard of level of development and general welfare. By other countries standards, the crushing majority of Danes would be “rich”. Here comes my question.

Assuming the EU encirclement is lifted at some point, would the Danes choose to help further anarcho-capitalist movements abroad or simply to join the ranks of the existing anarchist community (politicians) in exploiting the hapless citizens of other countries?

Choosing to exploit foreigner would seem to pay, as should that not be the case, politicians would simply forfeit their positions and work towards the establishment of anarchy. But as that doesn’t happen, it follows that it pays more to exploit others.

So, would an anarchist movement, if successfully checked at its very beginning and confined to a moderate area, “degenerate” into one more tax heaven for the rich exploiters of mankind (that is not to say that there’s anything inherently wrong with tax heavens)?

For should that be the case, we cannot state with certainty that no such movements have succeeded in the past. After all there are plenty of tax heavens around today.

That, my friends, is my question.

2

Good question. I think there will be a certain amount of individuals who will want to ‘globalize’ the movement. Something like political missionaries. It would be up to the individual though.

3

Very good question, but you really wanted to ask if the tax heaven that exist today come from some sort of anarcho-capitalists that developed in the past, dont you? Very goood presentation.

4

I’m wondering if there would be an influx of people to Denmark. If that’s the case, and people catch on to people running towards Denmark because of their economic prosperiety and liberty, it may enlarge Denmark’s movement towards anarcho-capitalism.

5

That’s precisely why I assume that a strict ring of steel is enforced around , at least at the beginning.

And a quick follow-up question: have I just given any COINTELPRO guy spying us an idea of how to deal with anarchists in the future? Pidhi I robve!

6

There used to be a wall that kept people from escaping the paradise of the Soviets. If this is the case, there would now be a wall from escaping to the anarchist society. Such irony…

7

What do you mean by this?

Again, could you expand on this some more? I’m interested in this thread but I’m not sure I understand what you are asking. Please keep in mind I’m still working on my first cup of coffee…

8

I think that once a free society is really established, the collapse of states around the world will be fairly rapid. It is of course possible that a stateless society will degenerate back to statism. If libertarian law is maintained though, it would be criminal to aid external states. It would also be allowed for folks to amass armies as “charitable vigilante groups” to undermine states. Foreign leaders could be captured and tried, assuming there exists enough military power to repel invaders. This would be a very high risk & reward industry. Block’s Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government may give you some ideas on what will be possible.

9

Just like slavery ended quickly once the idea that people cannot own other people was understood, governments around the world will end once people recognize understand that taxes are extortion and that society can flourish without government. Immigration controls cannot stop ideas.

10

No it is not. Just like slavery will never return, neither will government.

11

I am not an expert on the Spanish Civil War, but they became ruled again right? The conditions weren’t right to maintain a free society. Then there is the history of Iceland, where belief in the Catholic church allowed power to collect in the hands of the few. This was after almost 300 years of basically the type of society we hope for. I think that we are always vulnerable and your assertion is kind of silly.

12

Not so fast, Spideynw. Think about how (at least in the USA) payroll taxes are collected. The government requires that all businesses collect taxes from their employees and deliver that money to the state. They have no choice in the matter nor are they compensated in any way. Is that not slavery?

13

Anarchy will come about when people refuse to be ruled by others. Is that what happened in the Spanish Civil war?

Did the people of Iceland choose to not be ruled? Or was it because of happenstance?

Maybe what you hope for, not I. In other words, I hope for a society of people that refuse to be ruled, not a society that just happens to have not established any rulers yet.

14

Just saying, I don’t think that in such a situation a society would be particularly prosperous. They can’t import/export necessary labor and trade is harmed by the strict tariffs and so forth. However I don’t think that there would be a fall in the standard of living.

I cannot directly predict this, I think a working anarchist society would have a huge influx of immigrants, possibly under the sheer stress of people they might need to begin to expand against the state but quite frankly I don’t think that they’d need to do anything I think that if people knew that not only anarchy was very possible but also PREFERABLE there would be truly massive anarchists movements. I do think that there would be smaller bands of individuals attempting to spread anarchism, probably do more bad than good in a lot of cases.

It would also be a huge tax haven, it would cause huge industries to emerge in the area as soon as the barriers were lifted and the capital in the area would be of a huge benefit.

15

I, of course, agree with you, that it is a type of slavery. But it is not the same type of slavery where people explicitly claimed to own other human beings. The government claims we owe the money because we have representation. You and I both know this is a lie, but they do not explicitly claim to own us either. Ask anyone in the U.S. if slavery is wrong, and I would bet every single one of them would say yes. But just like slavery was abolished, so will government, once people recognize the lie and what it really is, extortion/slavery.

16

Immigration laws are not the same as sanctions.

17

I don’t particularly disagree with anything you have said but I would like to explore this a little further. Payroll taxes represent an instance of the government confiscating the productivity of employers. To confiscate productivity implies an ownership claim over the property that originates the productivity being confiscated. In other words, the government partially owns the employers. Does that sound wrong to you?

18

I just realized I should have started a new thread. Sorry OP.

19

They don’t claim ownership. They claim that we in essence agreed to it because we supposedly have representation. See the lie is that we agreed to the tyranny. “Government by the people, of the people, and for the people”.

As you are pointing out, the reality is that it is a lie, and that we are actually slaves. And that is why once the lie is exposed, and once people see a society flourish without government, that the chains that bind mankind to government slavery will disappear forever, just like the owning another human has never returned once it has been abolished.

But this is also why asking a “judge” some simple questions will infuriate him so much (like how can it be a fair court, if the judge is paid by the state, which is bringing the charges). It exposes the lie.

20

Or, assuming that such a wall is ineffective (I believe that it can be made to be very effective), would it be in the Danes interest to allow other people in? We must understand that, even if severely checked by lack of immigration, Danish output would be prodigious, and demand for business relocation would be so great, as to quickly drive the prices of land sky-high, far beyond the reach of the crushing majority of humans on this earth. Immigration would, thus, be naturally checked (try “immigrating into gated communities”).

Of course this would drive a powerful need for expansion, but than again, the Danes could find their income form “investing in states” much greater that that achievable from trading with others (hence, expanding anarchy). Finally, a clever political class would immediately impose a “media black out” on , claiming that the entire country has been taken over by organized crime, and henceforth every contact with Danes is to be avoided.

Thus, perhaps a combination of an effective “wall”, total media black-out and pure self-interest would allow the State to emerge unharmed from such a cataclysm.

Could it be plausible that the political elite of the earth, not the ordinary politician, but those who take the real decisions, where, at the beginning, just the lucky citizens of, say, the City of , and went through just this process?