Stateless Society

[Frost]

Terryg expressed an interest in discussing the idea of a stateless society, so i have created this thread for that purpose. The impetus for this was my statement in the CHL’s – violation of rights or reasonable restriction? thread that "The state shouldn't even exist, much less license things."

I will introduce this thread by stating some principles on which the stateless society is founded. These principles will be linked to videos that elaborate on the principle. I am providing these links because these ideas and the perspective they come from can seem very unusual to those who have not encountered them before, and in my past experience misunderstanding is very common. It is not necessary to watch the linked videos before responding to a point; if you express curiosity on a point I will be happy to discuss it. However, if you wish to start with refutation or an argumentative tone please watch the linked video first so that you can be sure to be arguing against the idea that i am actually presenting rather then a straw man born of misunderstanding.

1. The non-aggression principle. The initiation of the use of force is wrong.
2. The universality of moral rules. Morality is the same for people referred to as citizens and the people referred to with various government titles.
3. The violent nature of governments. If a government stopped initiating the use of force it could no longer be properly called a government.
4. Life liberty and property can be protected without a monopoly of violent power. Indeed such monopolies always violate that which they were ostensibly created to protect.

[The Annoyed Man]

Here's my refutation: absolutely none of this takes into account actual human nature. Utopian ideals never do.

[jester]

Without "the state" (or something that is "the state" in all but name) how do you enforce those rules or principles?

Here's how I see it:
People have rights.
People created "the state" to secure these rights.
"The state" derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.
If and when "the state" becomes destructive of these ends, it's our right and duty to alter or to abolish it.

[The Annoyed Man]

Without "the state" (or something that is "the state" in all but name) how do you enforce those rules or principles?

Here's how I see it:
People have rights.
People created "the state" to secure these rights.
"The state" derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.
If and when "the state" becomes destructive of these ends, it's our right and duty to alter or to abolish it.

Yep. It's the only way you can deal with the reality of human nature. I have a CHL precisely because there will always be people who either do not understand the non-aggression principle, or who understand it perfectly well and cynically exploit it to gain a violent advantage over others.

[rdcrags]

Yep. It's the only way you can deal with the reality of human nature. I have a CHL precisely because there will always be people who either do not understand the non-aggression principle, or who understand it perfectly well and cynically exploit it to gain a violent advantage over others.

Precisely.

[Texas Dan Mosby]

Here's how I see it:
People have rights.
People created "the state" to secure these rights.
"The state" derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.
If and when "the state" becomes destructive of these ends, it's our right and duty to alter or to abolish it.

Well put....

Concur.

[longtooth]

As oppressive as Britton was to our Founding Fathers they still knew that governmental order was imperative.
AS oppressive as big Brother is to us today any attempt at a stateless society would be nothing short of anarchy.

[terryg]

Terryg expressed an interest in discussing the idea of a stateless society, so i have created this thread for that purpose. The impetus for this was my statement in the CHL’s – violation of rights or reasonable restriction? thread that "The state shouldn't even exist, much less license things."

I will introduce this thread by stating some principles on which the stateless society is founded. These principles will be linked to videos that elaborate on the principle. I am providing these links because these ideas and the perspective they come from can seem very unusual to those who have not encountered them before, and in my past experience misunderstanding is very common. It is not necessary to watch the linked videos before responding to a point; if you express curiosity on a point I will be happy to discuss it. However, if you wish to start with refutation or an argumentative tone please watch the linked video first so that you can be sure to be arguing against the idea that i am actually presenting rather then a straw man born of misunderstanding.

1. The non-aggression principle. The initiation of the use of force is wrong.
2. The universality of moral rules. Morality is the same for people referred to as citizens and the people referred to with various government titles.
3. The violent nature of governments. If a government stopped initiating the use of force it could no longer be properly called a government.
4. Life liberty and property can be protected without a monopoly of violent power. Indeed such monopolies always violate that which they were ostensibly created to protect.

Thanks for the post, Frost. I am interested in following this thread. As I mentioned in my other thread, I haven't given the concept of a stateless society much consideration in the past. As LT mentioned, I can see not outcome other than total anarchy.

I did watch the first video when you posted it in the other thread. It talks about state sponsored violence. It makes no mention, however, about individual violence. Unless you can show how individuals would suddenly cease to harm and/or take advantage of others, then how can the result be anything other than anarchy. While we CHL holders value our right to self-defense; we do not, as a general rule, desired to become the courts. Without a state to represent our mutual interest, mob rule would become the only law. The same 'violent' state system decried in the video for arrest and jailing for things like not paying taxes offers us protection against vigilante justice and mob rule. And thats just a start.

The video also pointed to regulations on trade and goods exchange - which I admit in many cases can be convoluted. But without any regulations, again there would be chaos and anarchy. Unscrupulous individuals would try to and succeed in taking advantage of their fellow human beings.

As a proponent of a stateless society, you have a huge burden to prove that anything other than anarchy would rule the day after the state is completely dissolved.

t

[The Annoyed Man]

It is not necessary to watch the linked videos before responding to a point; if you express curiosity on a point I will be happy to discuss it. However, if you wish to start with refutation or an argumentative tone please watch the linked video first so that you can be sure to be arguing against the idea that i am actually presenting rather then a straw man born of misunderstanding.

1. The non-aggression principle. The initiation of the use of force is wrong.
2. The universality of moral rules. Morality is the same for people referred to as citizens and the people referred to with various government titles.
3. The violent nature of governments. If a government stopped initiating the use of force it could no longer be properly called a government.
4. Life liberty and property can be protected without a monopoly of violent power. Indeed such monopolies always violate that which they were ostensibly created to protect.

I have to confess that I am also a little tweaked about what you are inviting the rest of us to partake in...

You tell us to go watch a combined total of 62:05 minutes of indoctrination video as a requirement to some kind of social contract you're tying to establish here before you'll even consider a refutation? You have the order in the inverse pal. Here's how it is supposed to work.... FIRST, you make an argument, right here on this page, with your bullet points in support included if necessary, and then we get a chance to respond. You don't send us off to do research before you'll entertain responses. It's not kosher.

Here is an analogy of what you've done here: Let's say hypothetically that I am an atheist (I'm not) and you are a Christian (I have no idea of whether you are). So you come here and post some principles on which Christianity is founded and invite us to discuss it; but you tell us that, before we can post any refutations, we must first go read the Bible cover to cover. It would be profoundly disrespectful of my time, and tremendously selfish on your part.

This begs the question, "why should I even bother?" My time is valuable. Those videos are not condensed information. They take a little over an hour to watch. I would be inclined to participate if you had written a synopsis of their contents and then had linked them so that we could watch them if motivated to know more. But you are inviting me to watch videos before synopsizing them. Why should I waste my time?

Never the less, I did you the courtesy of watching half of the first and fourth videos. Here is another word for "DRO." It's called "government."

I'm done with this discussion. It's pointless.

[terryg]

Your right TAM. When I first read the post - I thought he requested watching the first video - which I had already done from the other post. It is 9:30 long - so I was willing to give that. I just re-read it and it says to 'watch the linked video first' not 'watch the first linked video'.

I am still interested to hear what he has to say and perhaps participate. But I won't be watching all of the videos.

[jimlongley]

Without "the state" (or something that is "the state" in all but name) how do you enforce those rules or principles?

Here's how I see it:
People have rights.
People created "the state" to secure these rights.
"The state" derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.
If and when "the state" becomes destructive of these ends, it's our right and duty to alter or to abolish it.

Says it all.

[Frost]

I would like to point out that I am not demanding that anyone watch all, or even any, of the videos linked in the first post. As i said simply expressing curiosity on a point to begin with is sufficient so that we can be sure that we understand each other before we start debating. Also, If any one of the principles that I posted are invalid I need to reconsider my position, so if you believe that i am off base you can select the principle that you believe is the weakest and save time by only addressing that.

To be clear all i am asking is that you either start the discussion with curiosity or if you wish to start immediately challenging a point please watch the video so that you have an idea where i am coming from.

Thanks for the post, Frost. I am interested in following this thread. As I mentioned in my other thread, I haven't given the concept of a stateless society much consideration in the past. As LT mentioned, I can see not outcome other than total anarchy.

Thank you for expressing interest in the ideas. I would like to ask what your current attitude towards the state is? If you think it is a necessary evil then we have a place to start by considering the question of if it is necessary, if you believe that it is an agency of good then I would guess that I still have some work to do to convince you that considering a stateless society is worth the effort. I will go ahead and address some of your concerns though.

As a place to begin making the case that a stateless society would not result in anarchy as it is generally understood I would like to point out that your personal life is likely an excellent example of the principles of the stateless society at work. You did not use force to obtain your job, if you are married it was not a forced marriage, you do not coerce your friends and family into the various activities you share with them. Despite this "anarchy" in your personal relationships would you describe your personal life as something out of control, or without rules?

Unless you can show how individuals would suddenly cease to harm and/or take advantage of others, then how can the result be anything other than anarchy.

There will certainly be people who wish to harm and take advantage of others in any society. The danger in a statist society is that these violent and exploitative individuals will be drawn to the government where they can do much more damage. In a stateless society individuals can protect themselves in the manner that will be familiar to people on this forum. They can also form organizations to protect their life an property if they feel that it is necessary. It is impossible to know what these organizations will look like any more then someone could have predicted what a modern smart phone would look like when the transister was just an idea in someones head, but what we can be sure of is that if i can come up with an idea that could work that the entrepreneurs in a stateless society would come up with much better ideas.

A common idea talked about among advocates for stateless societies is a dispute resolution organization(DRO). The basis of these organizations is that in any significant economic transaction the parties to that transaction will want assurances that the other person will follow through. In our society this is the court system, though it has grown so inefficient that very few people have the resources to access it in any significant way. In a stateless society contracts can be assured by the parties being members of a DRO where they would have agreed to respect their contracts, their track record on respecting contracts will be tracked with a "contract rating" and their contracts insured at a rate determined with their contract rating.

These organizations would be superior to the current state courts since their membership and funding is voluntary they are exposed to the free market forces that create efficiency and innovation. Any DRO that even approached the current court system in inefficiency and stagnation would quickly lose its customers and cease to exist.

I know i have not cinched the case by any means, but i hope I have given you a new way to look at the problem and a possible way that rules and order can be created in a stateless society. I look forward to your response.

[Charles L. Cotton]

5. Posts with racist, anarchist, or antisocial comments or content are not allowed and links to sites with such content are not allowed.