Thread

...but it worked for 99.8% of humanity's existence. Nation States have ruled a majority of humanity for no more than five centuries. Safe to say they're not delivering on their promises.

Less steps, less time, and less energy. Why? Because you forgot about guns. When nobody wants troubles, problems are resolved before they even start.

That, with an accessible arbitration system. Has worked on every inhabited continent and every climate zone.

Or rather, yes leaders, no rulers. Leadership strictly speaking is voluntary.

Isn't that what the government is?

Every individual practicing total sovereignty on themselves. That's what it is, you nailed it. You only need one thing to do it: wanting to do it. How is it done? Do not accept any imposition. Do not accept that which violates your free will. Do not violate others' free will. It's that simple. Anarchy is a state of mind. When enough people share that state of mind government simply disappears.

I don't hate the overall direction they are pushing toward less government control. I think it is a net positive for us. I agree with you; there is a bit of cultish behavior that I also observe. Technically, they are also not wrong. We are living in a very corrupt system. We need a bit of an antithesis to challenge the current thesis, so we can have some kind of synthesis. 🤔

Ya, I would also like to move a lot in that direction. Putting it as a dialectic makes it sound ironically that a Marxist said it lol

I'm not sure if this exact system is being implemented in Argentina, but what you just described seems like a very good middle ground. I think that's where I am also.

What are your thoughts ? https://mises.org/wire/idea-private-law-society-case-karl-ludwig-von-haller

I bookmarked this and one from the previous user. I will read them properly, and I will definitely try to provide a proper response. Thanks for sharing.

Large urban environments are cancer anyway. But anyway, I have seen neighborhoods being given autonomy and they become anarchistic, and it's pretty much a city within a city. So yeah, you could make every neighborhood become autonomous, no problem. In fact that's the natural tendency of people.

This.

Bravo. You mentioned almost every aspect of what they do. You only forgot about indoctrination and continuous propaganda. The things used to perpetuate the scam.

*very much in contrast with what people assume. People assume some for of universal governance is the most efficient, naturally emergent solution. I'd argue that pretty much by the definition, even if it would ever be efficient, it can't stay efficient without being exposws to a free competition of the other governance models.

I've read some of it and also bookmarked it. From what I've understood so far, it appears to be a very high-trust society. Everyone was working responsibly, even if it was for their own interest. Do you think this kind of system can also be applied in societies that are not high-trust? Is it universal human behaviour acting responsibly without laws? You don't have to give any scientific answer and just trying to understand your opinion.

Continuing your thought about high-trust. Seems like that would only exist in a society where work is rewarded. In the Wild West there likely weren’t many people getting a free ride through life. People are incentivized to do their best work, so you are able to trust people more. There will obviously those who committed crimes or tried to cheat, but overall high trust is built within a system that follows strong natural rules. In history when we’ve seen societies that depend on the community to provide all for everyone, they are paradoxically untrusting. In that society you don’t get your survival through work but through permission. So you are incentivized to police your neighbors to assure they don’t cheat the system. No trust.

I understand your perspective, but let me play devil's advocate. What if one of the province allows or engages in a child trafficking ring? Do you think other provinces should have the authority to intervene and shut it down? Should there be some minimum moral principles that everyone must follow, or would you advocate for letting them run it with no oversight, which side you will be? You don't have to answer it, it's also not a trick question, I am really just trying to understand.

So ridiculous! So you still couldn't steal all that land without guns and state mandate!! Fuck.

It is universal, yes. I have seen it with my own eyes. It takes about 30 years to turn any low-trust community into a high-trust community just by the weight of consequences themselves.

Nobody intervenes outside their domains. Every community takes care of their own domains. That's how it's done in anarchistic regions. It spreads as a culture, not as an imposition. "Murica police of the world" is not a winning strategy.

Don’t you think that it could be influenced but the conditions of the region? In example, the control of a scarce resource.

Yes but the question was about morality. I think that in a natural state people don't care much about what others do, sadly. See for example Israel genociding Palestine and Adam Curry saying (literally) "I DON'T CARE" in his latest podcast episode. "Justice" in its natural state only spreads through culture. Effective boycotts take a lot of time to develop.

@Low Information Voter (they kill each other until they realize that honor is a superior method to resolve conflicts)

My personal take is you do what it takes to protect your province/community and your children, provide anyone outside interested with the knowledge to do the same, and have faith that other people will see the truth that your way of living is the best. People will do what they think is right, so many would engage in trying to shut down the sex trafficking by hunting down the people who do it. To ask whether people have the authority is in itself a slippely slope. Bc it entails that authority can/should be yielded onto other provinces I presupose people are inherently good. But specially while there are communities who are punitive and authoritarian around, it likely would take a while for everyone to come to realize they don't wanna impose their will onto others; whether it be trafficking children or hunting down traffickers. I believe that the end of Apocalypto exemplifies what I think ppl would - eventually - come to realize is the best course of action when put through horrible situations.

Child trafficking*

Rules, no rulers...

That might be the only right position today. 🤔

I couldn't agree more with you. I believe there's a strong biological explanation for this phenomenon. The power vacuum is indeed a very concerning issue, as we've witnessed examples of it worldwide. In many instances, it ends up being filled by some of the worst individuals (for that society)

Yep, I’m not denying many of todays government functions are useless, but complete anarchy is almost impossible to sustain. In an anarchic state all it takes is one bad actor/group to commit a crime before people decide they need some form of organized protection. A group of protectors forms and needs to be paid by the people they are protecting one way or another. For the group of protectors to work efficiently they need a leader/leadership group. Now you have an armed group with a leader. Who will the leader be? Will he be self appointed? Will he be elected? How do you keep the leader from abusing this position? What are the crimes this group should protect against? Who will decide whether someone is guilty? Shouldn’t there be a process for the people to decide the answer to all those questions? Shouldn’t the people be able to decide who runs the courts and what the laws are? Eventually legal system forms, courts form, an election process forms, rule making forms. Now you’ve already left anarchy and have entered the “night-watchman state” AKA minarchy. One bad person enters this minarchal system, abuses it and it expands - “what if I can convince these people to give me a little more money and in exchange I’ll build some roads for them, I’ll pick up their trash, etc?” People will buy in. The rest is history.

We already have a "replacement", it's called "contracts". And it's been done for thousands of years. Hierarchies are OK, but giving them power that's another story, that's called "rulers". Also what do you think happens when you're far away from modern cities and the presence of the State is nothing but symbolic? Do you believe everything magically disintegrates into chaos? lol

There is no "power vacuum" if you give the power back to its rightful owner -- the individual.

You are confused. "Leadership" implies consensus, free will, and accountability. None of which a "government" has.

I think the word anarchy has several vastly different meanings. I’d say violent anti-social predator is a good description of the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin.

The only attacks I suffer are FROM the government. All the time. People living in anarchy is totally fine, because most humans are good, we sort things out. The government is not human. Not its spirit at least.

It happens all the time, you won't see it on the news.

Even if I don't agree with complete stateless society but I don't think you are standing on a wrong side of the history.

We can already see the world as a Stateless world if we begin considering the current governments as very old companies that got really good at brainwashing the masses. The natural evolution is opting out of them, and opting in alternatives. Oligarchy may make a comeback, then cooperativism, then totally decentralized free market, then complete autonomy of the individual. It will be gradual and many systems will be overlapping for a long time. Meanwhile the State cult will insist that they're still relevant and "the only" system in place.

Gov is worse than mafia.