An-Cap Questions (From An An-Cap)…

[scottspfd82]

I really owe a lot to this forum as far as changing my world-view over the last few years. I won’t name specific names, but you know who you are.

I’ve gone from being apathetic of the state, to discovering Libertarianism to studying many schools of economics and philosophy in a relatively short period of time, ultimately coming to the conclusion that nothing good comes from the State.

And while there’s a lot of great information out there, I still have a ton of questions. There are plenty of Anarchy related threads here, but I figured this could be a good subject for Q&A, anyone interested in the subject could learn a lot.

A few questions that I have…

1. Could there be “public” land in a stateless society? Parks would be a good example. I could see how private parks could exist (maybe on a donation/small fee basis). What about national parks? The Grand Canyon for example, would that land be privatized? And if so, how would public land be transferred to private ownership?

2. How would it begin? My guess would be small communities who agree to the non-aggression principle. You could have an an-cap society, a communist society, etc, as long as they follow the NAP. Then people would be free to choose how they want to live. Any thoughts on this? Other ideas?

3. Regarding those who believe in the “inevitability of the State”. I’m assuming you believe this because it’s what the masses want? Any power vacuum will naturally be filled by a new form of Government? People won’t defend themselves or refuse to give legitimacy to those who try to control them? Assuming (hypothetically) that all of that is true, could a stateless society co-exist with states? Maybe the idea of Liberty grows large enough to become a threat to a state, and instead of reacting with violence it’s more efficient for the state to allow a group of people to buy a private plot of land and essentially “opt-out”? Would love to hear different ideas on this.

4. Many of the smartest people that I’ve listened to on this subject seem to believe that a stateless society is inevitable, but not in our lifetime. That’s discouraging. I have my own theories about this, but would love to hear some ideas on this from both sides of the debate.

5. I think that more and more people are waking up to the reality of the state. Cypress is a recent and blatant example. Our growing police/surveillance state and failing economy is another. Things are going to get worse. The state no longer (as of now) has a total monopoly on information. Do you think this presents an opportunity to educate/wake people up faster than ever before?

I’ve been learning a lot lately but I’m a million miles away from thinking that I have even a fraction of the answers that I’m looking for.

I have plenty of other questions but this is enough for now. I’d love to hear from anyone who has ideas and a few minutes to share them.

And if anyone has questions, again, I don’t claim to know everything but I’m happy to share my personal thoughts/opinions on the subject.

 

[tomaszjot]

Inb4 lukep posts here, guerilla comes after and discovers remains of socialist philosophy in lukep's post

 

[guerilla]

1. Could there be “public” land in a stateless society? Parks would be a good example. I could see how private parks could exist (maybe on a donation/small fee basis). What about national parks? The Grand Canyon for example, would that land be privatized? And if so, how would public land be transferred to private ownership?

I would like to suggest you read Hans Hermann Hoppe's newest book, "The Great Fiction". He talks about this at some length.

2. How would it begin? My guess would be small communities who agree to the non-aggression principle. You could have an an-cap society, a communist society, etc, as long as they follow the NAP. Then people would be free to choose how they want to live. Any thoughts on this? Other ideas?

Don't understand.

4. Many of the smartest people that I’ve listened to on this subject seem to believe that a stateless society is inevitable, but not in our lifetime. That’s discouraging. I have my own theories about this, but would love to hear some ideas on this from both sides of the debate.

If it is discouraging for you, think about all of the dead libertarians who wished it came in their lifetimes.

5. I think that more and more people are waking up to the reality of the state. Cypress is a recent and blatant example. Our growing police/surveillance state and failing economy is another. Things are going to get worse. The state no longer (as of now) has a total monopoly on information. Do you think this presents an opportunity to educate/wake people up faster than ever before?

Sure. But you're up against people who do not think rationally, logically, have been miseducated, and who have an identity crisis if you challenge any accepted norms.

It's going to take time IMO.

 

[pewep]

We could argue about theoretical Utopias all day but it all boils down to practicality and the nature of human existence. I for one am not convinced that the human race is able to live and thrive without the metaphorical "stick and carrot". I don't believe that people are mature enough to handle such an environment and I can probably also dig up evidence that shows it's in our very genetic structure to seek some kind of organized society similar to the way animals congregate in packs.

 

[guerilla]

This ^^^ is a good example of what good ideas are up against.

 

[pewep]

This ^^^ is a good example of what good ideas are up against.

I'm not the type of person that would discredit "good" ideas simply because of their origin or on any emotional basis. I first look at the evidence on both sides before reaching a conclusion and quite frankly, you've never written anything about that issue in the thousands of posts of yours that I've read.

Furthermore, I see that you skipped his question #3. My, my what a coincidence.

 

[JarredLv]

2. How would it begin? My guess would be small communities who agree to the non-aggression principle. You could have an an-cap society, a communist society, etc, as long as they follow the NAP. Then people would be free to choose how they want to live. Any thoughts on this? Other ideas?

Don't understand.

Correct me if I am wrong Scott, but I think he is asking how we would evolve from our current state to a stateless state (yea wordplay). It is something I often wonder myself.

 

[scottspfd82]

I would like to suggest you read Hans Hermann Hoppe's newest book, "The Great Fiction". He talks about this at some length.

Thanks, I've learned a lot from Hoppe. I will check this out immediately.

Don't understand.

I guess the question is how would you see it starting? It's not like the world (or even a country) is going to flip a switch and all of the sudden there's a voluntaryist society. My thinking is that it'd have to start small. Something similar to a Galt's Gulch or maybe a series of independent judiciaries similar to Hong Kong but based on libertarian ideals. Or maybe not.

If it is discouraging for you, think about all of the dead libertarians who wished it came in their lifetimes.

Point taken. And while I certainly appreciate their work and the philosophies they've handed down - they're dead. As discouraged as they may have been, I'm sure they'd be happy to know that future generations are still spreading their ideals.

Sure. But you're up against people who do not think rationally, logically, have been miseducated, and who have an identity crisis if you challenge any accepted norms.

It's going to take time IMO.

I'd agree. But do you have to convince everyone before you can start? That goes back to the (possible) example above. Somehow getting a small piece of land that's independent of any state, I realize that's highly improbable, but that's really the core of that question - "How could it start?"

I appreciate the reply.

 

[scottspfd82]

We could argue about theoretical Utopias all day but it all boils down to practicality and the nature of human existence. I for one am not convinced that the human race is able to live and thrive without the metaphorical "stick and carrot". I don't believe that people are mature enough to handle such an environment and I can probably also dig up evidence that shows it's in our very genetic structure to seek some kind of organized society similar to the way animals congregate in packs.

No one is saying people couldn't, or wouldn't, live in organized societies. The goal is for people to choose what kind of societies they'd like to live in without being forced through coercion/violence.

Furthermore, I see that you skipped his question #3. My, my what a coincidence.

#3 was addressed specifically to people who believe in the inevitability of the state. I won't speak for Guerilla but my guess is that he doesn't fall into this camp.

 

[slayerment]

I'll give my take:

1. Could there be “public” land in a stateless society? Parks would be a good example. I could see how private parks could exist (maybe on a donation/small fee basis). What about national parks? The Grand Canyon for example, would that land be privatized? And if so, how would public land be transferred to private ownership?

For starters, I don't think there would be a differentiation between country, state and city. It would all be localized "cities" or areas of people. National parks would be localized parks created by a group of individuals in a certain location. The Grand Canyon would be a park if the property owner(s) decided that would be the best use of it. If they wanted to run it similar to how it is run now by the state fine. If they wanted to do something else with it fine. If people cared enough to protect it they would put up the money to own the land and run it as they see fit.

As for the transfer of public land to private ownership... that is a huge question that I think will only come once more people understand the benefits of private ownership. I don't think we can transfer public land to private ownership on a large scale. I think we need to purchase small areas of land (from either public or private owners) and prove that these types of communities are possible. Once people have a greater understanding of AnCap through existing examples they will hopefully walk away from public ownership and change the way things are done in their respective governments (similar to how many countries adopted the favorable principles of America after the success of it).

2. How would it begin? My guess would be small communities who agree to the non-aggression principle. You could have an an-cap society, a communist society, etc, as long as they follow the NAP. Then people would be free to choose how they want to live. Any thoughts on this? Other ideas?

Yes, I think something like this. I think the main thing is that they would have to be completely outside of any nation and they wouldn't be a nation. The more groups "competing" against each other the better.

3. Regarding those who believe in the “inevitability of the State”. I’m assuming you believe this because it’s what the masses want? Any power vacuum will naturally be filled by a new form of Government? People won’t defend themselves or refuse to give legitimacy to those who try to control them? Assuming (hypothetically) that all of that is true, could a stateless society co-exist with states? Maybe the idea of Liberty grows large enough to become a threat to a state, and instead of reacting with violence it’s more efficient for the state to allow a group of people to buy a private plot of land and essentially “opt-out”? Would love to hear different ideas on this.

Yes, I agree with this and I think this is how it probably will play out. I think people will put together working models in different locations and it will be harder and harder for the state to stop them and as more success happens more and more people will start to demand it from their governments.

4. Many of the smartest people that I’ve listened to on this subject seem to believe that a stateless society is inevitable, but not in our lifetime. That’s discouraging. I have my own theories about this, but would love to hear some ideas on this from both sides of the debate.

I think anything is possible. It's hard to really say because a few innovations can change everything. Look at the Internet. Who would have thought we'd be doing what we do today with the Internet 20 years ago? It's changed everything for the better. I don't really lose hope because I don't view it as changing the world, I view it as changing myself. There are always going to be people doing things outside of my control. Even if the world was 100% AnCap it could always go back to a tribe society with a few wrong moves. I think the world will always be in fluctuation and it comes down to people and groups of people rather than the whole. Look at America and Africa right now. We have people what we would call civilized in America living completely different lives than many people in Africa. We are both on the same planet sharing the same time but we both live in completely different ages insofar as civilization is concerned.

5. I think that more and more people are waking up to the reality of the state. Cypress is a recent and blatant example. Our growing police/surveillance state and failing economy is another. Things are going to get worse. The state no longer (as of now) has a total monopoly on information. Do you think this presents an opportunity to educate/wake people up faster than ever before?

I think the opportunity and timing is greater now than ever. I think now is the perfect time to act.

I'm working on a site for this exact purpose that you talk about and it will be ready soon.

 

[pewep]

No one is saying people couldn't, or wouldn't, live in organized structures.

Let me be more specific. Name ONE instance in all of human civilization where people congregated together for any significant duration without forming a localized central government. I can't think of one. You could look at our closest relatives, the great apes and see that even they have an alpha male and society leaders within their group. Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that the need for an authority figure with the ability to dictate what rules the population will adhere to, no matter how draconian, seems to be ingrained in the general psyche at a level deeper than conscious thought. In other words, government is what we have developed to want, no doubt because it provides numerous advantages otherwise it would be discarded by the impartial mechanisms of evolution.

With the risk of falling back on a strawman argument, I can pretty much guarantee that stateless societies would be completely overrun by communities with a more organized establishment. History has proved that point.

#3 was addressed specifically to people who believe in the inevitability of the state. I won't speak for G but I'm pretty certain that he doesn't fall into this camp.

I picked #3 specifically because it tied in very nicely with my early point. I called him out on it because he'll address every issue I bring up but that one.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

#3 was addressed specifically to people who believe in the inevitability of the state.

Ok, I'll take a crack at it then. You asked:

could a stateless society co-exist with states?

No. That's like asking, if there's two sets of parallel train tracks, could the trains run into each other? No, because they're both on a separate set of tracks. Ok, that's actually a really shitty analogy, but something like that.

At some point, states are going to want to negotiate with your stateless society, for one reason or another; trade, transportation routes, defense, labor, debate whether or not they want to invade and rape & pillage you, or something. The states are going to have representatives to send over to talk on their behalf, whereas the stateless society won't have anyone, because leaders aren't allowed to exist.

 

[xmcp123]

Correct me if I am wrong Scott, but I think he is asking how we would evolve from our current state to a stateless state (yea wordplay). It is something I often wonder myself.

Welcome to Agorism and Counter-Economics, where the radical right meets the radical left.
Imagine Libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism, but with a heaping pile of revolutionary theory.

 

[lukep]

1. Could there be “public” land in a stateless society? Parks would be a good example. I could see how private parks could exist (maybe on a donation/small fee basis). What about national parks? The Grand Canyon for example, would that land be privatized? And if so, how would public land be transferred to private ownership?

There is no reason a group of people can't co-own the land, putting it in some kind of trust... I'm sure it would happen all the time, making national-park like places but of course there would be more entry fees.

...It's only the part where you force others to pay for that park that we must avoid.

And for the transformation from state to stateless society, I'm imagining a thousand little Oklahoma Territory land runs. (Like in the movie Far and Away.)

2. How would it begin? My guess would be small communities who agree to the non-aggression principle. You could have an an-cap society, a communist society, etc, as long as they follow the NAP. Then people would be free to choose how they want to live. Any thoughts on this? Other ideas?

The only way a stateless society could come about is through an Exclusionary parcel of land, such as a Seastead, or tiny state currently not developed by anyone.

Then, only after the qualified AnCaps or whatever succeed there, it would expand as the rest of the world sees that proof of concept unfold on youtube.

3. Regarding those who believe in the “inevitability of the State”. I’m assuming you believe this because it’s what the masses want? Any power vacuum will naturally be filled by a new form of Government? People won’t defend themselves or refuse to give legitimacy to those who try to control them? Assuming (hypothetically) that all of that is true, could a stateless society co-exist with states?

It is tough, but Stefan Molyneux had some good reasons for why other states wouldn't need to attack (or find it fruitful to attack) an anarchy in his ebooks somewhere. Perhaps it was Practical Anarchy.

Maybe the idea of Liberty grows large enough to become a threat to a state, and instead of reacting with violence it’s more efficient for the state to allow a group of people to buy a private plot of land and essentially “opt-out”? Would love to hear different ideas on this.

I can't see that happening; all states have hammers and see every problem as being a nail.

4. Many of the smartest people that I’ve listened to on this subject seem to believe that a stateless society is inevitable, but not in our lifetime. That’s discouraging. I have my own theories about this, but would love to hear some ideas on this from both sides of the debate.

I give it 50 years or less.

The reason why is not simply the internet; It's specifically Peer-to-peer technology that will be the final nail in the coffin of statehood.

The state, or any organization, has exactly one way to retaliate against the coming threat of P2P techs like Torrents, Bitcoins, 3D Printers, DEFCAD Search, & Mega:

Force.

These P2P techs all can survive censorship of mass proportions, and to stop any one of them would take North-Korean tactics on a worldwide scale... Perhaps all power to be turned completely off!

But together, these unstoppable technologies make a complete ECONOMY.

You will be able to use bitcoin to buy everything you need and sell everything you need from just these un-downable services. With Torrents & Mega, we already have the ability to keep our information flow completely free of propaganda... Bitcoin and 3D printing will be the rest of the Economy's replacement in time.

Control over the economy and your information flow is exactly how the state has controlled us all since it's invention... & soon they'll be powerless. P2P is the key to it all, and we'll be able to ignore the state into oblivion.

Sadly, it can't happen on it's own. I maintain that we'll need the exclusionary stateless society first as the spark. Once the rest of the world sees how much better the stateless folk have it, they'll all want to dump their states as fast as the word can spread.

That will be a truly awesome time to be alive. Possibly mankind's greatest moment.

 

[scottspfd82]

Ok, I'll take a crack at it then. You asked:



[/B]No. That's like asking, if there's two sets of parallel train tracks, could the trains run into each other? No, because they're both on a separate set of tracks. Ok, that's actually a really shitty analogy, but something like that.

At some point, states are going to want to negotiate with your stateless society, for one reason or another; trade, transportation routes, defense, labor, debate whether or not they want to invade and rape & pillage you, or something. The states are going to have representatives to send over to talk on their behalf, whereas the stateless society won't have anyone, because leaders aren't allowed to exist.

There's a difference between leaders and rulers. I doubt it'd come down to no one is allowed to communicate.

I'm not saying that the possibility of coercion from the existing state wouldn't happen, but there may be ways to avoid it.

@xmcp123

Welcome to Agorism and Counter-Economics, where the radical right meets the radical left.
Imagine Libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism, but with a heaping pile of revolutionary theory.

Agorism is definitely worth talking about. But it also comes down to risk/reward. It'd take a huge part of the population getting involved to even make a dent in the state though. On moral grounds, I give the State as little as I possibly can without putting myself in danger.

 

[hellblazer]

Why don't all the ancap people pool their money and buy 10,000 acres of land from a government with full sovereignty rights? Is such a thing even possible? How do you even go about creating a tiny country?

Then you could have that one collective that owns the land, with full sovereignty, allow total anarchy or whatever their delusional theories are.

You could get that guy on board who wanted to create the floating cities; at least your idea is far less absurd than his.

At least you would actually be putting your ideas into practice then, instead of these endless forays into theoretical utopias that never go anywhere.

Btw Luke, you're completely delusional to think torrents and bitcoins are this massive revolutionary force that will change the world. Once they shoot you and every other wannabe digital revolutionary, who's gonna be buying those bitcoins then? The U.S. just announced new money laundering rules vis a vis btc, and they haven't even gotten started.

 

[lukep]

Why don't all the ancap people pool their money and buy 10,000 acres of land from a government with full sovereignty rights? Is such a thing even possible?

No.





Starting to get the picture yet?

 

[hellblazer]

No.





Starting to get the picture yet?

It's gotta be possible. Even bribe an African dictator to give you his tiny country, or buy some island somewhere with sovereignty rights. If you have enough money, you can make anything happen.

How have countries come into existence before? How did those little breakaway movements get their own nations? I highly doubt you've explored every possible scenario.

 

[pewep]

It's gotta be possible. Even bribe an African dictator to give you his tiny country, or buy some island somewhere with sovereignty rights. If you have enough money, you can make anything happen.

How have countries come into existence before? How did those little breakaway movements get their own nations? I highly doubt you've explored every possible scenario.

Africans generally do not like white people. I'm not trying to be racist, I'm just stating a fact. It'll be quite difficult to do that. It would be better to chose a different location where you don't have to deal with malaria, a volatile environment and hostile natives.

 

[pewep]

There is no reason a group of people can't co-own the land, putting it in some kind of trust... I'm sure it would happen all the time, making national-park like places but of course there would be more entry fees.

...It's only the part where you force others to pay for that park that we must avoid.

And for the transformation from state to stateless society, I'm imagining a thousand little Oklahoma Territory land runs. (Like in the movie Far and Away.)



The only way a stateless society could come about is through an Exclusionary parcel of land, such as a Seastead, or tiny state currently not developed by anyone.

Then, only after the qualified AnCaps or whatever succeed there, it would expand as the rest of the world sees that proof of concept unfold on youtube.



It is tough, but Stefan Molyneux had some good reasons for why other states wouldn't need to attack (or find it fruitful to attack) an anarchy in his ebooks somewhere. Perhaps it was Practical Anarchy.



I can't see that happening; all states have hammers and see every problem as being a nail.


I give it 50 years or less.

The reason why is not simply the internet; It's specifically Peer-to-peer technology that will be the final nail in the coffin of statehood.

The state, or any organization, has exactly one way to retaliate against the coming threat of P2P techs like Torrents, Bitcoins, 3D Printers, DEFCAD Search, & Mega:

Force.

These P2P techs all can survive censorship of mass proportions, and to stop any one of them would take North-Korean tactics on a worldwide scale... Perhaps all power to be turned completely off!

But together, these unstoppable technologies make a complete ECONOMY.

You will be able to use bitcoin to buy everything you need and sell everything you need from just these un-downable services. With Torrents & Mega, we already have the ability to keep our information flow completely free of propaganda... Bitcoin and 3D printing will be the rest of the Economy's replacement in time.

Control over the economy and your information flow is exactly how the state has controlled us all since it's invention... & soon they'll be powerless. P2P is the key to it all, and we'll be able to ignore the state into oblivion.

Sadly, it can't happen on it's own. I maintain that we'll need the exclusionary stateless society first as the spark. Once the rest of the world sees how much better the stateless folk have it, they'll all want to dump their states as fast as the word can spread.

That will be a truly awesome time to be alive. Possibly mankind's greatest moment.

Luke if you really want me to take you seriously, you'll answer my question. I'm all for the idea, but it can never happen. Not in this world.