Hardcore Libertarians/Ancap: Do You Truly Believe We Can Live Without a State?
1739 sats \ 22 comments \ @r3drun3 15 Mar libertarian
I tend to align with libertarian ideologies, but I really struggle to conceive how society could function without some form of governance.
Even Adam Smith allowed a small room for the state.
I can almost hear @DarthCoin saying "I find your lack of faith disturbing" or "the state is just an illusion" but the issue is that too many paradoxes arise for me.
For instance, without any state:
  • who reinforces your natural rights?
  • If someone kills you on the street because you looked at them the wrong way, what happens?
  • If you enter into a consensual contract with someone and one party fails to uphold their end, who adjudicates?
  • If a private individual dumps waste near your property, do you have the right to kill them?
  • And if they dump waste nearby, but it diminishes the value of your property and quality of life, what to do?
  • If two individuals or groups claim ownership over the same piece of land, how is ownership determined and disputes resolved?
  • If a rival company engages in unfair competition by threatening or causing physical or economic harm, how should one investigate/intervene?
These are just a few of the PRACTICAL questions that preoccupy my mind regarding the subject (for other questions take a look at this post).
For me, the problem isn't the state itself but what the state has become: from referee to a more powerful player on the field.
What should be done IMHO:
  1. Decouple the state from money.
  2. Promote decentralization of power to local communities and municipalities.
  3. Reduce the state's influence on individuals: The state cannot deny any constitutional right under any circumstance; otherwise, they cease to be rights and become concessions.
  4. Allow the populace to be much more involved in decision-making (it's a statistical fact that in "democratic" countries, many decisions made by governments are contrary to popular opinion).
  5. Strengthen transparency and accountability measures within government institutions
write
preview
this territory is moderated
related posts
363 sats \ 2 replies \ @freetx 15 Mar
This is a wide-ranging topic. Most of the questions you ask are traditionally answered by the idea of using private agencies (ie. Private police to provide protection, 3rd party insurance and arbitration agreements, etc).
However, without getting too deep into pointless hypothetical and trying to be as concise as possible I will say: The final outcome of a truly AnCap world will functionally look very similar to Small Gov / Libertarian world.
That is, in an AnCap world which is run by various insurance, standards testing, private police forces, etc....will practically not be a much different experience from say 1825 America with its 50 independent states model.
Therefore, we can achieve 90% of the same result, in an much easier to achieve format, by just pursuing a Small Gov / States Rights model.
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Mar
Well answered
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xIlmari 16 Mar
What prevents an AnCap society with multiple private police from devolving into a mafia/gang war where they start racketeering their "customers" and fighting each other for more access to "customers"?
I'm honestly curious because I can't for the life of me solve the rule of law part of the puzzle without the use of state.
reply
37 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 15 Mar
Most of my life does not involve the state. Most of my interactions are completely anarchic. Start thinking about what you do each day.
Another thing, think about how much of what the state does that depends on private parties and companies. The state is not as all powerful as they would have us believe.
reply
215 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner 15 Mar
I also believe that it will not be possible to live without any form of government. We have thousands of years of history, and if we have arrived here and have this system, it is because it cannot be all bad. It's not all good either. I think it will always be a struggle that finds balance over time.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jakoyoh629 15 Mar
I couldn't agree more!
reply
102 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 15 Mar
I was an AnCap-Libertarian for a very long time, that's how I got into Bitcoin originally... I still believe in the non-agression-principle and it informs my view on all things
With age and wisdom however, I've learned that reality doesn't care much about your ideals, and that change must be iterative because what came before you exists for a reason (even if that reasoning is unpleasant)
Nomenclature as to what defines the state, aggression, and rights is usually the point of contention.
I don't think anyone denies "there's always someone tougher than you", and it's only if you disagree with that fact can you honestly believe in a state-less society.
For reasonable people that acknowledge there's always someone tougher than you, this is tacit admission that there is always an apex force that is, in a given geography, the most capable at killing people and breaking things.
We can never be rid of that apex force and coercion, so at the end of the day all we're debating is how to best manage that risk and what we're calling it.
The state is
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @clr 16 Mar
Bitcoin is
reply
157 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 15 Mar
Please watch the 3 parts series of Larken Rose videos, name The island.
  • part 1:
  • part 2:
  • part 3:
reply
110 sats \ 1 reply \ @tomlaies 15 Mar
Yes.
And I find it tiring that even on the libertarian territory on SN struggle with basics like this.
Remember, we're wasting 1/3 to 1/2 of our money on government. Do you understand how fucking much that is??? Also, economics grows EXPONENTIALLY. Always. The way there will be hard. It can take a long time. There will be mishaps on the way. There will be violence. There will be theft. There will be steps forward, there will be steps backwards. But it can work - and if it does it will be a bright future for humanity.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @btc_remnant 24 Mar
Just 1/3 to 1/2? Tell me where you live so I can move :)
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @johnbnevin 16 Mar
Humans inevitably organize themselves into heirarchies. Generational heirarchies with monopolies on violence that reign with implicit assumed authority and inadequate checks from those governed by them take on a nature that begets philosophical, intellectual, social, and political phenomena such as 'anarcho-capitalism' and 'libertarianism.' These are cultural and/or heirarchical organizations of people with aims to bring about regulation of other heirarchical organizations of people that have outgrown their practical or ethical bounds.
Where no state exists, humans organize themselves into heirarchies, which themselves can be called 'states,' if you like, but remember the first goal is to have your own mind wrapped around ideas with clarity, and the second goal is to communicate those ideas with clarity, or perhaps to implement them silently. Ignore language / semantics that are not helpful to those ends. Keep in mind that government can behave like corporation and a corporation can behave like a government. The key is whether interactions are voluntary.
The question of whether we can 'live without a state' is really a question of whether individual humans can regulate bad actors through culture and decisionmaking rather than codified rulesets and presumed authority to enforce punishments. My family has some codified rulesets to allow for clarity and communication and pre-emptively resolving disputes, and very little punishment from presumed authority. It doesn't work perfectly.
Wherever heirarchies are organized among humans, we can see a few truths:
  • As they get larger, they get worse at ensuring justice among participants
  • They must keep ambitious deceivers, narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths in check to survive over time
  • Any structure works okay if it is small enough and the people within it agree on the rules, talk out disputes peacefully, and believe in cooperation
  • No system will save participants who are evil, morally corrupt, unwilling to cooperate, don't believe in peace, are pathologically narcissistic, sociopathic, or psychopathic.
  • There is no system that will result in perfect justice, but that's the goal.
TLDR In the status quo, there are some heirarchies organized among humans that shouldn't exist. Some of them we call 'states'. Fight those. There are some heirarchies organized among humans that should exist (partnerships / division of labor). Support them.
reply
410 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Mar
I really struggle to conceive how society could function without some form of governance.
Governance does not need to be coercive. That's the fundamental distinction we see. All of the issues you point out are widely covered in the libertarian literature. You could look into something like David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom if you want a bunch of possible nuts and bolts answers.
As far as I'm concerned, if your with us for now that's good enough. If we ever get to where a stateless society is on the table, I'll try to convince you of the other stuff then.
reply
14 sats \ 0 replies \ @024a8213a4 16 Mar freebie
Since these questions are already well answered in libertarian literature, I'll address each one with the respective sources for the answers.
  • Who enforces your natural rights?
  • If someone kills you on the street because you looked at them the wrong way, what happens?
  • If you enter into a consensual contract with someone and one party fails to uphold their end, who adjudicates?
Answers for these three questions:
Chapter "POLICE, COURTS, AND LAWS—ON THE MARKET" of "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman (Milton Friedman's son)
Link: http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
This video is also a must-see; it's based on "The Machinery of Freedom": Link:
  • If a private individual dumps waste near your property, do you have the right to kill them?
No, lethal force is not a proportionate response to property damage or nuisance under libertarian ethics. Stephan Kinsella's concept of "Estoppel" provides a framework for understanding how punishment must be proportionate to the aggression committed. Here's his article about it:
Link: https://cdn.mises.org/12_1_3_0.pdf
  • And if they dump waste nearby, but it diminishes the value of your property and quality of life, what to do?
This scenario is known as a negative externality. This situation is addressed by the principle of negative externalities within libertarian theory. The affected party can seek remediation through private arbitration, where damages can be assessed and compensated, IF they have the right to do so. The right of compensation in the case of negative externalities is based on the homestead principle. In this article, you may find all your answers about how libertarian rights and also economic incentives work in this case.
Link: https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/externalities
  • If two individuals or groups claim ownership over the same piece of land, how is ownership determined and disputes resolved?
In libertarian ethics, there are only two legitimate ways to have ownership over a scarce resource: homesteading or voluntary exchange (agreement). So if the land was already being used by A when B arrived, then A is the rightful owner. If A and B try to claim ownership of the resource at the exact same time, then homesteading is impossible, so the only way is through an agreement, underpinned by the broader principles of non-aggression. This last part is not particularly explored in libertarian ethics because it is very improbable; however, it is a logical conclusion of libertarian ethics. Libertarian ethics are justified by Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics.
  • If a rival company engages in unfair competition by threatening or causing physical or economic harm, how should one investigate/intervene?
In a libertarian framework, other market participants and protection agencies would naturally counteract a company engaging in aggressive or harmful practices. The cost of such behavior would likely outweigh the benefits, as customers and business partners gravitate towards firms that contribute to a peaceful and prosperous order. The market's self-regulating nature discourages destructive competition and encourages businesses to maintain good practices to retain customer trust and loyalty. The company that engages in physical threats or economic harm would cost MORE for its customers while creating LESS peace and order. Why would the majority of people want to pay more for worse service when there are better options available?
11 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 15 Mar
I really struggle to conceive how society could function without some form of governance.
Might I suggest you take a look at Chaos Theory by Dr. Bob Murphy.
The short version is most anarchists of the free market type agree with you. We have many forms of voluntary governance today. Governance is needed. It doesn't have to be a single entity with a monopoly on violence. Many competing governance providers could accomplish the various functions of the state in a less violence and more efficient way. There are hundreds of podcasts with guests talking about this on the Tom Woods show for example. It took me several years of asking specific questions and finding answer before I got it.
Now the caveat. No one know how this will come about. No one knows how it will work out. But, every single time I get push back on private governance the objections are literally descriptions of the status quo. My hope is that we see a slow replacement of the state's monopoly on violence over time. Bit by bit. Bitcoin is a key to this being possible. Starving the beast. I think one issue with people getting their head around this is that they do not truly understand the level of harm and death the state has brought.
The other aspect that really blows my mind now is how much of the functions of governance are possible and actually done by private companies and apps now. Yes, there are issue. Yes it isn't perfect but I'd rather live in a word driven by competition and profit than rent seeking.
Practically speaking though, this won't come about as long as people like us stay in our heads. We must move towards freedom in our personal lives. Another enjoyable book to read on anarchy that is an anthology is The Anarchist's Handbook by Michael Malice. Another book is Democracy, the God that Failed.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @johnbnevin 16 Mar
Good answer. 'Government' and 'Governance' misunderstandings.
reply
7 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 15 Mar
I think you could for a period of time but eventually some form of new state would grow. I am not saying that's a good thing, just an observation.
reply
7 sats \ 0 replies \ @kytt 15 Mar
Governance requires consent. There will be those that consent and those that do not.
Considering absolute property rights, you may also consider a landlord a form of governance. My property, my rules.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @johnbnevin 17 Mar
https://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/2024/03/pfizer-chemical-spill-prompts-no-contact-advisory-of-kalamazoo-river.html
Pfizer chemical spill prompts no-contact advisory of Kalamazoo River
It is not known how much of the colorless liquid was discharged into a dedicated sanitary sewer serving Pfizer, which then flows to the Kalamazoo Water Reclamation Plant for treatment, according to a joint news release from the city of Kalamazoo and the Kalamazoo County Health and Community Services Department.
All persons are being asked to avoid contact with the Kalamazoo River from Paterson Street Bridge in the city of Kalamazoo to the D Avenue Bridge in Cooper Township.
Status quo is no consequences whatsoever, and it costs millions in lawyers to even try.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @johnbnevin 16 Mar
Without a state...
who reinforces your natural rights?
Need to understand where you are coming from on this. How does the state reinforce your natural rights today? It doesn't mine. It has a chance to use its force to coerce restitution for a natural right violated by another, if I can afford a lawyer. If I want to assert my natural rights, that is up to me whether there is a state or not.
If someone kills you on the street because you looked at them the wrong way, what happens?
You die, in all systems. Your family may seek 'justice' by asking the government to kill the person who did it, or put them in a cage. Without a state, traditionally situations like that were adjudicated by 'judges' who were wise and trusted elders that many families used for advice on disputes. Most families / tribes would agree that a judge's decision was final, though appeal processes would also exist. Look up weregild, that's just one of many historical examples.
In modern times, without a state, there would be those insured and those uninsured, those with pre-existing arrangements for how disputes will be settled, and those without. Localities would have traditions ('precedents') for how the 'without' would be treated in 'courts'. The modern court system would be a model that is used in almost all localities, and any locality that used something much different would be laughed at or avoided or revered with a cult following. It's just that they would be more accountable to the families/tribes they adjudicated for, the lawyers and judges would be more intimate and well known, and there would be less room for corruption. It would not be perfect, and doesn't have to be to be advocated for.
If you enter into a consensual contract with someone and one party fails to uphold their end, who adjudicates?
See above, depends on your pre-existing contracts. With a state, it is implied that the state will adjudicate. Without a state, your contract will specify.
If a private individual dumps waste near your property, do you have the right to kill them?
No. But reality dictates they are more likely to be killed, or sued, than the average person, making such irresponsibility more risky than behaving ethically.
And if they dump waste nearby, but it diminishes the value of your property and quality of life, what to do?
Keep in mind that these situations are almost entirely ignored/unaddressed by modern governments. If one spends millions on lawyering to try and sue a corporation or government for damages, one might get that corporation to pay a sum that does not come close to their profits, isn't likely to change their behavior, and may not compensate for the actual damage. That is what we are trying to improve upon.
Without a state, judges would be accountable to more than just elections with paper ballots conducted on machines that are easily hackable made by companies easily captured by intelligence agencies, for instance. Lawyers would be cheaper because competition would be greater, universities wouldn't be elite institutions propped up by government grants, but easily accessible to all, and the system would be more efficient, for instance.
If two individuals or groups claim ownership over the same piece of land, how is ownership determined and disputes resolved?
See above. It's simple when you recognize that courts can be voluntary.
If a rival company engages in unfair competition by threatening or causing physical or economic harm, how should one investigate/intervene?
Corporations that don't abide by cultural standards and norms and don't carry insurance / adjudication contracts with courts that are popular, recognizable and with a reputation of avoiding / addressing such things when they occur will not be the ones chosen by individuals in the market. They will be seen as much more risky. Getting caught in unfair competition, in the status quo, has no repercussions, and is in fact rewarded by government. That's what we're trying to improve upon - total chaos and unaccountability and corruption in exactly the areas you are concerned about exists right now. Any system would be better than what we have. A stateless system is just one of them.
BTW, you forgot who will build the roads?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Caleb 16 Mar
There are dozens of books and thousands of articles and videos on this. It’s like asking for people’s opinions on complex topologies in math. It’s better to study.
You still have laws, but not a monopoly on violence. You agree to rules in order to live in a community. If you don’t like it, you move. You can have a market for most things.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 15 Mar
I'm not sure what label best applies to me, but the most important thing to me is that participation is voluntary and that the participants can easily secede. Humans are social creatures and will always form groups with some form of governance, which is great as long as those two criteria are met. There are no objectively correct answers to your questions. We can only discover what works best for each group of people.
reply