The Stateless Society - An Examination of Alternatives

[id300129]

who builds the roads?

[ronwandell]

Thank you Stef, Hope you are doing well too.

[mmeb83]

What about protection?

[AbelianGroup]

I have a question. Suppose that the people of a geographic area currently controlled by a state were to free themselves of the state and enact a free society. How would they protect themselves against a violent invasion from a neighboring state?

[Seravat7]

@AbelianGroup The neighboring state will have the hardest time first off: It won't have any military targets, but every single person it sees will have to be treated like an enemy soldier.

For pragmatic reasons, I have to ask: Are you more concerned about Canada or Mexico invading us?

[Dirge987]

@AbelianGroup Probably the best way to protect a free society from an invading state is trade. If your biggest trading parter is your neighbor, then they will lose everything by going to war with you, especially if it's something they need. Can they just take whatever they want from your free society? Good luck. Decentralized means of production and guerrilla warfare make infrastructure impossible to take entirely. The costs for such a conflict would be ruinous for them.

[thomas43ification]

@Stefbot: I like your views, well thought out. You are very smart. I have your views on many subjects. I have my own theory of solving the current corruption of the USA. I will share it with you when it is finished ( bound in book form ). keep thinking !

[TheNeoAristotelean]

Good point at 6:50-7:08

[austinphish]

two points:

1.  You discuss the state as if it were a single living entity, which helps make your points but is also confusing as we all know that the Government is actually a collection of many diverse people and institutions, some of whom and which are actually good for society.

I think your corollary would be how individuals working for, employed by the state, turn the state into the monster/cancer that it is.

2. Noam Chomsky is the answer

[Hashishin13]

@austinphish None of them are good for society becauae they are all paid for throguh theft, and most of them claim monopolies.

Noam Chompsky is a socialist anarchist, and I have never heard a single one justify why you have rights to your own house and body but not to other forms of property, probably because answering would unravel the whole thing.

If you don't own yourself then what is the arguement against rape? If you don't own yourself then your a slave.

[austinphish]

@Hashishin13 - I don't think you addressed point 1, which was meant to help you in your cause. I am a member of the LP...

[Hashishin13]

@austinphish part 2

What makes it even worse then the scenario I just told you is that only died in the wool libertarians or some anarchists realize that taxes are theft, so if libertarians tried to cut off the loot people would actually think we were the immoral ones.

[Hashishin13]

part 3 last part

Basically what I'm saying is that everything government does or funds is through theft or coercion of some kind. If you can point out something which the government doesn't grant a monopoly, or fund, or regulate that is done by volunteers, then it would be okay, however if you find something like this it might as well just be a private charity as it will function exactly the same.

[Hashishin13]

To the extent that anything you regard as "good" is associated with government, it is, in fact "bad".

Hows that?

If I steal your money and give it to orphans it might actually be WORSE then if I had stolen it and kept it to myself. Why you ask? Well if justice is going to be done then the money I stole needs to be taken back from the orphans to give it to you, if I had kept it the orphans wouldn't have been bothered.

Government is the thief, all the "good" things are the giving to oprhans.

[grumpone]

Warlord-ism like in the middle ages (or now in certain parts of the world) would be a problem. There are ALWAYS people that want to dominate and use others and people that want to follow and serve them for personal gain.

[toosad444]

I don't know what they would do with a murderer in this type of society, but I bet they wouldn't put him in the same place as nonviolent offenders in a prison run for profit. 

[solidysnake1]

i think your videos are too long, if you can explain your points in 10-15 minutes It would be awesome.

[reapfreak]

It is odd. People on a sinking Titanic getting nervous about a leaky rowboat.

[drew335533]

Uhhh.l........uhhhhhhhh God exists outside of time!

[leonardomoses]

why dont we just create a stateless society without currency and create a resource based economy such as the idea created by Jacque Fresco in the Zeitgeist movement?

[petepamf]

@leonardomoses Because he is convinced that ownership and wealth is so part of our make up that things like the venus project are just insane. He thinks he's so radical but really he's a boring conformist. The Venus Project is by far the best working theory to a future society.

[grumpone]

@petepamf The problem with that "project" is that you use FORCE to prevent the use of money. Who will supply and administer that force? You see what I mean? That model has to have an elite or government that will enforce it's rules. No other way around it.

[petepamf]

@grumpone I have no problem with with that with the exception you seem to think it's fact. If you think it's in our nature to be assholes then fine, there's nothing really to discuss. Who am I to argue that we are any different than the 99.9% of all species b4 us that are now extinct. I don't think it's in our make up but rather our conditioning that we need ownership and wealth. If I believed your theory on the "project" I'd have to stop believing in evolution. Alas, you may be right.

[Clovertone]

"by force if necessary" 10:54

"thus in the absence of any recourse to force small debts are usually acceptable" 11:43

teehee

[djboony]

what he is saying about conflict resolution, to me sounds no different to the status quo, independant arbitration followed by the initiation of (legitimate?) force, that differes fom state court how?

arent courts powers separate from the state? as in the seperation of powers, the foundation of statist society. i am symaphetic to these ideas but they sound, murky

[MarmaladeINFP]

I haven't yet seen an explanation of how and why a corporate government wouldn't turn into a state government. What is the advantage of having government and capitalism controlled by the same group of people? Why would that be better than the corporatism that we essentialy already have?

[migkillertwo]

Dispute resolution isn't used by minarchists because only courts can mediate between two parties. Its that a private mediator cannot compel either party to obey the agreement, unlike a state court. That is why we still need a state. Your solution to this idea is a statist solution. Property confiscation is the initiation of force.

[DanMorin007]

There is no need for the state for dispute resolutions. The enterprise of law was private until the state hijacked it.

In a nutshell, if you have suffered injustice, you have the right to seek restitution Seeking restitution by yourself is risky because others may view you as the aggressor. To avoid a potential conflict, there arises a need for a "public trial" to ascertain the other party is guilty or innocent.

[DanMorin007]

A great article to read is "Justice Entrepreneurship In a Free Market". This article is rather short (22 pages) however it contains very powerful concepts. Reading it was my biggest eye opener for freedom.

A great book is "Anarchy and the Law" (700 pages) which is a compilation of the best article regarding private law and justice.

[metthestreet]

well done video

[waksibra]

I still have too many question to accept this. How do you deal with a crazy, brutal murderer in a stateless society? And how would it be any different from one with a state?

[stefbot]

Your skepticism makes total sense to me -- you might want to check out my free books on anarchy, available on my website... :)

[metthestreet]

ima get your book

[maggot72494]

@waksibra

Private police, private courts, DRO's.

[eyejudgeeverything]

@waksibra

If you haven't found the info you're looking for, check out podcast #203 "Stateless Prisons" at the Freedomain radio website.Hope this is helpful.

[waksibra]

@eyejudgeeverything Don't worry, I've been convinced Stef is right a long time ago :)

[Haxincorp]

I feel like I should do something... but I don't know what xD

[mu5icaddict2]

...but how does it answer the problem posed by Animal Farm? Mankind is always grasping for more. No society can be truely stateless, because man will always be power hungry.

[WATITDOO16]

The state doesn't come into being because of thirst for power. The state is an inevitability of the intrinsic qualities of human nature; the need for relations of the utility and social kind. We are, to quote Aristotle, "Political animals".

[mu5icaddict2]

I don't think humans have an innate need for political/social structure (i think that's what you're arguing) Put it on a micro scale, cliques and social hierarchy's don't develop out of a need for the structure itself, they happen because the people in these systems are constantly grasping for more power over their peers.

at any rate we're splitting hairs, How does anarchy answer the problem posed by the "human factor"

[WATITDOO16]

The element of power being present when ruling over a subject is unavoidable. It is necessary in governance to have power, it is a natural phenomenon within hierarchy but it is not elemental but rather coincidental of the interdependant relationship of ruler and subject. It is a a tool, when used appropriately by the ruler, benefits the subject; there is no appropriate power without tacit consent from the subject, without which, power is deemed inappropriate and detrimental to the relationship.

[WATITDOO16]

One forgets that states are just merely tools. The bearer of these tools either utilize them well or through vice. The only threat to the human being or rather the best possible human being is paradoxically the human being. It is choice that forges action and then result. Our worst enemy isn't this "they" that we so easily attribute the worst of mankind into but rather the possibility of unrestrained human nature deciding on the most crucial of decisions in place of reason and thought.

[mu5icaddict2]

very well said

[Hashishin13]

@WATITDOO16 The state is a "tool" or institution which has the tendency, or provides the incentives, to grow in wealth and power at the direct expense of the average citizen. It also claims a monopoly on punishment(read violence) and tends to encourage disarmament and reliance on the state both monetarily and defensively. Lastly, and probably most glaringly, it claims the sole right to steal money, particualrly a certain percent of income which is basically a system of slavery with job choice.

[DonVoghano]

This would never work, in fact it is a 100% recipe for a more oppressive and savage society. Your faith in the "free market" is completely religious and not based on any facts, in fact it is very dangerous.

[LastReplaySC]

you obviously dont understand the definition of a free market.

The free market you think of an are acting in at date is in fact a fully manipulated institutionalized illusion of a free maket, you can call it everthing, but not "free".

[stefbot]

I cede the definition of "religious" to the person who makes unsubstantiated assertions with neither truth nor understanding...

[PatriotismIsSlavery]

Socialism is the world's utopian religion. There are no historical or theoretical facts that support the notion that socialism "works" (if "works" means maximum wealth "for all") . Of course, if "works" means concentrating wealth in the hands of the few leaving the mass of humanity in poverty, then socialism does indeed "work".

[DonVoghano]

Free market fundamentalism and Socialism are two extremes and both end up being religions based on little but faith. The truth is that neither can or has existed: a hybrid system has always been, and probably has to be the norm. The dilemma is that the economy is to complex to be planned, but the market cannot be left entirely to itself as it is naturally manipulated to create oppressive oligarchies and monopolies.

[DonVoghano]

Coming out with doctrines like "abolish the market" or "abolish the state" is childish and simplistic and ignores the utter complexity of human affairs with a 2nd grade "panacea" cure for it all. In fact the only ideal cure is a checks and balances system in which the govt is as much as possible responsive to its people while holding private power in check to prevent monopoly and encourage healthy competition.

[DanMorin007]

No monopoly exists without the state. Free markets do NOT produce monopolies and oppressive oligarchies.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@DanMorin007

Perfect logic, but you missed one small issue. A free market has never existed in history. All markets are controlled by those in power, be those in powerful corporations or in powerful governments.

[DanMorin007]

Someone could have used the same argument regarding slavery. A society without slaves never existed in history, therefore we must continue having slaves.

Although there has never been a pure free market, America was mostly a free market until 1910, and was the engine of world prosperity.

How much do you know about economics? I am asking because I suspect you confuse capitalism and fascism.

[MarmaladeINFP]

There is an important difference. People argued against slavery for various reasons, but I don't recall anyone arguing that the ending of slavery might lead to a more oppressive society. Anyone who attempted to create a stateless society very easily could create an even more oppressive society than this.

Ending slavery wasn't difficult because slavery was already becoming too costly with the Industrial Revolution. State governments, however, show no sign of coming to an end any time soon.

[MarmaladeINFP]

If you are arguing for the 19th cent 'free market', you can count me out. The capitalists at that time were as brutal as they come. The government didn't control them because they controlled the government. They had politicians in their pocket and they made money by getting free land from the government such as with the railroads. They used poverty-stricken laborers in conditions worse than slavery. They created oppressive mining towns which were perfect examples of a stateless society.

[grumpone]

@MarmaladeINFP Read through your reply again and see if you can spot the theme running through it - "they controlled THE GOVERNMENT", "They had politicians in their pocket", "by getting free land from the government"... Can you not see the reoccurring theme? Are you sure?

[MarmaladeINFP]

@grumpone Maybe you should read my comments again. There is a theme. The govt is a facade and tool of power but not the ultimate source of power. Power can and does use many other facades and tools brsides govt. Getting rid of the govt would just eliminate a symptom, not the disease.

[Mosier2]

Gabrial Kolko, himself a socialist I am told and Hisorian at the U of Toronto wrote "The Triumph of Conservatism", wherein his studies of the history of the major industrieS during the Progressive Era in the US, revealed that in all these major industries - insurance, railroads, meat packing, banking, oil, etc, the major players were doing well yet still losing market share to smaller newcomers in those markets who more quickly responded to market opportunities.

[Mosier2]

con't: Thus the major players petitioned the Fed Gov't for regulation in the name of protecting the public. Regulatory agencies were established, then had to be administered - but by who? Well, who knows more about these industries than executives from the major players? Its no surprise that regualtions were established wherein compliance costs were disproportinately high on the smaller businesses, threby protecting the majors from the rigors of competiton. The losers were the public.

[Mosier2]

My point being - the evidence of history shows the (relatively) free market expanded competition in all the major industries - to public benefit. Only with the aid of government did big businesses manage to consolidate economic power in the form of monopolies and/or oligarchies. The big lie public education force feeds kids is that freedom (the market) leads to enslavement (to monopolies).

[MarmaladeINFP]

@Mosier2

However, your argument also proves that large corporations don't benefit from free markets and so will do whatever they can control markets. They will turn to government if that works, but they also have other options outside of government to try to control markets. The danger to free markets isn't the government itself, but the corporations that use the government as a tool to achieve their own ends.

[DanMorin007]

MarmaladeINFP wrote: "The danger to free markets isn't the government itself, but the corporations that use the government as a tool to achieve their own ends."

How can you have free market with government? What you wrote is like saying too much freedom leads to less freedom.

The definition of Capitalism is PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. The definition of Communism is GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP. The free market is about private ownership WITHOUT government intervention.

[MarmaladeINFP]

I'm not saying we can have a free market with government. I'm saying a free market has never existed. I'm also saying that in the history of modern civilization a stateless society hasn't ever existed on the largescale. So, my argument is based on reality as we know it rather than hypothetical ideals of society.

The most recent examples of a stateless society were the mining towns. Everything was owned & run by the company. Some claim the market of that time was the closest to a free market.

[DanMorin007]

A mining town is not a free market, but rather a large jail where the workers must sell their labor to the hiring company which has a monopoly on the mine. On the other hand, people are free to leave the mine and work elsewhere..

I would recommend reading "Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment" at mises . org/story/1865. There are many societies having such a minimal government that could be considered as stateless. Another book I suggest to read is "Anarchy and The Law". I read it (700 pages)

[MarmaladeINFP]

Mining towns were created based on the market forces that were free from government control. Mining towns are the closest example that I know of to what stefbot is proposing, but it's possible anarcho-capitalism could avoid the mining town scenario. I'll check out your recommendations.

[MarmaladeINFP]

I just skimmed through "Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment". It's hard to know what to make of it. Many anarchist communities have been set up, but they never last. They only work as long as there is a core group of people devoted to certain ideals, but that devotion rarely lasts beyond the first generation. Also, anarchist communities only ever exist on the smallscale with low population densities and with some amount of isolation to allow independence.

[Acrilawl]

@DonVoghano $100 you're a lazy guy that enjoys the security in being so that the government provides for you.

[DonVoghano]

@Acrilawl 1000$ you throw ad hominems cuz you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag. I wish my govt gave me money, instead it subsidizes my prime minister's ¨private¨TVs with my tax €. But instead of repeating nonsensicle propaganda I try to get the facts and connect them in a coherent framework, as should you since they are easy to find - that is unless you are lazy...

[stefbot]

Instead of wasting time watching my videos, clearly you should be making superior ones...

[emotionalinvalid]

i think , therefore....i am confused and have a headache. i think i'll listen to some white noise and stare at a blank piece of white poster paper i hung on my shitty, depressing , fake wood, dark panneled apartment living room wall.

[SANTARII]

5:46 is that in the script? :P

[Victorprossartcom]

brilliant!

[johnnycon]

What happens when the water company goes under? According to you, the state shouldn't intervene. In reality, there isn't a vast swath of entrepreneurs looking to start water companies, especially if it isn't profitable!

So people in that area would go without water indefinitely. Surely such impracticalities shouldn't be imposed on the people?

If the people have voted for a govt which has the income tax, then surely that is the ultimate form of libertarianism, because people have freely acted.

[johnnycon]

Separation of powers does not work (as advocated by Hamilton and Madison)?

While your theory is attractive to me, it is essentially faith-based economics, based on consistent quasi-scientific principles. I fundementally don't agree with this ontology due to the irrationality of man and the diversity in society.

[Transubstantiation2]

its STAN

[snipa4lyfe]

your tags have a type: libertariansim should be libertarianism

[stefbot]

Thanks, got it! :)

[snipa4lyfe]

i think i saw it on "454 anarchy is what we have" also

[VictorPross]

Don't get me wrong. I am not a hostile viewer, I am very sympathetic to your position on many issues, but I most certainly think this is a fair question.

[VictorPross]

Stef, you said: Well we got rid of slvery, right? Was THIS your answer to my original question seen above--which was (and is):Question: If you regard the idea of having the state retained as fantastically unrealistic, how much more realistic is it that it'll be abolished all together?

[stefbot]

Well of course it will happen - the irrational can never last - just not in our lifetimes...

[95mscottb95]

are your books available in any book stores?

[stefbot]

One of my novels is...

[VictorProssArt]

Question: If you regard the idea of having the state retained as fantastically unrealistic, how much more realistic is it that it'll be abolished all together?

[stefbot]

Well we got rid of slvery, right?

[Transubstantiation2]

wrong ... the ridding of slavery is legislation ... Parts of speech...From Late Latin gerundium, from Old Latin gerundum (to be carried out), the gerundive of gerere (to bear, carry). In Latin, a verbal noun used for all cases of the infinitive but the nominative.... the bystander effect

[4HOMELESStheCHANNEL]

three-eighths rule, seven-eighths rule, simpson's rule, plain-error rule, harmless-error, dejure - defacto (DEFECTo), Predispositioning Theory, Perverse Incentives

[lukeev]

It's not about your own interpretation of what's 'realistic' or not. It's about doing what's right, whether it's realistic or not.

[cliffracerslayer]

It all depends upon having money. Anarcho-Capitalism would 'work' but would lead to the absolute rule of the wealthy, to a degree even the existing situation does not have. Some people are Rich, others Poor. In Ancapitalism, the Poor have no rights against the Rich. Because the Rich can buy off the Poors protection agencies.

[stefbot]

I can totally understand why you would think that, but quite the opposite is true... :)

[cliffracerslayer]

How so? You Ancaps get half of the right end, in that you understand that the modern CAPITALIST State sucks. But you then proceed to ask for the substitution of the indirect or underhand use of the State by the wealthy, for a stateless situation in which the same ends can be achieved with even greater ease, while removing all mechanisms that enforce equality.

Make the tools of state Private (like Law/Force) private and they are now on sale to the highest bidder.

[Halothewynd]

You noticeably concentrate on civil law. What of criminal law? If I take the lives of your loved ones who enforces punishment - the insurance companies!

If people are to be subjected to the loss of liberty in such cases - who runs the prisons and on whose authority.

[stefbot]

Ah, excellent question - you can listen to a few of my early podcasts for that... :)

[WoodsAmanda]

Would there still be nations without a state? It seems to me like there would not be.

[ohfucks]

i like the color of your wall

[Goldenmean87]

Ah you are here =P Anyway, I like your reasoning against the state and that you look to free market, but so far none of your solutions would work in my opnion. I will keep watching and reading your stuff to find out more about your opinions though.

[Goldenmean87]

Furthermore, how would violence be stopped? Your ideas only work under the presumption that everyone just wants a nice life, but there are plenty of people who just love violence or would resort to it in personal confrontation. Family fueds could easily break out, turning into gang wars which would have nothing to check them. Eventually there would just be several factions, a few of which would evolve into states which people flock to for protection from the violence.

[Goldenmean87]

I love free market but your ideas just won't work my friend. If a DRO is corrupt, then what prevents a DRO agency from being on the take? It is highly probable for this to happen and then where does one go? Also, who administers this rating of yours? Its as if it would require a state to mandate this system and then dismantle itself, but then what keeps hundreds of millions of people abiding to it? There is no authority, and therefore no higher network of society could possibly exist.

[stefbot]

Have a listen to a few of my early podcasts, there are good answers to your excellent questions! :)

[DoctorFist]

I worry about control over the credit rating

[stefbot]

I'm sure most people would, which is why the free market would provide a solution... :)

[DoctorFist]

It would? I thought there was some guy who organized this big computer system of credit ratings, and that perhaps it could be manipulated. I guess there would be a bunch of anti-centralization of credit ratings? Because then someone could manipulate, obviously, the ratings. Hmm, i should read up on your paper

[DoctorFist]

Also, ignore "a bunch of" and replace with "a movement for the"

[DoctorFist]

Wait a minute. You're saying the free market would find a solution rather than the free market IS the solution...yes I understand. I'm sure there would be a way to balance it, since its in everybody's best interest. Fair enough! :)

[themaxxxi]

Yea, hired police, I see absolutely nothing that could go wrong with that.

[notloz2]

Yes we should all be capitalists! Only the strong survive! A systemization of our labor forces that does not include intelligence or morals!

Why don't you think outside of the economic box before you think outside of state control. For if we had an effective/organic democracy state control would be best!

[stefbot]

Ah, I'm afraid that, after 2,500 years of evidence, I've given up on that. With the state, we get war, incarceration, inflation and debt. There is a better way! :)

[notloz2]

Modify the state make it more democratic, actually make it direct democracy. What would you rather have 7 billion people acting on their own self interests walking blindly through existance?

[stefbot]

You can't make the initiation of force - the definition of government - moral.

[notloz2]

Education

[SeanCitizen]

I would. What makes majority rule better than personal freedom?

[notloz2]

Well personal freedom definition wise is the ability to do whatever you want to do!

That is not a noble or an intellegent idea.

For then we would give junkies their needles and pedophiles their prey.

Inflation is caused when rich people get new goodies to buy!

You don't think capitalism is coersion and manipulation?

LoL

[visioninverse]

Personal freedom is definitely a noble and intelligent idea. It is the basis of the Constitution of the United States of America. In reality, drug prohibition causes more addicts and more deaths. I really don't know anything about pedophiles; that's a pretty obscure point to make. I'm sure groups of people can protect their own children.

Capitalism is competition by means of cooperation (corporations/businesses).

[notloz2]

That doesn't make any sense.

[visioninverse]

Let me make it simpler.

Cooperation makes you stronger.

Capitalism is based on voluntary interactions.

The benefits of freedom outweigh the costs.

:D

[notloz2]

Let me give you a clue!

Capitalism is based philisopicaly on competition that turns into ruthlesness, where the value of the individual/ enviroment... the continuation of mankind becomes a quick resource to exploit for short term profit!

Capitalism is not volentary I signed no sheet of paper.

WHat is the definition of freedom since you use the term so rhetoricaly?

[visioninverse]

Thanks for the clue. :D

Capitalism is based on competition, yes. Without competition you get monopolies, and, they exploit people far more than the free market.

It is voluntary because your job doesn't require you to stay there. You can leave if you are unhappy and seek better accommodations. It is better to choose to work, then to be forced to work. Capitalism is also voluntary because you can join a community that taxes all of its members to better the whole.

[visioninverse]

And if you are unable to work, or unable to contribute in any way, you must rely on charity, not the state. I'm sure they have social contacts that can take care of them, if not, then what good is socialism if its own citizens do not practice charity!?

[notloz2]

Your for the Walmartization of everything!

Walmart can compeate because they get their products made from countries who do not have constitutions and abuse the individual. If I want to compeate with Walmart I have to emulate their disgusting practices. No if ands or buts, but I would rather accknowledge the human and enviromental costs as a factor in determining value rather then just do what porduces the most profit.

Like Cmon the USA is a corporate oligarchy!

[visioninverse]

The free market tends to DESTROY monopolies. The state creates monopolies. By what principle are you implying that competition creates monopolies??

First you said they are competitive, then you talk about Walmart and Oil monopolies. I don't think Walmart or Oil monopolies would exist in this free market.

[notloz2]

Like oil monopolies? (yeah it looks like their colaborating amugst themselves for the highest profit margins!) Not for the benifit of the people. Capitalism does not recognize individuals or the enviroment as a factor... Mankind itself. Get your head out of the economic box and start seeing reality a little clearer.

[RPFS2008]

No offense, and I know this is very late, but you are pretty dumb :)

[notloz2]

What in particular makes you think that?

I think, if you buy into Steph's diatribe so readily you are the one that is dumb.

[achampag]

these new organizations (w/t they be called governments or private entities are just semantics) would be just as easily corruptible...

and there seems to be no room for error, which is a frightening concept with regard to humans... the young simply fuck up, sir. with your plan they would be ruined for life....

[achampag]

there is not enough room in a comment box to disagree with u on all points. you make some very proper and obviously correct points, but you need to recognize that our problems have more to do with what and how we are than our obsolete societal methods.

[xx1212]

How much do you bench?

[stefbot]

2 sets of 12 @ 150lbs...

[CGRIERSON]

I'm with ya on all this, but it seems you only talk about civil issues. What about violent crime?  What does a stateless society do with people who commit rape and murder?

[stefbot]

Listen to my second podcast... :)

[saxmanmax]

What do you find so insane about voluntary taxation?

[stefbot]

Oh, it's like 'consensual rape,' a 'square circle' etc - a contradiction in terms...

[saxmanmax]

That's true. It is a bad term. But what is insane about a state where only those who want to pay taxes do so.

[oliviathecanadian]

nothing!!! if it included those who WANTED to do so

[marjan15]

Homework for stefbot: Why do we have states? What are benefits? Which circumstances are necessary that states are (were) beneficial?

[stefbot]

Why do we have a mafia?

[marjan15]

Do you claim that there is no benefits of states for 99% people?

Onw more question: do you think that any form of hierarchy is bad or evil?

[KarakanKizilBayrak]

I read the book and got to know you better. I read the book and got to know myself better. I would really like to read a book written on your ethical theory next...Thanks

[stefbot]

Thanks, I'm already hard at work on it! :)

[Voltairier]

5 stars

I'm glad you've posted this. I recently came across your vids and wasn't really sure of the underlying alternative you've alluded to previously. Was a bit skeptical, but now I'm better informed. One question though- if the state could be recessed, tamed or contained on an ongoing basis, would that be an effective model for society? It seems it would need to be at that point before reaching your vision.

[stefbot]

Thanks - would you have said the same about slavery..?

[Voltairier]

Touche! I watched the Klan refomrer vid, so I get your point. I wasn't necessarily making a defense for the state, more asking how you can relate this vision to actionable steps. To use your example, in the U.S. it took a bloody civil war to abolish slavery. How can we practically move towards this alternative with the least amount of suffering and human turmoil?

Peace

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Education and Agorism, in my opinion.

The American War Between the States was not about slavery.

[Voltairier]

Yes, I understand that the U.S. civil war was more complex than my poor example, but you get my intent, right? Education and Agorism are fine as base philosophy for change, but how do you affect change at a grass roots level to move towards this end? For example, what can you do personally to express your view to a positive change towards this philosophy?

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Your willingness to discuss it is a start.

Peruse FreeDomainRadio and the associated board -- there's material about "getting there." I personally do whatever I can with ideas, as critical mass is required with or without a SHTF scenario (which is not unlikely).

[Elhan2005]

I recommend Dr Hoppe's Democracy - the God that Failed. It's a heavy read (although written in engaging prose), but well worth it.

[Voltairier]

Thanks! I'll add it to the ever-growing list of books in my queue. Have you read "Guns, Germs and Steel"? If so, is your recommendation as heavy and dry as that? I always reciprocate when some offers a book selection. Off topic, but an awesome read- "The Botany of Desire"

Cheers!

[Elhan2005]

It's not so much dry as it is difficult - but it's well worth it.