Stateless Dictatorships

[Zillo91]

You did not bring up the possibility of one DRO seizing control of all neuclear weapons? Wouldn't that give them the power to coerce everyone else?

[schmoborama]

This is ridiculous, it assume that the only people who might try to become a dictator would be someone who starts out as an equal, who just decides to try it overnight. These things happen over *generations*, not years, and they don't start out planned that way.

Armies also attract and are supported by undefended citizens. Who wants to live next to an armed country with no defense of your own? An army large enough to take over it's own region is supported in most societies.

[zoogle1]

@schmoborama While I agree that I feel some ideas weren't fully adressed, you also have to think of what kind of ideology would spread in this society regarding statism. People would view this hostile takeover for what it is, and would probably be well armed in anarchy. I imagine there would be very little to be gained from this takeover due to constant resistance, it would be a costly occupation. In fact, to sustain it would probably require an unreasonably large military.

[zoogle1]

@schmoborama 2/2 Which also comes back to the fact that the reason a state can sustain this military action is taxation and defecit, both of which are supported ideologically by the populace or by the state's monopoly on force. I do think it would be difficult to build an agressive army without any level of nationalism to back you. A city of one million armed citizens would be a challenge to conquer, and require a large force. It seems economically unfeasible for anything but a developed state.

[schmoborama]

@zoogle1

Are you an NRA member? Because they're the only people I know that imagine an entire civilian population being armed and trained in warfare, each and every one of us a survivalist. Survivalists love this idea, but NOBODY ELSE DOES. What benefits are there in a stateless society that can possibly make up for being completely alone with nothing but an AK47?

Just look at Palestine. Zionists cruised in and made their lives hell for generations. Was that worth not having a central govt?

[11thsockpuppet]

How does the concept of 'DROs' differ from the concept of mob? Aren't the various mob 'families' competing oragizations that offer privatized enforcement and arbitration services?

If fact i think that the whole concept of mafia historicaly arose from this very libertarian premise. That is, in sicily, back in the day, the failed state was not able to enforce property rights and contracts, so mafia organizations arose as an answer to this demand.

Am i missing something?

[grumpone]

@11thsockpuppet It's not enforcement, it is mere arbitration. You can choose to not honour the agreements. That of course pulls certain consequences for you in terms of being put on the "untrustworthy" list - similar to the credit ratings of today.

[11thsockpuppet]

@grumpone If understand correctly contract obligations & property rights need not be enforced,because the bad reputation from DROs ratings will suffice?

In other words if someone, is not a honest broker(eg violently seizes property), his bad reputation, which presumably will result in her being ostracized, is a sufficient deterrent. This ought to work despite the presence of gov't.I can think of some examples that this indeed has happened, but i feel that most of the crooks are left unscathed.

[rolynstone48]

Although I consider Stefan brilliant , He seems completely oblivious to one central point - That "Bobs"last name is Rothchild , and, instead of doing business to increase the corporate profit incentive , does business BEYOND the concept of money or profits , by simply being the central bank of the world , thereby , keeping nations financed , at interest , into keeping standing armies , for whatever maneuver the Rothchilds do in the world , to increase power and

control, by the "STATE" !

[grumpone]

@rolynstone48 What?

[Heller86]

What about mergers and acquisitions? A DRO can take over by buying other DROs, can't it?

[grumpone]

@Heller86 Even if they could somehow manage to take over all (practically impossible as the last competitor standing would demand an impossible buy-out price) competitors, NEW competitors would immediately emerge (remember NO government licences or society licences exist - anyone can start a DRO) emerge.

[ANARCHYdashTVdotCOM]

These ideals or ideology may even be anethema to the idea of an anarchist society. You see this commonly arising inside polarized prisons, neighborhoods, or within disenfranchised groups. Many of these mob armies do not act upon logic or honor contracts and are self sustaining and perpetuating out of a common shared stupidity that is not resolved over night.

[ANARCHYdashTVdotCOM]

You're assuming these DRO or similiar type organizations of thugs would have to raise an army through hiring mercenaries, which would be prohibitively expensive. History has shown, however, that armies of thugs can coalesce and be raised through nothing but shared ethnicity, camaraderie, beliefs or ideals.

[KraljevicPavle]

This is music to my ears Stef.

Also, nice to see one of your old videos, nostalgic.

[sharperguy]

What people have to remember is that the only reason the state can do bad things to us if we don't pay taxes is because they have the ideological support of the vast majority of the populous. In other words there are plenty of people wiling to pay their taxes because they believe it is necessary to have a stable society (lol). Some of this money can then be used to coerce everyone else.

Just imagine what would happen if everyone in a given country decided to stop paying at once.

[grumpone]

@sharperguy Even if that Sci-Fi scenario could happen, the government would start terrorising people to pay those taxes and trust me MOST would start paying them again. FAIL unfortunately.

[sharperguy]

@grumpone I'm not saying that its a particularly likely scenario that everyone would just suddenly decide to stop paying. However, the government would have a hard time forcing people to pay when the only resources they can use to force people is what they get from the people through that same force.

[cliffracerslayer]

The replacement state would not be a single DRO, it would be an assosiation of the wealthy individuals that have aquired ownership over all DRO's. This association would have de-facto state power, all the greater since it is not de-jure and therefore challengable.

[Sepero1]

I was thinking exactly what cliffracerslayer's said. Multiple wealthy united. It happens all the time.

[cliffracerslayer]

That would indeed be neccesery for any successful Ancap society. The base unit of power in such of society is a free assosiation of wealthy individuals. They simotaneously create a de-facto oligarchy but also protect Ancapland against the establishment of a state, since they alone have the resources to raise armies to defend Ancapland against a foreign State or anyone at home trying to set up a State.

[jackson32]

Isn't asking if an existing stateless society could turn back in a state putting the cart before the horse. Could you guide me to information that shows how a stateless society could happen in the first place.

[stefbot]

Thanks, for that you'll have to dip into my podcasts, because it's a fairly large topic! :)

[jackson32]

What about an uprising of socialist ideology leading to small pockets of government. If enough people had this ideology couldn't they get a small toehold into society and eventually start another state.

[RuddODragonFear]

Sure but that state would only have an influence in the socialist pockets, and if they attempted to extend their mitts out, they would be roundly slapped off by anarchists around them.

[LeeGeeGee]

I don't see your blog doesn't even mentioning this very simple refutation of your theory. Has it not crossed your mind? I would think not, since if it had I think you would have abandoned your theory by now.

[Luke12000]

simplyanarchy (dot com) -all the answers you could hope for.

[LeeGeeGee]

Do I need to go into how a noncoercive near monopoly can arise in a free market? Think about technological innovation to lower prices below that of the competition. Think about buyouts. Think about negotiating volume discounts from providers of equipment, etc. It's true that a coercive monopoly cannot arise in a free market. But a NONcoercive near monopoly can arise, and once it does, there is little to prevent it from tranforming into a coercive monopoly. It's a natural progression.

[Luke12000]

THE FREE MARKET!!! people like freedom. And anarchy has all the liberties and freedoms of democracy without all that hassle of voting/mob rule.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@Luke12000

Yes. Anarcho-capitalism will give you freedom. Citizens/customers of the stateless corporate society would be free even of democratic freedom. Who needs to vote? Who needs civil rights? Who needs inalienable rights? You'll have a company contract just like the miners had contracts in mining towns with company-owned stores and company-owned schools.  You'll be free from even thinking for yourself.

[LeeGeeGee]

In other words, a noncoercive near monopoly can indeed arise in a free market. But, once it arises, unless there is superior external force to itself to prevent it, it will use coercion to create a coercive monopoly. It will be a state.

[Luke12000]

There are economic incentives in Anarchism to spread awareness about organizations that infringe on basic liberties. This will economically cripple the organization when people stop associating for mutual benefit. Therefore the "superior external force to itself to prevent it" is the free market. Boo-ya

[LeeGeeGee]

Near monopolies can arise in a free market. Standard Oil gained 88% share through peaceful means without using state coercion. In your utopian free market, one DRO would eventually gain an 88% share through peaceful honest means. Since there would no longer be strong enough competition to prevent it, that DRO would then use coercion to prevent competition. The result is that it would be a state.

[stefbot]

That's a common theory, but it's totally false. If you're interested in why, I have an article on my blog at freedomain blogspot com

[LeeGeeGee]

You can say it's false all you want. But, it's true that if there is not enough competition in DRO's that one DRO will be free to use coercion. And, it's true that in a free market, 88% market share is possible. This is not even to mention that you're positing an initiatal utopia. You're assuming a free market in the first place within which DRO's operate.

[Luke12000]

But that act of using coercion would destroy you economically. And besides, this whole argument is hilarious. You're terrified that it will end in monopolization of government using coercion...so your terrified it will lead back to modern systems?

[LeeGeeGee]

Luke1200: You misunderstand my position. I'm not "terrified that it will end in monopolization of government using coercion." I just know that it's inevitable and don't want to have to suffer through the violent process toward monopolization. The best thing to do is to set up a monopoly of force in the first place, then at least you can have some peace and stability in law and order.

[haheyho]

You don't want to suffer the violence of monopolization.. so you want a monopoly built on violence straight off the bat...

..................

[RuddODragonFear]

I thought exactly that. He willingly gives his freedoms away just so some random guy won't punch him in the face. Very brave!

[RuddODragonFear]

> The best thing to do is to set up a monopoly of force in the first place, then at least you can have some peace and stability in law and order.

That's the definition of government. Look at the world and tell me: how is this idea of some peace and stability in law and order working out for you?

[MarmaladeINFP]

@LeeGeeGee

But he has a blog. Obviously, you're wrong. If you look at the fine print of your DRO contract, you will see that it clearly states that you are wrong. :)

[grumpone]

@LeeGeeGee How exactly would they use coercion? What kind of coercion, where would they get the loaded gun to force anyone from entering the market and competing. Are you saying that they would be interested in amassing a private army and start terrorising people?

[putittogether]

You know... If I tell you something from the time you learn to talk something..anything...And I do again and again and the society as a hole supports that idea you WILL believe it. Even in the face of clear facts to the contrary. The evidence for this is self evident.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@putittogether

Yep. In Stef's DRO stateless society, you will grow up in a company owned school. You will learn what the company wants you to learn.  This will take advertising to a whole new level.

"Mommy, I learned today that Coca-Cola tastes better than Pepsi. In science class, we did a blind taste test. One kid said Pepsi tasted better and he didn't get a gold star. I got a gold star because the teacher said I was a good company kid."

"That's good, dear."

[grumpone]

@MarmaladeINFP Yawn. How intellectually lazy.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@grumpone ...says the troll who makes no intelligent comment at all. LOL

[Emil246]

@MarmaladeINFP Stef's part of the unschooling movement. No schools :)

[MarmaladeINFP]

@Emil246 I have no doubt that, in Stef's fantasy world, the DRO corporations would be more than happy to unschool you and your children. In such a world, people would be so unschooled that they might entirely forget what schooling ever meant. Yes, there would be no schools. In fact, there would be no anything besides what brought profit and power to the DRO.

[Emil246]

@MarmaladeINFP

How would they go about doing this.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@Emil246 How do powerful people do anything? How do people gain power & why do people follow those with power? It has nothing directly to do with govts. People follow cult leaders. People join gangs. In the 19th century, the Pinkertons employed more people than the US military. How did they do this? How do cult leaders get people to follow them without the force of the state? How do small groups of people gain power & create massive organizations? They just do it because that is human nature.

[LaughingMan0X]

One thing you could address in the "collection of arms bit" is the possibility of smuggling.

[stefbot]

Why would you smuggle without a government imposing tariffs and taxes?

[LaughingMan0X]

Well I suppose it technically wouldn't be smuggling without the presence of a state, however, I think you get what I was implying.

[Xtro2005]

@stefbot lol nice one.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@LaughingMan0X

Competition between DROs would create rogue DROs and underground markets. There would be no government to give legal licenses to DROs. Any organizaiton would become a DRO simply by claiming it was a DRO and gaining enough power to challenge other DROs. The constant competition would create multiple overlapping markets & contractual status of markets would always be under disagreement. Which DRO owns the market? How about trade between DROs? Why wouldn't DROs impose tariffs?

[MikeNobodyIsHere]

Taliban

[tejayce]

i always love it when i say that "of course" others like DROs, customers, banks etc .. will stop working with a corrupt DRO ... the whole population is cooperating with governments nowadays .. i think such a crazy reality already makes your point quite hard to believe.

corporations do a lot of evil stuff nowadays .. and they get nicely supported by others (also companies) too ... for profit.

and they dont need armies, they just take everything they want .. money is weapon enough.

[tejayce]

i think the main answer should probably be somewhere around human personality. less obedience, less blind trust in authority, etc .. because thats what probably would create a rock hard protection against corrupt DROs. which is why the changes in personal life are so important. only if people stop cooperating with the powerfull .. everything you said is possible.

but what really bugs me is, if that can ever become reality as long as money is around.

[iamkarl]

I think you put too much faith in human nature, and the ability of a mass populace to make "sensible" choices of DRO; there are plenty of examples of a populace being seduced by a powerful entity, fuelled by its greed and self-aggrandisement, and their own.

Greed is a natural thing. Like the seedling sprouting in the crack of a wall, that grows into a tree, and ultimately splits the wall apart, nature always finds a way.

[stefbot]

I think that supporting a government places 'too much faith in human nature'...

[iamkarl]

...so both systems are equally flawed!

Speaking personally, you're preaching to the converted with your "But government is worse..." rebuttal to many arguments against your system. But can you explain how the human desire for stuff (aka, greed, ambition, call it what you will) will (a) be suppressed, and (b) not break the system if it fails to be suppressed (c) not cause greater societal schisms than those in a capitalist state.... [contd]

[iamkarl]

What I'm suggesting is that the small section of the populace that are driven to power will find a way to break the DRO system in exactly the same way as they have corrupted the governmental system.

[lordmetroid]

Government system is set up with false premises to begin with. Power doesn't corrupt. Corrupted people gather around it.

Rather I think your analogy would be better correlation with the monetary system of todays which is really corrupt and fraudelent. However I don't see how such a fraud could be done upon the populus. The Bankers did it with the help of government power and force. There would be no such thing in a free society where people could freely associate.

[Daghita]

Stefan, you give my political viewpoints warm fuzzies.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

"Replacement state mythology...."

Great rebuttal to the sad, old argument that people, for whatever reason, insist upon continually making.

[papackar]

Government, monopoly and (political) power are practically synonymous. Human societies have never been without them, and when distributed, they have never failed to aggregate. One glance at human history, and human social behavior in general, makes it utterly incredible that power (in the form of money, information, arms, etc.) could ever be maintained at anything approaching an equal distribution. Government is as inevitable for us now as it is in a troop of babboons.

[stefbot]

There are many historical examples which disprove your thesis - and I bet that your own personal life does too! :)

[papackar]

I'm near the bottom and fringes of the political heap. It's still a heap, though. It's a self-organized heap, which I think would reconstitute itself if disassembled. Something like reproducing slime-mold.

I sympathize with your dislike for government-as-coercion.

[Durgeofcerberus]

How would an Anarchist society defend itself?

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

From physical aggression? Uh, with guns.

[blackacidlizzard]

heh heh, straight-up.

[undefinedego]

lmao truly the best debate ever!

[polyphonic456]

(Dude,) In standard industrial organisation theory the incentives to deviate from a collusive agreement would make a cartel difficult to maintain. However, I think you have overlooked something which makes a DRO cartel very different than a regular cartel. Part of the collusive agreement between DROs would include the penalty of forced shutdown of a deviating DRO firm by the other DRO firms. This would ensure collusion as all incentives to deviate have been eliminated.

[stefbot]

Well sure, but how is that different from an ISP or cell phone company? The trick is that trying to build such a monopoloy would trigger a break in collusion, it has to build over time, and at any time, a DRO can make a break and make a fortune!

[polyphonic456]

A group of ISPs can collude with the threat of enforced shutdown as punishment for a deviating firm, but this would not entirely eliminate incentives to deviate. Such a firm would simply report the situation to its DRO and would be physically defended from such a punishment. However if the DRO firms themselves are part of the collusion, then the deviating firm (DRO or ISP) has no one to go to. Therefore all incentives to deviate from collusion are eliminated.

[w0rldpeace]

You're a young man.

Younger than me.

[onlywhenprovoked]

No Army for Bob.

5 stars. I really enjoyed this vid, thanks for posting it.

oh, and Bob sucks. lol