The Suffocation of Economic Central Control

Centralised control, whether 'the state' acting as if the market or, ostensibly, the 'market' acting as if 'the state', fails (as does tickling yourself fail to raise a chuckle).  What central 'control' is supposed to do is 'sense and react' and therein lays the two fundamental problems:

1/. the input is always going to be faulty (how can such a system be sensitive enough, accurate enough, smart enough to take account of every permutation)?
2/. the output is always going to be faulty (how can such a system be reactive enough, delicate enough, effective enough to take account of every permutation)?

And that does not take account of the two secondary problems, (problems that would remain even if the system of centralised control, be it faux market or state, did not suffer from the two fundamental problems):

a/. the centralised control is always going to attempt to manipulate the market by way of attempting to provide favourable conditions bias to suit its own agenda
b/. the faulty outputs and bias manipulation of the centralised control will distort the market away from the form it would otherwise naturally be drawn to.

Centralised control treats the economy as though it is one big thing and that then all the micro commercial activities will feed from that initiative, as if little piranhas swarming onto whatever gigantic carcass has been fed to them.  That may be fine for feeding identical fish but the economy is rightly comprised of totally disparate elements - it is an ultimately diverse ecosystem.

The great thing about diverse ecosystems is that, left alone, they manage themselves.  There is still a form of centralised control of economies but that is because: each and every element of the whole is a self regulating economy in itself.  The effect of each element, free to act in its own best self interest, is that a system of each element's independent economy acts upon a plethora of spontaneous and autonomous sub-economies to effectively create a whole.

It is not only imposable to replicate or replace the effectiveness of this type of system, it is unnecessary to try (unless the intention of influencing is for one sub-economy to do so in order to attempt to change the whole for reasons of self-interest).  It is unnecessary to try to replicate a system of sub-economies because: since the sub-economy system is so refined and reactive it cannot be bettered for servicing the interests of the sub-economy system as a whole.

There is no such thing as 'the economy', it is just a conceptual idea to explain the 'system of sub-economies' as a whole, just as there is not such thing as a forest, that is just a word for the conceptual idea of many trees, plants, animals living together in one place, symbiotically acting as a if a whole too.

The Majority Voice of Minorities & the Minority Voice of Majorities

Without 'the state' there would be no legitimatised use of force to make people's actions not be 'racist' or 'sexist' or 'homophobic' etc.  And so, instead, a natural order would form and prevail.  This was one of the matters I pondered and returned to whilst coming to accept and understand that statelessness is necessary and optimal for a properly functional human social order.  The question was: how could 'minorities' be protected from 'discrimination' in a stateless society.  The answer is not to offer a resolve to that supposed requirement but to understand that the question itself is invalid.

The supposed validity of the question is a premise advanced by 'the state' to help engender and consolidate a need for the existence of 'the state' to provide this function in society.  This role helps not only 'the state' to perpetuate, (that minorities believe without the protection of 'the state' they would be subjected to discrimination so therefore, they believe, the perpetuation of 'the state' is essential for their continued well-being and protection), the role also allows 'political factions', within the state, to assemble a 'majority of minorities' to then act in union against the actual, real, social majorities.

In having 'the state' act against the true social majorities (supposedly on the behalf of their 'anointed' minority groups) it mean that 'the state' uses violent force and the threat of force to 'make' the majority behave in a manner they would not freely opt to do.  This causes deep  distortions to social order which is then exemplified because it suits 'the state' to consolidate ever widening factions too, who believe that they are also dependent on, or want, perpetual 'state' force for their specific situation to be protected, preserved, advanced and respected.

So it suits the state to fill their territory with an ethnically and culturally disparate population, to have a large population living in subsidised housing, to support single mothers, to have a significant population dependent on welfare, to give 'respectability' to non-heterosexuals, assure government workers of pensions, women the power to make fathers pay for them and their children no matter what and so on.  It also, therefore, suits 'the state' to continuously add to these such factions comprising this state dependant element, to even cause endless frictions between each and all, so that then 'the state' is necessary to always remain as the 'only' solution to the apparent disorder that would result in the absence of rulers.

If, for example, it is that the natural, preferred, human social order is: to just live as nations of ethnically similar people; why not allow that resulting, stable, social order arise?  I am somewhat doubtful that that is the real natural universally preferable situation for modern cultured human societies but it is very difficult to measure as so much of our past cultures were dependent on rulers usurping this intrinsic tendency and building nationalism in the people as a binding force for 'state' perpetuation, influence and, of cause, unity to support war.

Now the social order is to be directed towards ever-deepening social union of the peoples and nations of the world.  Purportedly such global-union is a drive towards 'a world without wars' and for technocracy: the effective 'scientific management' of the global population and resource (the arguments against which is a separate matter to that being addressed here).  In order to allow 'the state' to dictate, within a supposedly representational democratic process, to bring about the changes required, the voice of the majorities need to be repressed else such a union will be rejected as would a socialist society, and, I consider the continuation of the cult of the religious belief in 'the state' itself.

The Legitimacy of Authority between Leaders and Rulers

I have no issue with leaders, the existence of leaders is a good and proper circumstance within a natural human society.  It is rulers to whom I object and will struggle against.  A leader does not need to rule to lead but a ruler can only lead by rule.  Ron Paul, amongst others, helped lead me to a place where I could see that my innate desire for freedom was legitimate, conversely 'the state' rules that desire illegitimate and, in doing so, leads the masses to believe the legitimacy of that rule.

We cannot all be authorities on all things, there are those who are legitimate authorities on matters and by being so they are leaders in that field.  The ruler's authority is only supposed authority because they rule it so and that does not make them leaders in that field but rather just rulers of the field instead.

Finding Cogitative Harmony in a Statist World

The solution to the quandary of 'the state' is to see it for what it is: an illusion. 'The state' does not exist, it is only the sum of the people who act as though it is real, who believe it is real, that makes it appear to them as though 'the state' is real at all.

Those who do believe that 'the state' is real, is indispensable, has good utility, believe also 'the state' is endowed with powers no individual, and therefore no group of individuals, can legitimately take upon themselves: the initiation of the use of force. Use of force in self-defence is permissible but use of force to exert one's will against others is never permissible except, apparently, in the imaginations of those who believe in the legitimacy and utility of 'the state'.

It is not 'the state' that beats a protester, that steals goods from reluctant tax-payer, that kidnaps and imprisons a dissident, that goes to war, that bombs families in their homes. It is the sum only of the actions of the individuals who believe in 'the state'. Those 'statists' are lost in a delusion, true, but there are masses of them. It is a mass delusion! It is a mass delusion in a belief in a thing that does not exist but that they, the believers, believe does exist and that they believe has the right to powers that exceed those that are natural to a man.

The believers believe the power of 'the state' is legitimately greater than the natural powers belonging to any individual, that 'the state' rightly has extra powers, that 'the state' holds the right to powers above the natural powers, that 'the state' rightly has a super-natural power. This sort of belief is a religious belief, an unquestioning dogma, a blind capitulation to an inevitable existence and legitimacy.

And belief in this religion, the religion of the supernatural power that is 'the state', is so deeply ingrained in almost everybody, so all encompassing and fundamentally indoctrinated, it is a cult. A cult religious belief. Not 'like' a cult, it is a cult.

 
So I do not want to add to the worries for you, dear reader.  You have, no doubt, found all this 'stuff' you see wrong with the world, and, I trust, concerned yourself with seeking solutions; but if you are going to worry you may as well worry about the right thing! The solution we should be seeking is that we need to get rid of the false paradigm of the cult belief in the religion of 'the state'. For whilst we retain 'the state' we will never be free of the harmful effects caused by 'the state'. (Because the very existence of 'the state' is the cause of the greatest propensity of harmful effects).

I accept: it is not so easy to see this solution, to the harm, as leaving an effective mode-of-operation for human society to function within.  I know, I understated.  To see this requires a pealing back of the multi-generational layers of statist indoctrination, from childhood, from school, from home, from life, from almost every direction.  Indoctrination that we are all constantly exposed to.

To realise, to learn how to see, that humanity is infinitely capable of finding solutions, good and proper solutions, without central planning and control, is to see that: not only would the problems caused by 'the state' be dispensed with, in its absence, but that the utility of a stateless human society is far more efficient, faster to react, more creative of wealth, more innovative, infinity more peaceful, more compassionate, more durable, infinity more logical, defiantly more enjoyable, more harmonious and on and on, without the illegitimate false utility of 'the state' utterly spoiling it all, life on this Earth, for almost everybody.

Better still: you will also realise, upon reaching this conclusion, that you already are free yourself. That whilst 'the state' may try, and often succeed, in forcing you to need to comply, 'the state' can not force you to believe in it any more. 'The state' cannot make you believe it is moral, legitimate, truthful, necessary.

And with that understanding, that understanding of your existing, innate, freedom, your sovereignty within yourself, with that understanding comes happiness. Anger occasionally, perhaps from frustration and such, but the happiness of being a free man, albeit for now in an un-free world still burdened with the primitive doctrine of rulers being necessary, but an understanding that brings happiness nonetheless.

Statelessness is just the next scenario - or not!

The thing about beliefs is that they can appear to work, and as they endure they develop to become more refined they can apparently appear work better still. I have a few friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses. Now there are plenty of very serious and negative things about this dogma (and cult) but the fact is they are truly all very nice, apparently well balanced, people and generally appear to live satisfactory, happy lives. So why not all live like they do?

The cult belief in 'the state' is also a system of thinking that appears to work, with some limited success, in organising a deeply complicated world; and its followers, devotees, are all on the lookout for ways in which it can be reformed to function more effectively, more equitably too. So that appears also to be all good.

My opinion is that the concept of 'the state' is beyond being able to modify to reach closer to an ideal; because it is fundamentally flawed. The fundamental flaw can never be corrected and so, instead, will always contaminate 'the whole' to a point that 'the whole' will always be less than that which could be enjoyed (without the application of the concept of 'the state' being included in human society in the first place).

That does not mean a human society without a 'state' will undergo such an enormous seed change as is outwardly conceived as inevitable to occur in the absence of 'the state'.

Most aspects of our lives are already lived in an autonomous, self-directed, manner. The changes with statelessness would be more as if the operating system polarity was changed from a top-down to a to a ground up means of deriving most effective actions. Statelessness is just the next scenario on a road from clan chief, priest, tribal king, national monarch, imperial emperor and presidential statesman which will allow humanity to avoid the otherwise apparently inevitable alternative: a world state.

If we do not place the freedom into the hands of the individual now, to live as they wish without oppression, the danger is that this coming alternative could be, looks set to be, deeply oppressive and one that may well endure as-good-as indefinitely. If human society is subjected to a global state the natural condition of human society, the belief in the one right of the individual (to live as an individual with their property, in self and in effect), could be forgotten forever. That will be to the absolute detriment of humanity and yet is, I consider, near imposable to avoid without the understanding of how statelessness is the better alternative by far, the ideal.