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?
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.