Defending a Stateless Society from Military Attack

If we had a fully voluntary society, without any form of state, there would be considerable change, clearly, and so to predict how these changes will in reality manifest is interesting perhaps but most likely will be ludicrously wrong in the actual event.

People will pay for that which represents value.  I would insure my home with an insurance company that had a nationwide emergency service offering police protection, disaster and medical response teams.  I would insure with the best company but not at any price.  It would be the company who offered the best balance between service and price.

It is not inconceivable that these insurance companies would, maybe jointly cooperating, expand their emergency services to include a form of 'home-defence' military.  If that was a real concern to people would the majority not see a value?  What is the faster at meaningfully reacting to new challenges:  the public sector or the private sector?

From the insurance company's perspective it may be they find a strong demand for insurance cover to compensate against the threat of invasion, subsequent loss and damage.  Now, if there were enough policies up for grabs, would it not be economic to invest in protection from the threat occurring?

So some folk then think they will not bother with insurance offering cover against war.  Good luck to them - in the event of an attack they will be the ones pushing the handcarts full of all they own.

On the whole I think of the entire idea of a stateless society being racked with war as being absolutely improbable since, so far in the whole history of humanity, it has only been the state that has waged actual war and against another state too.

I think a stateless society would become, rapidly, so successful that any other remaining state's populations, or leaders even, would see the results of the model as desirable but imposable to takeover by war because, to capture a prosperous nation, you have to have a nation to take over - with a state to tax the people and so gather the tithe. 

A stateless society is by definition not actually a 'nation' at all.  Just a lump of land upon which people muddle along the best they can and coexist within their own independently developed and codified rule of law.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
--Josph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister

Defence in a Stateless Society

The topic of 'Defence' is a very large one!  It is interesting that we have a 'Ministry of Defence' as a part of the state but not, apparently, a 'Ministry of Attack'!  Could there be some loaded words used against us here, un petit peu of subliminal propagandising brainwashing speak perchance?

If we closed the 'Ministry of Attack', disbanding the paraphernalia of destruction and sanctified killers, and replaced it with a measured system of 'home defence' would it be infinitely improbable to think that it could not just be sponsored by a willing public - if such an organisation was really needed at all?

I say people need more imagination.  I say we did not know how the cotton would get picked, the tobacco harvested or the sugar-cane cut when we said that slavery was an inhuman outrage.  We did not know.  We did not imagine robotic machines could do the work at a lower cost than unpaid men.  And if slavery had continued maybe those machines would never have emerged.

The ingenuity and imagination of mankind knows no bounds except for the limitations imposed upon us by those who would shackle us to the feudal tithe gathering system that is the state.

The Systemic Extortion Racket - Taxation

Let's face it, the word 'tax' is purely a euphemism. The real description of the process should correctly be termed 'taking money via the threat of violent force and coercion'. Remove the threat of violence and this quazi-Mafiosa revenue gathering mechanism's model fails immediately; totally and irrevocably.

So, regardless of the apparent merits of hospitalising sick kittens, fighting 'just wars' or whatever other emotive sob-story is dispensed to attempt to justify taxation, when funds are gathered in such a way 'Natural Law' is broken.

What is 'Natural Law'? It is simply those fundamental rules of human society and cooperation that do not need to be written by some imaginary power, church or state, to be logical, practical and true. Natural Law says do not hurt me, do not take my property, do not steal the fruits of my labour. Anything that breaks these fundamental natural laws is intrinsically erroneous. No body has the right to exceed Natural Law - no individual or group of individuals can grant to themselves or others powers they do no possess the right of themselves.

Beyond that of the simple family group I cannot think of any form of leadership, rule or governance that did not include the gathering of a tithe to subsidise a higher echelon.

To be most successful in this enterprise - certainly man's oldest business - there is a balance to be struck between violent force and willing consent. People who live in fear of imminent attack from wolves are happy to reward the leader of those warriors who successfully protect the settlement.

The less apparent the threat or benefit the less the immediate willingness is to pay. It is the task of the state to constantly encourage its subjects to consent to pay taxes with only the minimum visibility of the ultimate threat of force being the most desirable - so as not to 'frighten the horses'.

Roman Emperors and British Kings long understood that which Thomas Paine identified in his Rights of Man: “...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”.

Taxation is the gun in the room and social benifit is the illusion.

If the state resolved to reject all use of force to enforce its dictates how long would it last?  Who would agree to pay taxes if the outcome of denying their polite requests was zilch enforcement.  If you call for a socialist state with its redistribution of wealth but you fail to recognise the 'gun in the room' you are not being honest with yourself at the least.

I don't care what magical costumes and special powers statists wish to imagine for your state's authorities, if they come for peoples money and will use violent force to make that happen that is violent theft.

I agree with Socialists that there is a "wealthy elite" who "through manipulation of our politics and economies" are taking more than they rightly should derive.  That is the fact.

So the statist's solution is what: this system is not working so we need to do even more of it, exert more control, make more rules.

I say this system of state and government is and always will be manipulated to favour the very few.  That is what it is for.  The idea that government delivers wide ranging social benefit is an illusion to grant a form of justification for the illusionary edifice of the state to exist at all.

How long would the people support the concept of the state if the people could clearly see they derived absolutely no social benefit at all, just paid taxes.  That would clearly be slavery.

If a state taxed 1% and delivered nothing it may, via the use of force, just about survive.  But at 50% and never any apparent benefit at all, ever: revolution.

A tax of 30% and a degree of social benefit people swing along with it.  Add to that 14 years of government school indoctrination and a fundamentally uncritical media and they even can start to push-up the levels of taxation.

This balancing act is not how the state works, it is the illusion it creates of how it works whilst, in reality, the truly wealthy elite own and control politics and economies.

Without the state to do the bidding of this 'truly wealthy elite' they are cut-off from the control mechanism they depend upon, have invented, to maintain their advantage whilst the people fail to see the state for what it really is, a modern form of slavery, and instead think it is all about delivering social benefit and justice.

The authority of the state will always be usurped by the few at the expense of the many

The alternative is to do away with this dangerous failed deceitful system of democracy, but not to return to yet another government of appointed officials. (The authority of the state will always be usurped by the few at the expense of the many). Rather do away with the whole busted, dated legacy of primitive tribal order. End our belief and reliance in the false illusionary paradigm of the state and its government too.

"Laissez-nous faire"
1. The individual is primary in human society.
2. Freedom is a natural right.
3. Nature is a harmonious and self-regulating system. Human society as a part of nature will be harmonious if free to be a fully self-regulating system also.

Unweaving the state's web by means of autonomous cooperation

The deeper and deeper the stupidity tangle becomes the more and more convolutions are added again and again to try and solve a knot so inextricably spun it can never be unwound by prescriptive means.  NEVER will be unwound by prescriptive means.

NEVER NEVER NEVER!

This is the lesson human society is going to have to learn:  the concept of 'the state' is a busted flush.  It is a horrendously out-of-date illusionary hangover from neolithic tribal ordering, from wolf packs, from street dogs.

Mankind can do better than this.  This reliance on the state coming to save us all, like a omnipotent god with special powers, like mummy and daddy caring for a little child, has to be seen for the illusion that it is and broken free from.

The two things the state does well is a/. self-perpetuation and b/. provide a mechanism for 'vampires' to feed off the productiveness of humanity.  At everything else it really really sucks!

I feel like I am one of very few atheists, a castaway in a world of utter religious maniacs, a population so deeply indoctrinated into an extremely dangerous false belief system that only a complete implosion of the 'order' they think results is going to shock them out of it.

There are no single answers for unwinding the inevitable knots human society will always weave.  That is why 'scientific socialism' is always destined to be a path of failure and collapse.  The answers can only be found from ground-upwards solutions found by human society, on mass, via naturally occurring activity evolving autonomously into securing the most durable and efficient mechanisms for the optimum fruiting of humanity.

' In this world there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way.

Greed has poisoned men’s souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost....'
The Great Dictator's Speech
http://www.charliechaplin.com/en/synopsis/articles/29-The-Great-Dictator-s-Speech

Naked Capitalism and a more Natural World Order

The idea of 'privatisation of public services' rather infers that these services are still 'public services' just run on the behalf of the public by private enterprise.  There are anticipated merits in that approach, reducing waste, improving cost efficiency, cutting-out 'job entitlement', etc.  There are also disadvantages to privatisation such as excessive profit making and the need for continuous government supervision.  The real problem of state operated public services being privatised is not addressed just by privatising the operation but fundamentally still retaining the states monopoly over the service.  And that is not what is proposed by Rothbard.

What the "The Libertarian Manifesto" calls for is naked capitalism - unregulated by any form of state mechanism; because there is no state!  So any service the public generally wants to purchase is totally open to be offered by any business that wishes to tackle that market.  If the service provider provides a poor service/price equation people soon vote with their feet and that company goes out of business.  If a company offer a good package, insurance that includes a certain proportion of charitable contribution for example, people will buy their service if the offer is compatible with what they value.

Every example (I can think of) of capitalism taking unfair advantage of and manipulating the marketplace can be drilled-down to find eventually it is actually dependent on the existence of 'the state' and taking advantage of the authority and regulation of the state.

Monopolistic business practices in themselves are not actually a problem, a company that offers an unbeatable price/service in a free market deserves to, and will by default, gain a monopoly.  The problem comes when the monopoly is gained by means other than just an unbeatable price/service mix within a free market.  For example Standard Oil 'took' the market because it found a way to circumnavigate legislation designed to prevent such monopolistic practices.  Had the legislation not existed they would have been exposed to a market where every one of their competitors were also able to compete on a level field - including all attempting to work towards capturing a monopoly of the oil market.  By having prohibitive legislation the state effectively caused the unfair advantage.

That the state, or elements within the state, deliberately causes disarray so to force change or to make the change they provided appear successful (a strategy Common Purpose is accused of) is not an argument for keeping services within the state.  It is an illustration of why the state is not a suitable mechanism for operating such activities because the authority of the state can be, and often is, abused.

The state needs to justify its existence and does so by means of appearing to meet and by manipulating public perception.  Clearly a government that just taxes and builds fabulous palaces for an aristocratic class will not be well supported for long.  A government that is considered to provide 'law and order, economy and welfare, education and health, defence and diplomacy' may conversely look like they are providing not only a useful range of services in an optimal way but services imposable to fulfil without the involvement of a state.  Bernays was years behind the curve.

A relatively small proportion of taxes gathered is actually spent on providing this succor to the masses but it is an investment, of the people's money, well spent on behalf of the state; for it provides the state's government with a 'democratic majority' and therefore apparent legitimacy.  Democracy is a gift to those who would control the people since their willing compliance, in ignorance of the true situation, is a less costly and more productive form of enslavement than old-fashioned brutality and force.  All that needs to be done is to control the political parties, their candidates and have influence over of the bulk of the media.

Belief in the legitimacy and necessity of the state is the most prevalent delusion suffered by humanity.  The state is no more than a system of manipulation and control, quasi-religious in nature.   The world has a wealth of resources to provide an abundance for human society but distribution of wealth has always been hampered by our innate competitiveness.

The primary method for diverting wealth to the few has been social power, power of pack leader, tribal leader, priest, monarch, the state.  It is the oldest form of establishment - older than humanity itself.  This power establishment has been evolving into ever deepening consolidation and is reaching a point where nations are being melded into continental unions and those unions responding to a single central global governance. 

This is a dangerous time for human society - the risk is the nature and motives of the money-power that has sponsored the drive towards single world governance and the vulnerability of such a single system for tyrannical authoritarianism (multiplicity provides multiple fail-safes).  We stand at a crossroad where the choice is simply between accepting the drive towards this greater global state as essential and inevitable or smashing the paradigm and allowing humanity to operate in a more natural order without centralised control of any sort.