Do you think that a stateless society is an impossibility? If not, then in the absence of the state what's to stop people from freely exchanging goods and services with each other? What's to stop anyone from becoming an entrepreneur and provide others with goods and services they want? What's to stop people from selling his or her labour to another? Certainly, as everybody agrees, economic activity would not look the same in the absence of the state, but would we not still have economic activity? And wouldn't this economic activity be free?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
"Do you think that a stateless society is an impossibility?"
Well, to what definition are we giving 'state'?
I'll keep it simple and say that in its base form it's a system of governance.
Ideally, I would have this system of governance be decentralized and voluntary. (see Our NeighbourGood for more details)
People would not be able to engage effectively (or at all) without some form of governance or system designed for said exchange. Rules for mediums, value creation. Even if the system is decentralized to the point of two people interacting there will still need to be a set of rules (governance) for that exchange.
So, under this particular definition, I do think that a stateless society is impossible (as it wouldn't be a society without).
Now, you may be asking about a different form of 'state' such as all the dominant states we see existing today. In short, I don't approve of any of them, as they are too centralized, too corrupt, involuntary and detached from natural ecosystems...
Without a state (a system of governing interaction) nothing would prevent "economic activity" from happening, it would cease to happen on its own from lack of structure. Today, it would be hard to imagine as we already have structures for people to revert to (so it would be very difficult to ever test this 'stateless' hypothesis).
If your definition of 'state' is simply country governments (somehow detached from the corporations within, [which they're not...]) then corporations would simply take the role of government (which they already have) if the 'state' were to be removed. Thus becoming the state...
Without a state, it would be very difficult for one man to sell another man property (for under what right does he own that property).
Our entire economic systems today are predicated on the states ability to enforce these interactions. We can't go from our society to a 'stateless' society. It's not about completely removing the state, it is about redesigning these forms of governance and systems that are better designed to meet our needs!
Interesting that you say that you want "governance to be decentralized and voluntary". I agree that decentralised governance is much to be preferred over centralised governance, but no governance is voluntary which is why I am against it.
You seem to confuse rules with rulers. I agree that we need rules, but rules can exist without rulers. What I am against is political authority.
If this was true, how do you explain the existence of so called "black" markets? This is economic activity taking place outside of state control, even despite states trying to shut it down.
"no governance is voluntary"
Really? Why? People voluntarily sign up for the military (to enter into its specific form of governance) I use that one as it is close to me. However, I could find hundreds of more examples of voluntarily entering into a governance situation. There are practical and beneficial purposes to governance that people would be willing to agree to... In fact, I have spent years co-creating governance systems that I would love to be a part of and others like me that have joined me in our cause!
"but rules can exist without rulers."
Okay, when did I say we needed 'rulers'? I also haven't advocated for political authority... So, I won't address these for fear of getting too far off topic and missing out on an opportunity for a beneficial dialog.
(Predicate: Found or base something on.)
Black markets exist as sub-economics on top of primary economics which require a state to enforce. Tell me, how would someone sell 'land' on a black market?! To which authority is this land owned?
How would someone create a mine on a black market? To which authority is defending his right to dig into that earth and take the ore?
The 'state control' you're referring to black markets evading is only minute aspects of the state (outside the realm of this conversation). But only evading taxes and what the state deems legal. While still operating on top of an economic system that demands state protections...
If all you mean by "governance" is a set of rules or institutions, then I agree that this can be both voluntary and beneficial. All I was saying is that the state /political authority is not, and it seems that you agree with this too.
Obviously "black" markets do not exist in a vacuum, but is part of overall society. But I still think such markets give us an indication that the claim that market activity requires the state is mistaken. The evidence is on the side of that market exchange is independent from and prior to the state, and can and would exist without the state.
A black market for land is hard because land is so visible and difficult to hide from the authorities.