Opt out = cop out The individual must act responsible for the structure of the state. It is how the state remains balanced.

Precisely.

The big question is how to maintain a just, minimal government. Without it being corrupted, centralized and hijacked over time. By criminals, oligarchs or foreign interests. It all starts with the good intentions (constitution) with rights and freedom. And from there it tends to go south after a generation or two.

A just government is an oxymoron. They exist as a territorial monopoly of force, for every good they must first create a bad (theft). Some are less aggressive and pernicious as other but we are rating of scales of immorality. Any study of history will show this as well. Anarchy is not a utopia, but a recognition that it's better to decentralize the power that men have, as power is a force multiplier for evil. While it could be used for good, history has shown that man is not good with power. I also understand that currently the idea of anarchy is considered unattainable, but if you look at history this was also thought of the idea of abolishing slavery.

How would you describe the Pax Romana under Caesar Augustus then? Would Rome have been better in an anarchic state? Clearly not. One must compare realistic alternatives, not abstract ideals.

Have the benevolent/just ones tended to be more more libertarian or less?

Pax Romana should not be romanticized as it is, IMO. Firstly the governance of individual towns was so decentralized it could be considered near anarchic. That's not to say Rome wouldn't of loved to crush all under its boot, but it was limited by technology. Secondly, the vice and moral decay of Rome, and the short sighted plans of it's politicians are well documented. These laid the ground work for it's decay and demise. Third, it's growth and wealth was based on the sword and blood. Hardly fertile ground for a virtuous governance. A good counter factual would be if a empire decided to grow itself through tade and not conquest. How much capital was wasted in military efforts that could of been better spent elsewhere. An old example is the small cities of the medieval peninsula of now Italy.

Just curious: please name a "balanced state" (not the American colonies or late 19th century US, or the Roman Republic, but today). Or maybe it's the definition of what you mean by 'balanced'. At what percent of forcible confiscation of your labor (let alone confiscation of other inherent rights like privacy and speech) to support immoral wars and grift are you balanced? 5%, 20%, 50%, 70%? At what point are you more slave than free? What ever happened to voluntary state militias for defense and private charity? As George Washington said in his farewell address: government is force. The only way for most people to "balance" it is to use decentralized tools or gray/black markets that the state by its very controlling definition hates. I think statists generally refer to these tools as creating a state of "anarchy" to be feared. Sadly, in an era where only 1 or 2 out of 435 "representatives" are "balanced" in the sense of respecting my freedom and property (to use the US government leviathan as example), agorism is the only method most people can resort to in order to reign in the predations of the state; and the resistance method has been quite effective down through the centuries. I have never had a single voluntary (non-coercive) interaction with the state. As more people opt out, the government must change (Bitcoin being just one recent example). Sincerely, LoLbertarian

Are you able to cite any stateless utopia examples? I agree Rome under the Pax Romana wasn’t perfect. Nothing is. But it was better than the realistic alternatives.

Some thoughts that will get me in trouble: The original use of the word "idiot" in ancient Greece was for a self interested person who only minded their own affairs and did not participate in public life or civic duties. I think this captures a lot of the spirit of modern day Libertarianism and Anarchism. This is not to say that Libertarians and Anarchists don't ever participate in public and civic life, but it is to say that, on the whole, they function as political philosophies of idiocy. I think this is because both Libertarianism and Anarchism assume moral relativism and social egalitarianism. Both of these political philosophies have understandably become attractive in our post-industrial, Liberal International Order. I think this is partly because we have lost sight of how our pre-industrial forefathers saw the world. For the Greeks, to be a virtuous citizen was to be engaged in public and civic life. But this was also at a time when one's country was seen as an extension of the family—the nation as being comprised of households. So duty to one's country was an extension of duty to one's family. This is alien to us now, for ours is a time of hyper individualism: The family is not a covenantal unit but is merely comprised of individuals. The household little more than a common dwelling place. The individual is supreme. The individual is the most important unit. The individual's rights and moral philosophy is essential. The individual demands to be "left alone". I'll grant that the temptation towards tyrannical governance has been around since humanity Fell. Sin mars everything we do, including how we govern. But that doesn't mean that it is impossible for governments to rule justly—as @Alan ₿ has pointed out, history has many such examples of good rulers and governments—it just means that in order for them to rule justly, a number of deeper things must first take place. Those in power need to first see themselves as also being under authority to One higher than them, namely to Christ, who rules over all things. There also needs to be a retrieval of a healthy understanding of what a family is, of covenant households, of citizenry duties, and of sound money. And, not least of all, there needs to be private and public repentance. If men try to govern out of a moral relativism and social egalitarianism, then it will always result in tyranny, and it won't be solved by a Libertarian philosophy predicated upon the same moral framework.

Anon, In a world where the state must exist (please do not bring up worlds where they don’t), the ideal structure is one where individuals feel responsible for the actions of the state. The Nuremberg trials are a great example of individual responsibility asserting dominance over State force. “I was following orders” doesn’t work, nor should it. You could adopt civic responsibility and have voluntary actions with the state, but you have already admitted to not doing so. This choice has left everyone else to govern. Sacrifice your own freedom to preserve others and your own, this is the only way. The State being run by those that despise its existence is the ideal balance. Please let me know when you decide to get civically involved, you will have my support.

I'm pretty sure I've never claimed there would ever be a stateless utopia. That's the fever dreams I early communists. Human existence is always different grades of hell. But if you want examples of active anarchy. Our conversation here is one. Neither of us is forced to engage. Most interactions in our life are voluntary and anarchic. And this is good, since neither of us are forced to converse, that limits the verbal abuse and incentives using reason. I would believe power should only given to people through voluntary means. IE I trust my surgeon, and so I accept his orders within grounds of his expertise. Any power taken through violence or threat of violence is not moral, no matter the pageantry it's is wrapped up in. I understand my view will not be accepted yet, but I'm willing to meet half way by supporting massive secession of polities.

And as an FYI I'm not a libertarian, I am an anarchist.

Never said I didn't engage with the state . . . am very involved in fighting the criminal element where I can on their turf, as well as mine (even though there is no balance as you put it). but you also didn't answer my question.

Anon, “I have never had a single voluntary (non-coercive) interaction with the state.” You didn’t ask me a question. You asked yourself a question.

I prefer anarchism, but tomato tomato 🍅🍅 😆

OK "balanced state" Jon who can't name a balanced state. 👍

Libertarians/ancaps usher a narrative of ”decentralization=good” and ”centralization=evil”. This is a false narrative. Centralization is not bad per se, neither is decentralization good per se. The issue is to build systems where the two elements are balanced, while having healthy feedback loops to keep it so.

You obviously don't know what a Libertarian is. What you're describing is an anarchist, not a Libertarian.

Bitcoin is the collective action being taken

You defend your master? You don’t question the leash... you just hope for a kinder hand to hold it? That’s not wisdom. That’s fear. Fear of standing on your own, of taking full responsibility for your own life. You don’t want freedom; you want comfort. You want rulers who will take care of you, laws that will guide you, a system that will tell you what is right and wrong so you don’t have to decide for yourself. This is the mindset of a slave... of someone who has lived under control for so long that they can’t imagine anything else. You believe in the State because you can’t bear to think of life without it. You tell yourself that power can be fair, that rulers can be good, that governments can serve the people. But history has shown time and again that power serves itself. The State doesn’t exist to uplift you... it exists to keep itself alive. *You think it’s foolish to reject the system. But what’s truly foolish is believing that the same game, played with new rulers, will ever end differently. You don’t need a better master. You need to stop needing one at all."* View quoted note →

Agree.

There have been many long-lasting stateless societies, but I wouldn’t call them utopias, because utopias cant’t exist. Nomadic native societies around the world in many instances were stateless and anarchistic in nature. Opt out possible, no taxes, no jails, no hard chain of command. Before them hunter gatherer societies had anarchistic structures too. In these instances societies operated and functioned for millennia and people within in many instances had good, long and fulfilling lives. And they were truly free.

Primitive

Semantics. They were free and they were healthy and they had societies and cultures that endured much longer than these murderous centralized criminal syndicates known today as “governments”.

Any stateless societies that produced cathedrals? Great aqueducts? Marble statues? Timeless works of philosophy, science, music, or art?

For the record you are moving the goal post now but that’s okay. Many primitive anarchistic societies are still known about today in many instances, having left artifacts of clothing, technology, buildings and preserved art, so yes, in some ways they have built things that have endured and are still admired and studied.

Name a specific example.

Grotte de Font-de-Gaume Lascaux cave Rouffignac Cave Chauvet Cave Gila Cliff Dwellings national monument Chaco National historic park Bandalier National monument Aztec ruins National monument Petroglyph national monument I could go on and on and on. There are hundreds of museums dedicated to various stateless native societies in the United States filled with tens of thousands of admired and coveted native artifacts such as tools, wardrobes, textiles, pottery, weapons and culturally significant items. Is it more impressive that the Roman’s left behind aqueducts and amphitheaters but only managed to maintain their society for 1000 year or is it more impressive that the Cheyenne Indians had a contiguous society and culture that lasted many multiples longer but didn’t leave behind massive stone structures? They did still leave behind beautiful and unique items of all kinds. It’s a subjective choice between the two, but longevity of society is a factor. Centralized societies have a much shorter lifespan. They also seem to have lower typical quality of life per capita as the subjects productivity is used as fuel for the rulers vision’s through violence and coercion. Imagining American society today, and what will be left behind in the event of collapse, is a good thought experiment too. Most of the buildings here wouldn’t last more than a century uncared for. There will be a lot of garbage and plastic and toxic seepage. I see no honor or longevity in most of western societies of the day. Trash people and throw away societies with nothing of cultural significance that will endure. In that respect, many native societies of the past are much more respectable than today’s modern “civilized” societies.

These are mostly primitive cave drawings. I prefer sophisticated, advanced civilization.

Again, moving the goal post. Your initial post asked for example of “stateless utopias” to which I responded that utopias don’t exist. There is no example of government utopia either. But there are many examples stateless societies that were quite durable and interesting where inhabitants had high quality of life, were fulfilled and healthy. There are also thousands of examples of governed hell on earth nightmares. Your point wasn’t made. It was disproven with real world examples both showing that stateless societies can work quite well and are more durable than their centralized criminal syndicate counterparts and that governed societies are less resilient, can’t function for as long due to inbuilt weaknesses and almost always regress into murderous police states fueled by sociopaths and carried out by useful idiots.

I’ll take imperfect citadels over perfect cave drawings any day.

Yeah while your children’s future is being burned right in front of you. Where are the citadels in America? America is a garbage country who leaves behind nothing but strip malls and fast food chains. Antithetical to inspiration. I know you can’t contend with the facts I presented, so you retreat to fictional platitudes.

Just my thoughts: 1) the key difference that would allow this “utopia” to exist is technological development. Today we have technology that allow people everywhere to communicate instantly, allow us to have sound money (btc) and complete hard tasks in little time 2) So many systems are so obsolete and inefficient and yet they are still in place because government needs them. Also, the rate of change is increasingly accelerating, and governments are notorious to be slow mammoth, they just can’t be efficient and keep up in the modern era. At this point they are just a massive anchor Nobody is saying “zero” government, but for the love of the god, certainly not the massive monster that has become where it is heavily involved in absolutely everything!! A return to smaller autonomous nations seems the only way

You are free to go live in a cave somewhere with other anarchists. That’s about all anarchists can accomplish without coordination. Your heart is in the right place. And I respect that. But you are deluded.

How will we organize after hyperbitcoinization? I’m wondering what our society will look like in the future. I’ve posted before thoughts about why large centralized democracies don’t work. So, in the vein of decentralization, we may end up moving toward small communities, tribes of like minded peoples in the pursuit of their happiness. Which led me to look at how American Indians organized. They seemed to, within their tribes, live so harmoniously amongst themselves and with nature. American Indians organized many decisions around family units and tribal councils. One way to illustrate how it works is to look how American Indians disincentivized bad behavior. Now probably the first thing to know about Native American history is that there was very little crime.  Perhaps crime and punishment go with Western Industrial-type nations.  Historically, travelers to the outermost regions of Native America commented on how honest and how little crime existed. So what did they do if one of their own committed a “crime”? Firstly, there were no jails. Secondly, while all tribes were different, in matters of severe offenses, the family or the clan usually dealt with the offender. Often the person guilty of the crime was “sentenced” to go away from the tribe and try to make it on his own — which in the long ago past, was almost a testiment to a death sentence.  In the Lakota tribe there is a reference in the book, WATER LILY, about the offender having to make restitution with the family by taking a role in the family.  Usually such people were so happy to not be put out of the tribe, that they became the best family members of all. Imagine if this were so in our society today?  That the offender had to make restitution with the family for his acts?  What do you think might be the result?  Less crime, perhaps? In the Creek society, as well as the Blackfeet, the crime of adultery (for women only) was a cut off nose — the tip of the nose.  This was usually performed at the request of the offending husband and was done by the society that he belonged to. As far as stealing is concerned, it was almost unheard of.  George Catlin remarked that in all his travels in Native America he had never had one single thing taken from him, or even a hand lifted against him.  In truth, one young man made quite a journey to join Catlin in order to return to him some of his property.  However, if stealing had been done, the offending party again made restitution with the “victim” by supplying them with whatever they needed in return.  Seems a much simplier process, doesn’t it?  Make up the damage one has done to the person who has been harmed, himself. Besides almost non-existent crime, there was also no poverty.  Some people were more prosperous than others — such has always been the case amongst a people.  But noone went hungry when there was food to be had within the tribe, nor did anyone go without.   And if a culture is known by its humanity towards others and the material condition of its people, then I would have to say that American Indians were, indeed, a culture to be proud. #Bitcoin. Fix the money, fix the world. #Bitcoin. It’s the only chance we have. Parts extracted verbatim from CRIME & PUNISHMENT — Native American Style October 14, 2008 by Karen Kay

Much like we did under the gold standard.

100% agree.

If only Mao, Hitler and Stalin had been benevolent. So close.

Yes, Medieval Ireland

Medieval Ireland wasn’t stateless. It was comprised of many small states (tuatha), each with its own king (rí). Big difference.

My apartment is a very small state and I am the king.

🤝

Ancient people didn't live in caves. Most of them lived in tents made from animal hides. Caves were used for social occasions or rituals

I think it's less of a need for governance and more of a need for trust and enforcement systems that are voluntary and easy to exit. The mandatory coercion and extraction are what should be ended, not government or "state" more broadly. It's also fine to opt-out of governance if that's what you desire; at least then you're willfully taking on the trade-offs of leaving a centrally coordinated system. This is why systems like the network state are incredibly interesting and carry a lot of potential for the future of human coordination. #tns 🏳️

Mao was. Liberated Tibet, gave power to the peasants.