4 ms·

Just because in our world governments have a monopoly on laws and criminal courts, it doesn't mean that a world without governments would have no laws or crimin

Just because in our world governments have a monopoly on laws and criminal courts, it doesn't mean that a world without governments would have no laws or criminal courts. I'm not a fan of BTC because it's unbacked but I do care about having an irreversible money transfer tool and I do care about not having governments. I'll give you an example. In a society without governments, there would be no-one able to prevent the use of violence. Eventually, organisations which provide violence as a service (whether offensive or defensive) would come up. The expensive nature of violence (nobody in their right mind would spend the money we spend on wars if the cost of war wasn't socialised through mandatory taxes) would push these organisations to negotiate contracts to settle matters peacefully instead of losing employees for the quibbles of their clients. Deciding to acquire a protection service from one of these company would end up meaning accepting the different set of laws they would enforce between companies. The fear of a costly war between agencies and the fear of their reputation dropping with clients would keep these companies following the rules and the contracts they agreed to. A protection service covering thieves would be hard pressed to find agreements with other protection services: the thieves stole X$ and is paying Z$ to their protection service where Z<X (otherwise what's the profit of stealing if it all goes in protection service); the victim is seeking X$+fees, the thieves' protection service needs to either pay X and eventually go bankrupt or ask X to the thieves, which is equivalent to give back X$+fees. There are two scenarios: - The thieves are not protected by any third party protection service: the victim's protection agency sends a few armed employees and retrieve what was forcefully stolen - The thieves are protected by a third party protection service: the victim's protection agency and the thieves' protection agency agree to resolve the matter with a private court and agree to be bound by the judge decision. The judge has an economic interest in being fair or his reputation will go down the bin and he won't have clients anymore. After the court result, the thieves can return the money + fees or have the victim's protection agency forcefully retrieve the stolen goods or be sent to a prison-work camp until they repaid their debt.

danans 5y ago
> In a society without governments, there would be no-one able to prevent the use of violence. Eventually, organisations which provide violence as a service (whether offensive or defensive) would come up. So basically warring mini-states, mercenary groups, mafias. We've been there before, most of history in fact. In a lot of places with little to no government control, we're still there now. > The expensive nature of violence (nobody in their right mind would spend the money we spend on wars if the cost of war wasn't socialised through mandatory taxes) would push these organisations to negotiate contracts to settle matters peacefully Regaining stability after dismantling the current monopolies on violence than ensure it will take a very long time, and in the interim the situation will be extremely violent. The world didn't start settling matters relatively peacefully until two massive world wars occurred, and even then it only settled matters between some major western governments, not the world as a whole.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  > So basically warring mini-states, mercenary groups, mafias. We've been there before, most of history in fact. In a lot of places with little to no government control, we're still there now. Yes, I agree with you that a society without government where you would want to live is hard to achieve (hence why I'm not living in Somalia). I think it's in the realm of possible things, though. Maybe at some point in the future. There is a nice example in Medieval Iceland: https://mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-government https://mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-gover... > Regaining stability after dismantling the current monopolies on violence than ensure it will take a very long time, and in the interim the situation will be extremely violent. The world didn't start settling matters relatively peacefully until two massive world wars occurred, and even then it only settled matters between some major western governments, not the world as a whole. I think the best approach would be to gradually privatise public entities, reducing taxes progressively and replacing with private alternatives: healthcare, education, police, courts and eventually national defense. I agree maintaining stability could prove to be a challenge. I think in particular, switching the police for protection agencies would need some negotiations in place during a period of peace maintained by a central (national or foreign) entity. I think that even just going in this direction, without adopting anarchic plans, and reducing the size of the government could prove to be beneficial. Georgia would be a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88vXJzkvr8Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88vXJzkvr8Y
rlpb 5y ago
> In a society without governments... But haven't you just described governments? Your "protection service" is our "sovereign state". Your agreements between protection services are our international treaties (in particular ones that cede jurisdiction, such as the ECHR). Your "thieves not protected by any third party protection service" are our pirates in international waters. The only difference is that I think you're imagining a free market where people can choose their "protection service" without physically moving into a specific area protected exclusively by them, and consequently there's an assumption that people can choose to be stateless. I'm not sure how you propose that land ownership would be mediated except by force by the protection services, which is exactly how sovereign states work anyway. And then people can't ever be stateless in practice because they'll always occupy land claimed by one of your protection services.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  There is a big difference between paying for a service I can get from 5 different providers just in my local area and a country wide monopoly. My main problem with the government is that I can't choose another government where I am, which means the government can be inefficient and unfriendly towards consumer (big public spending, bureaucracy). It's not because of the illusion of being stateless; if nobody protects you, everyone can kill you, as that couple of bitcoin traders found out when trying to setup camp in international waters. It's mainly so that different agencies can compete with each other and so that nobody has a monopoly on violence. Small independent entities would also have incentives to keep laws and contracts small and short: they can't afford to spend public money to make them and they won't care about victimless crimes like our governments love to do. Overall, I think we can come with a society that is more decentralised, more efficient and closer to what consumers want.
- Ancapistani 5y ago
  > Your "protection service" is our "sovereign state". Nope, it fails several of the tests that determine what is and is not a government. At first glance, it: * does not claim an exclusive territory * does not claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force

danans 5y ago

> In a society without governments, there would be no-one able to prevent the use of violence. Eventually, organisations which provide violence as a service (whether offensive or defensive) would come up. So basically warring mini-states, mercenary groups, mafias. We've been there before, most of history in fact. In a lot of places with little to no government control, we're still there now. > The expensive nature of violence (nobody in their right mind would spend the money we spend on wars if the cost of war wasn't socialised through mandatory taxes) would push these organisations to negotiate contracts to settle matters peacefully Regaining stability after dismantling the current monopolies on violence than ensure it will take a very long time, and in the interim the situation will be extremely violent. The world didn't start settling matters relatively peacefully until two massive world wars occurred, and even then it only settled matters between some major western governments, not the world as a whole.

jokethrowaway 5y ago
> So basically warring mini-states, mercenary groups, mafias. We've been there before, most of history in fact. In a lot of places with little to no government control, we're still there now. Yes, I agree with you that a society without government where you would want to live is hard to achieve (hence why I'm not living in Somalia). I think it's in the realm of possible things, though. Maybe at some point in the future. There is a nice example in Medieval Iceland: https://mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-government https://mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-gover... > Regaining stability after dismantling the current monopolies on violence than ensure it will take a very long time, and in the interim the situation will be extremely violent. The world didn't start settling matters relatively peacefully until two massive world wars occurred, and even then it only settled matters between some major western governments, not the world as a whole. I think the best approach would be to gradually privatise public entities, reducing taxes progressively and replacing with private alternatives: healthcare, education, police, courts and eventually national defense. I agree maintaining stability could prove to be a challenge. I think in particular, switching the police for protection agencies would need some negotiations in place during a period of peace maintained by a central (national or foreign) entity. I think that even just going in this direction, without adopting anarchic plans, and reducing the size of the government could prove to be beneficial. Georgia would be a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88vXJzkvr8Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88vXJzkvr8Y

rlpb 5y ago

> In a society without governments... But haven't you just described governments? Your "protection service" is our "sovereign state". Your agreements between protection services are our international treaties (in particular ones that cede jurisdiction, such as the ECHR). Your "thieves not protected by any third party protection service" are our pirates in international waters. The only difference is that I think you're imagining a free market where people can choose their "protection service" without physically moving into a specific area protected exclusively by them, and consequently there's an assumption that people can choose to be stateless. I'm not sure how you propose that land ownership would be mediated except by force by the protection services, which is exactly how sovereign states work anyway. And then people can't ever be stateless in practice because they'll always occupy land claimed by one of your protection services.

jokethrowaway 5y ago
There is a big difference between paying for a service I can get from 5 different providers just in my local area and a country wide monopoly. My main problem with the government is that I can't choose another government where I am, which means the government can be inefficient and unfriendly towards consumer (big public spending, bureaucracy). It's not because of the illusion of being stateless; if nobody protects you, everyone can kill you, as that couple of bitcoin traders found out when trying to setup camp in international waters. It's mainly so that different agencies can compete with each other and so that nobody has a monopoly on violence. Small independent entities would also have incentives to keep laws and contracts small and short: they can't afford to spend public money to make them and they won't care about victimless crimes like our governments love to do. Overall, I think we can come with a society that is more decentralised, more efficient and closer to what consumers want.
Ancapistani 5y ago
> Your "protection service" is our "sovereign state". Nope, it fails several of the tests that determine what is and is not a government. At first glance, it: * does not claim an exclusive territory * does not claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force