3 ms·

> In a society without governments... But haven't you just described governments? Your "protection service" is our "sovereign state". Your agreements between p

by 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

by rlpb 5y ago

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