How I know statelessness works [Part 1]

Stateless systems of self-governance already work even today under government

Nov 27, 2024

I understand the objections against statelessness; I used to make them myself. It’s hard to let go of your comfort from the fantasy that there exists an all-powerful enforcer -the state- which has your best interest at heart, even though you have zero influence over it. It’s also hard to imagine how lawmaking, policing, justice, transport, telecommunication infrastructure, money supply, defense, and universally honored property registries can function without some central authority to dictate them.

Why we presume we need government

I get it… It’s difficult to grasp how we can share public goods and publicly owned property without a central organization mandating use statuses, and thus leaving no room for endless disputes and disagreements. It’s easier to acquiesce to hegemonic stability. It’s more convenient to relinquish our self-sovereignty to the state, in exchange for the comfort of the prison warden. We don’t care if our despot will be unfair or abusive with his powers; we just care that only he gets to do whatever he wants. That’s better than everyone doing whatever they want, right? But this is a straw man, a misinterpretation of the human condition, and a failure to comprehend how humans respond to incentive as opposed to threat.

A society without a ruler is more orderly and prosperous; disorder and chaos come the moment people look to rulers. And this is what we have today: anarcho-tyranny.

Appeal to tradition fallacy

Human history is dominated by one brand of centralized government after another: theocracy, monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, fascism, socialism, direct democracy, democracy by representation, and what we experience today: technocratic corporatism whereby lobbyists bribe their way to fully hijack government enforcement. But the fact that, with minor exceptions, our history has shown time and time again that centralized perceived “authority” emerges every time is not a logical argument for statism; it’s just an appeal to tradition, a group-think “5 monkeys experiment” fallacy that empowers governments to the point of insane nuclear war.

Regardless, we now have a working system of centralized government, despite its many injustices, exploitation, and atrocities. We don’t dare question it, because we erroneously assume that we owe our social stability to it, and that anything outside of it must be chaotic. This is demonstrably false.

This is paralysis by monopoly: we are so accustomed to getting high-cost low-quality “services” from the disincentivized monopoly government, that we fail to see any other way of acquiring said services better, cheaper, more efficiently, more justly, and more morally. We are so conditioned to be driven by the state’s matriarchal threat of violence that we forget that most of our life’s relationships and transactions are dictated not by force, but by incentive. And where there is aggression, we already retain the right to use defensive force anyway, or to ask for help, without any perceived state “authority” involved at all. If anything, the state is the only paragon limiting your right to self-defense.

So, it’s time perhaps to wonder why we still insist on assuming that we need government at all.

Your personal life is self-regulated

All of your personal and professional relationships are driven by goodwill. Sure, the state may regulate part of your professional relationships with your employers or customers, but these “regulations” are nothing that the free market cannot provide more effectively via private standards, ratings, reviews, and risk scores - in other words, free-market self-regulating.

The largest part of your professional relationships is already governed by your professional ethos, your incentive to establish maintain a good long-term reputation and proven efficacy, and your surrender to relentless free-market competition whereby you are pressured to outcompete your peers, and to negotiate for the most optimal win-win agreement. Your employer is also pressured to give as little compensation as possible, but also not too little - he needs to keep top staff. Yes, the labour market is unbalances in favour of employers, but we only have government intervention to thank for that - tax-induced unemployment for one. Regardless, the only enforcement in a free market comes from competition - Adam Smith’s analogy of the “invisible hand.”

In your personal relationships, you give to your friends, relatives, and spouse your priceless time, your hard-earned income; what you expect to get back from them is not regulated by any government or state “authority.” The state cannot protect you from your spouse cheating on you, wasting your time, or taking your money and running away. If anything, the state allows and encourages your spouse to leave you. It even provides an incentive for your spouse to murder you, since the state will grant him/her benefits from your demise: The first suspect in any murder is the spouse - police statistics, you see… This alone should make you see how the state distorts human relationships.

It is up to you to regulate your own relationships with your friends, relatives, colleagues, your online acquaintances. Looking to a mother figure to regulate them for you is immature at best.

If you are kind and supportive to people, you get rewarded in kind. If you are abusive or selfish or unpleasant, you lose the privilege of other people’s company and affection. If you are not interested in self-improvement, and in making yourself more valuable to others, then again, the free market of social interactions will not reward you. Nobody coerced you to read that self-growth book; you did it purely out of of incentive.

And what about the anti-socials who become violent and predatory? Then FAFO takes care of them better than any trigger-happy wife-beating cop every could. If government didn’t interfere with the rights of good people to defend themselves, then maybe the bad people wouldn’t feel so emboldened. Plus, free-market incentives would be much better at deterring and punishing criminals than a government that protects criminals (further reading recommended - see below).

See? We already self-regulate our everyday interactions without the intervention of government. It is never perfect, but expecting perfection is only for the naive. Utopian naivete is the foundation of government.

So, if we can self-regulate our personal interactions, can we also self-regulate bigger interactions, like common property, environmental policy, health and safety, policing, lawmaking, property registries, and even radiation protection regulations?

Yes!

There is absolutely nothing that the free market can’t do better than government - except perhaps carpet-bombing children.

Every single service that the government miserably fails to provide can be better provided by free markets regulated spontaneously by the pressures of uninhibited competition. By “better” I mean more efficiently, effectively, fairly, and morally.

Free-market pressures act as a timely and accurate feedback mechanism that tells you if what you are doing (as a business, consumer, or individual) is accepted by society as a whole, and how well it is received… or not. This feedback mechanism is already active today in what little free market we have left.

The existence of market research proves how the free market works: see what the market wants, and then try to address it. Even politicians in the unfree market of government feel the need to pander to certain voter-market sentiments.

Even when government intervention grows yearly, we still use free-market insights to drive our social behaviour, then there is absolutely no need for government at all - undeniably. The free market proves to be a much more efficient and fairer feedback mechanism for a civilized society than the savage, superstitious, and archaic custom of voting for generic corrupt dictators and sold-out representatives every few years, with zero liability or accountability for breaking campaign promises.

Every single thing - from education accreditation and property registries to military defense and healthcare - can and already do work better in a free market, without the monopolistic inefficiencies and power abuses of centralized government.

Stateless, decentralized, voluntary systems of self-governance

Without government, society functions with stateless, decentralized, voluntary systems of self-governance, as long as we know how. If we don’t know how, then we always turn to despotic parent-figures who promise oppressive but hegemonic stability. This has been the case in almost all of human history: As soon as stateless systems of self-governance begin to emerge - and work brilliantly - some alleged “emergency” opens the door to in-group tyrants or aggressive neighboring states to elbow their way into what could have been a truly brilliant, free, fair, safe, efficient, and humane stateless society.

Here’s how you can have better law without government.
Here’s how you can better take care of the environment without government.
Here’s how you can have better healthcare without government.
Here’s how you can better punish criminals without government.
Here’s how you can have better money without government.

(Below I list works of great thinkers in the field of statelessness).

It shouldn’t be hard to imagine lawmaking, money supply, policing, justice, defense, and property registry management being provided by competing risk-management businesses that have every incentive to provide quality, fair dispute resolution, and adequate application of responsibilities. But alas, it is still hard to imagine by the vast majority of people currently occupying this planet.

I’d like to think that most statists are characterized by Faustian naivete rather than Mephistophelian wickedness.

Why do we still have government then?

I believe that humanity as a whole is traumatized endlessly through the cycle of generational abuse. We are abused by parents, state schooling, and indignities by “authority” figures.

Immature children imagine that their parents are the best, and that no other parent could provide them the sustenance they need. They are emotionally attached to their parents, even if those parents are demonstrably abusive, neglectful, and unfair.

As traumatized immature adults, we seek surrogate parent-figures in the state: someone to tell us what to do because we are too terrified and unaccountable to take actions for ourselves.

Statelessness works

How I know that statelessness works? Because it already works under government, as much as government allows, of course.

Spontaneous, decentralized, and voluntary systems of self-governance govern almost everything around you, without the need for any centralized “authority.”

Private standards

Consider how private health standards, environmental standards, professional, standards, and private industry standards emerge even today under government, but without the need for government. These standards enjoy the market’s recognition without any need for government enforcement. Why? Because there is a free-market incentive for them to be recognized - only by those who have to gain by recognizing them. And these standards are adhered to without any government involvement whatsoever. If anything, private standards respond faster to market demands than any clueless government ever could. Why? Because of incentive.

The spontaneous emergence of private standards self-regulating industries proves that government is unnecessary.

Credit ratings / Risk scores

Credit ratings - the free-market equivalent of the enforced ‘social(ist) credit score’ - are the big one for demonstrating how most humans will jump through hoops to voluntarily prove their solvency, good faith, trustworthiness, and reputation. Even today under government, insurance companies have their own risk score that determines how much of a risk you pose in the area in which you want to be insured. And these competing companies find a way to cooperate, and to share these risk scores among them.

Now imagine all these risk scores, as well as private standards, serving as your individual unique selling point. They represent a way for you to differentiate yourself, and to show to your potential friends, love interests, employers, customers or investors that you are trustworthy, and that you put significant effort and energy into adhering to certain quality standards of service quality as well as personal behaviour.

I once asked a girl out on a date, and she asked to connect on LinkedIn. Why? Because for her, it was the best way to show how credible and trustworthy I was. Did I have a solid job? Was I connected to serious people, and therefore have an incentive to safeguard my reputation? She didn’t know me, so she needed assurances. And this simple and smart “standard” was her way of assessing me. Clever girl.

For the vast majority of people, their social and professional standing means the world to them; it’s how they survive. The few idiots who choose to survive in the short-term through predation aren’t justification enough to institute a predatory government to supposedly “protect us” from them, when no one is protecting us from government.

Self-interest is why we want to play nice with others, and others want to play nice with us. Self-interest is civilized. This is why most people try to comply with social media platforms’ terms and conditions: they want their algorithm (score) to grant them more exposure. And if you choose not to abide by those T&Cs, then you lose the privilege (not right) of exposure on that platform. This is why everyone’s a good boy and girl on LinkedIn: they are personally and professionally exposed, so any mishap will affect their professional standing.

Now imagine a world where government didn’t exist to regulate human behaviour, and therefore, we’d have to design a credit score of goodwill, much like a criminal record. If you wanted to use a business, or apply for a job, or interact with anyone personally who might want to look at your score, then you’d have every incentive to play nice with others, so as to keep your record clean, and your risk profile low. If you don’t, you pay the price: a loss of good standing. And if you choose to be violent and harmful, then others can choose to be violent and harmful back - there is no government preventing others from using defensive violence against you.

Too confusing? Let me break it down.

Without a government, laws would be made through insurance, because this is what lawmaking is: risk management. The only difference is that the state is a disincentivized inefficient monopoly, whilst competing businesses under an unhindered free market have every incentive to provide quality service - competition compels them to. And no, big monopolies are unlikely to emerge in a free competitive market. The only reason we have monopolies now under a state is because they lobby government to regulate small-medium enterprises, and take them out of competition. Not only that, but big corporations can use government to impose favorable regulations only for them, thus creating an environment where only they get funding, tax exemptions, and first-access licensing.

So, without government, people who value their bodily integrity and their property will have to insure them voluntarily. They keep the option of not insuring, and keeping their risk. It’s their right to make this choice, and there is no government forcing them to pay taxes for laughable security and policing. Plus, only the things people want to be insured would be insured. Thus, lawmaking becomes truly organic. (Make sure you read more on laws without government).

Insurance companies insuring you against bodily harm will have every incentive to minimize their costs by including a clause in their contracts with you to not cause bodily harm on others. It makes sense: they want to minimize their risk too. So, what better way to demonstrate your trustworthiness as a person than to show off to others all the things you are insured against, and therefore, incentivized to not do yourself, otherwise you lose your insurance premiums… For example, if you are insured against rape, then you are far less likely to rape anyone, because if you do, you stand to lose your insurance premium, and harm your insurance risk score. You then risk losing your insurance coverage altogether, thus finding yourself open to vigilantism without any insurance covering you, and without any insurance disincentivizing your victims from vigilantism against you. Plus, there is no government protecting thugs from vigilantes. (Read more on punishing criminals in the absence of a state).

The same goes for your business. I remind you that it was private industry driven by free-market competition that solved the hole in the ozone layer problem, while old atherosclerotic government officials with zero incentive to provide solutions were wasting time and burning jet fuel gallivanting from one environmental conference to another, pretending to look for solutions. Yet is was the free market (as little free as it is) that figured out that, aerosols without the corrosive CFC chemical, would sell more if marketed to appeal to customers’ environmental conscience. Free industry has more incentive to satisfy people and protect the environment - than any monopolistic disincentivized government ever could. The same happens with health standards. I remind you that HACCP was a private initiative emerging out of people’s growing demand for better sanitation in the food & beverage industry, and businesses’ need to outcompete each other. No government is needed at all. Government steps in to make these standards mandatory only after they are widely adopted by the private sector. It does so to take the credit, and to make it appear that government is relevant - it is not.

Imagine a world where your choice of friends and spouses would be influenced by the things against which they are insured. Would you date someone without any insurance? This would mean that this person carries high risk. People who are insured for many things, and heavily too, are easier to trust because it means they put their money where their mouth is. Yet we interact daily with people who choose to not personally insure themselves against anything, and instead look to government to outsource their accountability to. Statism erodes our sense of accountability and self-ownership.

Under a state, we are forcibly “insured” by the state, and also policed by the state. In a free stateless world, you choose the things you want to be insured against and policed for. How is this not better for showing who you truly are, and what you stand for?

Objections

“You choose what you are policed for? Doesn’t that mean you can harm anyone without consequences?”

No, quite the opposite. Under statelessness, you are free not to be insured against murder, which means you have no insurance-based disincentive NOT to murder someone yourself. Does this mean you are free to murder? Not at all. It means that, if you murder someone, then anyone is free to do all kinds of things to you as vengeance WITHOUT any consequences from their insurance risk score - since you are not insured. Therefore, harming you would not be costly to any insurance company. No insurance company would reduce your risk score if you reciprocated violence against an uninsured. So, if you are not insured, you again have a disincentive to not harm insured people. You could harm uninsured people, but they can also harm you back. Does this mean we’d descend into a Purge-like chaos? Absolutely not. If you make a case for how fear of police deters criminals, then fear of reciprocity by the potential victim should deter criminals even more. Plus, non-victims would also want to punish uninsured criminals in their community out of concern for their own safety.

“But who determines who is guilty and who is not?”

Insurance companies have every incentive to be as impartial as possible so as to satisfy their clientele as best as possible. This is how they maximize their profits. Profit is a good motivator for supplying quality. And already insurance companies are good and efficient in providing assessments car accidents, theft, fraud, etc. - much better than the kangaroo courts of the state that take years and dispense arbitrary “justice.” The state’s justice system has little incentive to work efficiently or fairly, since it is a monopoly. It only needs to work just well enough as to not anger people to the point of revolt. And this is the only motivation behind government: keep the slaves fed and warm enough as to be complacent, docile and inert. The slaves then make excuses for their voluntary tolerance of slavery, justifying their slave masters, and telling themselves that “slavery is the best system we have.”

The bottom line

Now, it’s hard to get free-market solutions to these issues when already the government enforces a monopoly of these services. For example, very few people have a life insurance policy. They aren’t enough for insurance providers to have the “power” to “punish” those who commit murder by either increasing their premiums, or giving them to option to pay restitution (if they want to keep the privilege of maintaining their life insurance).

And if a murderer has no life insurance, then he is at the mercy of vigilantism by his motivated victims who can harm him without any penalties from their insurance companies. Vigilantism as a last resort is vital for a just and civilized society, otherwise, we have state corruption with people who get away with genocide, and no one can do anything about it.

For justice to be served, there needs to be a threat of last-resort vigilantism, otherwise justice can be corrupted. Much like government needs to be constantly threatened by revolt, otherwise it will be corrupted beyond measure - which is what we see today. No one revolts anymore - police states propagandized by psyops and bread-and-circuses will never revolt, even if their children are forcibly injected with hazardous experimental pharmaceuticals.

Yes, statelessness works - it already works. You only need to discard your misplaced faith in government, and let the free market do what it does best.

Useful reading

Thank you for reading.

All of my work is free. You don’t have to pay me anything.

Follow, comment, share, subscribe for free… or not. It’s all the same to me.