The dumbest objections against statelessness #1

"Show me one time it has worked!"

Jan 18, 2025

“Statelessness can’t work because no instance of it exists in history!” This specific objection against statelessness betrays the objector’s intent: he doesn’t want statelessness to be valid, otherwise he wouldn’t be making this absurd appeal to tradition, as well as argument from illiteracy. He deludedly assumes that it a government of sorts is in his best interest, when, after logical analysis, it is not. Government is not in the best interest of anyone; not even those benefiting the most from it.

I can understand objections coming from a place of inquiry, concern, or fear of the unknown. But this one only shows that the objector presumes centralised coercive government being in his personal best interest at the expense of others. Thus, his vitriolic dismissal of alternative ideas is his way of grasping at straws to defend his unfair advantage over others, granted by his government.

Not only is this objection absurd, but it also motivated by malice.

“Show me one time in history when statelessness worked! Huh???! If stateless voluntary laissez-faire works, then why hasn’t it ever occurred in history? Gotcha!”

This is a straw man, a loaded question, an argument from ignorance, and an appeal to tradition all in one. Let’s break it down.

A.

Even if statelessness had never worked (it has and it does already), it doesn’t mean that it can’t ever work. Just because humans have never set foot on Mars doesn’t mean that it is impossible. Just because we’ve haven’t yet figured out how to send humans to Mars doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Even multiple failed attempts don’t prove it’s impossible, as Elon Musk’s crash-and-burn rockets prove. And, just because a child hasn’t yet worked a job doesn’t mean it won’t be able to in the future.

Consider that, for the vast majority of human history, human sacrifice was a reality. Tribes would brutally slaughter members of their in-group to “appease the rain gods.” So, up until very recently in human “civilisation,” one could have made the same insane appeal to tradition fallacy: “Show me one society that has worked without human sacrifice. Therefore, human sacrifice is “the best system we have.”” This is totally insane argumentation, which serves testament to the intellectual depths to which we must stoop to address objections against statelessness.

Up until the abolition of slavery, when the general public consciousness figured out that slavery was immoral - and more relevantly, ridiculously inefficient and ineffective - people asked similar questions to the early advocates of abolition: “How can society work without slavery? Who will do the manual labour that no one wants to do? Show me an instance in history where slavery didn’t exist!” …horrendous objections that come with an smug self-assuredness based on nothing but embarrassedly confident hubristic narcissism; the kind that keeps as attached to superstitions, like our deluded need in government, which holds back intellectual progress.

B.

Second, who told you that there haven’t been instances of stateless self-governance in history? This question just shows willing illiteracy. Medieval Ireland is a grand example of stateless self-governance, or decentralised order and social cooperation without the need for an overarching state threat of violence. Disputed territories without government, such as the instances of Kowlool city (between Hong Kong and China), and Liberland (between Croatia and Serbia), show that people can don’t descend into cannibalistic chaos in the absence of state threat-based “stability;” quite the opposite. Social order and stability from incentive-based cooperation are more sustainable and meaningful than the short-fuse superficial compliance and submission to threats.

And then, the smug statist’s predictable motte-and-bailey-fallacy response will be: “See? It existed, but no more, so it wasn’t sustainable! Government always takes over. Ha! Gotcha!” Well, if your argument is how predatory, expansionist, and violent statism is, then we agree. Perhaps the only thing the state is better at that statelessness is the centralised and motivated violence of a standing brain-dead army. The fact that threat-based systems of perceived “authority” tend to always brutally attack and conquer by violence peaceful societies only goes to show inalienable evil and wastefulness inherent in any threat-based power structure.

And the irony is that these critics of statelessness keep asking yet another self-defeating question: “But without government, wouldn’t there be warlords?” You mean literally like the unopposed warlord of government, which arbitrarily commits violence domestically and abroad even though the vast majority of its “voters” oppose said violence? Even if there were petty warlords without government, they wouldn’t come close to the atrocities committed by centralised governments and their unaccountable monopoly of violence, without any competition, without any pushback from within. The bigger the the gun, the bigger the damage, and the itchier the finger on the trigger gets. The more power we willingly grant to a small number of ruling-class jokers, the more likely we are to be on the receiving end of that gun. Such is the nature of the accumulation of power.

When several small warlords share the same area, they face competition, so they keep each other in check. I’ve lied in the nightlife scene, and I know how local protection mafias work: I used to pay them their monthly fees as the manager of a local business. But because these mafias fear and respect each other, they must reduce themselves to mere security services providers and racketeers; so they are subject to a level of free-market forces that keep them in check. If they conflict with each other, they mostly keep violence between themselves; this is what happens with local gangs and mafias, as well as small governments and warlords. Bigger governments and empires draft people from everywhere for expansionist campaigns because they can.

See? We have government today and we still get warlords in the form of organised crime: drug cartels, drug gangs, protections mafias - not to mention the ultimate warlord, that of government and the big corporations it funds and enables with favorable regulations. Then the predictable ad hoc fallacy comes along: “It would have been worse without government.” Not at all. It is BECAUSE of the government’s centralised powers that these gangs and mafias receive an unfair advantage to be able to thrive. It is BECAUSE government exists that it becomes a commodity for sale to the highest bidder to enforce favoritism and nepotism for some on the backs of others. It is BECAUSE a centralised monopoly of violence exists that it can be hijacked by special interests as the expense of everyone else.

It is because government holds the monopoly of policing that it becomes easy for the mafias to buy out cops and politicians and regulators, or to purchase insider first-access information, as well as buy blind eyes from police thuggery to brutalise their competition for them, or even flat-out work as enforcers for organised crime. I’ve worked in nightlife; I’ve seen how quickly the local protection mafias find out when a new establishment is about to open, and where the owners and staff live. I was one of the staff approached by protection mafia representatives. And still, despite their enabling by government, they were still much more courteous, respectful, and effective in their protection racket than any police could ever dream of being. Why? Because they faces competition from other protection protection mafias eager to move in on territory.

So, the existence of warlords doesn’t scare me, as long as there is no government to sell them unfair advantages and exclusivity over others. Fair competition is more than we need to keep everyone in check. And to have fair competition, we must never have any centralised threat-based “authority,” otherwise this “authority” gets hijacked by the highest bidder. For example, would Somalian warlords be able to establish their hold on Somalian people without their government? How is it that Somalian warlords came to have all the guns, and the rest of the people had none? Would such warlords been able to rise to regional power in a territory like the US where everyone and their mom’s armed to the teeth? The irony of using the hopelessly corrupt government of Somalia as an argument against statelessness….

Now, if a warlord dominates a given region, without having to share it with other warlords then, congratulations! - we’ve established yet another form of government. The warlords become the government of that region in a type of feudal lordship, and they are there as long as people tolerate them. And what people tolerate - what they presume is fair - is what they get. If you believe it’s just and moral to be brutalised, you will be brutalised. If you presume that you owe something to self-appointed state leaders and warlords, then you will owe them.

In a society, we manifest what we believe - we invite what we deem ourselves worthy of, and we will never get what we deem ourselves unworthy of. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: if a society believes that a certain type of governance is the only way to run itself, then that type of government because the only way to run that society.

This is why now we get different flavors of government according to the culture of a region: theocratic Islamism, self-righteous democracies with the illusion of civilian control, communist hellscapes, and a genetically pure Israeli ethno-state. We get what we believe we deserve.

C.

Laissez-faire already works between states as entities without a world government dictating what they do. States agree to use the air waves, to share the sea’s resources, to trade with each other, without a world-government enforcing anything. International law is not backed by a threat of violence: it is mutually beneficial agreements made by states, and they are adhered to due to incentive, not threat. Disputes can bring re-negotiations to make new agreements, again based on incentive, not threat. Sure, we get occasional wars, but notice how war between governments is easier and more profitable than war between individuals. In government, those making decisions for war won’t pay the price. Government leaders are not as incentivised to avoid war as individuals are; leaders will never pay the price of war, and they will never face the danger of a drafter pawn toiling in a trench like a useful tool. Also, government creates incentives for war for those in power; military industrial complexes (with their state-induced oligopolies) have every reason and capability to hijack the centralised unopposed powers of the state to create war for profit. Again, this is another argument for statelessness.

And another non-sequitur objection: “But it’s governments cooperating internationally, not people!” So, now you admit that laissez-faire works between entities? Isn’t that a motte and baily fallacy, again?

So, what if international stateless cooperation occurs between state entities? Do you imagine governments to be individual entities like deities? Governments don’t exist as distinct organisms. Governments are made of… you guessed it!… people! It’s people cooperation with people. So, to rationalise that stateless supra-state cooperation works because it’s governments doing it, and not people, is illogical. If anything, the fact that it is UNACCOUNTABLE people doing it - under the ping-pong responsibility deflection and protection of governments - only goes to show that cooperation between people is the norm, not the exception. If unaccountable people can seek to find systems to cooperate, then surely can individuals without any systemic protections like government, or even corporations’ legal entity status.

And who told you that people don’t cooperate internationally? The fact that every single product you use daily is the consequence of incentive-driven business people from all over the world, spontaneously cooperating to find solutions to everyday problems, is testament to how easily and organically societies can self-organised on voluntary incentive instead of the needlessly violent threat of centralised government.

Indeed, international cooperation between states works, but it doesn’t work as well as it could. The reason is that this cooperation is between states, not individuals. The people behind the states are unaccountable, meaning, their incentives are skewed and inorganic, and less subject to free-market equalisation. In the inorganic positions of power that they hold, they stand to earn more than they deserve on the backs of others, and they don’t get to pay the consequences of their bad decisions, again paid by others. When people with the backing of a government trade with each other, they operate sub-optimally.

This is why we occasionally get war, since those making decisions for war will almost never pay the consequences of war, not to mention they stand to make profits on war, win or lose. If cooperating entities are individuals, they are far less likely to resort to violence because they are personally accountable. Self-accountable people use violence as a last resort, which is why children fight so frequently - children are unaccountable, and don’t face consequences that adults do. Adults think twice before engaging in a fistfight. Children in school or at home fight it out almost daily. Our politicians thus become infantilised due to their unaccountability.

Let me give you another example: your personal relationships all work in laissez-faire manner. You can’t force your friends, relatives or wife/husband to be with you. You can’t even force them under threat of violence to stay loyal to you. You have to earn it, and you have to give them incentives to be loyal to you. This is why we, as parents, need to be kinder to children and NEVER use intimidation, violence, or emotional abuse with them: they never chose to be in a relationships with us, so they are stuck with us. We have to treat them as if they had a choice of parent, and we had to earn their affection. Because, a the end of the day, when they are grown up and you’re old, you will have earned (or disqualified yourself from) their affection. And we all remember your childhood trauma very vividly.

Professional relationships too: No one is forcing you to improve your skill-set, or to adhere to a professional ethos. You have an incentive to build your CV as well as your professional relationships. No threat of violence is forcing you to. No threat of violence is required at all.

If you’ve ever held a position in modern corporate environment, you’d find that many times are no hierarchies between departments - only entities working in laissez-faire. Yes, there is a flat hierarchy from a director, but how interdepartmental cooperation occurs, how people request work from each other, is driven by incentive, and not “power” of one employee over another. They are not driven by threats, only incentives.

If anything, if people with unaccountable government structures behind them can work out fair sustainable laissez-faire interactions, the more so can people with self-accountability can do this too. The only problem is scale: we assume that a single individual is insignificant, so we fall for the appeal to authority fallacy: others are better than me, so let’s all give rhetors and bamboozlers our obedience, thus making them “better” than us in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

D.

The irony is that the state itself proves that statelessness works work even today under government: First with how states between themselves agree to cooperate without any need for an overarching “authority” regulating those interactions. And second, with how corrupt politicians incur transitions and dealings without the need for a supervisory authority enforcing contracts or resolving disputes.

Sure, this is not perfect, because you still get war and the occasional political assassination, but how is that any different from statehood? Does the state completely dissolve all crime? If so, and by this same logic, then the existence of organised and perpetual crime in every single state should disprove and invalidate the deluded necessity for government. More so, it is BECAUSE of government that some laissez-faire interactions between governments lead to conflict: the clandestine nature of laissez-faire dealings between corrupt politicians makes it so. Why? Because if certain dealings are arbitrarily and needlessly deemed “illegal” by the state, then these dealings must occur in the darkness of the black market. When there is no transparency, there is little accountability. It is thus easier for one party to betray the other in hopes that its reputation with other stakeholders won’t be affected.

Here is another spin to this objection:

“Oh, yeah? If statelessness is so great, then why have we always had some sort of state authority in all of human history, huh?”

First off, this isn’t true. There have been stateless societies in human history, but sadly, they didn’t last. They were either absorbed by another state under the threat of violence, or they devolved into statehood themselves as they degenerated into self-destructive inclinations.

Notable examples of social order without any need for coercive government are medieval Ireland and Iceland, the early American colonies, the autonomous pirate islands of the Caribbean, Kowloon Walled City (Hong Kong), and Liberland (Croatia/Serbia)… and almost every self-sufficient human settlement in history that had managed to temporarily pass under the radar of marauding raiders or governments alike. Yes, raiders are a type of government because they too function on the fundamental principles of government: “might is right” and rule by threat of violence. And for the emotional: no; defensive violence is not the same as coercive threat of violence. Defensive violence does not compel anyone to do anything.

Now, the fact that almost always a neighboring state’s aggressive expansionism takes over a stateless society is testament to how evil and violent a state is - this fact is an anti-state argument. It shows that we should oppose the concept of the state, if we want to call ourselves ethical.

One may say that, if all stateless societies will eventually be taken over by an evil state, then we might as well accept the state we have now and save ourselves from the bloodshed from this transition; a fair argument. But this is also a straw man, because it assumes that bloodshed always follows a government takeover. This is demonstrably false, because most transitions of perceived “authority” occur peacefully. Even the insanely totalitarian Soviet Union fell almost completely peacefully. And still, the fact that societies have hitherto always devolved into statism does not necessarily mean this is the “best we have,” but rather, the best we think we know thus far; just like child sacrifice was - for most of human history - the only way humans knew to create rain by appeasing the gods. Now we have cloud seeding and weather modification.

I propose that, if stateless societies have always fallen to the state, it’s because they didn’t yet know all the mechanisms available to resist it, especially with regards to physical and intellectual defense. Indeed, the state’s greatest weapon is propaganda, also known as PR. The state cannot exist without a gaslit brainwashed population. The greatest defense against the state is not a standing army; it is a society of free, skeptical, and critical minds. A mind that lazily and self-assuredly rests on “it’s the best system we’ve got,” without any way to prove it other than appealing to tradition, is not a critical mind at all.

Why history is riddled with instances of centralised coercive government

Now, why exactly does the state seem to almost always be the case in all of human history? Well… why was slavery almost always the case in all of human history - slavery that still exists unabashedly in many regions of the world, despite the existence of government in those regions. Just because slavery has always been the norm doesn’t make it right or “the best system we’ve got.”

And what of military conscription - literal slavery in most of the countries on earth enforced by government?

And what of overt and hidden taxation? Isn’t that slavery too, as the violently seizing of your labour via the extortive threat of violence?

So, slavery hasn’t really been abolished; they just gaslighted us to imagine we were free just because they loosened the noose just a little bit to breather and become more productive. But this delusion of freedom is in itself an additional bond of servitude.

Societies as wholes get what they want…

In regions where slavery is considered appalling, we get the illusion of freedom, and employment conditions that are actual slavery in everything but name. Most of your labour goes to direct and hidden taxes, fees, tariffs, and inflation - and all your taxes go to embezzlement and war, not roads. How is this any different from a slave? Even a literal slave keeps some of his labour for food, accommodation, healthcare.

And this not mentioning the sad reality of socialist slavers who have the gall to claim that other people’s labour is somehow their right: this is the precise definition of slavery.

Still, we get areas of the world where slavery was abolished - at least in name only - which goes to show that the collective consciousness of those populations does not tolerate slavery (at least the label of it). So, their governments have no choice but to gaslight and propagandise these populations into assuming that slavery has been abolished, even though, in practical reality, it hasn’t. The slavers feared the awakening slaves, so the former decided to give the slaves some space. With this slight concession on the part of slavers, the slaves went back to sleep, assuming their liberation was complete. But it wasn’t.

Yet, the fact that the slavers need to adapt to the masses’ sentiments shows something; that no centralised “authority” can exist without the consent of the governed; not all of them, but of a critical mass of them.

We get the system of governance that the collective consciousness tolerates.

If the vast majority of people in an area believe in a theocracy, then a theocracy will become sustainable. This is why North Korea’s insane theocratic socialist dictatorship is sustainable. This is why inhumane Islamic Sharia law is sustainable in Muslim-majority countries. This is why the scam of democracy - the illusion of citizens’ representation - is sustainable in Western “enlightened” countries. What people want people get, even if they are deceived into thinking they get it, when in fact they don’t.

The state has always existed for two reasons:

People assume that what has always been must be ideal (appeal to tradition fallacy)
People haven’t yet known better

Take for example slavery. Humans didn’t know better. They thought that they could morally own another human being, brutalize it, and own the fruits of its labour. They thought it was “the best system they could have.” They erroneously assumed that their economic output was reliant upon slavery, when in fact it wasn’t. The irony was that slavery is a laughably inefficient way of production. Slavery kept them back, because slaves cannot be productive or innovative; something about the breaking of the spirit, or the underlying and righteous indignation of being treated unfairly. If anything, slavery kept humanity back for centuries. When humanity slowly began to realise that slavery was not only immoral but hopelessly inefficient, we got abolition, which allowed free-market incentive and voluntary associations to increase output. When employer and employee, consumer and merchant, are driven by incentive without coercion, then we get maximum economic output.

Yet, early abolitionists were met with insane objections, such as “but who will work the fields if not slaves?” It turns out that, without reluctant, recalcitrant, indignant, and unproductive slaves, we get employees motivated by the incentive to outcompete other employees, and thus keep their job, and earn bonuses. Plus, free employees don’t require needless brutalizers to look over them; an unnecessary unproductive expense. Also, where human labour is unproductive, we have automation and technology that can replace unspecialized human labour. And automation is fine, because it motivates employees to keep investing in a specialty that no automation can take over. If you think automation replacing jobs is unethical, think about how many jobs the things you use daily have cost: your car, your phone, your email, your AI-curated music playlists…

Take, for example, the emergence of insurance, and how insurance services (and agricultural futures, for that matter) have allowed commerce to thrive, and production to create food surpluses and other areas of abundance. These accomplishments have truly enabled our species to emerge from the meaninglessness of mere survival to daring to look up to higher ideals. Insurance services emerged spontaneously from gambling - this is what insurance technically is: you bet against yourself with each premium, but even when you lose, you win peace of mind. Insurance creates the additional product of assurance. Without private insurance, there would be less incentive to work fields, to explore the seas, to invest in research and new technology, to trade with foreigners and thus encourage partnerships rather than wars.

Now, consider: we did not have insurance for the vast majority of human history. Does this mean it was impossible? Does this mean that the non-existence of insurance is somehow better? No. It means that we didn’t know better. The fact that humans have not been able to land on Mars does not mean that humans can never land on Mars. Similarly, the historical dominance of statism does not mean that statism is somehow “the best and only system we have.” In our past, monarchs were considered demigods with holy attributes; people just didn’t know better. It didn’t mean there could not be a more civil system of governance. Despite its flaws and hypocritical pretentiousness, democracy is a lightly better system of governance. Why? Because at least the ruling class must make a concession to to public opinion: they must convince people they are free, even though people aren’t free. This is testament to how incremental the role of public opinion is in what system of governance actually works.

Today, we assume that democracy by representation is the “best system we can have,” yet we forget the superiority of Athenian direct democracy, two and a half thousand years ago. Even though democracy is the tyranny of a majority over a minority (or of a large minority over the majority of other minorities), it is still a step in the right direction away from monarchic theocracies. And especially today where decentralized blockchain voting is feasible, we could be voting directly - without the need for corruptible representation and useless politician. We could be voting for every single policy every single day, rather than vote for generic unaccountable liars and cross our fingers hoping for the best. This is much better than being forced to vote between two unaccountable lying dictators every few years, and crossing our fingers hoping for the best. This two-party ‘good cop / bad cop’ shtick compels us to always choose what we perceive as the lesser evil, which, in reality, normalises and perpetuates evil.

Regardless, we propose the abolition of any form of coercive centralised state, and its displacement by voluntary decentralised laissez-faire systems of self-governance, in the style of Rothbardian Austro-anarchism.

“People have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want and the courage to take.” - Emma Goldman

The bottom line

The reason why the entire surface of this planet is infested with statism is because we naively accept it as “the best solutions we’ve got” or we tell ourselves that it’s “better than anarchy.”

The only sustainable system of governance or self-governance in a given society is that in which a critical mass of people BELIEVE. This is exactly the case with currency: the only sustainable form of currency in an economy is any piece of worthless paper, and even more worthless numbers on a computer screen, that enough people BELIEVE are real. Economic history shows time and time again how currencies collapse in mere days when trust in them is lost. Bank runs, withdrawal limits, bartering, and the spontaneous emergence of alternative currencies follow, which indicate that people spontaneously put their trust in other force of exchange, without the need for any coercive mandate.

The fact that, back in the day, people would accept a royal bloodline as a viable system of governance (enough to kill and get killed in battle over), goes to show that a society’s sustainable system of governance is exactly what people tell themselves is the best system of governance. If a critical mass of people believed that cats were divine spirits sent here to rule over us, then we’d have a system of governance ruled by cats and their whims (in many instances of human activity, being ruled by cats is already a reality).

The fact that North Korea’s bizarre deification of dictators is sustainable is because North Koreans are so deeply propagandised that they, as a whole, accept this system of governance as ideal for them. So, there is not enough cynicism, not enough defiance, not enough recalcitrance to topple their government’s house of cards. This is why atrocious regimes remain sustainable - it is passive tolerance and moral justification by the people.

How certain are you that your favorable assumptions about your government are not the consequence of psychological conditioning and lazy convenient presumptions of correctness based on what you’re accustomed to?

The fact that a fascistic Islamic theocracy is sustainable in the Middle East but not in the US is because the vast majority of US residents wouldn’t put up with it (not yet, at least, given the rampant islamisation of the West). The fact that a Western-style democracy, with all its hypocritical promises of freedom, wouldn’t work in the Middle East is because people there generally prefer strong dictatorial mothering figures to tell them what they do (Islam is inherently matriarchal). And the fact that Western cultures need the illusion of “free democracy” before accepting their dictatorial governments goes to show how Western cultures value freedom more than the Chinese, the Hindus, the Middle Easterners.

The fact that the government of Somalia co-exists with the warlords it has empowered in the first place shows that the people of Somalia find this sort of “governance” palatable enough to endure famine, child slavery, and every atrocity in the book. This is not to assign blame, but to provide an explanation as to how certain systems of centralised governance are sustainable in one place but not in another. If the population of Somalia shared the rebellious anti-government spirit of the American revolutionaries, then neither the Somalian government, nor its warlord brutalizers, would stand a chance.

By the way, the same unholy alliance of Somalian warlord and Somalian government occurs in Mexico, with each side understanding that their existence depends on the other. How? If Mexico would decriminalise drugs, then its drug cartels would be out of business in a day. All the drug cartels of South and Central America rely on the criminalisation of drugs (especially in the US), because this grants them an oligopoly with huge profit margins at the expense of peaceful people in general.

Sure, the Mexican government and drug cartels have their petty rivalries, but so what? Without a government apparatus for the cartels to bribe and hijack, then the cartels would stand no chance against the competition of a free market.

This government-warlord alliance is the same as ‘the crown and the church’ in medieval times. In the end, the crown granted the church special privileges at the expense of the people, and the church used its influence on the people to sanctify the crown in the eyes of naive believers. Both crown and church needed each other in a sort-of “frenemy” dynamic and mutual understanding.

The only sustainable form of government is what the people tolerate because they somehow believe it to be morally just, or somehow “the only system we can have.” The fall of the atrocious Soviet Union proves this. When the USSR took over half of Europe, paving its way with blood and tears, the populations of those conquered countries were forced to abide by a monstrous type of totalitarian governance, that of full-on socialism. The gaslighters will appeal to semantics, and claim that it wasn’t socialism, but it was in fact communism. This is a common socialist tactic to consciously mislead and propagandise. The United Soviet SOCIALIST Republics (USSR) admitted they were socialist, and that communism was the last utopian stage of socialism where no money existed, and everyone laboured out of the goodness of their hearts.

So, it took them a few decades, but the USSR became unsustainable in Easter Europe, because the people there were not behind such bullshit ideology. They were just force-fed it after their countries were destroyed in WW2. Eastern Europeans became recalcitrant; they stopped taking seriously the state’s presumed “authority.” With each petty defiance - small enough to not merit punishment, but enough to pose difficulty to the state - courage would spread and defiance would grow. And here we are now: Eastern Europe is now free from full-on socialism, and now has the delusion of freedom. This is still better than socialism, since the shackles of government have been loosened enough for their economies to thrive, and for people to get a breather.

A slave who must be tricked into believing he is free is better than a slave who doesn’t want to be free; the former at least has hope of finally realising the deception of freedom.

We literally get the governments we deserve - we as a whole. If enough people understood the morality of the non-coercion axiom, and the massive efficiency of a truly free economy, then statelessness would become sustainable right now. It’s all about what a critical mass of people believe. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people on this planet today are wrong: they believe we need government, so government is what we get.

This is why governments around the world invest insane amounts of resources into propagandising you; your opinion matters. Your belief system is the only thing that keeps their house of cards from falling. If your mind were free to evaluate reality away from state brainwashing (schooling indoctrination and state-controlled media), then enough of us would likely arrive at the conclusion that, not only is government evil, but it is an unnecessary evil.

And what about this same question revered? What about this question directed at government?

Show me one time in history when government actually worked, or at least worked as originally theorised. Only one time… Never has this been the case. Not a single government in history was fair, free, ethical, efficient, just, incorruptible, or take into consideration individual liberties, concerns, and self-ownership. Not a single government in history has ever been applied as it was promised. Not one, ever. Show me one - only one - and I’ll rest my case. Therefore, by the same logic, this should prove that government does not work. And it demonstrably doesn’t.

But let’s be real: people complain about government but they still want government. They want government, just one that they imagine is “on their team.” Most people want a dictatorship, just one that brutalizes their neighbor more than it does them.

Thank you for reading. I appreciate your time. All my work here is free.

Kindly like, comment, share, or subscribe for free… or not. It’s all the same.

Μίτσιγκαν

Jan 31

statelessness existed and it was very successful

look at the map of the Roman Empire, it stretched from horizon to horizon, but still it had borders

within these borders there were all known civilizations, that also were run by ruling class before they were conquered

outside the borders there were still people; many people, but these people weren't considered civilizations because they didn't have a ruling class