The dumbest objections against statelessness - An introduction
Anticipating the illogical defense of statism
Every single objection against statelessness applies even more to and against the state; even more so, given that the people controlling the state possess absolute unaccountable power to commit any injustice and atrocity, and get away with it. Consider how the state’s absolute monopoly of “legal” indoctrination and “legal” violence protects and indemnifies rulers. Sure, you get the occasional “condemnation” or slap on the wrist of some C-lister politician or celebrity; but these are just instances of elitist infighting, that are then used as limited hangouts (small insignificant concessions by the state to regain the gullible public’s misplaced trust).
Objecting is easy
Objections against statelessness treat it with a relentless scrutiny and demand for perfection that the state - conveniently enough - doesn’t seem to face; not even close. Imagine if we rejected the concept of government solely on the fact that no government in history had ever produced a perfectly flawless utopia. This is the kind of irrationality with which laissez-faire statelessness is treated. We give no benefit of the doubt to free voluntary statelessness, yet we give a free pass to centralized government: the monopoly of threat-based coercive violence, no less. The logical inconsistency is clear.
If anything, this scrutiny - this dismissal-unless-perfect attitude - should apply even more to the state, since the state presumes to use the threat of violence to impose its hypocritical moralism and arbitrary perceived “authority.” But this state seems to escape this scrutiny, so we know from the get-go how hypocritical state apologism is.
If anything, those who imagine a chaotic free-for-all in the absence of government only project their own violent intent in the absence of accountability. And the irony is that there is more accountability without government; government simply creates and protects monsters.
Introduction to state apologetics
This is the beginning of a series of articles titled ‘The dumbest objections against statelessness.’ These “arguments” are objectively illogical, and thus shouldn’t merit acknowledgement. Regardless, we have to address them, since they still persist and contribute to perpetuating the insanity of statist apologism in the minds of the hopelessly indoctrinated majority. Most people cut off all critical thinking against the state just because they assume that these “arguments” (these objections against statelessness) are all they need to validate their cherished cultish belief in coercive threat-based government.
Yes, some objections against laissez-faire (organizing society without violently coercive centralized government) are valid and understandable. One of them, for example, is the hegemonic stability theory, which I’ll be addressing soon. But the vast majority of objections are ad hoc straw men based on deluded presumptions, and other fallacies like appeals to emotion and tradition, not to mention non sequiturs and arguments from ignorance, incredulity, and illiteracy.
There can be no conflict when both (or all) parties of a dispute are rational. Disputes can be resolved rationally when all parties are equally rational, instead of emotional in their “reasoning.” If there remains unresolved conflict to the point where animosity ensues, then we know that at least one of parties involved is being irrational (and decentralized stateless self-governance has a better way of dealing with thugs than the state could ever hope to mimic).
Keep this in mind when debating: the first to make an emotional appeal has lost the intellectual part of the dispute. Passive aggression, anger, ridicule, threats, and overt aggression are all signs of abandonment of logic. You then move from logical discourse to pure defense.
I will be occasionally posting these objections for your consideration, entertainment, and constructive criticism.
These objections, while welcome and often well-intentioned, tend to come from ignorance and naivete. Other times, they come from willing insistence to remain entrenched in the cherished belief in the cultish superstition of government, the psychotic self-delusion in the need for arbitrary “authority.” And other times the come from pure evil from individuals who cherish a cowardly monopolistic system of violent coercion, since they imagine being part of it.
You can tell who’s who, because the people who insist on making these objections are unwilling to consider any logical argument, any historical instance, any economic proof that statelessness actually works, even today under brutal statism.
Stay tuned…
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.
Useful reading on stateless voluntaryism
‘Chaos Theory: Two Essays on Market Anarchy’ by Robert P. Murphy
‘No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority’ by Lysander Spooner
‘For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto’ by Murray N. Rothbard
‘Power and Market: Government and the Economy’ by Murray N. Rothbard
‘Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market’ by Murray N. Rothbard
To your list of anarchist works consider adding "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman and "The Problem of Political Authority" by Michael Huemer.
I like your statelessness article. It’s going to be a hard sell for many people who can’t think beyond our current governmental systems (slavery) Thank you and keep your ideas coming, maybe we’re at or close to the turning point out of the darkness.