The dumbest objections against statelessness #14

"There would be more crime without government!"

Oct 04, 2025

You’ve heard this baseless ad-hoc fallacy mantra before: “There would be more crime without government!”

Really?

How do you know that for a fact? Have you been able to prove this claim, since you have the burden of proof? Yes, the non-existence of government is the default hypothesis; the contrived existence of centralised and arbitrarily authority-based government is the alternative hypothesis that needs to prove (with unbiased data collection, consistently replicable methodologies, and logically sound interpretations of extrapolations) that it is somehow better than statelessness. So far, nothing…

Logic

For all our arrogance and supposed value of science, we have never bothered to prove the need for government, especially when centralised government is the sole perpetrator of the gravest mass atrocities humanity has been capable of performing. Read that again and keep it in mind next time you make excuses for inexcusable statism.

And no, an appeal to tradition and naturalism (squealing that “we’ve always had some form of state throughout history, so it must be better”) is not a logically valid argument. One could say that we’ve always believed the earth was flat, or we’ve always had slaves, or we’ve always believed in rain gods demanding child sacrifice for their appeasement, or we’ve always had oppressive death-cult religions. So what? So fucking what? This doesn’t prove anything at all. All it proves is that humans are capable of as much stupidity as they are of greatness. We’ve always “never been to Mars”. So what? Does that mean it’s impossible to get there if we learn how? So let us dispense with this nonsense non-argument.

Who will protect you from the state’s crimes against you?

Now, about criminality. What crimes do you think the government protects you from? Slavery and the robbing of your labour? The state, in most countries, forces you to serve their gay military (they literally call it ‘serving’, like a house n*r), where you have to endure all kinds of indignities, physical and psychological abuse, denied freedom of speech, movement, and association, and basically be subjected to every military officer’s closeted-gay frustrations.

And even in countries where the military draft isn’t mandatory (say the “free” US of A), those who choose not to enlist (to basically reduce themselves to mercenary scum killing children for pedophiles) will have to work to pay 80-90% of their income in taxes so to pay for the scum who do enlist for their chance to kill legally and be paid handsomely for their atrocities. So basically, even the “free” US of A still has the military draft — it just gives you the option to buy off your service. Work and pay up, sucker!

Income tax is the least you pay in taxes. Most of everything you spend is taxes. The vast majority of a price tag is made of hidden and indirect taxes that all transfer to you, the buyer (sales tax, energy tax, customs, corporate taxes and fees, licensing, and more, depending on the product or service). Depending on your buying habits and the **tax farm** (country) you live in, **you pay 80-90% of your labour as tribute to your government overlords**. Tell me again how free you think you are.

Tell me again: How is the state protecting you from the crime of highway robbery taxation? At least, against highwaymen, you reserve every option to defend yourself. Instead, the state uses its monopoly of power (that we grant it no less with our brainwashed obedience) to disarm us and make us think that helplessness is a virtue, or rather, that hopeless reliance upon an indifferent gang of glorified warlords (the state) is somehow a virtue.

Solidarity

People always get together. This is the only thing the consistent existence of the state proves.

No, there wouldn’t be “more crime” without government. There would be less crime. Without government, the majority of people, people who want stability, would come together to form systems of self-governance — just like people always come together to form the knee-jerk reaction of centralised governments that end up being a shot in the foot, only because people don’t know any better way to do it.

In the presence of threats, the vast majority of people always get together to protect themselves, which is why we always get centralised government, the easiest, laziest solution — but then government creates more problems than it solves. Centralised government, this unopposed, unaccountable monopoly of violence, has no reason not to become the criminals it was meant to protects us from. And if you think your vote between two identical, controlled puppets every few years has any meaning whatsoever, then I rest my case — stop reading right now and go read some superhero comics instead; they should be more believable for you.

Without centralised government, people would get together, as they always do. Period. This is undeniable, and this is where statists and non-statists agree. We agree that the vast majority of people, the instant they find themselves without social structure, they simply — and they always do — get together to form some sort of governance to bring order to potential chaos, and to generate for themselves some sense of security. And this is a good thing…

False dilemma

The fact that people always get together to form some sort of governance is a good thing. It shows that post-apocalyptic nonsense chaos perpetuated by Hollywood propaganda is impossible.

What’s bad is the erroneous assumption that this ‘getting together of people’ must always result in a threat-based and arbitrary “authority”, which is no different than conducting retarded rain dances and barbaric child sacrifice to appease imaginary weather gods.

Yes, people reluctantly obey what they fear, but they willingly follow what empowers them. Incentives and deterrence are better predictors of human behaviour than any threat as a supposed “motivator”.

What’s bad is the false dichotomy, the erroneously presumed dilemma that you either must have the oppressive hegemonic “stability” of only one set of criminals — the inevitably tyrannical state — or you must have complete and utterly unending chaos.

The statist’s false dilemma:

A cartoonish Mad-Max post-apocalyptic reality of supposed chaos (which ironically, still shows that people do indeed get together to form authoritarian state entities), or
Our willing submission to absolute, unaccountable, threat-based totalitarian rule by monarchs and oligarchs, followed by us fooling ourselves with the delusion of “democracy”, and crossing our fingers hoping that they don’t rape us too much.

No. Rarely does this reality fall into dichotomies. There are other scenarios of social order than simply disorder or totalitarianism. How about incentive-based systems of self-governance that are voluntary and decentralised, meaning, free-market competition gets to regulate everything, even law, security, justice… especially those.

How about a society where desired behaviours are incentivised and rewarded, instead of their opposite being threatened and punished?

Chaos? What chaos?

And those who as if chaos would ever be sustainable, even for those who thrive in it.

Even the criminally insane would understand at some point that, if you over-rob, then there is nothing to rob. If you over-kill, then there would be no one left to kill, or rather, you’d motivate so many people to come after you that you wouldn’t be left breathing for much longer. Fishermen, hunters, and farmers understand this, so they get together to self-govern to limit their own activities for their own good.

It turns out that we all have an incentive to care for one another because it serves us more than anyone. Even the biggest, most insane, and most illogical criminal of all — the state — understands this. The state gang of glorified warlords knows when to loosen the collar enough to maximise the plebs’ output, but not too much lest the plebs get accustomed to freedom, and then demand more of it. This tightness of the collar depends on the culture of each region — how much each culture is willing to tolerate oppression — which proves that the type of governance we have depends solely on our collective state of mind. Thus, statelessness is achievable and sustainable if enough people understand it, and finally get over their ridiculous faith-based and erroneous belief that somehow “there would be more crime without the state”.

Spontaneous order

Let’s go back to people always getting together to generate for themselves some sense of security. This is what you already do now — in the little free market allowed by your government — whenever you insure your property, your bodily integrity, and even your life.

So, why the fuck do we think we need the indifferent, corrupt, and oppressive monopoly of the state to monopolise risk management services for our property and bodily integrity, when the mere fact that it is a monopoly guarantees that it will be inefficient, ineffective, and oppressive at it?

Instead, we can have insurance-based, incentive-driven, voluntary, decentralised systems of self-governance founded on absolute consent, in the style of Austrian economics, as described by Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Robert Murphy, and others.

The free market’s tendencies to spontaneously self-regulate and find solutions before the state does — despite the oppressive socio-economic interventionism of the state, no less — prove that there is absolutely no need for a centralised regulator. In fact, centralisation of lawmaking is extremely hazardous, and the fact that humans have survived thus far can be attributed to black markets, tax evasion, and the threat of rebellion and state collapse (all these are getting harder and harder to apply with more and more tech in the hands of the state).

Reading list provided supporting the above; in the age of access to information, there are no excuses for ignorance, just conscious choices.

Conclusion

So again, since every single objection against statelessness applies EVEN MORE to the state, I ask you:

Who is protecting you from the vile crime of the state’s highway robbery, the theft of the vast majority of your labour, so that you waste your life away to survive paycheck to paycheck, with steadily increasing inflation, taxation, unemployment, and overregulation that benefits big corporations at the expense of smaller competitors?

Tell me, how safe do you feel under the threat of war, terrorism, and the deliberate import and funding (on your dime, no less) of self-righteously indignant populations who are brainwashed by your government to hate you, and to demand privileged treatment at your expense?

These are all grave crimes committed exclusively by your government, yet you still delude yourself that somehow “there would be more crime” without this evil of statism? Seriously?

At least without a state, you’d be able to defend yourself personally. Nothing deters crime more than the ability to defend yourself directly and personally instead of relying on some distant cop too busy raping women on the highway under the threat of planting drugs on them, or deliberately destroying lives for the victimless non-crime of owning a plant.

What the fuck is wrong with you people who think like this?

No, there wouldn’t be more crime without government. There would be much less crime without government, and even the punishment for crime in the absence of the state would be much fairer, more efficient, and more effective (corrective).

There are no logical arguments for the state — only emotional ones. Logic is on the side of statelessness. If you are still a statist, check your emotion-based cherished beliefs, and see if you can track your state worship to your childhood trauma that has led you to misguidedly look up to authority-daddy figures.