Is it possible to have a society without a government?
The Center for a Stateless Society would say so.
Established Tuesday by the Molinari Institute, “a market anarchist think tank,” according to its press release, the Center for a Stateless Society will put forth arguments for free market anarchism, also known as anarcho-capitalism or voluntarism, publishing “news commentary written by anarchists with radically free-market oriented views on economics.”
In the 19th century, economist Gustave de Molinari argued that the functions of law and courts should be handled by voluntary associations rather than a single coercive State, calling such an arrangement market anarchism. A similar political system existed in the Icelandic Commonwealth from 930 to 1262 A.D.
“For too long libertarians, and I mean anarchist libertarians, have treated market anarchism almost as an esoteric doctrine,” said Roderick Long, president of the Molinari Institute. “It’s time to put market anarchism front and center in our educational efforts, time to start making it a familiar and recognizable position. The Center for a Stateless Society aims to bring a market anarchist perspective to the popular press, rather than leaving it confined to scholarly studies and movement periodicals.”
Self-described radical libertarian political activist Brad Spangler will run the project, distributing market anarchist thought across the Internet using “free as in freedom” open source technologies.
“With this site, we aim to awaken more Americans than ever before to the brutal reality that all governments everywhere are essentially nothing more than murderous bandit gangs, and show them the shining light of hope for a world without the State,” Spangler said.
The Molinari Institute is not alone. Syndicated talk radio show and podcast Free Talk Live host Ian Bernard, calling himself a “free marketeer” on air, espouses similar principles on his radio show, and frequently calls for the state to be abolished and replaced with voluntary associations. His co-host, Mark Edge, remains unconvinced that a society without a state could be successful at protecting life, liberty and property.
For quite a long time I also remained unconvinced that such a society could work, for a variety of reasons, but primarily because I’m not sure the human race is civilized enough yet to manage its own affairs without a state keeping it out of other people’s affairs. But after seeing the example of Iceland, and giving it some critical thought, I think a stateless society is quite possible, even with the six billion imperfect humans we have to work with.
Of course it’s going to take a while to work out all the little details, and hopefully the Center for a Stateless Society will get right on that.
(Hat tip)
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Karl Marx would love the popular moves among politicians in various state governments and the federal government to ban so-called "junk" food in schools, and to "put healthy food in" convenience stores and on the tables of those they define as poor. It's a very elitist and arrogant mindset that promotes this ideology, and it needs to be addressed.
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Jerry A. Pipes
Oct 12, 2006
An interesting, albeit humorous, look at what a stateless society might look like is available in Max Barry’s Jennifer Government. It highlights one potential set of problems with a free market justice system, namely justice for those too poor to afford it.
There is also the issue of pollution of our oceans that I have not yet seen adequately addressed by any fellow anarcho-capitalist.
But I too am willing to give it a shot and see how it might work, since I agree with Jefferson when he said, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
J. Bruno
Oct 12, 2006
That book has nothing to do with capitalism. Within the first few paragraphs the main character makes decisions that anyone with the mental capacity of a toaster can see are not in his best interest. I’m sure in the last chapter we’re supposed to be aghast when he runs in front of a bus because government never warned him about nor protected him from such dangers. But I wonder if there’s a chapter in which a semi-socialist government takes over and subsequently jacks up the price of medical treatment to point where few who aren’t corporate employees can receive it. Now that’s the kind of fascism that suspends my disbelief.
Nigel Watt
Oct 12, 2006
Pollution of the oceans? Privatize the oceans.
Jerry A. Pipes
Oct 12, 2006
Privatize the oceans? Nice trick. Even if you could manage a workable system of subdivision and titling, how do you prevent the contaminated water in one parcel of the ocean from spreading to others?
Nigel Watt
Oct 12, 2006
The polluter would owe the pollutees (if that were a word) the cost of the pollution to them.
Jerry A. Pipes
Oct 16, 2006
So the polluter would owe damages to *every* ocean owner in the world? Interesting. Assuming the details of that scenario could be worked out, how would one trace the source of the pollution in the first place? It’s not like a river, where everything is flowing in one direction. Sure, there are some prevailing currents, but I don’t believe it would be easy to find a point source of pollution, especially if it was inside a sufficiently large parcel of ocean. And if one could construct a system that was sophisticated enough to sense and track pollution sources, who pays to build and maintain it?
Dana Hanley
Oct 27, 2006
oh, there are ways to deal with anything in any system. Some of them are deemed a little barbaric…like our nearly stateless Republic of Texas before annexation:
“At one time, Williamson was commissioned by the president of the Republic of Texas to go to a distant county to hold a term of court. As was so often the case in nineteenth-century Texas, the county was divided into factions that spent most of the time cutting each other’s throats. No courts had been held for years. The citizens had recently convened a meeting in which they adopted a resolution stating that no court should be held (afraid no doubt, of the numerous indictments for murder that would be forthcoming). When Judge Williamson took the bench, a lawyer rose up and read the resolution. When asked by the judge to cite authority for such a resolution, the lawyer pulled a Bowie knife, laid it on the table, and said, “This is the statute which governs in such cases.”
Judge Williamson, quick as lightning, drew his long pistol and, in an unmistakable tone, replied, “And this is the constitution which overrides the statute.†[8]
from texasranger.org
Patrick
Oct 29, 2006
I should point out that before the invent of written law, all of humanity was engaged in “Stateless Societies.” Those governing were themselves the governed – your neighbor, your friend, your grandfather. This is the fundamental concept of a tribe – a group of people sufficiently small enough that everyone’s self interest was mutual self interest. Disinterested States are impossible in such an environment; and the advantage of such a system is that the system itself is designed in every way to benefit everyone [essentially] equally.
While inequality is a fact of existence, wealth was not a tabula rasa for elitism; it meant merely that there was more to share.
I am not speaking of the Noble Savage. Such a creature never existed, and ‘harmony’ as so many like to hold onto never existed. But, humans did understand their relationship to the world, and in general respected it (and when they did not, the offenders were usually killed. Harsh, perhaps, but when someone kills more than they can eat, it compromises the security of *everyone’s* food source).
Law as we know it changed all that. State-laden societies are only possible when two things are true:
1. The populace believes the law to be a real object, not one we merely invent for our convenience.
2. The populace believes ‘the state’ to be a real entity, also not one we merely invent for our convenience.
Both these are the consequence of one simple fact: Humans have a large enough brain that our ability to abstract allows us to believe that our concepts are as real as the rocks and trees around us. When we can conceive of our abstractions as concrete objects, we become as imprisoned to them as a criminal in jail.
Stateless societies ARE possible.. but not for us, not anymore. We’re too big, now. To far away from those we’d govern. No mutual self interest.
Jerry A. Pipes
Oct 30, 2006
The Icelandic Free State referenced in the original posting would seem to contradict your claim. It seems that the “tribe” can be organized/subdivided in any way that the members find agreeable. Your argument has merit, I think, but to me it is a stronger argument *for* stateless societies, rather than against them.
As a society grows without bound, how can a monolithic government hope to serve the needs of the people equally? Sheer efficiency will dictate that the needs and rights of the majority will be respected while the edge cases are ignored or oppressed. A state is necessarily a one-size-fits-all solution. A stateless society may not be capable of providing the “services” that we have all come to expect from the Nanny State, but it is also incapable of putting a boot to your throat. Which, in the end, is far more important.
Jul 21, 2007
How to stay out of government databases - Homeland Stupidity