I’m a minarchist libertarian.

This means that while I hate the concept of coercion and use of force on innocents by an entity called “government,” I grudgingly admit that in the real world, human beings like governments, so we’re forced to put up with them. This is acceptable as long as you keep government as small, local, and decentralized as humanly possible, for as long as possible.

This is not my opinion; this is proven to work; the United States prior to 1913 and Hong Kong prior to the 1990s are clear historical examples of the wondrous things that happen to societies and economies when you keep government as small as you can for as long as you can.

If I dislike government so much (and I do) and know that government is as destructive and harmful as it is, why am I not an anarchist? Or specifically, an anarcho-capitalist, who believes there should be no government and that the private sector can pretty much figure anything out?

Well, my anarcho-capitalist brothers aren’t wrong, in that yes, given enough creativity and technology (and you need a lot of both), I think the free market can indeed take care of just about everything we rely on government to do today. This includes things like roads, courts, military, and so on.

That’s not why I’m not an anarchist. Instead, I’m not an anarchist for the same reason I’m not a communist or true (dictionary version of a) socialist. It’s because anarcho-capitalism, like communism or true socialism, is utopian. Utopia is false. There’s no such thing. There never will be.

You can’t organize large groups (as in millions) of human beings in the real world around utopian concepts. I don’t care if you’re talking about communism or anarcho-capitalism. Granted, I would happily take anarcho-capitalism over communism if those were my only two options, but that doesn’t mean anarcho-capitalism wouldn’t actually accomplish anything.

This is because, as I’ve said before, if you waved a magic wand and made all governments in the entire world disappear, that’s great, but the problem is by 8am tomorrow morning, human beings would immediately start forming governments again. There would be no way to stop them. And most people would accept them. Because humans like government.

I don’t like that they like government. I hate that they like government. But they do.

That’s why anarcho-capitalism will never work on any large scale in the real world. Humans like government too much. That fucking sucks, but those are the facts.

So, based on this undeniable reality, I reluctantly back down one level and instead I’m a minarchist instead of an anarchist. If you want government, okay you morons, fine. But you’d better keep it as small as possible for as long as possible. Unlike anarchy, that’s actually possible. (Certainly difficult, but possible.)

One caveat to all of this is that I said anarcho-capitalism will never work with any large group of people in the real world.

I think it would work very well with small groups or regions. For example, if the USA declared that the state of Wyoming (population of about 500,000) was now an anarcho-capitalist region, with literally no laws, no taxes, and no government protections for anyone at all, instead of a violent Wild West type cluster-fuck that the left wing fears, I think the world would be stunned at how well it would work. I would probably move there myself. Yes, seriously. But that’s just a small state with half a million people inside a civilized, high-tech society. You couldn’t do this with the USA at large, or England, or China. People would just start forming governments again.

I also think that in the far future we will see virtual anarcho-capitalist societies with VR or some future nanotech version of the internet, somewhat like the dark web of today (which I consider a primitive precursor to a virtual anarcho-capitalist “world”).

Take some virtual worlds on some encrypted, international servers using nothing but untraceable cryptocurrency, and boom, there’s your anarchism… just in the virtual world instead of the real one.

I love my anarcho-capitalist brothers and I agree with them completely on a philosophical level. I will even go to Anarchapulco one of these years and I’m sure I will have a great time. But sadly, I’m stuck being a minarchist libertarian instead of a full-blown anarchist.

Facts suck sometimes.

39 Comments on “Why I’m Not An Anarchist

  1. Why do you think that a 500,000-population society can embrace anarcho-capitalism?

    Even in the villages of the past, humans formed tribal councils and elected village chiefs. It’s human nature to shirk responsibility/freedom. Or do you think technology somehow changes that?

  2. Hey Caleb,

    I’m curious…while I logically agree with your points, there’s still some things I don’t get.

    Since the US kept the Government as small as it could (before 1913 as you stated), why was it still a mess in terms of certain social functions?

    For instance, the Wild West Era is generally considered to be between 1800 and 1900. Conventional wisdom has it that the Wild West was a crime ridden, politically corrupt, Mad Max-esque hellhole, with frequent economic recessions and bank failures.

    What’s your take on this?

    Hollywood programming? Or is there more to the story?

    Anyone else have different interpretations?

    By the way, what happened to the US in 1913 and Hong Kong in the 90s?

  3. Why do you think that a 500,000-population society can embrace anarcho-capitalism?

    I didn’t say they would embrace it. Most of the current residents would probably dislike it. But capitalists and entrepreneurs from all over the place would go there and boost its economy into the stratosphere.

    Even in the villages of the past, humans formed tribal councils and elected village chiefs. It’s human nature to shirk responsibility/freedom. Or do you think technology somehow changes that?

    No, there would still be chiefs. That’s unavoidable. They would be business owners instead of politicians. Business owners chiefs are less bad than politician chiefs since business owners can’t force you to do things (unless you live in a corporatist society like we do, but anarcho-capitalism isn’t corporatism).

    Since the US kept the Government as small as it could (before 1913 as you stated), why was it still a mess in terms of certain social functions?

    It wasn’t.

    For instance, the Wild West Era is generally considered to be between 1800 and 1900. Conventional wisdom has it that the Wild West was a crime ridden, politically corrupt, Mad Max-esque hellhole, with frequent economic recessions and bank failures.

    False Societal Programming, as usual. Do some more research before you accept societal bullshit. (I have a strong feeling you went to college and learned that bullshit there):

    https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/01/11/wild-west-myths/

    https://www.ranker.com/list/wild-west-misconceptions/nida-sea

    https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-old-west

    http://www.cracked.com/article_20372_5-ridiculous-myths-everyone-believes-about-wild-west.html

    By the way, what happened to the US in 1913

    1. The creation of the Federal Reserve.

    2. The instigation of the federal income tax.

    3. The instigation of direct election of senators.

    and Hong Kong in the 90s?

    1. A slow push to the political left (as what happened in the USA in the 90s)

    2. Capital flight due to fear of the the 1997 China takeover

  4. I thin XXX’s Xander Cage (Vin Diesels best movie, along with the Riddick series IMO) is what really got my mind thinking about Anarchist mentality (even though I didn’t know it at the time).

    How that dude didn’t give a Fuck about Authority, didn’t partake in  Passive Aggressive Behavior/Pettiness, The Government, or any Status Quos. Even small details how he wasn’t a sellout when offered his own video game, is cool with Ruby Rose’s charterer even though she is obviously LGBT (being that the charterer was made in the year 2000 when gays were much more persecuted/shunned in society) because in the end a true Anarchist mentality knows that if one person isn’t free to do what they want/live how they want than none of us are really free. He really never a desire to Dominate others either, he was just his own bad ass. The opening scene is him undermining Authority of a crashing a Politicians car. He chose Courage to be himself versus Conformity.Essentially a Competitor that wasn’t Competitive (which Alpha 1.0/ Beta’s who keep work extra hours to keep with the Jones can’t wrap their heads around).  He even made remarks that his lifestyle wasn’t about making money.

    Xander Cage true Alpha 2.0 in his own way, aside from breaking the law to risk jail time.  Essentially he was a True Unchained Man.

    This got my mind turning on adopting that mentality.

    This Article Confirmed a lot more of it: https://fractalenlightenment.com/33998/life/five-unexpected-signs-you-may-be-an-anarchist

    I compared this to my own life and noticed how I don’t give a fuck either. Long before I identified as a Libertarian or found your work.

    The Bottleneck I see on Anarchy is that majority would want (even if they say they don’t) to take everything from the rich and redistribute it in the end. SO WE WOULD LOSE Economic Freedom.

    AND/OR than take Somalia where War Lords will horde food from starving people.. We may have that problem with full blown Anarchy. 

    Which is why I agree with you Caleb, that Minarchism is the way to go.

    Which the USA can get to in small steps, maybe start with getting closer to a small Republic type government.. I’m kidding we know that’s never going to happen.

    But first the West will have to Collapse before we get there.. It’s not the Republicans actually believe in Small Government or the Democrats actually believe in a Free Society. 

  5. Xander Cage true Alpha 2.0 in his own way, aside from breaking the law to risk jail time.  Essentially he was a True Unchained Man.

    Very true.

    Which is why I agree with you Caleb, that Minarchism is the way to go.

    I’ve studied every type of government in great detail, and minarchsim is the least bad one of them all. Pretty much all the rest are based in irrationality, utopianism, or authoritarianism. Minarchism has problems too, but not as many as the rest.

    But first the West will have to Collapse before we get there.

    Correct.

    If we ever get there at all.

  6. OT, but what was that thing you were supposed to speak at called? Did it already pass, and did you actually speak at it, since you said that it wasn’t a sure thing or something?

  7. For example, if the USA declared that the state of Wyoming (population of about 500,000) was now an anarcho-capitalist region, with literally no laws,no taxes, and no government protections for anyone at all, instead of a violent Wild West type cluster-fuck that the left wing fears, I think the world would be stunned at how well it would work. I would probably move there myself.

    So would I, that sounds amazing. Almost like Acendia lol.

    I agree with a lot of this article. While I do believe that Anarcho-Capitalism would be the best society (with Anarcho-Communism being a very distant second), I know how unrealistic it is. What IS realistic is Minarchism (with Libertarian Socialism being a distant second). I don’t like admitting that.

  8. OT, but what was that thing you were supposed to speak at called?

    Freedomfest. Click here.

    Did it already pass, and did you actually speak at it, since you said that it wasn’t a sure thing or something?

    It already passed, I attended but didn’t speak, but I’m booked to speak next year (July) and I will have a booth there in the trade show manned by Pink Firefly, my son, and a few other people.

    What IS realistic is Minarchism (with Libertarian Socialism being a distant second). I don’t like admitting that.

    Agree.

  9. Freedomfest.

    I don’t think that was it. There was one with Roger Allen Currie and a bunch of other self improvement gurus in it. They were charging over a thousand if I recall, and it lasted for three or four days. Anyway it seemed interesting, but a bit out of my price range.

  10. I don’t think that was it. There was one with Roger Allen Currie and a bunch of other self improvement gurus in it. They were charging over a thousand if I recall, and it lasted for three or four days. Anyway it seemed interesting, but a bit out of my price range.

    That’s the 21 Convention. It hasn’t happened yet, it will happen in October (11th – 14th), and yes I will be speaking there (on Oct 12th).

  11. Thanks. Didn’t mean to derail, it’s just your mention of Anarchapulco reminded me of it, and I had lost my phone which contained that info. Looks like I’ll have to wait till next year for both events. Would you say that your experience at that event warrants a review post on this blog?

  12. I don’t know why you hate that people like government.  Governments provide stability.   In the end, humans want stability over almost everything else.  It’s the same reason a lot of Iraqis preferred life under Saddam to the new regime.

    I agree that the anarchist dream is a utopian fantasy.   It’s never existed before; the closest approximations to true anarchy have been during wars or afterward and have generally been horrible in terms of living conditions.

    As for your faith in markets, I’m more skeptical.  I think for small populations and communities where everyone knows each other you could have a completely market based system of social interaction.   But when you get populations of a certain size, markets become vulnerable to systemic collapses because at a certain size of the market in certain situations it is rational for each individual market participant to act in a way that has an adverse outcome for society as a whole.  E.g., bank runs and stock market crashes.  Government can help stabilize these situations.

    You also have to have a way to enforce contracts for a market to work on a large scale when anonymity becomes a problem.  This generally means having laws and ways to enforce them (which means having government).    Furthermore, it’s not clear whether markets can by themselves without any governmental support can create things which require a lot of startup capital and a generational investment horizon. In the US at least, there have been a lot of government subsidies to boost industries like computer technology (including the Internet), aviation, fossil fuels, pharmaceuticals and infrastructure. I’m sometimes amazed how much technology we use was connected to a governmental grant or project.

    I guess what I’m saying is you have to have a government, with all of its problems, once your population size exceeds a certain size (probably a few hundred people), to ensure not only stability but functioning markets as well.
     

  13. I do believe in the feasibility of a private law society (aka anarcho-capitalism) and I believe that a common error is to assume that peoples’ wants decide anything regarding politics, as if most of history were a result of collective mood swings. The transition to a primitive lifestyle to feudalism, and then from feudalism to Industrial Age mass democracy and then to the next stage haven’t happened because people got tired of the state of their societies but because they were forced from one system to another due to incentives caused by important factors that shape political systems regardless of popular will (climate, technology, microbiology (plagues, pandemics), etc).

    People might dislike the idea of a private law society today, and see it as “too extreme”. But will eventually turn to one even if without acknowledging it or to something that closely resembles it due to the decentralizing effects of microprocessing technology and many other socio-political factors. The world is in a race towards decentralization since the half of the 20th century and states have been and are constantly breaking into smaller ones left and right as decades pass. The future will be one of thousands of small and overlapping sovereignties competing for people’s patronage via voluntary “taxation”. In a few decades from now people will be able to “vote with their feet” easier than it has ever been before and bigger states will accelerate their downfall.

    I do believe almost worldwide minarchism is going to be a fact within our lifetimes and, in that context, some places the first private law societies will emerge.

  14. Also, Caleb, I wanted to buy your book The Unchained Man in Ebook form and it is asking me for personal information like my personal address and name.

    Do you have any way for people to buy it without giving such information? (specially the personal address)

  15. I don’t know why you hate that people like government.  Governments provide stability.

    Government murdered 262 million people during the 20th Century. Is that stable?

    It’s the same reason a lot of Iraqis preferred life under Saddam to the new regime.

    Would you like to live in Iraq under Saddam?

    If your answer is no, why not?

    bank runs and stock market crashes. Government can help stabilize these situations.

    You are speaking emotionally and have not done the research.

    I suggest you look up how many bank runs and stock market crashes there were in the USA in the 137-year small-government era between 1776 and 1913, and compare that to the number and severity of bank runs and crashes after 1913 during the big government era. I think you’ll be surprised at what you find.

    Furthermore, it’s not clear whether markets can by themselves without any governmental support can create things which require a lot of startup capital and a generational investment horizon.

    Explain all the innovations and inventions in the USA before 1913 then.

    The world is in a race towards decentralization since the half of the 20th century and states have been and are constantly breaking into smaller ones left and right as decades pass.

    True to a degree, but you’ve also seen big governments on overdrive during this time as well. Look at the growth of government in the USA from 1998 – 2018 (as just one example).

    The future will be one of thousands of small and overlapping sovereignties competing for people’s patronage via voluntary “taxation”. In a few decades from now people will be able to “vote with their feet” easier than it has ever been before and bigger states will accelerate their downfall.

    I do believe almost worldwide minarchism is going to be a fact within our lifetimes and, in that context, some places the first private law societies will emerge.

    That would be fucking awesome! But I do not see this future. I’m sure we’ll get some of that as the West collapses, but I think you’ll still have many big, stupid governments and nations around.

    I’m happy to be wrong on that though!

  16. In a few decades from now people will be able to “vote with their feet” easier than it has ever been before and bigger states will accelerate their downfall.

    Most people are complacent. That’s why AnCap won’t work. Not enough evolutionary pressure.

    For example, in absence of a police force vigilantes of some kind will form, and these will of course do a poor job of protecting freedoms, but there will be no way of improving the situation. Most people won’t care that some “minor” rights are being infringed upon and will respond neither by fleeing nor by protesting.

    A well-designed small government would uphold a clearly defined social contract first and foremost. Not sure what exactly to do with the inevitable fact that most people are stupid and have to be herded in some way.

  17. almost worldwide minarchism is going to be a fact within our lifetimes

    Rampant corporatism, perhaps to the point of de facto feudalism with multi-trillion dollar companies becoming more powerful than many states and automation and advanced AI making the vast majority of people useless – and thus at the mercy of the overlords, since by definition if AI beats you at everything you can no longer “pull yourself by your bootstraps” – , seems a more likely scenario.

    I hope it’ll turn out better (and I think it’s possible), but the above is clearly more plausible than “near worldwide minarchism in our lifetime”.
    Some may want to reframe the lordship of the megacorps as ancap because they’re “private” but clearly they’d be de facto ‘governments’, not much different than those of pre-modern capitalism.

  18. Government murdered 262 million people during the 20th Century. Is that stable?
     
    Sorry, new to the site so not sure if I’m using blockquote correctly.  The article you cite uses the numbers for Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia during Stalin’s regime and China, among others.  You can’t equate “government” as an institution with the worst genocidal regimes all the time.  A better tack is to compare stability under liberal (in the classic sense of the word) Western democracies?

    Steven Pinker makes the argument in The Angels of our Better Nature that this actually the safest time in human history to be alive, in part due to there being the most pervasive presence of stable governmental institutions.   It’s worth reading for people who have a romantic view of how nice people behaved in the past.

    As for your point about Iraq, it’s a misleading question.  I’d rather live in the US than in Iraq under Saddam, of course, but I’d rather live under Saddam then the current Iraq regime.  Christians were safer under Saddam than under its current government.

  19. You can’t equate “government” as an institution with the worst genocidal regimes all the time.

    What you just said makes no sense. Those genocidal regimes are governments.

    A better tack is to compare stability under liberal (in the classic sense of the word) Western democracies?

    Again, you’re not making any sense. You don’t cherry-pick the unusual and least-bad examples of a thing to show if that thing is good or bad. You look at the thing as a whole and make your determination from that.

    Are you actually reading what you type?

    Steven Pinker makes the argument in The Angels of our Better Nature that this actually the safest time in human history to be alive

    Correct.

    in part due to there being the most pervasive presence of stable governmental institutions

    Incorrect. It’s because of technological growth and globalization, not government. Government doesn’t make peace (by and large). It makes war.

  20. Antikirrt

    “Rampant corporatism, perhaps to the point of de facto feudalism with multi-trillion dollar companies becoming more powerful than many states and automation and advanced AI making the vast majority of people useless – and thus at the mercy of the overlords, since by definition if AI beats you at everything you can no longer “pull yourself by your bootstraps” – , seems a more likely scenario.”

    How do these companies become “multi trillion dollar companies” if there are no jobs and people have no money to buy their products and services?

     

     

  21. [As an argument for government] most people are stupid and have to be herded in some way.

    That’s where private law courts, security agencies and many other private alternatives step in.

    You may say that people want safety, and that’s when they give up their freedom to a government so they don’t have to bother about it, but what happens once when governments can’t provide neither and it becomes glaringly obvious even to the general public? They will begin using the tools they will have at their hands not to contribute economically to the Leviathan Government, which at some point only a vague sense of civic duty will be the only thing preventing from doing so. Then governments won’t have the resources to provide anything, and will be replaced by such companies.

    The only reason governments still exist is because the tools for financial rebellion haven’t become widespread among the masses, which keep paying more and more income tax, which if they knew a way out of, would stop paying in a split second.

    The reason we still believe in the validity of a government is because we still think in terms of the 20th century nation-state paradigm.

    In the 15th century happened exactly the same. Feudalism was the paradigm and it was shattered by technological inventions like the printing press. Microprocessing will be the end of the 20th century nation-state paradigm, and just like in the 15th century; wishful thinking, customs and traditions and make-believe won’t be enough to keep the dying system from being replaced with something else better.

  22. That’s where private law courts, security agencies and many other private alternatives step in.

    You may say that people want safety, and that’s when they give up their freedom to a government so they don’t have to bother about it, but what happens once when governments can’t provide neither and it becomes glaringly obvious even to the general public?

    This is self-contradictory. Giving up freedoms to private law courts is OK but to government it’s not OK? Courts of law, private or otherwise, have to have some sort of inescapable power or they make no sense at all. And if there are clearly written laws that are enforced, this is the definition of government to me, even if you were to put the label “private” on it for some reasons.

    It’s true that even a good government is very likely to cease efficiently providing the essential services expected from it, but in anarchy those services are even more likely not to be present in the first place.

    The only reason governments still exist is because the tools for financial rebellion haven’t become widespread among the masses, which keep paying more and more income tax, which if they knew a way out of, would stop paying in a split second.

    Now this I would tend to agree with, as opposed to your general message. However, I would rather say that the masses are too stupid and/or lazy to vote with their wallets and/or feet, because ways out of taxes are one Google search away. This is highly unlikely to change, so if you have just bought an island and are designing a nation, you must take this into account.

  23. Jesus Caleb, the links you used as “evidence” that the Wild West wasn’t a shithole are terrible.

    Not only are they nowhere near a primary source, but they’re literally all Buzzfeed-style clickbait articles. Most of them don’t even have citations for their “facts”!

    Come on, man.

  24. the links you used as “evidence” that the Wild West wasn’t a shithole are terrible.

    Great. Then instead of attacking some of my links while I’m trying to prove a negative, why don’t you show me your links, that all cite their “facts,” that show the 1800s in the USA was a “a crime ridden, politically corrupt, Mad Max-esque hellhole.” Can’t wait to see them!

  25. “Rampant corporatism, perhaps to the point of de facto feudalism with multi-trillion dollar companies becoming more powerful than many states and automation and advanced AI making the vast majority of people useless – and thus at the mercy of the overlords, since by definition if AI beats you at everything you can no longer “pull yourself by your bootstraps” – , seems a more likely scenario.”

    How do these companies become “multi trillion dollar companies” if there are no jobs and people have no money to buy their products and services?

    The transition towards that point will still have lots in common with current time: jobs still existing but slowly losing to automation, and this will take many decades, so in the meantime the trend does show increased concentration of wealth for both individual billionaires (soon trillionaires, perhaps by the early 2040s) and mega-corporations. And then when the transition is complete these entities would have quasi-feudal type of power over the “useless people”, ie almost everyone if AI out-skills humans on every front, by definition.
    I wouldn’t bet too much on what I said in that quote, but I do think it’s a (worrying) possibility.

  26. The transition towards that point will still have lots in common with current time: jobs still existing but slowly losing to automation, and this will take many decades, so in the meantime the trend does show increased concentration of wealth for both individual billionaires (soon trillionaires, perhaps by the early 2040s) and mega-corporations. And then when the transition is complete these entities would have quasi-feudal type of power over the “useless people”, ie almost everyone if AI out-skills humans on every front, by definition.
    I wouldn’t bet too much on what I said in that quote, but I do think it’s a (worrying) possibility.

    What would be the benefit of these companies holding multi trillion dollars of wealth if they already have the power over the masses via AI? In an organic economy (earn and spend), the ones with the most money hold the power? In a fully AI economy, the power would be one of intelligence advancement and not monetary wealth?

    At this end point what value would the dollar wealth be to the companies as they do not require this to hold power over the masses?

    Would the new power not be measured in technological advancement and holdings in AI technology and not dollar wealth? Is your vision one of transhumanism where the mass population are fused with AI and require no money to exist?

  27. Sailormack, are you trolling? Reread my comment. The whole idea is that during the transition, which is quite slow, there is such a thing as money and trade, so of course it’s useful to have trillions. What you said applies to the end result, and I’m talking about the process leading up to the end result. Of course it’s bloody useful to have trillions when the trillions are what gives you access to the best AI/robots and to the best means of further developing them till it makes both money AND people useless to you!

    Is your vision one of transhumanism where the mass population are fused with AI and require no money to exist

    I repeatedly said that I found my hypothesis worrying and that I hoped it wouldn’t be realized. I don’t have a personal and thorough vision of where things should go, I was expressing my view of where it might pessimistically go, because current trends unfortunately make it plausible.
    As for transhumanism etc, let’s leave that for another day.

  28. Great. Then instead of attacking some of my links while I’m trying to prove a negative, why don’t youshow meyourlinks, that all cite their “facts,” that show the 1800s in the USA was a “a crime ridden, politically corrupt, Mad Max-esque hellhole.” Can’t wait to see them!

    No. I’m not going to do your research for you. I have a business to run and girls to fuck.

    I don’t have a dog in this fight. I have no idea what the 1800’s were like, but what I DO know is the links you posted don’t even remotely support your point. You honestly shouldn’t have even posted them, it makes you look bad. I like your writing for the most part, but shit like that erodes my trust in your intellectual honesty.

  29. Actually, because I don’t want to give you the chance at a smarmy reply going “see I told you guys he didn’t have any sources”, here’s an article from an actual university:

    http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/

    Go ahead and take a look at the graph that says “Estimated Long-Term Trend in American Homicide Rates”. Unless you’re a fan of murder, it looks like you’re probably wrong.

    That was just from 5 seconds of Googling. Do your research before you start making outlandish claims. If I had time I’m sure I could find plenty more evidence, considering it took me no time at all to find that.

  30. here’s an article from an actual university

    All that article shows is that there was a brief spike in the homicide rate due to the aftermath of the Civil War. That’s it. Your job is to show me that the 1800s America was a “a crime ridden, politically corrupt, Mad Max-esque hellhole”, which your article didn’t even come close to doing, so feel free to try again.

    Now, for future reference, see what I did? I actually examined your link, read it, and commented on its contents in regards to the argument we’re discussing. I didn’t just wave my hand, call it bullshit, and then run away. That’s how this is supposed to work if you disagree with someone about something. Food for thought.

  31. I am reading the anarchapulco, dude “Life Unchained”:

    We are excited for you to join us for our 5thyear where our unparalleled line up of speakers will share with you ways to LIVE UNCHAINED through entrepreneurship, investments, politics, philosophy, health, sustainability, and personal relationships for four days among the sun and beaches of a world-class resort. We are expecting 3,000 people this year and it will sell out! Join the movement and get your tickets for Anarchapulco 2019 today.

    You would totally fit there as a speaker!

  32. What about some form of what I called “digital acratia”. Meaning no elected representatives to make and vote laws. Instead, anyone can propose any law through a completely online system, where anyone can push, modify, and vote for laws. Any law proposed would have to pass various steps before being enacted. People could decide to delegate their vote to anyone else for a given law or a given group of laws (ideally with fine granularity). They could decide if the delegation of their vote can be cascaded or not (A delegates to B who delegates to C results in C votes for A, B, and C). And many other features, etc.. etc… Also, as Elon Musk suggested, laws would have an end date of validity or an automatic deletion mechanism, so that the number of laws would remain low and only pertinent laws can survive.

     

    When representatives would be needed, they would be temporarily chosen randomly in the population, like the jury for a judgement in court. They would have very limited power and would be given a very limited and defined task to accomplish before being freed of this duty. For instance, such representatives could perhaps be chosen to do the job to verify the constitutionality of a given law which got the necessary amount of votes to be passed, and before it is enacted.

  33. Direct democracy, you mean? Doesn’t solve the main problem of people being stupid, and presents as many new problems as you’d expect in a design-by-committee situation where the committee is nation-sized.

  34. *”Digital acracy”, I mispelled earlier

    Well, the online system has the advantage to offer many possible features. For instance with delegation of the votes and a certain rating or track record of voters, I would certainly delegate my votes related to certain topics where I have no particular interest or opinion either to someone who is a public figure such as Caleb Jones in the matter of businesses legislation for instance, or even just a friend who I feel has a better understanding and more involved than me, and he may himself delegate our votes to some expert in the matter for certain particular laws.

     

    So there is a much more organic and progressive level of power trusting than with representative democracy where basically people just vote based on the face of 2 to 3 candidates and their stupid promises. Also if someone trusting a lot of delegated votes were to be proven wrong or deceptive through his track record, the system could allow me to instantly remove my delegated votes from him.

  35. The US is collapsing.
     
    The USA is an immoral bankrupt warmongering police state.
     
    The US is heaven now if you love tyranny.
     
    The US is hell now if you love freedom.
     
    The US failing in every area. Alcoholism, drug use, suicides, homelessness, and STD’s are rising. Test scores are falling.
     
    Everything is a lie now.
     
    Americans are hypocrites. Obama is called a jerk for destroying the US with wars, debt, and tyranny, but Americans then turn around and say Trump is a god for supporting wars, debt, and the police state.
     
    Americans say that they are victims and blame everyone except themselves for the collapse.
     
    Americans are so enslaved today that they attack anyone who criticizes their beloved government overlords.
     
    Americans walk around like zombies pretending everything is just fine even though the decay is obvious.
     
    Anyone who questions the wars, debt, and tyranny is called a fag, retard, nutjob, or racist and is censored, banned, given an IRS audit, arrested, or killed.
     
    The US only has 5 Libertarians now, but they’ll go to the concentration camps defending freedom because they can at least say that they tried to wake people up.
     
    How can Americans look in the mirror now without feeling complete disgust and shame?
     
    How can you let your country fall and say nothing?
     
    WTF?
     

Leave a Reply

To leave a comment, enter your comment below. PLEASE make sure to read the commenting rules before commenting, since failure to follow these rules means your comment may be deleted. Also please do not use the username “Anonymous” or “Anon” or any variation thereof (makes things too confusing).

Off-topic comments are allowed, but Caleb will ignore those.

Caleb responds to comments in person, but he only does so on the two most current blog articles.

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search.