Danger of unconviction

Do people then understand the principal shortcomings of the state, or do they only see the surface of the problem? This is a very important question, because it determines the survival of a free society when the state is overthrown. It is a crucial question that anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) should address, but they do not.

Robert nozick
Robert nozick

Imagine that we abolish the state today. Right now. After all, it is easy: the state is obviously inefficient and the stupidity that survives only thanks to the institution called the "state" everyone sees and everyone has to pay.

But - radical immediate change for a wide group of people will bring some trouble. These difficulties were not caused by a "free society" and the re-establishment of the state (whatever we call the new institutions) will not solve the problems.

But that doesn't matter. The demise of the state is the simplest explanation for new problems, and its re-emergence will be the simplest solution for many.

What actually happened?

The "big inefficient state" convinced a significant group of people that the state was bad. The state was overthrown and anarchy, a "free society," came. However, there will still be a group of unconvinced that "but still the state is good at something." A group we are not convinced of the inefficiency of the state in its size. This group will influence the masses in the troubled future and lead them to the creation of a new state. And we are where we started.

The worse the better?

It is easy to convince someone that the state is an inefficient and useless institution, for example at a time when the state is a large institution and therefore its badness is obvious.

But how strong is this belief then? Do people then understand the fundamental shortcomings of the state, or do they see only the surface of the problem?

This is a very important question, because it determines the survival of a free society when the state is overthrown. It is a crucial question that anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) should address, but they do not. Today we are building the foundations of the future. How strong people's beliefs about the badness of the state will be today is the cornerstone of a future free society - if we decide today on the existence of the state.

The "the worse, the better" approach is so dangerous, because we can easily convince other people of the inefficiency and indefensibility of the state at a given time - and only superficially. It's hard to imagine what a stateless society actually means. It is difficult for many anarchists, let alone "the others."

Minimum state

That is why we need a minimum state. If you can convince others of the benefits and benefits of a "stateless, free society" when the state is minimal and seemingly successful and effective, you have won.

You have convinced them in much worse and more demanding conditions. If you convince someone of the horror of 1% redistribution, you are convinced of the horror of redistribution as such. About the badness of the state, about the badness of its existence and possible origin.

A free society will then have a much better future.


  1. On the other hand, the less state there is, the better market mechanisms work, so it is becoming increasingly clear that the free market and competition do. Therefore, in my opinion, in minarchism, on the contrary, it is much easier to explain the harmfulness of the state.

    It is now obvious, but this leads to people creating an even stronger idea of ​​its necessity to rationalize the situation. As a result, over time, they completely identified him with society. They live in the illusion that without the state, everyone would start behaving completely ruthlessly and aggressively. They understand that they would not want to do it themselves, but because everyone else would behave like that, they would have to.

    The worst illusion is imho in the belief that "taking justice into one's own hands" is immoral and that punishment, in order not to become blinded by revenge, must be centralized and depersonalized 🙁

  2. @GVKB - machines are not programmed themselves. Machines must be programmed by humans. Defeating a machine in chess is extremely easy - I unplug it and it doesn't even cut it off. I also have no doubt that the author of a chess machine can beat the machine in 100% of cases - he has programmed a backdoor in it, with which he can arbitrarily influence the calculated flow. You got rid of one elite to immediately introduce a new one - programmers. Congratulations.

    ps: The capitalist central system is the oxymoron.

  3. The one who makes the mistake loses and it doesn't matter what the fight is, where there is life there is also a fight for resources for growth and reproduction, so that we can live, we must have resources for growth and reproduction and to have it is logical. The most important thing is to start with only good seed, there can also be a good living system, if the seed is bad, it must be prevented from being able to grow and reproduce, it is not just plant seeds or seeds that give a man to a woman to give birth to a human child. , there are also information seeds from which ideological living systems arise. If there is a problem, it is necessary to solve it immediately and optimally, if the elite does not manage the optimal solution of problems, something needs to be done quickly. In the past, this problem was solved by exchanging people in elite places, but this is no longer enough, it is necessary to replace people in leading positions with modern electronics and technology. If it is no longer possible to defeat the computer in a game of chess, this means that the disinformation ideological holy period ends, when we were decided without us by a selfish ideological and business sect, and the old period of sectarian rule must be replaced by a period when electronics and technology take over. We do not need selfish bureaucrats who parasitize on us, but we need electronic control rooms that will allow us to easily obtain resources for growth and reproduction. You know how much a box of cigarettes costs, and why this product is ten times overpriced, so instead of costing CZK 6, it costs CZK 60. The elite need your money, the elite is not about destroying your health with smoking, it is about parasitizing a lot on you economically, logically the economy and politics cannot work where services and products are overpriced due to the selfish holy elite. If we postpone the constant introduction of science and technology into the management of society, the result must be only a great war, and in this war a logically large number of people will perish and a large number of values ​​will be destroyed. It is easy to change the surface by taking on new clothes, but it is difficult to change our subconscious, which so far thinks only of sex and food, not only is life alive through sex and food, but must also be interested in new programs and new information, otherwise will be punished; war, famine, epidemics, terrorism, drugs, sects, mafias, etc. So far, our cultural civilization is drunk from the benefits provided by central bureaucratic systems, and so in its intoxication it is deaf and blind to the fact that there is an economic and political long-term depression associated with poverty and unemployment. A classic example of the incompetence of the capitalist central system are the poor bureaucratic employment offices, where they do not get you a job or give you unemployment benefits, they just laugh at you and make you have problems. The elite are constantly reaching out to you in the desire to take money from you for taxes and fees, and when you are in need, they no longer want to give you a job or support, what kind of shepherd is his flock.

  4. Simple and true. All that remains is to agree. Personally, I understand that gradual change is always easier for most people. But it often brings with it a large number of secondary problems and above all it is a long-distance run that you cannot always afford.

  5. That is a fact, just look at the "defeat of socialism" of 1989. On the one hand, fine, progress is here. On the other hand, socialism came to us in the West, we have the Council of Europe Mutual máme sorry, we have a ton of regulations, subsidies and quotas that direct the market (certainly not the “free market”) where consumers would not direct it, because it would simply they did not want to. (Yes, I mean the light bulbs, the stupid sugar quotas, etc.) We have the EFSF, the ESM and maybe the fiscal union are just around the corner. On the one hand, we got rid of "hard" socialism, on the other hand, we welcomed hidden socialism. It's quite a question of which is better. Especially when I look at the comparison of the EU and the USSR ( http://youtu.be/yuW0pf7k_I0 ), I am not sure. On the one hand, there was probably a greater will to fight against it today, today the will to fight against hidden socialism is perhaps more real. Unfortunately, by persuading other people, the hard anti-socialist core will dilute. Nevertheless, I believe that this time it will turn out at least a little better. When there are enough opponents even against hidden socialism, they will be more genuine opponents than those against open socialism. I'm a bit optimistic, UKIP and Ron Paul have not won yet, but IMHO is on track.

    By the way, you wrote my agrument for gradual changes yourself. Disrupt state public transport? Not so fast, I would cancel it in the center first. Then I would gradually reduce it on the corners of the city. So people on the margins should have a choice as to how to deal with it. If they do not like the real price, which may be a bit higher than the original, they may move. If state public transport were abolished at once, these people, who received bad information because of the state and relied on it, would have a problem that they could blame for the very abolition of state public transport.

    While reading that even many anarchists can't imagine what anarchy would look like, I remembered "Because it may not be needed at all." , justice, security and regulation of externalities. But even this may be a myth due to the fact that none of us in our lives have experienced anything other than state justice and state police. In fact, there is a theoretical and practical justification that the private market can function in these areas as well and deliver much better results than a state monopoly. "

Comments are off.