Is Limited Government Better Than No Government?

This is a transcript of a discussion from my Discord server.

The forward ( > ) symbol indicates “responded to”.
Example: Freddy > Jason (Freddy responded to Jason)

Satchit Prabhu
Friedman vs. Helfeld Debate Whether no gov is better than limited gov:

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Friedman had no answers to Helfeld’s real world scenarios other than those that reflected the govt institutions we now have. He even admits that he has no proof anarchy would work or is moral. Helfeld had to debate the moderator as well as Friedman. LOL

Satchit Prabhu
Friedmans answers were pretty clear in response to helfelds hilariously exaggerated real world scenarios. helfeld continuously ignored the role of economic incentives to keep a lot of bad behaviour in check. He later said that economic incentives aren’t enough hence he thinks we need to have a state monopoly on things like rights enforcement, he trusts a state monopoly but not competing agencies. Helfelds examples were incredibly hilarious ( like the one where he said an agency could go on an all out war to protect a certain client at the order of the CEO, and the employees would listen to him because he was really generous to them which would lead to violence and war). He doesn’t even think about how economic incentives would prevent such a thing from happening, and the fact that there can be a lot of other safeguards such agencies would eventually have to offer to clients to assure them that such a thing won’t happen. However helfeld instead wants a state monopoly (which throughout history) has been doing the very same things he’s afraid that one competitor in the rights enforcement agency might do.

Making people give away part of their income under the threat of being put in a cell is not a moral thing, ‘not’ doing such a thing however is moral. Sure there are no historical proofs of a totally anarchic system, but there are instances where anarchy has been largely adopted in certain parts of society. (decentralized property rights in china, feud law in iceland, etc.) there’s no doubt that the states important functions can be replaced by the private sector, both in theory and in many historical examples.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Satchit Prabhu
“the role of economic incentives to keep a lot of bad behaviour in check.”

…was one of the funniest Friedman’s fantasies.

“Helfelds examples were incredibly hilarious ( like the one where he said an agency could go on an all out war to protect a certain client”

I guess like Friedman, you are unaware of the time it was like that. Take for example the Homestead Steel incident. There Frick hired the Pinkerton men to confront armed strikers, a riot and fatality ensured. The govt had to send 8,000 troops to put an end to it. Friedman’s positions were rather child-like.

Satchit Prabhu > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
The role of economic incentives would work due to the fact that they will constantly deal with each other in the future (friedman repeatedly brings up the law of constant dealings). When firms have hundreds if not thousands of clients, waging even one war or even a small scuffle would 1. cost the firm making their services more expensive 2. could lead to them losing clients to other firms which can offer cheaper services by not engaging in conflict. When both firms see this they will be forced to decide on a third party to pass a verdict on conflicts for the sake of minimizing costs and for the satisfaction of their customers wellbeing (mainly not being involved in physical conflict or having their property damaged in such a situation).

About the homestead steel plant incident, or any riot or conflict for that matter.

1) People would have private security agencies that’d protect them from such conflicts, either individually or in an area or neighbourhood.

2) Governments have many at times had delayed responses to such conflict, and political interests can even change the way they handle incidents like this. This wouldn’t happen in a stateless society.

3) the incentives to carry out riots would be much lower in the absence of a state since there would be no chance of criminal bail outs for the richer party, laws in a stateless society could be built such that incidents like this would be better dealt with, the collateral damage caused by private agencies handling riots would be much less than that caused by governments handling riots, governments can in such cases have almost no accountability to damage of property. After all they don’t need to worry about losing clients or money.

Hey, look, there’s no proof that a world without theft, rape, and murder would work—show me a single historical example.

If you moralists want anyone to take you seriously, you’re going to have to advocate something more realistic.

Satchit Prabhu
The AnCap Police Conundrum:

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Satchit Prabhu
Good. Someone saved me from reciting Freidman’s fantasies. They ignore the time when there were many private railroad companies, oil companies phone companies, car companies, social media companies only to have them consolidate into the hands of a few that could set prices, run others out of business, restrict free speech, stop workers from unionizing, keep their employees in debt to the company (company towns), subject their workers to unsafe working conditions – the list goes on.

But hey, people have changed. They are more into personal responsibility, less govt, free speech and exchange of ideas, rugged individualism, self-sufficiency, trusting business/corporations, insurance companies, preparers of contracts, etc. – NOT!

Satchit Prabhu > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
cartel pricing, regulatory capture, expensive and restrited licensing and bailouts exist because of government intervention.

So economic regulation by government inhibits the innumerable benefits of free trade and opens the door to institutionalized corruption, but free market trade has no failsafes against extreme divergences in resource accumulation and private corruption…

Hmm… If only there were some solution that could offer the best of both ideas without any of the pitfalls… Oh wait, there is. It’s called contributionism, the combination of Natural Law property rights and voluntary contribution.

Indigenous Americans simply call this respect and sharing, a common sense expression of man’s tribal nature. But to the products of lifelong satanic psychological manipulation, nature’s way sounds like fairy tale insanity.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Satchit Prabhu
That is true, for the most part, today but NOT true prior 1900 and with few exceptions in more recent times. Hell, the phone company (at&t) wasn’t de-monopolized until 1984. Before that, you couldn’t even own your own telephone. Microsoft’s monopoly was broken up in 2000.

Satchit Prabhu
“Police, courts and prisons represent a very small fraction of government expenditure, and poor people at present pay taxes, sales taxes directly, property taxes indirectly, which they would not have to pay in a stateless society. Areas of poverty have grocery stores and barbershops, they would have private rights enforcement firms as well.”

— David Friedman

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Satchit Prabhu
So, poor homeless people would have to pay some firm to have their “rights enforced”? Interesting. I wonder where they would get the money. I’m sure nobody would ever be taken advantage of.

Satchit Prabhu > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
They already pay for rights enforcement in the form of taxes, also private alternatives are always lower in costs when compared to government ones.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Satchit Prabhu
“private alternatives are always lower in costs when compared to government ones.”

Always? I’d need proof of that claim. I don’t think real life history supports that claim. The average govt assistance the “poor” can get is about $29,000/yr far more than they pay in sales tax per year – yet they get rights enforcement. So, in Friedman’s society they wouldn’t even get that and would have to pay some private firm to enforce their rights. No wonder Friedman’s ideas haven’t caught on in the history of mankind.

Looks like Friedman and you are focused on rights enforcement firms but have nothing to say about how modern infrastructure would be financed and built. Like Helfeld points out, in the 900,000 years of humans living in anarchy, no real progress was made – not until people formed “states”. Friedman should have studied more human history instead of chemistry and theoretical physics.

So, where do the poor and homeless get their money?

Satchit Prabhu > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
1) To be more precise, the private sector will always provide a good at a lower cost than a state can (when the goods are identical). unless of course when the state intervenes, reduces market competition with regulations, fees, and other interventions that hinder the functioning of a truly free market. All studies right now make these comparisons in mixed economies (basically every nation is in some way or the other either taxing companies and their profits, or implementing a host of other policies and rules that have negative side effects). One big thing is that governments have little or no incentive to make their products or services cheaper in cost (after all they do implement monopolies in a lot of places and in some cases have no market feedback. They also get all their money by taking it away from the citizens). Private Competitors in a free market are continuously forced to innovate in both cutting down costs to make products cheaper and more accessible for the masses, if not they’d loose customers and hence revenue to run the company. Governments do not face the possibility of losing consumers (lot of places they’re involved in are either monopolised or regulated). Also, why would government actually want to cure any social problem like poverty? the growth of social problems is a case for the growth of government, hence it’s not in the interest of government to solve many social problems effectively or in time(or at all and even have an incentive to worsen them).

2) private rights enforcement will be cheaper than current government ones (market competition incentivises efficiency and low costs while maintaining market standards). When costs borne are lower when in a group, people would most probably join or create communities or areas where these costs are voluntarily borne by the participants, such that the individual costs borne would be lower. This’d most likely cut down costs even further in general.

3) Private Charity

4) Government intervention in the economy, things like minimum wage, and a host of other actions have caused a lot of unemployment(or prevented potential employment). In the absence of political incentives and the likes poverty would be less of a problem in a stateless society than it is today with the state.

5) Also, humans have been around for 300,000, not 900,000 years. Correlation doesn’t imply causation. The first states started around B.C.E 3000, and I’m pretty sure people were trading and creating new tools, services and many things before the existence of the first states/kingdoms, granted during primitive times when many elements weren’t discovered and the field of science and engineering were virtually non existent. Though the case can be made that states funded a lot of scientific discoveries that influenced mankind a lot, they’ve also prevented many innovations from going mainstream early on or made it tough for them to do so. Things like contributing to the end of fraternal societies, state sponsored events like The Spanish Inquisition which negatively affected scientific growth, regulatory capture, subsidies, letting skewed political incentives offer grants to only certain theories or fields in science which may not be the best or even beneficial. not to mention the millions of people killed in state sponsored wars, imagine the amount of potential progress lost due to the action of the states.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Satchit Prabhu
1) Theory not supported by the history of laissez faire of the 19th century.
2) Theory not support with actual factual evidence.
3) Didn’t work when that’s all there was.
4) Agree on the minimum wage point, the rest is theoretical.
5) There is NO example of an anarchist system in 2021 that began from wilderness and has provided all the modern infrastructure that people to day demand and want. Friedman fails to recognize this FACT. Apparently he spent too much of his time in theoretical thought. He could have learned more from his dad – but then children most always rebel from their parents ideas and beliefs.

You seem to miss the point Helfeld makes regarding LIMITED govt. You point to issues of UNLIMITED govt. Limited govt would not have all that power to interfere.

Satchit Prabhu > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
1) Wtb the 19th and 18th century? Didn’t the industrial revolution begin and flourish in those years which lifted a lot of people out of poverty. There are many graphs and a lot of data that show how many countries (especially Britain) saw a rapid decline in poverty during this time.

2) In the case of private enforcement of law or any comparison of private vs public production of goods and services, there have been no co-existing instances where we can empirically compare the efficiency of private and public rights enforcement agencies, we can compare it through different periods in history but doing so would ignore a huge number of changes in factors, environments and a lot of other things. In such a situation theory proves to be extremely useful since it can be logically deduced in our heads. I have provided my theory and reasoning as to why private companies in a truly free market will always provide a certain good or service at lower costs than a government can. If you do believe this reasoning is wrong, I’d like to see you provide a different theory as to why government can in some cases be more cost effective than competitors in a free market

3) Sure it’s not the only thing, though it can help in a way. Keeping this in mind I’ve provided many other points to support my claim that private REA’s would be affordable and cheaper in costs than govt provided ones.

4) Inflation hurts the poor, minimum wage hurts the poor, cartelisation hurts the poor, these are just a few of the many.

5) I agree there aren’t any systems recorded, but there’s definite proof that all of the important functions we associate with the state can be done in it’s absence, there are instances in history where this has been the case and has worked well (property rights without the state in china, feud law in iceland). Proof that the important functions of the state can indeed be replaced both in theory and in practice.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Satchit Prabhu
1) If true, why did the people of the US turn away from laissez faire in the Progressive Era and demand govt get involved to regulate many area of their lives and dissolve big industrial business monopolies and trusts?

2) Theory is simply theory. True results cannot be quantified by any present examples. Examples of historical results are available, however.

3) You’ve given theory not evidence.

4) I agree. Those things wouldn’t exist in Helfeld’s limited govt.

5) Not only are there not any “Friedman” systems recorded, there are none that exist today. There is no evidence (proof) that anarchy can produce the complex and modern infrastructure people of the last and this century demand. All you and Friedman have is your theories. If anarchy was such a viable and productive way to live – people would have gravitated to it and built their society upon it. It would be widely observable on planet Earth. The contrary, however, is true.

Satchit Prabhu > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
1) Check out this book called the creature from jekyll island, talks a lot about how the government orchestrated public support for bringing in a federal reserve. Also the 1st world war saw a lot of nationalisation in many countries by their governments to fund the war effort.

2) True, theory is theory, but it is valuable. historical examples cannot be compared since non have existed side by side in the same environment or time period to make any valid comparison. Too many historical, cultural and other factors can hinder comparisons. In such situations theory is invaluable since we can compare two theories without the need for taking into account the immense difference in factors and environments during the time of these comparisons. Ancoms point towards the catolanian anarchist communities of spain as proof that the concept of private property is not needed for a society to function(proof that ancom is viable, or proof that it was atleast a form of left anarchism), but never bother to explain in theory how this would work(they can’t). The documented history of this society can be found in many different view points (owing to the historians bias, lack of data/writings, etc). In cases where history proves to be insufficient or unreliable in making comparisons or stating facts, theory is invaluable. Again, if you object to my premise which his backed by my theory, I’d like to see you give me valid reasons as to why or how a government could in fact be more cost efficient than the private sector at providing goods and services.

3) I have again provided my theory as to why private entities always provide goods and services at a more cost effective rate than the government in a truly free market. If you disagree I’d like you to provide some valid reasons or provide a theory as to why or how the government can in fact provide goods and services at a more cost effective rate than private entities in a truly free competitive market.

4) Even if it won’t exist in Helfelds ideal minimal state, I can’t see it not trying to grow bigger and bigger. I don’t see any reason to believe that a state(even a minimal one) would avoid the incentives to grow in size.

5) There are, Icelandic law lasted and flourished for 300 years, there are many cases where law has worked in the absence of states. Friedman has written a whole book on these examples. There have been examples as to where entire societies have worked under anarchy.

Saga period Iceland was almost entirely anarchic (except one arm of law which was the judiciary), anarchic societies existed in the Vedic period of indian history. Anarchic societies have mostly not dominated the world mainly because

1) Societal misconceptions of anarchism and the nature of the state.
2) Government treatment of anarchic societies
3) Lack of land (seasteading is already attempting to solve this hurdle )
4) Government monopoly on money (cryptos now solve that)
5) Lack of understanding or investigation into how institutions would look like or function under anarchy. (Easier to conceive a ruler deciding everything than a free market organising society)

For God’s sake… If the tribe can’t even protect its own without demanding direct recompense, just cash out, people, we ain’t worth the air we’re breathing.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Satchit Prabhu
1) Read that book when it first came out. Also read The Secrets of the Federal Reserve when it came out in 1983. I’ve studied the fed for over 40 years. In Heldfeld’s minarchism it wouldn’t exist. “War is Hell”, Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman

2) You miss my point. None of your historical references rebut my point. There is NO example of an anarchist society – today, on planet Earth – that was carved out of wilderness and today provides all the complex modern infrastructure demanded by people living today. There IS observable evidence to the contrary using some form of govt. You haven’t presented a viable economic premise to rebut. In my 72 years of Life I have seen projects that could not have been accomplished as efficiently and economically without some form of govt – meaning cooperation of all the members of a community.

3) I stand on my position supported by actual history as far as infrastructure goes. I would add national defense history. But for retail/consumer “goods and services” – I agree, free market exchange works best.

4) I live in a community that has a govt that has not and does not try to grow bigger and bigger. One could say it practices minarchism.

5) Examples that don’t meet my point. However, you do point out the frailties of anarchy which make it unviable in a modern world.

Have you ever studied the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era of the US? Here’s a fun enlightening video:

Satchit Prabhu > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
1) it wasn’t supposed to exist according to the founding fathers either, but again my point is that states have a very strong incentive to get its hands on money, and more often than not they do.

2) You still haven’t given me a single reason to believe how or why a government would provide goods at a lower cost than the private sectors in an unregulated free market. Pointing towards historical examples is practically useless since a) there are no good examples of truly free markets and b) lot of factors that can influence this. This is the same reasoning used by minimum wage supporters, point to some article saying unemployment didn’t drop after minimum wage was raised, but completely unable to provide a constantly testable theory or explanation as to why. The theory for why minimum wage causes unemployment/undermining small businesses is sound and clear, the theory for why it doesn’t is non existent. If you can’t understand this or can’t give me any reason to think otherwise by giving valid reasons or counter theories as to why the private sector won’t always be more cost effective than government then there’s nothing else I can do but to wish you all the best.

3) Again, history is a really bad premise to stand on, especially when it’s the only premise, unbacked by any theory. It’d be great if you could give me a theory as to why the government sector is more cost effective than the private sector when it comes to building infrastructure and providing defense.

4) your whole system is dependent on the fact that a power monger doesn’t come up and start expanding, if a system depends on a good, almighty, all benevolent , honest minarchist politician to keep itself running and afloat, then that’s a terrible system. Which has never happened, this is why small government will inevitably always grow big.

5) I agree, there are no completely anarchist societies in recorded history, but there are definitely proofs of societies that have had all its major functions handled by the market, proof that it has been tried and has actually worked really well, and that the essential functions of the state can indeed be replaced both in theory and in practice.

And yes, there’s no place for anarchy to even start or grow mainly due to governments being vehemently against any such society even though there are many willing to take part in them. That’s why I believe seasteading will help solve this problem of governments hindering or stopping the start and growth of anarchist societies.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Satchit Prabhu
1) Agree, but it is not absolute.

2) I haven’t made an argument for govt to provide “goods” nor I have I said govt is better at providing retail/consumer goods. I actually said the opposite. I only referred to infrastructure and national defense. Giving real life examples to challenge your theories is valid. I’ve also rejected minimum wage as a good idea. You keep trying to shoehorn my position into an unlimited govt. It’s almost like you’ve never heard Helfeld’s arguments. I wonder if you have much experience in local govt operations to understand the efficiency and economy of the building of complex modern infrastructure. The bidding process, the selling of municipal bonds or utility stocks vs taxation for financing, the hiring of private companies, etc.

3) Premises based on actual evidence are more valid than those based on theory.

4) My local govt – the only govt I interact with has not grown in the 40+ years I’ve been there and before that. The govt can’t rule us because we ARE the govt. Power mongers do not exist.

5) There has been a place of anarchy in California for over 50 years called Slab City. Check out how modern it is. You seem to miss my point again about an example of anarchy that has gone from wilderness to modern conveniences. So, I guessing one has not and does exist in modern times. NO, I’m sure of it.

6) If you had the resources you could buy a lot of remote land and pretty much live in anarchy without govt interference. How do I know? I’ve done it for decades. Trouble is, I’ve only “met” philosophical anarchists who are more into typing on the internet than taking action to live closer to anarchy. js

Satchit Prabhu > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
2) You still haven’t given me a reason as to why government would be better at providing national defense and infrastructure than the private sector in an unregulated free market.

3) Not when actual evidence is historical evidence with little evidence of many other influential factors, especially when you can’t explain why or how in theory. You still haven’t given me a theory or any reason to believe that government is more cost effective than the private sector at providing national defense and infrastructure.

4) Power mongers don’t exist??

5) My idea of anarchy (and that of friedman) is one in which the institutions described that would replace the ones currently under government control would be in existence. It’s no surprise that if government suddenly ends tomorrow life would be horrible, chaotic and not ideal. There are ways to reach the anarchy me and friedman describe. Huemer has a whole lecture on it.

6) It is a way of getting as far away from government as possible, but you’ll still be subject to its laws, its courts, and its policies. As I said, seasteading is a much better alternative.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Satchit Prabhu
2) That’s because you haven’t given any valid example that your premise is true. Nothing to rebut. I don’t argue opinions.

3) See above.

4) Your grasp for the obvious is astounding. That’s what I wrote.

5) Speculation on yours, Friedman’s and Huemer’s part.

6) That is contrary to my REAL experience the past 40+ years. It is YOUR opinion that seasteading is a better alternative. Have YOU personally seasteaded? If not, that is simply your speculation.

So far, all you have is speculation and opinion. Uncertain foundation, imo. Tell which of these people you refer to and depend upon actually presently or in the past lives/lived in anarchy. I’m guessing NONE. I could be a “power monger” in my community because I am the wealthiest person but, we aren’t wired that way.

Satchit Prabhu > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
1) I’ve clearly explained why the private sector in a free unregulated market has a much higher incentive to be cost effecient than the government, you still haven’t explained why this doesn’t apply to defense and infrastructure fsr.

2) Again, you can point to historical examples which are practically useless since there aren’t any which we can compare without involving a ton of other factors such as how much govt regulation existed, wether the government monopolised it or not, etc. which skew the entire thing. However you could’ve explained why government is more cost efefctive than the private sector at providing national defense and building infrastructure, which you have not or have been unable to.

3) a) people who bend institutions to fulfill their own satisfactions/desires to increase control over other peoples lives that end up hurting the public do exist(AKA power mongers) b) We are the government? Only those who willingly take part in it can say that, and imo they have no right to impose their beliefs, rules or dictums on other peoples lives who don’t want to take part in it.

4) Yes, haven’t denied that. Speculations and theories based on how such a system would logically work and how it’d be better than the instituitions in place today, how similar systems have worked before and how they could work or come to be in a stateless society.

5) So you have the leisure of using any non government court you like? Any system/set of laws you prefer? Any currency of choice you like, etc? Seasteading doesn’t impose any system of law, regulations,currency or security. If you want to live in a stateless society with 0 influence of a government institution, it’s obviously better than living in govt territory. Give me a reason as to why living in government territory (no matter how deep in the woods) is a better place to expreience or test out anarchism than in a place outside of any government territory.

6) The foundation is theory that’s been logically derived from basic facts like incentives and other economic facts, and the intent to build a stable and flourishing society absent from coercion. You still haven’t provided any theory as to why the institutions me or friedman describe would fail. Instead you point to history as an objective argument which is frankly the most subjective and corrupted record where we have no control or at times even knoweledge of the variables at play. And after all this time, you still have been unable to give any objective, logically deducable reason as to why the institutions me and friedman would fail, why government is more efficient than the private sector at producing infrastructure and national defense. Instead you point towards subjective interpretations of history which involve variables we don’t apply or don’t even know about as objective arguments against logicaly deduced theories of how institutions would work in a certain environment with variable we do know about(stateless and free market).

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Satchit Prabhu
1) Yes that is your unsupported premise. In other words, your opinion and I don’t debate opinions.

2) You have pointed to historical examples of what you say is anarchy society. Govt’s have in fact produced massive complex modern infrastructure. You have no such examples of anarchy or a free market accomplishing the same. So, you have nothing to support your premise. Those govt examples that are financed by bonds or stocks, would logically have to be efficient and economical or no one would buy the bonds or stocks to finance the project.

3)a) Not relevant to my community example, b) Not relevant to my community

4) There are no similar stateless systems that started from wilderness and possess modern infrastructure today, right now, existing. There’s a reason for that.

5) I haven’t claimed my homestead is better than seasteading because I know of NO examples of successful seasteading for 40+ years (like my homestead) with which to compare.

6) The example that you and Friedman’s fantasy would fail is that there have been no such societies that have met my requirements and are in existence today. Where and how did they go? Why isn’t anarchy (stateless societies) a standard replicated all over the Earth? Half of the Earth? 25%? Tell me why. And I’m confident my deductions are arrived at logically and rationally.

Satchit Prabhu > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
1) So in your opinion, logic or reason isn’t a support for proving your opinions to be right? Isn’t that what you’ve been doing throughout the whole conversation?

2) I pointed out historical examples of certain institutions that have existed without government, not examples of anarchy. Govts gets money through money taken from citizens (taxes), private companies do not. They have less of a guarantee of surviving if they offer a bad service in comaprison to a government monppoly and hence are more incentivized than the govt to provide goods at a cost effecrive rate. Complex insitutions haven’t come from a free market??? We would have had better institutions if people were allowed to have unregulated voluntary exchanges. Markets regulated by politicians who have poitical incentives are in no way better than unregulated markets. We haven’t had many truly free markets throughout history (the reason isn’t that free markets are bad or that regulated markets are better)

3)The possibility of power mongers existing in any govt institution isn’t relevant to communities run by governments??

4) the reason isn’t that they’re unfeasable. I gave many reasons as to why anarchist societies/free markets aren’t mainstream.

5) a)Seasteading as a means of escaping government control is a relatively new idea b) Still can’t understand why you’d think homesteading in government territory is a better way to test institution and societies in the absence of government than in a place where government is absent.

6) I’ve given those reasons already, let me repeat them
1. Societal misconceptions of anarchism and the nature of the state.
2. Government treatment of anarchic societies
3. Lack of land free from government control (seasteading is already attempting to solve this hurdle )
4. Government monopoly on money (cryptos now solve that)
5. Most importantly, Lack of understanding or investigation into how institutions would look like or function under anarchy. (Much easier to conceive an all knowing benevolent ruler organizing society than a free market organising society).

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Satchit Prabhu
1) Not without observable empirical evidence. Otherwise, it is an untested theory. I given examples that actually exist.

2) “Saga period Iceland was almost entirely anarchic (except one arm of law which was the judiciary), anarchic societies existed in the Vedic period of indian history.”

Now you choose to deny this comment? Private companies get money from people too. One difference is the customers have no say so in the price, especially if all the private companies decide to join together as one and price fix and limit competition. There are plenty of REAL life examples of that. The US in the 19th century was the closest to a free market that has existed, imo. Btw, you insinuate that free markets have spawned complex institutions and then say there haven’t been many of such markets.

3) You seem to think govt is some alien entity that has a life of its own. Govt is just people and my community is made up of people. You can call us govt but we just call ourselves neighbors who “run” our county of, by and for ourselves. I would think even a “stateless society” would do that. Friedman seems to think so.

4) Well, if anarchist/free markets aren’t mainstream, perhaps they are simply rejected by humans as a way to live with other humans. Or maybe they are incapable of defending themselves.

5) a) I would like to see seasteading provide all its energy (gas and electric), all its food, drinking water, sanitation totally self-sufficiently. My homestead does that and more. b) your understanding is not my problem. I assume you have never homesteaded or seasteaded.

6) so, anarchy can’t survive in a large community like the US as a whole.

Satchit Prabhu > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
1) Well I guess the fact that no totally anarchic society that has the institutions me and friedman existed in history is to my disadvantage, Isn’t proof that it won’t work, there have been institutions that have existed without government. Proof that government isn’t neccesary to carry out the essential functions we generally ascribe to it. Both in theory and even in practice.

2) Saga period iceland wasn’t an anarchic society though it was the closest, To clarify Vedic anarchic societies were more like communes independent of the kingdom, but even in this society kings had a monopoly over the currency in their territory.

3) No anarchist would have an issue with people voluntarily coming together to form societies to support each other, This would most likely happen even in anarchic societies. The problem arises when people don’t even have a say in wether or not they want to exist in such a system or face the consequences of it. In an anarchist society, no central authority can impose laws saying that people can’t voluntarily come together to form their own communes or gated communities that function like a government. They same cannot be said for government treatment of anarchist societies.

4)That could be one reason as well, it’s no surprise that people prefer to live in the company of others, this behaviour/tendency isn’t something antithetical to the concept of anarchy. The problem arises when a government assumes a monopoly on force and doesn’t allow people to freely assosciate in they way the want to (having their own market of courts, legal systems, defense,currency and banking etc). There are many ways anarchists societies can defend themselves, and are also less prone to invasions from outside entities owing to the fact that they’re decentralized and hence much tougher to take control of, unlike governments where the way to take control is to invade the capital and take control of the tax system of the entire country.

5) The point I’m trying to make is that if you want to test out how anarchist societies would work and how they’d function without government, It’s logical to do it outside the territory of government within which you are subject to government law, courts, defense and currencies than to do it inside government territory. Seasteading is a way to test it outside the rule of government. How else would you test it out?

6) Depends, it won’t survive if government is suddenly abolished and people are forced to adopt anarchism tomorrow. If all or the large majority of people in the US favour anarchy then I see no reason as to why it wouldn’t survive. Not that all individuals would have to live on their own, communities (small and large) would arise as people generally prefer living in communities, and with the institutions me and friedman describe, being a free market for law, currencies, Defense, etc.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Satchit Prabhu
1) I’m not disputing that humans lived in anarchy for some 900,000 years and even more recently in limited numbers. My point is and has been that there are no present day anarchy society built from wilderness with modern day infrastructure. And yes, that is a hurdle you cannot clear.

2) Thank you for that clarification.

3) You’ve made the most salient point of Helfeld’s argument. There is no way an anarchist can practice their philosophy in an already established contrary philosophy. It would impossible for an anarchist to assimilate into the latter.

4) And anarchists already live where people have chosen to have the govt as it presently exists. That’s the anarchists problem. They’re only about 1% of the population and the other 99% are not about to give them special treatment, rights or privileges. As such, anarchist will continue to live frustrated lives as long as they remain in the company of the 99%. The anarchist’s only solace is to seek out those of like mind where their biases can be confirmed and reinforced.

5) We agree that an anarchist would have to find someplace without govt. Good luck with that. You got a plan you’re working on? Plan your work, then work your plan. I did.

6) I don’t think there is any risk that govt, as an institution, will be abolished in your lifetime. The trend is to the contrary.

I enjoy and respect your spirit and passion for what you believe. I am all for diversity of thought and dreams. I planned my Life 50 years ago where I could live with my kids and grandkids (that would be hard seasteading, lol) away from society and most all of govt. I have succeeded. I live as close to anarchy as is humanly possible in the US.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
“I have succeeded. I live as close to anarchy as is humanly possible in the US.”

Aren’t you proof that anarchy can work?

Juan, are you saying that there must be a successfully thriving group of people/community without government for anarchy to even work?

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
I think I am proof that anarchy can “work” on a small limited community as long as everyone wants to be a beneficial asset to the community – wants to give and not always take. My county community is VERY small.

I’m saying there is no way anarchy and statism can coexist in the same community. The philosophies are incompatible with irreconcilable differences.

ⒶMP3083 > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Ok, so the answer is yes. The reason I ask is because I’m defining anarchy as action and non-action. In this case, the non-action means to dissociate oneself from the state.

If I pay a friend to fix my car, that’s anarchy/voluntaryism at work — there’s consent, the work is done, the transaction is made and no coercion was involved. Government is out of the picture. So, non-action = not using the government, and dealing with another person voluntarily = action.

I suppose you can make a case of anarchy “working” or “not working” on a large or small scale, if you want to look at it from than angle. But, if anything is done – be it by one person, a community or a society – and the government is not involved then it is anarchy working as I described above.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > ⒶMP3083
In the context in which you are tailoring a description of anarchy to fit a certain scenario, I guess that description would support that anarchy “works” in such cases. However, that’s quite a stretched and tortured description of anarchy. But hey, whatever cocks your pistol.

In my and the general description of anarchy there would necessarily need to be a thriving community for it to be considered a successful stateless society. I don’t think your scenario creates a stateless society. It merely creates an exception to the “statism” in which you live.

ⒶMP3083 > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
“I don’t think your scenario creates a stateless society.”

Probably not, but it’s a start, and I think your community, although small as you said, is a great start.

“It merely creates an exception to the “statism” in which you live.”

Of course.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > ⒶMP3083
Yes, I was lucky finding such a community. I think in this instance – size matters. lol

Satchit Prabhu > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
1) yes

2) yes

3) True, the problem anarchists see with the state today is that a) it’s a forced monopoly who’s authority over individuals isn’t justified. Anarchists won’t mind if in an anarchic society a group of statists want to start their own private commune where people voluntarily join to be part of a system which has a monopoly on things like law, defense and security. The problem arises when this system is forced upon others who have never agreed nor are allowed to leave.

4) The anarchist doesn’t mind if some people in anarchist societies do decide to create their own communes/gated communities which function like a government. But do mind when this is forced upon unwilling participants who have no ability to choose wether they want to be in such a system or wether they want to leave.

5) For now yes, I don’t believe in violent revolution as a way to bring about positive change and for now I think the best way to convince people that anarchists societies are indeed better than government ones is to have real life examples. Seasteading provides this opportunity.

6) Sadly yes, But the way I see it more and more people are seeing problems with the state. Our future is imo both bleak and bright.

Anarchy doesn’t mean no communities. In fact I belive the majority of people will decide to live in communities under anarchy. Statists can create their own communtities where a small group of people within their communities make decisions that affect the lives of individuals in the community, however they cannot force people outside to follow such a system with the threat of force if they end up disagreeing. That is what it is today. You can’t leave.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Satchit Prabhu
“In fact I belive the majority of people will decide to live in communities under anarchy.”

As we used to say in the 60s – keep the faith, baby.

The ”it’ll never happen” or ”it’ll never work” arguments (or general attitudes) are particularly troubling because they have at their basis the idea that our position and advocacy should be informed by our speculations, rather than principle.

Speculations are informed by our current circumstance and personal state of being, so if we’re using that as our basis, it will be difficult to see possibilities that vary significantly from those already expressing in our lives.

It’s an unnecessarily and unrealistically limited view (though justification for its adoption is typically founded on claims of its practicality or real-world accuracy), and it’s a critically important psychological weapon against freedom that’s purposefully and prolifically promoted in the general culture.

If there be any faith to keep, it’s faith that Truth will always serve best; that working with the inherent properties of the universe will yield more benefit than trying to utterly supplant them with our own ego-will.

This is no great feat for any thinking or feeling person, and so our course is clear: Seek Truth, advocate and embody its prescriptions as much as possible, and know that this will always “work” to the precise degree adopted.

What others will do is out of our hands and need not be factored in to this decision. We are not charged with trying to devise systems that “work” best; we are only to choose our own position, and the world becomes the total of all these individual choices.

Join our Discord community!
Let’s have a LIVE chat!

Find me at:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s