Sorry. That should read, “And I disagree that I am not a true anarchist if I say “YES” to this question.” My mistake.

To sum up my views more succinctly, if there is an entity or force out there in the world that is MORE oppressive, violent, and/or abusive than the state, then as anarchists, we’ve all been barking up the wrong tree. I am anti-oppression, anti-violence, and anti-abuse. This is why I’m an anarchist. Whatever causes the above must be removed from humanity, and it must be done peacefully, truthfully, and willingly with love. Anarchy.

If living in a free society means that more children than today are beaten, abused, indoctrinated or otherwise harmed, do you prefer the state?

…then first of all, most sensible people are going to drop any notion of not having a state. But secondly, the question itself is simply not possible. The only way it could be possible is if the threat of the state is what prevents more parents and caretakers from abusing children. If you take out the state, you remove compulsory schooling, the single most abusive thing (outside of regular beatings and sexual molestation) that can happen to a child. You also remove the numerous other ways that both children and adults are regularly abused. What sort of abuse will increase after abusive government is removed? The question doesn’t work. And I disagree that I am not a true anarchist if I say “No” to this question. (Although I can’t say “Yes” or “No” to a question I cannot comprehend.)

Then with a question like the following:

If free societies are characterized by more crime, random violence and fraud than statist ones, not counting the crimes of states themselves, do you prefer the state?

I can only say that the question negates itself by saying that the crimes of the state are not included in a stateless society. Of course they’re not, because they don’t exist. Once you remove the state, you remove mass murder, the worst crime known to mankind. It’s another question that doesn’t make sense in any real-world application. Again, the vast majority of people don’t steal, and will seek out protection from those who do, by paying responsible people to protect them. Crime neither increases minimally for a short period of time, nor does it stay the same, if you remove the state, because the state commits the greatest crimes. The crime level has to come down, because the worst criminal enterprise no longer exists.

The reason I am an anarchist is because the state is criminal, and there is no conceivable institution or group of people out there that could ever match its criminality. IF THERE WERE SUCH AN ENTITY, I WOULD OBJECT TO IT MORE THAN THE STATE. It is not possible, hence to create a hypothetical situation where it IS possible is to hypothetically suggest that anarchy is a bad idea, which, in my opinion, is also not possible. So let me propose a question:

If living in a free society means that someone will stick pins in your eyes for eternity so that everyone else can be free, do you support the state?

My reply: Yes. But my reply, like my made-up question, is pointless.

The questions in the blog post are as ridiculous as this one.

The phrase “born again” is beyond a cliche and a joke, now, but it actually refers to a powerful metaphysical concept, IMO. Until you let the “old self” truly die, the “new self” can’t come into being. I see this concept in your questions, because the free society requires a total commitment to the free society. If you want to hold onto “a little bit” of the state society, for any reason whatsoever, you are enabling the state’s continued existence, and preventing the coming of the free society.

Couldn’t you summarize all the questions, in this one single question: “Do you truly want to be rid of the state, or is there a secret area in your heart, where in order to keep *one little thing* the same as it is today, you would ask for the state to remain?” I guess that’s kind of cheating– maybe it’s two questions.

As I discuss in my rather protracted response on my blog, having no formally acknowledged government is a long way from having no state. Somalia is most certainly governed. Everything I’ve read suggests it’s a totalitarian government by a bunch of thugs. Just because they’re not organized doesn’t mean they’re not a state. The same is true for the vast majority (by number) of “stateless areas” on this planet.

The one area you mentioned which is actually stateless is the ocean. As far as why people aren’t “walking the walk” by setting up shop there, I have to say that’s a rather unfair comparison. The moon is equally free, as is Mars, but that doesn’t mean it’s feasible to move there. Try to tell some guy living on the streets of Omaha Nebraska that he can be completely out from under the gun of the government if he only moves to an area at least 20 miles offshore from California and you’ll get either laughed at or met with a blank stare. It’s really not significantly different for most people. Saying “why don’t you” isn’t fair unless you can also show how the person could do it, given currently available resources.

Part of the problem with current states is that they curtail movement by limiting resources and that the alternatives require vast resources to be feasible. Given my current resources, it would do more damage to the movement for me to even try to move offshore than it does for me to stay here and preach to the rafters, even assuming I could which I highly doubt.

Working towards something instead of doing it the impossible doesn’t make one hypocritical, it makes one human.

Robin

IF you could live right now on a stateless geographic area according to libertarian/anarchist principles, would you do so?

The answer I started to say was YES, of course, sign me up now! But the reality is that I, and most readers of this site have chosen (so far) is NO.

I know of many easy, reasonable, stateless options right now that are available to me (and any other readers that desire a stateless home). Somalia, the ungoverned areas of Sudan and Uganda and the two thirds of our planet that are stateless oceans are all available right now, this second, with no government. There are many other areas around the globe where…if you can defend it….it is yours.

Think about Somalia…it sounds like many areas are up for grabs…with no state, no property titles, and no government to stop a group of us from going there, setting up camp, and declaring “Here is freedom, here we will show the world how great a libertarian anarchist society really is”.

Why does this (or some other migration of freedom loving people to a stateless area) not occur? Why am I telling my freedom loving principles to all that will listen….and not walking the walk after a lot of talking the talk? Why am I not writing this from my house in the Somali port city of Eyl while pirating/borrowing my pirate neighbor Awaale’s WiFi account?

Am I really just a common hypocrite? How about you…. why are you are still living in a coercive state?