But You Always Need a Government \ stacker news ~libertarian

2749 sats \ 53 comments \ @kepford 25 Jun libertarian

Lately it seems like I keep noticing people that are sympathetic to anarchism and libertarian ideas completely misunderstanding governance. It really seems like this might be one of the biggest mental blocks people have. I wonder if it is mostly the fault of libertarians and anarchists.

Those in the liberty movement (broadly) rant and demonize the government. This is completely justified. I've done it for years. I've noticed that more experienced communicators will tend to say "The State" instead of government. Years ago I heard someone explain how to think about three terms often used incorrectly.

The country is the land
The nation is the people
The state is the government

I don't recall learning this in school. It is possible it was in a textbook but I doubt it. The country part I think most people do get. Nation less so. The best example of a nation without a country are Native Americans. Tribes are nations without a country (their historical lands). Tribes have their own governments and a certain amount of sovereignty in the lands they are allowed to inhabit.

The state is the word that I have found most people are confused about. People used to tell me, you hate the government so much. Why don't you leave. Well, I don't hate the nation(people) or the country(land). It is the governance system I hate. I don't even hate the people that are working in it.

Its funny to me that people on the red or blue team seem to hate the government when their side isn't in power but if someone points to issues in the system itself, well that's just crazy.

So what about those people that are sympathetic to libertarian values? Many of them say things like this. Well, I agree with you on taxes and the corruption of the government. But you always need a government. My usual response is yes. You do need governance. But you don't need a state or government. My home is governed by my wife and I. Businesses have their own governance models. Bitcoin does as well. But we do not need a single entity with a monopoly on violence.

So why is there so much confusion on this topic? I think there are two reasons.

The first is ignorance. The state of the world is largely invisible to most people. We are purposely kept ignorant of how our world works. The State isn't really discussed as a separate entity from the country and nation.

The second reason for the confusion is how libertarians and anarchists communicate. There are some that just foolishly believe people do not need governance. Honestly in my experience they are either just young or do not think deeply enough. They haven't steel manned their arguments yet. In my experience this is a small percentage of people though.

I think people in the liberty movement just need to do a better job communicating ideas. Instead of saying we need to get rid of the government one might say we need to get rid of the state. Another way to lead into this is to speak about the empire vs. the government. Talk about the monopoly which the state holds. How competition leads to better outcomes vs. monopoly.

What do you think? Have you noticed this hurdle as well? I think many people hear good ideas and agree but assume we are just dummies that believe in a fairy tale.

If private or decentralized governance is interesting to you, you might enjoy reading Chaos Theory by Bob Murphy. Its short and answer many common objections to private governance.

view all related items

176 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 25 Jun

Since the slavery has been "abolished", democracy was the only remaining option for the state compulsion that most people will accept.

Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves.

Once they believe that, they make wonderfully submissive slaves. SLAVERY BY CONSENT.

76 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 26 Jun

"Democracy is a suggestion box for slaves." - Stefan Molyneux

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

Consent. The comments in this post have been making me think about that! Another topic few even consider in relationship to the state. Did I ever agree to any of this? If not how is this valid?

If only about 50-60% of people vote and of that number only a small majority pick a ruler... are we really being ruled by the consent of the people? What if you reject the system? You don't consent. Then what? When you start asking these questions people get angry or shut down.

People get angry when their assumptions are challenged.

55 sats \ 1 reply \ @SpaceHodler 25 Jun

There is also the public education, funded by taxes, and the system-reinforcing media. People are brainwashed from their early days with their own money and all they know is that someone needs to rule them or there will be chaos, Mad Max style.

It works for most, because most are happy with the limited amount of freedom they have. Those for whom it doesn't are a minority. The solution I think is for that minority to carve out freedom e.g. through defensive tech, rather than impose it on others through a systemic, top-down change.

If democracy is the problem, the reclamation of freedom must be unilateral, not democratic. By those who want it, for themselves.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

You mean government education. There isn't much public about it.

I think bitcoin is a huge part of the solution. Then breaking up these massive states like the US into smaller nation states. IMO its just a matter of time until it happens. Unlike many I don't see a state like Texas becoming independent as a trigger to civil war. I see it as the most obvious prevention of civil war. The current trajectory of politics in the US is really unsolvable. The most rational solution to me is peaceful division. The status quo is frankly absurd.

I don't see the state falling in my lifetime or even in the lifetime of my children but I do see the US becoming smaller, breaking into smaller units in the next 100 years. And I think this is far from a bad thing.

76 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 25 Jun

I try to be clear when writing or speaking, but it can be complicated when people are not even accustomed to the use of "state" in this context. In those situations, I may relax and use "government" because I'm confident they will interpret that the way I would "state".

I've used "regime" more often lately. "Empire" has always been a good option for certain circumstances.

More and more though, I try to focus on appealing to people's inclination towards consent. When you point out consensual alternatives to the current coercive systems, people seem to be receptive.

76 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 25 Jun

"Empire" has always been a good option for certain circumstances.

You said the word "empire"?

😂😂😂😂

76 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 25 Jun

I love how ambiguous that quote is.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

Yeah, all great approaches. People come from different places and even the time/place can have effect. Consent is a good one for many people. Governance vs Government is one I use too.

76 sats \ 2 replies \ @IamSINGLE 25 Jun

Sadly “regulations” (laws, edicts, and such) are needed for people to operate and live in a collective environment. When such “collectives” (community groups not communist collectives) interact with other communities someone must speak for the community as a whole. That requires some form of “governing body”. They can be elected or appointed by the people and called head elder, chief, or governor, or mayor.

This all means that a form of government is required for control and interactions with others outside the community.

The problems come when the government becomes more important than the people that it governs and when it thinks that IT provides for the people rather than correctly believing that the people provide for the government.

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

If you are interested in understanding a different perspective from your current one I would recommend reading "Chaos Theory". Its short and to the point. Law predates the state. Private law exists today and law would continue without a state. For what its worth I used to hold the same position that you hold. The courts and law were one of my stumbling blocks. Its an understandable one.

Another way to look at it is the field of international law. When there are disputes between states how does that work? There is not super state that is over the whole earth( The UN is a joke). There is a court system for such disputes. The deeper I have dug into the subject of the law and the state the less I see a need for a state.

66 sats \ 0 replies \ @IamSINGLE 25 Jun

I agree your pov snd would definitely read the book. Thanks for this interesting article

86 sats \ 1 reply \ @cristaiji 25 Jun

Bizarrely I know educated people who have not thought deeply about these issues or hold an overly simplistic view. So yeah the way we speak to them could have a big impact. For example I know somebody who I think had never considered that collectivist rhetoric could be deceptive and manipulative. When I pointed it out he went silent and didn’t have an answer. I think that’s indicative of the indoctrination inherent in socialist countries.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

That's a good point. I like this analogy.

One fish says to another, the water is warmer today. The fish replies, what's water?

Most people are more practical and less abstract. Most are less curious than those that tend to align with the liberty movement. This is my experience at least and after reading "The Righteous Mind" I think it is something we are born with.

I've also noticed that people react to being questioned differently. If someone asks me a question I don't have an answer to or haven't thought of I tend to enjoy it. I will reply that is interesting, or I need to think about that. But most people I know do not react this way. Some get defensive and will really make fools of themselves. I usually just let it go and consider them unequipped for deep conversation. Others just shut down like you describe. I find that these people just change the subject. They either aren't interested in the unknown or new, or they feel insecure talking about things they haven't been trained in.

The vast majority of people I have interacted with in my life are like the person you know. They just repeat what they have been trained to think and when confronted with evidence just get quiet. Its kinda sad to me.

65 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatsMate 26 Jun

From my worldview - I think there will always naturally form some type of leadership. Whether that is a council, some steering committee or the resourceful - someone will emerge at the top, and over time things will need to expand - they will fill in roles, policy, structure, etc. hence government. The issue is the continuous expansion of government and the fiscal irresponsibility of it.

65 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 25 Jun

I think it is a case of learned ignorance. Similar to how people can't seem to fathom the concept of non state issued money, they also can't fathom the concept of governance without the state.

The greatest trick the state ever played is indoctrinating the masses into believing their subordinance is a good thing.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

This is why the state will never give up their schools.

65 sats \ 3 replies \ @Coinsreporter 25 Jun

Some governance is necessary. I think what is ideal is a small government with a lot of decentralization.

11 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

Governance is always needed. Governments (the state) is nothing but a monopoly. A crime family if you will. This is the point of my post? Did you not get the point? Do I need to communicate differently?

I would love to see a much smaller state (government) but they tend to grow, not shrink.

65 sats \ 1 reply \ @Coinsreporter 25 Jun

I understood your point. Kindly understand my point. I'm not against your points.

What I want to say that I also hate government as much as you do. But, I don't understand how can governance be there without a government? There can be small decentralized government setups for smaller economies. These economies would set their rules and be ready to serve the people.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

If you would like to understand I suggest you read the small book I linked in the original post. I think it is easiest to think about the separate functions a state government performs and try to think if they are already performed by private entities today. Most of these exist now or have in the past. This include the legal system as well as law enforcement / security services.

There is a wealth of thought and evidence on these topics on mises.org but Bob's book is a short easy read.

55 sats \ 9 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 25 Jun

I would love to see a world without governments one day. We can call them something else, but from what we know about people, it's clear to me that we need some coordination in a few key areas. Security is one of them. I can't imagine what it would be like without public safety; I think it would turn into a jungle. I agree with a small state limited to basic functions.

As for the Portuguese reality, I notice that over the years the Portuguese have become more obedient to the state. In the past, I saw a lot more informal economy and popular justice. Note: Napoleon once said: 'The Portuguese neither govern themselves nor let themselves be governed.'

48 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

The need for services doesn't go away if the state goes away. I never hear any libertarian's or anarchists make this claim. The disagreement is usually around how the services will be provided. Security is pretty simple. Private security already outnumbers gov police in the US. Again, I recommend reading Bob Murphy's short book Chaos Theory. Its free and has good answers to these questions.

No one can say with certainty what a stateless society would look like but we know how the state uses force to oppress people. Most of the concerns about anarchy I read are descriptions of the current state of affairs.

55 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner 25 Jun

I need to read this book to try to understand how it would work. Who pays for the private security you propose?

32 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

I mean is it that hard to imagine? We have subscriptions for everything these days. It could even be bundled into one service with other things. But, you would have multiple vendors and no "thin blue line" nonsense.

Bob simply goes through some possible approaches. Most would be related to insurance companies being regulators where things clearly need some sort of rules. Many government functions are legitimately valuable but poorly executed because of the monopoly and lack of a profit motive. I'm not on the top of my game today so I would refer you to Bob's short book vs. me trying explain it while dealing with a cold.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 25 Jun

The Portuguese neither govern themselves nor let themselves be governed

Yeah sure, with the highest rate of jabbed population in the whole europe....

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 25 Jun

This happened during the Napoleonic era. But I don't understand what vaccination has to do with this.

33 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 25 Jun

the % of jabbed people = level of sheeple

And is not "vaccination". It is INNOCULATION. Totally different.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 25 Jun

COVID-19 vaccination was not mandatory for the general population; it was an individual choice. People are free to do what they want, right?

33 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 25 Jun

don't lie to yourself

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 25 Jun

I can't define a whole group of people based on that. You're being very flippant. I chose not to get vaccinated, and I believe everyone has the right to make their own choices. However, when it comes to health, people tend to follow the advice of medical professionals more closely

55 sats \ 1 reply \ @SpaceHodler 25 Jun

But, but... there are evil people in the world, and therefore we need a government made of people.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

Classic.

Almost all of the objections to the state are descriptions of the status quo of a world under the state.

55 sats \ 1 reply \ @SilkyNinja 25 Jun

What I understand about this suggests that whoever holds the greatest capacity to commit violence will ultimately be in charge.

Who is in charge of enforcing the penalty of breaking the law? I've browsed the article you shared and it seems suggested that independent agencies will arise. How do we know that those responsible for making weapons would not selectively make violence less expensive?

If the gun manufacturers are a family owned business, who is to say they won't give friends and family discounts to their preferred law-enforcing mercenaries? Who is to say those mercenaries would not give friends and family discounts to those lawmaking agencies they prefer?

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

I would suggest reading the full book. Most of these questions are answered. Also you just described the police state in many jurisdictions. I understand your concerns. I have them as well. The simple answer is competition. I would rather have many smaller tyrants vs. a bigger more powerful one.

I argue that the reason we do not have more opposition to the state is that people believe it is special and different from individuals and companies. If a company were to do many of the things governments do there would be outrage. When a company does something terrible people stop giving them their business.

I'm not trying to score points here. Bob does a great job answering many objections you list and many more you didn't. Also, he's not alone. There are much more extensive writings on these topics.

55 sats \ 1 reply \ @160ed04091 25 Jun

Matt Odell's views on private and decentralized governance are rooted in his advocacy for privacy, security, and the decentralization of power. and i agree with him

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

From what I've heard of him talking about this stuff I think we pretty much agree. He doesn't spend a lot of time talking about political thought though.

55 sats \ 3 replies \ @jasonb 25 Jun

I totally agree with you here, but part of it is just semantics. I remember as a political science major back in college them beating into us these definitions. It helped me understand the concepts better, but if the layman still hears something different, these definitions might not be the hill to die on. Especially for Americans, who use the word State for particular province-type entities, it’s sometimes confusing if one is talking about forced governance in general or a particular level thereof.

As far as the non-semantic point you’re trying to make, hell yeah! I love my country and all the micro-nations in it, but I’m furious with the state these days. What to do? Let’s starve the state!

As an aside, I’ve always thought of the Kurds as the perfect example of a nation, because they transcend both different countries and states.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

I don't think we disagree. I'm not saying this is a hill to die on. I mean I think people misunderstand what is being communicated and defining the terms can help. You are correct on the "state" term but the term state is used in international relations and is commonly heard in the news. I think most people understand the "state department" isn't focused on the 50 states of the US.

I sometimes say governance vs government as well which is an alt to using "state".

The Kurds are a good example.

55 sats \ 1 reply \ @jasonb 25 Jun

Yeah, I really hadn’t ever thought about governance as distinct from government, but that’s totally what family and church and Bitcoin and sports teams and stacker news all are. Thanks for the heads up on this idea!

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

Yeah, just passing it along. I don't recall the first person I heard it from but it has stuck with me. Anarchy has different meanings to people. The dominate one in my experience is "no rules". IE Chaos. This is one reason I don't use this term much with normies. What anarchists typically mean is "no rulers". We need rules/guides/laws. Order is good. We even need leaders. I reject the idea that we need rulers. If we want leaders we can follow their lead.

I really see laziness as the main issue keeping people from breaking past the belief in government. Many good thinkers and writers have answered most of the objections we see to abolishing the state. Frankly, I don't usually waste my time with discussions because people are not interested in thinking about such things. This is why I find bitcoin so interesting. If people had to vote to pass laws for bitcoin to work it would never happen. But because of its design it will move past the mental blocks of most people and win on utility.

55 sats \ 2 replies \ @lightworks 25 Jun

I've used the term the technocratic state sometimes, take away all of the tech and you'll have a far less potent beast...

But when I walk the streets back in the former free world, well I just can't stop the thought that 95% should not even be alive, on a really long timescale. How can they all even manage to dumb themselves down to the level we're at now?

It really was very different 40+ years ago...

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

Yeah, it was very different on the technical side for sure.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @lightworks 25 Jun

People were different, far more capable, far less scared and intimidated!

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @mrsu 27 Jun

I think game theory plays into where we are with the state now. The state in your country has enormous power because if it didn't, they would be taken by a rival state.

I loath the state, but sometimes I feel it is a necessary and inevitable evil. I'm not sure how we can unwind this arms race globally to the point where all states are dissolved, and we are left with smaller sovereign governance models that are resistant to violent conquest.

Perhaps bitcoin can assist with this, but ultimately I feel that in the current paradigm, we need the state to defend us against other (likely worst) states.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @HardRich 26 Jun

I’m warming up to the idea of anarchy but I’m curious if we have any examples of it. Are there any peoples that practice it now or in the past? I think the ideas are interesting but do we have any real life examples that are compelling?

2 sats \ 6 replies \ @BitcoinAbhi 25 Jun

deleted by author

106 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 25 Jun

IMO, we need government.

Go back to basics...

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

Don't you know @DarthCoin? Don't you know that the only way we can have medicine and roads is if we have a government with guns to force us to pay for it....

Yet we don't need guns to force people to make pizza. We just need people willing to make it for something in exchange. The programming is deep. War is peace. Slavery is freedom.

55 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 25 Jun

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

Fact

55 sats \ 0 replies \ @ways_wilderness 25 Jun

For all of those what government has been distorting things into has been a far higher risk for me, and if I had gone along with any of it except basic rules of traffic I might have been dead at this point!

Hell, it would be a great thing even if roads were left to rot, then local communities would have to keep up their portions, everything would slow down & corporations would not have the same capacity to enslave everyone...

121 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 25 Jun

Did you read the post? No one is saying we don't need security, roads, education, and medical services. That is not the question. The question is do you want a monopoly state ruling over all of that.

Also, every service you mentioned is currently provided by private companies and when the state administers them they hire private companies to do the actual work.

You mention people paying attention to taxes collected. In the US it is taken out of your check before it even hits your hand so no, people don't pay attention to it as much as they pay attention to the money they pay for food. It has been said that if the masses had to pay all their taxes at once it would be result in a revolution.

I would also argue that people complain constantly about security (police), roads (potholes), education, and medical care. And they have few choices on these items.

But WHY do you think we need the state? You just said that without giving a reason.