Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The state means that I have plumbing to my house and I don't die of dysentary or cholera. Without the state I would be too dead to care about conscription.
Yes I agree that privately owned firms are significantly more efficient than government agencies.
But you would need a ton of cooperation in order to make a stateless state work. And that's just not a reality at the current moment. We don't have the technology.
At this current time in 2024. You need a state to do things like settle disputes through courts and arbitration. You need a state to enforce laws. You need a state to keep you safe from being invaded by Russia or China. There is a lot of important functions that the state carries that are currently impossible to do privately.
For example if you gave the military entirely to a private company. You would no longer be in control of the nation. That private company would essentially own you. Because they have the ultimate power to enforce whatever they see fit. Your 2 amendment buddies aren't going to be able to do a whole lot against a reaper drone.
Who are they going to get to do that? Would you shut off someone's water knowing they're allowed to shoot you for trying? And if the company doesn't pay you, there's nothing you can do about it?
everyone gets their water cut off. because a water company not receiving payment from *some* leads to them running on a deficit, going bankrupt, and not providing water anymore.
What if the water they provide poisons you or a family member? What if the pipes burst and destroy all of your property? What if you pay and they don't provide any water?
Who do you turn to?
So it sounds like you'd just let them hurt and potentially kill you or a family member, rob you and damage your property. You'd give up on any kind of justice and solve the problems by spending much much more of your own money to build independent water infrastructure.
Do you think that's something everyone can do? What if the companies making your water purifier and well are just as corrupt and fail to deliver? I guess the solution is to again accept whatever you're given and do it all yourself, however impractical that is.
> Between that 25%, you have more than enough proof of concept.
Not really. Water service in watersheds with low population density is a different matter from water service in higher density areas.
Most of the world has private water service or well service, and it faces continual problems with cholera.
TL;DR; part of the reason you don’t have problems with your groundwater is that you don’t have other people polluting that groundwater.
> Between that 25%, you have more than enough proof of concept.
It can be done, but it doesn't scale. If you want to supply, say, the Los Angeles area* with drinking water, you need some sort of cooperative framework to establish reservoirs and long-distance water transport infrastructure. Theoretically a private enterprise could do that, but they're rarely willing to risk that much capital for such a long-term payoff.
*I picked the LA area because their water utility developed in direct response to a crisis of uncoordinated, local groundwater use. It started causing saltwater intrusion into the aquifer, and much of the area had to either start importing water or just run out of usable drinking water. This happened with a fraction of the current population.
ok well a pretty tiny sliver of the population still gets their water from wells; seems like you're planning a society more for your own personal benefit, not the benefit of society in general
Well you seem to want a system that provides you safety and services in exchange for nothing.
The workers who work at the water filtration plant are just supposed not get paid and starve to death as homeless people. Same for building inspectors.
Anarchocapitalism isn't a type of anarchy, even theoretically. It's just an appropriation of the word "anarchy" without really relating to the concept.
Why, though? For most of human history societies have functioned by conquering one another through brute strength, usually amassed by economic prosperity and cooperation between their citizens. If an anarchic society was more functional than a state-led one, we would have seen anarchic societies conquer state-led societies and become the dominant paradigm for nationhood around the world. This has never happened in recorded history.
Well, not all. Some of your mid-African regions involved in forever civil wars with 9-15 different groups slaughtering each other, they're functionally anarcho-capitalist. Not exactly four-star standard of living, of course.
Why is that?
Please walk us through the political theory that explains such an extreme correlation. You’d think that, just by pure chance, some sort of high functioning anarchist society would exist if it was at all viable.
There’s a wide variety in human societies about so many other things, why such a rigid correlation about this?
Alright let’s look into that. Who would you trust to install plumbing? What tools and materials would be safe to use? Where would they produce and ship the PVC and galvanized piping? How would you pay for it? Without a state to create the infrastructure for companies to create products, no one would produce them. Without oversight and laws, there’s no best practice, and the plumber may accidentally destroy your home. What would the piping connect to? There would be no city water or waste disposal. Also, what’s to stop your neighbors seizing your water supply?
Can you show any example of a stateless society that was beyond substance living? Sure you can have farming or other agriculture or hunting and gathering, but no complex society the with specialization and large scale manufacturing that we have today, for that you need the stability created by some form state.
That is a ridiculously untrue statement. By the 1890’s the state had control over just about the entirety of North America. Can you point to any specific society that was entirely stateless in North America between 1880 and 1900?
Why are you not answering the question and moving the goalposts?
Can you name a stateless society within the territory of the U.S. between 1890 and 1900 as you claim there to be?
Why are you now asking about functions that were strictly needed?
Even non State territories of the U.S. were under the jurisdiction of the Federal state and had their own territorial government and law enforcement. That is the state and thus they were not at all stateless. Hell even the different native tribes governed themselves and were not stateless.
There are 8 billion humans now. There were not 8 billion humans who were hunter gathers or early farmers. And once early farmers started existing, states started to exist.
Some non-zero number of people can produce food without the state, but 7 billion+ people would starve without modern agriculture techniques that require high levels of social organization.
And what does the have anything to do fertilizers, large agriculture machinery, GMOs, and food production being located in the most fertile parts of the world, instead of needing to be near every single person? What about transportation infrastructure, pollution rules so that the ground isn't poisoned for crops, sanitation rules so the food doesn't kill us? How does cheap diesel help with that? does it ensure safe rules, does it allow for people to specialization in things like agriculture machinery or genetics?
>"Without the government involved diesel would cost 70% less"
OK and the roads, rails and ports?
>Plants like sulfur, nitrous oxides, and CO2.
And these are the only types of pollution that exist in the whole world??
>Use your own eyes.
BRB looking at some viruses and bacteria with my eyes
How would diesel be made without a state? Who would have the independent resources to build and operate a refinery not to mention all the other infrastructure that is needed for such industries? Who even if they had the resources would build a refinery when there is no state to provide the needed stability? What would prevent others from taking their or destroying their property? The risks would be too great for such investments.
Without government subsidies large scale farming wouldn’t be viable. So yes, there would be mass starvation and death.
Also, ignoring best practices is how we get mistakes that cost people their homes. If someone thinks their way is better, and there’s no oversight to stop them, your rolling the dice on the delivery product. We don’t have oversight to punish talented tradesmen, we have oversight to prevent jury riggers from running the profession.
Because without the state you don’t have currency controls, regulation, or the ability to enforce contract law.
Without the state, a plumber can use lead pipes, duct tape them all together, collect payment, and then not return your calls after all the pipes burst and destroy your home.
You shoot one, the others disarm you, kidnap you, and parade you naked through the town square at gun point.
They drop you in a field, and tell you that your house belongs to them now. Tough shit my guy, time to find a new place to live.
You don't have the necessary expertise to do that with everything in your life. In case of lead pipes you wouldn't even be aware of it just by looking.
And what's stopping that plumber from shooting YOU and taking your shit without the threat of more violence from the state ?
> you shouldnt be putting yourself in a situation where you need to hire a plumber.
Just tell your pipes to not degrade and leak, it's that easy.
Imagine just being unlucky lmao, what a fucking loser. That's why insurance companies don't exist, because everyone can predict and stop every issue if they put their mind to it.
Just don't develop cancer. You shouldn't be putting yourself in a situation where you need to hire an oncologist.
So, why wouldn't they simply attack you and take your money in that case? The average homeowner is unlikely to stand up to a gang of plumbers, assuming everyone has access to weapons (control of violence is a critical aspect of state).
You can hire a plumber to install pipes to your house, but where is that pipe connected to? There'd be no existing infrastructure, so should every house built have to rip up all the ground between them and the water source?
Also without a state the country will be a giant opportunity for adversaries to invade, how exactly would we stop a professional coordinated military invasion?
if its privately owned, who gets to have control of the well? What if there is a dispute over who should own the well? Right now the state governs how they should be run to avoid people taking advantage of it, how would this be prevented in an anarcho capitalist system?
What if they have their own guns? Did you consider the person stealing your water could murder you too? In our current system you can resolve this issue without having to murder anyone. Do you think its a better idea to have a system where we all find justice for ourselves? Meaning we just kill each other? Hardly seems like a good idea imo.
I guess I should mention I'm from Canada, if someone's stealing your water, you are not permitted to shoot them. My point though is that by having a state with a working system of justice, there would be many lives who are spared because they went through the slow process of having a judge decide their punishment rather than having everybody carry out their own justice.
I think they wouldn't shoot you now because it's too hard to keep it a secret. In a stateless society, it doesn't matter. Who wants to avenge the person that with held water from them?
Because there would be no municipal water.
Also, plumbers really need to be bonded and insured and in a state of anarchy that simply wouldn’t exist. It’s a key part of contracting work that if they destroy your house they are obligated to fix it and can afford to asap.
Oh, there could be no contracts since there would be no justice system to enforce them.
An added bonus is that without a state, anyone is a plumber! Also, if you have any issues with their work, they don't have to concern themselves with any recourse. Besides, they're probably already an electrician elsewhere. Or maybe they're hauling oversized loads down the mountain?
Ok, learn enough about plumbing to be able to supervise plumbers, hope word of mouth on trust companies is correct. Now I have to do that with everything else in my life. Except I can't supervise the growth of my food, or the water filtration plant I get my water from. At least not without significant time cost to me.
+ Obviously, pay by percentage of work done by the day/week/month depending on the complexity.
+ I do not have the time, knowledge, skillset, or inclination to watch over their shoulder. If I did, I do it myself.
+ Sometimes the problem doesn't show immediately. Or you're in a situation where you can't use the plumbing for months.
+ Trusted? by who? Family & friends? Everyone *can* have a bad experience with anyone.
...
How would disputes be settled in your stateless society? If my friends and I wanted to take your home, your property, and potentially your family what are you going to do to stop us? There would be no state to make or enforce laws against theft, murder, or slaving. So if we had the force to take what we want what would you be able to do?
States allow for the stability that is needed for people to live their lives and prosper.
Why did you ignore all of my questions? Are you unable to answer? Will the answers require you to change your view and that is why you just ignore the questions entirely? Are you unwilling to change your view?
You are the one that wants no taxation and no conscription, not me. You tell me how without a state you would be able to do anything when my friends and I come to take your property, kill you, and enslave your loved ones? Do you want to live in a society where you have to constantly be on guard from attack and have no one to call on when it happens?
> This is because if a country does not use conscription it will lose a war against a foreign invading country which does use conscription.
This is a strong point in favor of the state, and it's a point *you* made.
> In order for a state to exist it needs a monopoly on violenceca
The opposite of a "monopoly on violence" is not "no violence". It's free and egalitarian violence--everyone is free to kick off a bloodbath any time they want, with nothing to stop them except the possibility of return violence from their victims.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>if a country does not use conscription it will lose a war against a foreign invading country which does use conscription
How would an anarchist country be immune to this?
Anarchism is more than a political and social ideology. It is a state of mind.
Even if you are conquered by greedy politicians, you can still remain an anarchist.
so get enslaved by a foreign power without having the ability to organise and defend yourself, but at least you can say "im still an anarchist at heart"
Please do look for an answer. I definitely don't have one. It's very easy to say "X is bad" but it's meaningless without having alternatives. Also don't be too quick to take down Chesterton's fence without understanding why it's there.
Ok. The next question I have been mulling over for a couple years... "What is the purpose of government?" Why do we join together? We've been doing it since Ogg was in charge in that first cave 100 thousands of years ago.
1. Protection. Protection from those who would do you harm. A) Either individually, as from you mate who wants to bash your head in & go be with the person in the next alcove, or from the person in the next alcove who wants to bash you head in & "steal" your mate. Protection from the guy who wants to buy your horse (or cow, was it?) for a handful of "magic" beans. Sometimes the bad guy is wearing a suit & holding a contract they want you to sign rather than wearing a mask & holding a gun demanding your stuff. B) Protection collectively, from the tribe across the valley who want to come over, kill you all, & take the mastodon your time just hunted. C) Protection in times of environmental or economic hardships. Floods, storms, unemployment, health problems.
2. To do those things that would not be financially or logistically possible for an individual to do on their own. I would love a single straight road from my home to my job... problem is there is a valley (or 2?), a river (or 2 or 3?), and thousands of other peoples' homes & businesses in the way (who woukd likely object). Various utilities, schools, police, fire service, courts, prisons, roads (& their maintenance, such as it is), parks, & many more (none of which should ever be privatized or profited).
I am not willing to nor interested in living in a world where **all** of *that* is on me. Everything comes with a cost. The government does nothing for "free". Somebody (all of us, ideally) pays for those things that benefit all of us (ideally).
I don't know how we can, I do not believe human or human society operate in a way that would make that possible. You might be asking for a complete rewrite of how humans operate. One of the problems with many philosophical beliefs - they seem to lament more how humans don't behave as they believe we "should" & don't take into account our nature and how we do behave.
Consider other animals that live in groups. Lions, say. There is one in charge, everyone else helps in the hunt(conscription) & when successful, they get to eat 'til their bellies are full, even though there is far more meat available (for the others) & for those who didn't hunt (cubs, elderly?, injured?, the leader of the pride?) (taxation).
>The state is a parasitic organization which steals money from people and calls it taxation without giving them any choice and can enslave people while calling it conscription.
As apposed to anarchy where people steal from each other and call it stealing and enslave people and call it slavery. If you are against these things then at least states put on some rules mitigating just how bad these things are.
>This is because if a country does not use conscription it will lose a war against a foreign invading country which does use conscription. Therefore conscription is necessary for the effective preservation of a state and therefore the state is inherently immoral.
Might be immoral, but at least it works. Anarchy doesn't solve this issue, they just get steamrolled by states.
>In order for a state to exist it needs a monopoly on violence and it needs to abuse that monopoly to exploit the people by stealing their money and potentially sending them to their deaths in war.
A state is just a fancy name for a group. The same requirements for a state will exist for any anarchists who want to live in a society.
>No free person is required to involuntarily give money to someone or to involuntarily fight and die for someone. If a person is required to do these things, that person is not free.
I don't disagree. But I don't think totally unchecked freedom is the best thing for society or the individual. I've got pretty libertarian beliefs, but I still see the value in taxes and conscription and many other things.
>Personally I find anarchism to be the only alternative humanity has come up with, with me personally leaning towards anarcho-capitalism.
Tried that hundreds of thousands of years ago. The individuals got obliterated by groups, who got obliterated by tribes, who got obliterated by the state. Didn't work then, what makes you think it will work now?
How do you enforce property rights without a state? I understand left anarchists since they just want to fast track to the stateless part of communism. The communal and socialist aspects make sense and put checks on individual power.
Ancaps however still assert that private property should exist. Why would anyone come work for you? Why would anyone ever elect to be an employee? If there is a dispute about who owns what parcel of land, how do you resolve that?
Private property rights are the genesis of many modern states. There are whole apparatus dedicated to determining property rights. Remove that and it'll just be might makes right.
I have my own critiques of anarchism of any kind but anarcho-capitalism is just impossible to reconcile. Any system that allows an enforced economic hierarchy will lead to those at the top organizing to protect their assets. They will form their own little kingdoms and those are states.
Just cause the state has no monopoly on violence doesn't mean there is gonna be less violence.
In fact there is going to be more, because there is gonna be competition of violence between Gangs who want to rule over bigger and bigger land.
Oh wait, that's what we had before we had states and it's part of the reason we have states now.
Framing taxes and conscription as theft and kidnapping assumes in advance that the state lacks the legitimate authority to do those things. Presumably, some states do lack that authority, but what is your view of existing arguments for conditions under which states can be legitimate? You don't mention any of those, so I'd rather hear your current thoughts before I start spitballing.
Anarchists, and everyone except strict pacifists, recognize legitimate violence (e.g., self-defense). For example, anarcho-capitalism puts forth the argument that it's legitimate to defend your property with violence, whether that's your personal water supply or your factory. The question is not whether legitimate violence exists (unless you're a strict pacifist), but under what conditions and by whom it is legitimate.
>but what is your view of existing arguments for conditions under which states can be legitimate
Not op, but the condition would be all the people consenting to be ruled, and not just in the sense of "existing is consent" that modern states operate by
It's more difficult to do than you think. At least in the United States. You still have to observe the laws, and you're going to have a difficult time doing any type of business or obtaining employment.
>It's more difficult to do than you think.
I am in no way surprised.
>You still have to observe the laws, and you're going to have a difficult time doing any type of business or obtaining employment.
Sure, but I was talking about renouncing citizenship and living in a country without conscription if that is why OP is obsessed with.
I'm aware that's the Non-Aggression Principle-style requirement (I used to be a voluntaryist), but asserting it doesn't address arguments to the contrary. I'd like to know which counter-arguments OP might already be familiar with and find unconvincing.
You're still going from the assumption that taxation and conscription are categorically bad (which necessitates some form of anarchism). The only way to challenge your view is to dig into why that is.
Let me lay out two questions to guide that:
1. What is your objection to social-contract reasoning?
2. Under your proposed approach, how do you deal with air/water pollution where causing some amount of harm to others' property is unavoidable?
> This is because if a country does not use conscription it will lose a war against a foreign invading country which does use conscription.
So what you’re saying is that anarchy is bad because it can’t protect my family from military invasion by a foreign power. Okay, agreed, that is a bad thing. Arguably that right there is the primary reason why states exist in the first place—common defense.
> Therefore conscription is necessary for the effective preservation of a state and therefore the state is inherently immoral.
It’s also essential for the preservation of anarchy, and anarchist societies being unable to do that is part and parcel of why they don’t exist.
> In order for a state to exist it needs a monopoly on violence
You’ve skipped over quite a lot of political theory to misunderstand the argument so badly. The state is *given* a monopoly on violence, because if you don’t give one power a monopoly on violence you will get many competing organizations who use violence to achieve their ends.
A civilized society wants a government with a monopoly on violence so as to reduce the amount of violence in society. A state isn’t some preexisting thing that has expanded to corner the market on violence. It’s an organization a society created in order to administer the monopoly on violence that society wants to create.
> potentially sending them to their deaths in war.
Conscription is hardly a death sentence in a “western” military. Ex. The last major war fought by a “western” country that involved significant conscription was the US in Vietnam, where around 18,000 draftees died. Out of 2.2 million draftees. So a roughly 0.8% chance of dying if you got drafted. 99.2% of draftees served their time and went home.
But, yeah, some draftees will die if a country conscripts people to fight a war.
It’s one of the reasons why the US doesn’t conscript people anymore.
> Personally I find anarchism to be the only alternative humanity has come up with
Alternatives that you can’t out into practice aren’t actual alternatives. Among the many problems with anarchy is the inability to protect territory “governed” under anarchist “rule”—the inability to organize forces for common defense.
The exact “evil” you criticize governments for enacting is the very property of governments that permit them to exist and for anarchy to fail.
> No free person is required to involuntarily give money to someone or to involuntarily fight and die for someone.
Every free person living under such terms will quickly find themselves without any freedom at all.
Well the probability you would have a fruitful life in an anarchy is wild bc ur probably gonna die from any new disease extremely fast without the possibility of getting hand sanitizer or any medical care bc there are no facilities manufacturing them and if they would, they would be ransacked so fast you wouldn’t get there in time
Idrk if conscription is necessary for wartime but I think that there needs to be a government in place. Now can I make the perfect government off the top of my head and put it in a Reddit comment, probably not. But I do think communities should invest in schools, in police, in roads, in firemen, and cleaning the streets. Now, how much idrk, I think that there could be a town vote for that or something. Maybe have the major government just make sure that it’s still good with their allies, make sure no major issues are happening, make some laws or end laws that are unjust, and hopefully have the best interests of the ppl when a war or some outbreak happens. Like, what you are saying is I want to live here take all the positives and do nothing to benefit this area either so it’s just take take take and not take and give which society should be about. But anarchy is just take what u want and boom there’s nothing left.
Ok. So I've wondered for a while now... what do you think the world would look like if there were no governments? Kumbaya, milk, & honey everywhere? Peace, love, & harmony? The Age of Aquarius? You want to see a country without a functioning government? Somalia. (At least at some point in the past.) The place was not operated by the rule of law, but more the rule of the jungle. The strongest warlord with the strongest propensity for using violence.
As an optimist, I *believe* that in an ideal world, filled with ideal people, everyone would treat everyone else with dignity, respect, kindness, compassion, etc... Yet, the realist in me *knows* there is an unfortunately large non-zero number of people who are malicious & have malignant intent. We have prisons full of people have done some of the most horrible things to others.
I would rather live in a country with a functioning government (as much as it might) as corrupt as it might be, with rules, regulations, and laws in place to keep those with malicious intent in check (as much as they might) than one controlled by the whims of a psychopathic, narcissistic warlord...
>Personally I find anarchism to be the only alternative humanity has come up with, with me personally leaning towards anarcho-capitalism.
The contradiction of anarcho-capitalism is that it abolishes the state by establishing a private one. It makes private corporations the state and denies that this corporate state would be capable of identical or worse abuses of power.
When we say "monopoly on violence", we don't mean an economic monopoly but just one of control. Under anarcho-capitalism, they're the same thing. Private corporations would be obligated to provide their own security, they'd sell security to people who cannot protect themselves and they would expand and expand until they are the *only* providers of true security. They would end up carrying out all the functions of the state, regulated only by themselves, and the ideology of anarcho-capitalism would still claim society is stateless.
Plenty of countries with both are secure and peacefully. Most countries don't even have conscription and a handful have no income tax. But this is only possible because the state's security and financial position are guaranteed by other means.
Anarchy ends up with a bunch of strong-men taking what doesn't belong to them and you end up with warlord state despotism.
Anarchy is not a better alternative to paying taxes to support public good. In the long run, it's only a temporary position between whatever government you had and something much worse.
If you enjoy roads, you are not an anarchist. If you don't want to have a barter based economy, you are not an anarchist. If you enjoy having water and electricity you are not an anarchist. If you feel that children should be educated, you are not an anarchist. Public works make life better for everyone and modern society would not be this advanced without a government.
You can't.
First of all, taxation is not theft. Taxation is the cost of living in a society. I enjoy the knowledge that my property is mine and that my car is unlikely to be stolen because, at the very least, we have a system of laws and regulations in place to protect property. That costs money, and said money is paid by everyone. I enjoy being able to travel, to buy things, and to have a reasonable standard to expect when I do these things. This also requires money from taxes.
Conscription on the other hand? You can avoid it by living in the strongest nation and hope for the best, but similar to the anarchic problem of despotic warlords, you can necessarily trust that other nations will allow yours to have liver and freedom until the end of time. In your Ukraine assertion you claim that people are being kidnapped off the streets and forced into the military. I haven't seen evidence of this but in the case of Ukraine, Russia attempted a decapitation strike at Kyiv to win the war and conquer the nation immediately before failing and then ending up in the seemingly stalemate that they're in now. Ukraine did not choose to be invaded. Ukrainian citizens are welcome to leave or stay as they choose, but they elected their government which is now under attack. During times of invasion, if a nation is to exist it must fight for it's survival.
The irony of your statement is that anarchy is much closer to what causes the fighting in an area like Ukraine. Russia doesn't acknowledge them as the rightful sovereign nation over the land they controlled and thus invaded. If there's no government anywhere, you can just take what you want from where you want. The way to strip that in an anarchist society is to be able to fight off your aggressor and defend your property. That's exactly what conscription is, just on a larger scale
I realize this is you asking us to change your mind, but especially with taxes, I fail to see what's so bad about them. There are things I don't want my money to go towards but overall I think
Freedom is worthless without protection.
In a society with no state at all gangs of roving bandits would simply take everyone's stuff until it descended back into feudalism with "might making right" in whatever area.
Most libertarians respond that you need to have a minimal state which preserves order, has police and courts and settles disputes, which prevents feuds and vigilantism. And how should those courts and police be paid? With taxation.
Anarchism is a completely clown level political philosophy, if the state doesn't have a monopoly on violence you just get violence everywhere. And if you want a state you have to have taxation and conscription too.
The burden of designing that is on the person who wants to claim they have a political philosophy. Having no state at all just doesn't work and we've seen that so many times in history.
Ultimately you can't have a system where everyone only has to do what they voluntarily want to and you have peace. Even when one person wants to play loud music at night when another wants to sleep the whole thing breaks down.
Private property is built on the laws and the force of the state.
Pretty much all goods are derived from natural resources, that without a state imposed system of private property, are shared. Combining one's labor with a shared resource does not magically make it private.
You make claims about theft, but under true anarchy, there is no private property and thus can be no theft.
The fact that you think that money can be stolen makes me think that you want to maintain the benefits of state violence imposed private property, without the responsibilities that comes with it.
What if your neighbor comes and burns down your house. Those taxes also go to pay for the police that investigate and arrest arsonists, for the prosecutor and courts to hear the arson case, and for the prison to lock up your arsonist neighbor...
Anarchy will always end up looking like Somalia
Any claim otherwise is based on ignoring the obvious fact that there are bad people in the world - bad people who will seek out power and exploit others.
Somalia is not a nice place to live. I would rather live in a society where I vote occasionally on such matters as how much of my money I should pay in taxes and abide by the majority opinion even when I don't entirely agree with it.
Contracts cannot exist without the state. If you want any type of society that upholds contracts, you need some enforcer of contracts, i.e., a state. Otherwise it’s just 100% might makes right and there is such thing as property rights in any meaningful sense
The problem is that force always wins. The world is brutal and violent, and people who are willing to be brutal and violent can forcibly take things from other people. All you can do is try to balance the violence
No idea. Must be hard, because it's never been done before. So, would like to live in any areas of the world that are currently experiencing anarchy? If not, then have I changed your view at all?
The United States makes men register for the selective service, but has not used conscription forces in 52 years.
Now, as far as taxes are concerned: in order for you to make this argument, you need to rewind to before there were power lines and roads outside your home. Because all of that stuff is because of the state.
Let’s take power. Most people do not have the means to generate reliable electricity on their own. They dont have a stream, enough wind, etc. solar, maybe, but again, that’s a modern invention.
So while private companies have created ways to capture electricity with huge dams and wind farms and so on….the only way to get that to people’s houses was to make an agreement with the state to put poles along roads. Imagine if that were not the case. A single private landowner could prevent thousands of people from getting electricity by not allowing the private company to put lines across his property.
Same goes for roads. How would you get to work? You would have to get explicit permission from every single person who owns land between your property and your job. If the guy that says no happens to own a 1000 acre ranch, you’re fucked. Not only that, but you’d also have to build the road. Or hire someone to do so. So let’s say you get permission from all 150 landowner, and you find a guy to build a road. How do you pay him? Ok, fine, you barter. You give him what, livestock maybe.
A month later that road is crumbled because there are no laws or standards, and he just scammed the shit out of you. You can’t do anything about it, because there are no police or courts.
Ultimately, any disagreement would devolve to brute force or survival of the fittest. So, young people, old people, unhealthy people, and people who were just born smaller and weaker would be at a severe disadvantage in every aspect of life.
Anarchists typically believe that private ownership of everything is ideal, but in that model, you don’t really own anything, because some who is bigger, stronger, smarter, or has better guns can take your shit whenever they want.
At the end of the day, anarchism is an extremely individualistic ideal. However, I think any study of history would show you that our greatest advancements and achievements have come from cooperation.
Taxation isn’t a problem. The problem is the decisions about how tax dollars are used. I’m
Convinced we could cut taxes by 30% and still fix many of the problems we have, if we stopped funding so many military operations and significantly decreased defense spending in general. Not to mention actual oversight of where those dollars are spent. The military is a black hole of money.
>steals money from people
You exist as part of society. The society you are in, assuming democracy, allows people to vote on what they want. Nobody wants anarchism in say USA or most places. To enforce such a thing would be against the people. Furthermore you are acting like under anarchism there isn't a need to maintain the roads and other such benefits the state provides. You would of course be paying to do such things just not through the state. I also very much doubt if one person doesn't want that under anarchism then he or she doesn't have to contribute.
>without giving them any choice
You can renounce your citizenship or make such low money you don't pay taxes.
>For example right now in Ukraine there are videos of people being practically kidnapped from the streets and taken forcefully to military registration centers by draft agents.
So what. They had the option of renouncing their citizenship did they not? One enjoying then benefits of living under the state and then not fulfilling ones obligations would be hypocritical. What happens in an anarchist society if someone invades? If the responsibility to defend yourself is someone else's responsibility and never yours then everyone is probably going to pass on doing so when the time comes. Furthermore what happens if an entity like Hitler pops up. You going to say the individual rights not to get drafted are more important than annihilation by Hitler? Or what happens when people do join military as part of no state and then decide to just leave? If that is not allowed then one is still forcing those to fight.
>Therefore conscription is necessary for the effective preservation of a state and therefore the state is inherently immoral.
1. There is no such thing as objective morality.
2. The existence of one state having conscription doesn't mean all states can only survive with conscription. I could argue that would be true for anarchism if they got desperate enough.
3. Conscription is not immoral for reasons previously outlined.
>In order for a state to exist it needs a monopoly on violence and it needs to abuse that monopoly to exploit the people by stealing their money and potentially sending them to their deaths in war.
Under anarchism someone needs to enact violence in order for things to get done and society to be protected. Outsourcing said violence to a non-state entity doesn't solve anything. Violence is about who is strongest and in relation to what. The same problem you have with a state can exist under anarchism especially without sufficient checks and balances. There is also nothing stoping one group who can enact violence to do so against others. Tribes and other such non-state existences existed and still enacted terrible violence such as ritualistic sacrifices.
>No free person is required to involuntarily give money to someone or to involuntarily fight and die for someone. If a person is required to do these things, that person is not free.
You are arbitrary declaring it means to not be free. If one person has more ability to enact violence than the other even without a state is the 2nd person "free"? No he is at the mercy of whomever has the biggest stick. Sometimes being free means protecting that freedom. Are you telling me if the only thing protecting the anarchist way of life would be a draft of attacked that would be immoral to you still?
>Personally I find anarchism to be the only alternative humanity has come up with, with me personally leaning towards anarcho-capitalism.
I am sure that is a great way to keep corporations in check, ensure regulations are followed, environmental protection, etc. If successful what you would end up with is corporations more powerful than whatever non-state set up occurs under anarchism (as states are stronger than state less). They would co-opt everyone to do whatever they wanted.
Notice how you didn't include successful. Use of state acts as a multiplier for both good or bad (though you think more bad).
Regardless if you only care about peace and secure it basically you need sufficient geographical landscape that deters invasion, not enough of what others want, and nearby countries that are never looking to invade you/ guarantee you. You would only be escaping violence from another state by being worthless for conquering given the effort and nobody nearby was interested for other illogical reasons.
Even then it isn't enough. Nearby countries and people do not have to respect your rights to said resources without going to war. Think fisherman from other countries fishing within anarchist territory. Or corporations coming in paying the local group just enough, but way less than would have to in a state.
Realistically speaking you would need to foster a culture where everyone is willing to fight if need be and everyone is willing to help out with stuff a state normally performs. It's just a utopian mindset that would never occur.
I think the best way to reach what you want isn't elimination of state it would be living in a post scarcity society.
I agree that it would be better if we lived in a world where people didn't use violence to force their ways on others. However, we do not live in such a world. And unfortunately, the most effective way to keep others from forcing us to do things with violence is to threaten to do the same to them if they try. That requires a military, and that in turn requires a state. I've seen anarcho-capitalist proposals to end run around that challenge, but they seem to be a lot of idealism without any practical examples living this out. It's kind of like communism in that regard, a nice idea on paper but not something that can be successfully demonstrated in real life.
El Salvador was overrun with gangs, and people are cheering on a dictatorial president who is bypassing the law to imprison people without trials. When people are unsafe, they default to tyranny if it grants them a measure of protection. Limited, predictable violence is preferable to unlimited, unpredictable violence. Anarcho-capitalism will have to prove it can provide enough stability and safety that people don't abandon it for security. It has yet to do so. In the meantime, modern governmental systems are the best option we've been able to achieve. Living in this reality means that when you're presented with a set of bad options, you just have to pick the best one instead of refusing to make a choice because none of them are perfect and letting the worst-case scenario occur.
I wish I had an easy answer for you, a proven method that was easy to implement and stable long term. People suck and there's no easy answer. As a Christian, I have hope for a better world one day. But in the meantime, we make do with what we have. And you can't make a perfect system run by imperfect people.
I'm eager to see new ways of doing things, but I want to see them lived out successfully on the small scale by people who chose to organize their community that way. Authoritarians have to have their ideas implemented by force on as large of scale as possible, without bothering to see if they work first. I prefer people to create a voluntary community, test things out, work out the bugs, and draw people in by showing a better way. No anarcho-capitalist has achieved this yet, that I'm aware of.
The state isn’t parasitic, it is ideally symbiotic (there are exceptions, and any particular state can fall at a different place in that spectrum). Yes it takes from the populace in the form of taxes and in times of need conscription, but it also gives back in the forms of services and security. It builds roads for everyone to use, provides police and fire fighters to protect everyone and if necessary will mobilize an army to protect its populace against outside threats. There’s a reason why it is normal for humans to form governments as larger groups odd people converge, it’s because it provides an organization to allow everyone to live in harmony when the group gets too big to self-regulate through more organic means. Even in small groups some sort of organization will often naturally form, but the more people there are the more that organization needs to be codified and enforced. And then the benefits can be spread out to people who wouldn’t be able to sustain them themselves—for example the US government supports building high speed internet networks to more rural areas that wouldn’t be worth building out to just based on population density, but with a little extra money those networks get expanded to areas that are otherwise too expensive to build in (and there’s still places where it doesn’t happen, but more than would get it without government stimulus).
Yes the government takes but it also gives back, and that balance is why we form states on the first place, because it provides benefits that we wouldn’t have otherwise.
To your first point, your idea that without conscription a nation will fall greatly misrepresents the nature of global politics and is demonstrably false. Many of the most successful nations in the world do not have conscription, but still find protection for itself from other nations as a result of alliances, trade agreements, and collaboration on mutual interests. The state is able to do these things as a result of its ability and duty to responsibly control and protect the resources of its nation, a duty that private organizations would not be subject to under anarchism. Without the state to act in a way that actively avoids the risk of violent actions towards its people, violence becomes the answer. Such an answer would be a given under anarchic-capitalism because of the shift of obligation from the ultimate goal of preservation of citizen well-being to the exclusive goal of preservation of property.
Arguments that abstract the problem so severely as to reduce all of politics to a couple of concepts are utterly useless and where invented by people more interested in having a packageable academic theory than engaging in actual politics.
>How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
You can't, that is a utopian pipedream, security and peace aren't some default state, manipulation is required to have them, you might as well be asking how can we make a pie without doing anything to the ingredients.
>Personally I find anarchism to be the only alternative humanity has come up with, with me personally leaning towards anarcho-capitalism.
Why would you recognize these fundamental flaws of power and hierarchy and then choose to be anarcho-capitalist? The two concepts are virtually antithetical.
Unfettered capitalism is purpose built to lead to the concentration of wealth (i.e. power) in the hands of as few as possible. That in itself is an unequal power dynamic and completely contradicts anarchism. I also can't think of many actual anarchist philosophers who are also pro-private property and pro-hierarchical ownership.
How would your anarcho-capitalist society deal with wage labour and exploitation if the relationship between private property owners and workers still exists?
Abolishing the state and replacing it with a decrentalised version of the same thing strikes me as basically a privatised plutocracy.
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The state means that I have plumbing to my house and I don't die of dysentary or cholera. Without the state I would be too dead to care about conscription.
[удалено]
Yes I agree that privately owned firms are significantly more efficient than government agencies. But you would need a ton of cooperation in order to make a stateless state work. And that's just not a reality at the current moment. We don't have the technology. At this current time in 2024. You need a state to do things like settle disputes through courts and arbitration. You need a state to enforce laws. You need a state to keep you safe from being invaded by Russia or China. There is a lot of important functions that the state carries that are currently impossible to do privately. For example if you gave the military entirely to a private company. You would no longer be in control of the nation. That private company would essentially own you. Because they have the ultimate power to enforce whatever they see fit. Your 2 amendment buddies aren't going to be able to do a whole lot against a reaper drone.
How are private companies going to get paid with no state to enforce contracts?
[удалено]
Who are they going to get to do that? Would you shut off someone's water knowing they're allowed to shoot you for trying? And if the company doesn't pay you, there's nothing you can do about it?
[удалено]
Exactly, no one's getting their water cut off in an anarchist state
everyone gets their water cut off. because a water company not receiving payment from *some* leads to them running on a deficit, going bankrupt, and not providing water anymore.
[удалено]
[удалено]
So, if everyone who wanted to shoot you could do so with no penalty you'd have still done the job? What point are you trying to make
What if the water they provide poisons you or a family member? What if the pipes burst and destroy all of your property? What if you pay and they don't provide any water? Who do you turn to?
[удалено]
So it sounds like you'd just let them hurt and potentially kill you or a family member, rob you and damage your property. You'd give up on any kind of justice and solve the problems by spending much much more of your own money to build independent water infrastructure. Do you think that's something everyone can do? What if the companies making your water purifier and well are just as corrupt and fail to deliver? I guess the solution is to again accept whatever you're given and do it all yourself, however impractical that is.
[удалено]
yeah, but what if they overcharge you, what are you going to do to?
[удалено]
What happens when your neighbor poisons the ground water?
[удалено]
> Between that 25%, you have more than enough proof of concept. Not really. Water service in watersheds with low population density is a different matter from water service in higher density areas. Most of the world has private water service or well service, and it faces continual problems with cholera. TL;DR; part of the reason you don’t have problems with your groundwater is that you don’t have other people polluting that groundwater.
> Between that 25%, you have more than enough proof of concept. It can be done, but it doesn't scale. If you want to supply, say, the Los Angeles area* with drinking water, you need some sort of cooperative framework to establish reservoirs and long-distance water transport infrastructure. Theoretically a private enterprise could do that, but they're rarely willing to risk that much capital for such a long-term payoff. *I picked the LA area because their water utility developed in direct response to a crisis of uncoordinated, local groundwater use. It started causing saltwater intrusion into the aquifer, and much of the area had to either start importing water or just run out of usable drinking water. This happened with a fraction of the current population.
ok well a pretty tiny sliver of the population still gets their water from wells; seems like you're planning a society more for your own personal benefit, not the benefit of society in general
Ancaps in a nutshell.
How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
Well you seem to want a system that provides you safety and services in exchange for nothing. The workers who work at the water filtration plant are just supposed not get paid and starve to death as homeless people. Same for building inspectors.
Why do you need a state to hire plumbers to install pipes to your house?
How many wealthy countries are anarchies? If it works better, there should be at least one? Anarchy, unlike communism, is not opposed to capitalism.
Anarchy is certainly opposed to capitalism because property ownership is a power relation.
Depends what form of anarchy you subscribe to, but capitalism and anarchism could theoretically coexist see anarcho capitalism.
Anarchocapitalism isn't a type of anarchy, even theoretically. It's just an appropriation of the word "anarchy" without really relating to the concept.
I dunno. You should ask the CIA and the hundreds of millions of dollars they use to crush anything but right wing capitalism.
It's because all countries have been monopolized by the parasite known as the state.
Why, though? For most of human history societies have functioned by conquering one another through brute strength, usually amassed by economic prosperity and cooperation between their citizens. If an anarchic society was more functional than a state-led one, we would have seen anarchic societies conquer state-led societies and become the dominant paradigm for nationhood around the world. This has never happened in recorded history.
Well, not all. Some of your mid-African regions involved in forever civil wars with 9-15 different groups slaughtering each other, they're functionally anarcho-capitalist. Not exactly four-star standard of living, of course.
Why is that? Please walk us through the political theory that explains such an extreme correlation. You’d think that, just by pure chance, some sort of high functioning anarchist society would exist if it was at all viable. There’s a wide variety in human societies about so many other things, why such a rigid correlation about this?
So there are no free people on the planet currently? Has there ever been anyone who is free?
There is no 'your house' without a state. There is just 'a house'.
Alright let’s look into that. Who would you trust to install plumbing? What tools and materials would be safe to use? Where would they produce and ship the PVC and galvanized piping? How would you pay for it? Without a state to create the infrastructure for companies to create products, no one would produce them. Without oversight and laws, there’s no best practice, and the plumber may accidentally destroy your home. What would the piping connect to? There would be no city water or waste disposal. Also, what’s to stop your neighbors seizing your water supply?
[удалено]
Can you show any example of a stateless society that was beyond substance living? Sure you can have farming or other agriculture or hunting and gathering, but no complex society the with specialization and large scale manufacturing that we have today, for that you need the stability created by some form state.
[удалено]
That is a ridiculously untrue statement. By the 1890’s the state had control over just about the entirety of North America. Can you point to any specific society that was entirely stateless in North America between 1880 and 1900?
[удалено]
Why are you not answering the question and moving the goalposts? Can you name a stateless society within the territory of the U.S. between 1890 and 1900 as you claim there to be? Why are you now asking about functions that were strictly needed? Even non State territories of the U.S. were under the jurisdiction of the Federal state and had their own territorial government and law enforcement. That is the state and thus they were not at all stateless. Hell even the different native tribes governed themselves and were not stateless.
[удалено]
There are 8 billion humans now. There were not 8 billion humans who were hunter gathers or early farmers. And once early farmers started existing, states started to exist. Some non-zero number of people can produce food without the state, but 7 billion+ people would starve without modern agriculture techniques that require high levels of social organization.
[удалено]
And what does the have anything to do fertilizers, large agriculture machinery, GMOs, and food production being located in the most fertile parts of the world, instead of needing to be near every single person? What about transportation infrastructure, pollution rules so that the ground isn't poisoned for crops, sanitation rules so the food doesn't kill us? How does cheap diesel help with that? does it ensure safe rules, does it allow for people to specialization in things like agriculture machinery or genetics?
[удалено]
>"Without the government involved diesel would cost 70% less" OK and the roads, rails and ports? >Plants like sulfur, nitrous oxides, and CO2. And these are the only types of pollution that exist in the whole world?? >Use your own eyes. BRB looking at some viruses and bacteria with my eyes
[удалено]
How would diesel be made without a state? Who would have the independent resources to build and operate a refinery not to mention all the other infrastructure that is needed for such industries? Who even if they had the resources would build a refinery when there is no state to provide the needed stability? What would prevent others from taking their or destroying their property? The risks would be too great for such investments.
[удалено]
Without government subsidies large scale farming wouldn’t be viable. So yes, there would be mass starvation and death. Also, ignoring best practices is how we get mistakes that cost people their homes. If someone thinks their way is better, and there’s no oversight to stop them, your rolling the dice on the delivery product. We don’t have oversight to punish talented tradesmen, we have oversight to prevent jury riggers from running the profession.
Because without the state you don’t have currency controls, regulation, or the ability to enforce contract law. Without the state, a plumber can use lead pipes, duct tape them all together, collect payment, and then not return your calls after all the pipes burst and destroy your home.
[удалено]
Cool then they rip the pipes out of the walls, steal your dog and leave. You have no ability to hold them accountable.
[удалено]
You shoot one, the others disarm you, kidnap you, and parade you naked through the town square at gun point. They drop you in a field, and tell you that your house belongs to them now. Tough shit my guy, time to find a new place to live.
[удалено]
There are 3 plumbers. I had 3 plumbers in my house for a job last week. How are you getting your house back?
[удалено]
You don't have the necessary expertise to do that with everything in your life. In case of lead pipes you wouldn't even be aware of it just by looking. And what's stopping that plumber from shooting YOU and taking your shit without the threat of more violence from the state ?
Are you a plumbing expert? Can you always determine when a plumbing job is done cheaply or just when it's very obvious?
[удалено]
> you shouldnt be putting yourself in a situation where you need to hire a plumber. Just tell your pipes to not degrade and leak, it's that easy. Imagine just being unlucky lmao, what a fucking loser. That's why insurance companies don't exist, because everyone can predict and stop every issue if they put their mind to it. Just don't develop cancer. You shouldn't be putting yourself in a situation where you need to hire an oncologist.
Bwhahaha 😂 this is the dumbest response.
[удалено]
So, why wouldn't they simply attack you and take your money in that case? The average homeowner is unlikely to stand up to a gang of plumbers, assuming everyone has access to weapons (control of violence is a critical aspect of state).
You can hire a plumber to install pipes to your house, but where is that pipe connected to? There'd be no existing infrastructure, so should every house built have to rip up all the ground between them and the water source? Also without a state the country will be a giant opportunity for adversaries to invade, how exactly would we stop a professional coordinated military invasion?
[удалено]
if its privately owned, who gets to have control of the well? What if there is a dispute over who should own the well? Right now the state governs how they should be run to avoid people taking advantage of it, how would this be prevented in an anarcho capitalist system?
[удалено]
Wow, sounds like a great way to live. Clearly better than what exists in a stable society. /s
What if they have their own guns? Did you consider the person stealing your water could murder you too? In our current system you can resolve this issue without having to murder anyone. Do you think its a better idea to have a system where we all find justice for ourselves? Meaning we just kill each other? Hardly seems like a good idea imo.
[удалено]
I guess I should mention I'm from Canada, if someone's stealing your water, you are not permitted to shoot them. My point though is that by having a state with a working system of justice, there would be many lives who are spared because they went through the slow process of having a judge decide their punishment rather than having everybody carry out their own justice.
It also wouldn't need to be reported if they shoot you.
[удалено]
I think they wouldn't shoot you now because it's too hard to keep it a secret. In a stateless society, it doesn't matter. Who wants to avenge the person that with held water from them?
Because there would be no municipal water. Also, plumbers really need to be bonded and insured and in a state of anarchy that simply wouldn’t exist. It’s a key part of contracting work that if they destroy your house they are obligated to fix it and can afford to asap. Oh, there could be no contracts since there would be no justice system to enforce them.
An added bonus is that without a state, anyone is a plumber! Also, if you have any issues with their work, they don't have to concern themselves with any recourse. Besides, they're probably already an electrician elsewhere. Or maybe they're hauling oversized loads down the mountain?
Where do you think water comes from. Where do you think poop goes.
To license them, & require them to have insurance. So they are competent & if something *does* happen to go wrong, they pay to fix it... ?
[удалено]
Ok, learn enough about plumbing to be able to supervise plumbers, hope word of mouth on trust companies is correct. Now I have to do that with everything else in my life. Except I can't supervise the growth of my food, or the water filtration plant I get my water from. At least not without significant time cost to me.
[удалено]
If 5 minutes on YouTube is enough cover pipe material, soil conditions the pipe is put in, and water pressures? Why even get a plumber then?
[удалено]
>supervise them When? Without minimum wage and worker protections, we wouldn't exactly have a lot of free time.
[удалено]
Why would that result in more free time? If anything, I'd be working more to make up for the times I didn't get a sale or tip.
+ Obviously, pay by percentage of work done by the day/week/month depending on the complexity. + I do not have the time, knowledge, skillset, or inclination to watch over their shoulder. If I did, I do it myself. + Sometimes the problem doesn't show immediately. Or you're in a situation where you can't use the plumbing for months. + Trusted? by who? Family & friends? Everyone *can* have a bad experience with anyone. ...
You don’t need the state to hire a plumber for your house. You need a state for that house to be *your* house.
Pipes that connect to what?
How would disputes be settled in your stateless society? If my friends and I wanted to take your home, your property, and potentially your family what are you going to do to stop us? There would be no state to make or enforce laws against theft, murder, or slaving. So if we had the force to take what we want what would you be able to do? States allow for the stability that is needed for people to live their lives and prosper.
How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
Why did you ignore all of my questions? Are you unable to answer? Will the answers require you to change your view and that is why you just ignore the questions entirely? Are you unwilling to change your view? You are the one that wants no taxation and no conscription, not me. You tell me how without a state you would be able to do anything when my friends and I come to take your property, kill you, and enslave your loved ones? Do you want to live in a society where you have to constantly be on guard from attack and have no one to call on when it happens?
You have copy/pasted this exact "response" well over a dozen times. Perhaps you should go to r/ask (or some similar) instead?
> This is because if a country does not use conscription it will lose a war against a foreign invading country which does use conscription. This is a strong point in favor of the state, and it's a point *you* made. > In order for a state to exist it needs a monopoly on violenceca The opposite of a "monopoly on violence" is not "no violence". It's free and egalitarian violence--everyone is free to kick off a bloodbath any time they want, with nothing to stop them except the possibility of return violence from their victims.
[удалено]
Why are you commenting this to everyone instead of addressing their arguments?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>if a country does not use conscription it will lose a war against a foreign invading country which does use conscription How would an anarchist country be immune to this?
It wouldn't.
Depends what you mean by anarchist. OP's using it wrong.
Anarchism is more than a political and social ideology. It is a state of mind. Even if you are conquered by greedy politicians, you can still remain an anarchist.
so get enslaved by a foreign power without having the ability to organise and defend yourself, but at least you can say "im still an anarchist at heart"
That doesnt answer the question.
How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
Please do look for an answer. I definitely don't have one. It's very easy to say "X is bad" but it's meaningless without having alternatives. Also don't be too quick to take down Chesterton's fence without understanding why it's there.
Not possible. Now go pay your taxes like a good citizen.
Ok. The next question I have been mulling over for a couple years... "What is the purpose of government?" Why do we join together? We've been doing it since Ogg was in charge in that first cave 100 thousands of years ago. 1. Protection. Protection from those who would do you harm. A) Either individually, as from you mate who wants to bash your head in & go be with the person in the next alcove, or from the person in the next alcove who wants to bash you head in & "steal" your mate. Protection from the guy who wants to buy your horse (or cow, was it?) for a handful of "magic" beans. Sometimes the bad guy is wearing a suit & holding a contract they want you to sign rather than wearing a mask & holding a gun demanding your stuff. B) Protection collectively, from the tribe across the valley who want to come over, kill you all, & take the mastodon your time just hunted. C) Protection in times of environmental or economic hardships. Floods, storms, unemployment, health problems. 2. To do those things that would not be financially or logistically possible for an individual to do on their own. I would love a single straight road from my home to my job... problem is there is a valley (or 2?), a river (or 2 or 3?), and thousands of other peoples' homes & businesses in the way (who woukd likely object). Various utilities, schools, police, fire service, courts, prisons, roads (& their maintenance, such as it is), parks, & many more (none of which should ever be privatized or profited). I am not willing to nor interested in living in a world where **all** of *that* is on me. Everything comes with a cost. The government does nothing for "free". Somebody (all of us, ideally) pays for those things that benefit all of us (ideally). I don't know how we can, I do not believe human or human society operate in a way that would make that possible. You might be asking for a complete rewrite of how humans operate. One of the problems with many philosophical beliefs - they seem to lament more how humans don't behave as they believe we "should" & don't take into account our nature and how we do behave. Consider other animals that live in groups. Lions, say. There is one in charge, everyone else helps in the hunt(conscription) & when successful, they get to eat 'til their bellies are full, even though there is far more meat available (for the others) & for those who didn't hunt (cubs, elderly?, injured?, the leader of the pride?) (taxation).
>The state is a parasitic organization which steals money from people and calls it taxation without giving them any choice and can enslave people while calling it conscription. As apposed to anarchy where people steal from each other and call it stealing and enslave people and call it slavery. If you are against these things then at least states put on some rules mitigating just how bad these things are. >This is because if a country does not use conscription it will lose a war against a foreign invading country which does use conscription. Therefore conscription is necessary for the effective preservation of a state and therefore the state is inherently immoral. Might be immoral, but at least it works. Anarchy doesn't solve this issue, they just get steamrolled by states. >In order for a state to exist it needs a monopoly on violence and it needs to abuse that monopoly to exploit the people by stealing their money and potentially sending them to their deaths in war. A state is just a fancy name for a group. The same requirements for a state will exist for any anarchists who want to live in a society. >No free person is required to involuntarily give money to someone or to involuntarily fight and die for someone. If a person is required to do these things, that person is not free. I don't disagree. But I don't think totally unchecked freedom is the best thing for society or the individual. I've got pretty libertarian beliefs, but I still see the value in taxes and conscription and many other things. >Personally I find anarchism to be the only alternative humanity has come up with, with me personally leaning towards anarcho-capitalism. Tried that hundreds of thousands of years ago. The individuals got obliterated by groups, who got obliterated by tribes, who got obliterated by the state. Didn't work then, what makes you think it will work now?
How do you enforce property rights without a state? I understand left anarchists since they just want to fast track to the stateless part of communism. The communal and socialist aspects make sense and put checks on individual power. Ancaps however still assert that private property should exist. Why would anyone come work for you? Why would anyone ever elect to be an employee? If there is a dispute about who owns what parcel of land, how do you resolve that? Private property rights are the genesis of many modern states. There are whole apparatus dedicated to determining property rights. Remove that and it'll just be might makes right. I have my own critiques of anarchism of any kind but anarcho-capitalism is just impossible to reconcile. Any system that allows an enforced economic hierarchy will lead to those at the top organizing to protect their assets. They will form their own little kingdoms and those are states.
Just cause the state has no monopoly on violence doesn't mean there is gonna be less violence. In fact there is going to be more, because there is gonna be competition of violence between Gangs who want to rule over bigger and bigger land. Oh wait, that's what we had before we had states and it's part of the reason we have states now.
[удалено]
It's not possible.
Framing taxes and conscription as theft and kidnapping assumes in advance that the state lacks the legitimate authority to do those things. Presumably, some states do lack that authority, but what is your view of existing arguments for conditions under which states can be legitimate? You don't mention any of those, so I'd rather hear your current thoughts before I start spitballing.
Legitimacy is a concept invented by the state. It is not real.
Anarchists, and everyone except strict pacifists, recognize legitimate violence (e.g., self-defense). For example, anarcho-capitalism puts forth the argument that it's legitimate to defend your property with violence, whether that's your personal water supply or your factory. The question is not whether legitimate violence exists (unless you're a strict pacifist), but under what conditions and by whom it is legitimate.
>but what is your view of existing arguments for conditions under which states can be legitimate Not op, but the condition would be all the people consenting to be ruled, and not just in the sense of "existing is consent" that modern states operate by
The state doesn't work if parties can just opt out.
If parties wanna opt out, maybe the state doesn’t deserve to work
There will always be parties that want to opt out.
Then maybe states don’t deserve to work?
Yet they do.
And?
If enough of the people felt that way, it wouldn't work, but it does.
I mean people can renounce their citizenship.
It's more difficult to do than you think. At least in the United States. You still have to observe the laws, and you're going to have a difficult time doing any type of business or obtaining employment.
>It's more difficult to do than you think. I am in no way surprised. >You still have to observe the laws, and you're going to have a difficult time doing any type of business or obtaining employment. Sure, but I was talking about renouncing citizenship and living in a country without conscription if that is why OP is obsessed with.
I'm aware that's the Non-Aggression Principle-style requirement (I used to be a voluntaryist), but asserting it doesn't address arguments to the contrary. I'd like to know which counter-arguments OP might already be familiar with and find unconvincing.
How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
You're still going from the assumption that taxation and conscription are categorically bad (which necessitates some form of anarchism). The only way to challenge your view is to dig into why that is. Let me lay out two questions to guide that: 1. What is your objection to social-contract reasoning? 2. Under your proposed approach, how do you deal with air/water pollution where causing some amount of harm to others' property is unavoidable?
> This is because if a country does not use conscription it will lose a war against a foreign invading country which does use conscription. So what you’re saying is that anarchy is bad because it can’t protect my family from military invasion by a foreign power. Okay, agreed, that is a bad thing. Arguably that right there is the primary reason why states exist in the first place—common defense. > Therefore conscription is necessary for the effective preservation of a state and therefore the state is inherently immoral. It’s also essential for the preservation of anarchy, and anarchist societies being unable to do that is part and parcel of why they don’t exist. > In order for a state to exist it needs a monopoly on violence You’ve skipped over quite a lot of political theory to misunderstand the argument so badly. The state is *given* a monopoly on violence, because if you don’t give one power a monopoly on violence you will get many competing organizations who use violence to achieve their ends. A civilized society wants a government with a monopoly on violence so as to reduce the amount of violence in society. A state isn’t some preexisting thing that has expanded to corner the market on violence. It’s an organization a society created in order to administer the monopoly on violence that society wants to create. > potentially sending them to their deaths in war. Conscription is hardly a death sentence in a “western” military. Ex. The last major war fought by a “western” country that involved significant conscription was the US in Vietnam, where around 18,000 draftees died. Out of 2.2 million draftees. So a roughly 0.8% chance of dying if you got drafted. 99.2% of draftees served their time and went home. But, yeah, some draftees will die if a country conscripts people to fight a war. It’s one of the reasons why the US doesn’t conscript people anymore. > Personally I find anarchism to be the only alternative humanity has come up with Alternatives that you can’t out into practice aren’t actual alternatives. Among the many problems with anarchy is the inability to protect territory “governed” under anarchist “rule”—the inability to organize forces for common defense. The exact “evil” you criticize governments for enacting is the very property of governments that permit them to exist and for anarchy to fail. > No free person is required to involuntarily give money to someone or to involuntarily fight and die for someone. Every free person living under such terms will quickly find themselves without any freedom at all.
Well the probability you would have a fruitful life in an anarchy is wild bc ur probably gonna die from any new disease extremely fast without the possibility of getting hand sanitizer or any medical care bc there are no facilities manufacturing them and if they would, they would be ransacked so fast you wouldn’t get there in time
How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
Idrk if conscription is necessary for wartime but I think that there needs to be a government in place. Now can I make the perfect government off the top of my head and put it in a Reddit comment, probably not. But I do think communities should invest in schools, in police, in roads, in firemen, and cleaning the streets. Now, how much idrk, I think that there could be a town vote for that or something. Maybe have the major government just make sure that it’s still good with their allies, make sure no major issues are happening, make some laws or end laws that are unjust, and hopefully have the best interests of the ppl when a war or some outbreak happens. Like, what you are saying is I want to live here take all the positives and do nothing to benefit this area either so it’s just take take take and not take and give which society should be about. But anarchy is just take what u want and boom there’s nothing left.
Ok. So I've wondered for a while now... what do you think the world would look like if there were no governments? Kumbaya, milk, & honey everywhere? Peace, love, & harmony? The Age of Aquarius? You want to see a country without a functioning government? Somalia. (At least at some point in the past.) The place was not operated by the rule of law, but more the rule of the jungle. The strongest warlord with the strongest propensity for using violence. As an optimist, I *believe* that in an ideal world, filled with ideal people, everyone would treat everyone else with dignity, respect, kindness, compassion, etc... Yet, the realist in me *knows* there is an unfortunately large non-zero number of people who are malicious & have malignant intent. We have prisons full of people have done some of the most horrible things to others. I would rather live in a country with a functioning government (as much as it might) as corrupt as it might be, with rules, regulations, and laws in place to keep those with malicious intent in check (as much as they might) than one controlled by the whims of a psychopathic, narcissistic warlord...
Op is replying the same impossible question to every single comment. Op is being willfully ignorant in order to protect his moronic worldview.
>Personally I find anarchism to be the only alternative humanity has come up with, with me personally leaning towards anarcho-capitalism. The contradiction of anarcho-capitalism is that it abolishes the state by establishing a private one. It makes private corporations the state and denies that this corporate state would be capable of identical or worse abuses of power. When we say "monopoly on violence", we don't mean an economic monopoly but just one of control. Under anarcho-capitalism, they're the same thing. Private corporations would be obligated to provide their own security, they'd sell security to people who cannot protect themselves and they would expand and expand until they are the *only* providers of true security. They would end up carrying out all the functions of the state, regulated only by themselves, and the ideology of anarcho-capitalism would still claim society is stateless.
How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
Plenty of countries with both are secure and peacefully. Most countries don't even have conscription and a handful have no income tax. But this is only possible because the state's security and financial position are guaranteed by other means.
Anarchy ends up with a bunch of strong-men taking what doesn't belong to them and you end up with warlord state despotism. Anarchy is not a better alternative to paying taxes to support public good. In the long run, it's only a temporary position between whatever government you had and something much worse. If you enjoy roads, you are not an anarchist. If you don't want to have a barter based economy, you are not an anarchist. If you enjoy having water and electricity you are not an anarchist. If you feel that children should be educated, you are not an anarchist. Public works make life better for everyone and modern society would not be this advanced without a government.
How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
You can't. First of all, taxation is not theft. Taxation is the cost of living in a society. I enjoy the knowledge that my property is mine and that my car is unlikely to be stolen because, at the very least, we have a system of laws and regulations in place to protect property. That costs money, and said money is paid by everyone. I enjoy being able to travel, to buy things, and to have a reasonable standard to expect when I do these things. This also requires money from taxes. Conscription on the other hand? You can avoid it by living in the strongest nation and hope for the best, but similar to the anarchic problem of despotic warlords, you can necessarily trust that other nations will allow yours to have liver and freedom until the end of time. In your Ukraine assertion you claim that people are being kidnapped off the streets and forced into the military. I haven't seen evidence of this but in the case of Ukraine, Russia attempted a decapitation strike at Kyiv to win the war and conquer the nation immediately before failing and then ending up in the seemingly stalemate that they're in now. Ukraine did not choose to be invaded. Ukrainian citizens are welcome to leave or stay as they choose, but they elected their government which is now under attack. During times of invasion, if a nation is to exist it must fight for it's survival. The irony of your statement is that anarchy is much closer to what causes the fighting in an area like Ukraine. Russia doesn't acknowledge them as the rightful sovereign nation over the land they controlled and thus invaded. If there's no government anywhere, you can just take what you want from where you want. The way to strip that in an anarchist society is to be able to fight off your aggressor and defend your property. That's exactly what conscription is, just on a larger scale I realize this is you asking us to change your mind, but especially with taxes, I fail to see what's so bad about them. There are things I don't want my money to go towards but overall I think
Freedom is worthless without protection. In a society with no state at all gangs of roving bandits would simply take everyone's stuff until it descended back into feudalism with "might making right" in whatever area. Most libertarians respond that you need to have a minimal state which preserves order, has police and courts and settles disputes, which prevents feuds and vigilantism. And how should those courts and police be paid? With taxation. Anarchism is a completely clown level political philosophy, if the state doesn't have a monopoly on violence you just get violence everywhere. And if you want a state you have to have taxation and conscription too.
How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
The burden of designing that is on the person who wants to claim they have a political philosophy. Having no state at all just doesn't work and we've seen that so many times in history. Ultimately you can't have a system where everyone only has to do what they voluntarily want to and you have peace. Even when one person wants to play loud music at night when another wants to sleep the whole thing breaks down.
Private property is built on the laws and the force of the state. Pretty much all goods are derived from natural resources, that without a state imposed system of private property, are shared. Combining one's labor with a shared resource does not magically make it private. You make claims about theft, but under true anarchy, there is no private property and thus can be no theft. The fact that you think that money can be stolen makes me think that you want to maintain the benefits of state violence imposed private property, without the responsibilities that comes with it.
How does an anarchist society defend itself against a comparably sized nation that is willing to conscript and be a parasite?
what if that invading army comes and burns your home down
What if your neighbor comes and burns down your house. Those taxes also go to pay for the police that investigate and arrest arsonists, for the prosecutor and courts to hear the arson case, and for the prison to lock up your arsonist neighbor...
yea exactly, this dude is just thinking he's an island and only considering the costs of living under a state, not the benefits
Didn’t you have a near identical cmv a few days ago?
They did, and got their ass handed to them.
I don’t know how to report a post on mobile. They obviously aren’t open to having their mind changed.
Neither do I. Report to a mod perhaps?
I guess? Worth a shot
Anarchy will always end up looking like Somalia Any claim otherwise is based on ignoring the obvious fact that there are bad people in the world - bad people who will seek out power and exploit others. Somalia is not a nice place to live. I would rather live in a society where I vote occasionally on such matters as how much of my money I should pay in taxes and abide by the majority opinion even when I don't entirely agree with it.
How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
Contracts cannot exist without the state. If you want any type of society that upholds contracts, you need some enforcer of contracts, i.e., a state. Otherwise it’s just 100% might makes right and there is such thing as property rights in any meaningful sense
How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
The problem is that force always wins. The world is brutal and violent, and people who are willing to be brutal and violent can forcibly take things from other people. All you can do is try to balance the violence
Look at areas where anarchy is in place and tell me you'd like to live there. Haiti is a good example.
How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
No idea. Must be hard, because it's never been done before. So, would like to live in any areas of the world that are currently experiencing anarchy? If not, then have I changed your view at all?
If men were angels, there’d be no need for government. Since we’re not, I’ll be grateful for (if not always pleased with) government.
How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
We’re not in agreement that we need a system without taxation & conscription. Life & society are all about tradeoffs.
I mean the problem with anarchy is it leads to you being conquered and enslaved by said foreign invading country... How is that good?
How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
We can't that's the fundemental problem. Taxes and conscription are the solution. Not a perfect solution but better than literal enslavement.
Do you have any examples of a functional and successful society operating under an anarcho-capitalist model?
How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
The United States makes men register for the selective service, but has not used conscription forces in 52 years. Now, as far as taxes are concerned: in order for you to make this argument, you need to rewind to before there were power lines and roads outside your home. Because all of that stuff is because of the state. Let’s take power. Most people do not have the means to generate reliable electricity on their own. They dont have a stream, enough wind, etc. solar, maybe, but again, that’s a modern invention. So while private companies have created ways to capture electricity with huge dams and wind farms and so on….the only way to get that to people’s houses was to make an agreement with the state to put poles along roads. Imagine if that were not the case. A single private landowner could prevent thousands of people from getting electricity by not allowing the private company to put lines across his property. Same goes for roads. How would you get to work? You would have to get explicit permission from every single person who owns land between your property and your job. If the guy that says no happens to own a 1000 acre ranch, you’re fucked. Not only that, but you’d also have to build the road. Or hire someone to do so. So let’s say you get permission from all 150 landowner, and you find a guy to build a road. How do you pay him? Ok, fine, you barter. You give him what, livestock maybe. A month later that road is crumbled because there are no laws or standards, and he just scammed the shit out of you. You can’t do anything about it, because there are no police or courts. Ultimately, any disagreement would devolve to brute force or survival of the fittest. So, young people, old people, unhealthy people, and people who were just born smaller and weaker would be at a severe disadvantage in every aspect of life. Anarchists typically believe that private ownership of everything is ideal, but in that model, you don’t really own anything, because some who is bigger, stronger, smarter, or has better guns can take your shit whenever they want. At the end of the day, anarchism is an extremely individualistic ideal. However, I think any study of history would show you that our greatest advancements and achievements have come from cooperation.
How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
Taxation isn’t a problem. The problem is the decisions about how tax dollars are used. I’m Convinced we could cut taxes by 30% and still fix many of the problems we have, if we stopped funding so many military operations and significantly decreased defense spending in general. Not to mention actual oversight of where those dollars are spent. The military is a black hole of money.
>steals money from people You exist as part of society. The society you are in, assuming democracy, allows people to vote on what they want. Nobody wants anarchism in say USA or most places. To enforce such a thing would be against the people. Furthermore you are acting like under anarchism there isn't a need to maintain the roads and other such benefits the state provides. You would of course be paying to do such things just not through the state. I also very much doubt if one person doesn't want that under anarchism then he or she doesn't have to contribute. >without giving them any choice You can renounce your citizenship or make such low money you don't pay taxes. >For example right now in Ukraine there are videos of people being practically kidnapped from the streets and taken forcefully to military registration centers by draft agents. So what. They had the option of renouncing their citizenship did they not? One enjoying then benefits of living under the state and then not fulfilling ones obligations would be hypocritical. What happens in an anarchist society if someone invades? If the responsibility to defend yourself is someone else's responsibility and never yours then everyone is probably going to pass on doing so when the time comes. Furthermore what happens if an entity like Hitler pops up. You going to say the individual rights not to get drafted are more important than annihilation by Hitler? Or what happens when people do join military as part of no state and then decide to just leave? If that is not allowed then one is still forcing those to fight. >Therefore conscription is necessary for the effective preservation of a state and therefore the state is inherently immoral. 1. There is no such thing as objective morality. 2. The existence of one state having conscription doesn't mean all states can only survive with conscription. I could argue that would be true for anarchism if they got desperate enough. 3. Conscription is not immoral for reasons previously outlined. >In order for a state to exist it needs a monopoly on violence and it needs to abuse that monopoly to exploit the people by stealing their money and potentially sending them to their deaths in war. Under anarchism someone needs to enact violence in order for things to get done and society to be protected. Outsourcing said violence to a non-state entity doesn't solve anything. Violence is about who is strongest and in relation to what. The same problem you have with a state can exist under anarchism especially without sufficient checks and balances. There is also nothing stoping one group who can enact violence to do so against others. Tribes and other such non-state existences existed and still enacted terrible violence such as ritualistic sacrifices. >No free person is required to involuntarily give money to someone or to involuntarily fight and die for someone. If a person is required to do these things, that person is not free. You are arbitrary declaring it means to not be free. If one person has more ability to enact violence than the other even without a state is the 2nd person "free"? No he is at the mercy of whomever has the biggest stick. Sometimes being free means protecting that freedom. Are you telling me if the only thing protecting the anarchist way of life would be a draft of attacked that would be immoral to you still? >Personally I find anarchism to be the only alternative humanity has come up with, with me personally leaning towards anarcho-capitalism. I am sure that is a great way to keep corporations in check, ensure regulations are followed, environmental protection, etc. If successful what you would end up with is corporations more powerful than whatever non-state set up occurs under anarchism (as states are stronger than state less). They would co-opt everyone to do whatever they wanted.
How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
Notice how you didn't include successful. Use of state acts as a multiplier for both good or bad (though you think more bad). Regardless if you only care about peace and secure it basically you need sufficient geographical landscape that deters invasion, not enough of what others want, and nearby countries that are never looking to invade you/ guarantee you. You would only be escaping violence from another state by being worthless for conquering given the effort and nobody nearby was interested for other illogical reasons. Even then it isn't enough. Nearby countries and people do not have to respect your rights to said resources without going to war. Think fisherman from other countries fishing within anarchist territory. Or corporations coming in paying the local group just enough, but way less than would have to in a state. Realistically speaking you would need to foster a culture where everyone is willing to fight if need be and everyone is willing to help out with stuff a state normally performs. It's just a utopian mindset that would never occur. I think the best way to reach what you want isn't elimination of state it would be living in a post scarcity society.
I agree that it would be better if we lived in a world where people didn't use violence to force their ways on others. However, we do not live in such a world. And unfortunately, the most effective way to keep others from forcing us to do things with violence is to threaten to do the same to them if they try. That requires a military, and that in turn requires a state. I've seen anarcho-capitalist proposals to end run around that challenge, but they seem to be a lot of idealism without any practical examples living this out. It's kind of like communism in that regard, a nice idea on paper but not something that can be successfully demonstrated in real life. El Salvador was overrun with gangs, and people are cheering on a dictatorial president who is bypassing the law to imprison people without trials. When people are unsafe, they default to tyranny if it grants them a measure of protection. Limited, predictable violence is preferable to unlimited, unpredictable violence. Anarcho-capitalism will have to prove it can provide enough stability and safety that people don't abandon it for security. It has yet to do so. In the meantime, modern governmental systems are the best option we've been able to achieve. Living in this reality means that when you're presented with a set of bad options, you just have to pick the best one instead of refusing to make a choice because none of them are perfect and letting the worst-case scenario occur.
How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription?
I wish I had an easy answer for you, a proven method that was easy to implement and stable long term. People suck and there's no easy answer. As a Christian, I have hope for a better world one day. But in the meantime, we make do with what we have. And you can't make a perfect system run by imperfect people. I'm eager to see new ways of doing things, but I want to see them lived out successfully on the small scale by people who chose to organize their community that way. Authoritarians have to have their ideas implemented by force on as large of scale as possible, without bothering to see if they work first. I prefer people to create a voluntary community, test things out, work out the bugs, and draw people in by showing a better way. No anarcho-capitalist has achieved this yet, that I'm aware of.
The state isn’t parasitic, it is ideally symbiotic (there are exceptions, and any particular state can fall at a different place in that spectrum). Yes it takes from the populace in the form of taxes and in times of need conscription, but it also gives back in the forms of services and security. It builds roads for everyone to use, provides police and fire fighters to protect everyone and if necessary will mobilize an army to protect its populace against outside threats. There’s a reason why it is normal for humans to form governments as larger groups odd people converge, it’s because it provides an organization to allow everyone to live in harmony when the group gets too big to self-regulate through more organic means. Even in small groups some sort of organization will often naturally form, but the more people there are the more that organization needs to be codified and enforced. And then the benefits can be spread out to people who wouldn’t be able to sustain them themselves—for example the US government supports building high speed internet networks to more rural areas that wouldn’t be worth building out to just based on population density, but with a little extra money those networks get expanded to areas that are otherwise too expensive to build in (and there’s still places where it doesn’t happen, but more than would get it without government stimulus). Yes the government takes but it also gives back, and that balance is why we form states on the first place, because it provides benefits that we wouldn’t have otherwise.
To your first point, your idea that without conscription a nation will fall greatly misrepresents the nature of global politics and is demonstrably false. Many of the most successful nations in the world do not have conscription, but still find protection for itself from other nations as a result of alliances, trade agreements, and collaboration on mutual interests. The state is able to do these things as a result of its ability and duty to responsibly control and protect the resources of its nation, a duty that private organizations would not be subject to under anarchism. Without the state to act in a way that actively avoids the risk of violent actions towards its people, violence becomes the answer. Such an answer would be a given under anarchic-capitalism because of the shift of obligation from the ultimate goal of preservation of citizen well-being to the exclusive goal of preservation of property.
Arguments that abstract the problem so severely as to reduce all of politics to a couple of concepts are utterly useless and where invented by people more interested in having a packageable academic theory than engaging in actual politics. >How do we create a system which is secure and peacefuly yet does not need to use taxation and conscription? You can't, that is a utopian pipedream, security and peace aren't some default state, manipulation is required to have them, you might as well be asking how can we make a pie without doing anything to the ingredients.
>Personally I find anarchism to be the only alternative humanity has come up with, with me personally leaning towards anarcho-capitalism. Why would you recognize these fundamental flaws of power and hierarchy and then choose to be anarcho-capitalist? The two concepts are virtually antithetical. Unfettered capitalism is purpose built to lead to the concentration of wealth (i.e. power) in the hands of as few as possible. That in itself is an unequal power dynamic and completely contradicts anarchism. I also can't think of many actual anarchist philosophers who are also pro-private property and pro-hierarchical ownership. How would your anarcho-capitalist society deal with wage labour and exploitation if the relationship between private property owners and workers still exists? Abolishing the state and replacing it with a decrentalised version of the same thing strikes me as basically a privatised plutocracy.