It's interesting how these hypotheticals are engaged with itt. most people seem to treat them like a social scientist, ie they predict what would happen. I wonder if that would be the case if the OP were "Arguments against slavery in a typical society".

maybe a stateless society is just not evolutionary stable ( wrt social evolution), which is why it's pointless to discuss it, but a slave-free society is, though it would be difficult to be sure about this (changes we've seen happen probably seemed absurd centuries ago)

The difference being that there were members of society, and huge portions of people who didn't infact have slaves

Okay, I like this hypothetical more. I think that initially I wouldn't be attracted to the group of people clambering for a state - I'm young, male, intelligent, and fairly resourceful. So ideally, I'd be able to set up some sort of enterprise for myself in order to better my life on this virgin Earth. I would imagine that were the society stable enough to allow me to grow my enterprise (not a given, but for the sake of argument), I would begin to accumulate more resources. I think this is where the idea of a state would begin to appeal to me more - I've now got things that I have an interest in protecting, and seeing to it that someone else protects them is much easier for me than doing it myself. It also allows me to focus on growth rather than maintenance.

Now, keep in mind that we've still made some assumptions there. We've assumed that I've not been forced into a state-like environment by my peers. We've assumed that the whole place hasn't descended into rape/pillaging/chaos (probably our most significant assumption). Also, we haven't taken into account how other demographics (women, olds, sick, etc) would feel, and I feel comfortable asserting they'd be less enthusiastic about a stateless society.

I've tried to take the question seriously and answer it earnestly, but I'm getting the same result. I think the problem is that pressure comes from both ends - those with little to lose still want to band together to ensure their mutual protection, and those with a lot to lose want to form a state to protect their resources.

It's interesting that so many here seem to advocate a state under the assumption it will protect their interests. They seem to forget numerous examples of states taking people's belongings and leaving them very little if anything.

If my choice is to choose between the hoped benevolence of a state or the

and then I read your 2nd bolded. snipped entire comment

Yeah, exactly. I set up this hypothetical precisely because I wanted to avoid such prophecy-type arguments against statelessness that usually occur when the discussions take place in our world. I'd rather begin from scratch and discuss the necessity of the state, rather than its inevitability. This is the whole point of this thread - arguments for statism. That is, what would be better, to have a state or not?

A useful analogy that comes to my mind is the atheism-antitheism distinction. An atheist means a person who doesn't believe god/s exist, whereas an antitheist is a person who doesn't want god/s to exist (99.99% of antitheists are probably also atheists but there are some atheists who wish there was a god).

So, I'm asking here. Do you prefer a state would form or not, regardless of the results of your personal simulations?

Alright, let's really get in the mood and not jump over huge periods of time. We're still at the beginning of our journey. We've been landed on the planet like a week ago and now you and me are sitting in a just built tavern and talking about this issue that's been spreading around among other people. The question: should we form a state? I'll take it that what you wrote in this post is what you tell me in that tavern, so I ask you now.

Okay, Paul. Your main concern seems to be security from what I gather. This is important because back on Earth people had other concerns they were using for arguing for statism, like providing certain services for the poor like education and healthcare. Now, on the issue of security. I agree with you that you shouldn't be concerned about your life or the products of your labor all the time and you should rather be able to focus on being happy and productive. But still I don't see why we should create a state. You are forced to pay for its existence and you're giving it too much power. Once it gets that power, it might become difficult to control and stopped from expending those powers further than we wanted it to. It happened countless times back on Earth, remember? And it's not like once we saw it wasn't working it was super easy to remove it, quite the contrary.

So, why don't we try something else instead? As I said, I agree with you that you shouldn't be constantly concerned about your own security, but still I also think there is some value in learning basic level defense skills, in order to not remain completely vulnerable, helpless and dependent on others to protect you (skills like some fighting techniques, working with a few weapon types, etc.) So, I have the following suggestion (but by all means, I'm open to others too). I really like your business ideas and I think they're worth protecting. I myself have a business idea of my own. I will form a group of people whose job is to protect you (and potentially others) from certain things you want me to. You will pay me for my services and I will try to do my job really well. I think it's very likely that other people will form similar groups so if you're unhappy with my services, you can always stop paying me and pay somebody else instead. And most importantly, if you happen to be unhappy with the services of any of the groups (which I think is unlikely, but this is obviously up for you to judge), you can also stop paying any of us and then consider another solution. I'm pretty sure me or some of the other such groups will provide a much better service than the state and for a much cheaper price!

What do you think?

This is a better way to approach the question imo. I should probably do a post sometime on my ideas of how a free society might come to pass, what a paradigm shift would look like, and how institutions would re-shape themselves with this new paradigm. It is perhaps utopic, perhaps not. I simply entertain the idea of the stateless society through a paradigm shift, because I have not found any other political philosophy to be at all fulfilling. I feel as though humans are stuck on a Möbius strip. I do not believe however that anyone is going to come together and agree that statism doesn't work. What 'works' is purely subjective anyway. The status quo 'works'. I mean, people do vote and there are outcomes, and there is some idea of what is 'law'. I just do not consider it to be social order, but rather social disintegration.

add: and what I mean also by "towns" as opposed to city-states, I still prefer "towns"

I think what you are describing here is the beginning of the formation of a state, even though that is not your intent. I am oversimplifying, but there is basically a two-step process to the formation of a state on your planet. You understand that there are people that will inflict violence upon you if you do not protect yourself, and that is why you are paying people to do it for you. That is step one. When those people you are paying to protect you say they want more, and you recognize that you do not have a choice, that is step two.

You are making the assertion that there is a choice as to whether a state is formed. If I asked you whether you have a choice as to whether you will ever eat again, you would certainly say yes, but with the caveat that if you do not, you will die. I would argue that you have the same choice here: you can submit to the people that threaten you with violence, or you can bear their wrath.

This is a completely meaningless use of the word "collective". Establishing a state entails the collective goals of the interest group(s) funding the establishment.

The way you used the word "collective" is incredibly deceitful. It reads as if you mean "everyone" in the territory being subjugated had the uniform goal of establishing said state. Obviously this doesn't pass the smell test.

And wtf are "state driven institutions"? You mean gangs of armed thugs, right?


Again, your deceitful use of the word "people" reads as though everyone voluntarily decided to gives up "some individual freedoms". I did not agree to the freedoms taken from me in the Patriot Act, for instance, yet I am part of "people", and so this simple fact obliterates your vague theory.

And wtf is "avoiding stagnation in society"??

If your post was a level, I sincerely apologize. If it wasn't, well, you might want to go back to the drawing boards.

a) actual real world Earth has turned into economic rape of every sort.

b) You believe violent theft is completely A-OK. Fine, whatever. I just think its wrong and that a society of people shouldn't be subjugated to arbitrary violence and theft. We'll agree to disagree.

c) Find it ironic that you are worried about anarchy turning into "economic rape" yet you believe systematized violence and theft headed by elite interest groups should cover every corner of the world. Very ironic.

Now this I can get behind.

Yup, "monopoly" and "competition" are two words with the same meaning, and we are just arguing "semantics". Well done, Fly, what with all the thought you've put into this you've really nailed us down!

WTF are you two talking about here? Citation demanded.

Find yourself a new homeland brah

Hmmm. Somalia was under a brutal oppressive dictatorship implementing "scientific socialism" for 30 years, and finally collapsed into a civil war, and now "most people live a very ****ty existence."

Ergo, if we Americans boldly reject, repel, or nullify the government, voluntarily and in a "critical mass" of numbers, _______.

Help me follow your logic here.