Have you ever done a deep-dive break down of the Hobbesian Leviathan philosophy? I think many Statist (especially those who wouldn't consider themselves statists) think this has all been figured out before and some strong force has to be put in place to prevent wars, nuclear conflict, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, protection of the environment, etc, etc. They fail to see how government is usually the worst offender in these categories, but they are sold on the "We need a strong force" idea in that with one stronger force than any other, decentralized disputes won't escalate to more and more violence (on the net). If a cop beats someone up and puts them in jail who was involved in a conflict with others and resisting arrest, the thinking goes, it prevents families and gangs from unending escalation of retaliatory violence which then lowers the well-being of everyone else around them. The "keepers of the peace" aren't as interested in justice as they are in removing conflict (IMO).
I'd love for you to deconstruct that thinking using statistical evidence. I sometimes wonder if voluntaryists (myself included) value freedom more than we value the freedom well-being brings. If our ideas work at scale, I really hope we can start showing evidence of that.
As an example, should everyone be "free" to own weapons of mass destruction assuming they become easier and easier to produce in the future? Does that create a systemic risk which lowers everyone's well-being as whole cities can get taken out by crazy people? If so, would we then socially agree to take action against those who did try to own and trade in those weapons?
I love the pure ideological and rational arguments of anarchy/voluntaryism, but I often feel it gets a little "hand wavy" when it comes to solving real social problems which are emergent properties of many human beings living together in small spaces like cities. If the goal is to increase well-being could that ever, under any circumstances at all, involve giving up some freedoms (such as wanting to own weapons of mass destruction)?
I also wonder how much our upbringing (children being spanked, primitive evolutionary psychology of male-dominated violence, etc) plays a role as well. When I thin about that, I further think about how evolutionary stable strategies and wonder if "pirates" could ever by fully eliminated.
You have some very interesting ideas going though here. It noticeable that you are also struggling to see solutions. I don't to have the solutions, but if you are a curious person, I will recommend a few philosophers that bring answers to this ideas of a world free of political states. Look for Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Andrew Joseph Galambos and Jay Stuart Snelson. The V-50 lectures they exposed completely blew my mind as to possibilities we will have in a free society. You will have to go down the rabbit hole to see for yourself.
To you example of the nuclear weapons, I think that in a stateless world 99.999% of individuals will be completely disinterested in acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction. My reasons:
It is extremely expensive to refine uranium to fissile material and develop weapons. BILLIONS of dollars. Radical individuals will never be able to afford it or will be highly dis-motivated. Financing: who would finance a radical when there will no more wars to fight? NO ONE... No incentive of profit.
Political states are the only ones interested in weapons of mass destruction and many of them hold them only as a deterrence mechanism.
I think we will have LESS radicals when funds instead of going to a cohersive political state, will go to mental health research, energy research, biological sciences research, and development of social (property protection) sciences.
3.b. Also... A state of freedom is a much more natural environment aligned with other the nature of individuals and groups. When we are misaligned from environment, some people tend to lose it man. I firmly believe people are naturally self-interested. That self-interest is what drives us to trade (that is natural for us). That same self-interest will breed environments where individuals will not be attracted to destruction for its own sake.
In a state of freedom...I think civil groups and property protection interested parties (insurance companies and private security) will do a great job in quickly identifying and disarming dangerous individuals. This is in the assumption that private security firms are MUCH MORE (fact!) effective than state security and will be MORE motivated than the state since they are following their self-interest.
I'm not familiar with Andrew Joseph Galambos and Jay Stuart Snelson. I'll have to check them out. I've read/listened to quite a bit of Rand and Mises. I'm labeled an anarchist/voluntaryist, but I like to avoid being typecast and enjoy debating Larken once in a while to ensure he's being kept on his toes with his own ideology as well.
Those who would acquire and use weapons of mass destruction are crazy. We'll always have to deal with crazy people. I agree, for now, nuclear weapons are outside of the ability of anyone who isn't a nationstate, but given the rise of technology do you think that will always be the case? I think other weapons like chemical weapons will be 3D printable at some point in the not so distant future.
Crazy people don't care about profit. They care about their insane religious beliefs or they just want to see the world burn. It's a very, very small percentage of the human population, sure. But that small amount of people can do a lot of harm which is kind of my point. The existence of the weapons themselves creates the systemic risk. If we recognize that, it also has something to say about the various other weapons we think should or shouldn't exist in a peaceful society.
Unfortunately many crazy people want them too.
I like this perspective a lot and I agree it fits for almost all of humanity. Unfortunately, we still have some crazy people to deal with. Hopefully, as you say, they will decrease as we move away from a society built on violent conflict towards one built on peace and cooperation.
Yes, I talk about Detroit Threat Management often. They, I think, are an excellent example of what's possible.
@lukestokes
I also avoid being typecast. I think that no outlook will be the same. It clear that you guys are advocates of Freedom at all levels and we both want un-cohersive, VOLUNTARY accepted governments.
In a more general sense, my opinion is that the political states are a major source of violence and cohersion. This un natural system is not compatible with the liberty seeking spirit of individuals. I mean that at a metaphysical / quantum level, our human nature is not compatible with the political state system we see now. This dis phase is one source of religiously and political motivated ideas.
Also, certain programs in the political states directly create violence: false flag shootings, MK9 mind control programs, almost ALL USA clandestine services operations, etc.
This is our starting point. This is what we have had up until now.
As we continue in working to create a new and improved system that ensure Freedom to the masses, things can only get better. I think that as we create more natural systems of government that are aligned with human nature, we will see less violence and radical individuals. It is unreasonable to say that there never be some incident in the future, but the likelihood and frequency of these events will SIGNIFICANTLY drop.
What do you think?
Thank you, I have been enjoying our conversation.
That relates, at least to some degree, with an article I almost have finished about the whole "final decider" fetish that statists have, and why it's so horrendously destructive.
Excellent! Looking forward to it.
We have a wonderful "technological" society that works, mostly by pure luck.
So many of our systems are so fragile, and so vulnerable, that anyone with any knowledge could take them out.
This includes a person armed only with a shovel.
So, WMDs, the only people stupid enough to use them are govern-cements.
To everyone else its, I still have to live here.
And the way this will be solved is seen in the difference between a home schooled kid and a govern-cement schooled kid. In govern-cement school you are shown that force is the only way to do anything, and that all interactions boil down to who brings the most force. Whereas the home schooled kid has learned about self reliance and win win negotiation. (actually it is very apparent, unless you are indoctrinated for 12 years upon the use of force)
So, in the near future, people will start from the position of, going to war is stupid. Doing so will get neither of our needs/wants met (at the bare minimum). And thus will begin world peace.