Decentralization and secession seem like more realistic ways of achieving something approaching anarchy, but the same fundamental criticisms might still apply to them.
"Some say that the problem with libertarianism or anarchism is that it is similar to communism in that the latter says everyone should have equal wealth while the former says everyone should have equal sovereignty and both are impossible and are dangerous to attempt. However, just as capitalism makes it possible to produce goods so cheaply that anyone can buy them, innovative technologies and business models might make sovereignty so inexpensive that any person or tiny community can buy it."
The way I see it, in the libertarian world we would not all have equal sovereignty, but a diverse array of sovereign organizations and situations. If we join a private defense company or private law association, then we have transferred our sovereignty to these groups, as least temporarily. A person's sovereignty could be split among several different organizations. If you separate yourself from this sort of extra-personal legal protection, then you regain your sovereignty. The libertarian world may have these sorts of sovereign individuals, but I think most would gladly transfer this to a good business or association in return for the benefits of professional legal and physical protection. For instance, if you were your own sovereign and somebody robbed or attacked you, you'd have no one but yourself to help bring this person or persons to justice for their actions. Most people would not be capable of this.
What the libertarian world would recognize in a legal sense, however, is the equal right of respect of one another's personal bodies and personal property. The NAP would be an underlying law between and within all private law groups. Each law group could have a myriad of laws on top of the NAP which may seem 'unlibertarian' (price control laws, product prohibitions, social prohibitions, religious laws, racial discrimination, etc.), but this is perfectly fine from a libertarian perspective, because all these additional laws would have been voluntarily agreed to by each group's members personally.
So in this sense, the libertarian future may look nothing like many modern libertarians have envisioned. There could still be a lack of free trade. Porn and prostitution could be outlawed. Even fiat money is a possibility. I guess my point is that it will be hard to predict this stateless future.
"Perhaps the only way to have small communities each managing their own affairs is for an empire to maintain peace among them and protect them from foreign threats"
I am not confident in my ability to discuss such matters. I agree that the real solution is spiritual. These are just my thoughts on what the material consequences of that would be.
"possibility of alternatives to a state is like the idea of blue dragons on Neptune."
More like feudal kingship, aristocratic republics, independent cities and communes, and city-leagues in Latin Christendom. All these are alternatives to the territorial state model of governance that were widespread and lasted for hundreds of years. No dragons necessary.
"which will change to stable one, which would be a state"
There is no reason to suppose that states impose any more order on society than a more voluntary or natural authority structure. States, on the contrary, seem to create chaos like no other organization in human history.
It is useful here to differentiate power and authority in a certain way. Let's say power is synonymous with aggression employed to maintain sovereignty over a given territory or people, and authority is natural and voluntary fealty or submission freely given between the strong and the weak for their mutual advantage. Power is what you need when your authority breaks down if you want to maintain your rule, but all power structures need some level of actual authority as well. Authority is justified in using coercion and violence, but only in response to aggression, committed or credibly and imminently threatened. Authority is not impotent against invasion or subversion, but it cannot behave like a criminal either.
In this light, democracy was so popular in the 18th and 19th centuries because 1) monarchies were resorting more and more to power to maintain their rule as they fostered more and more the state model of governance, and 2) democracy was made to sound like it was a pure government of authority, with its free elections and representative officials beholden to public opinion. But democracy was just an advance of the state deeper into our cultural subconsciousness. The democratic revolutions ended up opening up the flood gates for the most power mad demagogues to ever walk the earth in the 20th century. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pot et al were not the result of the march of the ancient regime into modernity, but of the democratic revolutions against it since the late 18th century. Here the state came into its purest form and proved itself not an instrument of order but of chaos on a scale that is nearly incomprehensible.
I think it is clear that states are best when they behave least like states, that is territorial monopolists of political authority and taxation. So any scheme to break up this monopoly mindset pays dividends for freedom and allows more natural authority to come forward. Federalism, subsidiarity, and sphere sovereignty are a few ideas which have been tried to do this. But these only approximate real political competition and only offer the delay of the eventual encroachment of power into the realm of authority. From this it should be clear that the best form of government is one which relies totally on authority and abstains from the use of power. And a government such as this could not forcibly prevent peaceful competitors from offering governing services to members of its community, hence, the private law society is the ideal.
Thank you for reading. I was trying to address the post-libertarians and reactionaries and show that I take what they say seriously. They would say that there will always be hierarchies and there will always be people at the very top of any hierarchy and those people will be able to take power and dominate and there will always be those who not powerful enough to resist. A decentralized order can last for a long time, but not forever. I am trying to address both the issues of how to prevent such centralization and what the most just centralized power structure might be.
Arrangements different from the modern state existed in the past, but creating something like those in the present and future is no simple matter. We have the wealthiest and most technologically advanced civilization to exist and that means we can afford to have the most powerful and parasitic states which ever existed and those states use that wealth and technology to maintain and acquire even more power. It seems like decentralization might be possible in this moment, but that is because this is a time of crisis and disunity which might result in an overall regression in wealth. Centralization could happen again when the crisis is recovered from. It might be possible for many small polities to remain independent on their own in modern times, but they might also need to outsource some of the work needed to remain independent to those who specialize in that work and have the incentives to do it right.
There was less specialization in the past before the modern state. Specialization makes the modern economy as productive as it is. That productivity fuels states. The solution might be to find a way to specialize in the business of preventing the formation of parasitic leviathan states, as opposed to small communities trying to maintain their independence on their own.
There was less specialization in the past, but I think it is putting the cart before the horse to say that the state caused this. I'm not saying you said this, but it was unclear to me. There is no question that 1) specialization or division of labor increases productivity, 2) increased production creates wealth, and 3) increased wealth creates more opportunity for parasitism.
That is the danger of an extremely liberal (in classical sense) monopoly state. The liberal or laissez-faire policies create a vast store of wealth and productive capacity, which can be seized by the state and used to wage advanced foreign war or complex domestic subjugation.
Recreating something from the past is probably impossible, but we can use good elements from the past to build new governing institutions which are better able to 1) resolve internal disputes equitably and 2) defend against foreign invasion and which are 3) easier to resist should they become despotic.
I think Carl von Haller has the golden solution to all this. His vision just has to be updated and brought into reality by people who have experience with how the modern world works. His idea of the natural state, as opposed to the modern artificial state, is the answer you are searching for I believe. It was for me.
"If a state splits into smaller ones, there will be a power vacuum."
Power vacuums occur when previous power holders are toppled over and different groups then begin warring with each other for the seat of power. Power vacuums do not occur or are less likely in peaceful secession movements. Typically, a power structure is already there guiding the community to independence. And there is an argument to be made that a more decentralized region is more difficult to conquer because a peace treaty imposed on one leader by an invading superpower does not apply to the rest, whereas if the territory were controlled by a state, there is only one political center to attack and coerce into submission.
"Some say that the problem with libertarianism or anarchism is that it is similar to communism in that the latter says everyone should have equal wealth while the former says everyone should have equal sovereignty and both are impossible and are dangerous to attempt. However, just as capitalism makes it possible to produce goods so cheaply that anyone can buy them, innovative technologies and business models might make sovereignty so inexpensive that any person or tiny community can buy it."
The way I see it, in the libertarian world we would not all have equal sovereignty, but a diverse array of sovereign organizations and situations. If we join a private defense company or private law association, then we have transferred our sovereignty to these groups, as least temporarily. A person's sovereignty could be split among several different organizations. If you separate yourself from this sort of extra-personal legal protection, then you regain your sovereignty. The libertarian world may have these sorts of sovereign individuals, but I think most would gladly transfer this to a good business or association in return for the benefits of professional legal and physical protection. For instance, if you were your own sovereign and somebody robbed or attacked you, you'd have no one but yourself to help bring this person or persons to justice for their actions. Most people would not be capable of this.
What the libertarian world would recognize in a legal sense, however, is the equal right of respect of one another's personal bodies and personal property. The NAP would be an underlying law between and within all private law groups. Each law group could have a myriad of laws on top of the NAP which may seem 'unlibertarian' (price control laws, product prohibitions, social prohibitions, religious laws, racial discrimination, etc.), but this is perfectly fine from a libertarian perspective, because all these additional laws would have been voluntarily agreed to by each group's members personally.
So in this sense, the libertarian future may look nothing like many modern libertarians have envisioned. There could still be a lack of free trade. Porn and prostitution could be outlawed. Even fiat money is a possibility. I guess my point is that it will be hard to predict this stateless future.
"Perhaps the only way to have small communities each managing their own affairs is for an empire to maintain peace among them and protect them from foreign threats"
Or you could have the Roman Catholic Church.
I am not confident in my ability to discuss such matters. I agree that the real solution is spiritual. These are just my thoughts on what the material consequences of that would be.
"possibility of alternatives to a state is like the idea of blue dragons on Neptune."
More like feudal kingship, aristocratic republics, independent cities and communes, and city-leagues in Latin Christendom. All these are alternatives to the territorial state model of governance that were widespread and lasted for hundreds of years. No dragons necessary.
"which will change to stable one, which would be a state"
There is no reason to suppose that states impose any more order on society than a more voluntary or natural authority structure. States, on the contrary, seem to create chaos like no other organization in human history.
It is useful here to differentiate power and authority in a certain way. Let's say power is synonymous with aggression employed to maintain sovereignty over a given territory or people, and authority is natural and voluntary fealty or submission freely given between the strong and the weak for their mutual advantage. Power is what you need when your authority breaks down if you want to maintain your rule, but all power structures need some level of actual authority as well. Authority is justified in using coercion and violence, but only in response to aggression, committed or credibly and imminently threatened. Authority is not impotent against invasion or subversion, but it cannot behave like a criminal either.
In this light, democracy was so popular in the 18th and 19th centuries because 1) monarchies were resorting more and more to power to maintain their rule as they fostered more and more the state model of governance, and 2) democracy was made to sound like it was a pure government of authority, with its free elections and representative officials beholden to public opinion. But democracy was just an advance of the state deeper into our cultural subconsciousness. The democratic revolutions ended up opening up the flood gates for the most power mad demagogues to ever walk the earth in the 20th century. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pot et al were not the result of the march of the ancient regime into modernity, but of the democratic revolutions against it since the late 18th century. Here the state came into its purest form and proved itself not an instrument of order but of chaos on a scale that is nearly incomprehensible.
I think it is clear that states are best when they behave least like states, that is territorial monopolists of political authority and taxation. So any scheme to break up this monopoly mindset pays dividends for freedom and allows more natural authority to come forward. Federalism, subsidiarity, and sphere sovereignty are a few ideas which have been tried to do this. But these only approximate real political competition and only offer the delay of the eventual encroachment of power into the realm of authority. From this it should be clear that the best form of government is one which relies totally on authority and abstains from the use of power. And a government such as this could not forcibly prevent peaceful competitors from offering governing services to members of its community, hence, the private law society is the ideal.
Thank you for reading. I was trying to address the post-libertarians and reactionaries and show that I take what they say seriously. They would say that there will always be hierarchies and there will always be people at the very top of any hierarchy and those people will be able to take power and dominate and there will always be those who not powerful enough to resist. A decentralized order can last for a long time, but not forever. I am trying to address both the issues of how to prevent such centralization and what the most just centralized power structure might be.
Arrangements different from the modern state existed in the past, but creating something like those in the present and future is no simple matter. We have the wealthiest and most technologically advanced civilization to exist and that means we can afford to have the most powerful and parasitic states which ever existed and those states use that wealth and technology to maintain and acquire even more power. It seems like decentralization might be possible in this moment, but that is because this is a time of crisis and disunity which might result in an overall regression in wealth. Centralization could happen again when the crisis is recovered from. It might be possible for many small polities to remain independent on their own in modern times, but they might also need to outsource some of the work needed to remain independent to those who specialize in that work and have the incentives to do it right.
There was less specialization in the past before the modern state. Specialization makes the modern economy as productive as it is. That productivity fuels states. The solution might be to find a way to specialize in the business of preventing the formation of parasitic leviathan states, as opposed to small communities trying to maintain their independence on their own.
There was less specialization in the past, but I think it is putting the cart before the horse to say that the state caused this. I'm not saying you said this, but it was unclear to me. There is no question that 1) specialization or division of labor increases productivity, 2) increased production creates wealth, and 3) increased wealth creates more opportunity for parasitism.
That is the danger of an extremely liberal (in classical sense) monopoly state. The liberal or laissez-faire policies create a vast store of wealth and productive capacity, which can be seized by the state and used to wage advanced foreign war or complex domestic subjugation.
Recreating something from the past is probably impossible, but we can use good elements from the past to build new governing institutions which are better able to 1) resolve internal disputes equitably and 2) defend against foreign invasion and which are 3) easier to resist should they become despotic.
I think Carl von Haller has the golden solution to all this. His vision just has to be updated and brought into reality by people who have experience with how the modern world works. His idea of the natural state, as opposed to the modern artificial state, is the answer you are searching for I believe. It was for me.
https://propertyandfreedom.org/2021/11/hoppe-the-idea-of-a-private-law-society-the-case-of-karl-ludwig-von-haller-pfs-2021/
"If a state splits into smaller ones, there will be a power vacuum."
Power vacuums occur when previous power holders are toppled over and different groups then begin warring with each other for the seat of power. Power vacuums do not occur or are less likely in peaceful secession movements. Typically, a power structure is already there guiding the community to independence. And there is an argument to be made that a more decentralized region is more difficult to conquer because a peace treaty imposed on one leader by an invading superpower does not apply to the rest, whereas if the territory were controlled by a state, there is only one political center to attack and coerce into submission.