[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The 'Stateless' state sounds good in principle, but I have some observations of my own. If there is no State, how to the communities interact with communities in what are now other countries?

On the basis of private relations and legal agreements for the most, and by small regional local communities competing for citizens wanting to live there - citizens that are free to move and to vote for living and working conditions by their feet. the real question is how in an era of big nationals tates, supra-national organisations and growing totalitarianism and centralism in Western nations, such ideas could succeed. Hoppe says: secession is the way to follow, but what if the central government does not accept that without putting up a violent fight? And let'S not be mistaken, governments will set up a fight if you queston their very basis on which they exist.

I doubt that it could go as reasonable and peacefully as Hioppoe maybe indicates. There is a reason why revolutions often are so bloody and violent - because peacefully a no longer wanted establishment does not give up its privileges, and it has tailored the rules of the running system since toi long to serve its interests to defend this power.

Another thing is that nothing will happen if people do not understand these things and are willing to get off their democracy-.drunken azzes and stand up against the reign of the very system itself - the system that they have learned to absue themselves, to take away their freedoms in exchnage for being nannied, etc.

So the real precondition in the end is that people understand how the status quo is ruining us all and that we will end in a malstrom if we do not break out. Th belief that democracy is the best form of government, roots deep in present man, and especially in America. It is a very big pill to swallow to see and understands that it is not, but in total summary is worse than the monarchy system that ruled before.

The United States originally tried to have individual smaller groups (the States)

I think thes eocmmunitie levels still are way too big. Mind you. in population sizes some of these states equal one European national state.

I think in community sizes of low thousands at max. Hoppe maybe more. Jarred Diamond, who also outlined that democracy can only work in very small community sizes beyond which it necessarily must fail, probably would favour smaller ones. I think that modern communication technology maybe allows us to slighty increase the size limit - if only we would show the ablity to use out hitech for slightly less childish main purposes thna we do today, consuming technoloy for entertainment and using only small part of the educational and administration levels it could offer us. In this regard I see very great potential - and great risks if we are not aware of the dangers. I am for technology, I absolutly am, but I do not share this blind n trusting hyper-optimism that we are beign fed with regarding technology.

I cannot give loyu a detialed answer, Steve, I have none, and Hoppe also does not offer a full-featured blueprint. We are too huge nations, and too many people. Evertyhing, in all regards: too much, too big, too huge, too many. So far, Hoppe or my opinions, still rank as theoretical work only. Whether it will ever turn true, I do not know. I'm pessimistic.

I also do not know whether these ideas coulöd ever work. But I believe I know quite certain now that if we stay with our current ways, we will be doomed, on so many levels.

but were told by other established nations (Britain, France and Russia) that they would only deal with a unified central government.

A strong unified centralised government with the monopole to enforce its will on the people existed only since the civil war.

This was partly what led to our Constitution. If one nation followed the prescribed route and others didn't, how would the smaller communities deal with that?

The state'S lacking self-justification is a very principle problem and doe snot depend on the question whether it is a monarchy, a military dictatorship or a democracy. State always means tyranny. So the question of how small communities would interact with great states, comes down to the question of how to abandon states globally, no matter for the form of government in these states.

Throughout history nations have been created by individuals who gathered followers, put togethere armies and dominated their neighbors, then their neighbors, until they had an empire. How would individual communities oppose the strong man?

Indeed. Maybe countries like Norway and Switzerland can serve as a hint. Especially Switzerland gets mentioned again and again.

It seems to me that Madison's statement, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary" holds true here. Such a thing might work, but how would it resist someone who created power of his own to subjugate the populace?

Subjugation demands two: the one who subjugates,m and the other who allows to get subjugated. Obviously, education and the influence of community play a role here.

For us modern Wetserners, it starts with coming to clear assessment of this thing that we see as our golden cow: democracy. As long as we do not even do the first step and just live on the ground as seeing it as the best that could happen to us, we must no make plans on whwere we will be once we have completed what probbaly will be a very long and stormy journey. I cannot imaginbe thta this journey could proceed without serious conflict, violence and probbaly even civil wars. I do not know what Hoppe would say on that. Mind you, he sees it from the perspective of a theoretician. and I admitted already that he is at the peak of his convincibility when diagnosing the present and the way that led us to where we are. On his remedies I am not so sure, and I do not know how they could be reached, or if they even could work at all. I believe to know that we must try, however. Staying with what we have, will spell desaster for us.

My biggest question is how would this all be put into effect? When the United States came into being the need for a strong central government was recognized as a necessary evil. I can see how it could work, but how would people be convinced to try it in the first place?

How could it work differently than in the way I am trying - by mouth-to-mouth convincing, interpersonal discussion that tries to sow doubt in people's mind? I do not believe that it makes any sense at all to form a party and trying to come to government - that runs the game by established rules that will lead nowhere. I speak with people in my real life, I try to challenge their views. I'm killing their nerves, especially in internet fora. I try to lead them to not to vote, to disrespect state authorities, to find ways of civil disobedience. I try to catch their attention by arguments, texts, books. I want people to not take the current situation for granted, and not to puit their trust in parties and demicracy, and I want people starting to ask questions and to lower their demands and expecations. You must not tell me how small the success rate is, and still - I see no other way than this. That is my way of being political, and you can be political only on the very basic level: when you tlak to the one person whose face is right in front of you. Everything else - is not politics but ,manipulation and propaganda. I think the turn must come form the people, from the social grassroots, by education and information. We have nothing good to expect from parties and governments, they are more interested in their own interests to stay in power and rob our wealth to survive a little longer before it all collapses.

Hm. Re-reading it I realise I sound a bit pathetic, but I cannot help it, I am not sure how to say it any different. Since many years I feel and realise a growing discomfort and sense of alertness in myself. I see how spendings grow, how debts grow, I see how our social realities change, our social rules fail, our communal integrity desintegrates, our freedoms get sold away, our liberties get limited, our rights get cut back, our opinions get manipulated, and how we turn into what 20 years ago we considered to have "defeated" - the ways and the system of the eastern Block states. But we have not really won, we are falling ourselves now, our system "democracy" shows its failure more and more openly and obviously. The price makes itself felt to more and more of us.

We need to get some basic acts together and correct some terrible mistakes we fell for - but I am not certain that we even have sufficient time left. There are other players ion the world coming to power, and although they are economically successful, they are not democratic at all, which makes another one of our wrong assumptions go flying out of the window.

In the end, the only thing that is acceptable to be given the right to rule, the the rule of the law, or "a" law. For economic fostering and legal stability, the law is far more important than democratic basic order, or even individual freedom. Many people live in un-freedom, from our perspective, but are happy as long as they enjoy some basic material wellbeing. In the Wets however we must realise how in the name of protecting democracy, democracy takes more and more rights away from us and legal insecurity grows by every quarter because some new government her,e some new lobby group there, or the EU comes with new suggestions, proposals and new laws that change the laws that yesterday were valid and that we yesterday founded our decision son that we made.

A stable legal system and the rule of law is far more important than democracy. Democracy does not lead to justice and legal stability - it ruins legal stability and justice - especially social justice, because growing redistribution destroy social justice.

Sorry if all this sounds as if I am just thinking loud. It's okay, because it seems that that indeed is what I do.

Edit. I am not just reflkecting on Hoppe. I also refer to the writings of Leopold Kohr, and in parts E.F. Schumacher. They too reiterated the importance of focussing on small local regions as the core cells of government and administration, and organising economies there instead on national and supranational levels. The latter simply are too big, and cannot be controlled, and start to live a life of there own, and act by a will of their own. Not good.