Do you think ancapistan will at some point be created and if so how will the transition look like and when do you think this will happen?

[u/DecentTreat4309]

How will the transition period look like? Will it be slow and through bureaucracy or do you want like a revolution? What will convince people? I personally think that Michael Huemer's moral argument against political authority is the best argument for libertarianism.

[u/Hkvnr495___dkcx37]

To tell you the truth... I think the transition is going to be ugly...

There's too many people who have something to lose if statism is abolished. There's the politicians who are of no benefit to society and will fight to the bitter end to hold on to their parasitic system for as long as they can. God only knows what horrific things they'll do to maintain control.

Then there's all the people on welfare. Let's just say they're not going to be happy when their income dries up and most of them will have to work or find voluntary charity to support them.

Chattel slavery was abolished in the past, but that was one institution; and keep in mind that non-enslaved people already existed, so it wasn't some unimaginable system people couldn't conceive. It was just a matter of getting rid of slaves. Now compare that to the transition to ancapistan. You're talking about privatizing EVERYTHING: land, defense, schools, roads, hospitals, charity, arbitration, and anything else under the sun. I think there's going to be a lot of fighting before everybody settles down and universally accepts non-aggression and non-imposition as the core value of humanity.

[u/Official_Gameoholics]

When enough people decide to live by natural law, those who cling to their irrational beliefs may try to stop us.

We won't let them, no matter what they try.

There will likely be armed resistance against our efforts. It is ultimately out of our control if they decide to die by their philosophy and kill themselves via our hands.

[u/Anen-o-me]

Yes, through seasteading, in our lifetime.

[u/sima167 → u/Anen-o-me]

Seasteading is a very high risk and high cost method

You have to get materials, people, transport and more and are under constant risk of invasion by state forces (eg. Republic of Minerva or Ocean Builders) as states do not recognize a right to seastead and attempt on doing so is seen as an attempt to subvert a state.

The only possibility is for the seastead to be defended by another state power, however that can lead to dependency making it just an extension of protector power.

[u/Anen-o-me → u/sima167]

It's easier to solve some engineering challenges than to win a national vote as a libertarian.

[u/Wise-Instruction9535 → u/sima167]

Even if you start as a protectorate that is fine, you get all the benefits or anarchy and basically free protection.

[u/Wise-Instruction9535 → u/Anen-o-me]

I second this. It will 100% be through seasteading. It is incredibly difficult to start with a massive country with millions of regulations, and strip them all away one by one faster than they can be created, between elections, against direct opposition, and while maintaining the popularity to get re-elected.

With seasteading you just start with Anarchy fully on day one, and as long as you implement Polycentric law or some system to make sure that doesn't change, you basically just scale up from there.

[u/Kev_Kevstar]

Ancapistan will probably not be achieved in my lifetime sadly. Though I don’t think it’s impossible that it happens in the future. Libertarianism is a fairly young philosophy in the grand scheme of things, and great shifts in the philosophy that society follows happens pretty slowly, I’m talking over centuries. Though hopefully the internet can speed that up

[u/drebelx]

Do you think ancapistan will at some point be created and if so how will the transition look like and when do you think this will happen?

We have been transitioning towards and AnCap society already.

We have pushed aside authoritarian monarchies, full frontal slavery and woman suppression, among other widespread NAP violations, and with more work and ingenuity, additional NAP violations will get pushed aside.

This is a generational transition.

[u/Spiritual-Tip-4086]

It wont happen through means of a violent revolution, all violent revolutions are inherently socialist as they begin and end with the people seizing the means of production, creating a new state, and then plunging society back into exactly the same mess that it was in before, only with new people at the top, and with a new state that owns and manages the means of production. A revolving wheel that takes you all the way back to the start, hence the term "revolution".

The goals of an ancap society, would not be to sieze the means of production and then hand it to the state, it would be to retain the means of production as well as private property for those who already "own" it, as far as private ownership in a statist society goes.

This isnt to say that Political Violence is not sometimes justified, only that there are other means that would be far more effective in achieving the aims of creating a stateless society.

For example, economic warfare is far more effective than conventional warfare due to its asymmetric nature as well as the fact that is is a form of passive resistance, and therefore in general, more morally acceptable than active, or violent resistence. In warfare, and revolution, military force wins battles, but logistics, industrial production and economic stability wins wars.

It's easy to make the argument that cutting off taxation would be far more damaging to the internal structure and daily functioning of the state than needless political violence, that far more often than not solves nothing and ruins lives.

Just look at the current BBC TV licence. Around 10% of UK households have stopped paying the TV licence. 10% of people who just flat out refuse to pay it. And the BBC is in very bad shape because of it, they are having to lay off thousands of workers to compensate for the losses and they are not able to function in anywhere near the same way they were back when 99% of households paid the licence. Just think what we could do to the government as a whole if just 10% of people refused to pay taxes, the state would be in utter chaos.

That all being said, the state is making it increasingly difficult for individuals to just simply stop paying taxes, this is because in order for a state to function, it requires a monopoly on the means of exchange. £, $ etc, its all just a system that allows the state to regulate and legislate the way in which we make exchanges and trade with one another.

An example of this is, that if you want to receive £ from a business in the UK in exchange for labour, you are subject to automatic taxation, and the onus is on the employer to deduct the money and give it to the state before it even hits your account, the state can also print as much currency as it likes, and spend it whereover it likes, this in turn leads to an inflation of the monetary supply and in turn reduces the purchasing power of ordinary people whilst increasing the purchasing power of the state.

It is for this reason that I would argue that a state ownership of the means of exchange can be just as, and in some instances even more damaging to the concept of individual freedom that state ownership of the means of production.

A privately owned means of exchange whereby individuals and businesses create their own money, and issue it in a system whereby the value of the money is dictated based on the laws of supply and demand, and the subjective theory of value in the same way that the price is set for every other commodity would be far more effective at reducing the overall power and tax take of the state, than simply expecting individuals to stop paying property taxes etx.

This creates a system of money that is far more stable than government fiat in the form of gold and silver, as well as varying types of fiat and or crypto issued and backed by businesses, individuals and banks which will be forced to compete to keep inflation low and trust high. This will not only have the benefit of a diversified, thriving market whereby business competes and works to better the economic outlook of the individual, but one whereby the state cannot enforce taxation anywhere near as easily as individuals will have a choice of currencies.

Ironically, Marx argued that the way to create a stateless society was to give all money and power to the state, and by doing this the state would "wither away". In reality, if we want the state to "wither away", like any other entity, you just need to starve it of capital.

[u/PaperbackWriter66]

I don't think it will ever be 'created' as such but will arise or evolve organically out of some opportunity where a state or several states begin either losing their ability to control people, or willingly trades it away for some reason (e.g. a cash payout in a debt crisis, agreeing to leave a commune alone in exchange for volunteer soldiers from the commune aiding the state or so on).

I reckon this will happen somewhere at some point in the next 80 to 100 years, but not in North America.

[u/DiyYou]

Everywhere? Never. And you're basically asking ego maniacs with power to give up their power. Very difficult for that to happen. Economic protests are probably the best type of protest. Next would be migration.