You committed a coup!

[an anarchist]

Aren’t you the go-getter? Now you are free to establish any form of government you want. What do you do?
I would immediately dismantle the state and replace it with nothing else! Let society spontaneously ebb and flow with the free market. I’d give Ancapistan a trial run.
I’m still getting familiar with the theories on how everything would work without a state (law, defense, money, etc.) I’m reading a book on it and will make a detailed post sometime this year.
I’m curious what you would do if you could establish any form of government you would like.

 

[The Hammer]

Aren’t you the go-getter? Now you are free to establish any form of government you want. What do you do?
I would immediately dismantle the state and replace it with nothing else! Let society spontaneously ebb and flow with the free market. I’d give Ancapistan a trial run.
I’m still getting familiar with the theories on how everything would work without a state (law, defense, money, etc.) I’m reading a book on it and will make a detailed post sometime this year.
I’m curious what you would do if you could establish any form of government you would like.

If you dismantle the State, without replacing it with anything else. The State would still reform, solely on the premise of the size of the human global population. A governing body would appear almost instantly, and it would probably resemble a military dictatorship where might = right.

 

[The Hammer]

"The law exists to protect the weak from the strong"

-Henry Hyde

 

[an anarchist]

If you dismantle the State, without replacing it with anything else. The State would still reform, solely on the premise of the size of the human global population. A governing body would appear almost instantly, and it would probably resemble a military dictatorship where might = right.

Then perhaps I would have to establish a state who’s sole role is preventing other states from arising. Fill the void of king with myself. I trust my intentions, so I wouldn’t mind if I was king. My only law would be “No forming governments”.
On the other hand, I might not have to do that. I just have to establish a free market. Theoretically, the free market would incentivize everyone to support Ancapistan rather than any state that would attempt to establish themselves. Free market defense agencies, who’s existence would be dependent on Ancapistan, would have a market motive to prevent any state from arising.
Theoretically of course

 

[The Hammer]

Then perhaps I would have to establish a state who’s sole role is preventing other states from arising. Fill the void of king with myself. I trust my intentions, so I wouldn’t mind if I was king. My only law would be “No forming governments”.
On the other hand, I might not have to do that. I just have to establish a free market. Theoretically, the free market would incentivize everyone to support Ancapistan rather than any state that would attempt to establish themselves. Free market defense agencies, who’s existence would be dependent on Ancapistan, would have a market motive to prevent any state from arising.
Theoretically of course

Sure but those free markets would then eventually start amassing wealth and power, and without something to keep them in check (to rpevent them from buying out competitors, cutting safety at the expense of workers, etc) would become the defacto govt themselves.

 

[an anarchist]

"The law exists to protect the weak from the strong"

-Henry Hyde

I believe in a moral law (different subject if such a thing exists). I don’t think a state is best suited for protecting moral law, I think the free market would provide better protection in this way. Anarcho-capitalist theory supposes the only law is the N.A.P., non-aggression principle. You are free to do whatever as long as you don’t aggress on anyone’s life, property, or freedom. I believe a free market society is best suited for protecting these things. I view the states existence to be in constant violation of the N.A.P.

 

[The Hammer]

I believe in a moral law (different subject if such a thing exists). I don’t think a state is best suited for protecting moral law, I think the free market would provide better protection in this way. Anarcho-capitalist theory supposes the only law is the N.A.P., non-aggression principle. You are free to do whatever as long as you don’t aggress on anyone’s life, property, or freedom. I believe a free market society is best suited for protecting these things. I view the states existence to be in constant violation of the N.A.P.

See my above post about why "free markets" need regulations.

Edit: just look at any current businesses ability to influence public policy via lobbying and make it 10 times worse.

 

[Estro Felino]

Let's see...
My agenda

1) Restoring the State Institute for Industry and Banking. A state apparatus that will use the treasury to save all the industries in jeopardy.
The State will get to own factories, steel works and banks.

2)Expropriating the National Bank stakes. It will become a public law entity and its stakes entirely owned by State Treasury, State assets.

3) Nationalizing the Seigniorage Banking. Only the State will be authorized to issue money.


This is just the start...the rest is much worse...
For bankers of course

 

[an anarchist]

See my above post about why "free markets" need regulations.

Edit: just look at any current businesses ability to influence public policy via lobbying and make it 10 times worse.

Im skipping ahead in my book to see the theoretical arguments on how a free market regulates itself, want to be able to give a satisfactory answer in a public forum ya kno
Getting a little busy tho I’ll get back to you :^0

 

[an anarchist]

Let's see...
My agenda

1) Restoring the State Institute for Industry and Banking. A state apparatus that will use the treasury to save all the industries in jeopardy.
The State will get to own factories, steel works and banks.

2)Expropriating the National Bank stakes. It will become a public law entity and its stakes entirely owned by State Treasury, State assets.

3) Nationalizing the Seigniorage Banking. Only the State will be authorized to issue money.


This is just the start...the rest is much worse...
For bankers of course

How would individuals be selected for positions in the State? Would it be a democracy?

 

[Heyo]

"The law exists to protect the weak from the strong"

-Henry Hyde

The law exists to protect the rich from the poor. - Reality

 

[Heyo]

Aren’t you the go-getter? Now you are free to establish any form of government you want. What do you do?
I would immediately dismantle the state and replace it with nothing else! Let society spontaneously ebb and flow with the free market. I’d give Ancapistan a trial run.
I’m still getting familiar with the theories on how everything would work without a state (law, defense, money, etc.) I’m reading a book on it and will make a detailed post sometime this year.
I’m curious what you would do if you could establish any form of government you would like.

While I'm all for Anarchism, I think very few, if any, societies are ripe for it. Democracy is the next best thing and carries a potential to become more and more anarchistic if people want that. But to want that, people would have to know about Anarchism and understand what it means.

And besides the danger from within the society, there is also the danger from the neighbours. Every authoritarian regime feels very threatened by Anarchism because it might work. Historically that has always led to intervention.

 

[joe1776]

While I'm all for Anarchism, I think very few, if any, societies are ripe for it. Democracy is the next best thing and carries a potential to become more and more anarchistic if people want that. But to want that, people would have to know about Anarchism and understand what it means.

And besides the danger from within the society, there is also the danger from the neighbours. Every authoritarian regime feels very threatened by Anarchism because it might work. Historically that has always led to intervention.

Societies are cooperative activities, so a government for the people will work best. However, elections and appointments are lousy ways to choose decision-makers, therein lies the problem.

 

[Heyo]

Societies are cooperative activities, so a government for the people will work best. However, elections and appointments are lousy ways to choose decision-makers, therein lies the problem.

Maybe we shouldn't focus so much on how someone gets into office but more on how to get rid of them.

 

[Estro Felino]

How would individuals be selected for positions in the State? Would it be a democracy?

Yes. Through elections

 

[Spirit of Light]

Aren’t you the go-getter? Now you are free to establish any form of government you want. What do you do?
I would immediately dismantle the state and replace it with nothing else! Let society spontaneously ebb and flow with the free market. I’d give Ancapistan a trial run.
I’m still getting familiar with the theories on how everything would work without a state (law, defense, money, etc.) I’m reading a book on it and will make a detailed post sometime this year.
I’m curious what you would do if you could establish any form of government you would like.

I would have a democratic system, where the people deside what would be right to do. And they could remove me at any given time.

 

[exchemist]

Aren’t you the go-getter? Now you are free to establish any form of government you want. What do you do?
I would immediately dismantle the state and replace it with nothing else! Let society spontaneously ebb and flow with the free market. I’d give Ancapistan a trial run.
I’m still getting familiar with the theories on how everything would work without a state (law, defense, money, etc.) I’m reading a book on it and will make a detailed post sometime this year.
I’m curious what you would do if you could establish any form of government you would like.

The first thing I would do is make sure I did not dismantle the rule of law.

The rule of law by consent is what keeps society together. Your free market cannot flourish without the rule of law, because corruption and theft will undermine its operation in a trice. Without law, everyone will be out for themselves and fighting with everyone else, because there will be no common standards of behaviour and no process for resolving disputes.

Your book will need to deal with this fundamental issue in depth, if it is any good. Dismantling the state strikes me as an ineffably stupid notion, frankly, but I'll be intrigued to see how this problem is addressed.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yes. Through elections

Like in Russia?

 

[Estro Felino]

Like in Russia?

If a dictator is wicked to the banking and financial elites, he is a wicked merciless dictator in the eyes of this tiny minority.
If this dictator is very generous to the people, the majority, he will be called savior.

Same as for Robin Hood.
Hated by the elites, loved by the populace.

 

[Kooky]

Obviously, I would have to rule as an enlightened despot to steer my people towards the correct path, then do the same with the rest of the world. After all, we all know that we, personally, could do it better than those darn politicians.