Stages to Anarchism

In my first post I stated that we need to resolve the „dynamic Question of Anarchocapitalism“.

In a free market the best ideas win, in principle it is good if many alternating paths are tried out, the best may win The path I identified so far is one going over several stages, where one stage can easily be made plausible for a great majority, and the consequencfes of it justify the next stage This approach would work within the framework of a western democracy (I think) Step one:

An antiplutocratic (call it as you want) Platform Currently 42% of your income being taxed is nothing uncommon in western societies, e.g. in Germany or USA in Germany 3% of the GDP is funding police, military, justice, in USA 4.4% funds the military alone.

Further we will argue with Germany, the idea of abolishing those 3% is too tough even for most of the very pro free market people in our societies, so let that stand as it is for now the rest of the 42% in taxation now can be a great topic on the antiplutocratic Platform.

#1 taxation law: one can argue that we need an extremely simplified tax law, no exceptions, minimum complexity, aside of all the practical reasons (efficiency, saving time etc.), tax *holes* are on purpose inbuilt to favor certain groups and disfavor others, a typical crony *enterprise* a simple mathematical function could do this „tax = f(income)“, this function can be a constant (everyone pays a *fee*), it can be a sectionally defined function (barrier incomes, above which there is a sudden jump in tax rate), it can be a steady function, or it can be a straight function (which would be a flat tax), the flat tax is a middle ground in there, I think most people would be satisfied with that compromise.

#2 Usage of the taxes, 3% we leave as they are (justice, miliatry, police), since in this society we can not argue for that and hope for a large scale of the population, but showing how any *redistribution* of money by government as it is now is absurd and corrupt cronyism (be it subsidys, be it public infrastructure projects, etc.), can be argued and shown, and people with a good likelihood would accept this and abhorr those practices when this rejection of the cronyist practices is established, a path out could be shown: Keep the entire tax level as high as it is so far, but give a basic income to every citizen) Here the basic income is a necessity, to get a majority, many people would fear a „social injustice“ a „capitalist trick“ etc., only if the taxes are kept substantially high, they will not feel like this about the entire idea, also a leftist might even support it since he thinks „rather give the money to the poor than to the corporations“

#3 At this structure, 3% coercion, rest of the tax money being used for a universal basic income, people have transparency about the level of the basic income, popular decision on this would be made pretty directly, people know what they pay and what they get and weigh their self interest against the interest of those that have more or less money than themselves a taxation of 30% even without our doing would roughly establish, dropping from over 1500 euro to the 1000 euro ($1400), that are equivalent of the 30% flat tax (27% for the BI)

#4 This new set up of things would be seen very fast as an improvement over the former order, people would fully accept this and „never go back“ to the old order by a vast majority, they would also look more deeply into the other 3% as a natural consequence, trying to minimize the negative effects of that as much as possible.

#5 the basic income and flat tax would oscillate a few years, some would think higher basic incomes are great („fueling the economy by higher consumption“), others would assert that you don’t fuel the economy, you only shift resources from those that produce more to those that produce less, over time they would notice that lower taxation brings more growth, and that higher taxation i the long term means suffering for all, the very direct relation would soon help people to figure this out (instead of it all being hidden behind a staggering complexity)

#6 in the end that basic income/flat tax is argued against on the usual libertarian grounds and they trough the obviousness are more and more willingly accepted.

#7 only 3% flat tax now, funding police/military/justice, possibly already only 2.5% or 2% based on the economic growth having gone on, making it cheaper to fund at same net budget, justice system would more and more be replaced by the more efficient system of mediators, policew ould be replaced by private security, simply by private security being faster (you can compare the time it takes for a pizza service to deliver versust he time for police to arrive at a crime scene, and the police doesn’t even make pizza inbetween).

#8 So police and justice are outcompeted and gone, the military (at 1.4% of GDP in germany right now, could be down to 0.6% or 0.8% or so given budget constant at a growing economy), which is hard to be *outcompeted* given that it does not deliver any service to anyone that you can observe, by then an „anti war law“ shoudl alreayd have been passed, banning any aggressive war anyway, societal focus of course is on this issue, since it is the only one parliamentary democracy could discuss „how to best operate the military at the given budget, as a purely defensive force“)

#9 Given the societal focus and understanding of cronyism, this ~1% Flattax funded *activity* will be forced to disband itself increasingly: infantry will be a venture of unpaid volunteers, also in *military clubs*, logistics, medical service, mechanics, etc. will be bought on the free market, leaving a force of *strategists* and the operators of heavy equipment.

#10 I have yet no idea how a free market can produce the service of military strategy and fund the operation and procurement of heavy military equipment Some assume that military strategists and military equipment procurement and operation are not really necessary to merely defend an ancap society from external threat of force, others beliefe the defense against external threats could be a part of the security agencys that normally would maintain internal security on a market base. I am inconclusive on this yet, this point would leave plenty room for discussion alone. It is only one small step from „only having a core military + a tax collection agency + a parliament“, to full fledged Anarchocapitalism.

Anarchocapitalism and Statism – The static and the dynamic perspective

Introduction of terminology:

Anarchocapitalism and the Non-Agression Principle:

Anarchocapitalism is a worldview that states that every human interaction should take place on a mutually voluntary base, in short the „Non-Aggression Principle“(NAP), this NAP can also be seen as a fundamental Moral belief among its adherents, it has been tried to justify this Principle from several grounds, e.g. the „argumentation Ethics“ of Prof. Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Uni Las Vegas), which is mainly based on neokantian thought and the ideas of discourse ethics as developed by the two Uni Frankfurt scholars Jürgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel. Alternative paths have been taken e.g. by basing the NAP on the critical rationalism of Karl Popper, while Karl Popper himself holds political positions that are incompatible with the NAP.

„The State“:

Anarchocapitalists perceive the world in which states exist as immoral, since any interaction with agents of the state or other individuals that takes place voluntarily, would also take place in a free market, and therefore doesn’t need a state, the only interactions that are specific to the state are the ones based on coercion, and thus contradictory to the NAP.

„statism“:

The term for any thought that supports and for any policy that is applying centralized coercion applying *social contracts* or similar fictions as justification is usually refere to as „statism“.

Which is a translation of „Etatismus“ as used e.g. in „Buerocracy“ by Ludwig von Mises.

Originally a term not universally rejecting a public buerocracy, only trying to restrict it to a small field of human interaction, among Anarchocapitalists this term has been generalized.

_________________________________________________________

The Anarchocapitalist assumptions I will further use take as *given*:

#1 Non-Aggression principle is the *right* fundamental moral principle.

#2 Statist action is coercion therefor it is inconsistent with the Non-Aggression Principle, therefor it is wrong and needs to end

#3 An Anarchocapitalist social order is both viable and it is desireable to replace the current statist order.

#4 There is an existing consistent ideological framework on these matters rooted on the Austrian School of National Economy

What so far mainly is done, is describing two states of social order, the Statist one, and the Anarchocapitalist one, study them in detail, understand them.

Reject the former(existing), root for the later(desireable)

In physical terms would would speak about a *static theory*.

What is lacking, is a *dynamic theory*, a theory of progress from Statist to Anarchocapitalist order.

And this is what my first blog entry is really dedicated to:

The dynamic Question of Anarchocapitalism

The dynamic Question of Anarchocapitalism is the question on the Method/Process of transformation from Statism to Anarchocapitalism.

I don’t have a consistent theory on that and made up my mind on the approach myself so far. Hence I want to rather ask questions:

The fundamental dynamic Question of Anarchocapitalism:

There are Theoretical paths to Anarchocapitalism and my short view to that:

Agorism/Counter-establishment economics: people simply ignore the state, and/or make it rot from the inside, engage in any activity that the state perceives as illegal, but that are not against NAP („victimless crimes“) such as prostution, drug dealing, ownership of fireweapons, avoidance of taxes…

Revolution: abolishing a state, *hoping* that no new coercive powers become accepted (sounds not too plausible, without large swathes of the population understanding the theory)

Secession: a bunch of dedicated ancaps secede a territory from an existing state/found their own *anarchist territory*, founding here would mean: manage to keep out a statist order.

Democratic progress: using the political process to transform a country.

Democratic Progress to Anarchocapitalism:

If democratic progress should be chosen, this leaves much open yet:

State sector/Time:

– Slow progress over Minarchism

– Progress in jumps

– Right away abolishment of the state

Further Questions:

Should Anarchocapitalists join political Partys that go in the right direction, even if those don’t support Anarchocapitalism itself?

How to multiply the number of followers?

What to do about former injustices?

Non-NAP actions are a kind of *heridetary sin*, any ancap society would inherit from a state, obvious things like the expropriation of Jews in Germany or the slavery and expropriation of native americans in USA aside, the public „owns“ Streets, Parks, Forrests, etc. pp.

Who is the rightful owner?

How should the property rights be established?