Oddbean new post about login | logout The arbiter will be protocols, not coercion through violence. You don't need a violent monopoly to do enforcement of a protocol. Violent monopolies take over the things people were doing anyway, to give themselves legitimacy. People do the things they want, without coercion, even governing our society. Yes, people like and want governance. They don't want governments. Bitcoin has shown us how to develop a consensus and enforce it, without any empowered agency or government. We can see with languages, that we naturally participate and adapt to protocols, without a central arbiter of what is 'English', etc. The only functional difference between current forms of government will be the centralization of it. Instead of every government function being held by the same small group of powerful people, each protocol will run on the nodes or brains of people actually using it. There would be decentralized governance, divided among many protocols. I do agree, that we shouldn't tear down what we have. The protocols to replace them don't exist. We don't want chaos. We want anarchy. Anarchy is simply being free to try alternatives, and if they work, being free of the coercion of the existing government. That last part is the trick. How do we try things and keep them, if they work, when the existing governments claim that the only functional system must involve centralization of power in their hands? At that point, when we have our alternative, like Bitcoin, we must reject them and fight them. It is inevitable.
Protocols may enforce some rules across the internet, but try that theory out in some of the places in Africa where these silly ideals have played out in the physical world. Not everything in life happens behind a keyboard, nor can a digital protocol enforce all rights.
of course not, you still need to make yourself dangerous and costly to attack, the same way Bitcoin must do that. but that is also something individuals can do. It is only our modern world that would have you believe that it is natural for individuals to depend on others for such critical defense. A few individuals with nuclear weapons can keep even the greatest army in the world at bay. North Korea is no shining example of freedom for its citizens, but geopolitically, it is the most free nation on earth. It can hack, steal, launder, and organize itself and its society as its leaders see fit. It can do anything it wants because its too costly to attack. Bitcoin does that. You can do that, too. Many insurgents around the world do this quite easily, and they prove very difficult to destroy. Being free is uncomfortable, but it is possible. Will the masses choose this? Never. But that is only to say that most people don't want freedom, most people want safe slavery. What do you want?
Matt, you need a dictionary. Protocol refers to a ruleset that can exist in physical or digital space. Word protocol is used in army, medicine, etc.
You need one. How exactly do you think rules are enforced in the real world? You can dance around it all you want, but there is no protocol or rule without an enforcement mechanism. That's what anarchy is. Rules and protocols are order. Anarchy is the absence of order. This really isn't complicated. https://m.primal.net/KDHG.png
Yes, Africa, you might be surprised. Search up "Better Off Stateless" for how one traditional Afro-Anarchism society works. Spoiler: badly, but better than all its Statist neighbors and with hard numbers to prove it.
A thing being better than something else doesn't make it good or just. I have no doubt that the surrounding states are awful, but that doesn't mean that anarchy is good. That's a fallacy. I would agree that a state should be minimal and unintrusive (prevent men from using force against one another, or provide mediation before or after they do). But that doesn't mean that having no state is somehow better. That's a false dichotomy. It's entirely possible to have a moral state. I define that as a state that exists only to defend my property rights. That to me is far better and more realistic than just having everyone do whatever the duck they want simply because they have the bigger gun.
You're not describing a State, you're describing a culture. One that respects the property rights of others. The protocol to enforce this requires neighbors and militia, self interested in mutual protection. A State can enforce this protocol, draft its citizens, tax and spend, but it doesn't have exclusive ability to accomplish this. We do all want such a community to exist within, but assuming a State as the only technological means of collective organization assumes there must be something, ie the State, ABOVE the individuals. This permits it to prioritize itself. It's existence must be, before peace can be. This is not so. This prioritizes the State over the people and the individuals. This inevitably corrupts every state, everywhere. The argument, as I read it, is this. 'State' as a word, as a concept, is dated. It assumes itself, technologically, in order to organize people into peaceful coexistence. That is a lie. We organized before we made a State. The State is a technology, nothing more. It was the best we had and so it has been seared into our minds as foundational. It is not. The Nations of peoples, our tribal allegiances, and our mutual interests are foundational. The State is just tech we use and it does so much harm with this idea that it must always be, that we solved this problem 500 years ago with modern nation states and to ever be without an authority over us, is impossible. We must strive to be Nations, not States. People before and above any organizational principle or protocol, adopted with Consensus, with liberty to divide, to fork off, to be free of capture and enslavement to a secular majority or oligarchy of the State.
