Repelling [the creation of] States: Evidence from Upland Southeast Asia


KenK's picture

"Although authors such as Rothbard (1973) and Friedman (1973) provided many very good theoretical reasons why society would be better off without a state, they have spent less time showing how stateless societies could avoid takeover by a state in the long run. Without understanding the mechanisms or having evidence of the long-term viability of statelessness, does it make sense for anarchists to be pessimistic ones who only support the idea in the abstract?"

From the paper at the link.

Samarami's picture

From the paper:

    "...Even many anarchist economists such as Bruce Benson, Bryan Caplan, and Robert Higgs are fairly pessimistic about whether the state can ultimately be eradicated and repelled..."

Throughout, the writers commit (among other fallacies) the "wrong question" fallacy: keep them asking the wrong questions and you never have to worry about answers.

It is not a question of whether "the state" can ultimately be eradicated and repelled. The state does not exist. People exist -- psychopaths all when pertaining to mindless abstractions such as "the state".

The question is whether support for the state can ultimately be eradicated and repelled. As the internet awakens a greater and greater mass of individuals to government and media chicanery -- as more and more ordinary folks come alive and abstain from beans -- there will be drastic changes in what we perceive as "the state".

How that will all turn out -- when taken with the inevitable economic upheavals in the offing -- is anybody's guess. Sam

KenK's picture

The only serious attempt at imposing outside rule on the zomians in modern times was in the 90s and 00s when the US DoJ made $$$ grants and military/police hardward available to eradicate opium production. Once the $$$ for that ran out, the whole situation regressed. So their strategy worked again.