What does the world's economy look like in 50 years if anarchism were 100% implemented today?

​„What does the world's economy look like in 50 years if anarchism
were 100% implemented today. I, and I think I am not the only one - get a very
nice picture of economy and society in general „under“ 50 years of anarchism
when I just think about it – outlandish architecture, tall skyscrapers,
eco-friendliness, flying cars, people living 150 years - at least, colonization of other planets etc.

​ There is no way governments can get us there any time soon, in fact they are strangling human potential in so many ways that even most anarchists cannot imagine. Speaking from my own experience, and that is, I believe, experience of many anarchists, just when you think that you know every possible way that government ruins people's lives and human growth, there appears another one which you where not aware of. That is why I will concentrate on just some of them, which I consider most damaging ones, and how removing government will help us find better solutions.

​ One of the most important things that removal of government would bring is removal of welfare state. Welfare state, in it's modern form first took place in Germany, by the end of 19th century trough maneuvers of iron chancellor Otto von Bismarck. He developed a welfare state that spread trough political space of the whole world. He called his measures "state socialism". What he wanted by bringing welfare state is making workers depend on the sate, and on him. He confirmed that "statesocialism" needs to create a dependent citizens which would be loyal so that powerful German can rule Europe. Collapse of Weimar Republic in 1930s which was a huge welfare state and well know as most advanced welfare state in the world gave more strength to rising dictatorship, war and creation of most predatory and wicked state that world has ever seen - The Third Reich.

​ Most western economies are crippled by the modern welfare states combined with cronyism and overregulation, but I would argue that most damaging aspect of the welfare state is it's impact on culture of people that makes any change very hard. People that got used to welfare states are no longer ready to roll up their sleeves to create something in a free economy, and they rely on politicians, bureaucrats and voting to bring prosperity which will never happen. I can see it in my own country - Croatia - more than four decades of socialism left it's mark. Privatising a state company that is only piling debt and burdening taxpayers is a hard and there is no force on a political spectrum that would consider losing it's voting base which works in various government agencies and state owned companies.

​ Proponents of welfare state want us to believe that before welfare state there was no help for those in need, medical care, education, pensions etc. In fact, it is not even close, in many cases welfare states just took over institutions and solutions that where previously created by voluntary organizations, and then welfare state took credit for them. Before welfare state there where profiled voluntary institutions that helped people to deal with life problems, from medical care to a friendly hand in need. One of the best examples where "fraternities". I do not want to get into details here, but the main point is we don't have to "invent" something new to replace the welfare state - we only need to return to something that we did already, it was voluntary and it worked much better.

Next point I want to tackle are wars, governments love wars because they can expand their authority beyod the level of authority they assume they have in time of peace. In that sense war is a healthy thing for states, which is counterintuitive for many people because they equate the state with society in which they live and operate in, but in reality, war acts like a lubricating oil for the machinery of state control (Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, TSA, war on terror, avoiding torture laws etc.). Eliminating states and with them - wars would help economy in a way that they would be no more destruction on such a scale, and they would be no people who have to pay taxes to finance wars, thus, that money would be spent on something more productive and satisfying. The worst losses are soldiers, people who would normally work and have families in best case have to spend time away from their homes, and in worst case they lose their lives.

When we think about wars in the last century which where by far most destructive known to man, we have to understand that wars would not be so destructive and so long without central banking. To quote Ron Paul: "It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking." In absence of state they would be no central banks, all money would have to be relayed on gold, silver, we would use cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Litecoin, Monero etc. Removing central banks would not just prevent wars, but make economy more stable and productive.

Bitcoin adress: 1Ze55bxDVk8QPUJKr9mDs9ykWM4SXEMnK