As a vocal proponent of the Classical Liberal/Voluntarist/Anarcho-Capitalist/Austrian Economic/Objectivist/Libertarian point of view, I am often asked what "our" sort of "Utopia" would be like. This question, however -- in itself -- is practically impossible to answer.
The reasons, of course, are complex and multi-layered: first, it's very difficult for us to imagine abstract concepts that we have rarely seen played out in real life (the Cognitive Dissonance is strong with us); second, seldom are such examples taught nowadays in history courses; and third (perhaps most importantly), there are no centralized planners to solve problems in such a Utopia -- everyone would be free to come up with his or her own solution or to implement someone else's that had already been proven to work ...
As far as Cognitive Dissonance is concerned, we humans have an inborn defense mechanism that, while protecting our "fragile" psyches from "life-threatening" ideas, also gives us a tendency to reject new pieces of information -- even clear evidence and facts -- that contradict our belief systems and world-views . So, in a very real sense, we are programmed to stop learning beyond a certain stage about "reality."
The Dunning-Kruger Effect is also extremely interesting from my point of view. It basically says that less intelligent people lack the skills to recognize their own stupidity (and thus reject what smarter people try to teach them), whereas more intelligent individuals incorrectly assume that less clever people have cognitive abilities just as developed as their own. (What a mess!) Click here for John Cleese's take :D
Now, historical examples of truly voluntarist or (dare I say) capitalist successes are not completely lacking -- just not often heard of. As an American, I was fascinated several years ago to come across the idea of the "Tragedy of the Commons." At a certain point in colonial America, the very socialist approach of requiring all members of the community to "produce according to their abilities and consume according to their needs" began to lead to starvation. The solution?
Private property and individual responsibility. Each family received a parcel of land to cultivate for its own survival. Suddenly, no longer able to "call in sick" or to claim more of the harvest "according to need," people had to take care of themselves -- and starvation disappeared.
Additionally, is it not true that people take better care of their own property than they do of others'? Home-owners, for instance, are better at keeping up their domiciles than are renters, no? People are also more likely in public spaces to litter or, let's say, drop their cigarette butts on the ground. This concept also applies to the welfare state, of course, as Benjamin Franklin said.
I also think the explanation of how people spend money is relevant here:
All the above leads me to my final point, which is that -- in a truly stateless society (or in a minarchy) -- people would make their own decisions and take care of themselves. They would be responsible for educating, feeding, clothing, sheltering, and making themselves a living. It would also be up to them to defend their property and families. There would be no central "authority" telling them how to act or what is moral or legal or healthy or wise.
It is at this point that the argument usually comes in that there would be total chaos, that there would be exploitation of others a la "Might makes right," etc. Sort of like at a rave party where people are so high on freedom that they trash the place and enslave others, just because they can???
Well, that's why I say, if you want to imagine what a libertarian society would look like, think about being at a party with friends. Sometimes someone gets a bit too plastered or rude or annoying or aggressive. What do you do at that point? Do you call the cops, or do you try to solve the problem amongst yourselves?
I know which solution I prefer, and I trust my reasoning is clear enough for the rest of you to follow. We all have a fairly decent sense of right and wrong, and we need to learn to work things out with each other. If we are to be free, it means we have to be free to make mistakes, to learn from them, to hone our communication and social skills, and to develop and improve ourselves naturally, without too much centralized control -- at least not of the governmental sort!
I hope you all have a healthy and fulfilling 2018, unhindered by government! Ciao за now.