@thesotiris 1 December 2025 edited more from that month

The dumbest objections against statelessness #16: "People are unreasonable!"

**Most people confuse social order with centralised, threat-based governance, when in fact,** **evidence** **shows that social order is maximised through** ***decentralised*****,** ***incentive*****-based systems of** ***self*****-governance, even though the burden of proof lies on the existence of the state rather than the opposite.** https://sotiris.substack.com/p/reading-lists **Recap** **Stateless consent-based** **voluntaryism** is the philosophy and study of organising society without the need for any threat-based coercive perceived “authority”; **without the state**. Where violence is the only tool a centralised government has to impose its arbitrary will on the naive masses, statelessness, on the other hand, uses **incentives** and **the deterrent of** **defensive-only violence** to achieve social order. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/on-voluntaryism https://sotiris.substack.com/p/freedom-is-inseparable-from-philosophy https://sotiris.substack.com/p/a-threat-based-civilisation-is-not https://sotiris.substack.com/p/authority-is-a-bluff https://sotiris.substack.com/p/the-dumbest-objections-against-statelessness-b1d https://sotiris.substack.com/p/how-i-know-statelessness-works-part-78c https://sotiris.substack.com/p/incentive-based-order-without-government https://sotiris.substack.com/p/dealing-with-child-abuse-in-the-absence Social order emerging from **incentives**, rather than **threats**, is more representative of what society truly wants, more immediate in its response time to ever-changing demands, more fair, more accountable, more sustainable, and more meaningful. **There’s hardly any meaning in “social order” if that’s the tranquility of a maximum-security prison or the stillness of a graveyard. Prisons and cemeteries are extremely orderly, so perhaps a vague concept of “order” is not the metric by which we should measure the worth of a society.** Social rules and laws without government are determined through *what* people want, *how many* people want it, and *how much* they want it — if they want it enough to put their money where their mouth is when it matters, meaning, whether they hold themselves accountable to the risk of a rule or public good they want. Under government, **voters are unaccountable**: they **anonymously vote for a policy even when they don’t have skin in the game and, therefore, shouldn’t have a say**, and if politicians decide to honour it (they rarely do), the people who vote don’t pay the price if it proves to be disastrous. How statelessness punishes those who seek bad policies? Without a centralised rule of force by government, rules within an area or scope will have to be subject to **unforgiving free-market forces**: If not enough rules exist, someone loses money. If rules are too stringent, again, someone loses money. That someone is either who pushed for that rule or who didn’t bother to push for it. If you truly believe a certain rule should exist, then you’d have to be able to put your money where your mouth is instead of hiding behind an **unaccountable and therefore toothless vote**. This is perhaps why most people prefer the comfort of centralised, violence-based government: lack of accountability. And ironically, this is **why** **voting is useless****: if you have no skin in the game, you have no power in it**. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/the-case-against-voting How can we have rules without the violence of the state? I won’t go through this yet again here. Read my article **‘****laws without government****’** and **‘****punishing criminals in the absence of a state****’**, or just go through my reading list on voluntaryism/consentism with works by much greater thinkers in the space than I could ever hope to be. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/the-dumbest-arguments-against-statelessness-7 https://sotiris.substack.com/p/statism-is-the-new-flat-earth https://sotiris.substack.com/p/laws-without-government https://sotiris.substack.com/p/punishing-criminals-in-the-absence https://sotiris.substack.com/p/reading-lists **Irrational arguments from irrationality** Truly, there are no logical arguments for statism; only emotional and ill-spirited ones. Statism is faith-based, and thus, one of the most unreasonable objections to statelessness that many statists resort to is the vapid straw man “***But people are unreasonable***”, which is, ironically, self-defeating. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/the-devout-religiosity-of-statism https://sotiris.substack.com/p/the-dumbest-objections-against-statelessness-ef5 Let’s unpack this supposed “argument” for the state, which, in actuality, ends up being a valid argument against the state. It goes like this: “*People are unreasonable, therefore we need the state. The state is also made up of unreasonable people (the power-hungry type of people, no less), but if we give those unreasonable, power-hungry people absolute, exclusive, arbitrary, and unaccountable access to supposedly “justified” force — an artificial monopoly of violence made possible only by our* *naive faith in their perceived “authority”**, they will somehow look to our best interests*”. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/the-devout-religiosity-of-statism This argument is insane, and what’s even more **insane** is that most humans currently occupying this planet are **blind to this blatant irrationality**.

Yes, the people in government are totally unaccountable, save for the occasional small-time fall guy, an undesirable they publicly execute every now as a message to the rest of them while also appeasing the gullible masses. Seeing a member of the ruling class supposedly be punished with a slap on the wrist is enough to sustain the propaganda that the “government is working” when it’s really not; the worst monsters in government are never punished. But **the naive masses, unfortunately, erroneously conclude that the state is on their side because they fear accepting the demonstrable truth that it is not**. **Arguments from rationality** If you’ve ever walked into a martial arts gym where each member is a literal lethal weapon, and you see how respectful and humble they all are with each other precisely because they know they each are lethal weapons, you’d quickly come to realise that equal access to power brings peace, not war. It is the inequality of access to power that brings war, especially in the case of government, where the politicians (and their handlers) who make the decision to wage war have the power to avoid its consequences; therefore, there is no deterrent or disincentive for them to simply send out obedient, useful idiots and bloodthirsty psychopaths to the front lines instead. In a martial arts gym, even the newbies feel safe because everyone understands that any aggression towards the weak will be met with defensive violence from the rest. Sure, you get the odd one out every now and then, but I fail to see how centralised government is immune from disorder. Gyms are the safest places to be, much safer than government-run schools or prisons alike. Why? Because in the latter, there is a discrepancy in power where those who monopolise power (the school/prison guards) disallow violence, even defensive violence (especially defensive violence). Therefore, the students or inmates alike who aren’t risk-averse will dominate: they won’t mind risking getting caught, and they will thus use violence against those who’d rather not take the chance to anger perceived “authority”. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/authority-is-a-bluff When the government bans your right to defensive violence, what you are left with is thugs (people who prefer to take the risk of government punishment), brutalising law-abiding people (those who prefer not to take the risk of government punishment). And seeing how inefficient and ineffective any monopoly free from competition is, and how useless and prone to bribery the state is, thugs get away with it more than not. This is why you get bullies at school, while in the workplace, you can’t even give a compliment without facing repercussions. Sure, some people overdo it with false claims of workplace harassment, but at least you have the option to leave a toxic working environment. Governments, on the other hand, monopolise their domains. **More irrationality** This objection, that “*people are unreasonable*”, ignores the fact that a small percentage of unreasonable people are granted a special monopoly of power by the rest of the unreasonable people. Yes, most people tend to be unreasonable most of the time. But this is not an argument for government; it is an argument against it. It is BECAUSE people are unreasonable that we should never relinquish our obedience to a centralised, threat-based government. It is BECAUSE people are unreasonable that we have a centralised, threat-based government. Imagine claiming that “people are unreasonable” but reasonable enough to come up with and understand what’s best for them: government. Cognitive dissonance much? Oh, but what if they mean that most people are reasonable, but you need a violent authority to handle the few people who aren’t reasonable? This, again, is nonsensical because there is absolutely no mechanism to ensure that unreasonable people don’t make their way into positions of power. And if anything, positions of power attract the vilest people, those obsessed with power, and who have no moral inhibitions because of that. This is why the biggest psychos in the world feel motivated to get a job in positions where they have absolute power over others: military, police, schooling, the medical industrial complex, and politics. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/the-military-is-4 https://sotiris.substack.com/p/how-school-damaged-your-mental-health-f86 https://sotiris.substack.com/p/what-was-covid **Plot twist: People aren’t unreasonable after all** But I’m here to tell you that, on a fundamental limbic level, there are no unreasonable people at all. Absolutely no one is unreasonable, not even animals, and I’ll prove it to you. What appears unreasonable to us in others is our failure to understand what motivates each individual, because there are often differences in the incentives that drive each of us, albeit very slight. In fact, we are all driven almost entirely by the same motivators, and we condemn someone as unreasonable only whenever we rush to assume that the same motivators apply to everyone. But they don’t, not exactly. Some personal stories… In a very recent experience, I was faced with someone who appeared to be extremely unhinged and unreasonable. I say “appeared” because that was his deliberate strategy. He was quite reasonable in what he was doing, despite being immoral in what he wanted. I had parked my car in front of his shop. I was permitted to park there for free for an hour. He didn’t know how long I would have stayed there. And even if I had exceeded that hour, he should have had no say in the matter — I’d just get a ticker. So, as soon as I got out of the car, he came to me with an attitude, “*How long are you staying?*” I do consider the convenience of businesses whenever I choose a parking space. But his attitude made it difficult for me to indulge him. I pointed at the parking sign and said, “*I’m allowed to park here.*” Without pause (meaning he already had it planned in his head), he erupts in a frenzy, screaming and babbling incoherently, and walks straight into my face, accusing me of “being rude to him” for simply pointing out the obvious. He knew what he was doing. He wanted to make me feel uncomfortable enough to want to leave and never park there again. In his way, he was claiming ownership of a parking spot that wasn’t his, that the entire community was paying for with their taxes. I kept a cool demeanour and a smirk, warning him to keep a distance. He responded with the predictably juvenile nonsense of “*What are you gonna do, ha?*” He knew I wasn’t going to hit him in public in broad daylight on a busy street with numerous CCTV cameras pointed straight at me, with my car’s plates in full display, and a government that would crucify me for defending myself to an obvious aggressor. This is why he felt so comfortable provoking me, even though it was blatantly obvious that, physically, he was absolutely no match for me. Just being realistic here, I have no need to brag, but it’s just a hint of how reasonable he was, even in his apparent state of supposed unreason. So what happened? I find such ridiculous stand-offs a waste of time because I have no need to prove anything, plus I never felt physically threatened by him, not for a second. So I said to him, “*Listen, I’m going to move my car. Not because you asked nicely, but because I wouldn’t trust you not to damage it here*.” He carried on babbling. Then, with a calm tone, I ask him while pointing at his shop: “*So is this your business?*” Immediately, again without pause, as if a switch were flipped in his brain, he turned from wild screaming lunatic to a reasonable, meek, and apologetic little cardboard-cutout of a man. With a pretentiously sad and suddenly kind voice, he said, “*I’m sorry, I just have so many problems lately, I shouldn’t have snapped at you, I apologise. Please, keep your car here for as long as you want. Please.*” I knew what had happened. I had stumbled upon his motivator. I had found his button and pushed it. He valued his business. He understood that, even though **he thought he was gaining social credit with his attitude, he was in reality losing it**. And this is what all bullies want: they want to believe they appear “cool” in the eyes of “society”, but as soon as you point out to them that they are discrediting themselves publicly, they almost always calm down. And when they don’t, it’s because there’s a different rational motivator behind their “irrationality” that you can’t identify at first. Anyway, back to the incident: As soon as I attached his embarrassing behaviour to his business, he immediately understood that he was inadvertently harming his income. I hadn’t issued a threat against him. All I did was imply that he was damaging his reputation by behaving like that. That’s all. And he got it in a split second; this foaming-at-the-mouth psychopath that would initially seem beyond reasoning with. He wasn’t dumb. He was just conditioned (in his personal culture) to believe that intimidating people was the best way to get them to comply with his desires. But he immediately got the memo that intimidating people also backfires often. And I didn’t even try to intimidate him back. I didn’t need to. All I did was invite him to consider that, if his business was indeed his greatest concern (and that’s why he wanted to claim ownership of a public parking space), then he should understand that threatening people in his community wasn’t exactly the best way to build goodwill or viability. Despite his 180-insistence for me to keep the car, there, I moved it several spots further, because I didn’t trust him. But on my way back, he closed his shop and said he wouldn’t let me go unless he’d buy me a coffee. I said, “*Funny, I was just going to grab a coffee, that’s why I parked there.*” So he followed me to the cafe, leaving his shop (and the parking space for someone else to park there). He kept apologising and making excuses for his abhorrent behaviour (the best way to spoil an apology), and paid for my coffee while also offering to buy me some food too. I declined his offer of food, but I accepted the free coffee. I also accepted the apology and reminded him that it wasn’t in his best interest to treat people like that since his business was based on word of mouth. He acknowledged it and then promised to buy me coffee again every time he saw me. I stayed at the cafe for a while, and on the way back to my car, upon seeing me, he again jumped out of his shop to offer me an item from his shop for free. Again, I accepted it, thanked him, and left. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/how-to-apologize I handled it perfectly: no need for needy, desperate-for-validation macho bullshit, no risk of crippling him and getting in trouble with the government and losing my own social standing, nothing. Even though I’d be more than capable and legally justified to KO him on the pavement, I didn’t. Why? Because **every wild animal is reasonable when you make the effort to discover what he wants, and most importantly,** ***why*** **he wants it.** I have tons of personal examples where I handled aggressive idiots the same way: showing them how **their power projection is actually weakening their position**. If you identify what they think they are accomplishing by being aggressive — who they think they are impressing (you or others) — you can then show them, without the need to provoke them and make them feel the desperate need to respond, how they’re failing to impress everyone (quite the opposite). They’ll quickly change their tune. Children are reasonable, too. It is unreasonable to assume they aren’t. People who make excuses for spanking (a euphemism for child molestation) insist that their behaviour is somehow “justified” because children are somehow “unreasonable”. Yet these child abusers expect the child to be reasonable enough to conclude that “*X behaviour is undesirable to the parent, thus the parent will hurt me. Therefore, I’d better not do X behaviour in front of parents, even though parents never explained to me why it is not in my best interest to avoid X behaviour*”. And even the child abuser here is not being unreasonable; he is just being evil, using his powers of reason to rationalise his demented need to abuse the weak. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/how-to-build-your-childrens-self https://sotiris.substack.com/p/why-its-never-ok-to-hit-children Even the FAFO trope assumes reason: “*If you mess with me, you’ll be met with defensive violence*”. It takes reason for this. To think you are using FAFO against unreasonable people is an unreasonable assumption in itself — but that doesn’t mean you are being unreasonable… just being unreasonable in the instance. If circumstances allow you, you can be reasonable, too. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/free-will-revisited **Closing remark** This brings me to the mass insanity and irrationality of assuming we “need” government for social order, which is as unreasonable as unreason gets. But I don’t believe statists are unreasonable. **They understand that the state is not ideal, but they still favour it because of the convenience the state represents, the comfort of passivity, the safety of the prison cell, and the total denial of self-accountability**. This is conscious, reasonable thinking: to trade morality and freedom for velvety chains, selling your soul to the government devil. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/the-state-is-the-devil Most people on this planet, currently, hopelessly brainwashed and conditioned to believe in the false god of the state, are being “unreasonable” in this assumption. But the same people would quickly rediscover reason if they found themselves in a situation where government didn’t exist. Even in propaganda caricatures of post-apocalyptic statelessness, like Mad Max or Waterworld or Terminator, you see people getting together to cooperate and fend off rival factions. Even the baddies organise together based on a common incentive. And rival factions and war aren’t stopped by the existence of government; if anything, government exacerbates, provokes, and incentivises war for two reasons: the state makes war profitable for those in government, and those in government are tempted to wage war because they will never be themselves in danger from it, nor be held accountable for it. This is **what the state does: it abdicates accountability, from the voter to the tyrant.** https://sotiris.substack.com/p/the-devout-religiosity-of-statism Notice how wars immediately end when the ruling classes begin to feel the danger themselves, either from an advancing enemy or from their own people. Inevitable conclusion Therefore, the fact that government has infested the whole planet is not because people are unreasonable, nor because they are reasonable. It’s because people are almost never allowed to understand what’s in their best interest. If enough people understood that it is, in fact, in their best interest to live without centralised, violence-enabled government (from a morality and efficiency standpoint), then we’d quickly build **consensual, incentive-based, decentralised systems of self-governance in the Rothbardian/Austrian sense**. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/reading-lists