@thesotiris 24 July 2025 more from that month

Dealing With Child Abuse In The Absence of Government A well-intentioned critique of statelessness, answered

Who deals with child abusers and child molesters without a centralised government? An even more valid and relevant argument is who would stop us from going after child abusers without a government to protect them. Since we have known one and only system of social organising — albeit this unjust, inefficient, and violent power structure of the state — we cannot imagine voluntary, decentralised, and incentive-based ways for people to come together and make rules that protect the weakest among us. Under the state’s violation of our self-ownership and dignity, we become hopelessly indoctrinated and conditioned to imagine that no other way of securing ourselves exists without the threat-based arbitrary lawmaking of government. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/laws-without-government We thus erroneously assume that, in the absence of state authority, nothing can be done to protect ourselves, least of all children. Nothing could be further from reality. **Government-induced pedophilia** Consider the great lengths the government takes to promote and protect child traffickers and “elite” pedophiles. The whole MAGA movement recently showed us exactly what it’s always been: a pedophile protection movement masquerading as “hope of change”, just like every false-prophet politician in the history of the scam of democracy. Indeed, the limited hangout of Epstein and his associate was nothing but an appeasement tactic to distract us and protect the true perpetrators: the customers of this sick mental affliction. Consider that the demand for pedophilia may in fact be exacerbated through the **psychosis of authority**, conditioning sick people in positions of power to be addicted to exerting authority just to get that power trip, the high of authority. And there is no greater power differential than that of a child and a pedophile. Is there a connection? The pedophile politician, celebrity, priest, teacher, policeman — **something about positions of power seems to trigger pedophilia in twisted people**. Consider the great lengths that government goes to brainwash modern woke society, through the state’s arm of propagandising academia, into believing that “minor-attracted individuals are just a sexual orientation”. And we still assume that the state wants to tackle this problem? Sure, they arrest the odd child abuser here and there to appease you, just like they arrest small-time drug dealers, but that’s because they want to maintain the monopoly of their own suppliers while propagating the illusion that “the state cares”. The state is the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Its wool is there to deceive you. **Even monopolies are driven by incentive** Consider that government, being a monopoly of public services, doesn’t really have to provide anything to its customers (citizens), unless society would collapse without it. The fact that we get badly made roads or a miserable excuse for “public health” goes to show that **even monopolies are subject to market demand**. **Even a monopoly is forced to compete with its customers doing without the thing that it monopolises**. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/the-dumbest-objections-against-statelessness-4 If **even a monopoly has to cave to market demand**, then imagine how that demand would have been supplied in a free competitive market where providers have to struggle to outcompete each other on top of trying to prevent their clientele from rejecting their offering altogether. The same goes for child abusers. The government knows that, even in sick degenerate societies, child abuse and pedophilia are unacceptable to most. If these afflictions were acceptable, the fabric of family and societal trust would tear, and nothing would work — least of all a stable government structure. So the government needs to keep appearances as if it tries to take care of pedophilia to somewhat maintain social cohesion as well as to perpetuate the erroneous belief that the state is somehow necessary (it’s not, not even one bit). But the state is demonstrably uninterested in tackling pedophilia and child abuse in general. Forced schooling is abusive, for example — a crime that only government can commit. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/how-school-damaged-your-mental-health-f86 The state only needs to appear to be against pedophilia, arresting the odd perpetrators here and there, but keeping the elites’ demand supplied and protected at all times, same with drugs. We all know that elite politicians, lawyers, celebs, and corporate fat cats swim in oceans of cocaine and all kinds of degenerate activities; we witness it because they aren’t even hiding it, except in the official narrative. Elite pedophilia is magnified and protected by the state. Without the state, there would be less demand for it, and there would be no one protecting pedophiles from people who truly put their money where their mouth is when it comes to protecting children. Without a centralised monopoly of violence (police, judicial, military) protecting the Epstein list, there would be serious consequences. But how can a society without government forbid pedophilia? Honest answer? Without government, there can be no prohibitions, only incentive-based laws that people voluntarily choose to follow, but they don’t have to. In the latter case, not complying with an incentive-based law doesn’t receive a punishment; it just deprives a privilege, which is fine if they choose this. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/law-vs-bullshit-law But in cases of abuse, especially against children who can’t stand up for themselves, punishment comes in the form of self-defense by proxy — either reciprocal violence or ostracism and marginalisation. For example, if you step in to use force to defend someone being beaten or raped, you are not violating the non-aggression principle (NAP). You are simply responding to the initiation of aggression on behalf of someone who is physically or mentally unable to defend themselves. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/punishing-criminals-in-the-absence In my article ‘Punishing criminals in the absence of government’, I illustrate how laws without government emerge spontaneously according to what a society as a whole generally wants, and how much it wants it (if it wants it enough to put its money where its mouth is). Please read how laws without government work, and how they already work to a large degree even today under statism. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/punishing-criminals-in-the-absence https://sotiris.substack.com/p/laws-without-government https://sotiris.substack.com/p/regulations-do-not-require-government If enough people stand against pedophilia, then there is no doubt that those who engage in it would have trouble acquiring private insurance that would protect them from being harmed. This is what state legislations is, too: risk management. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/how-i-know-statelessness-works-part-78 Civilised societies loathe pedophilia. The state feels the need to appear to tackle pedophilia because the society under the state really wants to tackle pedophilia — and the government knows it. If even an economic monopoly (the government) supplied X amount of protection, then the laws of economics dictate that the supply would be far greater under conditions of free competitive markets — decentralised security. **Vigilantism** Without a government protecting pedophiles, or giving them a slap on the wrist before throwing them back into society, there is no one stopping us from ostracising or even taking reciprocal vengeful action against them. Indeed, **vigilantism is a valid last resort of a civilised society**. Only archaic authority-based government violently protects criminals without the possibility of recourse. Only government punishes the victim for seeking justice. Only government institutionally protects the vilest of monsters. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/the-dumbest-arguments-against-statelessness-7 Moreover, consider that most countries don’t even have sex offender registries: convicted sex offenders serve some time in prison (paying no restitution to their victims) and are then considered fine to re-enter society — in positions where children are vulnerable, no less. So, without government, there would be no one stopping us from voluntarily funding investigators, sex offender registries, helplines, and refuges for children, and even militias that would go after child abusers. The great thing about laws without government is that they don’t protect those who fail to abide by the most basic of societal expectations, which is determined by what enough people are willing to pay for to insure. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/laws-without-government https://sotiris.substack.com/p/how-i-know-statelessness-works-part-78c **Key takeaway** If a society values the protection of children (enough that even a monopoly of the state feels the need to somewhat supply), then in a free market (with even greater net income and incentive), enough people would predictably want to insure the safety of children in their community. This means that insurance companies (supplying incentives to people not to harm each other) include a clause in their contracts rendering them void if the customer abuses children. Thus, child abusers become uninsurable and unprotected. And the consequence of this reality is that, whatever you do to someone uninsurable (someone who has given us motivation to hurt him), will have no consequence for us when it comes to our protection under voluntary laws. This is what justice looks like.