Interesting thoughts. I've often pondered how scalable this really is. For instance, examining it from a US perspective:
A small town could be built on these ideas and function well, I think.
A county could too, but there would be differences among the towns
What about a state the size of Oklahoma? Is it still small enough to maintain integrity and invite competition from other states?
It seems apparent that in any large state, adhesion becomes untenable. There are too many variables of interest, conviction, principles, priorities, resources, etc. I only say this from an oversight perspective. It would seem that governance on a large scale is simply too subject to tension in diversity, interests and abuse.

I feel like I am strapping on a vest covered in steak and walking into the lion's den with this comment, but here goes nothing. ; )

> Some people fear that these communities would eventually "go to war" against one another. This would not be the case if all communities had the nonaggression principle as the foundation of their own governance structure.

I think that hope is just as utopian and unrealistic as communists who "think that one day everyone will be selfless and work for the common good."

These different communities are likely separate because of some difference in fundamental views and values. But they still share the same space and resources (not the exact same land area of course, but they are all part of this interconnected and finite planet). Even if they remain tolerant of the (in their view obscene) behavior occurring in their neighboring community as long as it remains contained to that region, there will likely be situations where there is forced interaction between the two communities because of their need to access or manipulate shared resources. For example, they may both be pumping oil/gas out of the same shared reservoir.  Or one community may be upstream the other community, and be consuming too much of the water or even polluting the downstream water that the other community relies on. 

Perhaps this can be viewed as an act of aggression against their neighbor, but do you really think it is not a plausible for some communities to do these things if it benefits them (via higher profits, more convenience, greater access to resources, etc.) especially if they empathize with the impacted community less because of fundamental differences in values? I think it is very likely. And therefore the likely result would be that each community builds up militaries to defend their access to resources, and occasionally those communities will end up going to war over these sorts of resource conflicts.

So let's recap. The non-violent government will have mechanisms ultimately backed by coordinated shunning to deter behavior deemed undesirable (i.e. crime) by their local community (i.e. state). The coordinated shunning will require the shunned individual to _defect_ to another established community (another state) that will accept them. If their behavior/values are so unaccepted by society that there does not exist an established community to accept them, they will be forced to survive in the outskirts of civilization where they will almost surely die (basically acting as a death penalty for them not choosing to comply with the rules of the community they used to belong to) because it is incredibly difficult for even a small tribe much less an individual to survive and be self-sufficient in the wilderness. It becomes even more difficult for them to survive as the natural resources available to them further dwindle as more and more of the civilized communities claim and develop land for use in their societies (and therefore become unavailable to the shunned outcasts). These developed communities will inevitably run into conflicts with other developed communities that hold different values. These conflicts can potentially become an existential threat to the community, so they will need to organize and develop a specialized force to defend themselves (i.e. a military). Once one accepts that a military is needed to defend the community's existence from acts by other communities who wish to expand their usage of resources, then they must accept that their military must be well-equipped to handle the threats otherwise it would just be providing an illusion of security. So this sparks a cat-and-mouse game of developing better weapons technology compared to their enemies (and potential enemies).

So what are the differences again between what this  "non-violent" community/government will surely evolve to become and the modern nation-state? Maybe it is that they allow people who break their rules and refuse to or cannot pay restitution to victims to leave the community to another one that may accept them, rather than holding them prisoner within their community? At first glance it is a nice thought I suppose, although it does totally change the game dynamics of deterrence via punishment which a sociopath will surely take advantage of if they know there is another community ready to accept them even after they commit their terrible acts. 

Also, can such a society really function well without prisons? I am against retributive justice, but as far as I see there are two legitimate purposes for a prison. The first, which I consider the weaker of the two, is to act as a form of deterrence against highly undesired behavior (crimes) particularly in cases where monetary fines cannot act as a sufficient deterrence. For example, if someone is completely broke already and is unlikely to succeed in a job/career to earn enough money to cover more than the basic costs of survival, adding more fines to them is not going to deter them from crimes at all since they already don't have anything to lose from a financial perspective. The second purpose is to keep the rest of the population safe from someone deemed to be violent and dangerous. Now if there is no hope for rehabilitation, perhaps this usage of prison wouldn't be much different than simply shunning the individual from the community (assuming they can force them if necessary to actually leave and stay out of the physical territory of the community). Although even then, I doubt the community would be okay with allowing some group of people who, for example, killed many people in an act of terrorism to just leave the community to some safe haven to only regroup, re-plan, and try to attack again. However, more commonly, what about the case where someone's act of violence was a crime of passion, or mental illness, and society believes that with the proper help they can be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society? But in the mean time, I doubt society would accept for them to be left to roam free in their community and thus be likely triggered to commit similar act again. Without a prison system (granted I concede that the existing US prison system does a terrible job of rehabilitation, but it could in theory be changed to work better if there was enough pressure from citizens to demand change), the "non-violent" society would be forced to either live with the high risk of this volatile person continuing to live in their community committing another violent act or be forced to take the extreme position of shunning them from the community altogether, which if there is no other community that is willing to accept this person (with a now known history of violence), then that act of shunning would essentially act as death sentence. Is that really a more desirable society to live in? One where any act of violence committed by someone who is simply unable to pay full restitution for the damage they have caused should result in them effectively being sentenced to death even if they could be rehabilitated in time to no longer be a threat to society?

To me it seems that what the "non-violent" state-free government would evolve to would not be much different than the modern state. Call me a pessimist if you wish, but I believe this evolution would be an unavoidable result of the nature of humanity. Culture and education can of course influence human behavior and counteract certain negative aspects of human nature. And while I think that can and should be used to improve the state of society, I personally don't believe it can realistically make the "non-violent" society you envision radically different (in terms of the existence and need of aggression and violence in the society) compared to the modern state. In some ways, the outcomes of the society you describe in your writings that I believe are achievable seem more desirable to me than the current system, but these are improvements that I think if it were possible to achieve, could also be achieved through changes in policy within our existing society without completely abandoning the notion of a state. Of course in some other ways, the outcomes of the society you describe seem to me to be far more dangerous and terrible than the current system (of states) that we live with today.

And finally I will conclude by saying, yes, _outcomes_ are what _should_ matter _in my opinion_. If the emergent behavior of a system evolving according to certain imposed principles that were chosen due to a desire to see less violence and tragedy in the world instead led to an outcome of more violence and tragedy compared to an alternative system operating under difference principles, why would one wish to choose the former system? Now that is a claim about the state of the physical world, and I don't know for sure what would be the outcome of such a system. From a scientific perspective it would be interesting to see that experiment carried out to examine what the outcomes would actually be in reality. Of course, as with any science dealing with humans, there are ethical considerations that make doing the science properly very difficult. If we have strong reason to believe through previous historical case studies (granted you may argue deriving conclusions from those historical data points is flawed for a variety of reasons, but we can never have very pure data in this human-centric field unlike the hard sciences) that running the experiment could likely lead to mass human suffering (and not just of the people who voluntarily elected to take part in the experiment), then there is a serious moral dilemma with recommending or even allowing such an experiment to be carried out. But anyway, my point was about a hypothetical situation. Say we nearly all agreed that the likely outcome of that system based on "virtuous" principles would lead to more violence and tragic outcomes than an alternative system operating on other principles, but those other principles were not deemed "virtuous" perhaps because they reject the non-aggression principle. It seems strange to me to reject the system that is predicted to lead to less bad outcomes (assuming we all agree on what outcomes were bad versus good) in favor of the other system simply because of the principles behind them. Of course someone on the other side of the argument would say the same thing about my views; they would be confused how one can believe in ends justifying the means. Perhaps besides the differences of opinion about the true nature of the humanity and how humans would naturally behave in a true free society, this is probably the major reason for disagreement between rational anarchists and rational statists: deontological ethics versus consequentialism. As someone who doesn't believe in objective morality, I cannot say that one is objectively "right" and the other is objectively "wrong". But I can say that it is simply baffling to me why some people subscribe to deontological ethics, particularly people who are not indoctrinated into believing in a deity.

I'm very new to the world of anarchy and a lot of the things I've read on it have not enticed me as the concept often comes across impossible to me.  You however, have a very realistic approach to it in my eyes which is making the concept much more attractive.

**I would be interested in your recommendations on anarchist authors or preachers.**

We the community do need to embrace changes to have the level of standards in society that difference in groups have a common behavior to try to do better.

non-aggression, blockchain, and peaceful parenting  will save the world.

Would equal voting iron out the bullies?. If you go up against a powerful bully you can be crushed instantly .

I really appreciate what you're saying here and have enjoyed reading about your vision, on Steemit and otherwise!  I do think this statement:

>There are leaders and followers and this is something that will always be true.

is a bit too pessimistic.  If you're talking about transforming people and the world dramatically enough to make anarchy work, you may need to entertain the idea that "human nature" isn't unchangeable, and that we may be able to reduce or even eliminate the desire for leaders.

Non-aggression and non-violence probably aren't enough, since they're just the conceptual opposites of aggression and violence.

I agree about the potential for blockchain technology to allow people to create voluntary governments.

*"Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants."* 

-- William Pen

Blockchain stuff is fun, but it relies heavily on computers, and your proficiency in their use.

You say blockchain technology will help define government structures that people consent to. Just because people can discreetly move money around? 

I'm not sure this justifies it as much as I'd like.

thanks for sharing this material, I like what you posted. Thank you so much

Let my people go!

..."This kind of thinking is just as deranged as communists who think that one day everyone will be selfless and work for the common good" 

I think I have run into this kind of anarchist! Thanks for separating the two kinds of thinking as people tend to group the two together...

I liked it, @dantheman. Reading your text I conclude that even in his anarchist society will have a central power to control everything?

Im curious why you down voted my art and poetry post? I hope I didnt offen you somehow? -Peace fellow steemer

> nonaggression principle as the foundation 

Yes. That is the basics for reciprocal social optimization of survival.

In all societies, there are rules. Standards of conduct that are in place and people consent to for them to live together. If these rules are not written anywhere for people to learn about, then it's left to simple common-sense to learn how to behave and act in proper conduct. 

Unfortunately, this common sense of how to treat other people with a certain level of respect and maturity, apart from the basics of physical and property non-aggression, is lacking in many individuals who like and enjoy being nasty, obtuse, arrogant assholes.

In a large community,  there is are limits of interactivity that breeds control. If you don't have established rules, people will be in a free-fall arbitrary subgroup allegiances that can breed problems overall. Small communities work best in this case. Many many many small communities that can unite based on common values and consent to agree upon rules in common. 

I see Steemit has having this same issue. There are no rules apart from common-sense, yet some people lack this ability to truly respect others and deal in a rational manner, resorting to baseless accusations of irrational insults, name calling,  and all around being an straight up asshole because they can't think properly and need to vent their inadequacies onto others who they disagree with. 

This type of behavior can't be dealt with as simply as a real life physical community, on Steemit, because it's not physical. On Steemit, you can't bar someone from your business, because everyone can just come in, and start talking trash, and there is absolutely NOTHING you can do about it. At least there could be is a Block button to avoid being harassed since apparently we can't prevent people from entering our business area, i.e. blog-posts of our content and comment trash. 

This is something Steemit is lacking to actually allow the community and individuals to better manage who is not conforming to their standards of conduct, and the personal responsibility to chose who to do "business" with.

I hope you implement a feature to bar or block people from entering our personal "businesses" (i.e. blogs), because we don't want them there, because we individually choose to not have them there. They can go do "business" and harass other people if they want, but I don't want them in my "shop". Please look into this.

A "universally tolerant" society/community is not something I accept either. That is irrational. If I don't like someone's behavior, I don't have to tolerate it. I don't need to tolerate their arrogant asshole behavior of coming into my "business", of posting on my content. 

If people don't care (apathy) to stand together as community to deal with bad behavior, and have blind, ignorant "tolerance" as the norm, then at least individuals can choose what they want to tolerate in their lives, and do something about it. Steemit lacks this option. It's all free-fall open tolerance of letting people post whatever they want and you can't stop them. On Facebook, you can block people to deal with people who are idiots.

<img src="https://www.steemimg.com/images/2016/09/08/aristotleapathyandtolerancelastvirtuesofdyingsociety87024.jpg" alt="aristotleapathyandtolerancelastvirtuesofdyingsociety87024.jpg" />

There is a difference between "tolerance" of expecting everyone to agree on everything, and the "tolerance" of letting people trash talk you, insult you, demean you, and be an arrogant asshole bully. In real life, I can do something about this, but not on Steemit. This is a problem for the individual, as well as the community. 

Thank you for reading.

Take care. Peace.

<div>  <p>  This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.  </p>  <ul>        <li>      <a href="https://steemit.com/ru/@rusteemitblog/masshtabiruemost-personalnoi-otvetstvennosti-pri-anarkhii-scalability-of-individual-responsibility-in-anarchy-perevod-stati"> 📝 Масштабируемость персональной ответственности при анархии./Scalability of Individual Responsibility in Anarchy (перевод статьи @dantheman) </a>      by      <a href="https://steemit.com/@rusteemitblog">  @rusteemitblog </a>     </li>        <li>      <a href="https://steemit.com/stats/@topten/steemit-club-500-8-september-2016"> Steemit Club 500 - 8 September 2016 </a>      by      <a href="https://steemit.com/@topten">  @topten </a>     </li>      </ul>  <p> Learn more about  <a href="https://steemit.com/steem/@ontofractal/steem-linkback-bot-v0-3-released">    linkback bot v0.3</a>   </p>   <p>Upvote if you want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts. Flag if otherwise.   Built by @ontofractal</p></div>

@dantheman Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I did not get around to comment on your previous article. I agree completely with your assumption that nonviolent governance works many times better than the force-monopolies we have now. Force has no logical end before death, so any governance based on violence is a death threat. This is anything but a naturally balance association of parties. When you call it non-violent, i would actually just call it free competition on services presently called government. Competitive governance will undoubtedly fast diverge towards non-violence, since it is a preferable attribute to a service provider. 

State controlled education is collectivist indoctrination. This has always had only one purpose. Create obedience that can be exploited by psychopaths and useful idiots. You cannot exploit a person that is a 100% individualistic (which is another description of "anarchist") and therefore fogging peoples judgment and getting them to give up their personal sovereignty is possible only if they can be indoctrinated to see themselves as a part of a collective. Free associations based on contracts are not collectives, collectivism is a mental illusion, based on false mental aggregations of separate but identical concepts. 

If it is unacceptable for an anarchist, that a person is shunned from life preserving services because of his or hers actions against the free associations that are available, they are not anarchists. Anarchists want 100% individualism and therefore logically must accept other individuals self inflicted actions even if it means they will die. Those genes are not worthy of reproduction anyway. The social forces of free choice to not engage in free association with other people is as basic for real anarchists as actual active free association. Ostracism is the tool too keep people from diverting the consequences of their actions onto somebody else. 
An important difference between competitive governance and forced governance is that competitive will stop giving you services, if you do not comply with the contract. Forced governance will force you to "receive" their services and force you to pay for them, regardless of your individual need. Non compliance means death by government. Non compliance in free society means self imposed "social" suicide. The difference is personal individual choice.

the non-aggression principle means "no initiation of force". This is the anarchist principle that is the minimum for deciding if an action (based on free choices) is moral or immoral. But in the case that someone aggress against you, you are no longer bounded by this principle, since the aggressor has escalated the "conflict" beyond the scope of the principle. So you are free to choose your retaliation against the aggressor to ensure your return to non aggression scenario again. The retaliation does not have to be equal in "force" as the aggressor, it is completely up to you to decide the scope of it. Otherwise it would still be the aggressor that dictated and controlled the situation and therefore a bigger incentive to figure out a way to use aggression. The fog of war retaliation force, would inhibit aggression.

(btw i consider myself an anarchist)

Somebody wants to build a Steem Community IRL.

Excellent piece. I know a lot of people who would accuse us of trying to impose self-ownership on them, which they find terrifying. 
We need to do a better job of communicating that we're not trying to take away their leaders, just their leaders' capacity to attack them for disobedience. 'You can still blindly obey every word he says, he just can't force you to'
Ironically we're offering to improve the quality of leadership and improve their access to it. 
If leaving your local council were as easy as leaving your local church, your mayor would make housecalls and visit you in hospital like your pastor/priest/rabbi/imam does.

I'm so glad that you are thinking so deeply on these subjects. I'm even more glad that I tend to agree with most every word.

Very interesting thoughts.  Thank you!

By definition, there is no governance without coercive power. It doesn't necessarily mean that there is violence involved. I don't see any kind of form of rules enforcement in social media platforms.

My replies are in <a href="https://steemit.com/governance/@treeleaves/a-word-on-governance">A Word on Governance</a> and <a href="https://steemit.com/history/@treeleaves/mahatma-gandhi">Mahatma Gandhi</a>.


Above are thoughts on governance and Gandhi who used non-violence or "truth force".  1) I believe we must focus on revolutionizing money not government. 2) I just thought an article about Gandhi might be appropriate based on recent themes.

Really this idea that you have expressed here @dantheman.  Maybe with more individual responsibility may come collaborate responsibility of less responsible individuals somehow providing a balanced response so that responsible individuals may better deal with irresponsible individuals.  Although I'm not sure how that may shape into a solution at the moment upon a path stemming along this idea..

This is an interesting perspective. I seems to me that whenever there is division of labor, then some of that division will go to governance. It seems that you're saying the backbone of anarchism is nonviolence. People can rule, as long as they do it nonviolently (or at least physically nonviolently). That's interesting. I wonder, though, if some member of society did something violent, would widespread shunning be enough to reform him or her?