You're right that the state holds a monopoly on violence. You're wrong that the interests of the state are significantly misaligned from the interests of the people, or that black markets are wholly benign in nature. Failing to recognize how much you benefit from your government is, yes, I'm sorry to say it, childish - as is publicly condoning breaking the law in reaction. It's an overly-extreme position.
I do think that automated systems that don't require bureaucratic governance are a good idea, so I'm particularly annoyed by projects like this because it can create a negative public image. You can apply the concepts much more proactively.
In there, they don't allow you to practice peaceful protest to the current regime by simply walking into the streets and clapping. No signs, no speeches, no anything. Just a crowd clapping is outlawed. Among other things, they fined a one-handed (!) man for clapping (!).
Do you think it is proper to still practice obedience to the rulers in this case?
What is different in the case of anonymous voluntary exchange? Sure, they can outlaw clapping. Or breathing. Or being over 1m tall. Or anything. But just the fact that these people might tell you "breathing is bad" or "being 1m+ is terrible" does not make it actually this way.
Belarus has the Web, and will be aware of a project like this. DPR was just arrested by the Feds, and one of their primary sources was his forum posts. Do you see what I'm saying here? This is in poor judgement.
> You're wrong that the interests of the state are significantly misaligned from the interests of the people
You should read the news more often: Government shutdown for no valid reason, Wall Street corruption going unpunished and ongoing (those weren't the last financial scandals), the approval rate of Congress nearing the bottom, one could write a book about how the government has stopped representing the People...
I'm pretty much in total agreement with you, but to nitpick on one thing you said:
> as is publicly condoning breaking the law in reaction
_Peaceful_ civil disobedience campaigns played a large role in the Civil Rights movement and helped raise awareness leading to (in the US, at least) the Civil Rights Act - thereby reinforcing equal protections and voting rights.
The intent is important; and the NONVIOLENT aspect is especially important. But civil disobedience isn't always necessarily a bad thing. Nor is it always a childish suggestion.
> Failing to recognize how much you benefit from your government is, yes, I'm sorry to say it, childish
Did I ask the state to provide me with all these "benefits" in exchange for being enslaved and having guns and threats at me? If the government thinks I need its X, Y, and Z services, or whatever and uses it as a basis for theft, is it any good?
Is it different from, say, me saying that apples are good for you, therefore I can point a gun at you, violently take your money and buy you a fucking apple? You know, because it's good for you! No? Surely I am benefiting you in this case so you have to shut up and blindly obey.
Every single thing that the government does can be not only just provided, but provided more efficiently (and also more morally) on a free market.
The misalignment of state and public interests is not mutually exclusive with the people benefiting from the government. To use a deliberately childish (though still valid) analogy, livestock benefits a lot from farming, but I would argue that (personified) livestock's interests are not aligned with the interests of the farmers.
> Failing to recognize how much you benefit from your government is, yes, I'm sorry to say it, childish - as is publicly condoning breaking the law in reaction.
African Americans during the civil rights movement benefited from government (roads, etc.) and also used very public law-breaking as a fundamental tactic.
I think your referring to civil disobedience, which was a PR tactic for highlighting racial abuse under Jim Crow, not a system for selling contraband. I think a more accurate comparison would be to the speak-easys and moonshine of the 20s. Handing out flyers with your name and plans for a speak-easy market would've been just as misguided.
If that is the case of the author, thats probably true. I viewed this more as a discussion in the theoretical of what could be accomplished. Post a paper about how it could be done, and perhaps some more inclined (and anonymous) individual might do the work.
I do think that automated systems that don't require bureaucratic governance are a good idea, so I'm particularly annoyed by projects like this because it can create a negative public image. You can apply the concepts much more proactively.