Reddit mentions of Violent Entrepreneurs: The Use of Force in the Making of Russian Capitalism

Ok - so the goal of our revolution here is to facilitate a society of voluntary participation, free market growth, low security and bureaucratic complexes and high quality of life.

Well, the first goal would be to topple the existing infrastructure of the state, but not the private sector... since, preserving the market would - as far as I understand your aspirations - be a priority. This makes sense - if you're going to take down the state, having structural entities to facilitate the distribution of resources would be helpful. However, violent overthrow of the state is probably not a great idea - because markets react poorly to violence. All-out street fighting would likely create industry flight, and without a transition to a new state, businesses would be less likely to return. We can look at Somalia as an example - instability/lack of state has kept risk too high for business entry, and therefore market conditions remain poor and growth is negative.

If violent revolution is off the table, then political dismantling is likely only capable via public demand. If you're operating in a representative democracy - using the model of the most extreme end of the American right wing might actually be your best bet. Using an anti-government platform, individuals can facilitate the election of anti-government leadership. In the US, for example, control of Congress is more important because that is where the "power of the purse" sits. Once in control of the finance of government, it comes apart quickly - social programs are starved of funds, they become inefficient and unpopular - and easy to cut away.

Similarly, a from these positions of power, isolationist foreign policy can decrease military and security spending. Border security becomes the paramount concern, and the military-industrial complex becomes weakened as budgets shrink.

So now we have a small state, a free market (though one majorly weakened, bc government is the largest consumer in most economies), and a smaller military. Local governments would collapse before federal - since many are dependent on central support. So the collectivism you want would likely start (if you're interested in this dynamic, I'd suggest reading up on local farming collectives forming in Detroit because of the lack of social support and food options).

If we're going with the Clausewitz definition of the state - as predicated on a monopoly on violence and taxation - we're starting to erode the state model. Tax revenue plummets, and private industry provides services to people - essentially making the private sector the primary rent-seeking and collecting entity. With the transfer of wealth away from the state, the ability of state to secure citizens drops dramatically. So private entities begin to secure themselves (I actually mentioned this book in another AskSocSci post the other day as a great example of this).

No we have a market-dominated society, both in terms of collection of rents and ability to exercise violence. Quality of life in this scenario is probably more determined by personal income and wealth and would not be equally distributed... but that's my theory of how to take down the state and preserve the market.

Oh hells yeah. Like how [Russians] (http://www.amazon.com/Darkness-Dawn-Russian-Criminal-State/dp/0300105916/) chose to dissolve their pensions in the 1990s, when not choosing to dissolve physically in collapsing infrastructure. Or like how they chose to [replace police] (http://www.amazon.com/Violent-Entrepreneurs-Making-Russian-Capitalism/dp/0801487781/) with violent, for-profit thugs.

Fair enough. I was just adding a little extra for anyone who was interested.

I've just finished reading Violent Entrepreneurs, which goes into some interesting depth on the manner in which the criminal underground took over the role of the state in matters of control/use of force after the fall in 1992.