exactly what i tell people about the "people need a state" argument. If ppl need it, then the state needs one because it's made of people. It doesn't make sense that if people in general are bad and therefore need a state, we should thus have a state made up of people to control the other people.
Have you read the Federalist Papers? You really need to, as it would give you a much greater understanding of Government.
Basically, there are two primary reasons for Government. One, is defense of the sovereign nation from enemies outside its own borders, and the second is to ensure the administration of rights afforded to its citizens. However, where things get twisted is in distribution of wealth, and matters of equality.
Those are the ways that statism is sold to people, yes. I used to believe in the state(not to be confused with government) in a very limited capacity, the problem is that the state always grows bigger. In order to protect ourselves from big government, we can't institute a small one.
@FearsEdge - "What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control those governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." James Madison, Federalist 51
Right there, is the problem. "we must first dominate the people, THEN we can worry about some kind of measures to limit the state itself." That's what I got from that.
@FearsEdge - Have you not read any other James Madison documents? I doubt you read the Federalist Papers. You are lacking information. James Madison was one of the foremost in pushing for the Bill of Rights, especially the first 5. It's not about domination but protection of the rights through limitations of government that Madison was pushing for.
@FearsEdge I believe that more should have been done to prevent the expansion of the state in the constitution, like requiring all laws to be amendments of the constitution passed by 3/4s majority of lawmakers in both houses, as well as a 2/3 popular vote. Plus, requiring all laws to have expiration dates could help.
It doesn't matter, you can write all the restrictions down that you want, pieces of paper do no stop the state from getting bigger and dominating more and more of our lives.
@FearsEdge - Restrictions on government are a proven way to slow the expansion of government. A government with no restrictions on paper becomes tyrannical in nature almost immediately. It is the role of the people to force reform when reform becomes necessary. I'm sure that under the next president, the Patriot Act will come to an end, because reform will become the only way to get re-elected. The Republicans are hearing this call, which is why they're opposing the expansion of the Federal gov.
@Slipknotyk06 I think a classic example of a state ignoring it's constitution is the 2nd amendment in the U.S. constitution. There it clearly says that people have the right to own and carry guns. Yet there are currently cun control laws and laws that prohibit people from defending themselves in many states.
@crazypants88 - Local law trumps federal law. A state can make a law that runs counter to the Constitution, and there are provisions that allow this in the constitution. That's why federal law can ban marijuana while some states have legalized it. Now, I'm not saying gun bans are right, but the constitution freely allows this. I personally think that felons should not own guns, but, standard gun laws are ok. 3 day wait, bg check, no guns if you've been convicted of a domestic, that kind of stuff
The gulf spill shows we need private ownership so that people will actually care about what's going on and what safety systems are in place. If I owned that piece of ocean, I would make damned sure the drillers did things right. Also, it shows that government-created corporations lead people to be irresponsible and reckless since their own personal wealth and livelihoods are not connected to their actions.
I live in Estonia. The lates market research data of 2010 shows that the highest apruval rating has the rescure service 95% , police and military 80%, tax office 79%(its takes literaly 2 min to declare your taxes), local coverment 65-70%, the court 60% NATO 59%. And on the other end ofc political partys with 25% the parliament 37-47%. My coverment works prety well. Maybe yours dosent, idk.
We dont overspend because we have elected last 20 years people who belive in fiscal conservatism. Last year the coverment cut 15% of their spending to balced. And 10 years ago when there was the russian crisis we did the same.
I'm glad that the people in your country who say that they are for small government and get elected actually follow through on that. We are not so lucky over here.
What i want to know is how you imagine how to world would work if there isent a common goverment. Whats the system you propose. I dont understand. How would you handle crime, healthcare and other public services that we have now?
The problems are always there, how would you deal with these issues?
I wouldn't handle all those problems since they are not my area of expertise. I already told someone earlier,
"I love this game statists play, where I am supposed to predict all the solutions the sum of society will come up with in the absence of the gun as being an easy option to get what one wants. Are you suggesting that there is no way to do it? That would be a pretty bold statement. "
Crash of 1929 occurred because of lack of regulation and greed. Crash of 2008 occurred because those in power wanted to bring down the system while they robbed the US treasury.
Crash of 1929 was due to speculation of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act passing that caused the stock market to be even more unstable than it already was due to easy credit and the creation of the federal reserve decades earlier. You cannot pretend a free market was present, and there was some lack of regulation that was to blame when you had a centralized bank controlling the currency and interest rates.
@FearsEdge While the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act may have made the depression worse. Let's be clear, you are rewriting history in stating that an import tax allowed people to overleverage their bets and bring down the house of cards (Wall Street). There was no government bailouts back then so you can't blame that. You have no basis for making that claim.
I didn't say an import tax allowed it, I was stating that as one factor, easy credit was another factor. And there might not have been bailouts in the same way as '08, but there were tariffs, and price controls that were instituted that only made the depression worse.
@FearsEdge You most certainly did state Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act was the reason for the crash of '29. Besides, easy credit came from wall street and lack of regulation. People were betting with money they did not have. Sound familiar?
I didn't say an import tax allowed people to over leverage, which is what you said that I said.
Easy credit came from the centralized banking system and the federal reserve controlling interest rates and currency. Do you really think a free market could be responsible for too much lending when a central bank had control over the interest rates for the loans? Hmm? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't a free market at all, control of currency and interest rates precludes this.
The crash of 08 was due to easy credit backed up by the taxpayer that allowed banking institutions to make all kinds of gambles with little to no risk to them. It was also due to political pressures forcing a huge housing bubble that the state is still attempting to prop up with bail outs to the lending institutions that were making all these bad bets on our dime
Once again, a centralized bank controlled interest rates and the currency. The causes go back almost a century
When you compare the state to a company you have to keep in mind that the politicians are elected public figures and when and if they fuck up we see them and blame them. Privet companis aret usualy so public about their fuckups. They can hide bad shit more easly. Its not about state aginst private companis, its all about people.People do shity things. It dosent matter if its a state or a company. There are well runed states in the world too as there are well runned companis.
Who are you going to elect out of office to deal with inefficient city hall services?
How long will that take? How quickly can you swap service providers for municipal services? (you cant, its illegal).
How quickly can you change service providers for your car, home, clothing, food, telecommunication, etc. Pretty much instantaneously, and no one will arrest you.
As I covered, there is so much less recourse when a politician fucks up, not to mention that you are bound by the process and if you don't like it you are extorted to pay for it any way. The difference with private companies is if you don't trust them or don't like them, you don't have to deal with them.
Seriously, these statist people you describe, I have never met one like that. I think the state has a role to play but you describe a paranoid frak who thinks that only the state is capable to do things. That person dosent exist.Its like a bigfoot.
@Uhmu45 Well if you have never meet anyone like that, you should maybe come out of the cave you are living in, or if walking hurts your feet just spend a few minutes looking around YouTube.
I have never met anyone who thinks that the state can solve everything. If i saw him arguing I saw a person who thinks that the private sector is useless. Capitalism works well.
Lats say we dont have a goverment and we want to slove a common problem. There will be always people who will be unhappy about the decision. 90 person deciside to build a road and 10 doesnt and the ten dont pay and cant use the road. That makes more problems then it solves. Lats say its the only road to...
Lats say you dont like to fund the police. But you need a sense of security so you make your own private force. If you like it like that you just asking for gangwars.
Common funding for police the firedp medice is more productive then to have a privte 100 difrent firedpwho help you only when you have payed for the service.
What im sayingis that in some ares it just makes sens to "force" people to pay for the common good.
IF your not that kind of a antistateist then sorry my bad;)
@Uhmu45 Why would it end up in gang wars? Have you actually bothered to study the position you are criticizing at all? You actually think that an Anarchists haven't first pondered these questions?
I suggest you actually research the position we are advocating so you can make criticisms that are halfway intelligent.
My head hurts now ;) I dont know anyone who thinks that we need a state to get along. Its just a human institution to solw common probles like security or healtcare or building roads. We can do things difrently but at some point we have to come together and solwe these issus.
The state does not solve problems, because then we would not need it. The state MANAGES problems, and charges the monopoly rate to do it, and if you don't like it, you STILL have to pay.
We definitely have to come together to solve certain things, no argument there, but I've said it before, having the state bully people into conformity is not cooperation, it's the opposite.
« having the state bully people into conformity is not cooperation »
But you also say society doesn't have to do away with police and court. What would be their functions, if not ensuring people's conformity to a set of rules?
Imagine: in a state-less society, some thugs try to steal your house; you call your 'private' police, and the thugs call their own one which they 'purchased' in a free market. What would happen? Who would be the mediator? What would become of the law?
The private police would already be there, more than likely. I would be armed either way. I have no illusions about what can really protect me. If I depended on the state to protect me and called the police after some guys showed up to try and steal from me, they would be long gone by the time the police got there, almost certainly.
So your framing of the scenario is already skewed.
The state needs a state in the U.S. = 3 branches of government which oversee each other. So yes in a sense you're right and the state does need a state.
You said "if you want to tell me people require a state, then the state requires a state", and then went on to say "somehow people don't apply that same reasoning to the state", and my reply was YES THEY DO, our founding father absolutely applied that reasoning to the state. It was the motivation for 3 branches of government, and the system of checks, and balances. So once again, and hopefully clearer it's irrelevant in that context whether checks, and balance's work.
A check or a balance that does not actually work, does not qualify as a check or a balance. People don't apply that same reasoning, since obviously there is not an infinite number of states watching over the one ahead of them. People don't think the state requires a state, that's the point. An internal set of theoretical checks and balances is not the same as each state being ruled over by a state above it in the same manner as a state rules the people.
You keep harping on this "checks, and balances does not work". OK fine I'll concede that for the sake of argument. THAT IS NOT MY POINT as I've said repeatedly. My point is that people DO think the state needs a state.
Denmark's system of "state needing a state" is even more pronounced, to a lesser extent Germany. Almost EVERY government program exists on a state level, overseen by local representatives, but those organizations exist on a federal level as well which can be appealed to if you aren't happy with the local oversight, and of course those decision can be appealed through the courts. Saying those aren't essentially states running states, running states is semantics.
Almost every government program is overseen by the state, which is what you just said, and I already knew that. And again, those representatives do not follow the same rules as everyone else in society, which is the whole point of my video.
It depends on what your idea of a state is. In my opinion checks, and balances is the foundation of the states purpose. It's to keep people from running rampant, and doing whatever they want without oversight. If that wasn't needed I'd see no need for a state other than perhaps for the common defense.
So you would say that people need a state or they would run rampant? The state is just people, what is stopping the state from running rampant? If you say the state itself, then you are saying that people in general can't manage their own affairs, but a special group of popularity contest winners CAN manage their own affairs. That's the very double standard I was talking about in the video.
Checks, and balances. Presidents would run rampant (even more than they do) if they didn't have to answer to some extent to congress, and the supreme, and ultimately to the people.
People (particularly those with power) would kill indiscriminately without concern (as we've seen) if they didn't have some sort of government oversight. Hell, they do so with it.
That was a trick question, since they ARE running rampant, and no one is stopping them.
I cannot disagree with you more about your last point, especially since the most indiscriminate killing in this world is always perpetrated by states.
I was objecting you your claim that people don't apply the reasoning that a state requires a state. When in fact they do, and have applied the concept in most democracies I can think of. All have a system of one sort or another where one portion of the state watches the other because we don't expect it to be trustworthy if it has no one to answer to. It also answers to the people which is why we don't elect representatives to lifetime terms.
Again, that is not the same thing. An entity supposedly policing itself is not at all the same as having a separate entity that doesn't have to follow the same rules policing it.
But the intent at it's purest is not self policing. It's not like Internal affairs of a police department which is set up by, and answerable to the chief of police. The three branches are separate, and established by the constitution. At least that's the idea. Essentially 3 separate states overseeing each other.
Of course they are all to one degree or another on the corporate payroll at this point, and pretty want the same thing corporate America wants, but we're talking intent here not how the state in America has been corrupted.
The same people float from one branch to another, each branch able to reinforce the others power. That is exactly what we see happening. There is no check or balance. It's a trick that you fell for. Three branches of the same state is not the same as three separate states. Especially since one branch appoints the second. The constitution is either responsible for the current state of affairs, or it couldn't stop it. Whatever mythical checks it promised are illusory.
-Whatever mythical checks it promised are illusory
I agree, but my original point remains. The intent was essentially a state watching a state watching a state because the founders recognized the fact that whether it's individuals, or a state they can't be trusted with complete autonomy.
The thought that giving the states different parts the ability to partially influence the others would help stem corruption. It does the opposite, and only reinforces itself. The different parts of the state do not have the same power over each other that the state has over the people. That is why it is not the same. I don't know how else to explain this.
haha yes good point. we need regulators for the regulators, and regulators for those regulators, and so on and so forth or else there might be corruption.
Well my form of government to some is anarchy and not a government at all. So as a statist I hold no double standards. Absolute liberty is a good thing.
The oil spill destroyed areas of the enviroment, hurting fishermen's and others liberties, which with a court system not the state, would get sued and have to fix the problem and pay damages.
And for the economy, our money problem is because our money is controlled by a central bank
I never thought of this before, but a good example of what you said first is the police department. The enforcement aspect requires it's own enforcement, hence they have a bureau of internal affairs. Heh, kind of funny.
Which is of course, a big joke. They are a paramilitary force that operates like a street gang. They care about protecting themselves and each other first and foremost.
The problem that I see with the "people don't need a state" is that as soon as you have an anarchy you'll get groups of people forming mobs, which in the end grow and become states themselves. I personally would like to have a very small, very simple state, but some form of government is always going to end up forming.
@FearsEdge Ideally yes, but governments don't go down without a fight, that's the biggest problem. The downfall will be with blood flowing and heads rolling :(. And no sooner than the fat is done away that it will start piling on again.
@FearsEdge A compromise could be to allows those who do not want to take part in the democratic process to opted out. They lose their voting ability, and they no loner get any benefits from the state, but no longer have to pay taxes. They can pay for government services that they wish to use as if it were a business. Lose your ability to effect the system democratically, and would have to pay for things like roads if used, but hey, free from taxes on everything.
@crazypants88 I've been over this in other posts. IF you support democracy, as I do, you have no issue putting your own money into the process. That is the point of this point, give the people who do not like democracy a way out of paying taxes, and people like me, who feel very good and moral when giving taxes, who loves the process of democracy, we can enjoy the benefits of voting and the benefits of the things we pass. You are only coerced if you don't support the process.
@crazypants88 I personally think 95% of people support democracy and the process, and would reject the offer off opting out of the process if it means losing their ability to take part in the process, even if they no longer have to pay taxes on anything except what they want to use, such as the police.
What about them? I don't like them either. I said in the video I advocate a society where we all are subject to the same rules, so naturally I wouldn't want an institutionalized double standard.
I know that's creationist logic, that's why I don't subscribe to it. I was pointing out the self-refuting nature of the idea the people require a state.
@FearsEdge I see what you're saying but the argument is a bit of a straw man because you suggest that people require a state 'just because'. While this may be true for some less thoughtful or vulnerable people it doesn't address the issues which have to be dealt with when advocating a stateless society. A lot of people DO rely on 'the state' to protect them, support them, keep them alive & well.
I'm not a 'statist' or an 'anti-anti-statist' but nor am I convinced by anti-statist arguments yet.
No, I didn't say people require a state just because, I gave a few different examples of what people say they need a state for. To manage them or "society", or to help them get along or whatever.
I know a lot of people rely on the state. That is how the state gets bigger, is by making people dependent on it. That's why I am trying to shift the social paradigm away from using violence to try and solve complex social problems.
@FearsEdge I can certainly agree with your sentiments but, in my opinion, such criticisms are not constructive. Without an evidence-based solution to these complex problems all you have is an ideological position that could be disastrous if employed without first applying a critical rationalist approach to the problem that is untainted by political bias.
@FearsEdge I've just had a thought: there are examples where institutionalized double-standards are a positive thing - People applying for a job that involves working with children or vulnerable people will usually be put under greater scrutiny during the application process to check that they are not abusers. How would this be possible without government legislation and police databases, and the whole justice system for that matter?
The internet should be( and mostly is) market driven like everything else, in my opinion. You'd have to present me with what net neutrality is exactly and why it would need to be enforced for me to even go there.
@FearsEdge Net neutrality is something you have no ideological answer for apart from hoping there is more money in peoples buying power (and that they use it), than there is in limiting peoples reach on the internet to businesses that are allied with the ISP.
@FearsEdge You are once again saying you are willing to destroy what we already have to protect some misplaced moral stance.
Whats wrong? when the state is doing something undeniably good you cannot even remotely address it but rather say "well, you arnt entitled to that anyway" ROFL. You have no idea how fucked up that is.
Actually, I didn't say that at all. I don't know how you came up with that.
I didn't say you are not entitled, I asked you if you think that you are. Net neutrality is about taking over what is currently privately controlled. So NO I didn't say anything remotely like destroying what we already have. Your problem here seems to be with a man of straw.
« You'd have to present me with what net neutrality is exactly and why it would need to be enforced »
Net neutrality means that ISPs impose no more restrictions on its users' access to the internet than the subscribed level. This guarantees for example that smaller enterprises be not muffled by ISPs for the interest of their associated larger enterprises or for some ideological reasons.
@FearsEdge Government regulations are probably the biggest threat to net neutrality at the moment - the internet should definately remain an apolitical, market-driven entity.
As for the system being broken and the lack of accountability, I agree. Problem is, the politicians are not accountable to the voters, but to corporations, who pay their bills. When they act they are acting in favor of corporate power. Government is just the shadow of who they work for, which would be fine if they worked for us, but in general, they do not. To fix the system, you have to make them accountable to us, or get rid of them and go with direct economic democracy.
@FearsEdge We've been over this in a different comment section. I view anarcho capitalism as a terrible brutal unethical system, that if used would wreck our nation, where as I am a proponent of democracy. Everything I have to say is based on democracy.There is no system that actually works which doesn't require the people working together, and if we are going to work together, we are best deciding together. What you want done would collapse society in any meaningful way.
Democracy is the brutal enforcement of the will of the majority. It's not any more legitimate than 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. It is the anti-thesis of cooperation. You don't have to cooperate when you can bully.
@FearsEdge Iti s deciding as a group. We are all dependent on one another. It may not be perfect, as not everyone gets their way, but it is the only system that actually works. I of course would not apply democracy to civil rights, and rather have a constitution defining them, and a court to help enforce them, but when it comes to economics, it is the only thing that works. We decide together, as a group, or we got shit to work with.
It's the group deciding to do something, and if you don't like it, you can't do anything about it. I am for VOLUNTARY cooperation, not compulsory cooperation, which is pretty much an oxymoron.
@FearsEdge That is the thing, unlike you, who wants your own will enforced no matter what, I have no issue accepting that the majority doesn't agree with me on some things, and hense these things will not happen. You hate democracy because you don't get your own will. If I push for removal of foreign military bases and the rest don't agree, I don't call it forced, it means that I failed to prove my idea to the masses, get over it.
Stop projecting, I don't like democracy for the reasons I laid out.
If people agree to do something, and it is a good idea to them, then they will have no problem paying for it. Pretending that bullying other people into paying for things they didn't want in the first place is somehow legitimate is pretty awful, to me.
@FearsEdge Again, you view it as bullying when you pay into a system that does some stuff you don't like, and again, when the same thing happens to me, I do not view it as bullying. I get it, you hate democracy, I don't. It isn't a issue to me because i don't care when I lose on an issue. I know I am in a system where I can push for my views and ideas, I and everyone else gets a say in what happens. it is only bullying if you hate democracy.
Yes, I do call me paying into a system that is compulsory and does all kinds of things I don't approve of bullying. That sounds pretty accurate to me.
it isn't an issue to you becuase you have what you want, a system that sort of approximates constitutional representative democratic republic and all that. I am subject to it also. All I want is the ability to be left out of it.
When you say freedom, you have to know that situations have at least 2 opposing freedoms. Take murder, you can have the freedom to murder,or the freedom from being murdered. Or teacher lead prayer, you can have freedom to lead prayer, or freedom from the led prayer session. With business,for example, you have the freedom to drop someones healthcare, or the freedom of the person from having their healthcare dropped despite paying for it. Do you want freedom for the people or for businesses?
No, freedom is being able to determine one's own destiny so long as you are not infringing on other people. My freedom ends where yours begins. You are creating false-dichotomies.
@FearsEdge The issue is determining where freedoms begin and end.I say a business is infringing on the peoples freedom with the unethical stuff we prevent. Both the freedom to healthcare paid for and the freedom to drop their healthcare IS freedoms that oppose each other. Difference is,I'm actually in favor of the people,rather than an undemocratic institution called a corporation, so I always go with the freedom for the people to have their healthcare kept,rather than a business to drop it.
@FearsEdge it is cheaper per capita for people to pay for medicare than it is to have a free market system, so I guess you want to be free to pay more for your own healthcare, great idea.
If something is cheaper, which is a complicated thing when you can deny care and create price controls and deficit spend and the like, it doesn't necessarily mean it's justified. Socialized medicine is built on force, like any other socialized, politicized part of life.
@FearsEdge apart of democracy, which you already said you hate, is that we all chip in what we can to put into effect the things we voted on doing. medicare is as socialized as the military, fire department, etc, things we all benefit from. As for deficit spending, that comes from having to low of taxes. It is right wing people like bush who refuse to pay for things. I support paying for everything through taxes, and adding more income brackets to do so, among other things.
I am not some small government minarchist, or something. I know fully well that the military and fire department are payed for in the same way, and I don't like that either. I support voluntary exchanges.
@FearsEdge Well at least that is a position you hold that I am okay with. Issue for you is, though I have not seen these polls, I imagine the great great majority of people do support democracy. You are never going to get everyone to agree with you, so there has to be a cut off point where you accept democracy as fair, do to the large amount of support it has. And for those who support democracy, though we don't like funding things we don't support, ultimately we find it acceptable.
It seems like circular reasoning to me. "I like democracy, which is the rule of the majority. It's the best system. Want to know how I know that? The majority thinks so!"
@FearsEdge Nah, that was directed at your forced point. That to most people, they do not feel forced when something they don't like gets funded in a democracy. I was asking of 90% or whatever of people agreeing with democracy and not viewing it as forced on them is enough to say it isn't a forced system, or do you think the 0-10% disagreeing is enough to throw out democracy.
@FearsEdge I know it will be full of overly simplistic criticisms of the state and perhaps if were lucky some impractical solutions that if you are pressed on, you will admit that you are not at all sure that they or any of the solutions you suggest will improve on even the most basic realities of society. And when presented with complex scenarios, you wont even be able to present slightest solution.
Abolishing the state is not justification in and of itself to ruin society.
My only problem is you didn't even give me a chance. If you watch something I put out, and don't like it, then I'm perfectly fine with a bad rating. I just think rating something you didn't even watch is bullshit.
The state is a cancer on society, not society itself. Getting rid of the state will not ruin society, quite the opposite.
You don't think a society where there are not institutionalized double standards enforced by violence would be an improvement?
@FearsEdge To fix what you perceive as moral issues you will destroy a huge collaboration between people and replace it with many small collaborations which if you dislike double standards, why would 100 million double standards between individuals be an improvement?
The government needs fixing, it needs reminding who the boss is, sure. Destroying the state will not be an improvement though, not on the national stage and it would be suicide on the international stage.
The state is the antithesis of collaboration. The voluntary exchange of the free market is the epitome of collaboration, statism is about bullying and coercing people to get what is the most politically desired.
@FearsEdge Im not going to get dragged into this nonsense any further but to address that simplistic point. The state my be a coercive type of collaboration, which ensures the most basic living standards for the unfortunate. But the free market in its purest form is utter bullshit without regulation. How many oil spills, how many nuclear weapons told to rogue states, how much slavery will it take before you see that the freedom of a free market isnt that desirable?
it insures the domination of the people, in the name of whatever it is that you want the most, in your case it seems to be helping the unfortunate, as you put it.
You accuse ME of oversimplification? Yes, OF COURSE, oil spills, nuclear weapons to rogue states, slavery, NONE OF THIS has anything to do with statism. It's all because of the free market. If you'd watched the video you'd know I already covered that point.
Yes, you do have to address it like it is. So don't pretend statism wasn't/isn't at the very least partially responsible for the things you mentioned.
@FearsEdge Also, and finally. Saying that there would be no coercion in a free state is just stupid and shows a complete lack of insight into how people work. Just because there would be no more state coercion does not remove coercion fella. At lest the state coercion is in clear view for all to see.
Of COURSE it doesn't remove coercion, I never said it would. The state didn't create all the inequities of life, it just exploits them. The problem with the state's coercion in particular is the bullshit legitimacy it has.
Oh, I'm aware of the bullshit reasoning behind it, that doesn't mean I agree with it. I do not recognize democracy, or representative government, to have any legitimacy whatsoever.
@FearsEdge So, you think that the bosses with the most money and assets should be the ones pulling the strings of peoples lives? You will say that people have the power to make decisions with how they spend their money to 'regulate' these people which is utter bullshit when that person has the power to monopolise.
Once again, your solution to a monopoly is to institute a monopoly. Nice double standard. Do you see now why I did this video?
It's actually worse than instituting a monopoly. A state is a COERCIVE monopoly that can not only monopolize, it can exert force on any competitor(by making competition illegal), and you don't even have to want to buy it, they just take your money from you.
« your solution to a monopoly is to institute a monopoly. Nice double standard. »
There is a single standard to replace non-mutual 'monopoly' (an unfair relationship that can occur between people when there is no government) with mutual 'monopoly' called regulation (a fair relationship that a government can ensure between people). They are different types of coercion. So, no double standard.
@mi Actually free market monopolies are a myth. In a free market (a market devoid of state regulation) there are no state created barriers to entry to prevent competition from forming. Example of a state created barrier to entry, state mandated licenses, permits.
Therefore if one company were to raise their prices unreasonably or start denying services to minorities or whatever, that would be a huge incentive for competition to form and provide better services and reap their competitors profit
Yes, double standard. People don't like monopolies, but they are fine with the state having not only a monopoly, but the ability to outlaw any future competition, and even if you don't want to deal with them, they'll take your money anyway. You trade the possibility of private monopolies for 100% probability of a monopoly, and a worse kind of monopoly at that.
« People don't like monopolies, but they are fine with the state »
Because, unlike real monopolist companies, the state theoretically represents the people. Also a custodian in a sense. When a stranger tries to lay hold on your kid, you call it illegal; when it's you as a custodian who controls your kid's behaviour, usually it's not seen as illegal. A child or a mass of adults, they require a custodian because they are unpredictable, possibly to the extent of harming their 'family' (country).
The problem is, that they DON'T represent the people. They control the people. I am an adult and I do not appreciate other people trying to treat me like a child. I do not need, nor do I want a nanny, especially one steals from me and fails to pay it's own bills.
I already covered this in the video. You are saying that people are like chilrfren and require a custodian, or in this case, a state. Since the state is people, that state needs a state, and that state needs a state.......
They SHOULD. You are arguing for non-statism in its ideal form; I'm arguing for statism in its ideal form.
« Since the state is people, that state needs a state »
The state is more than a collection of people, just like water or consciousness has emergent properties that are not intrinsic to their physical components.
And statism in it;s ideal from is built on violence, not freedom or cooperation, but coercion and force. I oppose the very idea of the state, in it's ideal form, or not. And my criticisms in this video apply to the state in it's ideal form also, at least the point that you keep harping on.
So are you assigning characteristics, emergent or not, to the state that other groups of people do not possess? Other than being allowed to be bullies, of course. Anyone can be allowed to be nasty
« And statism in it;s ideal from is built on violence, not freedom or cooperation, but coercion and force. »
'Coercion' from a properly formed state is a neutral force that serves the whole of the society. If you don't eat, your body suffers from starvation; the nature forces you to eat, to spend money on food; but you don't see that life-maintaining force as 'coercion', do you? It's the same for the state; it exerts society-maintaining force.
That's the problem is you are assuming the very thing you should be trying to prove. You assume that the state somehow maintains society in a positive way. The idea that society is an emergent self-regulating system is far too hard to grasp when you can simply attribute the good things of society to the bullies that point guns at people.
« when you can simply attribute the good things of society to the bullies that point guns at people. »
That's not an intrinsic behaviour of the state. It's a peculiar thing in the U.S. It seldom happens in other developed countries, because the people are aware of their responsibilities and rewards from a properly functioning tax system. Denmark is the most taxed country and yet its people are the happiest on this planet. It's a matter of having a comprehensive perspective.
Our society breeds Thought Death
spinalglacier 4 months ago
DAMN THAT COOKIE WAS GOOD.
civilbeing 1 year ago
I'm gonna comment on all of your videos today hoping you'll be spurred to post a new one! This one is really good.
AnonSubHuman 1 year ago
exactly what i tell people about the "people need a state" argument. If ppl need it, then the state needs one because it's made of people. It doesn't make sense that if people in general are bad and therefore need a state, we should thus have a state made up of people to control the other people.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
I don't... I don't get this at all. You didn't mention Satanism once.
Spanner50 1 year ago
FearsEdge,
Have you read the Federalist Papers? You really need to, as it would give you a much greater understanding of Government.
Basically, there are two primary reasons for Government. One, is defense of the sovereign nation from enemies outside its own borders, and the second is to ensure the administration of rights afforded to its citizens. However, where things get twisted is in distribution of wealth, and matters of equality.
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@Slipknotyk06
Those are the ways that statism is sold to people, yes. I used to believe in the state(not to be confused with government) in a very limited capacity, the problem is that the state always grows bigger. In order to protect ourselves from big government, we can't institute a small one.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
I did it too! Hahahhaha. I slip up every once in awhile.
What I mean is in order to protect ourselves from the state growing too powerful, it can't be given any power in the first place.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge - "What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control those governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." James Madison, Federalist 51
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@Slipknotyk06
Right there, is the problem. "we must first dominate the people, THEN we can worry about some kind of measures to limit the state itself." That's what I got from that.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge - Have you not read any other James Madison documents? I doubt you read the Federalist Papers. You are lacking information. James Madison was one of the foremost in pushing for the Bill of Rights, especially the first 5. It's not about domination but protection of the rights through limitations of government that Madison was pushing for.
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@FearsEdge I believe that more should have been done to prevent the expansion of the state in the constitution, like requiring all laws to be amendments of the constitution passed by 3/4s majority of lawmakers in both houses, as well as a 2/3 popular vote. Plus, requiring all laws to have expiration dates could help.
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@Slipknotyk06
It doesn't matter, you can write all the restrictions down that you want, pieces of paper do no stop the state from getting bigger and dominating more and more of our lives.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge - Restrictions on government are a proven way to slow the expansion of government. A government with no restrictions on paper becomes tyrannical in nature almost immediately. It is the role of the people to force reform when reform becomes necessary. I'm sure that under the next president, the Patriot Act will come to an end, because reform will become the only way to get re-elected. The Republicans are hearing this call, which is why they're opposing the expansion of the Federal gov.
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@Slipknotyk06 I think a classic example of a state ignoring it's constitution is the 2nd amendment in the U.S. constitution. There it clearly says that people have the right to own and carry guns. Yet there are currently cun control laws and laws that prohibit people from defending themselves in many states.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@crazypants88 - Local law trumps federal law. A state can make a law that runs counter to the Constitution, and there are provisions that allow this in the constitution. That's why federal law can ban marijuana while some states have legalized it. Now, I'm not saying gun bans are right, but the constitution freely allows this. I personally think that felons should not own guns, but, standard gun laws are ok. 3 day wait, bg check, no guns if you've been convicted of a domestic, that kind of stuff
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
The gulf spill shows we need private ownership so that people will actually care about what's going on and what safety systems are in place. If I owned that piece of ocean, I would make damned sure the drillers did things right. Also, it shows that government-created corporations lead people to be irresponsible and reckless since their own personal wealth and livelihoods are not connected to their actions.
chris3443 1 year ago
I live in Estonia. The lates market research data of 2010 shows that the highest apruval rating has the rescure service 95% , police and military 80%, tax office 79%(its takes literaly 2 min to declare your taxes), local coverment 65-70%, the court 60% NATO 59%. And on the other end ofc political partys with 25% the parliament 37-47%. My coverment works prety well. Maybe yours dosent, idk.
Uhmu45 1 year ago
@Uhmu45
Your country is much smaller and is easier to control and placate. You don't have nearly the ability to overspend and abuse as our state does.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
We dont overspend because we have elected last 20 years people who belive in fiscal conservatism. Last year the coverment cut 15% of their spending to balced. And 10 years ago when there was the russian crisis we did the same.
Uhmu45 1 year ago
@Uhmu45
I'm glad that the people in your country who say that they are for small government and get elected actually follow through on that. We are not so lucky over here.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@Uhmu45
Sorry that was 2009 data ;) My bad.
Uhmu45 1 year ago
Not having a state dosent mean the problems go away. How would you solve these issues that a society has?
Uhmu45 1 year ago
@Uhmu45
Having a state doesn't mean problems go away either. What exactly does the state do that no one else can?
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
What i want to know is how you imagine how to world would work if there isent a common goverment. Whats the system you propose. I dont understand. How would you handle crime, healthcare and other public services that we have now?
The problems are always there, how would you deal with these issues?
Uhmu45 1 year ago
@Uhmu45
I wouldn't handle all those problems since they are not my area of expertise. I already told someone earlier,
"I love this game statists play, where I am supposed to predict all the solutions the sum of society will come up with in the absence of the gun as being an easy option to get what one wants. Are you suggesting that there is no way to do it? That would be a pretty bold statement. "
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
Im not. But we cant kill the state before we dont know how we would go from that point on.
Uhmu45 1 year ago
Crash of 1929 occurred because of lack of regulation and greed. Crash of 2008 occurred because those in power wanted to bring down the system while they robbed the US treasury.
MrCoolCoder562 1 year ago
@MrCoolCoder562
Crash of 1929 was due to speculation of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act passing that caused the stock market to be even more unstable than it already was due to easy credit and the creation of the federal reserve decades earlier. You cannot pretend a free market was present, and there was some lack of regulation that was to blame when you had a centralized bank controlling the currency and interest rates.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge While the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act may have made the depression worse. Let's be clear, you are rewriting history in stating that an import tax allowed people to overleverage their bets and bring down the house of cards (Wall Street). There was no government bailouts back then so you can't blame that. You have no basis for making that claim.
MrCoolCoder562 1 year ago
@MrCoolCoder562
I didn't say an import tax allowed it, I was stating that as one factor, easy credit was another factor. And there might not have been bailouts in the same way as '08, but there were tariffs, and price controls that were instituted that only made the depression worse.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge You most certainly did state Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act was the reason for the crash of '29. Besides, easy credit came from wall street and lack of regulation. People were betting with money they did not have. Sound familiar?
MrCoolCoder562 1 year ago
@MrCoolCoder562
I didn't say an import tax allowed people to over leverage, which is what you said that I said.
Easy credit came from the centralized banking system and the federal reserve controlling interest rates and currency. Do you really think a free market could be responsible for too much lending when a central bank had control over the interest rates for the loans? Hmm? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't a free market at all, control of currency and interest rates precludes this.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@MrCoolCoder562
The crash of 08 was due to easy credit backed up by the taxpayer that allowed banking institutions to make all kinds of gambles with little to no risk to them. It was also due to political pressures forcing a huge housing bubble that the state is still attempting to prop up with bail outs to the lending institutions that were making all these bad bets on our dime
Once again, a centralized bank controlled interest rates and the currency. The causes go back almost a century
FearsEdge 1 year ago
When you compare the state to a company you have to keep in mind that the politicians are elected public figures and when and if they fuck up we see them and blame them. Privet companis aret usualy so public about their fuckups. They can hide bad shit more easly. Its not about state aginst private companis, its all about people.People do shity things. It dosent matter if its a state or a company. There are well runed states in the world too as there are well runned companis.
Uhmu45 1 year ago
@Uhmu45
Who are you going to elect out of office to deal with inefficient city hall services?
How long will that take? How quickly can you swap service providers for municipal services? (you cant, its illegal).
How quickly can you change service providers for your car, home, clothing, food, telecommunication, etc. Pretty much instantaneously, and no one will arrest you.
rbairos1 1 year ago
@Uhmu45
As I covered, there is so much less recourse when a politician fucks up, not to mention that you are bound by the process and if you don't like it you are extorted to pay for it any way. The difference with private companies is if you don't trust them or don't like them, you don't have to deal with them.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
Seriously, these statist people you describe, I have never met one like that. I think the state has a role to play but you describe a paranoid frak who thinks that only the state is capable to do things. That person dosent exist.Its like a bigfoot.
Uhmu45 1 year ago
(Sorry kept adding an extra 'not' in my sentence..) @Uhmu45 "Seriously, these statist people you describe, I have never met one like that".
Try withholding your taxes for some service you've found a better alternative for.
What do you think would happen?
rbairos1 1 year ago
@Uhmu45
Start arguing against the state and watch as people say we need it for all kinds of reasons. People really do say those things.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@Uhmu45 Well if you have never meet anyone like that, you should maybe come out of the cave you are living in, or if walking hurts your feet just spend a few minutes looking around YouTube.
priapus512 1 year ago
@priapus512
I have never met anyone who thinks that the state can solve everything. If i saw him arguing I saw a person who thinks that the private sector is useless. Capitalism works well.
Lats say we dont have a goverment and we want to slove a common problem. There will be always people who will be unhappy about the decision. 90 person deciside to build a road and 10 doesnt and the ten dont pay and cant use the road. That makes more problems then it solves. Lats say its the only road to...
Uhmu45 1 year ago
@Uhmu45 Let me quote you:
"you describe a paranoid frak who thinks that only the state is capable to do things. That person dosent exist."
Somehow you changed this to:
"I have never met anyone who thinks that the state can solve everything"
Yes there are literally billions of people who think that only the state can do things (roads police, ect.)
priapus512 1 year ago
@priapus512
Lats say you dont like to fund the police. But you need a sense of security so you make your own private force. If you like it like that you just asking for gangwars.
Common funding for police the firedp medice is more productive then to have a privte 100 difrent firedpwho help you only when you have payed for the service.
What im sayingis that in some ares it just makes sens to "force" people to pay for the common good.
IF your not that kind of a antistateist then sorry my bad;)
Uhmu45 1 year ago
@Uhmu45 Why would it end up in gang wars? Have you actually bothered to study the position you are criticizing at all? You actually think that an Anarchists haven't first pondered these questions?
I suggest you actually research the position we are advocating so you can make criticisms that are halfway intelligent.
priapus512 1 year ago
My head hurts now ;) I dont know anyone who thinks that we need a state to get along. Its just a human institution to solw common probles like security or healtcare or building roads. We can do things difrently but at some point we have to come together and solwe these issus.
Uhmu45 1 year ago
@Uhmu45
The state does not solve problems, because then we would not need it. The state MANAGES problems, and charges the monopoly rate to do it, and if you don't like it, you STILL have to pay.
We definitely have to come together to solve certain things, no argument there, but I've said it before, having the state bully people into conformity is not cooperation, it's the opposite.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
« having the state bully people into conformity is not cooperation »
But you also say society doesn't have to do away with police and court. What would be their functions, if not ensuring people's conformity to a set of rules?
mirandansa 1 year ago
@mirandansa
Obviously if you have to use a security force, they are not cooperating with you, now are they?
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
Imagine: in a state-less society, some thugs try to steal your house; you call your 'private' police, and the thugs call their own one which they 'purchased' in a free market. What would happen? Who would be the mediator? What would become of the law?
mirandansa 1 year ago
@mirandansa
The private police would already be there, more than likely. I would be armed either way. I have no illusions about what can really protect me. If I depended on the state to protect me and called the police after some guys showed up to try and steal from me, they would be long gone by the time the police got there, almost certainly.
So your framing of the scenario is already skewed.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
Statists are the creationists of history and economics.
scienceandliberty 1 year ago
Great vid and yes the state is full of stupid.
crazypants88 1 year ago
The state needs a state in the U.S. = 3 branches of government which oversee each other. So yes in a sense you're right and the state does need a state.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist
Except the three branches collude, and do not check each other's power at all.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
That's not the point.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist
Yes it is. What you are proposing as a solution to the problem is not applicable, for the reason I just gave.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
You said "if you want to tell me people require a state, then the state requires a state", and then went on to say "somehow people don't apply that same reasoning to the state", and my reply was YES THEY DO, our founding father absolutely applied that reasoning to the state. It was the motivation for 3 branches of government, and the system of checks, and balances. So once again, and hopefully clearer it's irrelevant in that context whether checks, and balance's work.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist
A check or a balance that does not actually work, does not qualify as a check or a balance. People don't apply that same reasoning, since obviously there is not an infinite number of states watching over the one ahead of them. People don't think the state requires a state, that's the point. An internal set of theoretical checks and balances is not the same as each state being ruled over by a state above it in the same manner as a state rules the people.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
You keep harping on this "checks, and balances does not work". OK fine I'll concede that for the sake of argument. THAT IS NOT MY POINT as I've said repeatedly. My point is that people DO think the state needs a state.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist
No, they don't. for the reasons I explained.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
Denmark's system of "state needing a state" is even more pronounced, to a lesser extent Germany. Almost EVERY government program exists on a state level, overseen by local representatives, but those organizations exist on a federal level as well which can be appealed to if you aren't happy with the local oversight, and of course those decision can be appealed through the courts. Saying those aren't essentially states running states, running states is semantics.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist
Almost every government program is overseen by the state, which is what you just said, and I already knew that. And again, those representatives do not follow the same rules as everyone else in society, which is the whole point of my video.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
It depends on what your idea of a state is. In my opinion checks, and balances is the foundation of the states purpose. It's to keep people from running rampant, and doing whatever they want without oversight. If that wasn't needed I'd see no need for a state other than perhaps for the common defense.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist
So you would say that people need a state or they would run rampant? The state is just people, what is stopping the state from running rampant? If you say the state itself, then you are saying that people in general can't manage their own affairs, but a special group of popularity contest winners CAN manage their own affairs. That's the very double standard I was talking about in the video.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
-what is stopping the state from running rampant?
Checks, and balances. Presidents would run rampant (even more than they do) if they didn't have to answer to some extent to congress, and the supreme, and ultimately to the people.
People (particularly those with power) would kill indiscriminately without concern (as we've seen) if they didn't have some sort of government oversight. Hell, they do so with it.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
Continued....
By that I mean corporate CEO's who would dump toxic waste while making cost benefit analysis of human losses.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist
That was a trick question, since they ARE running rampant, and no one is stopping them.
I cannot disagree with you more about your last point, especially since the most indiscriminate killing in this world is always perpetrated by states.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
Continued..
I was objecting you your claim that people don't apply the reasoning that a state requires a state. When in fact they do, and have applied the concept in most democracies I can think of. All have a system of one sort or another where one portion of the state watches the other because we don't expect it to be trustworthy if it has no one to answer to. It also answers to the people which is why we don't elect representatives to lifetime terms.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist
Again, that is not the same thing. An entity supposedly policing itself is not at all the same as having a separate entity that doesn't have to follow the same rules policing it.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
But the intent at it's purest is not self policing. It's not like Internal affairs of a police department which is set up by, and answerable to the chief of police. The three branches are separate, and established by the constitution. At least that's the idea. Essentially 3 separate states overseeing each other.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
Continued...
Of course they are all to one degree or another on the corporate payroll at this point, and pretty want the same thing corporate America wants, but we're talking intent here not how the state in America has been corrupted.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist
The same people float from one branch to another, each branch able to reinforce the others power. That is exactly what we see happening. There is no check or balance. It's a trick that you fell for. Three branches of the same state is not the same as three separate states. Especially since one branch appoints the second. The constitution is either responsible for the current state of affairs, or it couldn't stop it. Whatever mythical checks it promised are illusory.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
-Whatever mythical checks it promised are illusory
I agree, but my original point remains. The intent was essentially a state watching a state watching a state because the founders recognized the fact that whether it's individuals, or a state they can't be trusted with complete autonomy.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist
The thought that giving the states different parts the ability to partially influence the others would help stem corruption. It does the opposite, and only reinforces itself. The different parts of the state do not have the same power over each other that the state has over the people. That is why it is not the same. I don't know how else to explain this.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
spot fuckin on.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
haha yes good point. we need regulators for the regulators, and regulators for those regulators, and so on and so forth or else there might be corruption.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
Well my form of government to some is anarchy and not a government at all. So as a statist I hold no double standards. Absolute liberty is a good thing.
The oil spill destroyed areas of the enviroment, hurting fishermen's and others liberties, which with a court system not the state, would get sued and have to fix the problem and pay damages.
And for the economy, our money problem is because our money is controlled by a central bank
spartacandream 1 year ago
just a re-hash of libertarian drivel; can't you understand that the state is essential to modern life?
chrisbuxton1958 1 year ago
@chrisbuxton1958 This is the part you would usually argue your point not just state it.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@chrisbuxton1958
I'm pretty sure I've explained why it isn't. But I'll do it again.
People in modern times need a state
the state is made up of people, in modern times
so the state needs a state
and that state needs and state.....
remember, now?
FearsEdge 1 year ago
I never thought of this before, but a good example of what you said first is the police department. The enforcement aspect requires it's own enforcement, hence they have a bureau of internal affairs. Heh, kind of funny.
dannypantsgm 1 year ago
@dannypantsgm
Which is of course, a big joke. They are a paramilitary force that operates like a street gang. They care about protecting themselves and each other first and foremost.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
The problem that I see with the "people don't need a state" is that as soon as you have an anarchy you'll get groups of people forming mobs, which in the end grow and become states themselves. I personally would like to have a very small, very simple state, but some form of government is always going to end up forming.
n3rdm4n 1 year ago
@n3rdm4n
So then we could agree it's time to end the current crop of states?
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge Ideally yes, but governments don't go down without a fight, that's the biggest problem. The downfall will be with blood flowing and heads rolling :(. And no sooner than the fat is done away that it will start piling on again.
n3rdm4n 1 year ago
@n3rdm4n
If we can convince people that the state is not a legitimate human institution, there will be very few left to fight for it.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge That is reasonable. The good thing is that eventually someone will succeed, but... I feel it's way off. Hope to be wrong!
n3rdm4n 1 year ago
Unsubbed. Let me know if you ever go back to disproving Creatards. And fix your face hair ffs.
GregQzag 1 year ago
@GregQzag No one cares, go make a scene somewhere else.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@GregQzag
classic statheism. well done.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@GregQzag
You'll be missed.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
If you're looking for double-standards you have to look no further than the UK and the recent expenses scandal (see: Parliamentary Priveledge)! :)
hadr0n 1 year ago
@FearsEdge A compromise could be to allows those who do not want to take part in the democratic process to opted out. They lose their voting ability, and they no loner get any benefits from the state, but no longer have to pay taxes. They can pay for government services that they wish to use as if it were a business. Lose your ability to effect the system democratically, and would have to pay for things like roads if used, but hey, free from taxes on everything.
Maghetti 1 year ago
@Maghetti Except more or less all it's assets and money are either claimed through coercion or just by planting a flag in the ground.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@crazypants88 I've been over this in other posts. IF you support democracy, as I do, you have no issue putting your own money into the process. That is the point of this point, give the people who do not like democracy a way out of paying taxes, and people like me, who feel very good and moral when giving taxes, who loves the process of democracy, we can enjoy the benefits of voting and the benefits of the things we pass. You are only coerced if you don't support the process.
Maghetti 1 year ago
@crazypants88 I personally think 95% of people support democracy and the process, and would reject the offer off opting out of the process if it means losing their ability to take part in the process, even if they no longer have to pay taxes on anything except what they want to use, such as the police.
Maghetti 1 year ago
@crazypants88
That's how states claim something, sure.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@Maghetti
That would be a much better system. The government would have to operate the same way as everyone else at that point, which is what I am advocating.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
"Democracy is the worst form of government ... except for all the rest." - Winston Churchill
Danmill23 1 year ago
@Danmill23
exactly and since democracy sucks that's why I'm anti-statist.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
What about the double standards of the Catholic church? or any religious body for that matter? Or big businesses?
You're employing some lovely creationist logic with your suggestion that a state needs a state needs a state etc. ad infinitum!
hadr0n 1 year ago
@hadr0n
What about them? I don't like them either. I said in the video I advocate a society where we all are subject to the same rules, so naturally I wouldn't want an institutionalized double standard.
I know that's creationist logic, that's why I don't subscribe to it. I was pointing out the self-refuting nature of the idea the people require a state.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge I see what you're saying but the argument is a bit of a straw man because you suggest that people require a state 'just because'. While this may be true for some less thoughtful or vulnerable people it doesn't address the issues which have to be dealt with when advocating a stateless society. A lot of people DO rely on 'the state' to protect them, support them, keep them alive & well.
I'm not a 'statist' or an 'anti-anti-statist' but nor am I convinced by anti-statist arguments yet.
hadr0n 1 year ago
@hadr0n
No, I didn't say people require a state just because, I gave a few different examples of what people say they need a state for. To manage them or "society", or to help them get along or whatever.
I know a lot of people rely on the state. That is how the state gets bigger, is by making people dependent on it. That's why I am trying to shift the social paradigm away from using violence to try and solve complex social problems.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge I can certainly agree with your sentiments but, in my opinion, such criticisms are not constructive. Without an evidence-based solution to these complex problems all you have is an ideological position that could be disastrous if employed without first applying a critical rationalist approach to the problem that is untainted by political bias.
hadr0n 1 year ago
@FearsEdge I've just had a thought: there are examples where institutionalized double-standards are a positive thing - People applying for a job that involves working with children or vulnerable people will usually be put under greater scrutiny during the application process to check that they are not abusers. How would this be possible without government legislation and police databases, and the whole justice system for that matter?
hadr0n 1 year ago
How would net neutrality be maintained without governmental regulations of ISPs, for example?
mirandansa 1 year ago
@mirandansa
The internet should be( and mostly is) market driven like everything else, in my opinion. You'd have to present me with what net neutrality is exactly and why it would need to be enforced for me to even go there.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge Net neutrality is something you have no ideological answer for apart from hoping there is more money in peoples buying power (and that they use it), than there is in limiting peoples reach on the internet to businesses that are allied with the ISP.
Aspartame69 1 year ago
@Aspartame69
Are you assuming you are entitled to the internet? That you need the nanny state to protect it for you? Is that it?
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge You are once again saying you are willing to destroy what we already have to protect some misplaced moral stance.
Whats wrong? when the state is doing something undeniably good you cannot even remotely address it but rather say "well, you arnt entitled to that anyway" ROFL. You have no idea how fucked up that is.
Aspartame69 1 year ago
@Aspartame69
Actually, I didn't say that at all. I don't know how you came up with that.
I didn't say you are not entitled, I asked you if you think that you are. Net neutrality is about taking over what is currently privately controlled. So NO I didn't say anything remotely like destroying what we already have. Your problem here seems to be with a man of straw.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
« You'd have to present me with what net neutrality is exactly and why it would need to be enforced »
Net neutrality means that ISPs impose no more restrictions on its users' access to the internet than the subscribed level. This guarantees for example that smaller enterprises be not muffled by ISPs for the interest of their associated larger enterprises or for some ideological reasons.
/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U
mirandansa 1 year ago
@FearsEdge Government regulations are probably the biggest threat to net neutrality at the moment - the internet should definately remain an apolitical, market-driven entity.
hadr0n 1 year ago
As for the system being broken and the lack of accountability, I agree. Problem is, the politicians are not accountable to the voters, but to corporations, who pay their bills. When they act they are acting in favor of corporate power. Government is just the shadow of who they work for, which would be fine if they worked for us, but in general, they do not. To fix the system, you have to make them accountable to us, or get rid of them and go with direct economic democracy.
Maghetti 1 year ago
@Maghetti
No, direct anarcho-capitalism. A free market. Democracy is a brutal and barbaric system.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge We've been over this in a different comment section. I view anarcho capitalism as a terrible brutal unethical system, that if used would wreck our nation, where as I am a proponent of democracy. Everything I have to say is based on democracy.There is no system that actually works which doesn't require the people working together, and if we are going to work together, we are best deciding together. What you want done would collapse society in any meaningful way.
Maghetti 1 year ago
@Maghetti
Democracy is the brutal enforcement of the will of the majority. It's not any more legitimate than 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. It is the anti-thesis of cooperation. You don't have to cooperate when you can bully.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge Iti s deciding as a group. We are all dependent on one another. It may not be perfect, as not everyone gets their way, but it is the only system that actually works. I of course would not apply democracy to civil rights, and rather have a constitution defining them, and a court to help enforce them, but when it comes to economics, it is the only thing that works. We decide together, as a group, or we got shit to work with.
Maghetti 1 year ago
@Maghetti
It's the group deciding to do something, and if you don't like it, you can't do anything about it. I am for VOLUNTARY cooperation, not compulsory cooperation, which is pretty much an oxymoron.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge That is the thing, unlike you, who wants your own will enforced no matter what, I have no issue accepting that the majority doesn't agree with me on some things, and hense these things will not happen. You hate democracy because you don't get your own will. If I push for removal of foreign military bases and the rest don't agree, I don't call it forced, it means that I failed to prove my idea to the masses, get over it.
Maghetti 1 year ago
@Maghetti
Stop projecting, I don't like democracy for the reasons I laid out.
If people agree to do something, and it is a good idea to them, then they will have no problem paying for it. Pretending that bullying other people into paying for things they didn't want in the first place is somehow legitimate is pretty awful, to me.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge Again, you view it as bullying when you pay into a system that does some stuff you don't like, and again, when the same thing happens to me, I do not view it as bullying. I get it, you hate democracy, I don't. It isn't a issue to me because i don't care when I lose on an issue. I know I am in a system where I can push for my views and ideas, I and everyone else gets a say in what happens. it is only bullying if you hate democracy.
Maghetti 1 year ago
@Maghetti
Yes, I do call me paying into a system that is compulsory and does all kinds of things I don't approve of bullying. That sounds pretty accurate to me.
it isn't an issue to you becuase you have what you want, a system that sort of approximates constitutional representative democratic republic and all that. I am subject to it also. All I want is the ability to be left out of it.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
When you say freedom, you have to know that situations have at least 2 opposing freedoms. Take murder, you can have the freedom to murder,or the freedom from being murdered. Or teacher lead prayer, you can have freedom to lead prayer, or freedom from the led prayer session. With business,for example, you have the freedom to drop someones healthcare, or the freedom of the person from having their healthcare dropped despite paying for it. Do you want freedom for the people or for businesses?
Maghetti 1 year ago
@Maghetti
No, freedom is being able to determine one's own destiny so long as you are not infringing on other people. My freedom ends where yours begins. You are creating false-dichotomies.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge The issue is determining where freedoms begin and end.I say a business is infringing on the peoples freedom with the unethical stuff we prevent. Both the freedom to healthcare paid for and the freedom to drop their healthcare IS freedoms that oppose each other. Difference is,I'm actually in favor of the people,rather than an undemocratic institution called a corporation, so I always go with the freedom for the people to have their healthcare kept,rather than a business to drop it.
Maghetti 1 year ago
@Maghetti
Demanding free stuff (medical care) is not freedom.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge it is cheaper per capita for people to pay for medicare than it is to have a free market system, so I guess you want to be free to pay more for your own healthcare, great idea.
Maghetti 1 year ago
@Maghetti
If something is cheaper, which is a complicated thing when you can deny care and create price controls and deficit spend and the like, it doesn't necessarily mean it's justified. Socialized medicine is built on force, like any other socialized, politicized part of life.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge apart of democracy, which you already said you hate, is that we all chip in what we can to put into effect the things we voted on doing. medicare is as socialized as the military, fire department, etc, things we all benefit from. As for deficit spending, that comes from having to low of taxes. It is right wing people like bush who refuse to pay for things. I support paying for everything through taxes, and adding more income brackets to do so, among other things.
Maghetti 1 year ago
@Maghetti
I am not some small government minarchist, or something. I know fully well that the military and fire department are payed for in the same way, and I don't like that either. I support voluntary exchanges.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge Well at least that is a position you hold that I am okay with. Issue for you is, though I have not seen these polls, I imagine the great great majority of people do support democracy. You are never going to get everyone to agree with you, so there has to be a cut off point where you accept democracy as fair, do to the large amount of support it has. And for those who support democracy, though we don't like funding things we don't support, ultimately we find it acceptable.
Maghetti 1 year ago
@Maghetti
It seems like circular reasoning to me. "I like democracy, which is the rule of the majority. It's the best system. Want to know how I know that? The majority thinks so!"
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge Nah, that was directed at your forced point. That to most people, they do not feel forced when something they don't like gets funded in a democracy. I was asking of 90% or whatever of people agreeing with democracy and not viewing it as forced on them is enough to say it isn't a forced system, or do you think the 0-10% disagreeing is enough to throw out democracy.
Maghetti 1 year ago
No, 10% being bullied around(your number, not mine) counts as forcing people.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
Didnt watch, just a drive by thumbs down.
Aspartame69 1 year ago
@Aspartame69
That's hardly fair. You down thumb something you didn't even watch?
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge I know it will be full of overly simplistic criticisms of the state and perhaps if were lucky some impractical solutions that if you are pressed on, you will admit that you are not at all sure that they or any of the solutions you suggest will improve on even the most basic realities of society. And when presented with complex scenarios, you wont even be able to present slightest solution.
Abolishing the state is not justification in and of itself to ruin society.
Aspartame69 1 year ago
@Aspartame69
My only problem is you didn't even give me a chance. If you watch something I put out, and don't like it, then I'm perfectly fine with a bad rating. I just think rating something you didn't even watch is bullshit.
The state is a cancer on society, not society itself. Getting rid of the state will not ruin society, quite the opposite.
You don't think a society where there are not institutionalized double standards enforced by violence would be an improvement?
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge To fix what you perceive as moral issues you will destroy a huge collaboration between people and replace it with many small collaborations which if you dislike double standards, why would 100 million double standards between individuals be an improvement?
The government needs fixing, it needs reminding who the boss is, sure. Destroying the state will not be an improvement though, not on the national stage and it would be suicide on the international stage.
Aspartame69 1 year ago
@Aspartame69
The state is the antithesis of collaboration. The voluntary exchange of the free market is the epitome of collaboration, statism is about bullying and coercing people to get what is the most politically desired.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge Im not going to get dragged into this nonsense any further but to address that simplistic point. The state my be a coercive type of collaboration, which ensures the most basic living standards for the unfortunate. But the free market in its purest form is utter bullshit without regulation. How many oil spills, how many nuclear weapons told to rogue states, how much slavery will it take before you see that the freedom of a free market isnt that desirable?
Aspartame69 1 year ago
@Aspartame69
it insures the domination of the people, in the name of whatever it is that you want the most, in your case it seems to be helping the unfortunate, as you put it.
You accuse ME of oversimplification? Yes, OF COURSE, oil spills, nuclear weapons to rogue states, slavery, NONE OF THIS has anything to do with statism. It's all because of the free market. If you'd watched the video you'd know I already covered that point.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge You have to address the world as it is, not as it would be if there was never a state. You cannot argue from a clean slate.
Aspartame69 1 year ago
@Aspartame69
Yes, you do have to address it like it is. So don't pretend statism wasn't/isn't at the very least partially responsible for the things you mentioned.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge Also, and finally. Saying that there would be no coercion in a free state is just stupid and shows a complete lack of insight into how people work. Just because there would be no more state coercion does not remove coercion fella. At lest the state coercion is in clear view for all to see.
Aspartame69 1 year ago
@Aspartame69
Of COURSE it doesn't remove coercion, I never said it would. The state didn't create all the inequities of life, it just exploits them. The problem with the state's coercion in particular is the bullshit legitimacy it has.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge If you are not aware why it has a certain legitimacy then you are just being ignorant.
Aspartame69 1 year ago
@Aspartame69
Oh, I'm aware of the bullshit reasoning behind it, that doesn't mean I agree with it. I do not recognize democracy, or representative government, to have any legitimacy whatsoever.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge So, you think that the bosses with the most money and assets should be the ones pulling the strings of peoples lives? You will say that people have the power to make decisions with how they spend their money to 'regulate' these people which is utter bullshit when that person has the power to monopolise.
Aspartame69 1 year ago
@Aspartame69
Once again, your solution to a monopoly is to institute a monopoly. Nice double standard. Do you see now why I did this video?
It's actually worse than instituting a monopoly. A state is a COERCIVE monopoly that can not only monopolize, it can exert force on any competitor(by making competition illegal), and you don't even have to want to buy it, they just take your money from you.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
« your solution to a monopoly is to institute a monopoly. Nice double standard. »
There is a single standard to replace non-mutual 'monopoly' (an unfair relationship that can occur between people when there is no government) with mutual 'monopoly' called regulation (a fair relationship that a government can ensure between people). They are different types of coercion. So, no double standard.
mirandansa 1 year ago
@mi Actually free market monopolies are a myth. In a free market (a market devoid of state regulation) there are no state created barriers to entry to prevent competition from forming. Example of a state created barrier to entry, state mandated licenses, permits.
Therefore if one company were to raise their prices unreasonably or start denying services to minorities or whatever, that would be a huge incentive for competition to form and provide better services and reap their competitors profit
crazypants88 1 year ago
@mirandansa
Yes, double standard. People don't like monopolies, but they are fine with the state having not only a monopoly, but the ability to outlaw any future competition, and even if you don't want to deal with them, they'll take your money anyway. You trade the possibility of private monopolies for 100% probability of a monopoly, and a worse kind of monopoly at that.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
« People don't like monopolies, but they are fine with the state »
Because, unlike real monopolist companies, the state theoretically represents the people. Also a custodian in a sense. When a stranger tries to lay hold on your kid, you call it illegal; when it's you as a custodian who controls your kid's behaviour, usually it's not seen as illegal. A child or a mass of adults, they require a custodian because they are unpredictable, possibly to the extent of harming their 'family' (country).
mirandansa 1 year ago
@mirandansa
The problem is, that they DON'T represent the people. They control the people. I am an adult and I do not appreciate other people trying to treat me like a child. I do not need, nor do I want a nanny, especially one steals from me and fails to pay it's own bills.
I already covered this in the video. You are saying that people are like chilrfren and require a custodian, or in this case, a state. Since the state is people, that state needs a state, and that state needs a state.......
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
« they DON'T represent the people. »
They SHOULD. You are arguing for non-statism in its ideal form; I'm arguing for statism in its ideal form.
« Since the state is people, that state needs a state »
The state is more than a collection of people, just like water or consciousness has emergent properties that are not intrinsic to their physical components.
mirandansa 1 year ago
@mirandansa
And statism in it;s ideal from is built on violence, not freedom or cooperation, but coercion and force. I oppose the very idea of the state, in it's ideal form, or not. And my criticisms in this video apply to the state in it's ideal form also, at least the point that you keep harping on.
So are you assigning characteristics, emergent or not, to the state that other groups of people do not possess? Other than being allowed to be bullies, of course. Anyone can be allowed to be nasty
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
« And statism in it;s ideal from is built on violence, not freedom or cooperation, but coercion and force. »
'Coercion' from a properly formed state is a neutral force that serves the whole of the society. If you don't eat, your body suffers from starvation; the nature forces you to eat, to spend money on food; but you don't see that life-maintaining force as 'coercion', do you? It's the same for the state; it exerts society-maintaining force.
mirandansa 1 year ago
@mirandansa
That's the problem is you are assuming the very thing you should be trying to prove. You assume that the state somehow maintains society in a positive way. The idea that society is an emergent self-regulating system is far too hard to grasp when you can simply attribute the good things of society to the bullies that point guns at people.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
« when you can simply attribute the good things of society to the bullies that point guns at people. »
That's not an intrinsic behaviour of the state. It's a peculiar thing in the U.S. It seldom happens in other developed countries, because the people are aware of their responsibilities and rewards from a properly functioning tax system. Denmark is the most taxed country and yet its people are the happiest on this planet. It's a matter of having a comprehensive perspective.
mirandansa 1 year ago