The politicians use many covert actions to keep us divided while they perpetuate their political careers and line their pockets. Their cronys profit well from division politics.
Gov't isn't inherently evil and tyrannical. A proper state PROTECTS people from people. It defends and upholds individual freedom and justice for all. And nothing could be more conducive to the Brotherhood Of Man. Thus the pro-freedom state ENHANCES social interaction and friendship.
While I wouldn't mind a minimal state that would "protect people from people", at this point I am inclined to believe that it is a pipe-dream to believe that we can establish such a state that can maintain this role without overstepping its boundaries in the long run.
Here's a question someone asked me a while back, which pretty much nailed it, and played a role in pushing me towards full blown anti-statism:
"how can a government protect people's rights when the...
...act of not paying for said protection results in violations of the rights the government claims to be protecting?"
I think a better way to phrase it would be,"is it possible to maintain a minimal state that would protect people's individual rights without forcing them to fund it by threatening to violate the very rights it claims to protect?". I remain open to ideas of any social order that would not include an a-priori threat of force by coercive bodies(state or otherwise)
@Akatam0t0ma You make a good point. No-one in history has publicly explained how to fund the gov't without coercive taxation. *I* know the answer to this. But I refuse to explain without being paid.
Here's my work-around solution, which I *also* think evil mankind has no right to know: Have all adults at 21 sign a contact AGREEING to the libertarian constitution, PLUS paying maybe 2% income 'tax' for gov't services rendered protecting their rights. If they refuse to sign or pay, DEPORT them.
@PureLiberalFire Thanks. Good to see anti-dogma. The state isn't evil. The evil state is evil. As for the people shouting at each other in protests but not in other places, it's obvious why they don't elsewhere. It's all about context and identity. Pack a bunch of people A together who outwardly express opposition to the ideas of people B and you'll have a conflict, state or no state. Let people A wear self identifying t shirts and they'll be shunned by people B.
I have to qualify this with culture as well (also part of context). The degree of conflict will rise with the degree to which the culture is confrontational, aggressive, antisocial, and neurotic. All of which are at rather high levels in Western and especially American culture.
In addition to my points below, we have already shown the importance of regulating what a citizen can and cannot do. Without governance, the police becomes lynch mobs or mercenary groups. Individuals who are capable of gathering large clans together (See: Corporations) will invariably seek to annex their neighbors. This simply replaces a moderated state with one based on strength of arms. Democracy, for all it's flaws, is the best form of governance we have come up with so far.
I have one major objection to your whole presentation, and it goes like this.
What other system would you suggest to ensure common defense and social welfare? Private businesses have already shown themselves to be utterly incompetent in that regard (See: The Industrial Revolution(s)). The State, for all it's flaws, permits progress in a way that the private sector doesn't allow, curbing the power of an individual in favor of an elected group and allowing social movements to make headway.
Its funny because government isn't inherently evil, yet people still claim it is. Its even funnier when people claim capitalism makes everyone more free.
This is one of the most naive arguments I've ever heard. With a slew of unsupported assertions. Preach much? Hyperbole much?
But of course, without a 'state' everything would be rainbows and butterflies. WTF. Why bother to prove a point when you can just assert it to be true? Especially when there's bothersome counter-evidence in your way.
Care to point them out? Thus far, not a single statist has debunked the claim that the state is entirely based on violence. If you are fine with it, like your fellow statist Unassumption, but I'm not, because might never makes right, which is exactly what the state is all about.
@Akatam0t0ma - 1. It is entirely possible for a state to be entirely non-violent - it just would be an extremely weak state. 2. You are assuming that violence is necessarily a negative. Are you advocating absolute pacifism? If not your holding a double standard. If so it is an extremely naive position to hold. 3. Might may not make right, but I would hope that right would have the might to prevail. That is the hope of a secular state.
""Why bother to prove a point when you can just assert it to be true?"
You mean, the way statist assert how the state is good to the economy and knows how to run our lives better than us, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary? Like that? Who would know it better than a statist!
"there's bothersome counter-evidence in your way. "
@Akatam0t0ma - Considering that you are the one making the claim "the state is the source of all evil" then I think the burden of proof is on you.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that the state "knows how to run our lives better than us and I certainly made no such claim. That's a strawman if I've ever heard one. The state I live in doesn't run my life for me...I don't know where you're living....but maybe you should move to Canada.
IMO: Humans will spontaneously invent power structures, such as tribes. War is older then our species. Humans are only social to members of the tribe, not to the tribe next door.
The state functions as a tribe uniter - forming bigger tribes. That only makes the wars bigger. What we need is one state to rule us all. ^^
This video reminds me of that video by Ilikenuman where he makes fun of the argument that, "people are inherently violent therefore we need a state" by rewording it as it really is: "People are inherently violent, therefore we need a violent monopoly" (paraphrased).
who else has ever funded infrastructure projects like INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS (not just local toll roads), delivered post to UNPROFITABLE regions, provided UNIVERSAL access to healthcare and education, given anything like an army or police force or regulated finance and industry? No one but the state from what I know. Sure the private sector can do some of the things the state does but doesn't do them for as many places/people, and does them for a higher price.
WITHOUT THE STATE EVERYTHING WILL TURN INTO SOMALIA, EVEN THOUGH SOMALIA HAD LESS WEALTH BEFORE THE STATE'S COLLAPSE! ALL OF OUR CAPITAL WILL MAGICALLY DISAPPEAR! SOMALIA IS STILL IN ANARKEE EVEN THOUGH IT VOTED TO ALLOW THE KILLING OF FAGS IN THE U.N.!
@unassumption First of all, Somalia is the way it is due to being under the rule of a tyrant for years. It's not an overnight process.
Second, living conditions have improved compared to before.
Thirdly, it's not exactly an anarchy in that their statelessness was unintentional. Arguing that Somalia is an anarchy is like saying if you burn down a church, the result is atheism.
I already said, that the "Somalia is better than it was in 1989" thing is equivelent to "anarchy is better than totalitarian dictatorship" - it says nothing about democracy vs anarchy. The problem i have with anarchists is they lump every alternative to their position in this catch-all "statist" as if an argument against one sort of state applies to all. I admitted to "second" and "third" already so not sure what this is even a reply to - i was countering the second meaning shit.
@unassumption We're not using Somalia as an example of anarchy, we're saying it's NOT an example that anarchy doesn't work.
Statist is a broad term which means anyone who believes that a state is neccessary. We simply do not believe that claim. Why? Because there's no evidence to support it and statism has had 5000 years to make the case. It hasn't. All governments do is leech off the people until the economy collapses. It's always the same cycle.
Wait, Christians spread their beliefs voluntarily? I suppose you'll say Islam did next
Voluntarism didn't work to bust the trusts, didn't end slavery (states rights BS sounds like your tribes shit) or give civil rights, didn't stop Hitler, etc. How would you police people not getting power? History has proven nature doesn't do this. Most people have lived in aristocratic societies for the last 8000 years - heirarchies based on nepotism were taken very seriously until 150 years ago most places.
I'd like to see how you plan to get rid of states...
For many people the state is the only provider of HC, education, etc, and in many areas the only provider of roads, post, etc. Please give me historic examples of alternatives, not BS hypothetical ones. Who else would fund the courts, army, police, etc?
We shouldn't get along with anti-abortionists, slavers, racists, executioners, homophobes, religious fanatics, etc, and wouldn't weather we had to live together or not.
You love using metaphors as a substitute for arguments.
Animals, including Humans, are plant parasites.
We're all parasites on the sun / planet.
Mitochondria, rhizobiuim and chloroplasts are parasites
Parasites ftw :U
But you have to prove the "parasite" is pathogenic and don't do that by just saying dis state fing be like dat parasite on dat tree fing yer. You need evidence of harm for the state, not comparison of the state to something there's evidence of harm for.
oh you think the police force would be run as an um voluntary charity? What laws would it police in any jurisdiction - who would regulate laws say against gays women and jews or blacks? Who'd pay for all this without mandatory payments - if someone didn't pay for the cops what would they do just not give thaty guy justice then they'd have to check if he paid his fee before every police action. Give me an example in the real world where this has happened, any time any place and i'll take it srsly
So the state causes the violence seen in Chimpanzees too I suppose?
Humans are a violent species as shown in our pre-state history with feuds and tribal battles, our small state history with constant squirmishes, our big state history with world wars etc
and how the hell do you explain aristocracy lasting so damn long if all heirarchies are based on merit?
If humans are inherrently violent, explain to me how putting a select few of them in power improves our situation. Do I even need to point out that all wars are caused by governments?
Aristocracy is the remnants of divine right. People were of the priviledged class because God blessed them. Notice how once secularism was able to grow, aristocracy vanished.
we are primates though. you know what i was trying to say with that comment - that sources of violence outside the state exist. Would you prefer i pointed out the pre-state and weak-state history of human violence as tribes and families and as individuals? The leaders represent and can be deposed by the majority and powerful individuals in the community and must conform to their standards which helps impose order - the richest states are the strongest its an empirical fact.
@unassumption Yawn...another one who talks big and then can't even answer the very simplest questions. I'd say that shocks me but I'd be lying.
Sources of violence exist but call me when you can find one that comes even remotely close to the level of violence created by governments and then you can try and claim to have an argument.
If you're seriously concerned about violence, stop with the bullshit of giving the state a free pass on it.
what question? i was the one posing the questions, and if you'd care to answer them; who else but the state can provide any of the services i listed as well as the state in a way that's evidenced by history? Sometimes violence is necessary, your the pacifists who're opposed to police and the army, I'm the one defending them as a means of deterring might makes right and family feuds and imposing private property rights which must be defended at the barrel of a gun.
@unassumption The question was if human beings are inherrently violent, where is the logic in saying that putting some of them in power is somehow going to curb the violence?
Who else but the state? Any worthy entrepreneur could.
I'm not a pacifist. I'm not opposed to the idea of police, just police backed up by a violent monopoly.
Deter might makes right? The state is all about might makes right. And anyone who thinks the state resolves feuds has never tried to take someone to court. -_-
I gave an answer and that was - historically only the state has done this job - that's the closest to an empirical answer i can get.
what's the difference between these worthy entrepenures and the state? It just seems like the private ownership of violence doesn't have any benefits over state ownership. How would a local monopoly on violence be prevented? When 2 entrepeneurs wanted to police the same teritory with different laws who follow? How would you stop them extorting fund?
@unassumption There mere fact that it did this job (which it forced on the populace which puts it's quality into question) is no an argument.
What's the difference? A private firm stands to lose customers to a competing firm if it is not receptive to it's customers' desires. A government is a coercive monopoly with no incentive whatsoever to be receptive to the needs and desires of the people. If you try to dispute this, I point to the bailouts for a recent example.
Protestants and Catholics burned each other at the steak over philosophical differences that meant nothing - but the policy discrepancies between liberals and conservatives concern issues that effect important aspects of our everyday lives, or those of people we care about, so we're clearly going to feel very violent in defending the ones that we believe will allow us to live the quality of life we desire, at least if that's a pragmatic strategy to achieve victory and we're not too emotional.
Along with the growth of a civilization is the inevitable growth of complexity. At some stage that complexity outgrows the capacity of the human mind to address it and keep it in check. A State is an mindless entity that is being pulled and manipulated by every ego within it, by the other mindless States interacting with it, and by the environment.
by removing the state you would be removing a violent monopoly that has presupposed legitimacy over a certain area. How are these tribes going to gather the resources in order to take over these other tribes?
Because historically only the state has done something, it is likely that only the state can do that thing, unless you prove otherwise - but instead of answering any of my many questions (who else has ever regulated the markets, funded infrastructure projects like roads, delivered post to unprofitable regions, provided universal access to healthcare and education, given anything like an army or polece force) you instead strawman my position. Hurpadurpa.
by having a violenty enforced monoply over a certain service making competition difficult due to the added taxes on rival firms attempting it, its pretty obvious why they are the only ones to do it.
and stateless ireland and iceland are examples of where this wasnt the case.
and markets regulate themselves, the state only dissrupts where resources ar intended to go by people who want to buy certain products.
instead of improving it or showing how all these benefits of the state can be provided in other ways you just say it's imperfect so should be scrapped ignoring my questions again.
Markets regulate themselves slowly - ever heard of sticky prices?
the state fucked things up. now there is no state things are still fucked up but slightly better. therefore it is statelessness' fault things are fucked up
You know there problems in the state come from, is because your little groups are now part of the same group like it or not, hence comes your conflict. The state is it's people, it is the embodiment of what the people either want or what a person wants due to the lack of motivation or awareness of it's people. Also Akatam0t0ma we bash the theist for simply asserting there opinions as facts, the "A" community taught me to ask for your evidence and research if your presenting something as truth.
What you call anti-social, others call dysfunctional. I call it dynamic, and the more dynamic, the closer to 1 you get to the only solution being not to make new laws against others, as no one will agree or comprimise to make such laws.
The politicians use many covert actions to keep us divided while they perpetuate their political careers and line their pockets. Their cronys profit well from division politics.
bertly71 7 months ago
Gov't isn't inherently evil and tyrannical. A proper state PROTECTS people from people. It defends and upholds individual freedom and justice for all. And nothing could be more conducive to the Brotherhood Of Man. Thus the pro-freedom state ENHANCES social interaction and friendship.
PureLiberalFire 10 months ago
@PureLiberalFire:
While I wouldn't mind a minimal state that would "protect people from people", at this point I am inclined to believe that it is a pipe-dream to believe that we can establish such a state that can maintain this role without overstepping its boundaries in the long run.
Here's a question someone asked me a while back, which pretty much nailed it, and played a role in pushing me towards full blown anti-statism:
"how can a government protect people's rights when the...
Akatam0t0ma 10 months ago
@PureLiberalFire:
...act of not paying for said protection results in violations of the rights the government claims to be protecting?"
I think a better way to phrase it would be,"is it possible to maintain a minimal state that would protect people's individual rights without forcing them to fund it by threatening to violate the very rights it claims to protect?". I remain open to ideas of any social order that would not include an a-priori threat of force by coercive bodies(state or otherwise)
Akatam0t0ma 10 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma You make a good point. No-one in history has publicly explained how to fund the gov't without coercive taxation. *I* know the answer to this. But I refuse to explain without being paid.
Here's my work-around solution, which I *also* think evil mankind has no right to know: Have all adults at 21 sign a contact AGREEING to the libertarian constitution, PLUS paying maybe 2% income 'tax' for gov't services rendered protecting their rights. If they refuse to sign or pay, DEPORT them.
PureLiberalFire 10 months ago
@PureLiberalFire Thanks. Good to see anti-dogma. The state isn't evil. The evil state is evil. As for the people shouting at each other in protests but not in other places, it's obvious why they don't elsewhere. It's all about context and identity. Pack a bunch of people A together who outwardly express opposition to the ideas of people B and you'll have a conflict, state or no state. Let people A wear self identifying t shirts and they'll be shunned by people B.
That wasn't hard.
TheWingflyer 9 months ago
I have to qualify this with culture as well (also part of context). The degree of conflict will rise with the degree to which the culture is confrontational, aggressive, antisocial, and neurotic. All of which are at rather high levels in Western and especially American culture.
TheWingflyer 9 months ago
Love it
JakkaLakkaDingDing 1 year ago
In addition to my points below, we have already shown the importance of regulating what a citizen can and cannot do. Without governance, the police becomes lynch mobs or mercenary groups. Individuals who are capable of gathering large clans together (See: Corporations) will invariably seek to annex their neighbors. This simply replaces a moderated state with one based on strength of arms. Democracy, for all it's flaws, is the best form of governance we have come up with so far.
DarthNader26 1 year ago
I have one major objection to your whole presentation, and it goes like this.
What other system would you suggest to ensure common defense and social welfare? Private businesses have already shown themselves to be utterly incompetent in that regard (See: The Industrial Revolution(s)). The State, for all it's flaws, permits progress in a way that the private sector doesn't allow, curbing the power of an individual in favor of an elected group and allowing social movements to make headway.
DarthNader26 1 year ago
Its funny because government isn't inherently evil, yet people still claim it is. Its even funnier when people claim capitalism makes everyone more free.
dethdakiller0 1 year ago
This is one of the most naive arguments I've ever heard. With a slew of unsupported assertions. Preach much? Hyperbole much?
But of course, without a 'state' everything would be rainbows and butterflies. WTF. Why bother to prove a point when you can just assert it to be true? Especially when there's bothersome counter-evidence in your way.
verstwo2 1 year ago
@verstwo2:
"With a slew of unsupported assertions."
Care to point them out? Thus far, not a single statist has debunked the claim that the state is entirely based on violence. If you are fine with it, like your fellow statist Unassumption, but I'm not, because might never makes right, which is exactly what the state is all about.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma - 1. It is entirely possible for a state to be entirely non-violent - it just would be an extremely weak state. 2. You are assuming that violence is necessarily a negative. Are you advocating absolute pacifism? If not your holding a double standard. If so it is an extremely naive position to hold. 3. Might may not make right, but I would hope that right would have the might to prevail. That is the hope of a secular state.
verstwo2 1 year ago
@verstwo2:
""Why bother to prove a point when you can just assert it to be true?"
You mean, the way statist assert how the state is good to the economy and knows how to run our lives better than us, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary? Like that? Who would know it better than a statist!
"there's bothersome counter-evidence in your way. "
Which? Somalia? Debunked:
watch?v=3TTOsWym-dI
Next statist batch of logical fallacies, please.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma - Considering that you are the one making the claim "the state is the source of all evil" then I think the burden of proof is on you.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that the state "knows how to run our lives better than us and I certainly made no such claim. That's a strawman if I've ever heard one. The state I live in doesn't run my life for me...I don't know where you're living....but maybe you should move to Canada.
verstwo2 1 year ago
IMO: Humans will spontaneously invent power structures, such as tribes. War is older then our species. Humans are only social to members of the tribe, not to the tribe next door.
The state functions as a tribe uniter - forming bigger tribes. That only makes the wars bigger. What we need is one state to rule us all. ^^
FrozenPetrolPie 1 year ago
5* vid. :)
jjmm112 1 year ago
This video reminds me of that video by Ilikenuman where he makes fun of the argument that, "people are inherently violent therefore we need a state" by rewording it as it really is: "People are inherently violent, therefore we need a violent monopoly" (paraphrased).
vspqbd 1 year ago
Watch Bomb in the Brain on YT Akatam. Child abuse has a lot to do with why we have so much violence in our societies.
herpiethelovebug 1 year ago
There are no private toll roads, hospitals, schools, or mail delivery services. State FTW!
Morrakiu 1 year ago
@Morrakiu
any private interstates? or hospitals that treat anyone? or mail services that go anywhere?
unassumption 1 year ago
@Morrakiu
who else has ever funded infrastructure projects like INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS (not just local toll roads), delivered post to UNPROFITABLE regions, provided UNIVERSAL access to healthcare and education, given anything like an army or police force or regulated finance and industry? No one but the state from what I know. Sure the private sector can do some of the things the state does but doesn't do them for as many places/people, and does them for a higher price.
unassumption 1 year ago
WITHOUT THE STATE EVERYTHING WILL TURN INTO SOMALIA, EVEN THOUGH SOMALIA HAD LESS WEALTH BEFORE THE STATE'S COLLAPSE! ALL OF OUR CAPITAL WILL MAGICALLY DISAPPEAR! SOMALIA IS STILL IN ANARKEE EVEN THOUGH IT VOTED TO ALLOW THE KILLING OF FAGS IN THE U.N.!
Morrakiu 1 year ago
@Morrakiu
Somalia went from communism to anarchy - seems a totalitarian warlike state is worse than anarchy, but those aren't the only alternatives thankfully.
unassumption 1 year ago
@unassumption First of all, Somalia is the way it is due to being under the rule of a tyrant for years. It's not an overnight process.
Second, living conditions have improved compared to before.
Thirdly, it's not exactly an anarchy in that their statelessness was unintentional. Arguing that Somalia is an anarchy is like saying if you burn down a church, the result is atheism.
lordthawkeye 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye
I already said, that the "Somalia is better than it was in 1989" thing is equivelent to "anarchy is better than totalitarian dictatorship" - it says nothing about democracy vs anarchy. The problem i have with anarchists is they lump every alternative to their position in this catch-all "statist" as if an argument against one sort of state applies to all. I admitted to "second" and "third" already so not sure what this is even a reply to - i was countering the second meaning shit.
unassumption 1 year ago
@unassumption We're not using Somalia as an example of anarchy, we're saying it's NOT an example that anarchy doesn't work.
Statist is a broad term which means anyone who believes that a state is neccessary. We simply do not believe that claim. Why? Because there's no evidence to support it and statism has had 5000 years to make the case. It hasn't. All governments do is leech off the people until the economy collapses. It's always the same cycle.
lordthawkeye 1 year ago
In after shitstorm!
Morrakiu 1 year ago
BUT WITHOUT GAWD WHO WILL BUILD TEH ROADS?!!!
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd
Remind me how the interstates were built again will you?
Toll roads sound a good way of lowering the price of food and other goods =)
unassumption 1 year ago
@unassumption
roads in somalia are cheaper to use than when they were state run. thats just an example.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman
Do you mean now or in the anarchist period before the new government took over? Anarchy beats communist dictatosrhip, woop de doo >_>
unassumption 1 year ago
WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE. DO YOU COMPREHEND ME BILLY BOY?
BillOralRushRimjob 1 year ago
Wait, Christians spread their beliefs voluntarily? I suppose you'll say Islam did next
Voluntarism didn't work to bust the trusts, didn't end slavery (states rights BS sounds like your tribes shit) or give civil rights, didn't stop Hitler, etc. How would you police people not getting power? History has proven nature doesn't do this. Most people have lived in aristocratic societies for the last 8000 years - heirarchies based on nepotism were taken very seriously until 150 years ago most places.
unassumption 1 year ago
I'd like to see how you plan to get rid of states...
For many people the state is the only provider of HC, education, etc, and in many areas the only provider of roads, post, etc. Please give me historic examples of alternatives, not BS hypothetical ones. Who else would fund the courts, army, police, etc?
We shouldn't get along with anti-abortionists, slavers, racists, executioners, homophobes, religious fanatics, etc, and wouldn't weather we had to live together or not.
unassumption 1 year ago
You love using metaphors as a substitute for arguments.
Animals, including Humans, are plant parasites.
We're all parasites on the sun / planet.
Mitochondria, rhizobiuim and chloroplasts are parasites
Parasites ftw :U
But you have to prove the "parasite" is pathogenic and don't do that by just saying dis state fing be like dat parasite on dat tree fing yer. You need evidence of harm for the state, not comparison of the state to something there's evidence of harm for.
unassumption 1 year ago
oh you think the police force would be run as an um voluntary charity? What laws would it police in any jurisdiction - who would regulate laws say against gays women and jews or blacks? Who'd pay for all this without mandatory payments - if someone didn't pay for the cops what would they do just not give thaty guy justice then they'd have to check if he paid his fee before every police action. Give me an example in the real world where this has happened, any time any place and i'll take it srsly
unassumption 1 year ago
So the state causes the violence seen in Chimpanzees too I suppose?
Humans are a violent species as shown in our pre-state history with feuds and tribal battles, our small state history with constant squirmishes, our big state history with world wars etc
and how the hell do you explain aristocracy lasting so damn long if all heirarchies are based on merit?
unassumption 1 year ago
@unassumption We're not chimpanzees.
If humans are inherrently violent, explain to me how putting a select few of them in power improves our situation. Do I even need to point out that all wars are caused by governments?
Aristocracy is the remnants of divine right. People were of the priviledged class because God blessed them. Notice how once secularism was able to grow, aristocracy vanished.
lordthawkeye 1 year ago 2
@lordthawkeye
we are primates though. you know what i was trying to say with that comment - that sources of violence outside the state exist. Would you prefer i pointed out the pre-state and weak-state history of human violence as tribes and families and as individuals? The leaders represent and can be deposed by the majority and powerful individuals in the community and must conform to their standards which helps impose order - the richest states are the strongest its an empirical fact.
unassumption 1 year ago
@unassumption Yawn...another one who talks big and then can't even answer the very simplest questions. I'd say that shocks me but I'd be lying.
Sources of violence exist but call me when you can find one that comes even remotely close to the level of violence created by governments and then you can try and claim to have an argument.
If you're seriously concerned about violence, stop with the bullshit of giving the state a free pass on it.
lordthawkeye 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye
what question? i was the one posing the questions, and if you'd care to answer them; who else but the state can provide any of the services i listed as well as the state in a way that's evidenced by history? Sometimes violence is necessary, your the pacifists who're opposed to police and the army, I'm the one defending them as a means of deterring might makes right and family feuds and imposing private property rights which must be defended at the barrel of a gun.
unassumption 1 year ago
@unassumption The question was if human beings are inherrently violent, where is the logic in saying that putting some of them in power is somehow going to curb the violence?
Who else but the state? Any worthy entrepreneur could.
I'm not a pacifist. I'm not opposed to the idea of police, just police backed up by a violent monopoly.
Deter might makes right? The state is all about might makes right. And anyone who thinks the state resolves feuds has never tried to take someone to court. -_-
lordthawkeye 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye
I gave an answer and that was - historically only the state has done this job - that's the closest to an empirical answer i can get.
what's the difference between these worthy entrepenures and the state? It just seems like the private ownership of violence doesn't have any benefits over state ownership. How would a local monopoly on violence be prevented? When 2 entrepeneurs wanted to police the same teritory with different laws who follow? How would you stop them extorting fund?
unassumption 1 year ago
@unassumption There mere fact that it did this job (which it forced on the populace which puts it's quality into question) is no an argument.
What's the difference? A private firm stands to lose customers to a competing firm if it is not receptive to it's customers' desires. A government is a coercive monopoly with no incentive whatsoever to be receptive to the needs and desires of the people. If you try to dispute this, I point to the bailouts for a recent example.
lordthawkeye 1 year ago
Protestants and Catholics burned each other at the steak over philosophical differences that meant nothing - but the policy discrepancies between liberals and conservatives concern issues that effect important aspects of our everyday lives, or those of people we care about, so we're clearly going to feel very violent in defending the ones that we believe will allow us to live the quality of life we desire, at least if that's a pragmatic strategy to achieve victory and we're not too emotional.
unassumption 1 year ago
Along with the growth of a civilization is the inevitable growth of complexity. At some stage that complexity outgrows the capacity of the human mind to address it and keep it in check. A State is an mindless entity that is being pulled and manipulated by every ego within it, by the other mindless States interacting with it, and by the environment.
deepashtray 1 year ago
@dontOVERREACT
by removing the state you would be removing a violent monopoly that has presupposed legitimacy over a certain area. How are these tribes going to gather the resources in order to take over these other tribes?
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman
or to build a car, make medicine, etc :/
unassumption 1 year ago
@unassumption
yes because the state does something, therefore ONLY the state can do that thing.derp
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman
Because historically only the state has done something, it is likely that only the state can do that thing, unless you prove otherwise - but instead of answering any of my many questions (who else has ever regulated the markets, funded infrastructure projects like roads, delivered post to unprofitable regions, provided universal access to healthcare and education, given anything like an army or polece force) you instead strawman my position. Hurpadurpa.
unassumption 1 year ago
@unassumption
by having a violenty enforced monoply over a certain service making competition difficult due to the added taxes on rival firms attempting it, its pretty obvious why they are the only ones to do it.
and stateless ireland and iceland are examples of where this wasnt the case.
and markets regulate themselves, the state only dissrupts where resources ar intended to go by people who want to buy certain products.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman
instead of improving it or showing how all these benefits of the state can be provided in other ways you just say it's imperfect so should be scrapped ignoring my questions again.
Markets regulate themselves slowly - ever heard of sticky prices?
unassumption 1 year ago
Lets abolish the state and see how that will work.
IAmDonar 1 year ago
@IAmDonar
I think they did in Somalia ...argh!
unassumption 1 year ago
@unassumption
the state fucked things up. now there is no state things are still fucked up but slightly better. therefore it is statelessness' fault things are fucked up
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman
Historical context is for faggots and you bloody well know it!
Morrakiu 1 year ago
Thanks for uploading this. I'd never heard of this before.
Sarahon06 1 year ago
You know there problems in the state come from, is because your little groups are now part of the same group like it or not, hence comes your conflict. The state is it's people, it is the embodiment of what the people either want or what a person wants due to the lack of motivation or awareness of it's people. Also Akatam0t0ma we bash the theist for simply asserting there opinions as facts, the "A" community taught me to ask for your evidence and research if your presenting something as truth.
whydid666 1 year ago
What you call anti-social, others call dysfunctional. I call it dynamic, and the more dynamic, the closer to 1 you get to the only solution being not to make new laws against others, as no one will agree or comprimise to make such laws.
spartacandream 1 year ago