against the state 2: against utilitarian theories

[n8chz]

It's not entirely inconceivable that a non-state actor could acquire nuclear capability.

[deskset24]

Utilitarianism is tautological. No decision, no choice, ever takes place in this universe without first a calculation of "the good outweighing the bad". None whatsoever. Even though that concept of "good > bad" may be ill-defined in the mind of each player, that is the overwhelming fact of life.

e.g. not going to a PARTICULAR war because the taxes and costs of THAT PARTICULAR war outweigh the benefit (freeing prisoners such as POWs).

Another war may have different data.

[AHBritton]

Crispin,

It seems to me that there might be something missing in your utilitarian calculation. When you say states are anti-utilitarian it seems to me that you are ignoring the fact that utility needs to be measured in opposition. Is something of MORE or LESS utility than something else. The first problem with this is it seems there is an extreme dearth of non-statist oppositions with which to compare.

[AHBritton]

How can you say that a particular state is of less utilitarian value than something that is non-existent? In a sense it is an easy argument to make, since the earth is dominated by states there is an abundance of examples of their negative impact. Since large non-statists societies do not, and for a large part (with a few exceptions) have not existed it is hard to have a sample with which to compare.

[osmark0]

I think when you say the genocides of killing of ppl arethe result of political states and therefore you conclude that states are bad and it does not promote utilitarianism. However, these states are all illegitimate. they were dictatorship and simply didnot respect utilitarianism. But if the states are restricted and are legitmate, while the citizens are protected, the states are promoting util. I dont think we will ever know what goes on in our state of nature. But id rather live in a state

[n8chz]

@osmark0 States involved in atrocities get de-recognized from among legitimate states, but somehow it is always after the fact.

[bahramf]

Does Sartwell really believe that people would be better off without a state. I live in Canada. Try setting up a lacrosse game between the coast salish and the squamish nations.

Turns out they don't want to play with people who brutally raped and murdered their ancestors.

[AnarchistUprising]

Thank you for the talk keep telling the truth

[philateliceun]

You talk some sense. Like a angel is pissing in my ear (That is good, serious.)

[viperx00]

Utilitarian goals are for the greater good, you're right that this could set up a power state and there lies a possibility that it would mutate to something harmful (Non-Utilitarian).

Any system can mutate into something bad we can't just stop implementing good things out of fear that it will become bad lest we forsake progress.

Mistakes have always been made and we have learned from them (well most of them) for the better.

I disagree that there is no way out of a state gone bad, revolution.

[TauFortheGreaterGood]

The idea that the greater happiness is objective in my view The best that promotes happiness and that will function to more then a temporal happy state but a generational happiness that is right. The problem with the idea that humanity wont go to war after government is no more. There will always be those who want others its common theft to say humanity will stop fighting once governments are done but being understand this is absolutly necessary to any successfull society.

[elgado]

One can also say utilitarian statism is conceptually a-statist.

1: Legitimate states claim to have the right to people's obedience; state's both need and claim authority.

2: Authority does not advise or suggest, it commands.

3: If State X tells utilitarian Y to do Z, does Y do Z because X orders it, or because Z maximises utility? If the former, Y can only be a rule-utilitarian; if the latter, then the state's command is redundant. (Simmons 2002, p124-127; Simmons 1979, 45-54)

[elgado]

A good point at 5:50. In wanting to solve coordination problems and public goods dilemmas, the utilitarian forms a state which creates a whole new set of public goods dilemmas. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[SamCocknose]

I love it when you say, "we're fucked...on utilitarian grounds" - classy lol.

[ddrumsman549]

How would a stateless "state" prevent an unethical/evil state from coming into existence from out of the void? (Basically you need a state to prevent an even more evil state from emerging.)

[JohananRaatz]

The reason that states in the 20th century have behaved like this though may have something to do with their basis in contract theory. Contract theory is amoral and as such states that arise from them are amoral. A proper state based on Straussian theory though is based on moral principles the same as states based on ancient Greek political philosophy were. Contract theory gave people the idea that they weren't constrained by morality and thus their states became wicked.

[JohananRaatz]

"When they finally realize that their lives will be better without the state they will abandon it."

Actually no:"Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," ~political philosopher Leo Strauss

[cfbastiat]

Can't you also use utilitarianism to justify abolishing the state?

There is ample evidence & economic theory to show that people would be better off without the state. Isn't this is a utilitarian argument?

Right now people foolishly think the state is the best way to go. When they finally realize that their lives will be better without the state they will abandon it. They used to think monarchies were the way to go, now they think it's democracy. I can't wait for them to try self-government.