I disagree with your assessment power is delegated from the five people to the one person. The enforcement is through electing the individuals. Also you setup the game theory decision matrix wrong. Also you forgot to include Tragedy of the commons into your assessment.
Why do we never find people in this pre-social and pre-political position? Hasn't it happened at least once, and possibly many separate times, at some point? I don't see a way around it unless you believe the state was granted by a God or something. Can't a society (in fact don't societies) set up checks and balances to these monopolies of force? For example abuses of force happen all the time but is your contention that nothing can be done within a state to counteract this?
If so, what is your evidence? It seems to me that there is ample evidence that some states do a much better job at constraining and providing balances to monopolies of force than others.
I think it is odd that you show sarcasm outright in discussion of decision theory forming some forms of proof for the legitimacy of the state. Why is that by necessity more idiotic than your attempt to use rhetoric to prove the state as illegitimate?
Has rhetoric proven more infallible and less manipulatable than decision theory and game theory? Your main argument seems to be that it is not detailed and complicated enough to represent true to life situations. You don't seem to present a good argument other than regards to a monopoly of force.
I don't think states always have a monopoly of force as demonstrated by military coups, fractions between coercive forces, etc. Granted certain states represent a somewhat complete monopoly of force, such as North Korea, but except for recent times many states have had relatively well armed populaces at least theoretically possible of offering a reasonable counter force.
For example, in the early United States when there was no standing army...
...how could that situation even be described as a government monopoly on force at all? Force was divided up into citizen's armies and state militias. There was no person or group of people with much direct unquestioning control at all over coercion.
Thank God Im not alone... There is no state or government established that is not led secretly by a prince of darkness, a.k.a. a demon. The aluminati is behind it all kids.....
The problem I see here is that you assume that any checks and balances against the government entity you created are hopelessly ineffective. I think you need to focus on that point, especially if the public is armed.
Hugesinker, that's a good point, but it can be used to undermine the statist argument even further.
If the people, concerned with what evils/excesses the state may commit, cooperate in devising checks and balances against the state, then it *is* possible for people to solve the public goods dilemma without establishing a state.
I disagree with your assessment power is delegated from the five people to the one person. The enforcement is through electing the individuals. Also you setup the game theory decision matrix wrong. Also you forgot to include Tragedy of the commons into your assessment.
Psycatalyst 2 months ago
There is a little kid running around it his underwear.
natedaug1 1 year ago
i ike how a little random girll just runs right threw the vid. lo
heartless187 1 year ago
Crispin,
Why do we never find people in this pre-social and pre-political position? Hasn't it happened at least once, and possibly many separate times, at some point? I don't see a way around it unless you believe the state was granted by a God or something. Can't a society (in fact don't societies) set up checks and balances to these monopolies of force? For example abuses of force happen all the time but is your contention that nothing can be done within a state to counteract this?
AHBritton 1 year ago
If so, what is your evidence? It seems to me that there is ample evidence that some states do a much better job at constraining and providing balances to monopolies of force than others.
I think it is odd that you show sarcasm outright in discussion of decision theory forming some forms of proof for the legitimacy of the state. Why is that by necessity more idiotic than your attempt to use rhetoric to prove the state as illegitimate?
AHBritton 1 year ago
Has rhetoric proven more infallible and less manipulatable than decision theory and game theory? Your main argument seems to be that it is not detailed and complicated enough to represent true to life situations. You don't seem to present a good argument other than regards to a monopoly of force.
AHBritton 1 year ago
I don't think states always have a monopoly of force as demonstrated by military coups, fractions between coercive forces, etc. Granted certain states represent a somewhat complete monopoly of force, such as North Korea, but except for recent times many states have had relatively well armed populaces at least theoretically possible of offering a reasonable counter force.
For example, in the early United States when there was no standing army...
AHBritton 1 year ago
...how could that situation even be described as a government monopoly on force at all? Force was divided up into citizen's armies and state militias. There was no person or group of people with much direct unquestioning control at all over coercion.
AHBritton 1 year ago
Thank God Im not alone... There is no state or government established that is not led secretly by a prince of darkness, a.k.a. a demon. The aluminati is behind it all kids.....
fogg787 2 years ago
hey... 1.34...LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
saintjoep 2 years ago
Before the government: people can default. Defaulting means the lazy people get some things they don't deserve.
After the government: people can default. Defaulting now means that lazy people can shoot you in the head and take all of your stuff.
Conclusion: Government....good? Really!?
Distortion0 3 years ago
Thanks for the informative video.
The problem I see here is that you assume that any checks and balances against the government entity you created are hopelessly ineffective. I think you need to focus on that point, especially if the public is armed.
hugesinker 3 years ago
Hugesinker, that's a good point, but it can be used to undermine the statist argument even further.
If the people, concerned with what evils/excesses the state may commit, cooperate in devising checks and balances against the state, then it *is* possible for people to solve the public goods dilemma without establishing a state.
elgado 3 years ago