A Basic Argument Against The State

[trentmanslow]

One of Ryan Faulk's best videos.

[wood9670]

Honest question here, how do you prevent abuse from occurring in anarchy? How does an anarchical society (oxymoron????) defend against a State such as the USSR or the like?

Maybe I am just an ignorant socialized drone, but it would appear that something like the State is needed to defend against foreign invaders, domestic aggressors, perpetrators of fraud/ breach of contract, et cetera. Am I wrong?

[InTheEndIWasRight]

@wood9670 Here's one video on it.

/watch?v=L6CryU1qc7c

There are many more as well including websites which discuss the issues. My featured channels list is another place to start. And a point this video is old. I don't call myself an "anarchist" or support "anarchy". However I am anti-state, pro-stateless societies and voluntary governments. And case you are confused society does not equal state.

[equallyeasilyfuqyou]

i'm not sure about all this. it makes some sense. i've always felt that no one should tell anyone what to do unless what they're doing is causing harm to someone else, isn't there some way we could take the good things about "THE STATE" and leave the bad?

[InTheEndIWasRight]

@equallyeasilyfuqyou Yes, stop the ideological belief in the current form of "governments" ie state. Basically to allow for free association and voluntary governments that are entered into by mutually consenting individuals.

[equallyeasilyfuqyou]

@InTheEndIWasRight when i was younger i was a full fledged communist (about age 14-17) but now..if i could name my "dream" society it would probably land somewhere under libertarian socialism.

but i have a lot of doubts on it actually working in practice. i believe in democracy's power to eventually suss out the bad in our society..the only thing stopping that is ignorance.

that being said, i'm not an expert on politics or economics, i spend most of my time studying religion.

[InTheEndIWasRight]

@equallyeasilyfuqyou "Libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron. Its pretty much a headless state in that case. But if it works for you, I'm obviously not the one going to be stopping you. Democracy is slavery. It enslaves one group to the whims of another. It really is just majoritarian absolutism. I'm not being critical of you either, Im just point this out to you. My area of expertise is politics and to a little lesser extent economics.

[equallyeasilyfuqyou]

@InTheEndIWasRight sometimes i think us apes weren't meant for any type of system at all and no matter what we do people will be getting fucked over because people are simply selfish and will always look out for themselves first. i'm not saying everyone is that way, but i would be willing to bet it's the large majority.

i also agree with you in to some extent that democracy forces some people to live under rule they don't want; but i think that will always be the case.

[InTheEndIWasRight]

@equallyeasilyfuqyou That will always be the case with democracy, thats why is sucks. As for humans, the position I take is that I can't and don't know the desires and wants of all other people except myself. Therefore I will not support a system (the state) that says it does know what is best for all people. Statism is not only arrogant but anti-social. It is the regimentation of behavior and association, which is totally anti-social.

[AestusL4]

I like how you said slowly and meticulously. I don't believe humanity is anywhere near mature enough to handle a stateless society. Again... I've just started looking into the idea of a stateless society.

[crazypants88]

Hey Erik, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, do you think you could add fringeelements channel in the description bar?

[InTheEndIWasRight]

@crazypants88 Shazam!

[crazypants88]

@InTheEndIWasRight lol thanks

[wanderers16]

Who has ever been shot for not paying their taxes? I would like some proof on this claim

[uzijohn]

@wanderers16,

Wikipedia "Gordon Kahl"

[crazypants88]

@wanderers16 Even if there were no prior incidents where that happened, it's still explicitly stated in laws that cops can use lethal force if met with resitance.

[uzijohn]

We once created government to serve our needs, but now it serves itself,

Just like the story of Frankenstein’s Monster, what you so carefully created in time becomes too powerful and then turns on you,

I view laws just as the video and believe no law should be passed unless 2 others are removed

[davyjames]

@uzijohn Nah, some people created government to serve some people's needs. There was never a consent of the governed. At best some people consented.

[uzijohn]

@davyjames,

Back then as in now, the majority of people do little or nothing,

I'd rather see more people informed and engaged

(Informed being the greater)

But you're correct, other than times of war

less than 5% are ever involved

[ElShadaiLives]

Let me see if I have this right. Bend over take it up the wazoo like a man so that a few megalomaniacs can get rich off the blood of the young; as long as it is not their young. Am I correct in my assumption?

[verstwo2]

Con't..What are the rituals of the state?

"..and therefore secede from it. the answer is no. "

NO, the answer is yes. you can leave the state at any time, get on a plane and go....you just can't take the land with you.

OK maybe YOU are not scolding me, but others have. Furthermore, how has the state scolded you for voicing your views? I'm sure it hasn't

[elliotcheely]

@verstwo2 why should i leave if i disagree with your way of life? and even if i were to leave i would need a passport with the necessary bureaucrat's permission. this is not free, for people are refused all the time.

[verstwo2]

@elliotcheely I didn't say to leave because I disagree with you...I said to leave if you don't want to live in a state. Typically you don't need a passport to leave a country, you need a passport to enter one. Although most airlines require you show one before boarding, chartering a private jet should get you around this...or take a boat to Somalia - no passport required.

[elliotcheely]

its funny how these "atheists" reject one god, but bend over backwards for another one. in fact calling them foolish would be incredibly nice and generous.

[verstwo2]

"its funny how these "atheists" reject one god, but bend over backwards for another one.its funny how these "atheists" reject one god, but bend over backwards for another one..."

-Actually the state exists ( i don't think you deny the existence of the state) ...that is not the question. The question is whether it is the best way to organize a society (still waiting for a plausible example of a stateless society). Beyond being a disingenuous rhetorical device, your allegory fails miserably.

[elliotcheely]

yes i know, the state is a jealous and vengeful god, for woe is to befallen those who do not commune at the ballot box, or reject central planning as uncivilized...how dare these heretics!!!

[verstwo2]

-the state is not a god.

-there is no consequence for those who choose not to vote (other then the obvious lack of a vote)

-not all states have centralized planning (although most developed ones do)

- no one's called you a heretic or anything even close. In fact you are FREE to voice your opinion on anything you wish. as am I. In fact you are the one calling those who don't agree with you religious zealots (as if there could be no other reason to disagree).

[verstwo2]

I don't take 'state bashing' as a personal affront, logical fallacies presented as 'factual' just tend to piss me off. That being said I always try and not let my emotions override my logic and most of my posts were meant to be humorous but with some truth to them. eg. taking a shit on your neighbors lawn would be a stateless sewage system whether you like it or not.

[verstwo2]

This is a complete fallacy.  Death is not a threat of any state that does not have the death penalty. Prison is not death and fines are not death.

"if someone does X, he should be punished, and if he resists punishment he should be killed"

-Show me one law that says that. You dishonest twit. Again without the death penalty this statement is completely fallacious. You also conflate public and private property....DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE?!?!

[bitbutter]

"Show me one law that says that"

There doesn't need to be a law that says that.

If you have armed (state) kidnappers invading your house to kidnap you, any means of resistance less powerful that a firearm will be ineffective at preventing the kidnap. If you brandish a firearm, you'll be killed.

The video explains perfectly why this has to be the case for the continued existence of the state.

[verstwo2]

If you don't want to pay taxes - move. No body forces you to live in a state, it is voluntary...we do have the freedom of movement. Taxes go to pay for services....What do you propose should happen if you don't pay for a private service? What do you propose a police officer should do if someone points a gun at them?

[bitbutter]

@verstwo2 "If you don't want to pay taxes - move"

The issue is not where I should live. The issue is whether or not the state is legitimate or whether it should be opposed.

If you told the Dutch resistance: 'If you don't like living in Nazi occupied Netherlands then leave!' that would do nothing to advance the case that the occupation was legitimate. I'm sure you agree.

[verstwo2]

"The issue is whether or not the state is legitimate or whether it should be opposed."

-the state is legitimate, where people deem it legitimate. (re; the social contract). The question is; is what you replace the state with 'better' then the state? I think not for many reasons..the least of which is patriotism.

- A modern secular democracy is hardly synonymous with Nazi occupied Europe.

[bitbutter]

@verstwo2 I want to be clear that you understand why your 'don't like it? move out' reply is irrelevant before we go further.

"A modern secular democracy is hardly synonymous with Nazi occupied Europe."

I didn't say it was. I made an analogy between your suggestion that I leave state-controlled territory, and the suggestion to a hypothetical resistance fighter to leave Nazi controlled territory if he doesn't like it. The scope of the analogy is limited, and approrpiate to making the point.

[verstwo2]

"The scope of the analogy is limited, and approrpiate to making the point. "

no it's not- one is a legitimate state and one is not. It's apples and oranges no matter how you want to frame it.

[verstwo2]

I understand completely.

[bitbutter]

Your misunderstanding has to do with a failure to charitably interpret an analogy.

[elliotcheely]

people pray to god, some write letters to "their" politician; both are rarely heard, and when something is done its merely by accident. god works in mysterious ways, state also works in mysterious ways. by denying individuals access, into what exactly they are doing in those super secret hubs such as the cia, nsa etc...but instead of saying its god's way they use national security or whatever catch phrase that is trendy.

[verstwo2]

You're not an atheist if you believe prayers are sometimes heard by god. And of course sometimes politicians read letters. god's 'ways' are mysterious because their are unexplainable, politicians are mysterious because they keep secrets (that are explainable).

I don't even know what your trying to say for the rest.

[elliotcheely]

@verstwo2 you are missing the point...

[elliotcheely]

cont'

when someone speaks out against the church they are scolded, similar to when someone speaks out against the state ie. this conversation. all im saying is for you to look at this very closely.

[verstwo2]

are you not also scolding me for supporting the concept of a state? poor persecuted Christians...i mean anarchists. It's called freedom of speech..I'm entitled to my opinion and you to yours. This right is enshrined and protected by the state in a bill of rights and no where else. It is not supernatural...it is a piece of paper. It has no special powers, it is only what we make it. I still see extremely little similarity...except for those straws you grasped for.

[elliotcheely]

@verstwo2 the state doesnt protect you, but i do agree that pieces of paper are meaningless. but if i refuse to participate in state rituals, force is applied to me. arent i "free" to not even speak "freely" but act freely as well, in a peaceful way, and therefore secede from it. the answer is no. if i decide to do this then i will be injured by overbearing cultist...i mean cops. and im not scolding you, i recall you asking me to humor you and i have.

[verstwo2]

so when someone tried to assault me and the police came to stop it that wasn't protecting me from being assaulted? When I was unemployed for a few months and I got a EI check the state wasn't protecting me against loosing my house? When the state provide me with affordable health care it wasn't protecting me against illness and/or poverty? When the fire department stopped my house from burning down it didn't protect my property? When the Army defeated the NAzis it didn't protect me from them?

[elliotcheely]

@verstwo2 well its obvious you like the idea of a state making you dependent on it's "services". i simply want nothing to do with it, and there lies the difference between you and i. however i cant tell these people i dont want their "services" anymore. i cant rescind my "taxes" because they are extorted. you said early that if one dislikes this, one should leave, but where exactly is there to go. every hospitable land mass on earth is claimed by a state.

[verstwo2]

@elliotcheely

"well its obvious you like the idea of a state making you dependent on it's "services"."

-I'm not dependent on their services, I could live without them, but they sure do make life easier, happier and less stressful. Maybe you think life needs to be harder, unhappier and more stressfull then it needs to be...but I see no reason for this. In fact it's illogical.

[elliotcheely]

@verstwo2 well if these "services" are so good, why is force necessary for their existence? if people desired them they would seek them out or provide it themselves. why is it seemly okay, to coerce adults, to "pay" into something, regardless of whether or not they agreed to it? how is this civilized behavior?

[verstwo2]

"..why is force necessary for their existence?"

-for the most part it's not. BUt when it is, it's for the same reason force is necessary to stop any other crime. If someone refuses to obey the law (say murder or theft for example) then forcing them to obey is the only option besides abandoning the law. For the most part people understand the need for taxes and do not need to be coerced into paying them. Refusing to contribute in society is not civilized behavior.

[elliotcheely]

@verstwo2 the state is based on force man, that is its primary means of doing things, its trump card. yes ideology plays a part due to government education, but the threat of force is present all the time. people pay their taxes because of the threat of prison. also, how do you know where your taxes go? you cant audit your government and ask where the money is going. i contribute by providing services, VOLUNTARILY, this is civilized behavior, without guns or threat of prison.

[verstwo2]

actually most people pay taxes because they agree with them in premise (perhaps not always in pragmatic detail). The government actually IS audited on a regular basis, and the information is publicly available...admittedly a financial record on such a massive scale is beyond the comprehension of most. The vast majority of people also summit their taxes VOLUNTARILY. Would you argue that a murderer should VOLUNTARILY punish themselves or else their arrest is uncivilized?

[elliotcheely]

@verstwo2

the point is not whether or not people agree with paying taxes, for the government doesnt go around asking people to support project A or plan B, it simply extorts the money before you even see it on payday, very pragmatically; yet again, how is this civilized?

so you have the power to audit the fed on all its dealings? give me the link so i may see as well. i want to see this.

[elliotcheely]

@verstwo2

"Would you argue that a murderer should VOLUNTARILY punish themselves or else their arrest is uncivilized?"

so you are trying to correlate my want for freedom as an endorsement of anomy. men are social animals and murder is one of, if not, the most anti-social thing an individual can do...theft coming in at a close second.

[bitbutter]

"The vast majority of people also summit their taxes VOLUNTARILY"

In fact, you don't know whether the majority would voluntarily give money to the state.

Currently, violence is threatened against those who withhold the money claimed as tax. Even if most people don't actively object to the existence of the state, people are currently coerced into paying tax.

If that threat of violence was removed then, and only then, you'd be able to see who voluntarily pays taxes.

[elliotcheely]

@verstwo2 cont'

more importantly, why is it mandated that i should leave? it was by accident, via birth, that i was born in the land mass known as america. i doubt i agreed to anything at my birth. furthermore, i still havent agreed, and never will.

[verstwo2]

@elliotcheely- it isn't 'mandated' that you should leave.  Where do you get that from? Sure your American citizenship is an accident of birth, but staying in the place where you were born is your own choice and is in no way force upon you. IF you want to leave you can....and if you don't like where you are I merely suggest that you leave.

[bitbutter]

@verstwo2 "and if you don't like where you are I merely suggest that you leave."

As I've pointed out before, this suggestion has no bearing on the discussion of whether a state is legitimate or not.

[verstwo2]

The state is legitimate when it's citizens decide that it is....it's called the social contract.

[verstwo2]

"this is barbaric, for what happens if a few dont want to consent? force them to go along with it anyways? "

-This is not barbarism. Barbarism depends on the if details of actions of the state are rational or savage. If the few want to enslave people then it is very reasonable to force them not to. Civilized people don't allow others to rape, murder an pillage others. That is not a civilization. Without some type of social contract there is no civilization..there is only individuals.

[elliotcheely]

@verstwo2

verstwo2, people being forced against their will is not barbaric?!!! how is this so?

and civilization is simply an aggregate of individuals verstwo2.

[verstwo2]

As I said before...it depends on what your 'will' is. IF your are trying to detonate a bomb in a crowd then YES you should be forced AGAINST your will not to. Do you disagree with this?

If that is your definition of civilization then any and every group of people is a civilization regardless fo any other factor. All of the babies in a maternity ward, a biker gang, a school of students, etc. You've watered down the definition to the point that it;s meaningless.

[bitbutter]

@verstwo2 What do you mean by "it's citizens" in that sentence? All the people living in the territory that state claims for itself? The majority in that area?

I don't agree that the state can legitimately threaten me with violence if i have not agreed to surrender by sovereignty to the state. I've not been presented with a contract to agree to.

[bitbutter]

@bitbutter 'by sovereignty' should read 'my sovereignty' .

[verstwo2]

Citizen; A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation. A resident of a state, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there.

You have lived by the social contract of your nation from your birth. Not all contracts are written, they can be spoken or implied.

[bitbutter]

@verstwo2 do you mean then that the state is legitimate because the majority living in the territory claimed by the state support it?

If so, where does the state's authority over those who do not support it come from?

I have signed no contract. I live according to most laws because of fear of the marginal state (the threat of violence), not because i believe i'm party to a legitimate agreement.

[bitbutter]

@verstwo2 "What do you propose should happen if you don't pay for a private service?"

I don't presume to propose anything. I'm not the architect of a free society.

In general response to practical questions about a free society: I don't know how it would work out. And that fact is irrelevant to the moral argument against the state.

[elliotcheely]

...exactly where would one move to? the earth is covered with states.

[meka4996]

how can it be complex for a Stateless society??

no thousands upon thousands of laws, no death threat if no comply, no forced to work 5 months a year as Slaves, ... how can that be complex??

[AfricanPrince]

I said in the other video that killing was not necessarily the basis of the state's authority although violence (kidnapping, imprisonment, ) was. I've changed my mind, I think you're right. Citizens will be killed if they resist and arrest or defend themselves from police. What's so 'complex' and 'difficult' about a stateless society?

[verstwo2]

It's only difficult (if not impossible) if you want some semblance of a civilization and not chaos.

[felo790]

U says a lot of bold statements, like the one in the begging of the thus youtube. But u dont have no base. U seem the type who thinks u r too smart to read books. Thats because u r too young and didnt learned enough. I bet u think all old man r wrong. And have problems w ur father ( freud approach).

[felo790]

Who will enforce law? Who will pay them? Charity? Who will mantain street pavement on cities? Listen, if society wants to organize itselg, it will need a company to run severeal aspects. Some activities r vital for society and generate deficit or doenst generate profit, who will run it? what will fund this activities? Charity? And companies who deal on public needs must have some natural public rights to develop its funcionts (state law).

[verstwo2]

naw man...in a stateless society you just shit on your neighbors lawn...no need for sewers.

Besides if it doesn't make a profit it's useless, right? There is no such thing as 'public need' only a bunch of 'private wants'. The is no need for law...if someone rapes my mother...I just go and kill their family, problem solved without need for state violence.

[bitbutter]

@verstwo2 "The is no need for law"

I'm not sure if you're joking or not. In either case you should know that common law predates the state everywhere, and that's no surprise: Violence is very costly in all kinds of ways, so efficient dispute resolution systems are among the first things people tend to figure out together.

[bitbutter]

"Common law has it's place but cannot match the efficiency or scope of state law."

That's a statement of faith presented as though it was factual. Claiming that state law is efficient is a bold move though, +1 for pluck.

Second thing: efficient dispute resolution systems existed independently from states too.

[bitbutter]

Opponents of abolition had lots of questions about what would happen to the freed slaves too: How would they find work? who will want to house them? Do we even know that slaves are capable of bearing the responsibility of freedom?

The abolitionists didn't know the answers with certainty. But it didn't matter because the moral argument for ending slavery was powerful enough. The same is true in the case of the moral argument for ending the violent predation of the state.

[felo790]

(continuing) Altough, they dont theorize about the empire power (coercitive) that will be always at states funcionts. Or u prefer to be judged by a private judge, sent to a private jail, cause u didnt payed ur private taxes?

[felo790]

"Real law arrises out of human action, not arbitrary legislation". I tottaly disagree, law without the empire power (coercitive force behind it) is nothing more than moral or other non-coercitive rules. Theres r works on reflexive law (direito reflexivo, direito means law and right), where laws will come from organizations to attend more specialized needs. This theory says the state will weakens, not vanish. State will make the rules for this private procedure of law-making. (continue)

[felo790]

(continiung) even by Bill Gates. Fifth, this aint going to happen. 6th, this doesnt work, comunism that is more realistic than anarchy doesnt work. 7th, who will make the laws on fundamental rights and support them?. 8th, anyone who doent have knowledge and says that books deosnt helps, all knowledge is wrong and have personal problems w authority is to be considered a problematic person who needs help (no offense). At last, freedom exists because we have laws to protect it.

[felo790]

Your whole idea has major flaws. First, no scientific background, Bakunin is outdated philosophy. Second, ur whole theory comes from government is evil, private is good. Third, anarco court? Who will pay their salary. Who will make the laws? Who will support them. Who will pay private police? U will pay, trough taxes, poor people wont pay, cause they have no money, and guess what: this private, no pay, no service. Fourth, major social programs cant be funded solely on charity(continue)

[felo790]

U dont know nothing about taxes law. This anarcho crap is good for them. State welfare helps the poor. In my country social scurity funcionts on solidarity basis - one generation supports the older. On private system its capitalization, u support u. Its silly, naive to think corps will support welfare, health care, all based on charity (LMAO). U got to much to learn. Get a degree on Law or Politic Science, until then keep ur anarcho crap to yourself, u can poison other kids, as u were.

[felo790]

Philosopher r intellectuals but they dont think in pragamatic terms, as you. Let me see that: "You know the state subsidizes corporations and helps them grow so big right? Its the super rich that want the state there" Dead wrong. Corporate has power to bargain better taxes, but state doenst susidizes them. Rich want less state, cause a rightful state will tax them more. Rich pople doenst need police or health care, they can buy theire own milicia or pay their doctors.

[felo790]

U want to trade a state coercion (goal: welfare) to private coercion (goal profit). Man... u have to work on a big company to how this profit driven mentality works.

[felo790]

Freedom is the abilty to do anything the law doenst forbid. So State is bad and corporations r good? Do u believe the whole welfare would run on charities? R there any world known intelectual supporting anarchism nowadays (not philosophers)?

[felo790]

that can be regulated by private companies. I prefer gold or silver, or notes backed . LOL. Pathetic

[felo790]

I bet u r a uneducated american who keeps lots of guns in home, in case the g-men come to bust my brains. If u acknowledge at least ur teachers and father autorithies, u would be a much wiser, educated and happy man.

[felo790]

U dont know a shit about economy, law or philosophy. There isnt enough gold and silver in the world to support economy.States goal to provide security to society and conditions of economic development (who build roads?). Companies goals: profit. Imagine if a company, in a no-state naive reality, do a really large madoff-like scam no its printed money. Whos going to punish it? None.

[felo790]

BTW money exist because of the state. Without state, we will have a multitude of currency printed by private banks or gold coins. What u prefer?... I forgot barter

[felo790]

Real law comes from state. Anarchism isnt law of jungle, i know, but this is its result. But "then it will be there and plenty of people give to charities all the time" is fucking naive. Social security and other state activities that support the welfare cant depend on charities. The problem is that cant acept autorithy. U think no is above u. That just because someone have power over u, doenst mean he will use it to hurt u (father-son relation)

[felo790]

I studied in 2 state colleges for free (best university here, public and free, but u got to be good to qualify for it). My father was saved on a public hospital (but we were brocken, we pay insurance nowadays). If u dont lke socitey, do just like the unabomber, live in the wilderness. None will blow my brains out if I dont pay taxes. I got rights, and I live in a third world country. If u think constitution isnt a magical scroll, try to live without one, by the law of the jungle

[felo790]

U got to undesrtand that governemnt takes infrastructure that doesnt generate enough profit ( or none at all), so no private company will take this role. Thats why u pay taxes. The government has the power and its guided by law to provide welfare and safety all over society (justice and the violence monopoly). If u think that violence should be at everyones reach, I disagree. Democracy is the only absolute value that exists, yet it didnt reached it full value anywhere

[felo790]

I got a Law degree at the best school in my country. Belive me buddy, whitout state there is no Law. If state isnt legitimate to make and apply the laws who will be?So u want miniarchys fighting each other? Listen, State is a good thing, Institutions is a good thing, but as Ideas they r perfect on theory, on the real world they surffer imparmntes from corruption. U got to fight corruption, not the institutions.

[felo790]

I dont want to pay taxes. That so childish. Go and live in the wildness. Without money, like the Unabomber used to. If u have problems w society, find a shrink or vote right (if u live in a democracy).

[felo790]

Man.. .this is so junior. I dont think anyone over 20 w college education can believe that. If u want anarchy, take a look ata mad max movie. Stateless society is a society without order, where anyone can use force to submit other without fear of being punished by an Institution.

[mnoormsh]

It all comes down to the jobs that we submit ourselves too. Bees concede everything when they take up their role (job) in the state. The main purpose of their lives is to earn the paper credits made valuable by the state. Some of the jobs the bees pursue glorify the state (the media), establish the state (law enforcement/ military), rationalize the state as a concept (schooling), etc. Authority is another word for power, which is what we give the state when we pay our taxes and buy corporate

[mnoormsh]

products

[sorienor]

until I ran into anarchists I've never seen Social Contract used to support statism in any way. It was always presented as moral theory.

All societies are based on coercive violence, even if not monopolized.

[sorienor]

"Also private protection agencies defend"

You really believe that? Maybe in a perfect world. However in a perfect world, so would the state. Just look at Pinkerton to see the benevolence of for-profit thugs.

"Its a myth along with the social contract. "

I never said objective morality exists. Don't strawman me. I simply said SCT is a moral philosophy (among many).

If SCT is a myth then why do a lot of your fellow anarchists use the moral SCT to describe how such a society would function?

[sorienor]

Here is what you and all other anarchists ignore: ALL societies require death threats to stop unwanted behaviors, existance of the state is irrelevant. This too, is axiomatic.

You don't seem to have a problem with large company for-profit private execution forces for hire providing this force, but the state is somehow "evil". This appears to me to be an unresolvable contradiction.

Oh, and Social Contract Theory is a philosophical foundation of morality. It is NOT a defense of statism.

[bitbutter]

"ALL societies require death threats to stop unwanted behaviors"

Maybe. But not all possible societies involve the systematic coercion of non-aggressors, with the threat of death as the ultimate price for non-cooperation. That's the rub.

[mnoormsh]

the state is maintained by people. If no one worked for the government there would be no government. Thus, we are the state. We enslave ourselves by giving power to something we don't control.

[bitbutter]

"Thus, we are the state"

This part doesn't quite scan. Being the victim of extortion by a group doesn't make you a part of that group.

[verstwo2]

"Being the victim of extortion by a group doesn't make you a part of that group. "

-there are many, many, many other ways of interacting with the state. I'm sure you can think of some.

[bitbutter]

@verstwo2 "there are many, many, many other ways of interacting with the state"

I don't know what your point is.

[verstwo2]

your statement - "Being the victim of extortion by a group doesn't make you a part of that group." which is your hyperbolic way of saying - "taxation doesn't make you a part of the state". But taxation is not a necessary part of being a citizen of a state...there are many many other qualifiers. ie citizenship, self identification, taking an active role in public life, etc. It's surprising a frustrating to have to point this out to someone who claims to have some special knowledge.

[bitbutter]

My objection was to this:

"Thus, we are the state."

I am not the state, nor am I part of it, hence 'we' are not the state. Very simple.

[verstwo2]

if you are not part of the state then you are not subject to it's laws. You live in the state, you are a citizen of the state, you willingly use it's services (roads, telecommunications system, police, sewers, etc) you are a part of the state. Only once you've moved beyond it's boarders, and abstain from using any of it's services can you accurately say your are not a part of it. Simply saying "i am not part of the state" does not make it so.

[bitbutter]

@verstwo2 I'm using state to mean, roughly, government.

I am living in a territory that has been _claimed_ by a state. I pay taxes to a state because i understand that it will kidnap me if i don't. I use some of the facilities provided by that state because that state leaves me no choice if i want to live here (since it coercively prevents private initiatives from breaking their monopoly). I'm certainly not _part of_ the state myself.

[ACCParty4USA]

If you are of the opinion that the Government that governs least, governs best, join us.....The American Constitutional Conservative Party

[sugarpuddin88]

By and large, there is a personality type the consistently runs for political office:

Lonely vacuous minds who are looking for public reassurance to support their sagging self image

Lacking character, they easily take bribes & other compromises!

[ACCParty4USA]

Or....people who want to get rid of those kinds of people

[mnoormsh]

control

[mnoormsh]

we are the murders-to-be cuz we are the state. we maintain it we are defined by it. What happens when millions contribute to something they don't and can't

[ShiekYerbooty]

Great Stuff Big E.

I'm starting a new political party, I hope I can count on your support, more details to come, I may also run for state rep here in Texas

[enslavetherich]

I guess I'll head over there right now..

[enslavetherich]

:) I would love to see it happen... Taxes and stuff are just way beyond healthy here... Almost 40% income tax, deducted from salary before it gets to my account.. And the 19% consumer tax we have on almost everything we buy.. Then we have deathtaxes, people will have to give a certain amount of their money to government, before they can hand it over to their children.. etc. etc. etc..

and well with the mini wars I meant something like disputes between neighbours about pieces of land..

[enslavetherich]

Then we would see lots of mini wars happening everywhere? ;)

In my opinion we would sometimes need the state/government to take care of certain people.. And they do need to apply some rules...

But yes as you said before, government has the intention to grow (endlessly).. Same here in the Netherlands..

The bureaucratic processes make everything go slowly, so being your own government over your own life could have lots of pro's but I'm not sure if everybody is up to that..

[sugarpuddin88]

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty

[lokir]

Glad to be a subscriber. Great video.

[RenegadeTimes]

Watch the series of vids ( if you haven't already ) I have on my page. Zeitgeist Addendum. They speak of "scarcity" and it's role to freedom. give a look ~

As far as "well dressed articulate speaking political robots " what a disgrace humans believe in such fallacies. Conditioned from birth to believe in illusions . it's more than thinking "out-side the box" it's removing the box altogether !

[CognitiveDisonance]

Its much more than just taxes. They capitalize on our very existence by speculating on our productivity and consumption.

[RenegadeTimes]

Explain your interpetation of REAL freedom Erik. I would love to hear it !

[NewOperationDarkStar]

Great Video Bro., Your right on the money.

[RenegadeTimes]

Freedom is an illusion Erik. A contrived set of doled out bits to give American's the illusion of freedom. Those bits are now on the table to be eradicated . From birth - death we are enslaved by the elite to perform in their circus. To willing embrace their control of us and hand over responsibility to them for the illusion of freedom. Democracy is an illusion of the worst kind. It rapes and pillages countries for it's assets under it's guise and offers humans as the cannon fodder to achieve it

[CognitiveDisonance]

Freedom is just an idea - one that will find you on a terrorist watch list in its promotion.

America's founders had the right idea, but they too are also now considered terrorists.

[WinterFix]

Ok i get it.. still need more info.. keep it coming (Erik)

[fourdoorchevelle]

thought i had seen this before =P