The Source of Government Power (by Robert LeFevre)

[Intangion]

extremely well explained

[dyne313]

This is a logical slam dunk case against the government.

[selfrealizedexile]

deductive, a priori method will forever defeat the statistically inductive Keynesian approach; mathematical function modeling is as convoluted as the idiot (famously Keynes) wants to make it.)

[selfrealizedexile]

My honest opinion is that gov't has always been the conquerors subjugating the conquered (social contract theory is for the birds). This can be as small as a hunting party or as big as a planetary gov't, but the dynamics are the same. If you want to explore what constitutes matter, the key to the unified field theory, etc., study the matter itself (physics). If you want to explore the origin of a social construction, look inside to the human mind (This is also why the Austrian

[selfrealizedexile]

0:57 This is so funny. I remember always hearing Hillary Clinton supporters bemoaning the fact that politics inherently force a woman to be unwomanly to appear legitimate. They were right.  But, appearing as a "legitimate" ruler is not something ethical to pursue! And, hence, I chuckle at femnazis.

[rainskullvids]

Great speech, I always enjoy LeFevre's work. I'd be interested in looking into some archeological, historical and/or anthropological references to religion being the source of government. Any recommendations?

[lengthyounarther]

I agree that religion seems like the most plausable "mother" of the state, but as far as I know there is know postive proof of this claim howerver if your interested there is series of videos on youtube about the "birth" of civilazation. Its in 12 parts. the title of the first episode is

(1/6) The Rise Of Man - part1

[rainskullvids]

I've seen you comment on some videos saying that there were some early urban societies that functioned without states. Does that video have something to do with it? Or maybe that was someone else commenting. Anyways, I'll check out those videos. Thanks.

[lengthyounarther]

Yes those are the vidoes. They are very interesting and point out (even though its not the topic of the documentary) that the first urban socities were stateless, and stayed that way for literally thousands of years despite that common reasoning that so called complex urban society requires a state. It also says the first urban stateless socities were as far as we can tell egalitarian.

[selfrealizedexile]

@lengthyounarther

Nature is inherently non-egalitarian. I conjecture such ostensible evidence to be extremely shoddy or skewed.

[lengthyounarther]

@selfrealizedexile I suspect you misunderstand me. I'm not advocating that egalitarianism is in some way a social goal. However your conjecture is incorrect. Acheological study of the ealierst towns has indicated an egalitary division of property. Though it also indicates this property was help privately, not communally.

[selfrealizedexile]

@lengthyounarther

Archaeology is perhaps one of the weakest sciences called a "science." Insofar within that, you're welcome to endeavor your claims.

[lengthyounarther]

Regardless of how you esteem archaeology, the basic fact is that no two societies have identical degrees of social stratification (or is it your contention that every society has identical social stratification?) The supposition of most socialist egalitarians is that the state creates and promotes "equality".

[lengthyounarther]

This is false for any number of reasons, including the fact that the fist towns lacked states and were much more egalitarian than the subsequent state societies that developed in the same areas. Once a state took root in this area major differences arouse, indication increased social stratification, primarily though the construction of royal palaces and temples, indicating that a state contributed to, or caused increase social stratification rather than reduced it.

[selfrealizedexile]

@lengthyounarther

Okay, I see where you're going with this. You can research just how much states consolidate power. I thought you were trying to satisfy much of what egalitarians desire which is simply a fantasy in which the stupid and lazy magically cease to be so. I regard Archaeology the way I do because of how many charlatans exist inside the field and how much speculative ammunition they give sociological agendas. One of the things I should say is that many people seem to think

[selfrealizedexile]

@lengthyounarther

agendas. One of the things I should say is that many people seem to think inside this notion that the state all of a sudden hit us. I posit that what inside man, namely his desire to subjugate another, has always existed. The only thing that changes in history is how much more technology the civilization has; everything else is exactly the same.

[lengthyounarther]

@selfrealizedexile Socialist are always claiming that if we didnt have government (and especially government regulation) "the rich will get richer, and the poor poorer". Its a fallacious claim for logical, economic, empirial reasons.  The realativily egalitarian nature of pre state civilization is a bit of the empirical evidence. I dont know if the desire to subjugate is innate, if it is, its yet another argument against the state.

[selfrealizedexile]

@lengthyounarther

If it's not innate, how did it come to pass today? Surely you don't subscribe to total socialization theory which is inherently self-contradictory.

[lengthyounarther]

@selfrealizedexile Your not reading my posts very well. I said that I dont know if the desire to subjugate is innate, which is not the same as denying it. What I did say was that if it is true, it invalidates a state because people in the state would be just as naturally inclined toward subjugation as anybody else. If statism is an effect of a natually occuring subjugation gene (for which there is no evidence), how do you explain stateless societies?

[selfrealizedexile]

@lengthyounarther

Yes, yes, I understand logic 101. The source of subjugation we witness either was always omnipresent or was introduced at one point in time. If you do not regard it as omnipresent, I ask how it came to be introduced (this is where most introduce socialization theory). You desire to suspend judgement; I'm merely attempting to coax you into a practical opinion.

Stateless societies don't exist 100%. States don't "arise" out of no where. You

[lengthyounarther]

@selfrealizedexile Force and subjugation are not synonyms, and humans also cooperate. Actually for every coersive interaction, there are thousands or millions of mutually voluntary intereactions. Based on your reasoning you would have to conclude that Man natually cooperates and also natually subjugates. And when did I argue that states arose out of nowhere? Thats a false dichotomy and a straw man.

[selfrealizedexile]

@lengthyounarther

I wasn't implying that man always subjugates. What I was saying is that man has the capability to subjugate and some men are of the moral character to do so. Furthermore, I claim that this is omnipresent.

[selfrealizedexile]

@lengthyounarther

have to give up this 0/1 absolutism. Chaos theory (anarchy) is the largest percentage of observable order, and that percentage fluctuates. Also, this "subjugation gene" angle you're taking is extremely laughable and a straw man as if it's localized within one gene. You can pretend man isn't a violent creature if you want, but I'll continue to trust my own eyes.

[lengthyounarther]

@selfrealizedexile Forgive me, but you are the one that has asserted several times now that there are only two possabilities, A man natually wants to subjugate or B. Socialization theory. Cars exist today, does that mean humans are natually car producing, or that they were introduced at some point? If they were introduced at some point, does this introcudtion require socialization theory?

[selfrealizedexile]

@lengthyounarther

What it means is that man always seeks to create and maintain tools (capital). The impetus as such is omnipresent.

[selfrealizedexile]

@lengthyounarther

What's the third or further possibility?

[selfrealizedexile]

@rainskullvids

From what I read in For A New Liberty, Ireland for a time was extremely anarchistic about 200 years prior and up to the English incursions.

[lengthyounarther]

@selfrealizedexile The Homesteads are basically all identicle and there is no evidence of larger,more ornate, or otherwise outstanding builings. The reason I mention it at all is because it is often assume that absent a state, society would become even more statified than it is today. Many people belive the state somehow prevents concentrations of wealth and power. The best evidence speaks to the counter be true.

[selfrealizedexile]

@lengthyounarther

Regardless, I think your example is misleading, even to the egalitarian proponents.  We both know men are born unequal genetically and in unequal conditions. Such examples, especially weak in them being archaeological, do not sway any of the knowledgeable.

[lengthyounarther]

@selfrealizedexile I find it extrodinary that you can summarize and then dismiss an entire field of reasearch especially when you admit that you know nothing about it (as you do when you admit that your simply engaging in conjecture). Its certainly true people are not "eqaul" in any objective quantifiable sense, however its silly to suppose that all socieities have equal social stratification.

[eflonmusic]

awesome speech, thanks~

[gypster2004]

THIS IS AWESOME, thank you!

[MillionthUsername]

Excellent presentation! Very clear and to the point. Reminds me of Spooner.

[jleehwks]

Thank you so much for all of your videos, especially the links back to the sources.