Disambiguating "Anti-Statism"

challenge rejected on grounds of straw man

offered alternative: what makes a constitutional government better than a anti-statist society?

comparison: offered hypothetical
1)desert island, you and I and our respective subscribers. we decide among us to lead a society that is anti-statist

2) you and I in the "statist status quo"


you and I make a deal. I break the deal, and leave you with the "short end of the stick."

In the status status quo, you and I go to the state, and the state decides what should happen. To ensure that I do what the state decides, it will threaten me with coercion.

What is different on the desert island?

On the desert island, you and I go to a mutually agreed arbiter that decides what should happen. And what happens if I refuse what the arbiter suggests? Not much. You could say, "hey, you said you would do what the arbiter said!" and I could say, "Hey, tough." The deal remains broken, and you remain with the short end of the stick.

If this arbiter we choose uses coercion to get me to do what the arbiter thinks is right, then we are in the same situation we were with the state status quo.

There is a very important point to make here. The way you guys are using the word "anti-statism" is to be "anti-something" that does not actually exist in the status quo. You are all rebels without a cause. You guys define the state as a body with a monopoly on violence. To you I ask, where is such a body? Washington? No. London? No. Tokyo, Madrid, Sydney, New Delhi? No. One of your viewers properly pointed out that, on an international level, governments deal with each other visa vis an anti-statism environment, since, no single government of the world has a monopoly on violence over the others. This whole argument of "anti-statism," by the way you guys insist on defining "the state," amounts to nothing more than a stance against the establishment of a world government. That is the only way a true monopoly on violence would be achieved, and you don't have to be anarchist to be opposed world government, so the distinction you make, or whoever came up with this, is not justified.

In the status quo, if we don't like the way one state does things, we can change our citizenship. A new state will have to agree to have us, but this is no different than on the desert island. On the desert island, if we don't like the way one arbiter does things, we can change our relationship with a new arbiter. Whoever we chose would still have to agree to act as an arbiter. The choices we have are finite in both situations.

In the end, the only difference between our desert island and the actual status quo is the number of choices we have in picking the arbiter of our disputes.

If you think the desert island is better because there are more choices, you are just making an argument to favor small, local governments over large, central governments, and thereby are also against a single, world government.

See? You were libertarian all along.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• anti-statism

[Kbiomech]

This may be the best pro state argument I've seen.

I disagree with your conclusions, and I shall rebut as I have time to make a video on it. I cannot disagree with the logical claims you are making, except for a poor portrayal of how anarchists generally define the state.

The "sound bite" that you cite is, unfortunately, relayed far more often than the specifics.

The state has a LEGAL monopoly of violence over a defined area of ground.

damn char limit. I'll get back to you.

Well done.

[jericomovie]

thanks. I have another to be uploaded in the hour.

[hicsk0725]

よいですね！！君の動画＾＾

[jericomovie]

いつもナイスガイコメントをしてくれてありがとうございます！

[xexixk]

@TheStigmadeign In my experience they seem to have absolutely no idea how societies function, how and why states even came to be and are generally ahistorical.

[xexixk]

Great video!

[TheStigmadeign]

Anti-statism seeks to diminish moral conduct of human relations.It's an egotistical,self righteous dream of a world in chaos.This was thought up by some delusional asshole wanting a world they think is free.An anti-state is merely a dream and an idiotic one at that.Crime would be more common and even more violent.If law enforcement is diminished from no state funds to pay for their service then the anti-state would be chaos.We would crumble as a nation.

[madscirat]

Dude, I love your style of address, you seriously need a radio show.

This video comes pretty close to the reason I've veered toward minarchy in my views recently. Tho there is also the question of shared resources. I have found no way for anarchy to deal with this. No one can own rivers, atmospheres, aquifers. These systems have no clear boundary, yet single individuals can damage them. Unless some Ents are brought in to arbitrate on natures behalf, I don't see how anarchy culd manage them

[Chrisnoscrub047]

In a stateless society there will be a demand for solutions to the problem of: a person who doesn't agree to the rulings of an arbiter.

I'm sure you've come across the proposed solution of credit rating agencies. Credit rating agencies and arbiters and the arbiters of arbiters all rely on maintaining a favorable position to the relevant people that surround them.

Also, to say that a monopoly is only an entity that rules the entire globe is to disregard humans as beings of limited resources.

[TheLateAndrewRyan]

Nooo....

The difference is that you agree upon the arbiter, you do not agree on the state necessarily. Although inevitably all states are maintained by mass public support you do not have to agree with the laws of the state in order to have them forced upon you, while at one point you have to agree with the "mutual arbiter"

The state claims to have control of you over a certain geographical are no matter what. You do not agree. You are not the state as it exists today.

[PoliticalPhilomather]

JERICOMOVIE:

your straw man fixed=

each state (ie. USA) is a monopoly over its geographic area. and in regards to the world it would just be a oligopoly. coercion is the issue!

-and-

your analogy is intellectually dis-honest =

"if you break the ruling of the DRO nothing happens". many things can happen that would lead to a loss of rights within said community. but it's not a simple "he did this, he gets this" reaction.

maybe its too complicated for you?

... and this is just the beginning

[martinmont1]

Now, if your contention is that this monopoly is essential for arbitration, thats fine. But, unless you think I'm not allowed to disagree with you, that's no argument to why I should be forced into such an arrangement