The Inherent Anti-Social Nature of the State

Credits to:
http://www.youtube.com/user/tumbleweedjoe

You probably heard statist using the "humans are social speciess" argument to support the anti-social apparatus of the state. Of course, this argument "feeds upon itself like a bunch of zombie piranhas"(To use a quote from SnowWalkerOne here). This video adequately explain why.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• the
• state
• is
• anti
• social
• coercion
• taxes
• statism
• authoritarianism
• freedom
• liberty
• politics
• democracy
• zero
• sum
• game

[PureLiberalFire]

Gov't isn't inherently evil and tyrannical. A proper state PROTECTS people from people. It defends and upholds individual freedom and justice for all. And nothing could be more conducive to the Brotherhood Of Man. Thus the pro-freedom state ENHANCES social interaction and friendship.

[Akatam0t0ma]

@PureLiberalFire:

While I wouldn't mind a minimal state that would "protect people from people", at this point I am inclined to believe that it is a pipe-dream to believe that we can establish such a state that can maintain this role without overstepping its boundaries in the long run.

Here's a question someone asked me a while back, which pretty much nailed it, and played a role in pushing me towards full blown anti-statism:

"how can a government protect people's rights when the...

[Akatam0t0ma]

@PureLiberalFire:

...act of not paying for said protection results in violations of the rights the government claims to be protecting?"

I think a better way to phrase it would be,"is it possible to maintain a minimal state that would protect people's individual rights without forcing them to fund it by threatening to violate the very rights it claims to protect?". I remain open to ideas of any social order that would not include an a-priori threat of force by coercive bodies(state or otherwise)

[verstwo2]

This is one of the most naive arguments I've ever heard. With a slew of unsupported assertions. Preach much? Hyperbole much?

But of course, without a 'state' everything would be rainbows and butterflies. WTF. Why bother to prove a point when you can just assert it to be true? Especially when there's bothersome counter-evidence in your way.

[Akatam0t0ma]

@verstwo2:

"With a slew of unsupported assertions."

Care to point them out? Thus far, not a single statist has debunked the claim that the state is entirely based on violence. If you are fine with it, like your fellow statist Unassumption, but I'm not, because might never makes right, which is exactly what the state is all about.

[Akatam0t0ma]

@verstwo2:

""Why bother to prove a point when you can just assert it to be true?"

You mean, the way statist assert how the state is good to the economy and knows how to run our lives better than us, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary? Like that? Who would know it better than a statist!

"there's bothersome counter-evidence in your way. "

Which? Somalia? Debunked:

watch?v=3TTOsWym-dI

Next statist batch of logical fallacies, please.

[bertly71]

The politicians use many covert actions to keep us divided while they perpetuate their political careers and line their pockets. Their cronys profit well from division politics.

[TheWingflyer]

I have to qualify this with culture as well (also part of context). The degree of conflict will rise with the degree to which the culture is confrontational, aggressive, antisocial, and neurotic. All of which are at rather high levels in Western and especially American culture.

[TheWingflyer]

@PureLiberalFire Thanks. Good to see anti-dogma. The state isn't evil. The evil state is evil. As for the people shouting at each other in protests but not in other places, it's obvious why they don't elsewhere. It's all about context and identity. Pack a bunch of people A together who outwardly express opposition to the ideas of people B and you'll have a conflict, state or no state. Let people A wear self identifying t shirts and they'll be shunned by people B.

That wasn't hard.

[PureLiberalFire]

@Akatam0t0ma You make a good point. No-one in history has publicly explained how to fund the gov't without coercive taxation. *I* know the answer to this. But I refuse to explain without being paid.

Here's my work-around solution, which I *also* think evil mankind has no right to know: Have all adults at 21 sign a contact AGREEING to the libertarian constitution, PLUS paying maybe 2% income 'tax' for gov't services rendered protecting their rights. If they refuse to sign or pay, DEPORT them.

[JakkaLakkaDingDing]

Love it

[DarthNader26]

In addition to my points below, we have already shown the importance of regulating what a citizen can and cannot do. Without governance, the police becomes lynch mobs or mercenary groups. Individuals who are capable of gathering large clans together (See: Corporations) will invariably seek to annex their neighbors. This simply replaces a moderated state with one based on strength of arms. Democracy, for all it's flaws, is the best form of governance we have come up with so far.

[DarthNader26]

I have one major objection to your whole presentation, and it goes like this.

What other system would you suggest to ensure common defense and social welfare? Private businesses have already shown themselves to be utterly incompetent in that regard (See: The Industrial Revolution(s)). The State, for all it's flaws, permits progress in a way that the private sector doesn't allow, curbing the power of an individual in favor of an elected group and allowing social movements to make headway.