The case for the State

Maxliberty:

Jon Irenicus:

Indeed - why should I not? BTW, this massively undercuts the case for a minimal state, as historically it has only existed for a glimpse of time. Not very sound reasoning, You might want to say government is important to any society, and I would not disagree with that, but I do not see why the State is the only form of government that makes sense, or indeed one that does at all...

-Jon

You are assuming that we have a wide variety of choices. I can say that the optimal society is aliens coming to Earth and making everything perfect with no injustice and no suffering. Most people would choose this option over the current state, if it was an option. The reality is there are no other options.

I do not have a choice between a car and an intergalctic space ship for transportation. No matter how much you argue that the spaceship is superior it is not an option. I must deal with the reality of the existence of the state. As much as I may dislike the state, reality forces me to recognize that the state exists because it serves a purpose and people have preferred this monopoly of force over other possible alternatives to this point. If there is no alternative that can be demonstrated to work outside the state then the state must be optimal.

Your argument sounds Utilitarian.

Maxliberty:

If you believe that people are choosing what is overall in their best interest then the fact that the state exists without revolution is evidence that people have chosen enslavement as superior to resistance.

Just like you choose to hand over your wallet and jewelry, instead of getting shot by the mugger.

I fail to see how this is "a case for the robberer, as opposed to the killer".

Maxliberty:

This is in part my point. Things that do exist have a case for their justificiation.

Non sequitur.  As was pointed out: that slavery existed was by no means a case for the justification of slavery. You'll have to do better.

 

And please: stop appealing to common practice. It's fallacious.

Jon Irenicus:

Indeed - why should I not? BTW, this massively undercuts the case for a minimal state, as historically it has only existed for a glimpse of time. Not very sound reasoning, You might want to say government is important to any society, and I would not disagree with that, but I do not see why the State is the only form of government that makes sense, or indeed one that does at all..

 

Maxliberty:

You are assuming that we have a wide variety of choices.

And you are assuming one choice: the state or the state. Period.

No matter how much you think that saying "the state exists, therefore we can never not have a state" (which actually is your argument) isn't fallacious, it remains such.

Jon Irenicus:

Indeed - why should I not? BTW, this massively undercuts the case for a minimal state, as historically it has only existed for a glimpse of time. Not very sound reasoning, You might want to say government is important to any society, and I would not disagree with that, but I do not see why the State is the only form of government that makes sense, or indeed one that does at all...

Why do you say that the "minimal state"  only "existed for a glimpse of time"?

I however share the idea that the modern state would be the only form of government thinkable or possible.

 

However your argument does not mean that the state is not optimal only that until an alternative is proven to be viable can that alternative then be chosen.

Since it is a coercive monopoly, the very nature of the state coercively blocks and limits alternatives. If it did not do so, if it truly allowed free competition and individual secession, it would cease to be a state.

Slaves always have at least two choices, resist or continue enslavement. To the extent slaves are choosing is that they choose what they think is optimal for them. To the extent that you are a slave to the state is the choice you make between resisting or choosing to continue in your enslavement.

If you believe that people are choosing what is overall in their best interest then the fact that the state exists without revolution is evidence that people have chosen enslavement as superior to resistance. That is not to say people would not choose to live in a better society if one existed but with limited choices comes limited decision making.

  

You've officially obliterated the meaning of liberty and coercion here. A choice made under duress, under the threat of force, is not voluntary. The fact that I may give my wallet to a mugger is not a reflection of my voluntary consent and will, it is only because I am being threatened with force. It doesn't mean that I genuinely favor giving my wallet to the person, and it certainly doesn't legitimize theft.

Again, your argument assumes that the mere existance of something indicates that it's a product of universal consent or that it's inevitable or sustainable when that is clearly nonsensical when applied to the real world.

Not everybody is a martyr. Slaves somehow knew they would be killed if they resisted. I would say that living is more optimal than death.( all philosophical notions aside )

The history of the State has actually been the elimination of the State, and for the people to choose things about the operation of the state. The late 19th and 20th century has been a backlash against, historically speaking, the inevitable collapse of the State. It went from Gods, family, class, wealth, republic, to democracy, the last refuge of the State for existence, and back to Gods (man worship; Hitler, Stalin), instead of down to men. Socialism is a historical fluke because of the rapid expansion of the 'economic means' of civilization against the far more experienced 'political means' during the Industrial Revolution.

If you want to look at history from a Hegelian point of view, man tried to combine political means and economic means together, enlarging the State, going against a historical precedent of the elimination of the state. This has spelled disaster and retardation. So man will finally try, solely, the economic means of civilization. a.k.a market anarchy.

 

In short, history is one the side of anarchy, not on the side of the State, if you want to look at it through the glass of historical evolution as you are.

Andrew:

Not everybody is a martyr. Slaves somehow knew they would be killed if they resisted. I would say that living is more optimal than death.( all philosophical notions aside )

The history of the State has actually been the elimination of the State, and for the people to choose things about the operation of the state. The late 19th and 20th century has been a backlash against, historically speaking, the inevitable collapse of the State. It went from Gods, family, class, wealth, republic, to democracy, the last refuge of the State for existence, and back to Gods (man worship; Hitler, Stalin), instead of down to men. Socialism is a historical fluke because of the rapid expansion of the 'economic means' of civilization against the far more experienced 'political means' during the Industrial Revolution.

If you want to look at history from a Hegelian point of view, man tried to combine political means and economic means together, enlarging the State, going against a historical precedent of the elimination of the state. This has spelled disaster and retardation. So man will finally try, solely, the economic means of civilization. a.k.a market anarchy.

 

In short, history is one the side of anarchy, not on the side of the State, if you want to look at it through the glass of historical evolution as you are.

Agreed; this is why as of late, I view Statism as a key part in the evolution of anarchism, if that makes any sense.

(To avoid confusion: I do not condone nor agree with the state, however.)

 

Brainpolice:

However your argument does not mean that the state is not optimal only that until an alternative is proven to be viable can that alternative then be chosen.

Since it is a coercive monopoly, the very nature of the state coercively blocks and limits alternatives. If it did not do so, if it truly allowed free competition and individual secession, it would cease to be a state.

Slaves always have at least two choices, resist or continue enslavement. To the extent slaves are choosing is that they choose what they think is optimal for them. To the extent that you are a slave to the state is the choice you make between resisting or choosing to continue in your enslavement.

If you believe that people are choosing what is overall in their best interest then the fact that the state exists without revolution is evidence that people have chosen enslavement as superior to resistance. That is not to say people would not choose to live in a better society if one existed but with limited choices comes limited decision making.

  

You've officially obliterated the meaning of liberty and coercion here. A choice made under duress, under the threat of force, is not voluntary. The fact that I may give my wallet to a mugger is not a reflection of my voluntary consent and will, it is only because I am being threatened with force. It doesn't mean that I genuinely favor giving my wallet to the person, and it certainly doesn't legitimize theft.

Again, your argument assumes that the mere existance of something indicates that it's a product of universal consent or that it's inevitable or sustainable when that is clearly nonsensical when applied to the real world.

Again, you try to wish away the state. You refuse to face the reality that the state exists. What you think of the state is irrelevant and to ignore the current existence of the state is foolish. You argue that the state is immoral so it will disappear. There is a tremendous amount of evidence to suggest that is completely false.

Contrary to your belief, the fact that something exists does actually matter with regard to what choices I have to make. Universal consent would be impossible for any particular issue and without an alternative then whatever exists currently would be the the likely candidate to continue in the future. For example, we didnt stop using horses until cars came along. If nothing had been created to replace the horse we would still be using horses.

If nothing is created to replace the state then the state will continue.

Maxliberty:

Again, you try to wish away the state. You refuse to face the reality that the state exists.

He's doing neither of those things. You're simply ignoring the fact that he admits that the state does exist, but that fact carries no weight insofar as an argument as to whether or not states should exist.

Contrary to your belief, the fact that something exists doesn't make it desired or good.

Nitroadict:

Andrew:

Not everybody is a martyr. Slaves somehow knew they would be killed if they resisted. I would say that living is more optimal than death.( all philosophical notions aside )

The history of the State has actually been the elimination of the State, and for the people to choose things about the operation of the state. The late 19th and 20th century has been a backlash against, historically speaking, the inevitable collapse of the State. It went from Gods, family, class, wealth, republic, to democracy, the last refuge of the State for existence, and back to Gods (man worship; Hitler, Stalin), instead of down to men. Socialism is a historical fluke because of the rapid expansion of the 'economic means' of civilization against the far more experienced 'political means' during the Industrial Revolution.

If you want to look at history from a Hegelian point of view, man tried to combine political means and economic means together, enlarging the State, going against a historical precedent of the elimination of the state. This has spelled disaster and retardation. So man will finally try, solely, the economic means of civilization. a.k.a market anarchy.

 

In short, history is one the side of anarchy, not on the side of the State, if you want to look at it through the glass of historical evolution as you are.

Agreed; this is why as of late, I view Statism as a key part in the evolution of anarchism, if that makes any sense.

(To avoid confusion: I do not condone nor agree with the state, however.)

 

Yes, I was waiting for the first evolutionary anarchy types to appear. If we are evolving toward anarchy then clearly I am not entitled to be free now. Apparently I have to wait until we have reached some stage in the evolution before I can assert my individual freedom. We are not evolving towards anarchy. The State grows stronger every day. Every day we are idle lessens the chance of liberty not enhances it.

The anarchy evolutionists are yet another group that misleads the freedom movement. Do you console yourself in your servitude that you are part of the evolutuionary process? That maybe someday, when enough posts are made on the internet that you might be free?

Either you are meant to be free or not and that condition does not change with time. The evolutionary anarchist only serves the purposes of perpetuating the state.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Maxliberty:

Again, you try to wish away the state. You refuse to face the reality that the state exists.

He's doing neither of those things. You're simply ignoring the fact that he admits that the state does exist, but that fact carries no weight insofar as an argument as to whether or not states should exist.

Contrary to your belief, the fact that something exists doesn't make it desired or good.

I have not suggested that the state is desired or good. There is no arguement about whether the state should exist because it in fact already does. The only arguement is about what can replace the functions of the state.

When people used horses for normal transportation nobody debated about whether horses should exist or not, to the extent there was debate was only about what could replace the horses. Until there was something that could replace the horse it didn't matter what you thought of the horse.

All things that exist do so for a reason and to ignore why states currently exist is to ignore human behavior. States are created by people not by philosophy, so the fact that people have created states as the primary governing agency of society is extremely relevant.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Jon Irenicus:

Indeed - why should I not? BTW, this massively undercuts the case for a minimal state, as historically it has only existed for a glimpse of time. Not very sound reasoning, You might want to say government is important to any society, and I would not disagree with that, but I do not see why the State is the only form of government that makes sense, or indeed one that does at all..

 

Maxliberty:

You are assuming that we have a wide variety of choices.

And you are assuming one choice: the state or the state. Period.

No matter how much you think that saying "the state exists, therefore we can never not have a state" (which actually is your argument) isn't fallacious, it remains such.

In your mind, is there an alternative to the state that exists right now?

I'm not aware of any minimal states that lasted long without degenerating into big government, and that'd include the US.

-Jon

Maxliberty:

In your mind, is there an alternative to the state that exists right now?

Yes: anarchy.

 That some people are unimaginative is not my problem.

 

Maxliberty:

Again, you try to wish away the state. You refuse to face the reality that the state exists.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

He's doing neither of those things. You're simply ignoring the fact that he admits that the state does exist, but that fact carries no weight insofar as an argument as to whether or not states should exist.

Contrary to your belief, the fact that something exists doesn't make it desired or good.

Maxliberty:

I have not suggested that the state is desired or good.

Then you contradict your OP.

 

Maxliberty:

There is no arguement about whether the state should exist because it in fact already does.

Then why the strawman?

 

Maxliberty:

The only arguement is about what can replace the functions of the state.

 And the statist must show that only a state can provide those function.

 

Jon Irenicus:

I'm not aware of any minimal states that lasted long without degenerating into big government, and that'd include the US.

-Jon

True, but I think I get maxliberty's point without regarding it as hostile.  I'm also not aware of any anarchy that lasted for any meaningful amount of time in the last several hundred years.

 

 

Maxliberty:

Nitroadict:

Andrew:

Not everybody is a martyr. Slaves somehow knew they would be killed if they resisted. I would say that living is more optimal than death.( all philosophical notions aside )

The history of the State has actually been the elimination of the State, and for the people to choose things about the operation of the state. The late 19th and 20th century has been a backlash against, historically speaking, the inevitable collapse of the State. It went from Gods, family, class, wealth, republic, to democracy, the last refuge of the State for existence, and back to Gods (man worship; Hitler, Stalin), instead of down to men. Socialism is a historical fluke because of the rapid expansion of the 'economic means' of civilization against the far more experienced 'political means' during the Industrial Revolution.

If you want to look at history from a Hegelian point of view, man tried to combine political means and economic means together, enlarging the State, going against a historical precedent of the elimination of the state. This has spelled disaster and retardation. So man will finally try, solely, the economic means of civilization. a.k.a market anarchy.


In short, history is one the side of anarchy, not on the side of the State, if you want to look at it through the glass of historical evolution as you are.

Agreed; this is why as of late, I view Statism as a key part in the evolution of anarchism, if that makes any sense.

(To avoid confusion: I do not condone nor agree with the state, however.)

Yes, I was waiting for the first evolutionary anarchy types to appear. If we are evolving toward anarchy then clearly I am not entitled to be free now. Apparently I have to wait until we have reached some stage in the evolution before I can assert my individual freedom. We are not evolving towards anarchy. The State grows stronger every day. Every day we are idle lessens the chance of liberty not enhances it.

The anarchy evolutionists are yet another group that misleads the freedom movement. Do you console yourself in your servitude that you are part of the evolutuionary process? That maybe someday, when enough posts are made on the internet that you might be free?

Either you are meant to be free or not and that condition does not change with time. The evolutionary anarchist only serves the purposes of perpetuating the state.

I am not an evolutionary anarchist: I do not advocate anarchism as an eventuality that will happen regardless of efforts (nor do I hold the laughable premise that Statism by itself will eventually evolve into anarchism); I do not "sit around" in servitude waiting for something to happen.  Even Jim Davies, whom I would consider an evolutionary anarchist (I don't know of anyone who is concretely known as one...) would admit that the efforts are absolutely needed, despite his own theories (he has give n a timestamp in two his books and in various STR articles he's written).

Your accusation of me being a lazy eventualist merely highlights your desperate argument for the sake of argument itself.  The function this forum & others serve are very similar if not the modern day versions of when colleagues would gather around the fireplace with a cup of tea to discuss theory, so get off of your high horse, because all you are seeing is discussion taking place, not the offline actions of the individuals.  Hasn't this been addressed before?  I guess making generalizations is far more easier than actually doing any research.   

Perhaps you would more pleased with a YouTube channel that displayed forum members actually taking action?  Or are you going to suggest that joining your Liberty Colony the only way of "getting things done"?

Maxliberty:

Yes, I was waiting for the first evolutionary anarchy types to appear.

I was waiting for your reformist, vulgar tendencies to appear.  The apologist only serves the purpose of perpetuating the state, and muddying the debate against it.

Assuming your serious, of course. I really can't tell whether your argument is a serious one, hypothetical, or just intentionally vapid.

Indeed, but that renders minimal states about as utopian, if not more so, than market anarchism. Hence appeals to history will not make his case for him.

-Jon

As I understand it, the "case" is a hypothetical.