I'm done making excuses for the State

[PaulConventionWV]

It seems as though every argument made for the state is wrong, and all of the arguments made against a voluntary society are based on straw man.

Government, every where in the world, is full of nothing but evil men that commit the worst of crimes. I don't see why a monopoly based on violence can provide anything that the people cannot create voluntarily.

A few years ago, when I first started reading about Paul and the Austrian School, I thought that anarchists were nothing but crazy, violent people, with backwards ideas, that were trying to fool us. I feel pretty stupid about that now. Most of the defenders of the state around these parts come off as insane ones now, in many cases. How many people here defend tariffs until they are blue in the face? We have people that outright defend Hitler and Gadaffi as human beings. If anything, the anarchists are easily the most sane people around here (there are lots of exceptions of course). It is really just a matter of getting over the label "anarchist".

I could be ok with a government, provided it is funded voluntarily, respects secession, microsecession, and does not infringe on anyones rights. But I don't know if that is even possible, or could be called a government.

Well, no more apologies from me, and no more contradictions either. I still don't like the way the word sounds, and should do more research on government, history, economics, and law, but I will not make a single excuse for the state from here on out.

If you are interested in what's possible, then you can forget about anarchy ever becoming reality. Believe me, I would love it if it was possible to coexist peacefully without government. However, that will never be reality. You need the state because the state is inevitable. It's either a limited government or a tyrant. Take your pick. People will always need and want government in order to administrate things like agriculture. If we lived in an anarchic society, people would never be able to leave their belongings for fear that it would be stolen. There would be no such thing as property. People would not be as free to move about. How many of you would feel comfortable leaving your wife and children to go overseas in an anarchic society? In fact, how would you have planes? The thing is, corporations and businesses are inevitable, and if we don't have a state that defends liberty, then the corporations will form a state that takes it away.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

There is a difference between sanctioned, legal, mandatory violence, and random criminal acts. I'm not ok with people stealing from each other. Perfect voluntarism might not be possible due to random outlaws, but that does not mean that forcing everyone in society into a coercive collective is moral or needed.

I think it is evident that the state destroys order. By the states very natures, it is funded by taking away other people's property. How can it be trusted to defend anyone elses? When you factor in their monopoly status, and the fact that they are using other people's resources, it gets worse. Corruption is ineveitable, and because it is not voluntary, tyrants will ultimately arise to the top in order to enforce the laws onto people. It will just continue to push people down the road to serfdom.

You are entirely correct. However, what you missed is that anarchy would just make it easier for this to happen. It's just as susceptiblee, if not more so, to corruption than any other form of government. When I say government, I mean self-government in reference to anarchy. Just like the other forms, it won't last. What makes you think that the state is so much more immoral than random acts of violence? Is it because you can remain ignorant to random acts of violence when it doesn't affect you? I think everyone deserves justice, and you're not going to get that through anarchy. If you have private courts, they will turn into governments, probably with arbitrary rules, since they have a monopoly on the justice system.

It's like yin and yang. You have to have balance, and you can't get that through either extreme. Ultimately, the only real solution is for people to be educated about their form of government. If nobody knows or beleives in the system, then of course it will not last. We have to make it last and keep a check on people who would try to gain power through government. It is much easier, however, for these people to gain that power without a governmen, than if there were already a system in place, especially if it were based on such strict protection of people's rights.

There were many things that the founding fathers had to compromise on that ended up screwing up the system, but it was by far the best so far.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I hate logical inconsistencies. Unprovoked physical and/or coercive aggression is objectively, observably wrong and immoral, and logically inconsistent. It is wrong and immoral because the individual is sovereign, and it is logically inconsistent because to engage in unprovoked physical and/or coercive aggression as a sovereign individual is to give explicit sanction to the same being done in return, which is paradoxical to the truth of individual sovereignty. To exist, the state MUST engage in some degree of unprovoked physical and/or coercive aggression against individuals. Therefore, the state is objectively, observably an immoral institution.

I can abide a small state as obviously preferrable to a larger state, but there is no logical or moral argument for it, as shown above. Just as one cannot be "a little bit pregnant", it either is, or it is not.

Who says the individual is sovereign? That's another moral construct that you just pulled out of nowhere. You must have an objective moral arbitrator before you can have an objective moral standard that stands on its own. You say property rights are moral because the individual is sovereign, but where does that idea come from?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You are a terribly unimaginative being. I feel some sorrow in my heart for such people. Here I let Bastiat talk through his grave:



Yes, you've all ready said you think Socialism is necessary to take money, property, and belongings from one individual to forcebly give to another. You are a socialist if you prescribe your belief to this -- it is only in what manner and propriety you wish to foist it upon society. You simply cannot fatham a free individual giving to help those in need, or that those in need would come together to form mutual aid societies, and other non-profit, charitable organizations. From this your lack of understanding history, is shown to be the culprit for your thought process. Do you also think Americans simply died on the streets prior to Herbert Hoover and FDR? This is such a comical belief system.

The problem is that you think you have a morally consistent view without a true definition of what is moral. Do you really think people would care what you think is moral if there were no recourse for transgression? You are far too imaginative in that you think people will somehow become moral beings and be nice to everyone else and follow the same moral standards without law and government. People will always be greedy and immoral. That is why we have the state in the first place. Why you think this would be any different under an anarchist society is quite confusing. If you can accept that people can be moral, then you can accept that government can be moral because it works to curtail injustice. The problem is that you think the standards of injustice are a given and that they would exist if there were no force factor. What makes it so much more moral to allow people to pillage and rape without legal recourse? If people aren't restrained, then there is no morality. That is, unless everyone subscribed to the same moral views. We both know this will never happen. In an anarchist society, people are never safe to leave their property lest they lose it. They actually have LESS freedom than if there were law and order. Anarchy would facilitate a monopoly on violence, not prevent it.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Who says the individual is sovereign? That's another moral construct that you just pulled out of nowhere. You must have an objective moral arbitrator before you can have an objective moral standard that stands on its own. You say property rights are moral because the individual is sovereign, but where does that idea come from?

Moral relativism at RPF? Hmph...

I didn't just dream it up. There's a pretty long tradition of individual sovereignty in Western thought. But I'm with you - I don't abide arbitrary standards. So, if the individual is not sovereign over his own life, then what earthly being is? Who owns my life more than I do? Who here on earth can take control of my brain, my heart, my actions? It is objectively, observably so that the individual is sovereign.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

People will always be greedy and immoral. That is why we have the state in the first place.

You mean "the state", populated by those greedy and immoral people, which has a socially-sanctioned monopoly on force?

Why am I supposed to trust those greedy and immoral people with the pervasive, total power of "the state"?

 

[CCTelander]

You mean "the state", populated by those greedy and immoral people, which has a socially-sanctioned monopoly on force?

Why am I supposed to trust those greedy and immoral people with the pervasive, total power of "the state"?

Simple. The electorate are somehow much too debased and evil to be trusted to peacefully coexist with each other, but somehow, magically, they become near perfect angels once they're "educated" enough, and capable of choosing ONLY the good, upright, and moral people from among them to rule over them.

See how easy it is once you give up any pretense of reason or logic?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Oh boy...

I believe one of the problems that this thread demonstrates among otherwise would be champions of liberty, is that they do not understand the true nature or definition of property and by extension it's rights afforded. Titled land to be heired in perpetuity is an archaic construct of 'noble' classes used to preserve power over serfs. In order to free yourself from the slave master you must free yourself from not only his physical chains, but his mental and lingual chains as well. The only property that is just is that to which you are personally putting to active use. When one clears a section of forest and builds herself a home from the harvested lumber, one can hardly argue her right to call this her property. However, this does not give her property right over the adjoining 2,000 acres of forest and land as yet unmixed with human labor. Nor does it give her right to abandon said property only to re-appear at an indeterminate time in the future and attempt to forcibly eject any would be new property users. If we are ever to free ourselves from our current predicaments we must first be willing to release the trappings of a title based property system.

Freedom may not be easy, but it is right and moral.

Moral according to who? Where do you get your ideas of morality? Is it not from your own conscious mind? Simply because others will agree with you that a certain construct is moral, doesn't make it objective.

Beside, anarchists ignore the fact that there will still be violence and stealing in an anarchic society. You, too, advocate it because you advocate a system that allows people to believe what they are doing is perfectly fine. Everything, in your view, is for one's own personal gain.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Moral according to who? Where do you get your ideas of morality? Is it not from your own conscious mind? Simply because others will agree with you that a certain construct is moral, doesn't make it objective.

I can't believe you're such an relativist...

Beside, anarchists ignore the fact that there will still be violence and stealing in an anarchic society. You, too, advocate it because you advocate a system that allows people to believe what they are doing is perfectly fine. Everything, in your view, is for one's own personal gain.

None of this is accurate. None of it. Advocates of statelessness do not ignore the fact that people are violent/immoral/etc. They simply oppose institutionalizing it.

We do not advocate violence. If violence occurs in a stateless society, it is the responsibility of the individual who perpetrates it. Advocates of the state wholly embrace violence and make it the foundation of their ideal society, as Travlyr showed us earlier in this thread.

 

[Occam's Banana]

You are entirely correct. However, what you missed is that anarchy would just make it easier for this to happen. It's just as susceptiblee, if not more so, to corruption than any other form of government. When I say government, I mean self-government in reference to anarchy. Just like the other forms, it won't last. What makes you think that the state is so much more immoral than random acts of violence? Is it because you can remain ignorant to random acts of violence when it doesn't affect you? I think everyone deserves justice, and you're not going to get that through anarchy. If you have private courts, they will turn into governments, probably with arbitrary rules, since they have a monopoly on the justice system.

It's like yin and yang. You have to have balance, and you can't get that through either extreme. Ultimately, the only real solution is for people to be educated about their form of government. If nobody knows or beleives in the system, then of course it will not last. We have to make it last and keep a check on people who would try to gain power through government. It is much easier, however, for these people to gain that power without a governmen, than if there were already a system in place, especially if it were based on such strict protection of people's rights.

There were many things that the founding fathers had to compromise on that ended up screwing up the system, but it was by far the best so far.

WOW! Beg the question much?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

​

How long do you think fatty would survive in an anarchist society? His very existence is the heighth of hypocrisy.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I can't believe you're such an relativist...



None of this is accurate. None of it. Advocates of statelessness do not ignore the fact that people are violent/immoral/etc. They simply oppose institutionalizing it.

We do not advocate violence. If violence occurs in a stateless society, it is the responsibility of the individual who perpetrates it. Advocates of the state wholly embrace violence and make it the foundation of their ideal society, as Travlyr showed us earlier in this thread.

I'm not a relativist. The point is that everything you think is moral is arbitrary without an objective source for that morality. If it's just my word against yours, then there is no objective morality. You can't expect others to care about your property rights or your self-ownership if they don't think those things are important enough to be upheld. There are certainly people like this.

What makes institutionalizing violence so bad? Isn't it the violence and the murder and the stealing what's wrong? The question is, how do you know that one has more than the other? You don't. Your immoral argument is invalid because 1) your view of morality comes only from you, and 2) You can't prove that your moral standards would be any more likely to thrive with or without the state. Your whole statelessness position is basedon the idea that there would be less violence in an anarchist society, but what basis do you have for believing this? Did you ever consider the idea that institutionalizing violence would prevent more violence than it creates?

My point is that anarchy facilitates the institutionalization of violence because it does nothing to prevent it. It is just as much susceptible to creeping tyranny as any other form of government.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

How long do you think fatty would survive in an anarchist society? His very existence is the heighth of hypocrisy.

Now there's a great contribution to the thread.

Ron Paul happens to be an admirer of "fatty".

Whenever I see this sort of empty vitriol against advocates of statelessness, I'll try to remember this great post from RiseAgainst:

I have a sneaking suspicion that somewhere deep inside both you and the national socialists know full well how wrong the ideas you promote are, but in your haste to meet immediate wants you use justification rather than principled and logical defense in an attempt to convince even yourself that what you advocate is right.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You mean "the state", populated by those greedy and immoral people, which has a socially-sanctioned monopoly on force?

Why am I supposed to trust those greedy and immoral people with the pervasive, total power of "the state"?

You refer to them as "those greedy and immoral people", which leads to my next point. EVERYONE is greedy and immoral. The Bible teaches that all are sinners and have fallen far short of perfect in the moral sense. The whole earth is populated by greedy and immoral people. How can you say the existence of a state is any more immoral than the existence of everyone else who does immoral things.

However, if there is no objective source for morality, then there is no reason for others to respect your self-ownership except with the use of force. That's why force is needed in any society. There will always be immoral people. Eliminating the state doesn't solve the problem.

Furthermore, why would you assume that the people in government are so much more immoral than anyone else? Another baseless assumption.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm not a relativist. The point is that everything you think is moral is arbitrary without an objective source for that morality. If it's just my word against yours, then there is no objective morality. You can't expect others to care about your property rights or your self-ownership if they don't think those things are important enough to be upheld. There are certainly people like this.

You've yet to address my claim regarding the objectivity of individual sovereignty. Further, if everything is relative, then none of these philosophies are worth haggling over, nor is Ron Paul's campaign worth working for. If nothing matters, then... nothing matters. Who cares? Shut up.

What makes institutionalizing violence so bad?

Really?

Isn't it the violence and the murder and the stealing what's wrong? The question is, how do you know that one has more than the other? You don't. Your immoral argument is invalid because 1) your view of morality comes only from you, and 2) You can't prove that your moral standards would be any more likely to thrive with or without the state. Your whole statelessness position is basedon the idea that there would be less violence in an anarchist society, but what basis do you have for believing this? Did you ever consider the idea that institutionalizing violence would prevent more violence than it creates?

I guess it's pointless to debate with you, because even though I've already stated that I don't think that people would be less violent in an anarchist society than they are in a society with a state, you keep portraying that as my position. Perhaps you'd be interested in debating with this guy, instead:

My point is that anarchy facilitates the institutionalization of violence because it does nothing to prevent it. It is just as much susceptible to creeping tyranny as any other form of government.

Anarchism isn't a form of government, and doesn't claim to prevent violence... it just doesn't institutionalize it.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You refer to them as "those greedy and immoral people"

Uh, no. You did.

This is pointless...

 

[CCTelander]

What makes institutionalizing violence so bad?

You might ask the QUARTER BILLION or so innocent people killed by government during the 20th Century alone, but you might have trouble getting a response.

All the "private" violence throughout history doesn't amount to a drop in that bucket.

 

[Travlyr]

You might ask the QUARTER BILLION or so innocent people killed by government during the 20th Century alone, but you might have trouble getting a response.

All the "private" violence throughout history doesn't amount to a drop in that bucket.

Where did those vicious governments get their authority?

 

[CCTelander]

Where did those vicious governments get their authority?

Sorry Trav but I'm not in any kind of mood to dance around with you. You're obviously not ready to face the fact that the position you advocate is morally inferior to the positions of those advocating a stateless society. Maybe you'll come around in time. Many of us have come from positions similar to your own. Time will tell.

The point of my previous post was simply this: While "private" violence certainly is something we should do our best to minimize, it can never hold a candle to the violence committed by governments. In fact, violence on a MASSIVE scale is pretty much the ONLY thing governments are good at.

 

[Travlyr]

Sorry Trav but I'm not in any kind of mood to dance around with you. You're obviously not ready to face the fact that the position you advocate is morally inferior to the positions of those advocating a stateless society. Maybe you'll come around in time. Many of us have come from positions similar to your own. Time will tell.

The point of my previous post was simply this: While "private" violence certainly is something we should do our best to minimize, it can never hold a candle to the violence committed by governments. In fact, violence on a MASSIVE scale is pretty much the ONLY thing governments are good at.

Actually that is the whole point. The governments that killed 260 million people in the 20th century did not get Constitutional authority to do it. They used media lies and propaganda to control societies and war profiteer. The powers-that-be consider themselves above the law. Anarchy.

This is why so many of us are working daily to return society back to the rule of law. We are working hard to stop their immoral shenanigans.