I'm done making excuses for the State

[A Son of Liberty]

It is not my State. We were all born into that societal construct. I don't have a problem with it because I like to be in control of my life. However, the violations you describe are unavoidable in life either with boundaries or not. If boundaries are not drawn, then Hatfield and McCoy battles ensue, if they are drawn, then taxes are necessary. Both scenarios are violent in that regard.

It is not a given that land feuds will occur. We can presume that they may, or that they may even be likely, but they are not necessary for statelessness. Furthermore, it has been shown that private enterprise can offer services which make these conditions wholly impractical.

It IS a given that a state will "tax", suppress competition and impose rules since, as you say, they are necessary for a state to exist.

Thank you for acknowledging that you advocate these things.

 

[Wesker1982]

If boundaries are not drawn, then Hatfield and McCoy battles ensue, if they are drawn, then taxes are necessary.

Total non sequitur.

 

[Travlyr]

It is not a given that land feuds will occur. We can presume that they may, or that they may even be likely, but they are not necessary for statelessness. Furthermore, it has been shown that private enterprise can offer services which make these conditions wholly impractical.

It IS a given that a state will "tax", suppress competition and impose rules since, as you say, they are necessary for a state to exist.

Thank you for acknowledging that you advocate these things.

No problem. But it is absolutely a given that land feuds would occur. That is part of the evolutionary process. The native Americans suffered greatly because they did not understand the State and absolutely refused to join. What did they end up with? Near genocide, then Reservations with boundaries ... which = State.

 

[Travlyr]

Total non sequitur.

lol

 

[Wesker1982]

lol

Why are taxes necessary for boundaries?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

No problem. But it is absolutely a given that land feuds would occur.

In your opinion, land feuds may occur. I'm not aware of anyone having the ability to know the future other than God. In the past, land feuds have occurred, and at times have not occurred.

That is part of the evolutionary process. The native Americans suffered greatly because they did not understand the State and absolutely refused to join. What did they end up with? Near genocide, then Reservations with boundaries ... which = State.

By advocating for a state, one can say with 100% certainty that unprovoked coercive and physical violence against objectively sovereign individuals will occur, as you acknowledge. The presumption is that the violence will be minimal, under a minarchist system. This has been shown by history to be a very temporary condition. Furthermore - again - advocating "a little" violence is still advocating against the violation of the inherent, objective and observable sovereignty of individuals. It's "a little" pregnant.

I'm reminded of the story attributed to Shaw, I believe, who was said to have propositioned a fine looking lady at a Parisian salon with sex for some-thousands of francs. She agreed to his proposition; but then he asked her if she would for just a few francs. "What kind of woman do you take me for!?", she sniffed. "We've already established that, ma'dam... now we're just haggling over the price", he replied.

 

[bolil]

I'd be an anarchist myself if i thought it wasnt impossible. There's *ZERO* chance it would work in todays world, too much hostility and very, very few ppl understand and respect private property. I think the most practical system that'd produce the least violence would be something similar to the articles of confederation except i'd go further and have a federal govt limited strictly to administrative duties, no power on force, security or military.

I can dig what your throwing down. Just save the Marine Corps.

 

[Travlyr]

In your opinion, land feuds may occur. I'm not aware of anyone having the ability to know the future other than God. In the past, land feuds have occurred, and at times have not occurred.



By advocating for a state, one can say with 100% certainty that unprovoked coercive and physical violence against objectively sovereign individuals will occur, as you acknowledge. The presumption is that the violence will be minimal, under a minarchist system. This has been shown by history to be a very temporary condition. Furthermore - again - advocating "a little" violence is still advocating against the violation of the inherent, objective and observable sovereignty of individuals. It's "a little" pregnant.

I'm reminded of the story attributed to Shaw, I believe, who was said to have propositioned a fine looking lady at a Parisian salon with sex for some-thousands of francs. She agreed to his proposition; but then he asked her if she would for just a few francs. "What kind of woman do you take me for!?", she sniffed. "We've already established that, ma'dam... now we're just haggling over the price", he replied.

It is interesting that people get on a soap box and claim, "I live and participate in the State, but since I advocate the absence of the State, then I claim the moral high road." It's phony. You can get down from the soap box now. You are no more morally right than the rest of us who have to live in its tyranny.

I understand why the State exists, I try to share my understanding with others. Even with all its warts, I try and point out how it can be beneficial for living free, peaceful, and prosperous lives. I also point out that it is the result of where we came from ... the evolution of societies and it is not going away. Like I said earlier, I don't mind it because I like to be in control of my life. My desire is to limit to no more than a night watchman style order.

But for some reason you have an incessant desire is to paint others as a violent creatures. Whatever floats your boat. When you can walk the talk, then you get the moral high road. Until then, you simply deny reality and point fingers.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

It is interesting that people get on a soap box and claim, "I live and participate in the State, but since I advocate the absence of the State, then I claim the moral high road." It's phony. You can get down from the soap box now. You are no more morally right than the rest of us who have to live in its tyranny.

I understand why the State exists, I try to share my understanding with others. Even with all its warts, I try and point out how it can be beneficial for living free, peaceful, and prosperous lives. I also point out that it is the result of where we came from ... the evolution of societies and it is not going away. Like I said earlier, I don't mind it because I like to be in control of my life. My desire is to limit to no more than a night watchman style order.

But for some reason you have an incessant desire is to paint others as a violent creatures. Whatever floats your boat. When you can walk the talk, then you get the moral high road. Until then, you simply deny reality and point fingers.

None of this attack on my character and brief synopsis of the evolution of the state does anything to change the fact that you positively advocate on behalf of an entity which cannot exist without intiating unprovoked violence against individuals.

 

[RiseAgainst]

Travlyr,

I walk the talk every day of my life, I initiate force on no one. The only thing I ask in return is that you afford me the same courtesy. If you choose not to afford me such a courtesy and insteas advocate a violent institution to satisfy your own personal desires, I will call you on it every time. Like the national socialists in the immigration thread, you seem terrified to admit what you are and defend it. If you believe using the force of a state to initiate violence to achieve your ends is the right thing to do then be PROUD to defend it.

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.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Travlyr,

I walk the talk every day of my life, I initiate force on no one.

Expect Travlyr to tell you that you as a prisoner must make a break for the fence. That is walking the walk in his estimation. So is getting shot in the back, apparently.

The only thing I ask in return is that you afford me the same courtesy. If you choose not to afford me such a courtesy and insteas advocate a violent institution to satisfy your own personal desires, I will call you on it every time. Like the national socialists in the immigration thread, you seem terrified to admit what you are and defend it. If you believe using the force of a state to initiate violence to achieve your ends is the right thing to do then be PROUD to defend it.

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.

I think this is probably a pretty accurate suspicion. Well said. I've always granted that I recognize the "utilitarian" argument on behalf of the state, but this irrational, unsupportable denial of the inherent, objective morality of the philosophy of the anti-statist position gives credence to your view.

Again, well said.

 

[Travlyr]

Both the State and Stateless societies beget violence. The State having a monopoly on violence is preferable to competing violence, imo. The public state gives people opportunity to minimize the violence through participation in governance. i.e. "Ignoring the Constitution has proven to be more violent and tyrannical than obeying it. Assassinations, Police State, Military Industrial Complex, Regulations, Prohibitions, and Funny Money are all a result of people ignoring the rules of law.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Both the State and Stateless societies beget violence. The State having a monopoly on violence is preferable to competing violence, imo.

Except you advocate that "your opinion" is imposed on others through force.

 

[Seraphim]

Then why is that American history shows that the more heavily armed the GENERAL POPULACE (law abiding citizens/non aggressors) is, the LESS violence there is? That defines competing violence.

Even the so called Wild West was MUCH less violent than America is today.

US history is a prime example that competing "enforcement" leads to more peace.

Nothing is perfect, of course, we cannot eradicate violence...but I think the history of your own country shows that competing enforecement (the citizens!!) works best!!

Peace

Both the State and Stateless societies beget violence. The State having a monopoly on violence is preferable to competing violence, imo. The public state gives people opportunity to minimize the violence through participation in governance. i.e. "Ignoring the Constitution has proven to be more violent and tyrannical than obeying it. Assassinations, Police State, Military Industrial Complex, Regulations, Prohibitions, and Funny Money are all a result of people ignoring the rules of law.

 

[Travlyr]

Then why is that American history shows that the more heavily armed the GENERAL POPULACE (law abiding citizens/non aggressors) is, the LESS violence there is? That defines competing violence.

Even the so called Wild West was MUCH less violent than America is today.

US history is a prime example that competing "enforcement" leads to more peace.

Nothing is perfect, of course, we cannot eradicate violence...but I think the history of your own country shows that competing enforecement (the citizens!!) works best!!

Peace

People in America respected the rule of law in days gone bye. That is what is missing in America today ... people ignore the Constitution.

 

[Seraphim]

Of course, but that correlation runs deep with the expanding of the State.

People in America respected the rule of law in days gone bye. That is what is missing in America today ... people ignore the Constitution.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

People in America respected the rule of law in days gone bye. That is what is missing in America today ... people ignore the Constitution.

When was it ever followed?

 

[Travlyr]

When was it ever followed?

The Constitution was followed fairly strictly prior to 1860. From then up until about 1930 it was not as closely followed, yet it still was the basis for rule of law. Cases in point: Senators were chosen by State legislatures; WWI was a declared war; Prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment; Gold & Silver was fully redeemable, etc. Certainly it wasn't followed to a T, but mostly the population revered the Constitution as the law of the land.

Shortly after 1913 the international bankers, who plotted against the American people, performed a clever peaceful coup d'état against the United States government with their propaganda and trickery. On Sunday, the weekend before Christmas 1913 with 1/3 of Congress already on vacation, congress performed massive compromises between the House & Senate versions of the bill and barely passed it into law. President Wilson was taken by surprise and was not going to sign it, but they forced his hand on December 23, 1913 and the American people gave the bankers a fine Christmas present which would haunt their grandchildren and great-grandchildren 100 years later.

The American Constitution was officially and effectively subverted with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Once the bankers had control, they shortly thereafter ousted all Senators and Representatives who voted against them and installed their own puppets. Then the international oligarchy set out to build an empire by taking over the media outlets, educational institutions, enslaving the world deeply in debt, and warring on the world to advance their mercantilism for profit and control.

 

[Conza88]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][...] Okay. So, it was all Wilson's fault. Before WW I, America was a shining city on a hill. Wilson really set us on the wrong course.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But wait. I think Lincoln is really the culprit here. For one, if the South had been allowed to secede, as was its right, or had won, World War I would not have turned out the way it did. So: no Lincoln, no War Between the States, no WWI, no WWII. (While we're at it, let's blame all the white slaveholders. They set in motion a chain of events that led to the War Between the States, just so they could have cheaper cotton.)
[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Okay, but before 1861, America was it. It was as close to minarchy as the world has seen (never mind ancient Ireland). Thank God for our liberty-minded forefathers, Jefferson, Madison and crew.[/FONT]

​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Hold on a second there. As Chantal Saucier has pointed out in these pages, the growth of the American Empire might be dated to Jefferson's unconstitutional expansion of empire with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Had the unconstitutional Louisiana Purchase not taken place, we might have avoided the War Between the States, WWI, WWII, et seq. Maybe I should take down the prints of Jefferson paintings on my office wall, oui?

On second thought, I think the trouble started a little bit further back. The Constitution as ratified in 1789 was fine as it was. Boy, what a great achievement. But the Bill of Rights was added in 1791. If this had not been done, then the so-called "incorporation doctrine" — whereby the Fourteenth Amendment was held to "incorporate" most of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights and apply them to the states — probably would never have been invented. Thus, the erosion of federalism caused by this federal seizure of power might never have happened, and there would be stronger structural limits on federal action in place today.

Who am I kidding. The real trouble really started two years earlier. The Framers in 1789 had already agreed to add a Bill of Rights, as the price for ratification. I think I need to push it back a couple more years, just to be safe — since the real problem is that the federal convention called in 1787 merely to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation exceeded its mandate by proposing a new Constitution. Which led, naturally, to the Bill of Rights, the War Between the States, WWI, WWII, and the erosion of federalism and hegemony of the central state. As Hoppe (Democracy, the God that Failed, p. 272) notes, the Americans "not only did not let the inherited royal institutions of colonies and colonial governments wither away into oblivion; they reconstituted them within the old political borders in the form of independent states, each equipped with its own coercive (unilateral) taxing and legislative powers. While this would have been bad enough, the new Americans made matters worse by adopting the American Constitution and replacing a loose confederation of independent states with the central (federal) government of the United States." We would have been much better off under the old Articles of Confederation. We were just fine, until then. Yes, that was America's golden age: from 1776 to 1787.

Except ... the transformation of the Union from confederation to federation, and ultimately to centralized, dominant state, was nothing but a natural result of the utopian idealism of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Why these guys thought they could cut the ties to the traditional, monarchical, constitutional order and set up a new political order imbued with the spirit of democracy in its stead, but limit its growth with mere paper documents and platitudes is beyond me. After all, it had never been done before. What was Jefferson thinking?[/FONT][...]
​

 

[Travlyr]

Separation of Money and State will liberate.

It is not Wilson, Lincoln, Jefferson, or Hamilton who are to blame for our woes. They have all since passed on. Nothing is perfect in our world, but America was the land of opportunity for many people for generations ... a refuge from tyranny abroad.

Counterfeiting is what enslaves. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 undermined the rule of law, and it legitimized the power to counterfeit for a small group of bankers who understood that mixing money with force is power.

Counterfeiters are also at the heart of violence. The only way a counterfeiter can stay in power is to jail or kill competition because if anyone and everyone is allowed to counterfeit money, then nobody's counterfeit money is any good. Since a counterfeiter's monopoly is required to maintain power, then police are required to ferret out any competition ... hence the aggressive initiation of force.

When the power to create money out-of-nothing is taken from the powers-in-charge, then the wars end, people become liberated, and prosperity ensues for the people.