Please convince me of statism!

[Conza88]

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

But I want to see the states existence justified! Is there no-one who can helpz meh?

 

[acptulsa]

But I want to see the state justified! Is there no-one who can helpz meh?

If you can't see by now that all but the rarest of free people choose leadership, be it good or bad, of their own free will, then no, there's no help for you. You will remain thick as a brick forever.

Can we change that? You've been trying and failing for at least four years. What's your problem? Can you preach to no one but the choir? Have you no tools but snark? Do better.

 

[Travlyr]

HOPPE: Mises thought it was necessary to have an institution that suppresses those people who cannot behave appropriately in society, people who are a danger because they steal and murder. He calls this institution government.

Thus the democratic state becomes, for Mises, a voluntary organization.

...

 

[Conza88]

If you can't see by now that all but the rarest of free people choose leadership, be it good or bad, of their own free will, then no, there's no help for you. You will remain thick as a brick forever.

Can we change that? You've been trying and failing for at least four years. What's your problem? Can you preach to no one but the choir? Have you no tools but snark? Do better.

See last quote.

Statists, you're not being of much help . It's like your position is irrational or something?
I'm still waiting for some arguments for statism

 

[Travlyr]

See last quote.

Statists, you're not being of much help . It's like your position is irrational or something?
I'm still waiting for some arguments for statism

HOPPE: Mises thought it was necessary to have an institution that suppresses those people who cannot behave appropriately in society, people who are a danger because they steal and murder. He calls this institution government.

Thus the democratic state becomes, for Mises, a voluntary organization.

Conza? Do you believe yourself?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

If you can't see by now that all but the rarest of free people choose leadership, be it good or bad, of their own free will, then no, there's no help for you. You will remain thick as a brick forever.

Can we change that? You've been trying and failing for at least four years. What's your problem? Can you preach to no one but the choir? Have you no tools but snark? Do better.

Didn't read the whole thread for context, but it is possible to have leadership in a voluntary, Stateless society. States have been failing for thousands of years. I don't think it's unreasonable to let some people try statelessness if they can leave everyone else alone.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

But I want to see the states existence justified! Is there no-one who can helpz meh?

Do you mean nation-states or States? Nations typically come about naturally because of geographical, linguistic, and cultural borders. Nation-states come about through conquest of the many by the few. The former is a pretty natural thing and can be justified by virtue of its natural occurrance. The latter, not so much.

 

[acptulsa]

Didn't read the whole thread for context, but it is possible to have leadership in a voluntary, Stateless society. States have been failing for thousands of years. I don't think it's unreasonable to let some people try statelessness if they can leave everyone else alone.

And the latter have been failing for millions of years.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

And the latter have been failing for millions of years.

How do you know? There hasn't been one yet. Stateless, yes-but voluntary as well, no. Historically, Stateless societies have been disorderly and "governed" by warlords and such.

As an aside, note also as an aside that Mises said in his book "Liberalism" that classical liberalism has never successfully been established. Were you to achieve a truly "liberal" (in the classical sense) society, it would be a first in world history.

 

[acptulsa]

How do you know? There hasn't been one yet.

They have been countless. You just don't notice them because they disappear so fast.

A state fails when the leaders chew and gnaw at their own limits until they can finally grow too big for their britches. Statelss societies fail as soon as the people get sick of working at cross purposes and get themselves some leadership. A process that doesn't take long, and leadership which is generally too big for its britches right out of the box.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

They have been countless. You just don't notice them because they disappear so fast.

A state fails when the leaders chew and gnaw at their own limits until they can finally grow too big for their britches. Statelss societies fail as soon as the people get sick of working at cross purposes and get themselves some leadership. A process that doesn't take long, and leadership which is generally too big for its britches right out of the box.

No, there haven't been "countless". Countless stateless societies, yes. But countless voluntary societies, no. (never in history, in fact)

 

[acptulsa]

No, there haven't been "countless". Countless stateless societies, yes. But countless voluntary societies, no. (never in history, in fact)

Surely there's an old hippie commune experimenter on here who can educate this child. Help me out here...

 

[Travlyr]

How do you know? There hasn't been one yet. Stateless, yes-but voluntary as well, no. Historically, Stateless societies have been disorderly and "governed" by warlords and such.

As an aside, note also as an aside that Mises said in his book "Liberalism" that classical liberalism has never successfully been established. Were you to achieve a truly "liberal" (in the classical sense) society, it would be a first in world history.

I don't follow what you are saying here. Explain please. Weren't the warlords in fact "rulers?"

Ron Paul - "We had a relative voluntary society in our early history."



To hold out for a perfect voluntary society is futile. A relative voluntary society is my goal.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Surely there's an old hippie commune experimenter on here who can educate this child. Help me out here...

Not a substitute for an argument. Name a Voluntaryist society in history. There hasn't even been a true classical liberal society.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't follow what you are saying here. Explain please. Weren't the warlords in fact "rulers?"

They were bullies, but they didn't "lead" anyone. They issued orders.

To hold out for a perfect voluntary society is futile. A relative voluntary society is my goal.

No, to hold out for a successful minarchist society is futile. Remember, there was a time when it was considered a fantasy that leaders would be elected at all or that blacks would be considered human on par with whites. Humanity eventually outgrew it (in the West, at least). We'll also outgrow our current state of affairs, simply because it isn't sustainable if for no other reason.

 

[acptulsa]

If a bunch of hippies aren't living together voluntarily, what's making them stay? Talk about no substitute for an argument...

They were bullies, but they didn't "lead" anyone. They issued orders.

These semantics are no substitute for an argument, either.

Oh, and what was so slanderous about the post above to warrant a meaningless negrep? The fact that I referred to your youth?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

If a bunch of hippies aren't living together voluntarily, what's making them stay? Talk about no substitute for an argument...



These semantics are no substitute for an argument, either.

Oh, and what was so slanderous about the post above to warrant a meaningless negrep? The fact that I referred to your youth?

Yes-you called me a "child". Generally, this is considered an insult when referring to a 30-year old person (especially in the condescending way you used it). Insults are against forum rules and generally poor discourse.

I wasn't using semantics as a substitute for an argument. You tried to argue that there have been "countless" voluntary societies, which isn't true. Voluntary association binds people all the time. Contracts, purchases, loans, tickets to events, etc, etc. Your "hippie commune" example was unrelated (unless these hippies have a some sort of binding agreement, which is not typical of hippie communes).
What binds states? All the legalese and mumbo-jumbo (such as "social contract") espoused by Federalists and their sympathizers have not stopped the usurpation of power and transfer of wealth by the regime.

 

[Theocrat]

Statism is Evil

I am intellectually honest and open to reason. If you would like to fix my unrealistic political philosophy, I eagerly await your enlightenment! I'm so sick and tired of being wrong.

Just a few things first; below are a few quotes that represent a nice summation of my anti-statist political philosophy. To cure me of my ills, you will need to adequately address the following.

Please help me!














What are your arguments for the state as defined above?

It's a good thing I'm not a statist.

 

[Travlyr]

No, to hold out for a successful minarchist society is futile. Remember, there was a time when it was considered a fantasy that leaders would be elected at all or that blacks would be considered human on par with whites. Humanity eventually outgrew it (in the West, at least). We'll also outgrow our current state of affairs, simply because it isn't sustainable if for no other reason.

We live in an imperfect world. To expect perfection in an imperfect world is futile. To work toward perfection is purposeful.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

We live in an imperfect world. To expect perfection in an imperfect world is futile. To work toward perfection is purposeful.

Quite right. One wonders why you're aiming short of perfection.