Please convince me of statism!

[erowe1]

You have an interesting way of defining "State" which I've not seen before. May I ask how you arrived at this?

Theft, kidnapping, and murder are always wrong. The ideal by which we should just any society is that all of them be reduced to nonexistence. But between where we are now, and that ideal of no theft, murder, or kidnapping, I don't see some clear threshold that can get crossed that signifies a shift from state to no state. And if there is some way of defining where such a threshold exists, I would probably regard that way as arbitrary and unimportant. The important threshold, and the one toward which we should always strive, even if we see it merely as an asymptote to approach, rather than a goal to achieve, is the elimination of all theft, murder, and kidnapping.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Coercion defines the state. Not theft, not murder, and not slavery. These are all things that always have and always will exist in human society. But asserting the authority to do these things as a right, and on behalf of some segment of society, is what defines the state.

Slavery was once regarded as a perfectly reasonable and natural human institution. It is not at all unreasonable to assume that at some point in the future humans will regard the state in the same way that the institution of slavery is now regarded.

 

[erowe1]

Coercion defines the state. Not theft, not murder, and not slavery. These are all things that always have and always will exist in human society. But asserting the authority to do these things as a right, and on behalf of some segment of society, is what defines the state.

Those are some typical kinds of coercion.

But yes, let's say "coercion defines the state." Doesn't that still support my point? If there exists any crucial threshold to cross at which point you can say we've achieved statelessness, then that threshold is the elimination of all coercion, because wherever coercion exists, there is the state. Right?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Those are some typical kinds of coercion.

But yes, let's say "coercion defines the state." Doesn't that still support my point? If there exists any crucial threshold to cross at which point you can say we've achieved statelessness, then that threshold is the elimination of all coercion, because wherever coercion exists, there is the state. Right?

Yes, achieving statelessness requires that there is no entity in society which asserts the authority - and enjoys general social sanction - to kill, steal, and kidnap. Killing, stealing, and kidnapping will exist without the state, but when humanity finally recognizes that these are evil acts always and everywhere, no matter who commits them, we will have acheived statelessness.

 

[erowe1]

Yes, achieving statelessness requires that there is no entity in society which asserts the authority - and enjoys general social sanction - to kill, steal, and kidnap. Killing, stealing, and kidnapping will exist without the state, but when humanity finally recognizes that these are evil acts always and everywhere, no matter who commits them, we will have acheived statelessness.

What does "general social sanction" mean?

And how can "humanity" finally realize something? Humanity doesn't have a mind, it's a bunch of individuals. And those individuals change their minds a lot, in addition to being born and dying, they never finally realize anything.

 

[Travlyr]

What is the point of these debates?

They seem like a way for people to push away their most likely allies.

Here are two facts that I consider nearly impossible to reject:
1) We are never going to have no state.
2) We are never going to have a federal government that obeys the Constitution.

It's like arguing about who would win in a fight between Superman and the Hulk.

The purpose of these debates is to get people to understand how to live free lives. To argue for statelessness would be to burn the constitutions or ignore them. That is what we endure today. That is the problem we have not the solution. The solution is to obey the law. End the Fed. It is an unconstitutional institution.

We won't have a government that ever 100% obeys the constitution, true enough, but just two generations ago they did obey it fairly closely. They respected it so much that they used an amendment to prohibit alcohol. Law makers in those days respected their profession and prosperity was abundant. The Fed must be ended and sound money implemented. It is the only way. It is not an impossible task, but it does require enough people working in the same direction to get it done.

 

[erowe1]

The purpose of these debates is to get people to understand how to live free lives. To argue for statelessness would be to burn the constitutions or ignore them. That is what we endure today.

Do you really believe that the problem we endure today is statelessness?

 

[Travlyr]

Do you really believe that the problem we endure today is statelessness?

I do. Big illegitimate government is tyrannical. A legitimate state, as John Locke points out, reins in tyranny and protects liberty. The Federal Reserve System is the enabler for illegitimate government who claims to have despotic power over its subjects. i.e. Kill lists. A proper state is needed.

The aim of such a legitimate government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its citizens, and to prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals. In doing this it provides something unavailable in the state of nature, an impartial judge to determine the severity of the crime, and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime. This is one of the main reasons why civil society is an improvement on the state of nature. An illegitimate government will fail to protect the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its subjects, and in the worst cases, such an illegitimate government will claim to be able to violate the rights of its subjects, that is it will claim to have despotic power over its subjects. - John Locke

 

[erowe1]

A legitimate state, as John Locke points out, reigns in tyranny

I assume you meant "reins." But I agree with the way you wrote it.

By the way, I notice that Locke doesn't call the legitimate government he refers to a state. I can conceive of a legitimate government, but I can't conceive of a legitimate state.

 

[Travlyr]

I assume you meant "reins." But I agree with the way you wrote it.

By the way, I notice that Locke doesn't call the legitimate government he refers to a state. I can conceive of a legitimate government, but I can't conceive of a legitimate state.

I did mean "reins" and edited it to reflect what I meant.

Mises defined the state this way. "We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society, the state;" I agree with him.

Can you imagine a stateless society that allows for ownership of land? I can't. I do not see how it is possible to allow for trespassing laws unless a state is formed. The original intent of the stateless society was to prevent land ownership because it was thought to be the source of violence. It still seems that way to me.

Nonetheless, If everyone in the United States wanted to stop the Federal Reserve from counterfeiting the currency, then government would be small and the people would be prosperous and mostly peaceful. That is essentially what Ron Paul's message is too.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

What does "general social sanction" mean?

And how can "humanity" finally realize something? Humanity doesn't have a mind, it's a bunch of individuals. And those individuals change their minds a lot, in addition to being born and dying, they never finally realize anything.

General social sanction means that the majority of people in society give legitimacy to the state.

I should have said, "but when a majority of humans finally recognize...".

The state doesn't seize legitimacy. It enjoys it because people believe it is a mythical entity which, though it is made up of human beings, has powers that a human being not acting under the auspices of the state does not have. Except for Travlyr. He's allowed to throat punch people. Especially anarchists. Because they - above all - threaten his liberty. I guess that's how it works - if you're a mental midget, you either work for the state, advocate for it, or are Travlyr.

 

[erowe1]

General social sanction means that the majority of people in society give legitimacy to the state.

I should have said, "but when a majority of humans finally recognize...".

The state doesn't seize legitimacy. It enjoys it because people believe it is a mythical entity which, though it is made up of human beings, has powers that a human being not acting under the auspices of the state does not have.

So if you can take a poll of society and the majority of the people don't approve of the state, that means the state doesn't exist any more?

And what's a society anyway? Can a society be a group of 3 people who meet in an alley where 2 of them (i.e. the majority) decide to rob the other? And if so, would that be the state?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

So if you can take a poll of society and the majority of the people don't approve of the state, that means the state doesn't exist any more?

If enough people in society individuals take the realization that the state has no legitimacy, and begin to deny its authority, yes, it essentially means that the state doesn't exist anymore.

And what's a society anyway? Can a society be a group of 3 people who meet in an alley where 2 of them (i.e. the majority) decide to rob the other? And if so, would that be the state?

No, the state is not just one or more people robbing another. Certainly that's a key characteristic of the state. It is that entity which enjoys a monopoly on force within a given geographic region. But, again, if enough people reject that it has this monopoly, then it no longer has it, because the state depends upon a compliant population.

One person can stand up in the middle of a room of 50 people and declare himself the state, and start demanding that people pay a tax to him, "or else", but if everyone tells him to bugger off, he isn't much of a state.

 

[erowe1]

It is that entity which enjoys a monopoly on force within a given geographic region.

When three people are in an alley and two of them are robbing the other, don't those two have a monopoly of force in that alley?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

When three people are in an alley and two of them are robbing the other, don't those two have a monopoly of force in that alley?

At that moment, they do. However, the victim isn't defending their right to rob him, and if two more people who recognize theft as theft every time they see it come along and assist the man being robbed, they no longer have a monopoly on force.

The state is as much a state of mind as anything else.

 

[erowe1]

At that moment, they do. However, the victim isn't defending their right to rob him, and if two more people who recognize theft as theft every time they see it come along and assist the man being robbed, they no longer have a monopoly on force.

The state is as much a state of mind as anything else.

So any time some regime rules over its subjects without the consent of at least half of them, you say such a regime is not a state?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

So any time some regime rules over its subjects without the consent of at least half of them, you say such a regime is not a state?

I'm saying that if the people reject the state - refuse to obey its edicts, refuse to serve in its offices, etc., then it doesn't exist anymore.

The state is made up of people. If a certain threshold of people don't give it legitimacy, sanction, power, etc., then it cannot function as a state.

 

[erowe1]

If a certain threshold of people don't give it legitimacy, sanction, power, etc., then it cannot function as a state.

Is there an objective definition of that threshold?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Is there an objective definition of that threshold?

There's not a quantifiable one, that I'm aware of. I'm not sure what you'd be looking for in terms of an "objective definition".

 

[erowe1]

There's not a quantifiable one, that I'm aware of. I'm not sure what you'd be looking for in terms of an "objective definition".

The problem I'm having is that the way I read what you're saying, you're illustrating what I said when I said:

Theft, kidnapping, and murder are always wrong. The ideal by which we should just any society is that all of them be reduced to nonexistence. But between where we are now, and that ideal of no theft, murder, or kidnapping, I don't see some clear threshold that can get crossed that signifies a shift from state to no state. And if there is some way of defining where such a threshold exists, I would probably regard that way as arbitrary and unimportant. The important threshold, and the one toward which we should always strive, even if we see it merely as an asymptote to approach, rather than a goal to achieve, is the elimination of all theft, murder, and kidnapping.

It seems like you're not willing to define the state simply by what the state does, but also by the presence of some number of people who "give it legitimacy."

But if you can't quantify objectively what that number of people is, then how can it be part of the definition? On the other hand, if you don't include that as part of your definition, then you're back to defining the state according to what it does, without regard for however many people "give it legitimacy."