Please convince me of statism!

[Conza88]

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!

1. "This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of [a free society] and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the [voluntarist] alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives.
   
   Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt.
   
   And suppose then that someone suggested: "We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other."
   
   I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of "who will guard the guardians?" becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence." - Society Without a State, Rothbard

2. Assume a group of people, aware of the possibility of conflicts; and then someone proposes, as a solution to this eternal human problem, that he (someone) be made the ultimate arbiter in any such case of conflict, including those conflicts in which he is involved. I am confident that he will be considered either a joker or mentally unstable and yet this is precisely what all statists propose.— Hans-Hermann Hoppe

3. The state operates in a legal vacuum. There exists no contract between the state and its citizens. It is not contractually fixed, what is actually owned by whom, and what, accordingly, is to be protected. It is not fixed, what service the state is to provide, what is to happen if the state fails in its duty, nor what the price is that the “customer” of such “service” must pay. Rather, the state unilaterally fixes the rules of the game and can change them, per legislation, during the game. Obviously, such behavior is inconceivable for freely financed security providers. Just imagine a security provider, whether police, insurer or arbitrator, whose offer consisted in something like this: I will not contractually guarantee you anything. I will not tell you what I oblige myself to do if, according to your opinion, I do not fulfill my service to you - but in any case, I reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay me for such undefined service. Any such security provider would immediately disappear from the market due to a complete lack of customers. — Hans-Hermann Hoppe

4. “A tax-funded protection agency is a contradiction in terms - an expropriating property protector - and will inevitably lead to more taxes and less protection. Even if, as some - classical liberal - statists have proposed, a government limited its activities exclusively to the protection of pre-existing private property rights, the further question of how much security to produce would arise. Motivated (like everyone else) by self-interest and the disutility of labor, but endowed with the unique power to tax, a government agent’s answer will invariably be the same: To maximize expenditures on protection - and almost all of a nation’s wealth can conceivably be consumed by the cost of protection - and at the same time to minimize the production of protection.”
   — Hans-Hermann Hoppe

5. As for the kindergarten [level] argument, it does not follow from the fact that the state provides roads and schools that only the state can provide such goods. People have little difficulty recognising that this is a fallacy. From the fact that monkeys can ride bikes it does not follow that only monkeys can ride bikes. And second, immediately following, it must be recalled that the state is an institution that can legislate and tax; and hence, that state agents have little incentive to produce efficiently. State roads and schools will only be more costly and their quality lower. For there is always a tendency for state agents to use up as many resources as possible doing whatever they do but actually work as little as possible doing it. — Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Reflections on the Origin and the stability of the State
   http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe18.html

6. Daily Bell: Are you denying, then, that we need the state to defend us?
   
   Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Indeed. The state does not defend us; rather, the state aggresses against us and it uses our confiscated property to defend itself. The standard definition of the state is this: the state is an agency characterized by two unique, logically connected features.
   
   

   1. The state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making. That is, the state is the ultimate arbiter and judge in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself and its agents. There is no appeal above and beyond the state.
   2. The state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of taxation. That is, it is an agency that can unilaterally fix the price that its subjects must pay for the state’s service as ultimate judge.

   Based on this institutional set-up you can safely predict the consequences.
   
   

   1. Instead of preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will cause and provoke conflict in order to settle it to its own advantage. That is, the state does not recognize and protect existing law, but it perverts law through legislation. Contradiction number one: the state is a law-breaking law protector.
      
      
   2. Instead of defending and protecting anyone or anything, a monopolist of taxation will invariably strive to maximize his expenditures on protection and at the same time minimize the actual production of protection. The more money the state can spend and the less it must work for this money, the better off it is. Contradiction number two: the state is an expropriating property protector.

7. Acquiescence - Is the most consequentially neglected word in political science. Alone it establishes that tax is theft and government criminal by giving a name for something that is between consent and confrontation.
   
   The concept of acquiescence, and even the word, is often lumped incorrectly with consent, thereby confusing submission in the face of overwhelming force with consent chosen freely. For example, if people evade tax, they face imprisonment and further extortion. So the payment of tax no more proves consent than the payment of a ransom transforms kidnapping into mere babysitting.
   
   This is not to say that everyone who lives under government would rise up against it if they could. Rather, it is to point out that acquiescing to government is no evidence of consent. So defenders of government cannot point to widespread acquiescence as evidence of consent. They must get written, signed and witnessed contracts if they want to say they are legitimate. And such an institution, with written, signed and witnessed contracts, would resemble a free market entity, not government. - Benjamin Marks

What are your arguments for the state as defined above?

 

[Jake Ralston]

Warning: This is a trap. Don't fall for it.

Conza88 is actually dealt with quite easily if you use the right approach.

Just remind him that he will never see the fruits of his labor, and agree with him that you are ignorant, intellectually dishonest, and close minded.

And with that, Conza88 will be successfully dismantled.

*Caveat Emptor* He may respond with more insults and/or fallacies he will throw at you. Take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Krugerrand]

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?

Obviously you fail to appreciate the importance and value of the state.

Therefore you need to surrender your rights, freedoms, (and most importantly) assets, so that elected officials and (more commonly) non-elected bureaucrats can make decisions on your behalf, lest you hurt yourself or (worse yet) make a decision that is not in the best interest of the state.

Attempts to resist may result in you getting hurt by the state.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

*statist rushes to thread*

"How dare you seek to deny me the right to boss you around!?!"

 

[acptulsa]

Ah, Conza. How wonderful to have you back just in time for you to piss off primary voters.

It seems to me that you of all people would understand that if you want to limit the state, you have to first establish a state with defined limits. This codified the limitations of the state into law, philosophy and national definition of character. Without these things, any charlaitan who can gain the confidence of the people can create a state around himself which gives him or her unlimited power. Just like James Jones of Jonestown. Just like Idi Amin Dada. Just as has happened in the really really world time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. And you can't argue logically against it, because there's no logical reason for it. All you can do is acknowledge that human nature abhors a vacuum, and so this has happened time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.

The U.S. Constitution has been a major speed bump in the road to tyranny for two hundred years. No nation has rushed toward tyranny more slowly in our lifetimes than the one with the U.S. Constitution. And we and Ron Paul are poised to use the U.S. Constitution to set back the cause of tyranny two hundred years--right now. Which would certainly be better than letting charismatic psychopaths do away with this Constitution, this philosophy, this speed bump in the road to tyranny as has been done around the world time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.

So, point to Somalia and tell us again all about how they were better off than us--for about five minutes. I'll be here--yawning.

Nothing has done more to codify and preserve semi-ancapism in the world than the United States Constitution. Nothing. Anywhere. Ever. So excuse me while I try to preserve, protect and defend it. With or without your help.

What do you say, Jake? Am I in a trap?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Ah, Conza. How wonderful to have you back just in time for you to piss off primary voters.

Tired meme is tired.

I'm unconvinced that a philosophical debate on a hidden sub-forum is the great Achilles Heel of the campaign.

Especially when 9/11 Truth and Alex Jones topics frequently crop up in the General Politics forum.

It seems to me that you of all people would understand that if you want to limit the state, you have to first establish a state with defined limits. This codified the limitations of the state into law, philosophy and national definition of character. Without these things, any charlaitan who can gain the confidence of the people can create a state around himself which gives him or her unlimited power. Just like James Jones of Jonestown. Just like Idi Amin Dada. Just as has happened in the really really world time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. And you can't argue logically against it, because there's no logical reason for it. All you can do is acknowledge that human nature abhors a vacuum, and so this has happened time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.

The U.S. Constitution has been a major speed bump in the road to tyranny for two hundred years. No nation has rushed toward tyranny more slowly in our lifetimes than the one with the U.S. Constitution. And we and Ron Paul are poised to use the U.S. Constitution to set back the cause of tyranny two hundred years--right now. Which would certainly be better than letting charismatic psychopaths do away with this Constitution, this philosophy, this speed bump in the road to tyranny as has been done around the world time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.

200 years? The constitution didn't prevent the Alien & Sedition Acts, Lincoln, TR, Wilson, the 16th Amendment, the Federal Reserve, FDR nor any of the disastrous second half of the 20th Century.

So, point to Somalia and tell us again all about how they were better off than us--for about five minutes. I'll be here--yawning.

Again, how many times are we supposed to roll this boulder back up the mountain?

 

[Conza88]

Yo guys, I know you are trying to help... but I didn't see any arguments supporting the state? Nor did you guys address my flawed reasoning in the quotes above.

This makes me sad.

 

[acptulsa]

Again, how many times are we supposed to roll this boulder back up the mountain?

Oh, come on. You've flamed me better than that in years past.

I wish I knew how many times we had to roll that boulder back up the mountain, Conza. Wish I knew why I had to keep repainting the house and checking for termites, too. But as long as that boulder takes two hundred years, rather than Somalia's five minutes, to roll back down, I'll keep up the hard work.

Oh, and in case you didn't notice, the Alien and Sedition acts were repealed, Teddy couldn't get elected when he tried to stage a comeback, all of Wilson's abuses were repudiated by Harding's election and repealed in short order (setting up the Roaring Twenties), Lincoln did manage to free a bunch of literal slaves (is this a bad thing in your book?) though the way he did it was very ugly, and we're working on the rest right now. Gotta crawl before you can walk, you know. As opposed to Somalia, which just keeps slipping and sliding into totalitarianism at an amazingly fast rate.

I know how you hate debating practical matters, though. So feel free to resort to flaming any time. I still have enough scar tissue from four years ago; I can take it.

 

[Conza88]

Obviously you fail to appreciate the importance and value of the state.

Therefore you need to surrender your rights, freedoms, (and most importantly) assets, so that elected officials and (more commonly) non-elected bureaucrats can make decisions on your behalf, lest you hurt yourself or (worse yet) make a decision that is not in the best interest of the state.

Attempts to resist may result in you getting hurt by the state.

I want to be taught how to love my masters, I swears it! Please teach me how to live on my knees!

*statist rushes to thread*

"How dare you seek to deny me the right to boss you around!?!"

I'm so sorry ruler, I won't do it again.

 

[Travlyr]

In Carnegie's book, "How to Win Friends and Influence People" Dale points out that none of us want to be wrong and none of us will take responsibility for being wrong. In the end we are all doing what we think is right. As you have defined statism you are not wrong, imo. But we don't have time to educate the voters and we do not have the bully pulpit. We have lives to save.

Laymen do not understand the language of Philosophers. Statism as you defined it is not a State the way VOTERS understand it. We need millions and millions of Republican voters NOW who will pull the handle for Ron Paul. Otherwise, many more people will suffer. You are not wrong philosophically because philosophy is not realism, but if we let the cart get in front of the horse ... we crash. We need VOTERS.

The best hope we have at the present time to achieve a Mises / Rothbardian type liberty is to elect Ron Paul as President of the United States of America. If we get that done in 2012, then many lives will be saved. Ron Paul needs millions of Republican voters to go to the polling booth and check the box next to his name: Republican for President -> Ron Paul.

If you and the Son of Liberty will take a few minutes of your valuable time to survey your surroundings and ask your fellow citizens on the street, at the grocery store, business owners, ranchers, or senior centers, etc., "What does anarchy mean to you?" You will find that virtually zero people understand it the way you do. But they are going to vote for whoever the TV tells them to vote for. They will not vote for anarchy in 2012. Teaching the philosophy is fine, but we have to win the election NEXT YEAR in order to save lives. It is about people who believe voting is their right and duty.

Ron Paul 2012 - "Defender of Liberty and supporter of the Constitution"


On another note,
I misunderstood this statement, "Thus the democratic state becomes, for Mises, a voluntary organization" to mean that a voluntary society would be possible under say, the State of Wyoming for example. Why is that not right? In your words, what did Hoppe mean when he said that?

 

[Conza88]

So, point to Somalia and tell us again all about how they were better off than us--for about five minutes. I'll be here--yawning.

"When dealing with the warlord objection, we need to keep our comparisons fair. It won’t do to compare society A, which is filled with evil, ignorant savages who live under anarchy, with society B, which is populated by enlightened, law-abiding citizens who live under limited government. The anarchist doesn’t deny that life might be better in society B. What the anarchist does claim is that, for any given population, the imposition of a coercive government will make things worse. The absence of a State is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to achieve the free society.

To put the matter differently: It is not enough to demonstrate that a state of private-property anarchy could degenerate into ceaseless war, where no single group is strong enough to subjugate all challengers, and hence no one can establish “order.” After all, communities living under a State degenerate into civil war all the time. We should remember that the frequently cited cases of Colombia and now Iraq are not demonstrations of anarchy-turned-into-chaos, but rather examples of government-turned-into-chaos.

For the warlord objection to work, the statist would need to argue that a given community would remain lawful under a government, but that the same community would break down into continuous warfare if all legal and military services were privatized. The popular case of Somalia, therefore, helps neither side.http://mises.org/daily/1855#_edn1 It is true that Rothbardians should be somewhat disturbed that the respect for non-aggression is apparently too rare in Somalia to foster the spontaneous emergence of a totally free market community. But by the same token, the respect for “the law” was also too weak to allow the original Somali government to maintain order."~ Bob Murphy​

 

[Travlyr]

I'm unconvinced that a philosophical debate on a hidden sub-forum is the great Achilles Heel of the campaign.

Seriously? Why not ask? Go to your nearest senior center and ask what anarchy means to them. You think for one second that the oligarchs won't use anarchy against Ron Paul again? Do it. Learn for yourself. Or put liberty off for another decade while undermining Ron Paul's campaign cash.

 

[acptulsa]

After all, communities living under a State degenerate into civil war all the time.

And arguably the U.S. has been in a constant state of civil war. But thanks to the mechanisms of the U.S. Constitution, it has only devolved into widespread intranacine bloodshed once in all that time. For this reason, I love our Constitution. And will continue to do so.

And thank you for addressing the issue in a substantive way for once--even if you did have to cut and paste to do it.

 

[Conza88]

And arguably the U.S. has been in a constant state of civil war.

Guys, this is an argument against statism... Can't anyone provide at least one argument for statism?

But thanks to the mechanisms of the U.S. Constitution, it has only devolved into widespread intranacine bloodshed once in all that time. For this reason, I love our Constitution. And will continue to do so.

By the very same reasoning, why don't you love the articles of confederation?

And thank you for addressing the issue in a substantive way for once--even if you did have to cut and paste to do it.

You set up a strawman, I knocked it down. Copy and paste is all I need because I'm yet to see an argument for the state I haven't already refuted somewhere else.

 

[Travlyr]

Ah, Conza. How wonderful to have you back just in time for you to piss off primary voters.

It seems to me that you of all people would understand that if you want to limit the state, you have to first establish a state with defined limits. This codified the limitations of the state into law, philosophy and national definition of character. Without these things, any charlaitan who can gain the confidence of the people can create a state around himself which gives him or her unlimited power. Just like James Jones of Jonestown. Just like Idi Amin Dada. Just as has happened in the really really world time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. And you can't argue logically against it, because there's no logical reason for it. All you can do is acknowledge that human nature abhors a vacuum, and so this has happened time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.

The U.S. Constitution has been a major speed bump in the road to tyranny for two hundred years. No nation has rushed toward tyranny more slowly in our lifetimes than the one with the U.S. Constitution. And we and Ron Paul are poised to use the U.S. Constitution to set back the cause of tyranny two hundred years--right now. Which would certainly be better than letting charismatic psychopaths do away with this Constitution, this philosophy, this speed bump in the road to tyranny as has been done around the world time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.

So, point to Somalia and tell us again all about how they were better off than us--for about five minutes. I'll be here--yawning.

Nothing has done more to codify and preserve semi-ancapism in the world than the United States Constitution. Nothing. Anywhere. Ever. So excuse me while I try to preserve, protect and defend it. With or without your help.

+ rep
Well Said.

Conza if you and Son of Liberty cannot understand this ^^^ then how can you claim intellectual honesty?
Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to not repeat the good parts. - acptulsa
Conza... think history --- the election of 2008
And there it is in a nutshell.

 

[acptulsa]

Guys, this is an argument against statism... Can't anyone provide at least one argument for statism?

Sure, Conza. Everyplace is in a constant state of civil war, but elsewhere, where there is no Constitution to legitimize it as a peaceful political process, it is far, far, far bloodier and uglier.

As I mentioned in the part of my post you oh so conveniently snipped because it didn't support your worthless snark.

Bye, Conza. [/banging head against thick as a brick wall]

 

[Conza88]

Sure, Conza. Everyplace is in a constant state of civil war, but elsewhere, where there is no Constitution to legitimize it as a peaceful political process, it is far, far, far bloodier and uglier.

See quote 1. Begs the question fallacy. Still haven't provided me an argument for the state...

As I mentioned in the part of my post you oh so conveniently snipped because it didn't support your worthless snark.

Too slow, try again.

Also can someone please let me know if Trav provides an argument for the state? [Currently on ignore list]

I think he may be my only hope.

 

[acptulsa]

One's best hope is on one's ignore list, yet we are expected to believe one wants what one asks for. Counterproductive, much? Hey, let's all follow the counterproductive guy's advice... :rolleys:

In case you haven't noticed, Conza, we're kind of busy trying to hold a civil, bloodless revolution up here. Lead from afar, follow ('cause God knows your nation needs it more than ours does), or stay the hell out of the way.

 

[Krugerrand]

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

 

[Conza88]

One's best hope is on one's ignore list, yet we are expected to believe one wants what one asks for. Counterproductive, much? Hey, let's all follow the counterproductive guy's advice... :rolleys:

In case you haven't noticed, Conza, we're kind of busy trying to hold a civil, bloodless revolution up here. Lead from afar, follow ('cause God knows your nation needs it more than ours does), or stay the hell out of the way.

Yeah, I noticed... I've even participated. And quite easily argued, I've done more for liberty in your country [that which I'm not even a member of] than you have in your own.

Kind of says alot about me, and alot about you - wouldn't you think?

But seriously, if you want to get all nationalistic - something really stupid to do - Australia is ahead of the United States in every reputable freedom index there is. Not that either of us has directly done anything to achieve, which is why said comparisons is dumb.