Please convince me of statism!

[onlyrp]

In a free market, there would be no legalized right to use violence to make other people pay for your risky choices. Certain beaches might be profitable to insure, some might not.

........but there would be a legalized right to use violence in self defense?

 

[nayjevin]

Re: should we spend time predicting future occurrences in a free market?

I don't see why not. Just because it is impossible to know the exact future does not mean that it is not useful to make predictions based on historical fact and economic laws.

In other words, what value has predicting specifics when other options are available?

Each individual has a different goal. Getting people to understand 'liberty.' Getting people to understand Ron Paul. Preparing families for economic collapse. What value has free market prognostication, today, given the facts we have about the world?

The answer, in my mind, depends wholly on how out of control the currency collapse is. If tomorrow is bread lines, different answer than if tomorrow is a minor 'recovery' of the Dow.

So my answer to 'why not' is just that perhaps there are more prudent actions to take than to try to convince statists by creating free market scenarios. Or even that there's a more prudent way to convince statists than that, if that is the goal.

My opinion is that each has his calling, and we each struggle to determine the best route, and none should say for another what is or isn't worthy of time. But of course those who have a strong opinion of how time is best spent will spread their ideas, and should.

I'm not getting at 'ya'all are wasting your time,' that's not my point at all. Just curious if I can learn more from some bright minds as to how you've analyzed this subject.

 

[Conza88]

​

... the last one mostly.

 

[soulcyon]

Hahah great OP, I am now convinced of a stateless society xD

 

[Black Flag]

Thank you for the bumps... I appreciate the new opporunity for others to read the OP of this thread!

Just a FYI folks.. in case you decided to skip the last 50 pages; no, there still hasn't been a legitimate justification of the state... and the 'opposition' doesn't even seem to try.

...Opps, let's be clear, Conza.

There are plenty of "legitimate" justifications.....

There are no MORAL justifications.

 

[Conza88]

.. Yeah, I'm not sure how that adds any clarity.

 

[Black Flag]

.. Yeah, I'm not sure how that adds any clarity.

Hmmm....

Ok, think about this.

It is a legitimate desire to not be subject to someone's violence.
It is legitimate to organize a defense against someone wishing to do harm to you.
It is legitimate to gather allies in this defense.

...the legitimacy: self-defense.
...the moral way: voluntary defenders.
...the immoral way: conscription.

Statists certainly have many legitimate concerns - social justice, self-defense, norms of behavior... etc. In their mind, they justify the State because they see the State as a means to achieve or solve these legitimate concerns.

The nuance: is the means moral or immoral - is the means good or evil - to achieve these ends? This is where Statism fails - as it is inherently immoral and evil in its means to achieve these legitimate ends.

 

[Conza88]

There are plenty of "legitimate" justifications.....

There's a reason you put the word in quotation marks, and there's a reason I didn't.

 

[Voluntary Man]

I got nothing.

 

[Black Flag]

Conza88
And the reason is....?

 

[Conza88]

Legitimate; in the sense of being valid / correct / true / right...

Those who give "justifications" for the state are all wrong. They are engaged in a performative contradiction.

Your attempt to provide a distinction is completely erroneous. If you were trying to make a joke, sure I can understand that - but it appears you're serious?

You haven't clarified anything at all, in fact nothing I said needed clarification.

"there still hasn't been a legitimate justification of the state... and the 'opposition' doesn't even seem to try."

Yeah, you can try provide a justification for the state i.e arbitration, dispute resolution etc.. but it's not going to be legitimate [valid]. (The last point above indicates that those in this thread have hardly even tried to provide any of those arguments.. not good ones anyway).

They've all failed because they're trying to square a circle.

What consists of 'legitimacy' / valid I was using in regards to arguments put forward; they could be either moral, practical, whatever. You've just decided to re-case it as moral or not, big whoop.

...the legitimacy: self-defense.
...the moral way: voluntary defenders.
...the immoral way: conscription.

Yeah, and there's a fck load of stuff that statists want that ISN'T LEGITIMATE AS AN END GOAL.. and yet you've assumed as much in your "breakdown".

 

[Black Flag]

Legitimate; in the sense of being valid / correct / true / right...

So as often is the case, someone uses a word in a sentence without really knowing what the word means.


Legitimate:
1. according to law; lawful
2.in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.
3.(not applicable - has to do with children)
4.in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical: a legitimate conclusion.
5.resting on or ruling by the principle of hereditary right

Ok, now those are the definitions for "legitimate" - now which one does not apply to the State.

Is it legal? Yes (1) Check
Does it exist on a set of rules/standards? Yes (2) Check
Does it have legitimate children ...oops, irrelevant.
Does it exist within the laws of reason, can be logically inferred? Yes (4) Check
Does it exist by hereditary right - or does it exist because it has been around for a really long time? Yes (5) Check.

The "State" is only required to meet but one of these definitions - however, it meets all of the applicable definitions.

So how you can claim it does not have "legitimacy", I cannot understand.

Yeah, and there's a fck load of stuff that statists want that ISN'T LEGITIMATE AS AN END GOAL.. and yet you've assumed as much in your "breakdown".

Does everyone on this blog have memory problems or what?

To remind you - it was you who brought up the word 'legitimate' in your post and in a way and place that was -frankly- bizarre.

I was attempting to help you not trip into a pile of quicksand based on -what now is completely apparent- your misunderstanding of what "legitimate" means.

So, before you go off half-baked, and twice twisted - perhaps you need to review your own post and correct it.... that is, (what I believe you meant) use the word "moral" instead.

 

[Cabal]

Legitimate and moral are one in the same to me. If something is immoral, such as taxation, I'll never view it as legitimate regardless of what some law says.

 

[Black Flag]

Legitimate and moral are one in the same to me. If something is immoral, such as taxation, I'll never view it as legitimate regardless of what some law says.

Eek!
The definition I posted regarding "legitimate" blew right through you and you invented your own.....

So the (1) definition of legitimate - that which is legal....

Definition of moral:
founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities

So, for you - you believe that moral (right regardless of legal) is the same as legitimate (legal regardless of right or wrong)....

...having the conclusion that right,wrong,legal,not legal are all the same thing....

...whew!

 

[Cabal]

Oh yay, semantics...

il·le·git·i·mate
Logic . not in accordance with the principles of valid inference.

If I'm not mistaken this began with Conza claiming arguments for the State to be invalid (illegitimate) which is cohesive with the above definition since he was making arguments from logic, i.e. performative contradiction.

My point, however, was simply that laws which are immoral ought not be laws at all, if indeed there are to be laws.

 

[Conza88]

Oh yay, semantics...

il·le·git·i·mate
Logic . not in accordance with the principles of valid inference.

If I'm not mistaken this began with Conza claiming arguments for the State to be invalid (illegitimate) which is cohesive with the above definition since he was making arguments from logic, i.e. performative contradiction.

My point, however, was simply that laws which are immoral ought not be laws at all, if indeed there are to be laws.

F$cken spot on.

What absolute pretentious and erroneous bullshit is being spewed from the other conversant in this thread. Learn to differentiate between legal positivism / legislation and REAL LAW (principles) bro, jeezus

 

[Conza88]

Convince me LE

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Welcome back, Conza!

Maybe someone can take advantage of your return to finally present arguments to convince you -- and me! -- of the state. It certainly would be a lot easier to be able to join in solidarity with the vast majority of people, rather than holding an unpopular view. So please convince us!

 

[erowe1]

Welcome back, Conza!

Maybe someone can take advantage of your return to finally present arguments to convince you -- and me! -- of the state. It certainly would be a lot easier to be able to join in solidarity with the vast majority of people, rather than holding an unpopular view. So please convince us!

Nobody needs to convince me of the state. I've seen it with my own eyes.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Nobody needs to convince me of the state. I've seen it with my own eyes.

Yes, but convince me to support it -- to love it! -- and then I can stop opposing it and being dissatisfied.