Arguments for statism in a stateless society - Page 3 - Politics and Economics

uke_master · 08-09-2012, 02:09 PM

Well it would depend on what the problems were in this stateless society. Namely, if there was a profound externality of some kind that was widely agreed to be negative but to which the market was not supplying a solution to over some sufficiently long time, that would be kind of spot where government action should be at least considerd. Examples might include things like extreme poverty among various groups or air pollution or something like this. These also might not be problems, it just depends on how the society actually turns out and I think it is somewhat harder to predict what a stateless society would be like that some people (on either side of the argument) suggest. I don't know if it would be a utopia, a dystopia, or something in between.

Paul McSwizzle · 08-09-2012, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

There are quite often debates between statists and anti-statists in this forum. Most likely, neither of us has ever lived in a stateless society - we have all been born and raised under statism. Hence, all the debates that ever take place do so under statism too. In this thread, I would like us to imagine a hypothetical world in which there are no states and we're living in it. A significant group of people is advocating for the creation of a state.

For the purposes of this discussion, let's define "a state" in real simple terms to mean an institution of selected individuals who have the power to decide what is allowed and what is not allowed in the geographical territory on which that particular society is based. Note I'm not making any assumptions about how those individuals are selected, what limitations (if any) they have in their power, etc.

Let's imagine that we're the participants in this discussion. It requires a tiny bit of imagination, but let's give it a try. I know some of you may say we can't really imagine the stateless world because who knows how many things would be different than the world we live in now. But just to keep the conversation simpler, let's assume that the world today is quite similar to the hypothetical stateless world in which we're living.

Please let's try to keep it respectful on both sides. I will try to participate actively in the thread myself. Some of you might know that I'm an anti-statist, so that's the side I'm going to be on.

So, why should we establish a state?

I'll play, OP. Can I choose any life for myself, or am I to imagine a likely possibility? From there I'll determine whether I want/don't want a state, and why.

BadBoyBenny · 08-09-2012, 03:49 PM

That ****ing ******* who is building a tannery upstream from our houses is going to dump toxic chemicals in our drinking and fishing water. we should band together and enforce our collective will against people who want to do things like that.

la6ki · 08-09-2012, 04:48 PM

Alright, I had to cherry pick and ignore the troll posts because I intend this to be kind of a serious thread. Yours seems promising I think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul McSwizzle

I'll play, OP. Can I choose any life for myself, or am I to imagine a likely possibility? From there I'll determine whether I want/don't want a state, and why.

Let's imagine both of us are ordinary people that don't struggle with their survival but aren't living under extreme luxury either. Why do you want to establish a state? You can start with only one reason and then the conversation will evolve from there, no need to give all the reasons at once.

Case Closed · 08-09-2012, 04:52 PM

There is no stateless society. We are human apes we will always have a " an institution of selected individuals who have the power to decide what is allowed and what is not allowed in the geographical territory on which that particular society is based. " as long as there are humans like us there will be a state.

uke_master · 08-09-2012, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Case Closed

There is no stateless society. We are human apes we will always have a " an institution of selected individuals who have the power to decide what is allowed and what is not allowed in the geographical territory on which that particular society is based. " as long as there are humans like us there will be a state.

This is an argument for why there will always be hierarchal structures. It is not an argument for why that specific hierarchal structure is a state and not any of the other ones we come up.

FlyWf · 08-09-2012, 05:47 PM

But like, even the "ACists" generally want some organization to go around violently imposing compliance with social norms on people.

It seems baffling that their sincere issue is that it calls itself "government", that all this sanctimony about tyranny and freedom is about ****ing semantics.

Huehuecoyotl · 08-09-2012, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Case Closed

There is no stateless society. We are human apes we will always have a " an institution of selected individuals who have the power to decide what is allowed and what is not allowed in the geographical territory on which that particular society is based. " as long as there are humans like us there will be a state.

The state is a pretty modern invention. Empires, tribes, confederacies, existed before.

Paul D · 08-09-2012, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

The state is a pretty modern invention. Empires, tribes, confederacies, existed before.

Define modern and 'state'.

Case Closed · 08-09-2012, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

This is an argument for why there will always be hierarchal structures. It is not an argument for why that specific hierarchal structure is a state and not any of the other ones we come up.

Huh? I am just saying that a stateless society as defined by the OP is a fantasy. It is hard to argue for or against something that has never existed or even been tried.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

The state is a pretty modern invention. Empires, tribes, confederacies, existed before.

All those fall under the definition provided in the OP.

cres · 08-09-2012, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

The state is a pretty modern invention. Empires, tribes, confederacies, existed before.

a rose by any other name.......

so instead of the lady in the lake, or some other divine providence, commoners can now become the leaders of others..............yeah that never ever existed before.

Draidin · 08-09-2012, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Well it would depend on what the problems were in this stateless society. Namely, if there was a profound externality of some kind that was widely agreed to be negative but to which the market was not supplying a solution to over some sufficiently long time, that would be kind of spot where government action should be at least considerd. Examples might include things like extreme poverty among various groups or air pollution or something like this. These also might not be problems, it just depends on how the society actually turns out and I think it is somewhat harder to predict what a stateless society would be like that some people (on either side of the argument) suggest. I don't know if it would be a utopia, a dystopia, or something in between.

A government or state should not be involved in welfare. And neither should tax payers. But with out a state, how is there any currency?

Paul McSwizzle · 08-09-2012, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

Alright, I had to cherry pick and ignore the troll posts because I intend this to be kind of a serious thread. Yours seems promising I think.

Let's imagine both of us are ordinary people that don't struggle with their survival but aren't living under extreme luxury either. Why do you want to establish a state? You can start with only one reason and then the conversation will evolve from there, no need to give all the reasons at once.

Well, your hypothetical assumes that our society would have some semblance of civilization/would allow us to not struggle with our survival. Given this, I may or may not want to establish a state, depending. And in fact, I probably wouldn't. But I mean, that's sort of a problem, no? Like, of course if things were fine, I wouldn't feel a need to change the situation. But I think the primary argument against ACism is that things wouldn't necessarily be fine, and chaos would be more likely.

Huehuecoyotl · 08-09-2012, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul D

Define modern and 'state'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Case Closed

All those fall under the definition provided in the OP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cres

a rose by any other name.......

so instead of the lady in the lake, or some other divine providence, commoners can now become the leaders of others..............yeah that never ever existed before.

Yea I left out the the nation state part of the nation state is a relatively modern invention. As the OP has defined a state, then they have always existed in one way or another.

**Regret$** · 08-09-2012, 08:02 PM

Oh wow guys, more personal insults. Shocking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

Please let's try to keep it respectful on both sides.

0.00000000000000000% chance ITF.