Arguments for statism in a stateless society - Page 9 - Politics and Economics

razrback · 08-11-2012, 02:46 AM

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.

You realize you are just asserting your conclusion here and providing absolutely no substance or logic to support it, right?

I disagree, by the way, with your assertion that because something exists right now it has always and will always exist. Again, doesn't pass the smell test.

zikzak · 08-11-2012, 02:51 AM

ITT razrback has an awfully sore butt.

razrback · 08-11-2012, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cres

There is a reason societies advance AFTER they form more structured associations.

But all this want to revert to an earlier happier

time is interesting. Was it really that much more enjoyable in kindergarten, where responsibilities didn't exist? Or as 10 year olds with unlimited summers of freedom and always weekends to play.

Those that still cling to the superworld they could have, you must realize all that you currently have would not be there, in the beginning. So to even get close to what you currently have, you'd need to form the very structure you claim to detest.

[x] Most vague post ITT Award

Seriously, WTF is a "structured association"? Who uses that phrase?

I "cling to a superworld I could have"?

I must realize that everything I have could not be here without a gang of armed thugs warring with each other and their own citizens as a significant backdrop to all economic activity?

Its like you want to brainwash others so bad its slipping through as you type. Are you a junior high teacher by any chance?

**MrWookie** · 08-11-2012, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razrback

a) actual real world Earth has turned into economic rape of every sort.

b) You believe violent theft is completely A-OK. Fine, whatever. I just think its wrong and that a society of people shouldn't be subjugated to arbitrary violence and theft. We'll agree to disagree.

c) Find it ironic that you are worried about anarchy turning into "economic rape" yet you believe systematized violence and theft headed by elite interest groups should cover every corner of the world. Very ironic.

And yet, you actually want to vote for Mitt Romney, who wants to steal your money violently.

razrback · 08-11-2012, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

So, let's say I start up a home owners association to keep out gay people. I don't like the gays, and I don't want them living near me. Thankfully, many of my neighbors feel the same way. We get together and all sign contracts stating that we aren't gay, that we won't sell to gay people, that should any home owner catch the gay he or she will be required to put his or her house up for sale within 30 days of the first gay act or be subject to a 1 oz of gold per day fine after those 30 days payable equally to each HOA household, that upon sale of any house in this HOA the new owners must also sign this contract or the previous owners are subject to the same fine, and that any changes to this contract must be approved by a majority of households that have agreed to this contract. Simple, completely voluntary, and an inevitability -- thats a pretty strong word for such contrived detail, strong enough to set off the snake oil warning alarm -- in stateless society. OK.

But people come and people go. The new owners sign the contract dutifully, of course, and my neighborhood remains a gay-free zone. However, some dude across the, well, dirt path that separates our homes gets the HOA members together and says that my grass is too tall. I like my tall grass. It's easy to maintain, looks pleasing to me, and it's all natural. However, I live next to a bunch of mowers. They think yards should look like putting greens. I like golf, but let's keep that putting green to one spot, OK? No, they get together, and, as was in that infernal clause in the contract, vote 55-1 to require that grass in the front lawn be no taller than 4 inches, otherwise the household owes one ounce of gold payable equally to the other households per day that the grass is over that length. WTF? I didn't agree to this! They're taking my freedom! I'm tempted to go suck a dick just to spite them.

You made an exchange that resulted in a significant psychic loss, where you've decided what you've given up far exceeds what you've gained.

You will tend to avoid similar exchanges in the future. You may even seek redress of some sort

Should you make efforts to relocate, you will likely do (or pay an agent to do) far greater inquiry on the HOA contract in an attempt to avoid psychic loss incurred from prior laziness/misjudgement.

razrback · 08-11-2012, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

And yet, you actually want to vote for Mitt Romney, who wants to steal your money violently.

LOL dude common, low blow.

For the record, I would not only not vote for Mitt Romney, who I believe is the scummiest politician on national stage this century, but I will never vote period, not for Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or even the ghost of Murray Rothbard.

Paul D · 08-11-2012, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razrback

LOL dude common, low blow.

For the record, I would not only not vote for Mitt Romney, who I believe is the scummiest politician on national stage this century, but I will never vote period, not for Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or even the ghost of Murray Rothbard.

razrback · 08-11-2012, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

And yet, even in "voluntary" arrangements, it's possible to wind up getting "coerced."

Coercion as a principle.

razrback · 08-11-2012, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

AFAIK nobody on this forum has actually embraced true voluntarism. You just draw your lines as to what you want coerced differently than others.

Once again you invoke the same fallacy that I (sarcastically) wrecked in your previous post.

Can you just give it up?

razrback · 08-11-2012, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regret$

Let's say in ACLand that our primary export is alcohol (hurray!). Those crazy mexicans might be cutting into our turf with their sweet hemp blossoms. It would be quite profitable for our alcohol salesmen, wheat farmers, and cotton growers to band together, twacking anyone who dares to oppose us with our stick of righteousness. Now we have made our competitors illegals and will have all the profits to ourselves.

"band together and twack anyone who dares oppose us", wow what compelling logic you've built into your theory. Yes, indeed, a great example you've provided.

Product A comes along and is superior to Product B. Product B, having begun to lose threatening amounts of revenue to Product A, subjugates an entire market economy, including the increasingly strong Product A industry, plus millions of people and the non-involved industries they patronize, and the domain over their every economic transaction by ______________.

Walk me through that part of the business strategy proposed by these Product B industry CEOs.

la6ki · 08-11-2012, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leavesofliberty

This is a better way to approach the question imo. I should probably do a post sometime on my ideas of how a free society might come to pass, what a paradigm shift would look like, and how institutions would re-shape themselves with this new paradigm. It is perhaps utopic, perhaps not. I simply entertain the idea of the stateless society through a paradigm shift, because I have not found any other political philosophy to be at all fulfilling. I feel as though humans are stuck on a Möbius strip. I do not believe however that anyone is going to come together and agree that statism doesn't work. What 'works' is purely subjective anyway. The status quo 'works'. I mean, people do vote and there are outcomes, and there is some idea of what is 'law'. I just do not consider it to be social order, but rather social disintegration.

add: and what I mean also by "towns" as opposed to city-states, I still prefer "towns"

The status quo bias is definitely a huge factor. I don't think statelessness is utopian and I hope I manage to present sound arguments here. But glad to see you thinking about these issues in a non-biased manner, rather than blindly accepting one of the two positions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XxGodJrxX

I think what you are describing here is the beginning of the formation of a state, even though that is not your intent. I am oversimplifying, but there is basically a two-step process to the formation of a state on your planet. You understand that there are people that will inflict violence upon you if you do not protect yourself, and that is why you are paying people to do it for you. That is step one. When those people you are paying to protect you say they want more, and you recognize that you do not have a choice, that is step two.

Security is just a service. Like producing shoes or washing your car. There is no such thing as you being forced to pay for a service. If you don't like the service of one organization, you stop using it and move to another one. Unless the organization is called a state and the majority voluntarily give up some of their freedom to give it a lot of power and the right to be a monopoly. But this is certainly given by the people. If all people withdrew their support of the state, it wouldn't manage to continue to exist.

Quote:

You are making the assertion that there is a choice as to whether a state is formed. If I asked you whether you have a choice as to whether you will ever eat again, you would certainly say yes, but with the caveat that if you do not, you will die. I would argue that you have the same choice here: you can submit to the people that threaten you with violence, or you can bear their wrath.

Again, you're raising the issue of the inevitability of the state, which I already said I'm not interested in. Of course people do have a choice in theory. They just should have a high intolerance towards big concentrations of power and monopolies, thus never supporting them directly or indirectly. You can say that this is impossible because it's "human nature" to be sheep, but I'm totally unimpressed by such arguments. Firstly, because they're not based on anything, other than people's subjective "observations" of humans. From my 8 years of studying psychology and cognitive science, I haven't seen any evidence of such "human nature", mainly because the role of "nature" is overly exaggerated while the role of culture and environment underestimated big time.

If you want to argue for the inevitability of the state, this simply isn't the thread. If you want to discuss the necessity, let's do it in the context of the hypothetical new planet.

XxGodJrxX · 08-11-2012, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la6ki

Security is just a service. Like producing shoes or washing your car. There is no such thing as you being forced to pay for a service. If you don't like the service of one organization, you stop using it and move to another one. Unless the organization is called a state and the majority voluntarily give up some of their freedom to give it a lot of power and the right to be a monopoly. But this is certainly given by the people. If all people withdrew their support of the state, it wouldn't manage to continue to exist.

This is where you are wrong, as evidenced by thousands of years of history.

leavesofliberty · 08-11-2012, 12:42 PM

People are habituated somewhat into dependencies. A lot of this has to do with the public school system where children are propagandized.

also, security is not like other goods... it's essentially force, initiated or not depending on the type of security. retrieving property though is definitely force.

leavesofliberty · 08-11-2012, 12:44 PM

There are forms of security that are not force that exist on the free market, such as the lock on your car door. The market simply has regulated itself so well that you hardly notice it. You probably have some lighting in your neighborhood as well, and cameras. One of the best things someone can do right now is use your cell phone cameras for private defense.

leavesofliberty · 08-11-2012, 12:47 PM

If people thought in a different paradigm, we'd see a lot more cell phone cameras for defense, and other purely defensive networks, like missile defense systems rather than 'defense' really serving as a euphemism for intimidation.