Only 2 bad threads. And I will. These are both terms I have yet to come accross in my limited education. You have a recommended starting place?
Can a voluntaristic society succeed?
- Thread starter dmnEPC
- Start date
Only 2 bad threads. And I will. These are both terms I have yet to come accross in my limited education. You have a recommended starting place?
You're an utter, hopeless moron. The STATE is the one doing the mass slayings now, not some psycho teacher patrol, who would have far, far less power to do so.
Half correct. Yes, the state is bigger now, which explains the far higher number of deaths lately...
But the state DID exist to give those psycho teachers they power that they had to do what they did.
You can't call that anarchy. Perhaps minarchism. -Clearly those psychos didn't believe in the NAP.
Only the ones that don't accept/embrace some form of the NAP, which is essential for any stable anarchy to exist.
-Yes, sadly this means that we won't have anarchy until the day comes that humanity is more enlightened. No, we don't give up hope that intelligence & morality can prevail over what you call 'human nature.'
The free market would, of course.
Not at all, because any initiated aggression would be breaking some sort of contract, or at least a clause between someone else's contract like an assurance company's contract with its' client. -And of course there will be security to enforce these contracts, so the world becomes really simple, really fast, and everyone will have an incentive to leave others alone.
The state didn't exist in the same form back then.
Basically for all those with Anglo-Saxon legal systems, the key date is halfway through Henry II's reign which started in 1154.
Before then, to get justice you had to go see the King personally, and because the King couldn't be everywhere there wasn't any justice at all in most parts of the country and people were terrorized by whichever local baron could raise an army to dominate the area - real anarchy where violence by individuals or cartels decided things. Henry II's innovation was to delegate his power to justices, station those justices in each part of the country and to post written copies of laws in every town and city so people knew their rights. From that point people had redress against the abuses of the barons. That system still exists in all countries with anglo-Saxon legal systems.
Continental Europe didn't adopt the idea of delegating the sovereign's power till the Renaissance, which is one of the reasons Britain diverged from the continent.
The other key dates are 1265 (when Parliament first sat) and the Provisions of Oxford - the latter is the more important because it broke the oligarchy of the barons created by Magna Carta, by expanding the right to attend Parliament to the country squires - once the principle was established that to break the power of one group you extended power to other groups, Parliament kept on expanding over time (it's still expanding - they may allow 16 year olds to vote next).
So it's idiocy to think the state has existed in the same form always - it depends on individuals influencing events, and can turn on a dime depending who chooses to play and who doesn't.
As for whether you and I have influence - you may not, but I feel I do. (I was part of a group that was lobbying MPs to vote against entering the war in Syria, and we won and a consequence was that the Americans drew back too.
You are only powerless because you choose to be powerless. You may feel that you have better things to do with your time - fine - but don't pretend your lack of influence has been pre-ordained - it's actually come about by a specific choice you have made. We actually create the state in real time by our individual decisions.
David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" available free online.
Also, tougher reading, but Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production"
To a libertarian, it's a distinction without a difference.
I didn't read the rest of your post. Sorry. Time is short.
I left out that I do believe it's multi-generational and it's not something that could or would occur if we handed everyone a book written by Rothbard..
I recall a recent post I made from last month that touches on that point.. http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-shit/176585-y-u-no-like-murikans.html#post2118635
There's a lot of research that shows violence is mostly learned behavior. Just basic observations of life confirm this. Households that use violence as a way of dealing with conflicts will breed individuals who use violence as a tool. I come from such a household, and I (and my siblings) have exhibited violent and antisocial behavior in the past. Likewise, I know plenty of individuals raised in families (and peaceful cultural climates) that didn't use violence (or violent coercion or whatever you want to call). Wuddyaknow. They aren't violent in nature.
That's why it's impossible for an immediate transition from the current society into a stateless society. It's a pipe-dream to think that we can bring about the changes necessary to see this happen within our lifetime.
But don't think - for one SECOND - that you can't change "human nature" from birth.
The reason why "Humans are violent by nature" is easy to demonstrate as false, is that not all humans are violent, and not all the time.
To paint every human with a broad brush that we're all inherently violent is reaching. The very existence of ethical pacifists counters it.
To love is also part of what humans do. Is it part of human nature? To be kind, to cooperate, etc. All things humans do. Part of human nature?
The notions of biodiversity, evolution are also counter to the concept of some unchangeable nature of man. If we were all the same, then maybe one could make this case because we would all be violent. But we're not all the same. What one guy will become violent over, another may not.
Like many broad sweeping generalizations, it's not a rigorous argument.
To paint every human with a broad brush that we're all inherently violent is reaching. The very existence of ethical pacifists counters it.
To love is also part of what humans do. Is it part of human nature? To be kind, to cooperate, etc. All things humans do. Part of human nature?
The notions of biodiversity, evolution are also counter to the concept of some unchangeable nature of man. If we were all the same, then maybe one could make this case because we would all be violent. But we're not all the same. What one guy will become violent over, another may not.
Like many broad sweeping generalizations, it's not a rigorous argument.
As evidence for people living in harmony without murder, rape, assault, and theft - I'd like to point to...(drumroll)...no time ever in the history of mankind.
And pointing out that not all people are violent is a strawman.
And pointing out that not all people are violent is a strawman.
World War II related death rates were between 3,000 and 4,000 per 100,000 for the total population of the involved countries, which was over 2,500 per 100,000 of the entire world's population. England and Italy were around 1,000 per 100,000.
World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So does the fact that around 290 (30% who were drafted) per 100,000 Americans died during the Vietnam War, which is much lower than the Vietnamese death rates.
Fallacy of the single cause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It has always been a delusion. It has always featured monopoly. It has always handed out privilege, and it has always enforced its mandate via force.
The stuff you're talking about are details. Like if we compared a white rose and a red rose. They are both still roses. Yes one is monarchical, and one is democratic, but they are both states, and they operate the same way.
The illusion that you control or have a say in the delusion is why democracy is so deliciously amazing. It suckers in people, prevents revolts with a regular election cycle that really doesn't change anything, and the politically privileged continue to get what they want at the expense of the common man.
Correlation is not causation friend. There were people lobbying the other side and they lost. Are you arguing that you have superior influence over the political system compared to everyone else?
Because I reject participating in the delusion, I wake up every day feeling like the most powerful man in the world. I feel like Neo at the end of the first Matrix movie.
I can assure you I have better things to do than play make believe and beg for permission/forgiveness/obedience.
No, you create the state by participating in a mass delusion. You give form to that delusion by abstracting reality.
Look, I don't care if you have a state, you want to say it's your state, or you want to pretend you have any political power whatsoever. I don't care if you make laws, attack countries, outlaw drugs, and steal property.
It's your delusion. Enjoy it. Do whatever turns you on.
Just please don't ask me to also pretend it is real.
Yea and then there are people who spend their time convincing the people who do venture outside of said herd mentality that it really isn't worth fighting anyway.
These people will spend their time convincing others of why it is useless to fight because they feel the need to justify their own inaction.
They warp their world view to one that sees them alone in their understanding, helpless to change a world run by apes with a vocabulary.
This warped view provides them the excuse their conscience needs.
The ability to feel free of the moral/social duties and roam careless with a free conscience to jump in as just another monkey along for the ride. All the while following the ego stroking narrative -- no, no, I am different.
But even still, neither of these types of people are our enemies. Calling them enemies is just a label used to place a wall in between you and them. A way of continuing the "no, no, I am different" narrative you have found crucial to your self identity.
Sociopaths can be useful. For instance, a lot of surgeons are apparently sociopaths. Makes sense since they need to cut people open with no hesitation and mess with their vital stuff, all while remaining cool as a cucumber. And it's not like he's going to just let you die for the hell of it, since he most likely wants to keep his job/lifestyle and make more money and all that.
Absotootly.
