Statism more dangerous than Religion.
- Thread starter HawktimusPrime
- Start date
Natural, did you give up here? I noticed you were the only Statist that had the courage to speak up. You may have a few more libertarian attributes than you think.
Not giving up, I'm simply satisfied that civilization doesn't require a manifesto from me to be appreciated. Your position is so counter to reason that no group has ever managed to construct let alone maintain anything approaching an anti stateist community, nor will they. Because the moment you are a community at all, you are engaged in statism. You are tilting at windmills.
My positions are not counter to reason at all. You're automated at this point Natural. Reason tells you that blind support of an entity that continually commits acts of violence towards it's own people, and seeks to control every aspect of their lives, is support that is insane in nature. The utter senseless nature of your argument, is not reasonable at all.
Can we have happiness without Statism I wonder? Religion has a tendency to claim that you can't without it. No community without strict authority telling you that it's okay? Natural surely has lost his sense of self.
Last edited:
Its beyond even reason, its inherent. The moment two individuals meet, there is statism. There are rules and authority present, even if only by force. Statism is the natural and necessary condition that exists in any community, even in the animal world. You are absolutely worked up over a thing you can never defeat. You must redirect your efforts into some useful critique of the state or forever be Don Quixote on a fool's errand.
If you want to fight for limited government or due process or civil rights or pacifism, please have at it. I might even ally with you on occasion. But to attack the bedrock inherent human condition as the root of evil is suicidal and inane. You are like the environmentalist who opines about how great the world would be if only there were no people around to mess it up. This argument is truly insane and only serves to point out the cognitive abilities of those who profess it.
Only if you live alone. I challenge you to lay out any frame work of a community that can exist absent rules and authority. I don't think you can't do it. Authority exist the moment the bigger person pushes the smaller out of the way. And you now have a state.
The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.
The definition of statism doesn't mention the second when two people meet, and now we know why you're so confused. You believe that two people meeting needs statism to happen. Statism is responsible for theft, murder, rape, denial of rights, wrongful persecution, war, etc. You support that, because you get clean water in return, and some of your taxes back.
In my world, you wouldn't have had to 'fight' for the right to marry a man. I would have never tried to use force to enforce such a personal decision at all towards you.
Prime doesn't want you to bow down. Prime wants you to live free. Statism, requires that you are only able to drink water, and drive, only when you ultimately decide to bow down, and accept the fact that it will kill you if it deems necessary.
Sounds a lot like that God guy, except God isn't here. The State is though.
Go back and watch your video. Statism exists the moment anyone has authority over you. That exists the moment two people meet in the woods. If you want to argue for limited government, make that argument directly. Your arguments here are without merit.
and you'd be right.
Overall though, laying out framework would kind of defeat the purtpose wouldn't it. There are many examples of communes that operate without any official state. The idea that a society can't exist without a government is as silly as the idea that people can't have morals without religion.
You have a very interesting view/definition of "authority." Interesting is me being as polite as I possibly can.
That it isn't official doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You understand that, of course. Of your many examples, can you point to one where there was no decision-making process? Where everyone just did whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted?
Are we resorting to pointing out typing errors now? Maybe we should? For language like all human interaction is governed by rules. And when people break the rules it becomes hard to coexist. If we continue to break the rules communication becomes impossible and we are no longer a community. To maintain itself, the community reflexively corrects and governs the individual back onto the path of using the correct rules.
Every one of those communities is a state with rules and authority given to some power center. That is what you anti-statists argue against. To remove the elements of statism you object to, you are forced to live alone.
Actually, by definition to be a state (government), it must be official.
People are pack animals and natural followers. Only a few actually are capable of doing whatever they want.
It's axiomatic.
Do you believe people wouldn't have morals if not for religion or government?
Actually, you're not even obligated. I rescind that. Ideally there is mutual respect.
See, that's sort of a loaded question because none of us exist without exposure to one, or both. We can speculate only. I'd like to believe we do.
I challenge you to build a framework that doesn't end up being responsible for millions of deaths, creating a 1%, and isn't eventually going to try and conquer more 'communities' abroad.
What if the smaller person pushes back? You see in Statism, if a police authority wrongfully accuses, brutalizes, and convicts me. I am not allowed to return the favor.
In my world, you punch someone, expect to get punched back. There are no rules protecting the one who punched first.
We don't have to speculate. Other mammals who aren't exposed to either show it.
What is axiomatic is that you have rules, authority and power; the very things the anti-statis complain about in a de facto government the moment two people meet. You can't escape government if you want to be a part of the herd. You can hide behind a semantic front if you wish, but the core essence of your anti-statist complaints exist without regard to the official status of the power center. Ironically, official status is only necessary to limit that authority, not to empower it.
And when its not ideal, what exist? Power remains. Power is intrinsic. Where there is power there are rules and authority and we now have satisfied the very essence of a government. When two people meet in the woods, a state is formed. Stop arguing against the state and start focusing on the type of state you want.
What power are you speaking of? You claim the power of the entity remains, despite there being no entity? Why is that? When two people meet in the woods, they're usually there to bang. Breaking many rules and laws of the state in the process.
That's mathematically impossible, there will always be a 1% in any community of size. But there are states who have never invaded or gone to war. There are states that redistribute and regulate so that the inequality harms are mitigated. The state gets credit for these successes too. As the state is the base unit of civilization, every success humanity has achieved as much to the credit of the statist as any failures you might point out. The state isn't the problem. How people regulate the state is the problem. You want to use the state better? Get better regulations that are justly enforced.
You better get to rewriting a bunch of textbooks, articles, essays, etc. then.
Or just accept that statist, refers to an actual official government like the rest of the world does.
That is actually what I am doing... all the time. It's unavoidable.
I like this topic very much. Rather than regurgitating what has likely already been said, I'll go ahead and start here if you don't mind. I'm sure you aren't surprised at what my opinion on this will be.
If it is mathematically impossible to live without tyranny, then the pursuing of the state is illogical, unreasonable and downright vicious when you understand it like this. State is not the base of civilization. Life is the base of civilization. Without life there is no need for civilization, therefore civilization is a growth pattern of life. Mind you, this need not require statehood to survive.
There are simply too many instances of the state failing, as you have agreed, to believe that your simple solutions will work. The state is built solely on the premise that it's power and importance is more powerful and important than life itself.
That state is a problem, perhaps not the problem, but its veracious history in ultimately working against life is undeniable. More regulations breed more constructive containment of personal freedom. Therefore denying persons constructive avenues to experience life.
The problem with your argument, is that it is ultimately meant to build up, until it destroys itself.
Ask yourself this, if we simply go by the natural laws of the world, and understand them.... Do we need artificial laws to compensate for the no longer lacking in understanding the precious value of life anymore?
As in, once I realize that nature has already provided all the laws we need, then why do I need to create something to go against those laws?
I will try, the state is powerful though. God may not exist to actually judge me, but this damn state surely wants to!!
And that's a sane position, but not what Soup and Prime and Kiting are arguing.
Similar threads
