Please convince me of statism!

[A Son of Liberty]

What does "general social sanction" mean?

And how can "humanity" finally realize something? Humanity doesn't have a mind, it's a bunch of individuals. And those individuals change their minds a lot, in addition to being born and dying, they never finally realize anything.

General social sanction means that the majority of people in society give legitimacy to the state.

I should have said, "but when a majority of humans finally recognize...".

The state doesn't seize legitimacy. It enjoys it because people believe it is a mythical entity which, though it is made up of human beings, has powers that a human being not acting under the auspices of the state does not have. Except for Travlyr. He's allowed to throat punch people. Especially anarchists. Because they - above all - threaten his liberty. I guess that's how it works - if you're a mental midget, you either work for the state, advocate for it, or are Travlyr.

[erowe1]

General social sanction means that the majority of people in society give legitimacy to the state.

I should have said, "but when a majority of humans finally recognize...".

The state doesn't seize legitimacy. It enjoys it because people believe it is a mythical entity which, though it is made up of human beings, has powers that a human being not acting under the auspices of the state does not have.

So if you can take a poll of society and the majority of the people don't approve of the state, that means the state doesn't exist any more?

And what's a society anyway? Can a society be a group of 3 people who meet in an alley where 2 of them (i.e. the majority) decide to rob the other? And if so, would that be the state?

[A Son of Liberty]

So if you can take a poll of society and the majority of the people don't approve of the state, that means the state doesn't exist any more?

If enough people in society individuals take the realization that the state has no legitimacy, and begin to deny its authority, yes, it essentially means that the state doesn't exist anymore.

And what's a society anyway? Can a society be a group of 3 people who meet in an alley where 2 of them (i.e. the majority) decide to rob the other? And if so, would that be the state?

No, the state is not just one or more people robbing another. Certainly that's a key characteristic of the state. It is that entity which enjoys a monopoly on force within a given geographic region. But, again, if enough people reject that it has this monopoly, then it no longer has it, because the state depends upon a compliant population.

One person can stand up in the middle of a room of 50 people and declare himself the state, and start demanding that people pay a tax to him, "or else", but if everyone tells him to bugger off, he isn't much of a state.

[erowe1]

It is that entity which enjoys a monopoly on force within a given geographic region.

When three people are in an alley and two of them are robbing the other, don't those two have a monopoly of force in that alley?

[A Son of Liberty]

When three people are in an alley and two of them are robbing the other, don't those two have a monopoly of force in that alley?

At that moment, they do. However, the victim isn't defending their right to rob him, and if two more people who recognize theft as theft every time they see it come along and assist the man being robbed, they no longer have a monopoly on force.

The state is as much a state of mind as anything else.

[erowe1]

At that moment, they do. However, the victim isn't defending their right to rob him, and if two more people who recognize theft as theft every time they see it come along and assist the man being robbed, they no longer have a monopoly on force.

The state is as much a state of mind as anything else.

So any time some regime rules over its subjects without the consent of at least half of them, you say such a regime is not a state?

[A Son of Liberty]

So any time some regime rules over its subjects without the consent of at least half of them, you say such a regime is not a state?

I'm saying that if the people reject the state - refuse to obey its edicts, refuse to serve in its offices, etc., then it doesn't exist anymore.

The state is made up of people. If a certain threshold of people don't give it legitimacy, sanction, power, etc., then it cannot function as a state.

[erowe1]

If a certain threshold of people don't give it legitimacy, sanction, power, etc., then it cannot function as a state.

Is there an objective definition of that threshold?

[A Son of Liberty]

Is there an objective definition of that threshold?

There's not a quantifiable one, that I'm aware of. I'm not sure what you'd be looking for in terms of an "objective definition".

[erowe1]

There's not a quantifiable one, that I'm aware of. I'm not sure what you'd be looking for in terms of an "objective definition".

The problem I'm having is that the way I read what you're saying, you're illustrating what I said when I said:

Theft, kidnapping, and murder are always wrong. The ideal by which we should just any society is that all of them be reduced to nonexistence. But between where we are now, and that ideal of no theft, murder, or kidnapping, I don't see some clear threshold that can get crossed that signifies a shift from state to no state. And if there is some way of defining where such a threshold exists, I would probably regard that way as arbitrary and unimportant. The important threshold, and the one toward which we should always strive, even if we see it merely as an asymptote to approach, rather than a goal to achieve, is the elimination of all theft, murder, and kidnapping.

It seems like you're not willing to define the state simply by what the state does, but also by the presence of some number of people who "give it legitimacy."

But if you can't quantify objectively what that number of people is, then how can it be part of the definition? On the other hand, if you don't include that as part of your definition, then you're back to defining the state according to what it does, without regard for however many people "give it legitimacy."

[A Son of Liberty]

The problem I'm having is that the way I read what you're saying, you're illustrating what I said when I said:


It seems like you're not willing to define the state simply by what the state does, but also by the presence of some number of people who "give it legitimacy."

But if you can't quantify objectively what that number of people is, then how can it be part of the definition? On the other hand, if you don't include that as part of your definition, then you're back to defining the state according to what it does, without regard for however many people "give it legitimacy."

I agree with you that eliminating theft, murder, etc., would be an admirable goal.

I can't limit the state to just what it does, because the sanction of people is such a part of what defines it.

I admit, I do not know what that threshold is, in terms of a number or a percentage of people. But it seems that there is a very clear difference in the minds of most people between murder, theft, and kidnapping when the state performs these acts and when other individuals not acting on behalf of the state performs these acts. In the minds of most people, these acts are justified when the state performs them. I agree, ending those acts in and of themselves is the ultimate and admirable goal, but reaching a point where those acts enjoy no general sanction amongst individuals under certain conditions (i.e., when the state performs them) is just as admirable on account of their ubiquity. Random acts of violence by individuals are just that - random. The state performs these acts on a regular basis as a function of its existence. Indeed, one giant leap toward eliminating those acts - murder, theft and kidnapping, etc., - would be the elimination of the state.

[erowe1]

But it seems that there is a very clear difference in the minds of most people between murder, theft, and kidnapping when the state performs these acts and when other individuals not acting on behalf of the state performs these acts. In the minds of most people, these acts are justified when the state performs them.

I think that what you're talking about is true of some states, certainly the ones we're used to. But is it really part of the definition? Haven't there been states throughout history and in some places today, where the regime rules over its subjects without any regard for their consent, where people are conquered by a force whose legitimacy they do not accept, and their compliance is based on fear, just as the compliance of a shop owner paying taxes the criminal gang that controls his neighborhood is? The people of Gaza may not acknowledge the right of the government of Israel to rule over them, but that doesn't make them stateless.

Indeed, one giant leap toward eliminating those acts - murder, theft and kidnapping, etc., - would be the elimination of the state.

But from all you've said, I don't think there is any line we could cross between here and total elimination of those things that would allow you to say, on account of that right there, the state is no more.

[A Son of Liberty]

I think that what you're talking about is true of some states, certainly the ones we're used to. But is it really part of the definition? Haven't there been states throughout history and in some places today, where the regime rules over its subjects without any regard for their consent, where people are conquered by a force whose legitimacy they do not accept, and their compliance is based on fear, just as the compliance of a shop owner paying taxes the criminal gang that controls his neighborhood is? The people of Gaza may not acknowledge the right of the government of Israel to rule over them, but that doesn't make them stateless.

Yeah, I guess that's generally true. For the purposes of this discussion, however, I wasn't really referring to an occupying force such as that but rather a "domestic" state-government. Even in the case of a monarchy, all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't maintain the power of the monarchy if enough individuals refused to acknowledge his authority.

But from all you've said, I don't think there is any line we could cross between here and total elimination of those things that would allow you to say, on account of that right there, the state is no more.

I think there is a line. However, I'm not presently able to say what that line is at this particular time.

[erowe1]

Even in the case of a monarchy, all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't maintain the power of the monarchy if enough individuals refused to acknowledge his authority.

But the monarchs inherited their positions over generations going back to some original point where their ancestors conquered some people and established rule over them without their consent. Moving forward in time from that origin of the monarchy, I don't think there's any specific generation you can point to and say that it wasn't a state before but from here on it is. I'd rather call it a state all the way back at the beginning.

[A Son of Liberty]

But the monarchs inherited their positions over generations going back to some original point where their ancestors conquered some people and established rule over them without their consent. Moving forward in time from that origin of the monarchy, I don't think there's any specific generation you can point to and say that it wasn't a state before but from here on it is. I'd rather call it a state all the way back at the beginning.

Yeah, I guess that depends on how exactly the state evolved.

Nevertheless, I agree with you in principle. But I do think that the legitimacy the state receives in the minds of people is a very big part of what makes it the state.

[robert68]

General social sanction means that the majority of people in society give legitimacy to the state.

I should have said, "but when a majority of humans finally recognize...".

The state doesn't seize legitimacy. It enjoys it because people believe it is a mythical entity which, though it is made up of human beings, has powers that a human being not acting under the auspices of the state does not have...

I disagree that a “majority” or any particular percentage of public support for an entity to coerce a population is what defines a state. It’s the power of that entity to exempt itself from the rules it imposes on others that defines it. Significant public support is usually needed for that power, but the realness of the power is what makes that entity a state.

[A Son of Liberty]

I agree. But the degree of public support certainly helps it maintain it's power.

[robert68]

I agree. But the degree of public support certainly helps it maintain it's power.

Indeed.

[robert68]

I disagree that a “majority” or any particular percentage of public support for an entity to coerce a population is what defines a state. It’s the power of that entity to exempt itself from the rules it imposes on others that defines it. Significant public support is usually needed for that power, but the realness of the power is what makes that entity a state.

I need to give a better definition of the state: the agency that commits institutionalized aggression.

[John F Kennedy III]

Bookmarked

[Conza88]

Still not convinced

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I'm not going to read through 24 pages over however many years, but the best argument I've seen for monopolizing defense and rights protection (though not necessarily through a"state") is the free rider problem. I've never seen a convincing argument why competing DROs wouldn't be crippled by said issue. It's one of the things that brought me from anarcho-capitalism to Heathian anarchism, or absolute monarchy.

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm not going to read through 24 pages over however many years, but the best argument I've seen for monopolizing defense and rights protection (though not necessarily through a"state") is the free rider problem. I've never seen a convincing argument why competing DROs wouldn't be crippled by said issue. It's one of the things that brought me from anarcho-capitalism to Heathian anarchism, or absolute monarchy.

Civilization itself is highly unnatural.

Civilization itself is one gigantic free-rider problem.

When the day comes that people assiduously take advantage of every free-rider problem they can find, that is a day that their civilization has long since ceased to exist.

Human nature is the basis for society, not political systems.

A system of competing DROs would work fine in a high "C,"(ivilization) moderate "V"(igor) temperament society. Probably also in a high "C," high "V" one. So would your preferred system, absolute monarchy (competing DRMs -- Dispute-Resolving Monarchs).

Our bigger problem is that our C is collapsing. Privatizing the roads, and even the justice system, will not solve that. It would be the right thing to do, and I am very much in favor of it, but it will not fix our problems. Nor will anointing a king, Paleo. Our civilization is in the midst of a collapse. Trying new political systems will be like shuffling deck chairs.

http://www.biohistory.org/

[heavenlyboy34]

Civilization itself is highly unnatural.

Civilization itself is one gigantic free-rider problem.

When the day comes that people assiduously take advantage of every free-rider problem they can find, that is a day that their civilization has long since ceased to exist.

Human nature is the basis for society, not political systems.

A system of competing DROs would work fine in a high "C,"(ivilization) moderate "V"(igor) temperament society. Probably also in a high "C," moderate "V" one. So would your preferred system, absolute monarchy (competing DRMs -- Dispute-Resolving Monarchs).

Our bigger problem is that our C is collapsing. Privatizing the roads, and even the justice system, will not solve that. It would be the right thing to do, and I am very much in favor of it, but it will not fix our problems. Nor will anointing a king, Paleo. Our civilization is in the midst of a collapse. Trying new political systems will be like shuffling deck chairs.

http://www.biohistory.org/

+rep

[Conza88]

I'm not going to read through 24 pages over however many years, but the best argument I've seen for monopolizing defense and rights protection (though not necessarily through a"state") is the free rider problem. I've never seen a convincing argument why competing DROs wouldn't be crippled by said issue. It's one of the things that brought me from anarcho-capitalism to Heathian anarchism, or absolute monarchy.

"monopolizing defense and rights protection (though not necessarily through a"state")"

= That's only possible through a state... and that's only understandable if you understand economics.

is the free rider problem.

"A and B decide to pay for the building of a dam for their uses; C benefits though he did not pay.... This is the problem of the Free Rider. Yet it is difficult to understand what the hullabaloo is all about. Am I to be specially taxed because I enjoy the sight of my neighbor's garden without paying for it? A's and B's purchase of a good reveals that they are willing to pay for it; if it indirectly benefits C as well, no one is the loser" (I, p. 25).
—Murray Rothbard, Logic of Action

Go ahead.... tell me how that justifies the state (monopoly of ultimate decision making including conflicts involving itself w/ the ability to tax).

I've never seen a convincing argument why competing DROs wouldn't be crippled by said issue.

Have you actually looked?



https://mises.org/library/anarchist-...nce-free-rider
https://mises.org/library/solving-problem-free-riding

[Conza88]

still haven't been convinced.

[Swordsmyth]

still haven't been convinced.

The best argument is that it is unavoidable, the corrupt will organize and impose themselves on others if allowed to and the only way to successfully defend against them is to create a limited government.

[heavenlyboy34]

The best argument is that it is unavoidable, the corrupt will organize and impose themselves on others if allowed to and the only way to successfully defend against them is to create a limited government.

Poor reasoning. We could use this same argument against Constitutionalism. That is, the Constitution has never restrained government, therefore something else must be tried. See? I can do inductive reasoning too.

[Swordsmyth]

Poor reasoning. We could use this same argument against Constitutionalism. That is, the Constitution has never restrained government, therefore something else must be tried. See? I can do inductive reasoning too.

It has restrained government, it may not have restrained it enough but we are better off because of it.

The natural state of the world is tyranny, the farther away from tyranny you get the harder it is to defeat the gravitational pull back to the natural state, on the other hand you can't take the guilt on yourself for creating and maintaining a system that is too close to tyranny so you must create a limited government to protect the rights of the citizens from enemies foreign and domestic and engage in eternal vigilance to stop or at least slow the decay back to tyranny.

Man doesn't have the capacity to create paradise in this mortal life.

[timosman]

Poor reasoning. We could use this same argument against Constitutionalism. That is, the Constitution has never restrained government, therefore something else must be tried. See? I can do inductive reasoning too.

You can't.