Justice Without State

[HVACTech]

We weren't talking about states of nature either. You're mixing in totally irrelevant ideas.

Do you have a problem with what I said about the state (the kind we were talking about) being involuntary? If so, what? If not, then why are you drawing this on like this?

are you suggesting sir. that it is NOT the Nature of man.

to create "states"?

you guys are way too easy!

[erowe1]

are you suggesting sir. that it it NOT the Nature of man.

to create "states"?

you guys are way too easy!

We're going in circles here. Why are you doing this? Are you trying to connect states of matter to the institution of the state?

As for your question, no, I don't believe it is the nature of man to create states. Man can create states or not create states. Unless you understand the state to include such localized instances as individual acts of theft (I'm open to defining it this way, but I think it's not usual), a great deal of humanity throughout history has lived without states.

[HVACTech]

We're going in circles here. Why are you doing this? Are you trying to connect states of matter to the institution of the state?

As for your question, no, I don't believe it is the nature of man to create states. Man can create states or not create states. Unless you understand the state to include such localized instances as individual acts of theft (I'm open to defining it this way, but I think it's not usual), a great deal of humanity throughout history has lived without states.

"no, I don't believe it is the nature of man to create states."
Hmm, it sure would seem that we have a LOT of them around these days.

just in case YOU have not noticed.

our world is FULL of them.
we are on the same team bro.

get with the program.

[erowe1]

"no, I don't believe it is the nature of man to create states."
Hmm, it sure would seem that we have a LOT of them around these days.

What about in other days? If it's in the nature of man, doesn't that mean that it's impossible for man not to have states? Or do you mean something else?

[HVACTech]

What about in other days? If it's in the nature of man, doesn't that mean that it's impossible for man not to have states? Or do you mean something else?

Texas. Texas is a "state"
and, is.

"bigger than $#@!" dude.

don't mess with Texas.

[r3volution 3.0]

You know how he interprets this question right? A google search without actually reading anything that comes up is the extent of his concept of research.

I assume that everyone that I speak with is at least relatively intelligent and sane, until proved otherwise.

...call me a cock-eyed optimist.

I don't call myself a libertarian. But for me the purpose of hating the state is because the state is evil. It's wrong. Even if it made us better off, which I dispute, it would still be wrong, and it would be wrong to support it. I have no choice in that. There are lots of evil things I could do that would improve my standard of living in this world, but I ought not to do them. And the fact that they would make me better off materially doesn't change that. Whether or not the state makes us any better off is ultimately irrelevant.

fiat justitia ruat caelum, eh?

Material conditions don't matter?

The resident of Minarchia making $100,000 per year paying 1% income tax v. the resident of Zomia making (in the equivalent, since there is no money) $500 per year paying no tax...

The latter is preferable, without a shadow of a doubt?

Are you certain?

The total absence of aggression is more valuable than anything else (like a material living standard orders of magnitude higher)?

And, you know, not only the state aggresses; private violence (so to speak) was much higher in primitive societies than our own.

[HVACTech]

I assume that everyone that I speak with is at least relatively intelligent and sane, until proved otherwise.

...call me a cock-eyed optimist.





fiat justitia ruat caelum, eh?

Material conditions don't matter?

The resident of Minarchia making $100,000 per year paying 1% income tax v. the resident of Zomia making (in the equivalent, since there is no money) $500 per year paying no tax...

The latter is preferable, without a shadow of a doubt?

Are you certain?

The total absence of aggression is more valuable than anything else (like a material living standard orders of magnitude higher)?

And, you know, not only the state aggresses; private violence (so to speak) was much higher in primitive societies than our own.

so, if we all moved to Texas.

how many cases of Coronas and limes would we need?

[r3volution 3.0]

so, if we all moved to Texas.

how many cases of Coronas and limes would we need?

Cases of Corona:
0

Cases of Real Beer:
Several

[Ronin Truth]

To each his own, but I think you'll find few converts to anarcho-capitalism once you explain that it requires a reversion to prehistoric living conditions.

...not to mention the problems of how that reversion could be brought about (do ancaps intend to blow up all the machines, factories, trains, etc?, and then watch as 90% of the current population starves to death?), or how it could be maintained (how could economic growth be prevented once this primitive state were reached? would ancaps shoot poke to death with pointy sticks anybody who dared to reinvent the steam engine?).

That any anarcho-capitalist would even have to think twice in choosing between subsistence and the state reinforces something I've been saying for a long time: modern ancaps are so focused on hating the state that they're increasingly losing site of the whole purpose of libertarianism. Rothbard, for instance, would be shocked and appalled to find his successors become an insane cult bent on the destruction of civilization, in the name of freedom. It's ridiculous.

I like Murray, but I really prefer Bob LeFevre.

https://mises.org/search/site/LeFevre

[erowe1]

The resident of Minarchia making $100,000 per year paying 1% income tax v. the resident of Zomia making (in the equivalent, since there is no money) $500 per year paying no tax...

The latter is preferable, without a shadow of a doubt?

Are you certain?

What I know without a shadow of a doubt is that theft is wrong. And the regime in Minarchia ought not steal. If people in Minarchia are benefitting from that theft, then they are benefitting from something evil, and they ought not.

Morally, yes, that regime is obligated to stop stealing. This obligation rests on it whether that is what its people prefer or not.

And if they really are better off, and they see that they are better off, then there is no reason they can't work out something with one another where they agree to pay that 1% without having to steal it, so that they can continue to reap whatever benefits they're getting from it.