Polish team re-creates Milgram experiment with similar depressing results

[Swordsmyth]

We just established that the first states emerged before people became "weak, depressed...etc"

All it takes is for a gang to conquer a weaker population, or for a population to organize to prevent that. Your point is?

But my interest is in the conditions for the emergence of the state.

...or, say, the reemergence, from within an anarcho-capitalist society.

See above.

[Gumba of Liberty]

All it takes is for a gang to conquer a weaker population, or for a population to organize to prevent that. Your point is?

Agreed, I thought we made this clear. The state kills off the strong, takes advantage of the weak and weakens them further.

Down the blue-pilled rabbit hole they go.

[Gumba of Liberty]

But my interest is in the conditions for the emergence of the state.

Evidently, it is not required that the people be "weak, depressed...etc" The state can emerge even if they're not.

Like I said previously, unequal distributions of technology and skills allowed conquers to will the state into being.

The way to fight against the state (or prevent the growth of the state) is to make sure that any tools (guns, drones, the Internet, etc) they can use, we can use.

Decentralize and make available both technology and skills (including the abolition copyrights) and watch the state crumble.

[r3volution 3.0]

All it takes is for a gang to conquer a weaker population, or for a population to organize to prevent that. Your point is?

That's exactly my point. Psychology (willingness to obey authority, etc) has little if anything to do with it. Everybody gets obedient with a gun in their face. The larger point I'm making is that ancaps are naive for thinking that the state can be kept at bay if only people are sufficiently freedom-loving, independent-minded, awakened, etc, as is frequently claimed.

The way to fight against the state (or prevent the growth of the state) is to make sure that any tools (guns, drones, the Internet, etc) they can use, we can use.

Decentralize and make available both technology and skills (including the abolition copyrights) and watch the state crumble.

In many times/places, state military technology was available to the civilian population; yet the state didn't crumble. The problem is that information alone does nothing. The farmers may know how to build muskets, and cannons, and ships-of-the-line, or whatever the military equipment of the day is, but if they don't have the resources to actually build them, that information is useless. Even given equal distribution of information, unequal distribution of wealth (and individual ability) allows for the emergence of the state.

[otherone]

Like I said previously, unequal distributions of technology and skills allowed conquers to will the state into being.

The way to fight against the state (or prevent the growth of the state) is to make sure that any tools (guns, drones, the Internet, etc) they can use, we can use.

Decentralize and make available both technology and skills (including the abolition copyrights) and watch the state crumble.

Sounds great.
The problem is, the state would not exist if the hoi polloi didn't want it.

[Gumba of Liberty]

Sounds great.
The problem is, the state would not exist if the hoi polloi didn't want it.

They only want it because they perceive it to be in their best interest. Not a very hard argument to refute if you speak sheep.

[Gumba of Liberty]

That's exactly my point. Psychology (willingness to obey authority, etc) has little if anything to do with it. Everybody gets obedient with a gun in their face. The larger point I'm making is that ancaps are naive for thinking that the state can be kept at bay if only people are sufficiently freedom-loving, independent-minded, awakened, etc, as is frequently claimed.

First, you must wake up. Second, you must gather tools. Third, you must learn skills. Forth, you must network with others who are doing the same.

It's all connected.

[otherone]

They only want it because they perceive it to be in their best interest. Not a very hard argument to refute if you speak sheep.

"Speaking sheep" and convincing people to advocate against their interests are two different things.

[Gumba of Liberty]

"Speaking sheep" and convincing people to advocate against their interests are two different things.

Oh I agree.

[otherone]

Oh I agree.

What about your, "not a hard argument", comment?

[Gumba of Liberty]

What about your, "not a hard argument", comment?

I always taylor my argument to the individual person I am conversing with but the the general point is as follows:

I agree that most individuals put their (perceived) interests ahead of their Rights. Whether (hedge fund) rich or (EBT) poor most people falsely believe that the privileges they receive from the state outweigh the benefits they would receive from exercising their Inalienable, Natural Rights.

I disagree.

State-sponsored privileges are artificial and unreliable. These privileges can be taken away at any time for any reason. Even if you gain major short-term benefits from these privileges you must remember that they will eventually disappear (whether in your lifetime or the next). I sleep well at night knowing that the most powerful men in the world have achieved their station in life artificially and that one day these privileges will disappear like all artificial constructs.

Whether you are at the top of the pyramid (Wall Street Welfare Queens) or the bottom (Bourbon Street Welfare Queens), if you want to improve yourself, protect yourself, and protect your family this is a terrible way to do it. Think French Revolution.

If we want real freedom and security we cannot rely on ever-changing and evolving state privileges to secure long-term safety and stability. We cannot continue to allow a (relatively) small group of men to define and manipulate our Rights or we will wake up without any (like the present). Instead of living in a world of artificial privileges and laws written by men, we need to establish a society that codifies Universal, Inalienable Laws of Nature discovered by men (which already exist). In this way, your greatest interests (in the long run) are your Natural Rights. Without your Rights secure, you will forever be at risk and anything you build or create in this world is subject to destruction, including your bloodlines.

Unless, of course, you believe that the state can and will maintain your privileged station (for yourself and your family) perpetually. Good luck with that.