The state cripples the division of labor? Like I said, without state, we revert to tribal living. There's no comparison between a tribal division of labor and a civilized division of labor. A tribe never has and never will accomplish anything great; therefore only civilized divisions of labor have.
Why were those services (coining, police, etc) provided outside of the state? Because the state held together civilization. Take away the state, then you take away civilization, then you take away the profit for such services, then you take away the services.
Without government, people live in tribes because no high amount of organization could exist without publicly agreed upon rules. But to continue *your* fairytale, there would be even less checks on the power of the 1%, and they would reign with even more power. The government restricts this, centralizes power, and ideally distributes it to its citizens. It doesn't do it perfectly, but anarchism doesn't do it at all.
The "slippery slope" that I can agree upon is the continuum between anarchy and authoritarianism. That is certainly a continuum, and there is a proper middle ground for it with answers high and low on the scale for specific questions. Of course, this is apparently not a slippery slope you're seeing because you advocate pure anarchy. Thus, I return the fallacious accusation back to you.
Last edited by wiltondeportes; 09-11-2013 at 06:46 PM.
You don't know anything about this subject, clearly. I think you must have been living under a rock for the last century or so, and you're so brainwashed you have no idea what the fuck is going on in your own country.
There is no coercion. This is the difference. We have different ways of dealing with things.
Also, I understand the appeal of southern women. I did my undergrad at UGA after growing up in the Midwest. Traditionally, they have a softness and congeniality that can be extraordinarily refreshing if you are from elsewhere. My son has recently moved from the Northeast to the South and I suspect he will find a woman that suits him better there. But don't confuse what they offer for malleability. They will surely grab you by the shorthairs and put your balls in a vice as effectively as any West Coast harpy, but by the time you realize what has happened, you will be as helpless as a bug on a pin. I should have such talents!
CW-125, part calorie counting, part transition to primal
GW- Goals are no longer weight-related
Mythological conclusions based on mythological assumptions are "proven" by means of the statistics and the charts; much of “applied social science” consists of teaching young people what kind of “data” to gather in order to make the conclusions come out, and much of “theory” consists of fitting this data to the pre-established formulas. By means of numerous techniques, for example, it can be “ proved” that workers would rather have high paying jobs than enjoyable or meaningful jobs, that people “like” what they hear on the radio or see on television, that almost anyone votes either for democrats or for republicans. Students are taught one set of methods for gathering the data, a second set for arranging them, a third set for presenting them, and “theories” for interpreting them. The apologetic content of the “data” is covered up by its statistical sophistication. In a society where eating depends on getting paid, and thus where doing “meaningful work” may mean one doesn’t get paid, a worker’s preference for high paying over meaningful jobs merely means he’d rather eat than not eat. In a society where people do not create and control what they hear on the radio or see on television, they have no choice but to “like” what they hear and see, or else to turn the damn thing off.
All of these things can simply be explained away by the fact they have no choice.
Freedom. I'm waiting for an explanation from you how a voluntary society fails, is uncivilized, or resorts to tribe mentality simply because there is no state to govern them. Do you have that little faith in mankind? Your other paragraph previously seems like a contradiction then.
"A common defense of the State holds that man is a “social animal,” that he must live in society, and that individualists and libertarians believe in the existence of “atomistic individuals” uninfluenced by and unrelated to their fellow men. But no libertarians have ever held individuals to be isolated atoms; on the contrary, all libertarians have recognized the necessity and the enormous advantages of living in society, and of participating in the social division of labor. The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.
On the contrary, as we have indicated, the State is an antisocial instrument, crippling voluntary interchange, individual creativity, and the division of labor. “Society” is a convenient label for the voluntary interrelations of individuals, in peaceful exchange and on the market. Here we may point to Albert Jay Nock’s penetrating distinction between “social power” – the fruits of voluntary interchange in the economy and in civilization – and “State power,” the coercive interference and exploitation of those fruits. In that light, Nock showed that human history is basically a race between State power and social power, between the beneficent fruits of peaceful and voluntary production and creativity on the one hand, and the crippling and parasitic blight of State power upon the voluntary and productive social process.
All of the services commonly thought to require the State – from the coining of money to police protection to the development of law in defense of the rights of person and property – can be and have been supplied far more efficiently and certainly more morally by private persons. The State is in no sense required by the nature of man; quite the contrary."
In fact, he repeatedly commits the same fallacies Rothbard describes in this as well.
And wilton, pls respond:
You just destroyed your own argument. You have no facts, or evidence. The rest is redundant, and you're droning on about a whole of nothing, particularly your contradictory final paragraph.
A state utopia will never exist either, and it has been, and currently in practice everywhere. You blame human beings on the downfall of society, but place necessity on the state to control these people. Does that not mean that your state is failing? The failure of people is done by the state enabling policies that repeatedly fail these people.
You are now King of the world, free to do whatever you want with the Earth's society. What laws, policies, et al. do you create to "fix" everything? How do you fix the economy that the state has ruined through deceitful "borrowing" and printing useless paper currencies that have no real meaning. The history of money is that at every turn it has been created by states. Virtually every naturally emerging market in history has been a credit-based one, and the state has later commodified this credit for the purpose of paying soliders who do not have the necessary social ties to maintain the network of trust necessary to function within a credit economy.
Do you expand government even more? Do you decrease government? You have all the answers apparently, enough to discredit widescale anarchy based on the fact it has never existed(it hasn't), so surely you can enlighten me.
Last edited by Derpamix; 09-11-2013 at 07:05 PM.