You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The State Is Too Dangerous to Tolerate
You obviously didn't watch the video. The point of the quote is that most people claim anarchists present an existential threat while they embrace the demonstrably monstrous governments that have committed uncountable atrocities and abuse. It is the widespread belief in the legitimacy of the State that allows these horrific acts to continue. Anarchists can't possibly compete with that level of destruction. The argument that we need the State to prevent violence and protect us is absurd based on the evidence of history.
I didn't, I read the quote you pulled.
If that's the case, then fine, I agree. However, I take issue with you using the term "anarchist" when you are not one, and therefore it is an issue you are not involved with the correct side on. You are a capitalist, war and genocide is always at the behest of capital. Therefore, you are, by definition, arguing against yourself.
"War is the health of the State," as Randolph Bourne famously said. Wars and genocide are the consequence of tolerating the political class. They operate through deception and coercion, not honesty and consent. Your inability to grasp this massive distinction between the market and the State does not invalidate my position on the matter. The State operates entirely through the violation of legitimate property rights as defined by Lockean homesteading and voluntary exchange. To use the terms "property" and "capitalism" to conflate political plunder with economic productivity is a flaw in your reasoning, not mine.
The trend in a free market is always toward equilibrium. It requires political intervention to protect monopolies, establish corporate privileges, and prohibit competition. Only by externalizing the costs of such actions to the State can big business boom. That is why the industrialists tend to oppose real free markets, in case you hadn't noticed. They fear allowing the consumer to choose.
You say I cannot be an anarchist, yet I reject the State as a means of human interaction, while you have repeatedly advocated government control in the most important aspects of life through economic intervention and outright monopoly. I'm sure you mean well, but your intentions are irrelevant when you advocate a system of violence to coerce me into submission. I seek voluntary interaction, and that includes communes, syndicates, kibbutzes, co-ops, and market exchange. You tell me that I should not be permitted to engage in an exchange or use resources without your approval. I see the State as a cancer that taints everything it touches, especially otherwise-voluntary societal interactions. You seem to see the State as a benevolent entity corrupted by money. You are by definition a statist, and are thus arguing against yourself when you claim to be an anarchist.
I know perfectly well how much anarchist thought comes from "the left," but old ideas must be tested and weighed. Antiquity alone confers no merit. Emma Goldman rejected the state communism of the Soviet Union once she saw what it was in person, although it presented itself as the working man's paradise. I have experienced socialized medicine, and it was an abject failure. You will never persuade me otherwise, especially when the status quo is the result of an anti-market government-established cartel system.