So you get all of the benefits of living in the United States but you feel morally in the clear because you've decided to participate in the process that gave rise to that country as little as the law allows you to, yet you get to live in a country with a strong central government which provides you property rights and the rule of law, unlike, to pick a shitty country at random, Syria. If you lived in Syria, figuring out a government structure might be a matter of life and death, but here because by international standards we live in a first world country it can remain theoretical.
@laconicflow The basic difference we have is that you see society and state as the same thing and we view them as different and ultimately at odds. Participation in the state does not mean you are trying to improve society. It just means you are participating in the state and at some level empowering it. By not participating in the state, we just acknowledge that there are better ways to influence the society that don't involve supporting politicians and aggressive force by the state monopoly.
That's actually not my point. My point is that I find it paradoxical when people live in a society that enables them to say the society is an utter and total piece of shit, to the point where they'd prefer not to participate in its evolution even as they are surrounded by societies where the right to complain or bitch or criticize does not exist. I'm not saying the nation state will always be necisary, but while I think it is necisary I feel totally comfortable trying to change it for the better. I can only conclude that people who avoid participation think change within a state is impossible or entirely insignificant even as that change positively affects people around them. You might be glad not voting, but all the groups enfranchised since our nations founding generally see their enfranchisement as a positive, and I don't think this makes them zombies by default. I don't know about you, but I try and get into conversations with people I'm sure I'll disagree with, otherwise its a circlejerk.
What gave rise to this country is a violent, armed revolt against the previous rulers.
You don't need a government to protect your property. Not to mention Governments can't both claim to protect property and actively extort you for that property at the same time. No one consents to being taxed. Taxes are taken whether you agree or not.
Government provides rule of law. If you live in the U.S. and you believe this is true then it's probably a waste of time trying to convince you otherwise.
...if you live in Syria... you mean the place the U.S. has been actively encouraging war for the past few years... So fortunate we in our "first world country" can export death and destruction to the "third worlds" and then wonder why their society is in such chaos.
Of course the government provides law in the first world. I've never talked to an anarchist before, but if you can't admit that the state secures property and provides physical security through the threat of violence, while maintaining your argument, you have a shitty argument. If tomorrow there were absolutely no policemen in this country, we'd have chaos by lunchtime, and by chaos I mean increased murder, rape and looting. I tend to see the state and society as either the same thing or very closely related, in that if Eleven NorthKoreans were on one lifeboat and Eleven Brits or Americans were on a second lifeboat, I'd assume the second boat would be more likely to try democrassy to solve its disagreements.
You seem to be assuming that only government is capable of providing certain services (police, military, etc.). This is a very common assumption, but it only takes a little bit of pondering to realize that no proof or evidence exists to support this (others being banned from doing something does not equate to them being incapable of doing it).
A great place to start in understanding the fallacy in this line of reasoning is to accurately identify what exactly government is. IE: What characteristic differentiates 'government' from every other group of people?
Not just either of the two main parties... not any of them.
So you get all of the benefits of living in the United States but you feel morally in the clear because you've decided to participate in the process that gave rise to that country as little as the law allows you to, yet you get to live in a country with a strong central government which provides you property rights and the rule of law, unlike, to pick a shitty country at random, Syria. If you lived in Syria, figuring out a government structure might be a matter of life and death, but here because by international standards we live in a first world country it can remain theoretical.
TL;dr: If you don't like it move to Somalia.
Thanks for being original.
@laconicflow The basic difference we have is that you see society and state as the same thing and we view them as different and ultimately at odds. Participation in the state does not mean you are trying to improve society. It just means you are participating in the state and at some level empowering it. By not participating in the state, we just acknowledge that there are better ways to influence the society that don't involve supporting politicians and aggressive force by the state monopoly.
That's actually not my point. My point is that I find it paradoxical when people live in a society that enables them to say the society is an utter and total piece of shit, to the point where they'd prefer not to participate in its evolution even as they are surrounded by societies where the right to complain or bitch or criticize does not exist. I'm not saying the nation state will always be necisary, but while I think it is necisary I feel totally comfortable trying to change it for the better. I can only conclude that people who avoid participation think change within a state is impossible or entirely insignificant even as that change positively affects people around them. You might be glad not voting, but all the groups enfranchised since our nations founding generally see their enfranchisement as a positive, and I don't think this makes them zombies by default. I don't know about you, but I try and get into conversations with people I'm sure I'll disagree with, otherwise its a circlejerk.
What gave rise to this country is a violent, armed revolt against the previous rulers.
You don't need a government to protect your property. Not to mention Governments can't both claim to protect property and actively extort you for that property at the same time. No one consents to being taxed. Taxes are taken whether you agree or not.
Government provides rule of law. If you live in the U.S. and you believe this is true then it's probably a waste of time trying to convince you otherwise.
...if you live in Syria... you mean the place the U.S. has been actively encouraging war for the past few years... So fortunate we in our "first world country" can export death and destruction to the "third worlds" and then wonder why their society is in such chaos.
Of course the government provides law in the first world. I've never talked to an anarchist before, but if you can't admit that the state secures property and provides physical security through the threat of violence, while maintaining your argument, you have a shitty argument. If tomorrow there were absolutely no policemen in this country, we'd have chaos by lunchtime, and by chaos I mean increased murder, rape and looting. I tend to see the state and society as either the same thing or very closely related, in that if Eleven NorthKoreans were on one lifeboat and Eleven Brits or Americans were on a second lifeboat, I'd assume the second boat would be more likely to try democrassy to solve its disagreements.
@laconicflow: "If tomorrow there were absolutely no policemen in this country, we'd have chaos by lunchtime, and by chaos I mean increased murder, rape and looting."
Demonstrably false.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/acapulco-police-strike-backfired/
@laconicflow What does too much government look like to someone like yourself who is pro-government?
You seem to be assuming that only government is capable of providing certain services (police, military, etc.). This is a very common assumption, but it only takes a little bit of pondering to realize that no proof or evidence exists to support this (others being banned from doing something does not equate to them being incapable of doing it).
A great place to start in understanding the fallacy in this line of reasoning is to accurately identify what exactly government is. IE: What characteristic differentiates 'government' from every other group of people?