Rapists protecting virginity
Statist idiots believe the opinions and actions of thieves and aggressors can actually protect the innocent.
You can't reason with people like that.
All you can do is work around them, and defend yourself from them when they molest you.
.
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Any donations or subscriptions would be GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.
If you continue the line of thought you end up with a state like system for defense. Anarchy is unstable and temporary. It will either be conquered or evolve into something akin to a state to avoid being conquered.
How does voluntary association and accountability morph into a government? This has never been observed.
Anarchy has never been observed to last, power vacuums get filled. We are a social species and a tribal one. We form governments on our own voluntarily or by force it's what we do. Anarchy is incapable of solving the problems we create in life and so must borrow from and morph into government systems in reality.
Society functions only because of anarchy, and despite the efforts of the control freaks.
Can you give me an example and elaborate?
Steemit. We are voluntarily interacting. Neither of us rules the other. If the admins become abusive, we leave. We only participate because we all find value in participation. If another user is a bother, we can mute them and effectively restrict them from encroaching on our homesteaded sector of the blockchain.
The entire economy only functions because people individually seek to find ways to make mutually-beneficial exchanges. Planned economies always fail, and the hurdles of taxation and regulation inhibit progress rather than producing progress.
Every service provided by governments has been provided better by voluntary organizations, including health insurance, education, and roads.
The only reason the government continues to exist is because it has used a propaganda campaign to give itself the illusion of legitimacy. It produces nothing of real value. It does not secure property rights, economic success, technological advancement, security, or anything else.
Steemit isn't a society in which we actually live our lives I don't really see it as a valid example but I will try. Steemit definitely has a government. Steemit Inc is the government of Steemit.com and apparently the great Steem blockchain as well. It appears that the witness system serves at the behest of Ned and Dan. They control enough stake to replace any sort of dissent. From what I understand the launch of Steem was done in such a way as to maintain control over it after experiencing the results of losing control in bitshares.
"The entire economy only functions because people individually seek to find ways to make mutually-beneficial exchanges. "
That isn't anarchy though that can take place perfectly fine within a regulated system to protect people from those seeking to abuse others. I don't live under anarchy right now and my country has a thriving economy.
Unregulated economies are a recipe for disaster. It is a license to kill for predators. They will naturally trend to consolidation, collusion, monopolies and oligopolies. There will be plenty needless death from unsafe products without regulation too.
I find your blanket assertion that everything private is better to be completely unfounded particularly in the services you mentioned. Greed and profit as a motive do not always make for the best systems and are often times worse for obvious reasons.
Let's look at healthcare. You have to consider millions of people needlessly dying of curable or preventable illness as "better" because some people within that system have a more expedient and comfortable time. A private health insurance company has a motive to not pay you. It's a system that actively works against people even if they are insured. They have entire departments dedicated to finding ways not to pay out. Having productive and insured people go bankrupt or die due to illness or accident, which was no fault of their own, is not a better system for the individual or society.
"It produces nothing of real value. It does not secure property rights, economic success, technological advancement, security"
It absolutely does do all these things. Property rights don't exist without a government society to make them consistent and enforceable. Economies cannot scale effectively without governance. The internet is a perfect example of technological advancement by government like many of humanities advancements. Security is the primary function of government and it does exceedingly well, when was the last time you heard of a village being raped and pillaged by a pack of marauders? Certainly not in my country. I do hear of such horrors happening in lawless areas ISIS has been reaping the rewards of anarchy. Its almost a prerequisite to have the safety and stability of a government to even get most of those services to begin with.
I would much rather live and prosper safely under an elected government than in a lawless zone with a gun to protect my property and a constant fear of when and which warlord is going to try and take it.
At that point it would need to be abolished and start over again. I won't advocate evil just because I can't see any other way. Sorry.
I think the use of the word evil is hyperbole. The word itself is emotionally charged and highly subjective/arbitrary.
When I use the word "evil" I am referring to any act which intentionally harms any person who isn't currently initiating force or violating private property; harms someone who does not deserve to be harmed at this moment*.
Philip Zimbardo, in The Lucifer Effect, defines it thusly: “Evil consists in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize, or destroy innocent others—or using one’s authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf.” So he includes those using their (imaginary) "authority" to influence others to be evil under his definition of evil. I agree.
(*An "innocent" person. No one is "innocent" all the time, nor is anyone never "innocent". All you can do is judge their innocence or guilt at this moment.)
Using that definition a state is not necessarily evil and recognizing anarchy to be an untenable solution is not advocating for evil.
If you truly consider a state to be evil then why are you taking part in it? Here you are using the fruits of evil to communicate around the globe. Why haven't you gone off the grid?
States necessarily exist by violating the life, liberty, and property of those they impose themselves on. Thus, States are always evil. I suggest reading The Criminality of the State for starters. Then, perhaps Our enemy, the State.
Statists always expect everyone to be forced to pay-- at gunpoint-- for the State to do things, but not use them. That's silly. If you are forced to pay for something I support you using it. Even if, say, a family decides to home school their kids, the State forces them to keep funding the government schools. To use a non-state option you have to pay twice. Some people can afford it. Some can't, yet do it anyway. Some don't have the option, and don't feel like being murdered by employees of the State for opting out. And, people like you clap and cheer.
And, just because an evil person, or a person working with stolen money, invents something, that's no reason to criticize those who use it later. Or, do you refuse to use anything invented by someone who did horrible things? (Plus, the government isn't as responsible for the internet as statists would like everyone to believe, but that's a whole other topic.)
Are you being held prisoner by your current state? Are you not free to leave? If you are free to leave then the state isn't being imposed on you against your will and anything extracted from you at gunpoint would be from due to your violation of the contract you chose to accept by living in and benefitting from civilization.
"Statists always expect everyone to be forced to pay-- at gunpoint-- for the State to do things, but not use them."
That is a misrepresentation of reality most are perfectly willing to pay and be a part of civilization it is only a fringe that do not pay and even for that fringe guns are not always necessary to collect taxes. Are you free to leave your state and remove yourself as a tax payer? I choose to live here and in doing so know I must pay taxes or they will garnish my wages and freeze bank accounts. Even if I stiff them on the debt via those routes, I don't go to prison they will just wait me out and in theory I could live out my life taking cash jobs and not keeping a bank account or maybe even survive with clever use of credit union. No guns get pointed at me though. Your state may be different.
You seem to not understand what the word "state" means.
"Taxation" is NOT the "price we pay for civiliartion" like one old liar once claimed. Instead, civilization is what humans sometimes manage to create in spite of "taxation".
All "laws" are always enforced by the threat of death. If you don't obey, people will continue to escalate the violence until you either comply, or they will murder you.
"You seem to not understand what the word "state" means."
I would say you seem very confused on the term yourself.
Taxation is obviously the price we pay for taking part in modern civilization. Some silly and obscure quote stating otherwise doesn't change that fact. The quote is just wrong. I pay taxes willingly to my state according to my means as set forth in the tax code. I receive in return all the luxuries that come with living in modern western civilization. If I don't want to pay those taxes I am free to leave and not pay them, perhaps I can find some civilization that doesn't charge me taxes and take part in that or I can try and start my own. I and millions of others choose voluntarily to remain and accept the rules. I suspect you've done the same.
Force and death are not the same thing. In fact there is no death penalty at all in my state. While ultimately, yes, once confidence and respect for laws erode then force becomes necessary but force does not necessitate death. My state will not kill me or put me in prison if I don't pay my taxes.
Your dichotomies are objectively false.
Why do you keep evading my simple questions regarding your ability to leave the state in which you reside? Are you free to leave or are you being held prisoner? I ask because some people are held prisoner but I suspect you avoid the question because you know it removes the false narrative that your state is being imposed on you against your will.
"I pay taxes willingly to my state according to my means as set forth in the tax code."
Why do you need a "tax code" to enable you to send money to the State? Send all you want, but don't force others to join you. It's "nice" to willingly give of your own property- it is wrong to demand others do the same. You can't be generous with other people's property. That's theft.
"If I don't want to pay those taxes I am free to leave and not pay them, perhaps I can find some civilization that doesn't charge me taxes and take part in that or I can try and start my own."
Good luck. But why abandon society to the barbarians?
"I and millions of others choose voluntarily to remain and accept the rules."
That's nice. Millions of people throughout history accepted slavery (of other forms) too. It was still wrong.
"Force and death are not the same thing."
Difference of degree, not in kind.
"In fact there is no death penalty at all in my state."
So, cops never kill anyone who is trying to defend themselves from cops committing acts of enforcement against them?
"My state will not kill me or put me in prison if I don't pay my taxes."
How sure are you of that? Keep refusing to comply at each step as employees of the state escalate the force and see where it ends up.
"Why do you keep evading my simple questions regarding your ability to leave the state in which you reside?"
Because it is utterly irrelevant. "State" doesn't mean "Ohio" or "Florida"- it means a gang who believes in a magical quality they call "authority", which they believe they possess. Because of their delusional belief in this magical quality, they believe they aren't being evil when they steal ("tax"), kidnap ("arrest"), etc. as long as they have given themselves permission to do those things. Now, yes, I could move from one "state" to another. Many people do to avoid draconian "laws", but there is no longer a frontier where people can go to avoid bullies. Moving can make a minor difference, but not much of one. And, as I say, a person should have to leave just because the mafia decides they run the place. Even if long-dead mafioso made an agreement hundreds of years ago with long-dead willing slaves.
If you can show me (and others) a place that is reachable and without a State (no, Somalia isn't it) then watch out for the stampede. But statists lie. It's what they do to avoid facing reality. I get it. It's been going on for 5000+ years.