Here's the sticking point. You live in a society with a government that you don't want. The catch is that most people living with that government want it. We've decided that the government provides things that its easiest or practical or logical for government to provide. Like police, public schools, etc.
I understand you think there's a better way of providing those things. What you fail to understand is that without the state as a check, there is nothing stopping me from creating my own army to build my own power base. All this shit sounds great in theory, but that's where it ends.
1 - "Government" IS you creating your own army to build your own power base. 2 - Without the belief in the LEGITIMACY of the ruling class, ONE BULLET stops you from doing that. 3 - "Government" doesn't provide anything. It forces you to provide its version of "services." 4 - In a free society, no one would stop you from making YOURSELF subservient to, and dependent upon, a bunch of political crooks. You just wouldn't be allowed to force OTHERS into your bad plan with you.
What do you suppose motivates mindless statists like laconicflow to continually troll YOUR critiques of statism?
You laid out an easy-to-understand, rational rebuttal of statist claims/assertions, and yet laconic comes here and makes...THE SAME DISCREDITED CLAIMS/ASSERTIONS!
With all of the actual injustice and evil being perpetrated by THE STATE, not only do laconic & his ilk choose not to criticize the crimes of the state, but instead they criticize YOU for simply pointing out plain truths...they're mentally-ill!
Its like the statists think to themselves, "Hmmmmm...over there is this group of people going around destroying/degrading the lives of 100's of MILLIONS of other, innocent people, and...here is someone saying that human interactions should be peaceful and voluntary...clearly I need to spend time and effort fighting these insane ideas about peace, voluntarism, and equality!"
By the way, a master duping most of his slaves into loving the plantation doesn't make slavery righteous.
@larkenrose Clearly I'm not going to make you reevaluate your life's work. But here's what I'm trying to say.
or RoadIsland, for that matter.
4A. The Pax Rmana and now the Pax Americana prevent me and my army from doing this to either state, which is half the point of government..
The "charisma to create a military force"? In a society that doesn't believe anyone has the right to rule? And for some reason, the HUNDRED MILLION armed people here now just let you?
Yes, humanity has been suffering from the insane delusion of "authority" for a very long time. Most of your argument is you demonstrating how you are incapable of imagining anything else. That's your problem, not mine.
We've also never enjoyed a society free of cancer. Its a noble goal though.
@laconicflow and @larkenrose:
In my years discussing the possibility of a free society with statists (in other words, with pretty much everybody else), they have generally defaulted to the argument that since one or another horde would always invade a free society and impose its will upon it, that's the way it is, which is to say, the ultimate defense of the state is that initiated violence will always prevail over voluntary cooperation, so, in essence, accept the state as a fact of life and go about your life as best you can under its auspices.
Nice argument, i.e.,* immorality rules.*
It's what libertarian economist David Friedman (Milton's son) called a free society's "hard problem of national defense" — http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf — which he believed was insurmountable. Yet it was only a couple of weeks ago that, here on Steemit, the solution to the hardproblem was discussed — https://steemit.com/assassinationpolitics/@dollarvigilante/world-exclusive-first-interview-with-jim-bell-of-assassination-politics-since-released-from-jail — i.e., that a free society could defend itself by resorting to the ultimate mode of *asymmetric warfare" — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare
And now, 21 years after this visionary's essay was published, the technology is in place and only awaits its "execution," with the understanding that the loss of life would be infinitesimal in comparison to that inflicted by the status — as in statist — quo and that the world could be transformed accordingly.
That said, let me close by pointing laconicflow to Larken's wonderful The Tiny Dot, which is a classic, in my opinion, as your video above will hopefully be.
Meanwhile, you both might glean something from the following:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@freeradical/the-nature-and-origin-of-the-state
Great post Larken and totally agree. It seems some Statist will always claim that the majority wanting A = A is good/justified.
They use the great royal "We" as if somehow being a majority makes your logic moot because you are a minority.
They fail to recognize that in the process they betray themselves by using words and arguments that have been taught to them and refuse to think for themselves lest they admit a mistake.
I've learned not to take statists too seriously and not to spend to much time on the net :)
You honestly don't need the state as a check, all you need is a group made up of volunteers that function like a militia that are well armed. To claim that we need the state as a check is to make the claim that it would be impossible for people to organize themselves voluntarily to defend themselves against aggressors which is simply not the case. Let's just take Rojava as a perfect example where people from different backgrounds and faiths organize themselves against outside aggressors even at the most extreme situations. Check out this link for more information. http://bravetheworld.com/2015/06/02/anarchy-lives-rojava/
The British colonies freed themselves with citizen militias, not the Continental Army. Washington was great at talking his way our of capture, but terrible at warfare. He trusted regimentation, standard methods of warfare. He did not trust the militia, but later after numerous successes of theirs he tolerated them. The militia broke all his rules of warfare, and succeeded. He got the credit, at least in the history books that survived; the books promoted by the state, for the state, in state schools.
But it was volunteers who gathered spontaneously, fought without a central plan, without coercion, on their own (without Army), and used non-traditional guerrilla tactics to best the regular British Army. They disbanded and regrouped on their own judgement. Is this generally known? What popular literature tells this in no uncertain terms? None. Why? Could we be living in a very controlled world?
I think until someone can come along and address the concerns/fears that people have of "no government" things will continue as they are. I personally don't have a full grasp on this concept. Maybe its from our current way of life being shoved down my throat. But I like the concept. For instance, someone who may not understand the concept says "what about our infrastructure? Our roads?" "Who will protect us from other countries? " "From ourselves?" I've never read or heard anyone ever address this, they just go into some rhetoric speech. Address concerns like this and get some attention! Personally I think there is a need for some level of government but the power should be with the people, not over the people.
I hate driving. Traffic has ruined auto travel. Who is responsible for the roads? The construction delays never end, with double penalties everywhere. And the planned "obsolete before built" layouts are built at a snail's pace.
I am going to quit using them and patronize their competitors. Oh wait, these govt. roads are all we have, no competition there.
As a voluntaryist, every time I advocate self governance instead of monopoly govt. forced on everyone at gun point, I get: "But who will build the roads?"
@arnolds if you like concepts that sound nice in theory, see communism. My questions are the ones you just asked. Its not that I couldn't draw up a voluntarist solution to the roads and the police, its just that I'm not radical enough to want to try it in practice.
"Government" without power over the people is not "government." A controlled "government" is not a"government."
Wouldn't a government with power OVER the people be known as a tyranny?
Yes. Yes it would.
http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/PA/Practical_Anarchy_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf
Those concerns are addressed in a myriad of ways by many, many people. However, the indoctrinated tend not to hear any answer that doesn't involve using force to control people. No one can make you listen and understand.
For instance, there are lots of private roads. Private highways collect tolls and use those tolls to maintain the highway. On a smaller scale, I've spent much of my life living on property that is accessed by private roads, serviced by the people that live on them. In one case, it was several miles of dirt/gravel road in a mountainous area. Roads can, will, and have happened without governments killing and stealing.
Well, as long as we're making wishes, I'd also like someone to explain why it's acceptable, legitimate and / or morale that I was deceptively recruited into this demonic 'state' thing and apparently I'm not allowed to leave.
Cognitive dissonance + Stockholm Syndrome = laconicflow