What do you like about the State?

[Dan.]

What's not to like about the State in its purest form (voluntary association, equal representation, etc)?

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We know you can construct elaborate strawmen where Wal-Mart monopolizes every good and service and eventually acquires every resource on earth, or aliens from Neptune nuke AC-land into oblivion, or the much-maligned Bill Gates hires a death squad or burns down all the forests or dumps cyanide in the drinking water.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, the irony.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel you here, iron, but the difference is that this part of my OP was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, whereas the actual statist strawmen typically are not.

FWIW I considered digging up old threads and finding what the real strawmen actually were but that would have been too much work. It's kind of a shame too, because I bet I could have found some real ones that were even more ridiculous than my exaggerated ones.

The Bill Gates-burns-down-the-forests one was 100% real, and the others are at least similar to real statist arguments that have occurred on this forum. There was one about a guy hiring a mass death/destruction squad to eliminate downtown Detroit so that he could build a golf course there (I exaggerate not one iota).

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
What's not to like about the State in its purest form (voluntary association, equal representation, etc)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it really isn't a problem at all if everyone agrees to it, nor is anything else that everyone agrees to. But that isn't the case.

If the gov't didn't monopolize certain services that I desire and the IRS sent me a form that said "Check yes or no for taxes," I don't think I would object to the state at all. It is precisely the non-voluntary part where my objection lies.

[Smasharoo]

Oh the irony! An ad hominem attack by its very definition in the very next paragraph!

It is pretty ironic, isn't it. Droll almost...


Theft is defined as the act of stealing. To steal is defined as "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force." www.dictionary.com Taxation takes my money, without my permission, by force. It is theft by definition. Moorobot basically admits as much in his theft thread. You would need to re-define theft in order for taxation NOT to be theft.


This is a compelling argument, as is it's logical extension that property itself is theft. Precisely equally compelling, I'd say. In point of fact it's logically impossible to believe one without believing the other or you completely lose the integrity of either argument.



Ad hominem attack #2.

FWIW, I may be guilty of this, but I am currently trying to remedy that issue, and borodog, pvn, hmk, nielsio, etc. are obviously not guilty of it to any objective observer, which you clearly are not.

Would very likely be droll were it intentionally hypocritical for effect, but I strongly suspect that's not the case.


LOL @ this. No such central authority exists unless it's some ultra-secret one that only you know about.

I think you're confused. That's very likely my fault as I simply assumed anyone reading: 'Without some centralized authority in place to control dramatic expressions of violence,' wouldn't for some bizarre reason infer that to mean 'one singular overarching authority'. Let me make it simpler, I guess.

Without one or several centralized authorities in place to control the distribution of nuclear weapons and materials..etc. Does that make it clearer?


The reason nuclear weapons have been used forcefully only twice in history is precisely because there is NOT one central authority with the ability to abuse them at will.


Without delving too deeply into the complexities of the overlapping interests of various ruling classes in maintaining authority coinciding to deter the use of such of weapons, let me simply argue that were it the case that nuclear material and technology could be exchanged in an actual free market where anyone could obtain them who had sufficient capital, it's highly likely just from a utilitarian standpoint that many would have been used by now.


Mutually Assured Destruction How ironic - the free market even works among states.

With all due respect, whatever that may in fact be, I'd tend to think you'd agree that a market comprised solely of states wouldn't qualify as 'free'.


You also assume for the purpose of your argument that the state doesn't exist, and then simultaneously assume that nuclear weapons exist, which is like assuming that Microsoft doesn't exist and yet we still magically have Windows.


This is an interesting statement. Are you arguing that a stateless society would retard scientific and technological growth? That would seem wholly inconsistent with the theory you appear to be advocating for. Or perhaps one of us is confused. Please explain to me your reasoning for thinking that were societies stateless that research in nuclear physics would have been set back more than half a century.


This is perhaps the worst argument in the history of the politics forum.

Perhaps so. Arguments where one of the participants is much more informed than another do tend to be fairly dull.


Not only is it wrong, but it is diametrically the opposite of right. This is even worse than Steven Bickford's OP about moral clarity, which is no small feat. Congratulations.

Well now I feel almost guilty. Almost by association. Say what you like about Steven, his pancakes are stellar.


They have been.

This is patently false by any definition. I imagine you realize that, too by now, so I'll spare you me repeating myself.


And it's not.

We agree. Large parts of the Earth have not been rendered uninhabitable by the use of nuclear weapons. See, I knew we'd find some common ground here somewhere.


I really don't dispute this or the earlier part about people craving authority. But there is no reason that they should. If enough people can be convinced of this, there is no longer a need for the state, which you seemingly admit.

Well, this is essentially true by definition. It is equally as true as 'If enough people could be convinced to be pacifists there would be no war'. Neither will occur, however, because people can't be 'convinced' out of human nature and what they perceive to be their self interest will rule their actions, regardless what an objective examination would tell us would truly be beneficial to them.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
-uniform and generally fair criminal laws

[/ QUOTE ]







[ QUOTE ]
-ditto business laws

[/ QUOTE ]



Compare



and



with



The market acted against the first two, the government against the second.

[ QUOTE ]
-badass taxing power avoids free-rider problems

[/ QUOTE ]



It avoids *some* problems. And creates a whole set of new ones. But the ones it solves are not really problems to begin with, while the ones it creates are. DYSW?

[ QUOTE ]
-ability to enact egalitarian programs protects society and capitalism from revolt by the underclasses

[/ QUOTE ]

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
-badass taxing power avoids free-rider problems

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are free-rider situations problems that need to be solved?? I've never understood this. If I spend money landscaping my front yard, why do I care that my neighbor's house value goes up a bit?

I guess you're talking about something like roads where no one person would be able to afford to build the road on their own. Well, that's what corporations and investment capital are for.

[Poofler]

It's not a supply side issue. Roads aren't such a problem because you can toll for use. The free-rider problems are where there is no reliable way to actually make a user pay for receiving benefits, despite their demand for it.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are free-rider situations problems that need to be solved?? I've never understood this.

[/ QUOTE ]
FFS just read the Wikipedia entry on the free rider problem. It's not a particularly difficult concept to wrap your head around.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
-uniform and generally fair criminal laws
-ditto business laws
-badass taxing power avoids free-rider problems
-ability to enact egalitarian programs protects society and capitalism from revolt by the underclasses

[/ QUOTE ]

Not gonna disagree with 1, 2 or 4 as they're largely opinion and unprovable either way, but I'd say 3 is the exact opposite of true. Almost all the poor are free riders.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are free-rider situations problems that need to be solved?? I've never understood this.

[/ QUOTE ]
FFS just read the Wikipedia entry on the free rider problem. It's not a particularly difficult concept to wrap your head around.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't say he misunderstood the concept of free-riding, he asked why it needs to be solved. I read it, but it still doesn't address his question of " WHY" it needs to be solved.

From the wiki article
[ QUOTE ]
Because the notion of 'fairness' is controversial, free riding is usually only considered to be an economic "problem" when it leads to the non-production or under-production of a public good, and thus to Pareto inefficiency, or when it leads to the excessive use of a common property resource.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to be more of a fariness issue than a logistical issue, according to the wiki article you referenced. And let's face it, when it comes to debating ACists, you'd have a hard time playing the "fairness" card.