Search the Community

I am going to make a case here that state and its justification are debunked in its propositation. States existance is usualyl justified that without one X would not be provided or that state is moral neccesity. However principles behind these "justification" are debunked as soon as the description of the state is laid bare, namely that state is in fact a: Group/Organization made out of induviduals whom have the right and oblication to initiate force trough laws, taxes and regulation. All and any justifications that statist or truly anyoner can think of are debunked as soon as this defination is accepted. For in initiating force the state destroys its justification from the stand point of protection from criminals and other potential "armies" (aka other states and large rogue groups). Taxes, debunks the notion that state is needed to help with theft or with income equality. Regulation, debunks the notion that state is needed for preserving freedoms that under anarchy wouldnt exist or be supressed. Laws (from the state), debunks the notion of being fair and just for anyone using the voting system may simply chance the face of the state's actions and preferances thus the state becomes simply organization that enforces everyone else to follow majority opinion. Thus the "law is an opinion with a gun" phrase comes in. With dept, the state invalidates the economic justification of stabilising capitalism and economy due to sending falso signals trough the fed. Now all these debunking could be argued againts with simply that "we need to tweak the system" or "No taxation/laws/regulation is ok because theyre neccery for society to function". And these are clearly false since: - The state can iniate force whether you agree or disagree, thus "we need to tweak the sytem" would simply replace the current ineffiency for YOUR ineffiency unless you can PROVE that waht you suggest would work. This means that UNLESS the stateist is wiling to "tweak" iniation of force away along with non disagreeable regulation and taxes. - If neccesity is the principle here then we must ask the statist, neccecity to whom? Him, me or everyone? This principle fails because it arbiterily assigns neccesity without evidency for such neccesity nor does it justify that neccecity for 1 or the same for the other. "It is neccery for me agree and support the ste whether i want to or not but it is NOT neccesity for him to respect my willingness to NOT suppport the state." In other words here is where the "agaitns me arguement" coems into play. I know this is really bare bones understanding of the arguements surrounding the state and statists. Any critique is welcome and if you think theres already summery like this somewhere that would be good and/or better. This was written to better my own understang of the case againts stateism besides the obviousl EPIC moral failure of stateism. This is to highligh other logical failings of stateism.