Income inequality vs. income mobility

[Alan C.]

A very important distinction.

The only issue that should matter to libertarians is the degree of freedom that people have to pursue their interests, rather than whose house is too big or who has more cars than they need.

[STer]

I think you'll have a tough time ever getting most people to just overlook massive inequality no matter how any particular philosophy may justify it being acceptable. I'm pretty sure multiple studies have shown that people respond emotionally more to relative status than even absolute status. And given our evolutionary history it would be easy to see why this is how we would have evolved.

Does anyone really expect masses of people to someday be perfectly ok with huge inequality even if there was equal opportunity?

[Arius]

The only problem with this is the idea that wealth inequality is somehow resolved by more violence in society.

I also find it funny that the wealthiest side of the chart gets the most welfare from the state.  The government has solved the problem of poverty...for that one guy.

It's sad that these kinds of debates are always about who should hold the gun and where it should be pointed, rather than how to actually solve the problem.

[STer]

 

The only problem with this is the idea that wealth inequality is somehow resolved by more violence in society.

I also find it funny that the wealthiest side of the chart gets the most welfare from the state.  The government has solved the problem of poverty...for that one guy.

It's sad that these kinds of debates are always about who should hold the gun and where it should be pointed, rather than how to actually solve the problem.

 

Actually this brings up one of the most challenging issues for supporters of the non-aggression principle. When is something aggression and when is it self-defense? Many of those who see massive inequality and want to rectify it don't see themselves as aggressing against someone so much as standing up for themselves as a response to something being taken from them.

This is really difficult because we no longer live in a simple person to person 200 person tribal economy. We live in a global economy that is highly networked. A person can steal from another in very sneaky, roundabout and indirect ways, without even ever meeting that person directly. Some of these ways are even legal. So people see this inequality and sense that something, somewhere has gone corrupt and have an instinct to stand up for themselves. Are they right or not? It's not always so easy to tell.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

The only problem with this is the idea that wealth inequality is somehow resolved by more violence in society.

I also find it funny that the wealthiest side of the chart gets the most welfare from the state.  The government has solved the problem of poverty...for that one guy.

It's sad that these kinds of debates are always about who should hold the gun and where it should be pointed, rather than how to actually solve the problem.

 

Actually this brings up one of the most challenging issues for supporters of the non-aggression principle. When is something aggression and when is it self-defense? Many of those who see massive inequality and want to rectify it don't see themselves as aggressing against someone so much as standing up for themselves as a response to something being taken from them.

This is really difficult because we no longer live in a simple person to person 200 person tribal economy. We live in a global economy that is highly networked. A person can steal from another in very sneaky, roundabout and indirect ways, without even ever meeting that person directly. Some of these ways are even legal. So people see this inequality and sense that something, somewhere has gone corrupt and have an instinct to stand up for themselves. Are they right or not? It's not always so easy to tell.

 

Anarchism cant solve that issue. Thus anarchy is avoiding reality. Also I argue that corruption is a moot point. Recognizing corruption is merely recognizing a truth. That truth being that there will always be corruption at whatever level. Minimizing corruption is one thing, but ending it is not possible. Humans shouldn't really see things in the realm of corrupt or not. We should look at self positioning, since that is what affects us as individuals. Complaining about corruption is like complaining about gravity. So anarchy avoids society since in every social interaction there is a society whether it's 2 people or 2 billion. In that dynamic there will always be the more, and less powerful. Where are you? That's what matters. Morals are a sneaky way to claim leverage, but morals are really a guideline to how not to piss people off. Unfortunately you can't please everybody, and the most powerful people are not always the most morally sound (which proves that morals don't lead to power). But power is the dominant factor in freedom and mobility so it is undeniable that in order to have freedom we must seek power, thus we must deal with society. Societies deal in ethics, not morality. Morality is your individual code. Ethics is the societal code. Morality will not advance you. Ethics will, and it is survival of the fittest, unfortunately. There will always be a will to power, and anarchy ignores this. This is why anarchy is the biggest failure of any philosophy. This is why anarchy doesn't exist in the real world. This is why anarchy leads directly to tyranny. Because the will to power is ignored, thus it gets very dominant and immediately destroys the anarchist code, trapping everybody like a sucker punch. There is a lot of meat to my statement, and it might infuriate this crowd, but I think every debate we've been exposed to in this area has been so lacking that it numbs my mind.

[Guest NateC]

 

Does anyone really expect masses of people to someday be perfectly ok with huge inequality even if there was equal opportunity?

 

I do. At least, I know I'm ok being on the lower end.  I think the argument has been made in Stef's podcasts that
many successful people are successful because they live on the constant
stress, a stress that keeps the anxiety of childhood and self-reflection
at bay.

 

This is really difficult because we no longer live in a simple person
to person 200 person tribal economy. We live in a global economy that
is highly networked. A person can steal from another in very sneaky,
roundabout and indirect ways, without even ever meeting that person
directly. Some of these ways are even legal. So people see this
inequality and sense that something, somewhere has gone corrupt and have
an instinct to stand up for themselves. Are they right or not? It's not
always so easy to tell.

 

Isn't the argument: there's no morality when coercion is involved?

 

 

Anarchism cant solve that issue. Thus anarchy is avoiding reality. Also I argue that corruption is a moot point. Recognizing corruption is merely recognizing a truth. That truth being that there will always be corruption at whatever level. Minimizing corruption is one thing, but ending it is not possible. Humans shouldn't really see things in the realm of corrupt or not. We should look at self positioning, since that is what affects us as individuals. Complaining about corruption is like complaining about gravity. So anarchy avoids society since in every social interaction there is a society whether it's 2 people or 2 billion. In that dynamic there will always be the more, and less powerful. Where are you? That's what matters. Morals are a sneaky way to claim leverage, but morals are really a guideline to how not to piss people off. Unfortunately you can't please everybody, and the most powerful people are not always the most morally sound (which proves that morals don't lead to power). But power is the dominant factor in freedom and mobility so it is undeniable that in order to have freedom we must seek power, thus we must deal with society. Societies deal in ethics, not morality. Morality is your individual code. Ethics is the societal code. Morality will not advance you. Ethics will, and it is survival of the fittest, unfortunately. There will always be a will to power, and anarchy ignores this. This is why anarchy is the biggest failure of any philosophy. This is why anarchy doesn't exist in the real world. This is why anarchy leads directly to tyranny. Because the will to power is ignored, thus it gets very dominant and immediately destroys the anarchist code, trapping everybody like a sucker punch. There is a lot of meat to my statement, and it might infuriate this crowd, but I think every debate we've been exposed to in this area has been so lacking that it numbs my mind.

 

The whole of life is not a power struggle. My day-to-day is not win-lose.  I'm not overpowering the checkout lady at the grocery store, nor am I running cars off the road. I'm not friends with tyrants.  Anarchy very much exists in my reality.

[Arius]

There will always be a will to power, and anarchy ignores this...This is why anarchy leads directly to tyranny... But power is the dominant factor in freedom and mobility so it is undeniable that in order to have freedom we must seek power

Kill or be killed, it's human nature.

Freedom is slavery.

To dominate is best in life.

Conan The Barbarian + Doublethink.

Why pretend to debate?  Just grab your sword and go defeat your enemies.

 

 

[Rick Horton]

 

There will always be a will to power, and anarchy ignores this...This is why anarchy leads directly to tyranny... But power is the dominant factor in freedom and mobility so it is undeniable that in order to have freedom we must seek power

Kill or be killed, it's human nature.

Freedom is slavery.

To dominate is best in life.

Conan The Barbarian + Doublethink.

Why pretend to debate?  Just grab your sword and go defeat your enemies.

 

 

 

How am I pretending?

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

The whole of life is not a power struggle. My day-to-day is not win-lose.  I'm not overpowering the checkout lady at the grocery store, nor am I running cars off the road. I'm not friends with tyrants.  Anarchy very much exists in my reality.

 

How do you use anarchy in everyday life? 

an·ar·chy

  [an-er-kee]  Show IPA

noun

1.

a state of society without government or law.

2.

political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king wasfollowed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.

3.

anarchism (  def 1 ) .

4.

lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.

5.

confusion and disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith. It was impossible to find thebook I was looking for in the anarchy of his bookshelves. Synonyms: chaos, disruption, turbulence; license;disorganization, disintegration.

[Arius]

 

Kill or be killed, everything else is pretense. It's such a tragic existence.

I won't kill you, even if you don't allow me to dominate you.  I won't be dominated, even if you try to kill me.  We can have real, peaceful debates, in which there are no attempts to dominate or coerce...or, we can talk as a pretense to establish authority.  I prefer the former over the latter..

 

 

[Guest NateC]

 

 

 

The whole of life is not a power struggle. My day-to-day is not win-lose.  I'm not overpowering the checkout lady at the grocery store, nor am I running cars off the road. I'm not friends with tyrants.  Anarchy very much exists in my reality.

 

How do you use anarchy in everyday life? 

an·ar·chy

  [an-er-kee]  Show IPA

noun

1.

a state of society without government or law.

2.

political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king wasfollowed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.

 

"Without government" "The absence of governmental control"  Living without rulers.  Living without coercion.  Living without the power struggle.  Living with win-win negotiations.

 

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

 

The whole of life is not a power struggle. My day-to-day is not win-lose.  I'm not overpowering the checkout lady at the grocery store, nor am I running cars off the road. I'm not friends with tyrants.  Anarchy very much exists in my reality.

 

How do you use anarchy in everyday life? 

an·ar·chy

  [an-er-kee]  Show IPA

noun

1.

a state of society without government or law.

2.

political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king wasfollowed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.

 

"Without government" "The absence of governmental control"  Living without rulers.  Living without coercion.  Living without the power struggle.  Living with win-win negotiations.

 

 

 

I'll move on when you do. If you don't answer the question I won't press you on it, but it means you're avoiding answering for "some" reason which I can't know. 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

Kill or be killed, everything else is pretense. It's such a tragic existence.

I won't kill you, even if you don't allow me to dominate you.  I won't be dominated, even if you try to kill me.  We can have real, peaceful debates, in which there are no attempts to dominate or coerce...or, we can talk as a pretense to establish authority.  I prefer the former over the latter..

 

 

 

This is bizarre. I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say.

[Arius]

You said:

"...Ethics ... is survival of the fittest..." and "There will always be a will to power" and "power is the dominant factor in freedom".

I just wanted you to know that I'm not going to try to kill you, even if you don't let me dominate you.  Also, I will not allow you to dominate me, even if you try to kill me.  We will both survive each other, no matter who is fitter.  I have no desire to dominate or control other people.  No one controls me and I don't control anyone.  I am free, yet I lack power.

 

 

[Guest NateC]

 

I'll move on when you do. If you don't answer the question I won't press you on it, but it means you're avoiding answering for "some" reason which I can't know. 

 

I'm in a state of anarchy when I:
-Get up in the morning and eat my breakfast
-When I talk to a female on a dating site
-When I go to the mall and buy a book
-When I go for a run along the bay
-When I rent a movie (btw, just saw "The Master" and felt very dirty after watching it)
-When I pay my phone bill
-When I take out the trash
-When I logon to FDR and post on this board

[Rick Horton]

 

 

I'll move on when you do. If you don't answer the question I won't press you on it, but it means you're avoiding answering for "some" reason which I can't know. 

 

I'm in a state of anarchy when I:
-Get up in the morning and eat my breakfast
-When I talk to a female on a dating site
-When I go to the mall and buy a book
-When I go for a run along the bay
-When I rent a movie (btw, just saw "The Master" and felt very dirty after watching it)
-When I pay my phone bill
-When I take out the trash
-When I logon to FDR and post on this board

 

Can you provide evidence that you are in a state of anarchy in those situations?

[Rick Horton]

Actually, I'm asking you to give you a chance, but I would argue that none of those situations are done by you in a state of anarchy. You do these things in a society under the umbrella of the State, so you don't really know about anarchy. You haven't experienced it in your life in any way at all. That is my argument. Let me consolidate my argument so it's easier to respond to. You cannot win an argument based on the experience of anarchy when you live in an area controlled by the State, because it has created conditions that have had long standing impacts on peoples' actions, morals, and ethics. Nothing you can do in a area controlled by the State can be said to be anarchistic.

[Rick Horton]

 

Actually, I'm asking you to give you a chance, but I would argue that none of those situations are done by you in a state of anarchy. You do these things in a society under the umbrella of the State, so you don't really know about anarchy. You haven't experienced it in your life in any way at all. That is my argument. Let me consolidate my argument so it's easier to respond to. You cannot win an argument based on the experience of anarchy when you live in an area controlled by the State, because it has created conditions that have had long standing impacts on peoples' actions, morals, and ethics. Nothing you can do in a area controlled by the State can be said to be anarchistic.

 

Furthermore, since there is no scientific evidence that anarchy could work in reality based on total absense of it ever happening historically, anarchy exists merely as an idea, but it is impossible to practice on a scale large enough to be considered a tribe, or larger. There isn't ONE anarchist society in existence at this time, or in any time before this. Anarchy is on the same level as God, because faith requires an absence of truth, logic and evidence, and there is no evidence that in human culture anarchy is a possibility. On the contrary, it is actually against not only human nature, but the nature of all existence. No biology is equal. No bilological life-form is without threat, action, harm, and self preservation. No lifeform has ever implimented a stateless society.  Anyhow, in the realm of humanity, it sure as hell doesn't exist and ignoring reality is not logical.

 

[Arius]

You do these things in a society under the umbrella of the State...Nothing you can do in a area controlled by the State can be said to be anarchistic.

The State knows all.  The State sees all.  The State controls all.

It's like you're channeling Big Brother.

 

[Magnus]

Anarchism is the essential nature of all human societies. You say there's no historical precedent?  All human societies everywhere are the precedent. 

It is statism that is the mere idea. The proposition that Statists have ever had "control" over any society is an illusion. They are far better at taking credit for organizing society (and providing its benefits) than they are at actually doing it. Statism is, first and foremost, a con game. It works almost entirely by deception and illusion. 

It's sort of like telling people that they should see the "Hand of God" operating in their lives. It's completely imaginary, and never actually happens, but you can convince billions of people to interpret natural phenomena and events in their lives as though they are the workings of a deity. The illusion prevents them from ever discerning the actual cause and effect mechanisms. 

The State's greatest talent has been to convince people that its role in their lives is meaningful and beneficial. They provide the "umbrella" under which we all live. They make the money. They'd take credit for the heat of the sun if they could. 

[Rick Horton]

 

Anarchism is the essential nature of all human societies. You say there's no historical precedent?  All human societies everywhere are the precedent. 

It is statism that is the mere idea. The proposition that Statists have ever had "control" over any society is an illusion. They are far better at taking credit for organizing society (and providing its benefits) than they are at actually doing it. Statism is, first and foremost, a con game. It works almost entirely by deception and illusion. 

It's sort of like telling people that they should see the "Hand of God" operating in their lives. It's completely imaginary, and never actually happens, but you can convince billions of people to interpret natural phenomena and events in their lives as though they are the workings of a deity. The illusion prevents them from ever discerning the actual cause and effect mechanisms. 

The State's greatest talent has been to convince people that its role in their lives is meaningful and beneficial. They provide the "umbrella" under which we all live. They make the money. They'd take credit for the heat of the sun if they could. 

 

It's interesting that your argument on why anarchy is all around us doesn't include any examples that can be separated from the State.

[Rick Horton]

 

You do these things in a society under the umbrella of the State...Nothing you can do in a area controlled by the State can be said to be anarchistic.

The State knows all.  The State sees all.  The State controls all.

It's like you're channeling Big Brother.

 

 

Sorry. I no longer reply to this type of comment.

[Guest NateC]

 

It's interesting that your argument on why anarchy is all around us doesn't include any examples that can be separated from the State.

 

Are you forgetting my post?

[Arius]

I could try to explain that the state is not, in fact, omnipresent or omnipotent.  But would you believe me?

In my mind, it's better to echo back your own ideas, as any attempt I make to communicate will be construed as an attempt to dominate.  I cannot even begin to deconstruct "You aren't walking on the sidewalk in a state of anarchy because the contractor who built the sidewalk was commissioned by a government employee who might have used tax funds, rather than a bond, to pay for the work"...Rather than try, I'll just echo.

I don't know.  The idea that everyone is trying to kill or dominate you, doesn't that strike you as a touch paranoid?  The idea that the state is there with you, as you walk down the sidewalk...

I try to communicate in meaningful ways, but I don't know how to address paranoia (I'm not trying to judge, that's really the only way I can understand thoughts like these) except to announce my own good intentions.  I mean you no harm.  The state is not following people down the sidewalk.  The state is not everywhere within the geographic borders of a country.  The state is in control of very little.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

It's interesting that your argument on why anarchy is all around us doesn't include any examples that can be separated from the State.

 

Are you forgetting my post?

 

No.You haven't argued how any of that is outside of the State.

[Rick Horton]

 

I could try to explain that the state is not, in fact, omnipresent or omnipotent.  But would you believe me?

In my mind, it's better to echo back your own ideas, as any attempt I make to communicate will be construed as an attempt to dominate.  I cannot even begin to deconstruct "You aren't walking on the sidewalk in a state of anarchy because the contractor who built the sidewalk was commissioned by a government employee who might have used tax funds, rather than a bond, to pay for the work"...Rather than try, I'll just echo.

I don't know.  The idea that everyone is trying to kill or dominate you, doesn't that strike you as a touch paranoid?  The idea that the state is there with you, as you walk down the sidewalk...

I try to communicate in meaningful ways, but I don't know how to address paranoia (I'm not trying to judge, that's really the only way I can understand thoughts like these) except to announce my own good intentions.  I mean you no harm.  The state is not following people down the sidewalk.  The state is not everywhere within the geographic borders of a country.  The state is in control of very little.

 

How did paranoia even get into this?

[Rick Horton]

 

I could try to explain that the state is not, in fact, omnipresent or omnipotent.  But would you believe me?

In my mind, it's better to echo back your own ideas, as any attempt I make to communicate will be construed as an attempt to dominate.  I cannot even begin to deconstruct "You aren't walking on the sidewalk in a state of anarchy because the contractor who built the sidewalk was commissioned by a government employee who might have used tax funds, rather than a bond, to pay for the work"...Rather than try, I'll just echo.

I don't know.  The idea that everyone is trying to kill or dominate you, doesn't that strike you as a touch paranoid?  The idea that the state is there with you, as you walk down the sidewalk...

I try to communicate in meaningful ways, but I don't know how to address paranoia (I'm not trying to judge, that's really the only way I can understand thoughts like these) except to announce my own good intentions.  I mean you no harm.  The state is not following people down the sidewalk.  The state is not everywhere within the geographic borders of a country.  The state is in control of very little.

 

Anyhow, the State isn't watching every move you make. But every move you make happens in a society under the umbrella of the State.

[Guest NateC]

 

 

 

It's interesting that your argument on why anarchy is all around us doesn't include any examples that can be separated from the State.

 

Are you forgetting my post?

 

No.You haven't argued how any of that is outside of the State.

 

Prove to me it's inside the State.

[Magnus]

 

every move you make happens in a society under the umbrella of the State.

 

This is the Statist mindest in a nutshell. 

I would ask you to consider that your assertion is an article of faith rather than observance of economic reality.  That it is based on pure metaphor.  That it is a matter of interpretation rather than concrete reality.  That it is not substantially different than concluding that everything that occurs is according to the will of God.

Since there is no God, and thus no one who wills the universe into motion, the assertion that everything occurs according to the will of God is, in practice, nothing more than a psychological defense mechanism, whose design and function is to inhibit a person from understanding the real reasons why things occur. 

Of course, Statist behavior does exist, and the vast majority of people believe in the fiction of Statist "authority."  But the actual, economic role of these other people's Statist behavior, in my life, is really very small.  All of the exchanges I transact every day occur without their involvement. I could go for years without any meaningful interaction with a person claiming he's an "agent of the State."  I do not need them to live my life any more than I need a priest to absolve me of my sins.  It's all imaginary crap.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

every move you make happens in a society under the umbrella of the State.

 

This is the Statist mindest in a nutshell. 

I would ask you to consider that your assertion is an article of faith rather than observance of economic reality.  That it is based on pure metaphor.  That it is a matter of interpretation rather than concrete reality.  That it is not substantially different than concluding that everything that occurs is according to the will of God.

Since there is no God, and thus no one who wills the universe into motion, the assertion that everything occurs according to the will of God is, in practice, nothing more than a psychological defense mechanism, whose design and function is to inhibit a person from understanding the real reasons why things occur. 

Of course, Statist behavior does exist, and the vast majority of people believe in the fiction of Statist "authority."  But the actual, economic role of these other people's Statist behavior, in my life, is really very small.  All of the exchanges I transact every day occur without their involvement. I could go for years without any meaningful interaction with a person claiming he's an "agent of the State."  I do not need them to live my life any more than I need a priest to absolve me of my sins.  It's all imaginary crap.

 

Name something you do that doesn't fall under the Umbrella of the State, and then give an argument on how it doesn't fall under that Umbrella. It's a simple question, but you aren't going to successfully answer it. There is always a State. 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

every move you make happens in a society under the umbrella of the State.

 

This is the Statist mindest in a nutshell. 

I would ask you to consider that your assertion is an article of faith rather than observance of economic reality.  That it is based on pure metaphor.  That it is a matter of interpretation rather than concrete reality.  That it is not substantially different than concluding that everything that occurs is according to the will of God.

Since there is no God, and thus no one who wills the universe into motion, the assertion that everything occurs according to the will of God is, in practice, nothing more than a psychological defense mechanism, whose design and function is to inhibit a person from understanding the real reasons why things occur. 

Of course, Statist behavior does exist, and the vast majority of people believe in the fiction of Statist "authority."  But the actual, economic role of these other people's Statist behavior, in my life, is really very small.  All of the exchanges I transact every day occur without their involvement. I could go for years without any meaningful interaction with a person claiming he's an "agent of the State."  I do not need them to live my life any more than I need a priest to absolve me of my sins.  It's all imaginary crap.

 

Name something you do that doesn't fall under the Umbrella of the State, and then give an argument on how it doesn't fall under that Umbrella. It's a simple question, but you aren't going to successfully answer it. There is always a State. 

And I mean that. Please do list these things along with HOW they aren't under the States Umbrella. I will not go further until you do that because nobody has yet described how anything they do isn't under that umbrella. So I'm getting bored with the diversions from my question. There's no meat in an argument that you aren't capable of supporting.

 

[STer]

Moncalanoo, you're right that as far as modern life, it's pretty difficult, if not impossible, to tease out what is influenced on some level by the state and what isn't. But it is worth remembering that humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years before there were states. In fact, states have only existed for a tiny percentage of humanity's time on this earth. So our species does have lots and lots of experience living without states. But few of us alive today have any direct personal experience.

[Rick Horton]

 

Moncalanoo, you're right that as far as modern life, it's pretty difficult, if not impossible, to tease out what is influenced on some level by the state and what isn't. But it is worth remembering that humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years before there were states. In fact, states have only existed for a tiny percentage of humanity's time on this earth. So our species does have lots and lots of experience living without states. But few of us alive today have any direct personal experience.

 

I argue that there was never a point on earth when there wasn't a State. Not merely for humans, but for all lifeforms.

[nickhk]

 

I argue that there was never a point on earth when there wasn't a State. Not merely for humans, but for all lifeforms.

 

How?

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

I argue that there was never a point on earth when there wasn't a State. Not merely for humans, but for all lifeforms.

 

How?

 

 

A state is a force or body that sets the conditions for the behavior of it's surrounding and submisive subjects. This can be weather, time, influence, intelligence, power, strength, control, dominance, etc... Everything lives under a state that controls it. Every animal lives under a State. Humans too. A lot of animals live under the state (condition) that the State (which is in control because of the attributes of all States (conditional influence on what a dominant force dominates whether consciously or not) from within it's own species simply because there are influencial people or animals in that species that since they have those attributes will end up creating a State (state) (condition) by which others live according to that State. Every object is under "some" State. It's always been like that, and it's inescapable, unstoppable, and unchangeable. In fact it has never happened. It is impossible to stop a State from existing since a State is the inevitable outcome of the most powerful and influencial people's affect on everybody else. They set the conditions. Usually the State reflects the will of the magority, but not always. But there is always a State. Always. Anarchy is another State. A State by which people live a certain way and not a certain other way, philosophically. Anarchy doesn't want to call itself a State, but that is easy because it can never overcome any other State since anarchy doesn't exist in reality. States do, and are real, and very real far beyond any philosophy. There is always a State that everything is affected by, and that state is dominant, thus the State. It creates the State. (the condition) because of it's influence. That's my argument. I don't think it can be successfully argued against, but I'm open to attempts, although wiggle worming out of facing the hard reality of what I'm suggesting is not a proper rebuttal. I'll accept a proper rebuttal, which would include why I'm wrong, not just that I'm wrong, and then why you are right, not just that you are right.