"Corporations wouldn't exist without the State" according to Stefan, elaboration?

[Rick Horton]

 

 

Look. You tell me how to get rid of rulers and we'll go from there. You tell me how you stop people from ruling over each other and I'll concede. You tell me how an anarchist can tell a person what to do and we can discuss that interesting angle. 

 

 

You've already learned how and you don't agree with it. In fact, you've mocked it.

 

You can't answer the question.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

You've asked no question. I see assertions, insults and demands but I see no curiosity.

[Rick Horton]

 

You've asked no question. I see assertions, insults and demands but I see no curiosity.

 

Look. You tell me how to get rid of rulers and we'll go from there. You tell me how you stop people from ruling over each other and I'll concede. You tell me how an anarchist can tell a person what to do and we can discuss that interesting angle. 

[RestoringGuy]

 

Look. You tell me how to get rid of rulers and we'll go from there. You tell me how you stop people from ruling over each other and I'll concede. You tell me how an anarchist can tell a person what to do and we can discuss that interesting angle. 

 

Moncaloono, who says ruling can be stopped?  Obviously it can be deterred non-forcibly, if inadequately, would you agree?  An anarchist can tell a person what to do whenever engaged in trade or social discourse.  You can ignore them if you disapprove, but you will not trick people into saying the state is good.  You have made it clear that ruling over each other is acceptable to you. Really you should not debate here philosophically.  You should be trying to challenge people to a duel.  Force and ruling are things you accept.

 

[pretzelogik]

 

 

You've asked no question. I see assertions, insults and demands but I see no curiosity.

 

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/AddPost.aspx?ReplyToPostID=299635&Quote=True

Look. You tell me how to get rid of rulers and we'll go from there. You tell me how you stop people from ruling over each other and I'll concede. You tell me how an anarchist can tell a person what to do and we can discuss that interesting angle. 

 

The whole point of anarchy is that no one tells others what to do, as has there is no such thing as legitimate authority.  The state is nothing more than the irrational assumption that compliance with authority is required.  No state can survive through violence alone.  This is why the propaganda apparatus is so essential.  People must be conditioned to think that coercion by state is legitimate.

Elimination of the state (changing the perception of it) will not elimate those with the desire to rule others by force, regardless of their labels.  It will however, eliminate the institutionalized and pervasive corruption and violence that operates under the guise of legitimacy.

[RestoringGuy]

 

No state can survive through violence alone.  This is why the propaganda apparatus is so essential.  People must be conditioned to think that coercion by state is legitimate.

 

I have heard this point before, but it does not make sense to me to make the point so broadly.  It seems easier for the state to have propaganda, but not essential.  We could all be in chains for example, or have a computer chip collar that blows up if we disobey.  I get the idea that propaganda makes it easier, and our minds are just added to the list of things being controlled.

[pretzelogik]

 

 

No state can survive through violence alone.  This is why the propaganda apparatus is so essential.  People must be conditioned to think that coercion by state is legitimate.

 

I have heard this point before, but it does not make sense to me to make the point so broadly.  It seems easier for the state to have propaganda, but not essential.  We could all be in chains for example, or have a computer chip collar that blows up if we disobey.  I get the idea that propaganda makes it easier, and our minds are just added to the list of things being controlled.

 

The purpose of the state is to plunder the productive.  If too many resources are diverted to physical control of those who produce goods and services, there is much less left to plunder.  Far more effective to have the slaves smelt and shape their own virtual shackles as it were, by cultivating a sense of duty or obligation to submit their resources to the state.

Currently, the entire enforcement arm of the state in the US is about three per cent of the total population.  Forcing an armed populace who were of a mind to resist into chains and exploding collars would quite a feat for that three per cent (assuming that all of them would unquestioningly obey a direct order to forcibly insert their friends and neighbors into chains and collars.)

I do not know a single person in the real world (I assume the internet identities I communicate with are real) that can conceive of a world without a state.  I congratulate you if you do.  Perhaps when the number of producers start to recognize the true nature of their opressors there will be more overt efforts to violently control them.  In the meantime, they benefit far more from having everyone on edge, willing to punch their clocks everyday and looking to the state for protection.  There are a still lot of miles left on that machine.

 

[DaveDoggOwns]

 

Look. You tell me how to get rid of rulers and we'll go from there. You tell me how you stop people from ruling over each other and I'll concede. You tell me how an anarchist can tell a person what to do and we can discuss that interesting angle. 

 

I'm afraid there is no such thing as an anarchist. The rule "there should be no rulers" is self-detonating.

If anyone on FDR does invoke the concept of "anarchy" they are actually referring to statelessness. Not the lack of rulers. This is the problem with your comments on this thread. You're not using the same definitions of words the people on this website typically use.

[DaveDoggOwns]

 

The whole point of anarchy is that no one tells others what to do, as has there is no such thing as legitimate authority.

Wrong. The purpose of anarchy is to enforce morality consistently. Saying "there is no such thing as a legitamite authority" is a pronouncement of nihilism.

 

[pretzelogik]

 

 

The whole point of anarchy is that no one tells others what to do, as has there is no such thing as legitimate authority.

Wrong. The purpose of anarchy is to enforce morality consistently. Saying "there is no such thing as a legitamite authority" is a pronouncement of nihilism.

 

 

Perhaps as there are disconnects in the definitions.  I define "authorities" as those who coerce others into particular actions or coerce the abstention of certain actions.  There is no legitimate authority in this sense, or I have never seen a valid explanation of the mechanism that creates authority in some, but not others.

 

 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Look. You tell me how to get rid of rulers and we'll go from there. You tell me how you stop people from ruling over each other and I'll concede. You tell me how an anarchist can tell a person what to do and we can discuss that interesting angle. 

 

Look. You tell me how to get rid of rape and we'll go from there. You tell me how you stop people from using coercion to obtain sex and we'll concede. You tell me how an anti-rapist can tell a person how to have sex and we can discuss that interesting angle. 

[FreedomPhilosophy]

Even within the framework of the state there is considerable potential for deconstructing much of the system.The government is basically a legislative monopoly, it relies on taxation to pay it's bills. Tax has to be enforced through the court systems, and with the system including a decision made by a jury, then the general public is the ultimate arbiter of what "the law" is or is not.

 

Presently of course the average person has no consistent concept of law and justice and they simply agree with whatever the legislature/judge says. Where this to change then the government could be pretty quickly dissolved. Effective propaganda and the promise of "free" goodies is unfortunately a very powerful drug for the masses.

 

There are numerous examples of civilizations without a state, I mention some on my channel.

Although both the state and its predecessor the church are by all counts corporations, corporations such as we know them in business only arose in the 15th century. Since they did not exist prior to this, it is a certainty that they can be absent with the state and therefore without.