All State justifications debunked in One

[Anuojat]

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.

[dsayers]

Have you watched the Bomb in the Brain series? When trying to influence others, it's important to understand why they think what they do and how we think to begin with. The fundamental error those who believe in the validity of the State is the belief that "population" has emergent properties that would require study of its interactions to differ from interactions of individuals. They typically go on to describe division of labor, which is a VOLUNTARY farming out of desires for the sake of efficiency where other people are available to allow for this increase in efficiency.

 

Since "population" has no emergent properties, we can study the interactions within just as we would individuals. Meaning that if theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral from one person to another, then it is immoral for any group comprised of people to another. This covers nations, governments, etc. At which point it becomes clear to those willing to accept their own capacity for error that these groups are predicated on immoral action.

 

The propaganda that leads people to these conclusions speak in abstracts in order to conceal their nature and therefore allow generally good people to cosign some evil ideas. That and the history of their own abuse and they will actually delight in others being subjugated so long as they don't stop to consider that the subjugation applies to them also. They convince themselves it's a necessary evil or that the benefit outweighs the cost, so it's acceptable. As if the things they're referring to (roads, water, sanitation) could not be provided without coercion, a faulty premise.

[Anuojat]

Have you watched the Bomb in the Brain series? When trying to influence others, it's important to understand why they think what they do and how we think to begin with. The fundamental error those who believe in the validity of the State is the belief that "population" has emergent properties that would require study of its interactions to differ from interactions of individuals. They typically go on to describe division of labor, which is a VOLUNTARY farming out of desires for the sake of efficiency where other people are available to allow for this increase in efficiency.

 

Since "population" has no emergent properties, we can study the interactions within just as we would individuals. Meaning that if theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral from one person to another, then it is immoral for any group comprised of people to another. This covers nations, governments, etc. At which point it becomes clear to those willing to accept their own capacity for error that these groups are predicated on immoral action.

 

The propaganda that leads people to these conclusions speak in abstracts in order to conceal their nature and therefore allow generally good people to cosign some evil ideas. That and the history of their own abuse and they will actually delight in others being subjugated so long as they don't stop to consider that the subjugation applies to them also. They convince themselves it's a necessary evil or that the benefit outweighs the cost, so it's acceptable. As if the things they're referring to (roads, water, sanitation) could not be provided without coercion, a faulty premise.

 

Well i jsut got reasl good tastes of thise when person i was arguing with, said that at birth we receive government laws and benefits as a "gift" from our collective society.

 

At thsi point converstion had went on for 2 hours with BP oil spills, and private fire insurance and self regulation "NEVER" working. He eventually gave up and left. I SO should have cheked the forums earlier! :S

 

Also this particular person seemed to think that "love it or leave it" was totally sound arguement and that as kids stuff gets imposed on us as gifts that we can later dicard with consquences. When i kept pointing out that thsi was not gift and but and impositation he got tired and agitated (to be truthful so was i) and said that government govern laws and rules and thats it. Rules that scociety has previousdly accepted and so should i and if i dont like em i can leave. And if i stay i am inviting agression unto myself by not adhering to previously impsoed rules that i must follow since i was given this GIFT of citizenship at birth.

 

Man is my face red!

[J. D. Stembal]

Arguing against the state is even easier than than you are making it out to be. 

 

Ask the statist three questions.

 

1) Do you like slavery? If they say no, then tell them the truth about slavery. (It is a state run institution.)

2) Do you like war? If they say no, then tell them the truth about war. (It is a state run institution.)

3) Do you like injustice? If they say no, then tell them the truth about feminism, environmentalism, socialism, fascism, racism and almost every other ism. (They are all endorsed by state run institutions.)

 

If they happen to say yes to any of these, you can stop having a conversation with them because they probably want you thrown in jail or killed. Don't forget the Against Me principle.

[dsayers]

Love it or leave is begging the question. It's like saying that punching somebody in the face is righteous because they can choose to always be at greater than arm's length from you. But immorality isn't about what comes before/after the behavior. It's in the behavior itself. Does it make use of the property of another without their consent? Then it is immoral.

 

Beyond the moral argument comes all the less important stuff. Such as "leave it" entails leaving behind family, friends, your life. That it's costly. That the State may even reject your attempt to leave it. That you'd be leaving one tax farm to enter another, not leaving "tax farm" at all, and so on.

 

Usurp is right in that you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. That's not your fault if you weren't taught to think rationally. I used to be the same way and even today sometimes get goaded into pointless continuations by somebody who is clearly more interested in his understanding being true than what is actually true. If you'd like to improve your ability to think rationally and communicate it with others, I'd also recommend Stef's An Introduction to Philosophy series. It's quite long, but it did wonders for me. He literally starts at the beginning and goes from there. I can't recommend it enough.

[Anuojat]

Arguing against the state is even easier than than you are making it out to be. 

 

Ask the statist three questions.

 

1) Do you like slavery? If they say no, then tell them the truth about slavery. (It is a state run institution.)

2) Do you like war? If they say no, then tell them the truth about war. (It is a state run institution.)

3) Do you like injustice? If they say no, then tell them the truth about feminism, environmentalism, socialism, fascism, racism and almost every other ism. (They are all endorsed by state run institutions.)

 

If they happen to say yes to any of these, you can stop having a conversation with them because they probably want you thrown in jail or killed. Don't forget the Against Me principle.

 

His reply to most what i said simply was that it doesnt matter by being born intoa society you receive the governments gift ewhich also bears the responceability as a adult. Yes he believes this is not force but how people have "naturally" come to an agreement about rules in society. Adn that first government were formed voluntarily for protection that is the same in odern times.

 

1. Have to ask again bout slavery.

2. He said unjsut war happens with corruption of the state and that thats the only thing that should be done with is corruption.

3. Again to him state being corrupted is fault of the people and lobbyists and not the system itself. I guess he glances over history off govenrmet corruption becaus to him tis neccery since "priitazation" has never ever worked according to him. Like fire departments and oil spill were/are self regulating and thus they failed and so  free market solutiosn dont work.

 

And yes i asked him if he would support me being thrown in jail fordisagreeing with him, he said he supports that because its the societys rules and thus by not following these rules of society i am violating that whcih was "given to me" at birth and can "leave" at any time if i want to if i dont like it. So yeah maybe be pointless to talk about it anymore with him.

 

Also he seemed to have this constant notion that if people in the past payed for it and i use it even as a kid i owe it to the government to apy taxes. AKA so logn as i use what other people have funded i should pay and if a refuse to pay then i should leave. ITs basically that societu OWN the land and government is societys "voice" and also that people naturally form governments.

 

Love it or leave is begging the question. It's like saying that punching somebody in the face is righteous because they can choose to always be at greater than arm's length from you. But immorality isn't about what comes before/after the behavior. It's in the behavior itself. Does it make use of the property of another without their consent? Then it is immoral.

 

Beyond the moral argument comes all the less important stuff. Such as "leave it" entails leaving behind family, friends, your life. That it's costly. That the State may even reject your attempt to leave it. That you'd be leaving one tax farm to enter another, not leaving "tax farm" at all, and so on.

 

Usurp is right in that you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. That's not your fault if you weren't taught to think rationally. I used to be the same way and even today sometimes get goaded into pointless continuations by somebody who is clearly more interested in his understanding being true than what is actually true. If you'd like to improve your ability to think rationally and communicate it with others, I'd also recommend Stef's An Introduction to Philosophy series. It's quite long, but it did wonders for me. He literally starts at the beginning and goes from there. I can't recommend it enough.

 

He says that its not force since you by being born unto society MUST "naturally" accept societys rules as just as being human you must accept that youre a human being.

Well he says its nto tax farm at all so that probobly would be meaningless statement to him. Also evidently being sent to stateless area is perfect reasonable case for him.

 

I have actually watched it all the way trough but i didnt find anyhting in there wthat would convince him or anyone else for that matter since... to most people the state is neccery evil that must be accepted sicne being born unto society means accepting societys rules BECAUSE you had not choice as a baby. This is a wall i cant seem to breach. He is very firm that NOT tyranically imposed unto a child because its to him the same as childs parents care being impsoed upon you.

 

Whcih DOES heavily speak much about him and his childhood id bet.

[JSDev]

Love it or leave is begging the question. It's like saying that punching somebody in the face is righteous because they can choose to always be at greater than arm's length from you. But immorality isn't about what comes before/after the behavior. It's in the behavior itself. Does it make use of the property of another without their consent? Then it is immoral.Beyond the moral argument comes all the less important stuff. Such as "leave it" entails leaving behind family, friends, your life. That it's costly. That the State may even reject your attempt to leave it. That you'd be leaving one tax farm to enter another, not leaving "tax farm" at all, and so on.Usurp is right in that you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. That's not your fault if you weren't taught to think rationally. I used to be the same way and even today sometimes get goaded into pointless continuations by somebody who is clearly more interested in his understanding being true than what is actually true. If you'd like to improve your ability to think rationally and communicate it with others, I'd also recommend Stef's An Introduction to Philosophy series. It's quite long, but it did wonders for me. He literally starts at the beginning and goes from there. I can't recommend it enough.

The love it or leave it argument is actually not an argument that requires any time wasted refuting... It requires no understanding of property rights / who owns what, etc to invalidate. This is because the moment someone says that to you, they don't realize that it implies that they agree with everything the state is doing and that it automatically disqualifies all forms of dissent and protest, which is completely counter to leftist sensibilities. You can tell them that from this day forward they're not allowed to speak out against *anything* they perceive to be wrong like the war because they too can just love it or leave it.

[Anuojat]

The love it or leave it argument is actually not an argument that requires any time wasted refuting... It requires no understanding of property rights / who owns what, etc to invalidate. This is because the moment someone says that to you, they don't realize that it implies that they agree with everything the state is doing and that it automatically disqualifies all forms of dissent and protest, which is completely counter to leftist sensibilities. You can tell them that from this day forward they're not allowed to speak out against *anything* they perceive to be wrong like the war because they too can just love it or leave it.

 

 

To that, id imagine theyd say that you cant VOTE or go into politics to chance the things you do not like. XD

[Anuojat]

Hmm i am still wondering about those 2 replies i made.

 

I guess i shoukd uodate my thesis after/or if i get respoce... then again if i dont ill start new thread.

[J. D. Stembal]

Hmm i am still wondering about those 2 replies i made.

 

I guess i shoukd uodate my thesis after/or if i get respoce... then again if i dont ill start new thread.

 

Why are you going to start another thread? Did we not adequately kick around your questions?

 

The idea that we signed a social contract at birth to pay taxes and behave in a socially accepted manner is patently false. If place of birth actually defined rights and responsibilities, we wouldn't have politicians on the left eagerly extending heath care and welfare to illegal immigrants. The money we use to pay for all the government goodies is actually drawn from national debt to be paid off by your children's children at present. Can unborn children effectively lobby against this injustice? In the United States, for example, we are likely still paying off the remainder of the principle on Eisenhower's interstate highway system largely inspired by the Third Reich.

[Anuojat]

Why are you going to start another thread? Did we not adequately kick around your questions?

 

The idea that we signed a social contract at birth to pay taxes and behave in a socially accepted manner is patently false. If place of birth actually defined rights and responsibilities, we wouldn't have politicians on the left eagerly extending heath care and welfare to illegal immigrants. The money we use to pay for all the government goodies is actually drawn from national debt to be paid off by your children's children at present. Can unborn children effectively lobby against this injustice? In the United States, for example, we are likely still paying off the remainder of the principle on Eisenhower's interstate highway system largely inspired by the Third Reich.

 

Youre right ofcourse, i think further conversation with this person is not helpful. I was hoping i could make an ironclad case more ironclad and straightfoward

 

To me problem with statists is that it takes so logn to chance peoples minds and i am... hesitant to leave some behind. I know you cannot save them all, i know you cant reason with many... i am jsut tired on waiting for freedom to come and thus want to look for fastest ways to rapidfire freedom instead of working way too slowly.