I need an ar-15 because I'm afraid of YOU

[Worlok]

I was recently on Youtube (I mean always) and this video was comparing Milton Friedman and Bernie Sanders on healthcare. I replied to a comment on why, guess what? You guessed it, why Friedman was wrong. Blah blah blah, (insert statist argument here) and you get the idea. There was a little back and forth.

 

None of it was particularly aimed at me, but it felt personally threatening. Saying things like we should be forced to buy insurance and that it was a "right" because WHO said so. For healthcare or healthcare access, you have to have doctors or access to them and their labor. I can't have a right to the labor of another person, because that would essentially be slavery. I couldn't help but see every line as him basically telling me that he should be able to force me to do what he wants because "universal healthcare was good." This was quite distinctly aside from his arguments being thoroughly economically unsound.

 

Traditional arguments for the 2nd amendment are all well and good, but that's now what this is about. People generally fail to understand that "government" is simply individual people working to their individual benefit. People like that are just the same as anybody else. Just normal people. These people become politicians and they write the bills and sign them into law. These people lynched blacks in the 60s and earlier in the south. These people rape women in the middle east and little girls in Mexico and Africa. These are people that think doing things that harm other people is okay or even good. Normal people everywhere think harming me for either their benefit or the benefit of the tribe is a positive thing. 

 

I need an ar-15 ghost gun assault rifle that fires 30 magazine round clips per second because you and people like you want to harm and enslave me because you think it's good. It's not the government, it's not gangs, it's not the police. It's you and other individual people that may or may not be a politician, or a criminal, or a cop. If you want to force me to work or to pay taxes for what you want or to harm me, I need a gun, especially a scary looking one that shoots lots of bullets because there are a whole lot of you. You scare me. You scare absolutely everybody that feels a need for police or government, a knife, pepper spray, or a gun for defense. You are the one that goes bump in the night, but you don't know, because taking my labor, my freedom, and my property are all good ideas if they get what you want in return. Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Mao did it, and every tyrant that ever lived did it and they knew it was the right thing to do, just like you thought it was right to do. You scare me and you are why I need a gun.

[Anuojat]

Ofcourse. Slave on salve attack. The state is HORIZONTAL.

[Will Torbald]

The realization that humans are cannibalistic parasites sinks in hard sometimes.

[dsayers]

The realization that humans are cannibalistic parasites sinks in hard sometimes.

That's like saying that a kid playing D&D is a murderer. You're conflating trauma + imaginary power with human nature and you couldn't be more wrong.

 

It's not the government, it's not gangs, it's not the police.

Without the government or police, these people would never think to actually steal from you.

 

Think of this as the agent training program in the Matrix. The people around you that you're referring to are victims too. YES they are a threat to you for as long as the Matrix exists and they are plugged into it. But unplugging them is all you need to do. In reality, this takes place by way of spreading the word about peaceful parenting so that these people can think and make principled conclusions.

 

As it stands, they are simply people doing what all animals do: Gathering as many resources as efficiently as possible. When you want to travel 5 miles away, how often do you walk? How often do you instead grab your bike or your car because it allows you to achieve your goals more efficiently? Without the State, these people would be forced to acquire resources more directly.

[Will Torbald]

That's like saying that a kid playing D&D is a murderer. You're conflating trauma + imaginary power with human nature and you couldn't be more wrong.

Hasn't sunk in yet, I see.

[dsayers]

Hasn't sunk in yet, I see.

Yes, I am immune to projection.

[shirgall]

The reason I have encryption and firearms and lasers and red meat is because my nosy neighbors say I shouldn't.

[AncapFTW]

I was recently on Youtube (I mean always) and this video was comparing Milton Friedman and Bernie Sanders on healthcare. I replied to a comment on why, guess what? You guessed it, why Friedman was wrong. Blah blah blah, (insert statist argument here) and you get the idea. There was a little back and forth.

 

None of it was particularly aimed at me, but it felt personally threatening. Saying things like we should be forced to buy insurance and that it was a "right" because WHO said so. For healthcare or healthcare access, you have to have doctors or access to them and their labor. I can't have a right to the labor of another person, because that would essentially be slavery. I couldn't help but see every line as him basically telling me that he should be able to force me to do what he wants because "universal healthcare was good." This was quite distinctly aside from his arguments being thoroughly economically unsound.

 

Traditional arguments for the 2nd amendment are all well and good, but that's now what this is about. People generally fail to understand that "government" is simply individual people working to their individual benefit. People like that are just the same as anybody else. Just normal people. These people become politicians and they write the bills and sign them into law. These people lynched blacks in the 60s and earlier in the south. These people rape women in the middle east and little girls in Mexico and Africa. These are people that think doing things that harm other people is okay or even good. Normal people everywhere think harming me for either their benefit or the benefit of the tribe is a positive thing. 

 

I need an ar-15 ghost gun assault rifle that fires 30 magazine round clips per second because you and people like you want to harm and enslave me because you think it's good. It's not the government, it's not gangs, it's not the police. It's you and other individual people that may or may not be a politician, or a criminal, or a cop. If you want to force me to work or to pay taxes for what you want or to harm me, I need a gun, especially a scary looking one that shoots lots of bullets because there are a whole lot of you. You scare me. You scare absolutely everybody that feels a need for police or government, a knife, pepper spray, or a gun for defense. You are the one that goes bump in the night, but you don't know, because taking my labor, my freedom, and my property are all good ideas if they get what you want in return. Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Mao did it, and every tyrant that ever lived did it and they knew it was the right thing to do, just like you thought it was right to do. You scare me and you are why I need a gun.

Too bad this argument doesn't work for defending yourself against thugs in costumes.  Just try to use this as the reason you need a gun in countries/states that require you to have a reason before they allow you to carry.

[aviet]

You scare absolutely everybody that feels a need for police or government, a knife, pepper spray, or a gun for defense.

And without attitudes like this they won't even let you buy pepper spray or tasers. I was surprised to find out a few years ago that both are illegal in the UK, where you are essentially unable to defend yourself.

[Worlok]

That's like saying that a kid playing D&D is a murderer. You're conflating trauma + imaginary power with human nature and you couldn't be more wrong.

 

Without the government or police, these people would never think to actually steal from you.

 

Think of this as the agent training program in the Matrix. The people around you that you're referring to are victims too. YES they are a threat to you for as long as the Matrix exists and they are plugged into it. But unplugging them is all you need to do. In reality, this takes place by way of spreading the word about peaceful parenting so that these people can think and make principled conclusions.

 

As it stands, they are simply people doing what all animals do: Gathering as many resources as efficiently as possible. When you want to travel 5 miles away, how often do you walk? How often do you instead grab your bike or your car because it allows you to achieve your goals more efficiently? Without the State, these people would be forced to acquire resources more directly.

 

 

People don't need government to want to control you or take your property because they think they or somebody else deserves it more than you. Government simply allows them to live in a society where the status quo is that such actions are good.

[dsayers]

People don't need government to want to control you or take your property because they think they or somebody else deserves it more than you. Government simply allows them to live in a society where the status quo is that such actions are good.

This only serves to reveal my accidental imprecision when I used the word "think." Which is a fair correction. The fact remains that they wouldn't actually steal from you as an institution. My challenge was against your claim that it's not the government nor the police, when it actually is.

[Worlok]

This only serves to reveal my accidental imprecision when I used the word "think." Which is a fair correction. The fact remains that they wouldn't actually steal from you as an institution. My challenge was against your claim that it's not the government nor the police, when it actually is.

 

Don't you sleep?

 

I'm not keen on corrections. I believed you held that position and argued it thusly. However, I already presented the argument that the "police" and "government" are social constructs that don't exist and that it is the people themselves. A government cannot be tyrannical because a government does not really exist. People are tyrannical, and that is really the point of the OP. I do understand that you mean the people that make up and are defined as the "government" and deny you this obfuscation. But I know what you are saying.

[dsayers]

I understand that government is a concept and that to ascribe behavior to it would be an anthropomorphism. This doesn't change the fact that these tyrannical people you reference, in the absence of a State, would not knock on your door to demand a tithe to pay for their child's schooling for example. With the perceived legitimacy of the government though, they do that much and more. The perceived legitimacy of the government is a critical component for the theft you are talking about fearing in others while assuming that perceived legitimacy is irrelevant. They steal because they think they can get away with it. Without the perceived legitimacy of the State, to "get away with it," they would literally have to oppose not only everybody else, but they'd have to face their victim directly. It's easier to dissociate when these ideas are abstract and widely held.

 

The people you claim to fear are a critical component of the solution. Because if you could convince them that taxation is theft, there is no State since as you rightly pointed out, it only exists in the minds of the enslaved.

[AccuTron]

The reason I have encryption and firearms and lasers and red meat is because my nosy neighbors say I shouldn't.

 

Yay for the first three, screw your neighbors, but limit the red meat, because we care about YOU.

 

There's a link someplace in these forums about how it's a frequency thing:  Red meat is digested  by bile acids which come along for the ride into the lower gut.  There, the acids remove protective mucous, irritate gut tissue which then over-reproduces out of spite, and further, deactivates the cell death programming which allows the spite to become a tumor.  It's not about amount, but about frequency; giving the gut lining time to repair before the next acid bath.  

 

I love good BBQ pork, beef, and turkey.  Given the above, mostly turkey; lucky to have a top notch local BBQ place.  

[shirgall]

Yay for the first three, screw your neighbors, but limit the red meat, because we care about YOU.

 

There's a link someplace in these forums about how it's a frequency thing:  Red meat is digested  by bile acids which come along for the ride into the lower gut.  There, the acids remove protective mucous, irritate gut tissue which then over-reproduces out of spite, and further, deactivates the cell death programming which allows the spite to become a tumor.  It's not about amount, but about frequency; giving the gut lining time to repair before the next acid bath.  

 

I love good BBQ pork, beef, and turkey.  Given the above, mostly turkey; lucky to have a top notch local BBQ place.  

 

i cook sous vide to avoid a lot of the troubling aspects of char, but I do sear to get a maillard effect flavor.

 

I suppose I have to add my truck to the "bad boy" list, now, too. I have a M35A2 "Deuce and a Half"... for my own personal reasons.

 

 

The unregistered assault redhead in the driver's seat is my wife.

[rosencrantz]

Congrats on the truck (and the wife).

[Worlok]

I understand that government is a concept and that to ascribe behavior to it would be an anthropomorphism. This doesn't change the fact that these tyrannical people you reference, in the absence of a State, would not knock on your door to demand a tithe to pay for their child's schooling for example. With the perceived legitimacy of the government though, they do that much and more. The perceived legitimacy of the government is a critical component for the theft you are talking about fearing in others while assuming that perceived legitimacy is irrelevant. They steal because they think they can get away with it. Without the perceived legitimacy of the State, to "get away with it," they would literally have to oppose not only everybody else, but they'd have to face their victim directly. It's easier to dissociate when these ideas are abstract and widely held.

 

The people you claim to fear are a critical component of the solution. Because if you could convince them that taxation is theft, there is no State since as you rightly pointed out, it only exists in the minds of the enslaved.

 

gangs and bandits do and have for all time performed these actions. Any person governing their own actions and that of their spouse and children or group of people governing or being governed from within could be said to be a government in the most basic sense of the word. If you have a single democratic gang, then you have a government. When government "functionally" stops being is when the whole of the people do not and do not seek to govern others. To govern only one's self and nobody else is to stop being a government in whatever group you would be governing. That negates any argument of a "state," however. It is also irrelevant.

 

Per your second paragraph and mine just prior, there is the idea that a group of people governing themselves is a government. I would assert that the becoming of a state simply requires some majority making claim to being so. In lieu of the current US state, if the crips in a crip neighborhood establish borders and call it a crip state, If 300 million Americans say that they are not a state, then it is a matter of opinion. I shouldn't have to explain why. If the rest of the world decided that they did not recognize the US government as a government state, then they would be lying to themselves or want to start some shit and be carpet bombed out of existence. sure 6 billion people can cease to acknowledging the legitimacy of the US state, but it's functions and being legitimized by the people makes it a state so far as those people say it is, but not so far as the power of the US state compounded with the world not formally recognizing it.

 

Whatever I could convince anybody of, it has no bearing on the ability of other person's ability to unilaterally maintain a state. A state also is not inherently reliant on taxes.

[dsayers]

The unregistered assault redhead in the driver's seat is my wife.

lol. Kudos, my brother. I thoroughly enjoy seeing the good guys win

 

gangs and bandits do and have for all time performed these actions.

So what? People understand this is immoral and don't want it in their neighborhoods. I know a tall Chinese man (exception), but that doesn't mean that the Chinese aren't short on average (rule).

 

Any person governing their own actions and that of their spouse and children or group of people governing or being governed from within

No. You know full well we are talking about the State. Governments apply to geographical areas they do not own and are perceived as legitimate even from without. If you cannot answer the challenges, please do not attempt to weasel out of them.

[shirgall]

I would assert that the becoming of a state simply requires some majority making claim to being so.

 

Becoming a state is a matter of being tough enough to make the claim stick. Consensus is certainly one path, but it's not the only one.

[AccuTron]

i cook sous vide to avoid a lot of the troubling aspects of char, but I do sear to get a maillard effect flavor.

 

I suppose I have to add my truck to the "bad boy" list, now, too. I have a M35A2 "Deuce and a Half"... for my own personal reasons.

 

...The unregistered assault redhead in the driver's seat is my wife.

 

As to the truck, do I see a vehicle with relatively low original manufacture energy costs, primarily iron, with relatively low energy costs to recycle, and the entire vehicle relatively free of strategic or imported special substances?

[EmpiricalSkeptic1984]

Becoming a state is a matter of being tough enough to make the claim stick. Consensus is certainly one path, but it's not the only one.

Consensus is many times seen as the most benign, and therefore often the first to be brought up in discussion. No one in favor of establishing a state wants to use the example of an army of bone-crunching mercenaries led by a sociopath with a god-complex as their first example of how to form a state. However, "Bigger Army Diplomacy," as it were, is certainly the know-nothing's guide to subjugating others: "My group of thugs with clubs is bigger, tougher, and more willing to use force than your family is, and also than that other group of thugs over there is, therefore you now pay me tribute."

 

Consensus is, however, the most horrifying as well as the most benign-sounding, because peer-pressure and group-think is a large part of what holds it together. Social ostracism works against one who tries to leave or even shrink a state run by consensus: "We all agreed to this." "The People made their choice." "Democracy benefits us all." "Contribute your fair share." "Don't you like society?" "You've benefited so much from this, and now you want to be selfish and deny others those same benefits?" "You're going against all of us if you go against the state." "You're trying to tear down what makes us great."

 

People become unable to separate the consensus-state from the community, or feel as if removing the state will remove some sort of imaginary safety net that was never there to begin with. They ignore the fact that everything "provided by" that state was actually provided by people within society, working for other people in society, and using the state only as a middle-man. Also, the consensus model gives the illusion of informed consent, when the reality is uninformed consent. A large proportion (crucially, enough to reach a majority or at least a plurality) of the citizens of the consensus-state neither know nor care about the most important limitations imposed on them by that state. One of which, the defining limitation, the one making it unique, being the limitation placed on their range of thought. Inevitably, every issue devolves into a handful (preferably only a pair) of narratives that all advance the growth of the state in one way or another. Any people who do not align themselves with one of these narratives are ostracized or are coerced into remaining silent. The society turns into Plato's Cave of its own volition, leaving behind true understanding in favor of a handful of self-serving narratives.

[shirgall]

As to the truck, do I see a vehicle with relatively low original manufacture energy costs, primarily iron, with relatively low energy costs to recycle, and the entire vehicle relatively free of strategic or imported special substances?

 

Well, I upgraded the lights to LEDs...

 

Consensus is many times seen as the most benign, and therefore often the first to be brought up in discussion. No one in favor of establishing a state wants to use the example of an army of bone-crunching mercenaries led by a sociopath with a god-complex as their first example of how to form a state. However, "Bigger Army Diplomacy," as it were, is certainly the know-nothing's guide to subjugating others: "My group of thugs with clubs is bigger, tougher, and more willing to use force than your family is, and also than that other group of thugs over there is, therefore you now pay me tribute."

 

Consensus is, however, the most horrifying as well as the most benign-sounding, because peer-pressure and group-think is a large part of what holds it together. Social ostracism works against one who tries to leave or even shrink a state run by consensus: "We all agreed to this." "The People made their choice." "Democracy benefits us all." "Contribute your fair share." "Don't you like society?" "You've benefited so much from this, and now you want to be selfish and deny others those same benefits?" "You're going against all of us if you go against the state." "You're trying to tear down what makes us great."

 

People become unable to separate the consensus-state from the community, or feel as if removing the state will remove some sort of imaginary safety net that was never there to begin with. They ignore the fact that everything "provided by" that state was actually provided by people within society, working for other people in society, and using the state only as a middle-man. Also, the consensus model gives the illusion of informed consent, when the reality is uninformed consent. A large proportion (crucially, enough to reach a majority or at least a plurality) of the citizens of the consensus-state neither know nor care about the most important limitations imposed on them by that state. One of which, the defining limitation, the one making it unique, being the limitation placed on their range of thought. Inevitably, every issue devolves into a handful (preferably only a pair) of narratives that all advance the growth of the state in one way or another. Any people who do not align themselves with one of these narratives are ostracized or are coerced into remaining silent. The society turns into Plato's Cave of its own volition, leaving behind true understanding in favor of a handful of self-serving narratives.

 

Indeed, there's a reason free speech is enshrined in the First Amendment.

 

The loyalists were claiming majority support of the people in the colonies well into the Revolutionary War, even though the real numbers are estimated at 15-20% wishing to remain with England (versus approximately 45% support for the revolutionaries).

 

The great thing about the Internet is that there's a lot more information, but I don't think people are really taught critical analysis very well. If anything, the Internet has done more to support "short attention span syndrome" than any other medium.

[dsayers]

If anything, the Internet has done more to support "short attention span syndrome" than any other medium.

To play devil's advocate, I would point out that it also contributes to the opposite. I know that I spend a LOT more time researching than I did before the internet. For me, the "short attention" is the access. Now that I don't have to drive to the library, I'm more willing to take the time.

 

Plus, with social media, those who take the time to analyze can spread their analysis, giving others who wouldn't put forth the initial effort access to the conclusions, which they can see are sound and maybe even interpolate the process. Essentially learning how to analyze better despite the short attention span.

[shirgall]

To play devil's advocate, I would point out that it also contributes to the opposite. I know that I spend a LOT more time researching than I did before the internet. For me, the "short attention" is the access. Now that I don't have to drive to the library, I'm more willing to take the time.

 

Plus, with social media, those who take the time to analyze can spread their analysis, giving others who wouldn't put forth the initial effort access to the conclusions, which they can see are sound and maybe even interpolate the process. Essentially learning how to analyze better despite the short attention span.

 

Yeah, not everyone suffers from "TL;DR". There are mixed results. However, there's a lot more garbage to sift through than there used to be. It's discouraging to start studying something and realize that most of the sources have no support from studies or critique.

[Worlok]

 

 

So what? People understand this is immoral and don't want it in their neighborhoods. I know a tall Chinese man (exception), but that doesn't mean that the Chinese aren't short on average (rule).

 

No. You know full well we are talking about the State. Governments apply to geographical areas they do not own and are perceived as legitimate even from without. If you cannot answer the challenges, please do not attempt to weasel out of them.

 

You said, "these tyrannical people you reference, in the absence of a State, would not knock on your door to demand a tithe to pay for their child's schooling for example." and I said, "gangs and bandits do and have for all time performed these actions." and you said, "So what? People understand this is immoral and don't want it in their neighborhoods. I know a tall Chinese man (exception), but that doesn't mean that the Chinese aren't short on average (rule)."

 

You weren't paying attention.

 

As to your absurd notion of me "weaseling out" of your question, no outward recognition of a "state" or "government" is required for there to be a state or government. For example, Nothing has to be outside of the universe to justify the inside of the universe. No hypothetical intergalactic alien presence is required to accept a world government for there to be a world government. No less, if every "slave" were to be sufficiently dumb, deaf, blind, and lame, no amount of "allowing" a government or state to exist would be required as no opposition could be made in the first place. Power and control must simply be exerted and maintained. Nothing has to be allowed and no outward presence must accept anything for a state or government to exist. If "the slaves" fight and lose, it does nothing for the fact that they are still slaves and the state or government to endure. What was Spartacus but a dead slave?

 

Becoming a state is a matter of being tough enough to make the claim stick. Consensus is certainly one path, but it's not the only one.

 

There is also this paragraph which while making another point acquiesces my own.

[dsayers]

You weren't paying attention.

I think one of us wasn't. You cannot point to the exception to the rule to substantiate your extremely generalized claim. Especially when you consider that respect for property rights is a requisite to having no State, meaning that such organizations would have even less room to breathe in.

 

As to your absurd notion of me "weaseling out" of your question, no outward recognition of a "state" or "government" is required for there to be a state or government. For example, Nothing has to be outside of the universe to justify the inside of the universe. No hypothetical intergalactic alien presence is required to accept a world government for there to be a world government.

Again, one of us is being absurd. Strawman arguments as if I said something has to be outside the universe to be inside it, talking about aliens... That's some damn fine weaseling!

 

You were doing mental gymnastics to make your conclusion fit. You know full well the thread is talking about the State. Still.

[Worlok]

I think one of us wasn't. You cannot point to the exception to the rule to substantiate your extremely generalized claim. Especially when you consider that respect for property rights is a requisite to having no State, meaning that such organizations would have even less room to breathe in.

 

Again, one of us is being absurd. Strawman arguments as if I said something has to be outside the universe to be inside it, talking about aliens... That's some damn fine weaseling!

 

You were doing mental gymnastics to make your conclusion fit. You know full well the thread is talking about the State. Still.

 

 

Don't forget, you said, "these tyrannical people you reference, in the absence of a State, would not knock on your door to demand a tithe to pay for their child's schooling for example." and I said, "gangs and bandits do and have for all time performed these actions." and you said, "So what?"  YOU WERE WRONG. your response acknowledged that you were wrong. Your entire argument is wrong. I am the OP. I know what the thread is about. It's not about whether the social construct is called a state or a government and it certainly isn't about whether they are different. It is about the fact, that governments, such as books, buildings, and property are not a threat. Individual people having individual thoughts making individual actions in unison are the ones that want to take your guns and enslave you. The government doesn't want to steal your money. Your neighbors want to your neighbors are the cops that arrest you. your neighbors are the ones that vote to steal your shit and take your rights. Your neighbors are the ones signing your bills. People working in government aren't special or different. They are exactly the same as everybody else.

 

 You stated no rule for me to make an exception for. You were simply incorrect. Respect for property rights is not requisite for either a state or lack thereof. If no humans exist, there is no property, there are no rights, and there is no state. If you are the only person on earth, there is no state because you simply do what you want to do and everything is yours. If there are two people and they acknowledge each other's property rights, there is still no state or government unless each one chooses to make decisions together. Your statement is plain false.

 

Maybe I don't make examples well, but you are being rather rude and I don't appreciate your unnecessary, childish prodding. I posited that for there to be a world government, what you may call a state, there does not need to be any outward entity to acknowledge said state. Since all known life is on earth, a world government would have power over all life. HYPOTHETICALLY, an alien entity would be required for there to be an outward entity or state to acknowledge said world government. That was what I meant and I certainly hope you understand it this time. Essentially, what does or does not define a world state or a world government and are they different. I say they are exactly the same.

 

Your problem is that you choose to use special definitions of words. These particular special definitions are particular to international politics. "State" is the exact same as a "government." That's just what those two words mean. A single government is a state and requires no outward acknowledgement for this to be true. The special definition is that a "state" is generally identified as being different and separate from another "state" and the two states likely acknowledge that they are separate. These are special definitions relating to international politics. You are using special definitions that identify separate governments and confusing a state and a government as being different things. I say that for the sake of this discussion, outward acknowledgement is irrelevant. The special definitions that you are using do not refute the plain definitions, they simply seek to identify separate states/governments/groups/nations. 

 

State: 2: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. 

 

Government:1 the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration 2 the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed

 

Nation: a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

 

Community: 1 a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality,share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage. 2 a locality inhabited by such a group.

 

Clearly none of these definitions require an outside source to justify that they are a single government or state. If you think state = government is mental gymnastics, then you must have a skewed view of what justifies as "gymnastics."

 

 

TL;DR,

 

1. SINCE ALL KNOWN LIFE RESIDES ON EARTH, FOR A WORLD GOVERNMENT TO EXIST, ALL KNOWN LIFE WOULD BE WITHIN SAID GOVERNMENT. NO OUTWARD ENTITY WOULD EXIST TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS HYPOTHETICAL WORLD GOVERNMENT IS A STATE.

 

2. IS A WORLD GOVERNMENT THEN NOT A STATE BECAUSE IT IS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY A DIFFERENT STATE?

 

3. IF A WORLD GOVERNMENT IS NOT A STATE BECAUSE NO OUTWARD STATE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT IS A STATE, DOES THAT THEN MAKE IT SOMEHOW DIFFERENT FROM A NON-STATE GOVERNMENT OR IS IT SEMANTICS?

 

4. IF A WORLD GOVERNMENT IS NOT A STATE, DOES THAT THEN MAKE A WORLD GOVERNMENT MORAL OR JUST LESS IMMORAL FOR THE EXACT SAME ACTIONS THAT A STATE WOULD COMMIT SIMPLY FOR A FACT THAT YOU DON'T CALL IT A STATE?

 

5. IF THERE ARE ONLY TWO "STATES" AND NEITHER ONE ACKNOWLEDGED ONE ANOTHER LIKE CHINA/TAIWAN OR N/S KOREA TYPE RELATIONSHIP, WOULD EITHER THEN BE A STATE BECAUSE THEY DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE ONE ANOTHER?

 

6. IF A STATE AND A GOVERNMENT ARE THE SAME THING, WHICH THEY ARE, WTF ARE YOU TRYING TO ARGUE? 

 

LASTLY, A STATE IS A GOVERNMENT IS A STATE. IT IS A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS AND INDIVIDUAL'S ACTIONS ARE THEIR OWN. GOVERNMENT IS AN ILLUSION AND IS SIMPLY INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE COMMITTING THESE CRIMES. THEY EACH MAKE THE INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS WHICH WHEN DONE IN UNISON ARE VIEWED AS A STATE ACTION. THEY ARE SIMPLY SIMULTANEOUS INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS.

Don't forget "You said, "these tyrannical people you reference, in the absence of a State, would not knock on your door to demand a tithe to pay for their child's schooling for example." and I said, "gangs and bandits do and have for all time performed these actions." and you said, "So what?"  YOU WERE WRONG. Your entire argument is wrong. 

[dsayers]

For you, there is no null hypothesis. Got it.