It isn’t a question as to whether or not I should be free to leave it; it is a question of whether or not it is just. I’m not unable to reconcile myself to it. I'm under no illusion that I’m ever see the state de-legitimized in the minds of most people.
Originally Posted by Archaix
It is inaccurate to say that “the state can only kill you if you happen to live in a place with the death penalty”; I’ll try again to illustrate a scenario: the state has dictated that possession of a plant is “illegal” (one of the many completely arbitrary little rules that the state dreams into existence). This is by all reasonable, rational considerations utter nonsense. Morally, then, a person would be well within their rights to resist the confiscation of their property and/or restraint of their physical self. When this individual resists the agents of the state, those agents will invariably escalate their methods to force compliance with the arbitrary rule. If the individual is dead-set on maintaining his property and/or liberty, the agents of the state will – MUST – kill him, for his disobedience.
In the case of wars, the state often enslaves (“draft”) individuals into their service.
This is objectively unjust, and reveals the true nature of the state. The state is not benign. If an individual objects to some arbitrary dictate - even if the majority of people support the particular dictate - of the state, that individual must be subdued.
A person may decide that they have no need for creature comforts, nor human interaction. Those relations are indeed voluntary – one is not [i]forced[/] to engage in them, certainly not in the same manner a person is forced into relations with the state.
I wrote in my previous response that economic, social and political unions are natural -you seem to be confusing that with 'voluntary'. There is nothing 'voluntary' about economic union; even if you exerted yourself enough to be fully independent of others you would suffer incalculably in your standard of living. There is nothing 'voluntary' either in your social life either, unless you're particularly sociopathic; it's an extension of your human need to be social.
Of course, protection from fraud and market disasters, as well as from fellow human beings can and have been provided by the free market.
Both of these things could be done without an organised political framework, but would be much weaker. You need protection from fraudsters and periodic market disasters, and you need protection from your fellow human beings and a common code of what's acceptable.
I understand that people recognize some utility in the state.
The formation of political unions in a state makes perfect sense to humans, which is why it developed naturally over millennia. The question is not then how can we resist the state, but how can you prevent people from creating one.
It took England 1000 years to subdue Ireland, and mostly after the Irish foolishly began to adopt characteristics of the state. Superior? I suppose, at confiscating property and people and sending them into battle on their behalf. Yes, the state is far superior to individuals in that regard.
I'm disinclined to inspect that article thoroughly, not least because it's apparently written by a crony of Rothbard's, and relies heavily on law (problematic since we can never tell how much the law was followed, or how exactly it was interpreted). Needless to say, however, that no matter how anarchistic Ireland was, it never out-competed the state-led kingdom of England, which eventually (or inevitably) absorbed it. Which political model was more superior?
Again, I understand that there is a good utilitarian case for the state. I didn’t offer those articles as an example of stateless societies that would out-compete the state in certain functions; I offered them because they provide concrete examples of stateless societies, as you requested. My position is not that statelessness is more ‘practical’, or utilitarian; it’s that it is more moral.
There is no end to the need; that point is completely arbitrary and will vary according to whomever you may ask. And thus, especially in a “democracy”, conflict is endemic – everyone fights everyone else for control of the reins of power, to impose their vision of where exactly the state must begin and end.
At exactly the point there is no need to.
The state was not necessary. Newton was not talking about the state when he made that comment.
No, but you have an aversion to giving credit where it is due.
It seems to me that we are reaching a point where we’ve realized that there are some fundamental, foundational disagreements that aren’t going to be overcome in this conversation (and setting), at least: the crux of my position is moral, not utilitarian/pragmatic, and is best summed as I wrote in my second paragraph, above.
"Propaganda makes up our mind for us, but in such a way that it leaves us the sense of pride and satisfaction of men who have made up their own minds." Thomas Merton
"Lord, give us radicals, be they anarchists or no." Murray Rothbard