All government is merely a monopolistic mafia when you reduce it to its most basic component. Law enforcers are its henchmen and violent strong arms in preserving it especially in preserving the exploitation that gives it power.
The Hitlerian messiah has spoken!
Government is the new skydaddy to answer your prayers in protecting you from other people? What a interesting interpretation.
To Uccisore:
What Hobbes defined as human nature being savage in historical times before the state existed is interesting considering human beings are equally savage with the state. A existence of anarchy wouldn’t be any more a savage one as our current savage existence under the state. Poor argument on your part.
Speaking of the savagery and inherent malice of the state we should really talk about all those stockpiles of nuclear weapons we use to blackmail each other into submission around the world or how as a part of contingency under the state we plan to use on one another for the preservation of the state’s existence.
The innocence of the government or the state in contrast to anarchy?
Give me a fucking break…
Define functions well. You’re of course not talking about everybody equally.
That statement strikes me full of intellectual dishonesty.
Individual sovereignty does have a nice ring to it. But I find it hard to see how we would be able to organise the things we need, eg healthcare, education, fuel for the masses if we didn’t have an organising body such as the Government. I think people place too much emphasis on the Government’s power and forget their own. They fail to take responsibility.
I think individual sovereignty is crucial but not at the expense or in conflict with the ‘collective sovereignty’. They coexist like the body and a cell within it. They are both equally important but in different ways or on different levels.
Admittedly Government as it stands has become over powering and a nanny state but that doesn’t mean it isn’t needed in a more some form. It is as unhealthy as the individuals within it and they will both have to change in order to become healthier. It’s the chicken and the egg.
Tyrannus, do you dislike the actions of the state or the existence of the state itself? What is your ideal alternative and how do you propose to make it ‘work’? I’m ignorant about these things, I assume the standards of living would go back to the 16th century overnight? Who would organise innoculations, dignified care of the mentally disabled, or the violent? All the things we take for granted? Wouldn’t it be better to try to improve the system from within than destroy it because it is flawed. What Governments do at a global level is only indicative of what we do to eachother as people. I do like to idea of individual sovereignty but I can’t see how we can just get rid of the state. Wouldn’t that be like getting rid of a lot of good things, as well as the bad?
Ok Tyrannus, how about YOU define “functions well” whichever way pleases you, and then find me a historical example of a society that does it in the absence of a state . . .
Unfortunately Hobbes didn’t realize that the state would necessarily end up being run by people like that, sociopaths.
I’m afraid you entirely miss the point of anti-statism.
Again, by virtue of the state being law-giver, the state is attractive to those who wish to be as far as possible above the law and use the law to dominate.
Now that the means of control the state has at its disposal have become so powerful, we need to abolish the state (as it is right now, as controlling every aspect of life) precisely in order to prevent people like “you” (yeah right, I saw your movie) from using it as an instrument.
Discerned ≡ distinguished and perceived as separate.
James, what is your take on Libertarianism?
I’m asking because it is the movement that appears right now to be the closest to advocating a system driven only by a set of principles based on the subject as a standard of value.
Of course they are strongly tied to Christianity, but this is a flexible religion, can be interpreted in many ways, among others simply as the sanctifier of the individual (God in man).
I think that radical right wing anti-statism (libertarianism) is very similar to radical left wing anti-statism (anarchism), in that their main tenets are mistrust of centralized power and trust in the capacity of the human species to take care of itself without central authority.
It would seem natural to try to bring them together in theory, see where the differences truly are.
Wow. He actually said that out loud.
…I knew he was one of the only actual men around here… 
And yeah, your assessment of Libertarians seems on mark.
But the Left and the Right are intentionally kept at extremes.
So there is no bringing them together.
I can already see the witch-hunts for “sociopaths”.
“Insanity is something rare in individuals—but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule.” (Nietzsche)
The only community that can do without the obligations to goodness and to recognition of God’s grace is what the scholar in the Kuzari calls “a community of robbers” (cf. my previous post): the philosophers are the only genuine individuals.
One can always try. And in fact I intend to.
These two movements are both equally close to my own views. For me there’s no reason to not try to merge them.
And in fact what you say should be an incentive to give this a shot, rather than a discouragement.
What does the sling represent in this case?
Can you really?
I admit that I use the term very freely these days. It’s in part a way to ventilate my disdain for the type of people that modern governments attracts.
There are some decent people there, of course, but in a system where corporate interests are merged with government, while at the same time government claims it is there as a representation of the people (the most dishonest system thinkable, which is not saying its the worst, it’s not), it is normal to assume that a certain very dishonest and cold type will be most successful.
There are exceptions to this rule, but nowhere near enough for critical mass.
Sociopathy is not at all the same as insanity.
Often people go insane because of an excess of compassion.
Rather the sociopath is extremely calculating, ‘‘sane’’ in terms of his own interest.
I doubt that.
I don’t think that individuality requires all the properties of a philosopher.
A philosopher is by definition a writer, or someone whose views are quoted by a philosopher (Socrates). This is not a requirement for individuality.
The sling is merely to deliver the stone.
Casting the stone is what you have to concentrate on.
…to “cast a stone” is to make an immutably solid object.
Define ‘distinguished’…
All witch-hunts end up being self-destructive (‘terrorism’ most obviously) so there’s no difference when it comes to sociopathy. But I wasn’t advocating a witch-hunt so much as an attempt to starve certain human behaviours by having the others steal their food.
That’s alright, you fascists (Christo- or otherwise) are all cowards hiding behind the glorious diffuse spectacle of the state anyway, I feel more than ready to beat you in a fight if it comes to that.
Individual appropriation. Propaganda of the deed.