Then there would be a contradiction but I don’t think there is.
TY for correcting me. Here is the contradiction:
Your original argument seems to be:
1. good produces only good.
2. Anarchy is good
3. Anarchy produces statism.
4. Therefor statism is good.
The rebuttal is :
5. statism produces needless mass starvation, concentration camps, pointless worldwide wars and the unimaginable human suffering attending them.
6. therefor, by 1. and 5. we may conclude that needless mass starvation etc is good.
7. but mass starvation etc is obviously bad [and if you disagree with this line, God help us]
8. so that 6. and 7. contradict each other.
Therefor since assumptions 2, 3 5 and 7 seem correct, it must be assumption 1 that is wrong
I think that if my argument is correct, then the state must be or was, good in some way
if we accept 1,2 and 3, then 4 follows, but 1 is wrong as proven above.
So it is good “in some way”, but this good is so hidden and elusive [as opposed to its clearly unspeakable evils] that you can only prove it’s out there somewhere, but nobody has any idea what good it is
and certainly from the point of view of social profits.
“Certainly?” Huh? What social profits are we talking about? Needless mass starvation, etc etc?
That just means that the premises don’t lead to the conclusion but that seems to be something that needs demonstrating in light of my definition of “good”.
Firstly, when did you define “good”? Second its a non sequitor if we omit the post hoc ergo prompter hoc assumption you are making. Let me spell it out.
-
statism always is preceded by anarchy in time.
-
therefor anarchy produces statism, like a mother produces a child
-
anarchy is good
-
good always produces only good.
-
therefor statism is good.
5 does not follow from 1, 3 and 4 alone . which means its a non sequitor if we omit the fallacy, 2.
my objection to the theory that the state came about by accident is basically that it lacks theoretical coherence -where in AE can one infer such a conclusion? But my theory of the state is based on the likely superiority of anarchy over the state.
At this point I’m too tired to continue. Perhaps someone else will pick up the banner of enlightening you, oh errant child.
Granted the state was established by criminals that only gives a historical answer and not a theoretical one. I think that perhaps things created by the market are profitable but not in the maximum absolutely speaking (the hammer is less effective than the hydrolic pump). The state then must’ve been profitable in the same way but when people began to realize that the state was bad, as they realized the hammer was not useful for every application, they began to oppose it. And so there was us.