The state does not seek to literally equalize the economic structure of the society. The reality of the state is itself a deviation from flatness in the society, and the state’s function is primarily to intensify where the power is concentrated in different areas. The effect is never actual flatness, it’s always privilege to one group at the expense of other groups. I reject pure flatness as an impossibility anyways, and as undesirable to boot. But I also reject the extreme heirarchy and privilege that is represented by the state, and I think that the removal of the state inherently implies more pluralism and less heirarchy.
You have yet to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of my position. That is not my position, it’s a three word slogan. My position is that the state itself quite obviously is a heirarchy, and hence if you oppose the state you are proposing the removal of that particular heirarchy. By default, this implies less heirarchy in that particuar area. My left-libertarian position has consistantly been primarily that the state enables there to be more concentration of power and is itself a concentration of power. Your repeated attempts at strawmanning me as a marxist are highly disingenous.
At which point, intergenerationally, they become states. Feudalism, AT BEST, is the pretext for the formation of states all over again, and it makes no sense for a libertarian to side with the new state. Feudalism, more realistically, is already predicated on a state forming and protecting the landlord’s title, and functions as a province of a state. Quite simply, you are simply using libertarianism as a rationale for the imposition of what you actually value, I.E. feudalism rather than liberty. At best, all your position entails is setting back the historical progression of forms of government by a millenia or so, it doesn’t actually abolish the government or establish a genuinely free society. Even assuming the absurdity of a “free society” with fuedal land arrangements, it won’t remain a “free society” for long. But more than likely a “free society” with fuedal land arrangements isn’t realy a free society to begin with - it’s an archiac and backwards society.
Please read again what I wrote ? You asked : do my customers claim authority over the direction/quality of my labor ? My answer is NO and I explained that the relation is a voluntary agreement, NOT a hierarchy in which I receive orders because my customers are above me. I’m not being ordered to do anything, I do it voluntarily. I can’t believe you can’t grasp this.
They hire me to do things they want done and I’m willing to do. No amount of newspeak/word twisting is going to change the fact that cooperation and hierarchy are different things.
What is your nation-state in “the traditional sense”? How do you fit in the Finns with the Arabian Peninsula kingdoms?
Libertarianism consists in the non-aggression principle, i.e. a commitment to liberty. No more, no less. Unless feudalism concerns itself with justly homesteaded resources, it is merely another illegitimate form of statism, perhaps less vicious than other forms of statism, but statism nonetheless.
But you know that is wrong. By your own admission, you do work voluntarily, but someone else directs what the work will be.
Cooperation and voluntaryism doesn’t mean the absence of leadership. People can voluntarily choose to follow someone else, as you do when you work for a client or customer. You consider it in your best interest, to follow their direction, to satisfy a goal they have set, in order to achieve your end, which is to get paid.
Sometimes your rabid anti-theism, and anti-conservatism lands you in trouble, because you forget that anarchy doesn’t fit one model only, and that your world without coercion is impossible to maintain indefinitely.
I don’t have to strawman you. I went through your YouTube catalog. You’re just another anti-capitalist.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
^Very convincing argument.^
Woah! Another strawman. Surprising.
And what race, gender or religion would be disadvantaged in a free society? which race do you think that will perish due to its inherent inferiority and inability to provide for themselves? would it be blacks, latinos or indians?
That makes anarchy sound like an eugenicist’s fantasy.
That’s where my distinction lies.
Whenver I hear you speaking I get the impression that you hate the state for the same reason you were annoyed at your parents when they sent you to bed too early, it’s a shame that all those activies you like are contingent on the state
Private property means inequality. The state abolishes private property. I’ll leave to see where this is going.
Because we’re talking economics. But thank you for admitting your intellectual dishonesty.
The classical meaning of a nation is a nationality, an ethnic group. The traditional nation-states are places like France, Sweden, the Arab kingdoms, Finland, etc. The US is a radical experiment in nationhood: a propositional nation, although de facto, it was an Anglo/Celt nation-state prior to 1965.
When the propositional nations collapse, and they will, traditional nations will gain relevance quicker than you can say blood is thicker than water. The good news for all us folks who weren’t born into a particularly insular nationality is that the Dutch (largest port in Europe) and the Finns (smart and hardworking) and the Arab sheiks (oil) will have to compete for capital and exercise low time-preference along with everybody else if they want to stay relevant.
Understand, this is a simplistic rendering of a complicated and lengthy scenario.
Wonderful, instead of reading the arguments in favour of this position you dismiss them as self evidently wrong.
High time preference is indicative of leftist “culture” (or, more accurately, lack of), did you know children tend to have high time preference (and gays.)
Says who, you? You can live your mediocre life under the state and keep wishing things would be more mediocre, but when the state collapses you’re going to be in for a big suprise.
By the way, you didn’t comment on the avatar, it’s the armorial of the Holy Roman Empire, if you’d like to know.
I agree and understand but I would not put Arab monarchies (or France) in this category. Bahrain is no more a nation than San Marino is. Arabs and Italians are nations.