If we ever did end government then it would not be a surprise to see a group of people trying to convince other people to join their government or movement. With all types of political and religious lies to go with it. These sorts of group were far more effective 500+ years ago because of the lack of communications and knowledge of the average person. But look at scientology a great example of how people will follow a movement, even in today’s times. Sure they are not what people would consider to be a government but the methods of manipulation are the same. But as people have said if there was no tax and no state and an infomercial came on TV trying to take $15000 a year from you for what you receive from your current government. It is very unlikely that even the most socialist of people would make the purchase. But if they use the “scientology type manipulation” with it they might stand more of a chance.
So when we do end the state the people would have to actively resist any type of organisation that claims jurisdiction over their property or claim to it (much like it is today). No matter what uniforms or special language they use or how official their stamps look.
This is confusion on the origin of the state. The technicalities like divine rule, democracy, etc and the ideological reasoning used to support them are just mechanisms for getting more popuularity for more revenue. The real reason that state exists is because you cannot offer more money to a protection service provider than to a robber. This is an axiomatic sentence, the definitions of the terms imply its validity, hence arguing against it absurd despite attempts by misesians to deny it.
Indeed, but all this proves is that any ‘state’ can never exceed the limits of the entry costs in the protection business. A far cry indeed form our beloved welfare state, isn’t it?
Sure, but the murder may well have unintended consequences. For example, it could be that the murder victim was the only person who could’ve stopped a dictator from rising to power later on.
Right, I figure you’re not arguing that spontaneous orders are entities unto themselves. You’re saying that spontaneous orders are emergent and therefore don’t necessarily take forms that people expect. I completely agree with that.
Still, I’d say that spontaneous orders are necessarily dependent on our actions.
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that spontaneous orders cannot choose and cannot act, so therefore they cannot be judged in moral terms. Again, I agree. Furthermore, I agree that there is no objective “right” or “wrong”, morally speaking. But I’d argue against statist orders being completely spontaneous and emergent. To me, they seem to be very much imposed in a top-down fashion. Because of this, they’re in constant struggle and flux against the “natural order” which is continually established and renewed from the bottom up.
Than, to the degree it would have such consequences, we’d find murder hard to judge. But as a practical matter, murder has no unintended consequences beyond the immediate intended ones, or at least none we can discern. Thus, we can afford to judge murder on its immediate ‘merits’ alone.
Well, again in the immediate sense you’re perfectly right. But than one must think that our modern state emerged as a result of natural orders competing. Its global reach above all, is the direct result of the immense superiority of the European order overthrowing everything else in the XIX century. Therefore, it is natural to this second degree, if you will. A spontaneous way of going back to local order could be technical advances that make conquest too costly. I myself am betting on nukes. They can give us back city states in a fully ‘natural’ (unintended) fashion.
You’re saying that spontaneous orders are emergent and therefore don’t necessarily take forms that people expect. I completely agree with that.