“Logically speaking we know our civ won’t last.”
That cannot be determined a priori, this requires knowledge of empirical observation and a gained understanding of human action.
“Look at how the state keeps monopolizing natural resources AND cages anyone who tries to live sustainably.”
That has nothing to do with how long civilization will last. Indeed this could well last longer than in a market state of affairs within the current system, due to the large scale environmentalism of our day. Civilization might not last well under such circumstances, but it will certainly last.
“Tragedy of the commons combined with criminalizing living naturally AND mass subsidies to big ag AND the dumbing down of children through gov schools AND poison in food/medicine and tech (like cancer phones) will kill us.”
- Nothing to do with civilization
- Living naturally would not prolong civilization unless it happened on a mass scale
- Nothing would kill “us” faster than the end of civilization
- Dumbing down of the populous doesn’t have much to do with how civilization will fare. Democracy sucks no matter how stupid people are. What matters is ideology, which is only loosely linked to intelligence, not intelligence itself.
- You have not described how civilization is bad or how I or anyone else would do well to abandon civilization. You have especially failed in any sort of description as to why it is that civilization should be abandoned rather than reformed. Indeed some of your reasons for wanting to abandon civilization, “It will kill us all” falls on its face when we realize that the end of civilization will kill us all.
Most importantly, however, you have not justified one iota of what was in your original post. Statism can only exist within civilization in the same way that cancer can only exist in a body. Indeed this is a good analogy for what you are doing:
It is well known that having legs allows legs to be in a position where legs can break. This causes a great deal of discomfort and means that the individual in inhibited because he is trapped within a cast for months, which restricts his motion. Therefore, the only logical thing to do is to amputate everyone’s legs forthwith.
Furthermore, the fact is that if everyone followed your advice and civilization ended, then man would likely fall into a state of barbarism. You wouldn’t live well, you’d likely be raided and killed. Indeed only those who survived would be those who cooperated and formed large social groups, during which time they’d probably find it advantageous to cooperate to produce goods, and produce items which improve the quality of their lives, E.G civilization.
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of people benefit from advanced civilization and society. I, and most people on earth, would rather live in a heavily statist society, than a solitary and primitive lifestyle. The only way that your method makes sense is if it is acknowledged as either A: A personal system because YOU like living on your own, in which case you have not answered the question WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE? Or B: A personal system suggested as an alternative of a heavily totalitarian state, which would be an answer to the question WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE? Or finally C: A social system to lead to the downfall of statism, shortly followed by the reformation into a more libertarian civilization. Any of these would, however, not explain the inherent correlation between civilization and statism/violence, or why people are inherently better living in primitive isolation, which would appear to be some of your major theses.
Tide goes in, tide goes out. I don’t know how you intend to explain that.