I agree!
Actually, I was hoping you would notice the form of that argument was a classic appeal to authority.
Even if Rothbard were to say “should the government end, then the state ends” that would not be a logical proof. Merely an assertion.
Tax. Those thieves. Still coercive. No difference. They didn’t have a territory, but most definitely bandits on the run.
It’s the curse of the simuracula and simulation, expressed as an intropolated fragmentation of the neo-luddite geo-centric intrinsicism upon which the post-capitalist narrative of sexuality is founded. Since the matrix of meaning depends on the will to post-foucault pre-emption, the memetic mirror of conciousness fades into the meta-narrative of burgeousie society, which ultimately deconstructs itself as a consequence of the myth of sisyphus. The Randian counter-revolution attempted to transcend the malevolent universe premise, but the new historicism of post-derridian sign and play clearly demonstrates that language doesn’t exist because the signifier points to itself, in the hyper-space between being and nothingness.
Therefore the hybrido-cultural bolsheviks are vindicated from the nausea of judeo-baudrillardian conciousness, although this is actually not true because the existential dialectic breaks down as soon as the narrative of constructivist reconstruction of the deconconstructed remains of post-marxist broohaha is revealed, which can only be merged back into the narrative once the transcendance of transcendance is transcended by the paradigm of the post-grammatical rubicon that rests upon the meta-creativity of the-thing-in-itself, which is an expansion of the post-archetypal archetype of the cyberpunk metamorphosis that results from the meta-narrative of gengis kahn. However, this can only be manifested as a neo-poetic expression of “creeping death”, since the fractals do not correlate to the narrative.
Nothing of what you say is really news. We knew that all along.
The image of a snake eating its own tail is burned into the being of Hegel’s “absolute spirit”. The only conclusion that one can make from this is that inconclusiveness is the essence in which non-essence manifests itself, and therefore the temporal character of being anihilates itself when faced with the passions that arise as a consequence of the inconsequential crumbs of post-fatal memes. Eternal reccurance is disintegrated by the circular schema and the sensation of “lack” is felt in a atemporal paradigm in which context decontextualizes and desexualizes itself. The cycle of meaning is disrupted by the freezing of all mechanics and structures, and the reversal of understanding reverses itself to the point at which the kaleidoscopic vision of asymmetrical conciousness is manifested as a meta-narrative of the pan-slavic proto-nationalism that is inherent in the temporal framework upon which the meme of time is based. It follows that it is the year 1921.
We are talking about the Anarchist definition of the State apparatus. I presented an article showing the interchangeability of the words: State/Government. You have said ‘Well I think of it like this and to back me up is ambiguous references to France during WWII.’ Because I have presented Rothbard, a great scholar on the issue who has wrote numerous articles declaring the functions of the state apparatus and you have some weak lukewarm argument, you are now trying to state I am fallacious. Honestly, if you are going to act like this then I see no purpose in further discussing it so this will be my last post on the issue.
The crucial difference is that their territories are states. Without states, a group of men in exile in London can call themselves a government all they want, nothing will happen. If they return to Poland and the state doesn’t recognize them, or the state has been destroyed, they will still have no power.
The fact is that the state is a very tangible thing. It has buildings and people in them doing paperwork. If you destroy the buildings in a surprise attack, the state will collapse. If you seize control of the buildings by force, the state will have to obey you. The same is not true for a government.
I see the difference. Thank you. But they both are coercive by nature. Yes, the government in exile is very weak, but not weak enough to dissolve and in the example of Poland’s government they still fed off of the Allied powers. Yet they did what in the meantime? Probably a lot of ass-kissing to stay afloat cause they needed the Allied States to sustain themselves. They thing of it is, they are bandits on the run, and if their State territory still exists for their taking, then they maraud back in, yet, with arms embracing their return. Difference in operation, yes. Difference in coerciveness to stay in existence - no.
That’s why I brought up the question earlier, but nobody answered it. Why are we going through this intellectual exercise? They’re both coercive, and both need to go. I see them as different apples in the same basket. So if I interchange the words government and state in my posts, I’m basically talking about the same thing. They go hand in hand when it comes to the justice I seek.
Don’t ask Stranger. He made a relevant point and was jumped on for it. I attemped to clarify Stranger’s point to no avail.
Coercion can be a very useful thing when used for one’s protection. Being coercive doesn’t condemn anyone to disappear.
Well this thread seems to be getting away from me… Since there was only one post since my last one that dealt with my question (Sage) I will just address that by saying that I have not intended to make any statements about the morality of government but merely it’s nature. And while the government can rightly be said to use violent coercion on individuals, the individuals collectively can keep the government in check by the same threat. More importantly “privately” provided protection constitutes the exact same situation. These things being said I think I have a pretty good idea of the ideas that are out there and how they relate to my own, so thank you all.
Except that doesn’t make much sense. Since the gov’t is NOT voluntary it follows that the individuals have ALREADY failed in keeping it in check.
Yes, in the sense that if private firms decide to use criminal means, they will either be stopped…or not, and if not they’ll become de facto governments. But the point remains : a monopolistic government is a worse idea than competing providers of security.
Well I’m going to attempt to go down this intellectual road.[:)]
It won’t hurt, I don’t think.[:P]
What do you mean “doesn’t condemn anyone to disappear”?
And I’m a principled NA person, so, if you side-track that, then I can’t accept it. So you know ahead of time.[:D]
The problem is one of power. The state is an enormous organization for the concentration of force, and its interest is to keep the people as disorganized and isolated as possible, so that it can easily focus its full strength to defeat any challenge to itself.
In theory that is what the government is supposed to do, to gather together the different social powers in order to rein in the state. “Limited government” however has been an abject failure everywhere. The concentration of power government creates, with the state under its control, is too attractive.
The only real way to limit power is to create competing powers in government. For example the constitution of Great Britain for a long time had an upper chamber of hereditary peers. This kept the power of the house of commons in check, and the house of commons kept the peers in check. Of course since that time the house of lords has been packed with members appointed by the house of commons, essentially merging the two bodies into a single one and leaving no obstacle to the concentration of power. The same story took place with U.S. senate. Senators used to belong to state legislatures, offering a true decentralist counter-power to the central legislature, but now they are directly elected, making them no different from members of the house of representatives.
I mean destroying the state is not necessary. It can be reformed and restructured in an ordered manner, much like any bankruptcy. To do this, we must first place ourselves in the position of bankruptcy judge.
I’m kinda gettin’ what you’re saying. If they are just the buildings and such, but wouldn’t they have a lot of learning to do. The State is a mindless coercive monopoly now. The personal would need to be changed. So you’re saying rid the government keep the State?
Why has everybody for as long as I’ve been here been going after the State? Rothbard talks about the State? Statist are viled. So maybe there is a difference between statist and State?
Well that doesn’t give me any confidence on this new development. I think decentralization all the way down to free market shifts is what’s needed. The State having local built upon with county built upon with local states built upon by federal is only concentrating powers with each step. The local might be accessible, but I wouldn’t go any further. Law is a must in anarchy.
A statist is someone who labors for an increased power for the state, out of material self-interest or power-worship. But the state is not all made up of statists. Some members are there only for the steady paycheck, or because the state has monopolized their preferred profession. Many of them are in the military and police. These organizations do not need to be disbanded. Because of their narrowly hierarchical natures, you can reform them simply by removing the top executives.
So there is a difference between the State and statist. A very good point. If the State is military, police, and court systems (am I missing anything), then that’s necessary in anarchy. The State’s activities will simply need to become voluntary businesses that provide a profitable service to stay afloat. But I wouldn’t want these State powers to be centralized. I think competing military, police, and court systems would keep the power in check. Competing for money that is. Existing structures now seem overblown and too big. These State agencies would have to find a way to reach out to consumers, but I think a huge lesson in Natural Law is a must for these institutions. The transition is enormous.
Edit: While we are on the topic. Do you have any essays or books to share that discusses anything kin to this?