Mises states in Human Action that “no government (implying a minority, as no government is the majority) can be sustained without the at least tacit acceptance by the majority” I can not cite the exact page and this is a paraphrase, not an exact quote. But I believe that it is true. Witness the fall of colonialism, the “success” of the Taliban. If a majority population is willing to endure sufficient hardship, they can make governing them impossible. The only answer left for the government is to attempt genocide and purge the nonconformists. He also means that people will find non-violent ways to avoid the state - such as black markets and barter.
I am concerned (too weak of a verb) that we will see the attempt of the State to maintain its power when the majority is ready to throw off its yoke. If there is still enough individualism, reason, and pride left in America, that is. Will the yoke be applied by the local police, when they come to seize your food stores for the common good? Or perhaps by the Treasury agents, when they come to seize your stores of monetary assets to allow the continuation of government? Every act of confiscation is another decision point - is the yoke accepted or rejected? I am far more concerned about the State thrashing to survive than I am about private criminals. And there is really no where left to hide.
Why do you keep equating things aren’t synonymous? The state is not a monopoly on violence. The state uses a monopoly on violence to achieve its ends. You cannot be something that you use.
Yes, you’re right that the state claims that only its violence is legitimate. This is precisly what makes it a uniquely modern institution. Before the rise of “the State” rulers were not necessarily exempted from the laws that they burdened their subjects with. Since then, a double moral standard has existed.
I highly recommend reading the first essay in a collection of essays edited by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, entitled The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production. The first essay is titled “The Problem of Security: Historicity of the State and ‘European Realism’”.
I believe the following quotes from the essay may help you:
I very much doubt that Sparta is the originator of totalitarian government. It may have been one of the first military dictatorships, but not the first despotic regime.
There were no feudal “states” per se. There were political arrangements based on the feudal system, but feudal lords did not place themselves above laws for the most part. Even their subjects understood that, no matter how oppressive laws were, their liege was not above them. The present may be dominated by “states”, but the past necessarily wasn’t. You can’t just assume that modern institutions have always been around. To do so, in logic, is known as an argumentum ad antiquitatem, or Appeal to Tradition.
I may have indeed been duped, but then this would also suggest that many libertarian/austrian authors and essayists have been as well. Perhaps you are the only one who has been given the gift of perfect sight?
Can you prove that in all cases where a feudal arrangement evolved into a state that the evolution occured while a “pike was held to everyone’s throat”? Feudal lords did not monopolize coercion or violence. A cursory understanding of the Germanic tradition of the “feud” would help you understand this.
To name one close to home: post-revolutionary America. They traded an unworkable national government (Articles of Confederation) with the Consitituion. Certain liberties were abrogated so that the security of a more centralized government could be attained. This is an explicit exchange. Then again, during the War between the States, Americans stood by as Lincoln rode roughshod over the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the recently codified Rules of Warfare. The result was a near police state. This was a tacit exchange. In both cases, American society determined that liberty was not dear enough to defend. They may have wanted the security of knowing that they would not be harmed by not revolting, but they ended up being less free.
BTW, many historians believe that the birth of the American “state” occured during Lincoln’s war against secession.
Can you prove that I am not? If proving a negative wasn’t a logical fallacy, would it even be germaine? I don’t even remember talking about cops. I remember an absurd scenario where someone offered me the option of being beat with a broom or a stick. Do cops in your area do this?
No, I haven’t taken part in any rebellions or insurgencies. More importantly, I never condemned anyone. This is the second time you have accused me of condemning someone. Why do you keep doing this? Are you mean-spirited, or do you have a problem with reading?
A government is a large, often amorphous institution. Politicians can be seen as the executors of it. They are not the will of the government, however. The people are. In a democracy, the people act through majoritarian decisions. Politicians can naught but rubber stamp their will. True, they can manipulate public opinion, but the popular will is still making the decision to do or not to do something legislatively.
If a red herring is in itself a valid argument but one which does not address the issue in question, then what is the issue in question if politicians are nothing more than the government’s red herrings?
I do not know what each individual politician’s intentions are, and neither do you. And no, a monetary majority is not a product of the state. It is simply a majority opinion in the form of money. Monetary majorities are how every market functions, free or not. In a very real sense, it is the volume of money which determines the success or failure of an institution, as the market patrons vote with their money. Monetary majorities are a product of the market. They accomplish much in states because there is incentive to bribe regulators and legislators who represent large, centralized governments.
I never said that the general populace is “statist to the core”. You have inferred this, and perhaps unfairly. In fact your assumption of this in a question is what is known as a plurium interrogationum in logic, which is also called a fallacy of many questions. I can’t answer your question about why populations are so fearful of populism when I believe that they are “statist to the core” because I don’t believe that they are statist to the core and in fact never said that. If you would like me to answer the question, ‘Why aren’t states populist?’ then please provide me with the definition of populism that you prefer, and I will answer your question accoring to your definition.
I am not blaming the individual victims of fraud for anything. I’m making a case that it is humanity itself (as a whole) which determines its own destiny. So far, humanity has decided that oppression under the state is preferable to liberty in anarchy. This is nothing you nor I can change, despite how angry it makes you.
Certainly. What kind of individualist would I be if I believed that people should not be blamed for the stupid things they get themselves into? I blame myself for the retarded things I do. It would be nice to blame others for my idiocy, but who would I blame. Society? The state?
Marko, almost all of our discussion has been fraught with numerous logical fallacies, you putting words into my mouth, you taking things personally, and you lashing out. In addition, in a lot of your arguments, I believe that you are arguing from the perspective of playing the victim. Beyond that, you seem to have a general misunderstanding of what I am trying to say. Also, you seem to have an incomplete understanding of the origins of social institutions. This is your problem. Instead of trying to make it mine, pick up a book, do some reading, engage in a little critical analysis, and fix it.
Let me know now if this thread is to be burdened indefinitely with the things I enumerated in the above paragraph.