Your premise asserts that the state can actually be eliminated. I say it can’t be.
Power coalesces. It’s almost as if it has a mind of its own. My premise is that there will always be a state, yours is that if we could just get rid of that damn state then all these reasons for war would disappear. To me that’s like saying “if only we could just read minds I wouldn’t have to waste time talking” it’s an impossibility. Sure, you could probably do away with the state for a little while. But your children would build a new one. Know why? Because people crave power. Sooner or later someone’s going to realize that they can get a lot of power if they just build an army. So they’ll build an army and become the de facto government.
No amount of rationalizing will ever change human nature. It cannot be done. It’s in our nature to kill and strive to conquer others. It’s a wonder we’re able to control those impulses as well as we are.
Has it ever occurred to you that people like to collectivize their resources so that they can pass the cost of their plans onto others? Why do you think that is?
I’m just trying to show the utility of war. Or at least of military might. Not condoning or condemning. Just saying that war, or at least the threat of war can be the foundation of peace. Peace because of fear.
Yeah, the Jews got fucked over by the Nazis. If we’d had a state and an army maybe that wouldn’t have happened.
The SPE I think can elude to what happens when a person thinks they have a place or role in “society”, as well as a look in the slave-master mentality this has interesting implications when considering massive violence.
Looking at that premise (that fighting is option #1), my argument is that violence isn’t natural but that it isn’t the preferd #1 option for most :
A) It seems kind of self defeating as a species and kind of “in the long run” for most individuals if they had perpetual violence.
B) How many other mammals attack their own species on whim. They usually have some ritual before a fight starts, and even then it is not often to the death.
C) This would seem to contradict the social nature of us, and most mammals.
D) No matter what the circumstance the option of violence is usually a somewhat high risk to one’s own well being from a primitive level to a civilized level
E) There are different “builds” in organisms ex: Male / Female, smart and weak vs strong and dumb. I can’t imagine all the combonation of traits that add up would lead all organisms of a species to consider violence as the #1 solution to their problems. Different build, different goal, different preference
Choosing peace, or more specific, not choosing to participate in most idiots crusades is something that can only be done on an individual level with individualism being a main trait of the personality. That was kind of my point, to show a correlation between egoism and not getting duped by “the call to serve”.
It would also strip away any idiotic justificatins and boil everything down to a “I want, I take, this is what’s in it for you” mentality. I think that looks a bit more promising for less insane violence than what usually goes on.
No, might just makes possible. We have to decide how to use might. Right or wrong is just an opinion. Only God can know what’s absolutely right or wrong.
With all respect bloom, you don’t seem to be trying to show the utility of war. You’re making broad statements about human nature, saying that people are aggressive by nature and they will violate other peoples wishes whenever they can…
You were correct when you posted this
that is a completely praxeologically valid theory that me and others were saying in other words. Except for the “it’s peace that requires an explanation” which I didn’t get. Read what I’ve said again on page 1. I said that for the ends of profit, one can indeed see violence as the best means if he can avoid being retaliated against, or not having to pay its costs. That can be accomplished in diverse ways which have been iterated as well.
But you’re wrong on every other post when you try to infer that you know what people’s ends, or people’s natures are. Science isn’t that advanced today that you can even approximate knowing that, empirically, so why do you even try, I don’t know. But so far, I don’t see anything you say or anyone else on that regard as being even close to proven, if there could be such a thing as a inductive, positive proof to begin with.
I don’t mean that disrespectfully, I’ve tried to reason through that path myself but it just didn’t work too well. There can be no scientific should, like Mises said.