A society without any coercion is achievable? Do you have any examples in human history?
Voluntarily is the operative word here. Yes, humans create hierarchies, as long as humans are allowed to withdraw/secede voluntarily and unmolested, then we have anarchy. This means we can choose not buy. In other words taxes exit the Death and Taxes correlation.
Nobody has said that. Why even pose the question?
I don’t think so. A street gang does not have ultimate jurisdiction; they are still subordinate to the government.
Care to re-write that without the strawman? Or are you just going to do your usual ad-hominem-then-pout when your fallacious nonsense is exposed?
Choose a tribe.
Government is a man made invention, true. Before it’s cancer spread however many parts of the globe had much different societies then what your used to seeing.
Max, maybe this would make more sense:
A State is a territorial monopolist of ultimate legal jurisdiction
You’re not reading. Context:
Note bold text. Afghanistan is not part of the US territory.
Note bold text.
You agree that society without coercion is impossible but then say that the goal is to create a society where everyone is allowed to do everything voluntarily. The point is you can’t have a society where everyone will agree on allowing people to withdraw, as you put it.
Who gives this ultimate jurisdiction authority you are talking about? What you are saying is that in the heirarchy of criminals the state is at the apex so that has special meaning to you.
If society will always have coercion then what is the distinction you are making between now where we have coercion and under your “anarchy” when we have coercion? It would seem that the definition of the “state” would be the central point and the only thing I see so far in this thread is the basic response that the state is a really strong criminal organization so it has power over us. As I pointed out the state doesn’t have control over everybody so it would seem that this “state” control is much more based on one’s perspective than some binding authority.
If someone robs you in the street how is that different than if a larger criminal organization extorts you with taxes? If we agree that coercive theft will always exist what is the distinction you are creating?
Tribes never had internal or external conflict?
How do they have legal authority over you?
That is not what I said. Read it again. Nowhere do I mention any goals. Nor did I say anything about everyone agreeing. Nice try.
Are you saying the US is not trying to exercise a monopoly of force in Afghanistan? The thousands of people killed so far would probably disagree. Not to mention the Taliban and everybody else fighting the 65,000 troops there.
Yes, they "significantly determine the terms" for you. Not everyone in the world is under that definition. Some people resist most don’t, but that is a function of the individual not the state.
What is it with you and strawmen?
"Voluntarily is the operative word here. Yes, humans create hierarchies, as long as humans are allowed to withdraw/secede voluntarily and unmolested, then we have anarchy. "
That is what you said, everything is voluntary for everyone. That would mean a world without coercion which you agreed previously is not possible. Isn’t that your goal a completely voluntary society? I don’ t think I missed anything.
Strawman again. I can voluntarily kill you. Problem is you don’t voluntarily agree to it.
I voluntarily submit to authority at work. I can voluntarily withdraw my submission without being molested. I can not do this in regards to the services I buy with taxes. I don’t to buy police. Too bad for me says the state.