/liberty/ - Liberty

>>90765

So how exactly are we just as retarded as /leftypol/?

>>90766

Your moralisations exist within the framework of the capitalist mode of production (CMP), which is not transhistorical, but historical. The CMP is destined to either destroy the human species through economic-political crises it will and must necessarily produce, or be superseded by an associated, communist mode of production by the only possible sublation of it: the wholesale destruction of the private form of social relation to production, irregardless of whether it is managed more concretely by the first historical mode of capital's management by private capitalists and the capitalist State, or through an abstract capitalist comprising of workers continuing the valorisation of labour privately in cooperative form. Both the 'traditional' Ltd-type firm and property State or communal State and cooperative-type firms are to be completely destroyed should any meaningful change in the capitalist mode of production happen.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm

>The co-operative factories of the labourers themselves represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system. […] Without the factory system arising out of the capitalist mode of production there could have been no co-operative factories. Nor could these have developed without the credit system arising out of the same mode of production. The credit system is not only the principal basis for the gradual transformation of capitalist private enterprises into capitalist stock companies, but equally offers the means for the gradual extension of co-operative enterprises on a more or less national scale. The capitalist stock companies, as much as the co-operative factories, should be considered as transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, with the only distinction that the antagonism is resolved negatively in the one and positively in the other.'''

>>90769

I don't give a shit about your retarded theories but personally my beef with the CMP is that Obongo's import ban is keeping them from bringing over boatloads of Garands that are just sitting in warehouses in Korea, unloved and unfired.

>>90769

>capitalist State

oxymoron

>CMP is destined to either destroy the human species through economic-political crises

And you base this on what evidence and which logical reasoning?

>>90769

*SNAP*

Just noticed the digits here aren't even past the fives yet. How long has this board existed and why haven't you losers managed to get other losers aboard here? You could get them from anywhere. This place is like the virtual Galt's Gulch with even less activity somehow. You guys must actually pretend to enjoy being here, or you're really pathetic.

>>90826

>How long has this board existed

The second post in the board is from 03/22/15 so for quite a while now.

>why haven't you losers managed to get other losers aboard here?

Popularity is not an indicator of quality. /pol/ should have learned that by now since they've had several oportunities for that, but I'm not holding out for them.

Perhaps the reason this place isn't as popular is because there's no focus on entertaining e-drama or extremist debates to be had here, just normal political discussion. Because let's face it, the only time that political discourse is ever regarded with attention in mainstream is when outrageous things are said by outrageous people, not when something relevant or ingenious is said.

>You guys must actually pretend to enjoy being here, or you're really pathetic.

You tell us. You found your way here, so either you're in good company or whatever place you came from must be even worse!

to the extent the state exists is the extent it that it isnt capitalist suck my nuts

>>90765

>>90822

>>90769

low quality bait, you should try harder

>>90830

Nerd.

>>90836

'No' and 'hurr that's dumb because I said so' aren't arguments either, sorry.

>NAP

The capitalist mode of production already functions on a non-aggression principle: the cops of bourgeois democracy are unleashed when individuals trespass any given set of laws accomodating a given historical period of capitalism. Everyone knows, as they can read up the rule of law of any State, exactly what to do if one wants to be coerced by the State. The terror of the State is precisely this fact: that it will only tolerate legal opposition, which amounts to pseudo-opposition, and will in any case always stand against at least one central thing: the encroachment of itself and the mode of production it defends.

>>90826

> you losers managed to get other losers aboard here

They find their own way here and it's mostly shitposters from Reddit. Probably same way you came in. We're not in a hurry.

>You guys must actually pretend to enjoy being here, or you're really pathetic

Occasionally check what's up once a week. Don't really care more for it. It's not like any of us are missing on important productive activity that happens only on anime image boards. You're either a very bitter guy or looking for easy bait. Why else make posts so smug and far up your ass?

>>90842

Oops, bottom of response to

>>90840

>>90822

>The State is inseparable from not just any historical account of the establishment of the capitalist mode of production

Perhaps you are confusing capitalist with mercantilist. There cannot be central planning in capitalism:

https://www.investopedia.com/

>>90844

meant: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp

>>90770

No one with a brain says the State is a necessary evil, but one that can become evil just as nay other man made institution.

>>90846

The state has monopoly on violence and so it's evil cannot be kept in check, while evil individuals power can be limited, held back or stopped by other individuals.

>>90849

nice unfounded claims you have there. There's no State out there that possesses even the slightest invulnerability you mentioned, or was privy to widespread corruption within its ranks. It's funny how libertarians vilify the State as though it somehow exists outside the sphere of human creation.

>>90850

>There's no State out there that possesses even the slightest invulnerability you mentioned, or was privy to widespread corruption within its ranks.

which ones?

>here's no State out there that possesses even the slightest invulnerability

Nowhere in that post implies invulnerability. >There's no State out there that .. .was privy to widespread corruption within its ranks.

The post did not mention corruption,

> It's funny how libertarians vilify the State as though it somehow exists outside the sphere of human creation.

Strawman

>>90850

>nice unfounded claims you have there

Which ones?

>There's no State out there that possesses even the slightest invulnerability you mentioned, or was privy to widespread corruption within its ranks.

Nowhere in that post implies invulnerability, nor did the post mention corruption,

> It's funny how libertarians vilify the State as though it somehow exists outside the sphere of human creation.

Strawman

>>90850

> There's no State out there that possesses even the slightest invulnerability you mentioned

Any current 1st/2nd world state is almost invulnerable from its citizens, the only thing it has to fear is other states.

>widespread corruption within its ranks

Corrupt rulers striving for power make the very nature of the state. I don't see how state is any less evil because it constantly fails due to its incompetence and corruption.

>it somehow exists outside the sphere of human creation

What was that supposed to mean? It is given by some god? Does it appears naturally or through the laws of physics? Keep your schizophrenic implications at check, retard.

>>90842

Not that commie faggot, but I gotta ask something.

> if there is a state to begin with then the NAP has already been violated due to the fact that is funded by coercive activity in the form of taxes (theft)

The general way that regular joes understand taxes and the state is that they pay taxes to fund the police who defends them from agression, plus a few other things as well, but let's stick to this part.

However, under many liberalism models I've seen it seems that an enterprising individual could simply create a private security force and sell it's services, that everyone could buy for protection.

It essentially would be roughly the same thing, except instead of police you have mercenaries and instead of taxes you have fees. The only real difference would be that you can not only opt-out but you even start without being covered by them.

Now, I understand that the private option ensures greater liberty since it lets you choose your own law enforcers, the free market regulates the price and you don't even have to pay if you live in a safe area.

However I have to ask if those benefits actually weight the many problems that can arise from this model.

The most obvious one is that a private company has to generate profit that the users will have to pay for, unlike the state who only needs enough to stay operational. I simply don't see how a private company could provide cheaper services.

The State also doesn't have an incentive to increase it's police force, and in fact would rather reduce it, meaning it works to reduce crime, while private companies actually make more money the more crime there is for them to fight. I don't think this needs any explanation.

I've also mentioned this before, but a private security force that has a list of all houses it's protecting also has, in a way, a list of all houses it's not protecting. Which has quite a certain value if you know where I'm going with this.

All of these problems exist fundamentally because you delegate the defense of the NAP to a group that has profit as the incentive and objective, when you could instead go for the State instead and side-step all those issues with the only downside being that you can't opt-out. And while that's a restriction in freedom, it's a very simple answer to the police enforcing the law on public spaces where nobody owns it but everyone pays for it anyway.

>>90853

>Any current 1st/2nd world state is almost invulnerable from its citizens

Trump was elected. That's enough of an argument to prove this wrong, the citizens have more power over the state than most people realize.

Italy saw the same thing happening too, Romania avoided refugees with a simple referendum and 98% votes against the whole idea.

There's also plenty of instances where a government official will step down due to lack of support or sufficient public outcry, especially when the prime minister does not want to be associated with him for the next campaign or when the party doesn't think that guy will win them an election as their representative.

>>>90853

>Corrupt rulers striving for power make the very nature of the state.

Corrupt rulers striving for power make the very nature of any hierarchy. The only difference is that the State has plenty of checks and safeties in place to limit the reach of it's corruption and forces change every now and then to make sure it doesn't linger and fester anyway, making it far less evil than many other hierarchies.

>What was that supposed to mean?

The State exists because people. It doesn't come from nowhere or has a will of it's own. It's people that elect the state, that vote and choose who will rule over them, it's people that compose the state, with their own flaws, desires and morality.

It's easy to assume the state wants to stick your head on a pike and make a barricade outside the parliament to remind everyone else they should pay their taxes, but this only works as long as you forget that inside that same parliament there's human beings making decisions, who despite having the power to order violent acts upon it's citizens, they are not likely to do it both due to their own moral code as non-psychopaths but also because it really doesn't help in the long run and they know it.

>>90856

> instead of taxes you have fees

Taxation is different from any contract because it's involuntary and you are forced into complying despite you being the "citizen" of "your" state, even on your property or in deals with individuals that are completely independent from other people.

> instead of police you have mercenaries

Mercenaries do not have the right to intervene in their contractors' lives and property and cannot have more privileges and power over you in future, neither they will enforce any policies on you aside from those you agreed beforehand. Not unless they stay a mercenary and not try to be something else instead, like a state, for example.

> a private company has to generate profit that the users will have to pay for, unlike the state

The state does have its own incentives and objectives, it tends to spread and gain power over spheres it does not control, as well as being a tool for plethora of different ideologies they advocate for extreme intervention, control or just throw resources at unreachable goals. The resources it can only distribute, not earn as states do this first and foremost, forcefully take resources from people not controlled by other state. This way they do really look similar to robber barons who used to take their place, unsurprisingly. Also, corruption will exists as long as there exists authority.

>The State also doesn't have an incentive to increase it's police force, and in fact would rather reduce it, meaning it works to reduce crime

Then why is police force constantly being increased and it's funding is second only to military? Have you ever heard of the war on drugs and the consequences of it?

>All of these problems exist fundamentally because you delegate the defense of the NAP to a group that has profit as the incentive and objective

Mercenaries are not one group but are just a service. You can even do it yourself instead - by cooperating with your neighbors as one of the options. Most of libertarian theory on the free markets is devoted to explaining how competition forces parties not interested in charity or even well-meaning to offer better services than states, which are not free from these things as well despite the claims, but are monopolists and can only be kept in check by other states, which are not many.

Adam Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

If you are interested in how markets operate or want more arguments for the effectiveness of markets compared to states, there are plenty of books on Austrian economics out there. You can check mises.org as well, they have plenty of articles that are more compact and easier to comprehend than books.

>>90859

>Trump was elected.

Do you really think that public did anything other than choose one of two incompetent dumbfucks in a game designed to make them feel like they have power, while ultimately ending up with little change after picking one of two puppet figures.

>Romania avoided refugees with a simple referendum and 98% votes against the whole idea.

Nobody said populism doesn't exist, it does not meant that people have control over the state. Slave getting food from its owner to not revolt is not any bit less a slave because of it, just a less hungry slave.

>There's also plenty of instances where a government official will step down

And for every single such case there are tens or hundreds of cases of corrupt politicians spreading lies, stealing money and making their citizens' lives worse. Wars have been started because popularity of an official started to decrease or the debt they created went out of control.

>Corrupt rulers striving for power make the very nature of any hierarchy.

Which is why hierarchies need to be kept in check and not endorsed and delegated all power to.

>The State exists because people. It doesn't come from nowhere or has a will of it's own. It's people that elect the state, that vote and choose who will rule over them, it's people that compose the state, with their own flaws, desires and morality.

Inquisition exists because people. It doesn't come from nowhere or has a will of it's own. It's people that create the inquisition, that believe and fund those who will punish and torture them, it's people that compose the inquisition, with their own flaws, desires and morality.

>It's easy to assume the state wants to stick your head on a pike

They will throw me in prison the moment i refuse to pay taxes or do something they do not approve of. Given that in my country i'd prefer to be dead rather than end up in prison, i think the assumption is correct, even if you meant to make it a strawman.

>but this only works as long as you forget that inside that same parliament there's human beings making decisions, who despite having the power to order violent acts upon it's citizens, they are not likely to do it

Inventing more taxes and victimless crimes does seem like violent acts to me and they've mostly been doing it as their main objective.

> their own moral code as non-psychopaths

Ignorance of the consequences of their decisions is not an excuse for the harm they bring with them.

>it really doesn't help in the long run and they know it

People in power far too often prove to not care about long run if it is not their "long run" that is at stake. Even less so if they can gain monetary benefits because of these decisions.

>>90860

>Taxation is different from any contract because it's involuntary

I'm a bit biased here due to personal experience. I shared a flat with a friend who argued we needed no internet or cable TV since we could use the university instead and we wouldn't be much indoors anyway.

I made a contract anyway since I wanted net and what happened was that he got free internet and even cable TV (that I didn't watch) at myy expense. He always argued that since he didn't originally wanted it, it was unfair to ask him to pay for it, but he was still using those services anyway.

The paralell is that I could hire a private force to patrol the local park so I feel safe when I go there, or even do it myself with a few friends. But then, my neighbor who argues that he doesn't really need that protection will enjoy all it's benefits without having to hire anyone or patrolling himself either.

It doesn't really seem fair unless everything you buy\hire\own is strictly restricted to your own private property and everything else like parks, museums, libraries becomes the private property of someone else.

>Mercenaries do not have the right to intervene in their contractors' lives and property and cannot have more privileges and power over you in future.

This seems like something positive, but is it really? If someone steals or kidnaps and keeps the evidence inside his house, a group of mercenaries has no right to barge in and sort the situation unless everyone knows 100% sure that it's the right house and the owner is the criminal. Meanwhile, the police has it's checks and balances in place that let it get the temporary authority to barge in and investigate.

Mercenary forces seem like they'd be useless until you can prove 100% surely that someone broke the NAP and at that point, there'd be no jurisdiction to follow, they could pretty much go back to chopping hands of thieves since it's not like there's a judicial system to enact proper punishment afterall.

>The state does have its own incentives and objectives, it tends to spread and gain power over spheres it does not control

I could say the same thing about private companies and perhaps it's even worse since the goal is always profit.

>This way they do really look similar to robber barons who used to take their place, unsurprisingly.

I don't think I've ever heard of Robber Barons dumping money into schools, donating to the church or funding roads or some other project. I'm sure the state does a lot of retarded shit with it's money, but the comparison to Robber Barons seems like exageration.

>Then why is police force constantly being increased and it's funding is second only to military?

Maybe in America. Britain complains all the time that they simply do not have enough policemen on the force, that their paygrade is shit and they are ill-equipped due to a lack of resources.

Many countries in Europe suffer from the same, where officers even have to pay for their own uniform and they avoid firing guns because the bullets will have to be repaid if it wasn't critical for their job.

>are monopolists and can only be kept in check by other states

That's not true though. There's plenty of private security firms that offer their services despite the police being an alternative anyway, and they don't really do it for cheap despite the Police being a free option anyway, so I have no reason to believe they'd go cheaper once the only bit of competition would go away.

>>90856

>>90860 (add)

Also, if you wanted to create something not profit oriented, nothing is ever stopping you from creating a non-profit organization and helping people altruistically. You just do not need monopoly on force to try and succeed in offering better services than others in competition.

>>90861

>Do you really think that public did anything other than choose one of two incompetent dumbfucks in a game designed to make them feel like they have power, while ultimately ending up with little change after picking one of two puppet figures.

I think that the fake duality you're talking about was present for a long time and was supposed to be something like Hillary vs Marco Rubio or some other clown there. Trump wasn't part of the plan, he's an outside to that game and clear proof that you can throw a wrench into it by giving a popular option that a lot of people will vote for.

>Nobody said populism doesn't exist, it does not meant that people have control over the state. Slave getting food from its owner to not revolt is not any bit less a slave because of it, just a less hungry slave.

If populism changes the way the government makes policies in order to appease the people, then they literally have control over the state.

Your slave analogy is stupid, they aren't slaves if they can vote for their master, they are employees that can choose who to serve.

>And for every single such case

Doesn't matter. The point is that the people can indeed make someone stand down from office, even if only ocasionnaly. And it's likely that it happens rarely because very few are dumb enough to let things escalate things that hard, not because they are immune.

>Which is why hierarchies need to be kept in check and not endorsed and delegated all power to.

Hierarchies will always be endorsed by everyone that's part of them. Just by joining one, you're already endorsing it. And as long as there's a private sector, the state does not hold all the power anyway.

Besides, you do have your checks in place, roughly every 4 years.

>It's people that create the inquisition

I don't know what you think you'd achieve with this argument besides looking dumb when the Inquisiton was created by the Vatican, not the people. Nobody actually liked to have the Inquisiton around and nobody could "compose the Inquisiton" unless you were an high ranking clergyman, where as anyone can run for office. Those that worked in the Inquisiton were also already part of a cult, heavily indocrinated into it and having a lot of more economic and political interests to look onto than your average politician.

You're comparing apples and oranges here, you were better off with the Nazi Party.

>They will throw me in prison the moment i refuse to pay taxes

No they won't. They'll repossess everything you owe and throw you into the streets. Hobos don't pay taxes.

>Inventing more taxes and victimless crimes does seem like violent acts to me and they've mostly been doing it as their main objective.

Oh come now, you're being disengenious on purpose now. You know very well what I mean by violent acts, like calling the SWAT on protesters, having the police search every house just because, arresting dissenters, etc. Don't compare dude,weed,lmao to any of that, for fuck's sake.

>>90863

> nothing is ever stopping you from creating a non-profit organization and helping people altruistically. You just do not need monopoly on force to try and succeed in offering better services than others in competition.

That's not a realistic aproach though, profit is what allows a company to grow after all.

I could start my own peace keeping force Budget Cops with only 10 guys and charge strictly enough to pay them for their time or even funnel profit from some other endeavour onto it.

However if someone else starts the Arms-R-Us next doors and starts with 10 guys but makes a profit, eventually he will be able to expand, to hire more guards, better weapons and vehicles, and easily provide a better alternative than me.

It's not strictly a monopoly on his part but if he's the only real solution, then the results are the same and I'm just a token that he uses to claim there's no monopoly.

>>90862

>But then, my neighbor who argues that he doesn't really need that protection will enjoy all it's benefits without having to hire anyone or patrolling himself either.

His property is not being protected then, while what you described is a common issue with public goods known as "the tragedy of commons". Privatization does solve this issue.

>becomes the private property of someone else

Yes, this way the competition can resolve and filter unfair deals and dealers.

>If someone steals or kidnaps and keeps the evidence inside his house, a group of mercenaries has no right to barge in and sort the situation unless everyone knows 100% sure

It's the same way for police on legal level in many countries - unless they have evidence they have no right to enter your property and can only gain it through a court. I wouldn't want a policeman(or any other guy) to knock into my house and rustle through my belongings possibly taking, losing or staling them based on his own assumptions about me.

>there'd be no jurisdiction to follow, they could pretty much go back to chopping hands

Libertarians see punishment necessary aside from monetary compensation of the damage done. You are not forced into some pointless prison for a crime, you have to do the most rational thing - restore and repay the harm you've done.

>I could say the same thing about private companies and perhaps it's even worse since the goal is always profit.

I specifically said that competition will make they offer better services than the state exactly for the same reason markets offer better services than the state in any other field, be it brewery or weapons manufacture.

>I don't think I've ever heard of Robber Barons dumping money into schools

This is why they are a thing from the past in the shape they used to be. To keep their power they use means of propaganda, indoctrination and shape public opinion to make people believe in their independence while gripping them tighter than ever before.

>Britain complains

Yet Britain has a humongous amount of cops, a lot more than US does, as well as actively tries to expand their number even further.

> have to pay for their own uniform and they avoid firing guns

Quantity over quality, i guess. It does say about inefficiency of the system if anything, with police designed to deal with people incapable of resistance instead of actual criminals.

>There's plenty of private security firms

Police is funded from the taxes which are impossible to escape legally and are enforcing things i did not agree with, as well as forcing me to do any of their procedures if they find a reason for it, changing the rules they force me to follow in time. They just leave them to do their actual job while still keeping their place despite not doing anything that would be productive to me that those guys do not.

>>90865

So you're saying that you're unable to compete with someone who takes part of earned money for himself by creating a company that invests all the money into its further development? i never said you have to do things for free, you know.

>>90842

>Neither is "hurr durr both lefties and libertarians r dumb"

Actually this is completely the case.

>the point is that these "moralisations" (which somehow manages to be condescending even though it's not even a fucking word)

'Moralisation' has been a part of the English language for quite a while, retard.

>[moralisations] have deeper roots then a simplified concept that you're trying to push off as being some sort of framework that everybody operates on

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force, retard.

>schizophrenic

Cute.

>The non-aggression principle is an ethical principle that people shouldn't violate a person's property

What do you think happens if you steal in a grocery store and get caught, or take someone's car? The State instrumentalises its force of order, catches you, and trials you. Why? Because you violated property rights, and property rights must be upheld to prevent capital destruction, and capital destruction must be prevented because under the capitalist mode of production, the valorisation of capital is what keeps every inch of its fabric operational.

>if there is a state to begin with then the NAP has already been violated

To uphold a principle such as the NAP (as it is defacto is), you need universal recognition of it, and act with violence to those who impede it. Any given place within which there is the universal recognition of a principle, is a place where there is a law, and for law you need what is defacto a State. Propertied modes of production need the State because they need the law. It is indefensible otherwise.

>Give a market economy a state

Name one without a State.

The rest of your post is just the brain worm doing all the work. It's not even worth addressing. Just read a book or something.

>The fact that a leftie

I'm not a leftist.

>Why don't you go on and look blankly at some unfunny shit leftist 'memes'?

God no. I'd rather be in a literal shithole like this place because at least here I can bully brainlets without getting banned. I'll give you lolberts that one at least; you keep hitting yourself and never even try to force me out. Maybe one of you will realize you're in an ideological void and maybe try to get out.

>>90872

>No. Mercantilist policy merely accelerated the inner breakup of the first vestige of feudalism (England) to its fall in the 17th century.

None of this word salad disproves that state is an essential figure in mercantilism (or its modern successor "corporatism") and a non-actor in capitalism.

>the USSR could near-outproduce the largest capitalist society

This statement is useless. One country can out produce one set of commodities more than the other and vice versa for aother set of commodities.

>There can be

There cannot. Did you bother reading the definition of capitalism, especially the part about a central planner?:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp

> All economic activity is planned, and centrally at that

Not in polycentric societies and unregulated markets. Why do you think we are so reliant on the price mechanism instead of the state? Even the USSR had to rely on price mechanism in tis 5-year plans.

>utilised Stalinist collectivisation and 5 year plans up until the '80s

Singapore relied on a liberalized market to generate its wealth.

>>links to a website to have it argue for him

Why do I need to arugue for it? The definition ais argument enough:

“ The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market (market economy), rather than through central planning (command economy)”

>>90873

>Name one without a State.

How about any polycentric society.

>>90873

>and for law you need what is defacto a State

Polycentric law requires no state.

>>90852

>Which ones?

state has a monopoly on violence.

>Strawman

Hardly, ancaps view the State as an entity always on a downward slope into totalitarianism, and that this cannot be averted.

>>90853

>Any current 1st/2nd world state is almost invulnerable from its citizens, the only thing it has to fear is other states.

States have always seen rebellion and revolution that topple them when their tyranny remains unpunished. Somehow I imagine most libertarians would've been against the American revolution had it happened when they were alive.

>Corrupt rulers striving for power make the very nature of the state. I don't see how state is any less evil because it constantly fails due to its incompetence and corruption.

So the Founding Fathers were corrupt for spreading the idea of republicanism? How is this the nature of the State, and how is a State that is incompetent the nature of the State rather than its aversion?

>What was that supposed to mean? It is given by some god? Does it appears naturally or through the laws of physics? Keep your schizophrenic implications at check, retard.

That the State is what's preventing your eschatology from being realized, do keep up, yes?

>>90891

>state has a monopoly on violence.

It does, it can delegate certain duties to private actors but it still ultimately is the center of political power, which is power to set rules and conditions and such hing can only achieved by forcing everyone into submission.

>Hardly, ancaps view the State as an entity always on a downward slope into totalitarianism, and that this cannot be averted.

Any aversions are only a temporary solution as nepotism, or care for people you have personal relationships with is natural and will always be the basis of human value system, even if certain persons try to view things differently and not use the power, there are always be willing to in greater number. Your constant ignorant strawmans show what an illiterate nigger you are, i'd say you're not even trying but nobody in their own mind can possibly be this idiotic.

>States have always seen rebellion and revolution that topple them when their tyranny remains unpunished.

Which is why they evolved to limit their nature, more or less, to keep their power. Still, most limiting factor for their spread is economical competition with other states.

>So the Founding Fathers were corrupt for spreading the idea of republicanism?

Corrupt were the ones who came after them, despite their best efforts to prevent it. Delegating authority and creating monopolies, even for a good goal will create corruption and abuse as the authority will always attract those striving for unfair advantage most.

>That the State is what's preventing your eschatology from being realized

Today's states interact between each other under the conditions of anarcho capitalism, we just want an individual to be a basic actor. Throughout history the autonomy of an individual grew along with his capabilities, physical and mental, it's natural to assume that with further development we will end up with with a system like this, as long as we do develop and not suffer destruction. You really missed with this strawman.

>>90892

>>90892

>It does, it can delegate certain duties to private actors but it still ultimately is the center of political power, which is power to set rules and conditions and such hing can only achieved by forcing everyone into submission.

You're telling me that people were incapable of disobeying their State throughout history? I'm starting to think that you're against authority in general, as I can't imagine how you'd think law enforcement would work if it wasn't capable of coercing unwilling agents.

>even if certain persons try to view things differently and not use the power, there are always be willing to in greater number. Your constant ignorant strawmans show what an illiterate nigger you are, i'd say you're not even trying but nobody in their own mind can possibly be this idiotic.

You're essentially invalidating your own philosophy if you believe that the natural state of people is that they're wicked, but also expect that people will somehow become libertarian and eventually overthrow the State. I don't think anyone with an IQ over 85 would take your ideas seriously. It's pretty pathetic how you accuse me of strawmanning when you just restate exactly what I claimed and said you didn't mean it.

>Which is why they evolved to limit their nature, more or less, to keep their power. Still, most limiting factor for their spread is economical competition with other states.

Our governments today are limited in power by design and don't have anywhere near the same control over people's lives and information as they did in the past. So no, I'm pretty sure people are the government's limiting power.

>Corrupt were the ones who came after them, despite their best efforts to prevent it. Delegating authority and creating monopolies, even for a good goal will create corruption and abuse as the authority will always attract those striving for unfair advantage most.

And this is the fault of whom, their predecessors, themselves, or the people? I'd hardly think you could blame something as abstract as the State for it.

>That the State is what's preventing your eschatology from being realized

I don't know what your definition of the State is, but it's purpose is to oversee the development and progress of its subjects, or citizens, it's meant to mediate relationships. I also don't see how the State directly impedes technological or scientific growth when the free market is just as much to blame.

>>90912

You know what? Fuck it, debating with you is just a waste of time as you'll ignore any arguments and return to "muh voting does impact things" echo chamber every time. I'll leave it to someone else listen to your middle school tier gotcha-isms. Fuck off.

>>90824

Well if you listen to /leftypol/ they'll tell you that Marxism wasn't real socialism and he was kicked out of some conference or another so that means he's a centrist.

>>90918

4got flag

>>90916

You didn't make any argument, you just started off with the premise that the state is corrupt and expected me to agree with it.

>>90922

>you just started off with the premise that the state is corrupt

Well, he's not wrong.

>>90922

But the premise is based on observable fact

>>90912

>You're telling me that people were incapable of disobeying their State throughout history?

They can be disobedient all they want. It still doesn't deter from the fact that a state has a monopoly of "legitimate" force. Rebellions are transitory, never permanent, and are often de facto states of themselves, so you are stuck with another monopoly of force but in a geographic area that the rebels hold.

>You're essentially invalidating your own philosophy if you believe that the natural state of people is that they're wicked, but also expect that people will somehow become libertarian and eventually overthrow the State.

I don’t think that poster meant “wicked”, which is subjective term, but that people have a tendency to take actions that they perceive to would be optimal benefit to them. With power there is a tendency to abuse it if they believe that there would be little oversight or ineffective retaliation.

>Our governments today are limited in power by design and don't have anywhere near the same control over people's lives and information as they did in the past.

Originally, yes, they were limited by design, Today, De jure, they are somewhat. De facto, no. One needs to just glance at the increasing federal register, trade pacts, and taxes that are ever invasive in people’s lives. States rarely revoke laws and the ones they do are rarely not in totality (for example, the FDIC still exists despite repeal of Glass-Steagall). Fraternal societies, lodges, and other voluntary associations used to be prevalent and handled the numerous functions that governments control today including healthcare, disability, firefighting, policing, etc.

>I'd hardly think you could blame something as abstract as the State for it.

The concept of a state may be abstract but its institutions are not.

>[The State’s] purpose is to oversee the development and progress of its subjects, or citizens, it's meant to mediate relationships.

These functions can be voluntary and have been done voluntarily.

>I also don't see how the State directly impedes technological or scientific growth

It impedes by allocating resources away from where they would satisfy demand. As Thomas Sowell states in “Knowledge and Decisions”:

“Government constraints on the terms which individual transactors can choose among for themselves tend to reduce the number of transactions desired and carried out. As the government adds its own set of prerequisites to those of the negotiating parties, the number of negotiations that result in mutual agreement is almost certain to decline. Various forms of government price control, minimum wage laws, interest ceilings, etc., reduce the number of mutually desired transactions, which are the only kinds of transactions actually carried out in a voluntary, market economy.”

Why do you keep feeding him?

>>90951

It's more like throwing peanuts at a circus animal so you can watch it spazz out.

>>90950

>The point is that you're not even spelling right.

It's the Commonwealth spelling. Note that he also uses "labour" in his own voice as well as in quotes.

>>90951

Because they have nothing better to do with their time.