Socrates’ criticism of democracy (i.e why its BS)

[Valsuelm]

 

Let's make a better argument. Why do you need someone to rule over you?

 

Now that's a good question

 

We need order and structure because many people are incapable of doing the right thing, like paying tax, unless they are forced to

 

So governments represent a collective system that allows things to function like the maintenance of institutions, examples of  these include healthcare and education, and without institutions you will have countries and there citizens living in a benighted state where they just don't progress 

 

That's one of the biggest failures in Africa, the failure to maintain institutions in  both the  private and public sector

 

 

So paying tax to your overlord(s) is 'doing the right thing'? You choose 'paying taxes' of all the examples in the universe one could come up with as doing the right thing? And you need your overlords to make sure you pay taxes to them?

 

There's some circular logic fail for ya. Also, paying taxes has as much to do with doing the right thing as God has to do with choosing and blessing monarch X that claimed 'divine right'.

 

Government also isn't necessary for education or health care. In fact it's involvement is often quite detrimental to the quality of both.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

 

Let's make a better argument. Why do you need someone to rule over you?

 

Now that's a good question

 

We need order and structure because many people are incapable of doing the right thing, like paying tax, unless they are forced to

 

So governments represent a collective system that allows things to function like the maintenance of institutions, examples of  these include healthcare and education, and without institutions you will have countries and there citizens living in a benighted state where they just don't progress 

 

That's one of the biggest failures in Africa, the failure to maintain institutions in  both the  private and public sector

 

 

So paying tax to your overlord(s) is 'doing the right thing'? You choose 'paying taxes' of all the examples in the universe one could come up with as doing the right thing? And you need your overlords to make sure you pay taxes to them?

 

There's some circular logic fail for ya. Also, paying taxes has as much to do with doing the right thing as God has to do with choosing and blessing monarch X that claimed 'divine right'.

 

 

Taxes are a primary way a government is able to maintain institutions and invest in the growth of a country

 

I don't consider the government overlords but the custodians of ensuring a country is functional 

 

What would be your suggestion for a government to generate revenue and before you answer that consider this, every single government in the world uses some form of tax system because taxes work and are relevant to what governments need

Edited April 9, 2015 by BruceVC

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

Let's make a better argument. Why do you need someone to rule over you?

 

Now that's a good question

 

We need order and structure because many people are incapable of doing the right thing, like paying tax, unless they are forced to

 

So governments represent a collective system that allows things to function like the maintenance of institutions, examples of  these include healthcare and education, and without institutions you will have countries and there citizens living in a benighted state where they just don't progress 

 

That's one of the biggest failures in Africa, the failure to maintain institutions in  both the  private and public sector

 

 

So paying tax to your overlord(s) is 'doing the right thing'? You choose 'paying taxes' of all the examples in the universe one could come up with as doing the right thing? And you need your overlords to make sure you pay taxes to them?

 

There's some circular logic fail for ya. Also, paying taxes has as much to do with doing the right thing as God has to do with choosing and blessing monarch X that claimed 'divine right'.

 

 

Taxes are a primary way a government is able to maintain institutions and invest in the growth of a country

 

I don't consider the government overlords but the custodians of ensuring a country is functional 

 

What would be your suggestion for a government to generate revenue and before you answer that consider this, every single government in the world uses some form of tax system because taxes work and are relevant to what governments need

 

They could lower government spending while offering incentives to create free market alternatives.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Let's make a better argument. Why do you need someone to rule over you?

 

Now that's a good question

 

We need order and structure because many people are incapable of doing the right thing, like paying tax, unless they are forced to

 

So governments represent a collective system that allows things to function like the maintenance of institutions, examples of  these include healthcare and education, and without institutions you will have countries and there citizens living in a benighted state where they just don't progress 

 

That's one of the biggest failures in Africa, the failure to maintain institutions in  both the  private and public sector

 

 

So paying tax to your overlord(s) is 'doing the right thing'? You choose 'paying taxes' of all the examples in the universe one could come up with as doing the right thing? And you need your overlords to make sure you pay taxes to them?

 

There's some circular logic fail for ya. Also, paying taxes has as much to do with doing the right thing as God has to do with choosing and blessing monarch X that claimed 'divine right'.

 

 

Taxes are a primary way a government is able to maintain institutions and invest in the growth of a country

 

I don't consider the government overlords but the custodians of ensuring a country is functional 

 

What would be your suggestion for a government to generate revenue and before you answer that consider this, every single government in the world uses some form of tax system because taxes work and are relevant to what governments need

 

They could lower government spending while offering incentives to create free market alternatives.

 

 

 Sure but lowering government expenditure  is something that should happen anyway and is what most governments aspire to achieve

 

I like the free market concept but there will always be certain things that any government will want to be responsible for to ensure fairness and reasonable control of so its not abused by the private sector

 

So free markets aren't the solution for everything ?

[obyknven]

Inspired by the recent Firedorn memorial proceedings I opened up my dusty Dialogues...

 

 

 

...

 

Socrates:  "Democracy shall fall due to attempting to please everybody.

 

The poor shall desire wealth of the rich. And democracy shall grant them wealth.

 

The young shall desire respect of the elders. And democracy shall grant them respect.

 

The foreigners shall desire privileges of the natives. And democracy shall grant them privileges.

 

The women shall desire to be equal to men. And democracy shall grant them equality.

 

The crook and the wicked shall desire to rule. And democracy shall grant them important positions within the Republic.

 

 

And when finally the crook and the wicked are elected democratically, there shall be worse tyranny than has been during any monarchy or oligarchy.

 

...

 

 

 

 

 

There's more but this is the essence. Amazing that 2400 years ago Socrates had clearly seen what is happening right now. Translated manually by me.

 

EDIT:

 

Worth noting is the Athenian democrats executed Socrates not long after, by making him drink Cicuta poison (i.e. poison hemlock), on the premise that he's spoiling Athenian youth. Lol.

Democracy in times of Socrates is quite different thing in comparison with modern "Democracy" (they more similar to aristocratic republics in Roman style - such republics are the best form of states for Socrates ).  

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

 

 

Let's make a better argument. Why do you need someone to rule over you?

 

Now that's a good question

 

We need order and structure because many people are incapable of doing the right thing, like paying tax, unless they are forced to

 

So governments represent a collective system that allows things to function like the maintenance of institutions, examples of  these include healthcare and education, and without institutions you will have countries and there citizens living in a benighted state where they just don't progress 

 

That's one of the biggest failures in Africa, the failure to maintain institutions in  both the  private and public sector

 

 

So paying tax to your overlord(s) is 'doing the right thing'? You choose 'paying taxes' of all the examples in the universe one could come up with as doing the right thing? And you need your overlords to make sure you pay taxes to them?

 

There's some circular logic fail for ya. Also, paying taxes has as much to do with doing the right thing as God has to do with choosing and blessing monarch X that claimed 'divine right'.

 

 

Taxes are a primary way a government is able to maintain institutions and invest in the growth of a country

 

I don't consider the government overlords but the custodians of ensuring a country is functional 

 

What would be your suggestion for a government to generate revenue and before you answer that consider this, every single government in the world uses some form of tax system because taxes work and are relevant to what governments need

 

They could lower government spending while offering incentives to create free market alternatives.

 

 

 Sure but lowering government expenditure  is something that should happen anyway and is what most governments aspire to achieve

 

I like the free market concept but there will always be certain things that any government will want to be responsible for to ensure fairness and reasonable control of so its not abused by the private sector

 

So free markets aren't the solution for everything ?

 

You're such an optimist.

 

Government is not a cohesive thing, democratic governments are a game of exquisite corpse where each incumbent tries to leave their mark and somewhere along time comes one that ****s up the composition. Government spending isn't going to be fixed until it becomes a problem for the government, as long as they can throw money at a problem that's what they'll do.

 

Free markets should not be directly regulated, it is different from regulating substances. The problem lies less with the free market than how regulation has made sure that there isn't any competition. As well as raising the entry cap and growth for small businesses that are not big enough to make use of tax loopholes.

 

As what we have isn't a free market due to regulation I will say that indeed the solution is a free market and that direct regulation just stifles it creating oligarchies and duopolies. 

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

Let's make a better argument. Why do you need someone to rule over you?

 

Now that's a good question

 

We need order and structure because many people are incapable of doing the right thing, like paying tax, unless they are forced to

 

So governments represent a collective system that allows things to function like the maintenance of institutions, examples of  these include healthcare and education, and without institutions you will have countries and there citizens living in a benighted state where they just don't progress 

 

That's one of the biggest failures in Africa, the failure to maintain institutions in  both the  private and public sector

 

 

So paying tax to your overlord(s) is 'doing the right thing'? You choose 'paying taxes' of all the examples in the universe one could come up with as doing the right thing? And you need your overlords to make sure you pay taxes to them?

 

There's some circular logic fail for ya. Also, paying taxes has as much to do with doing the right thing as God has to do with choosing and blessing monarch X that claimed 'divine right'.

 

 

Taxes are a primary way a government is able to maintain institutions and invest in the growth of a country

 

I don't consider the government overlords but the custodians of ensuring a country is functional 

 

What would be your suggestion for a government to generate revenue and before you answer that consider this, every single government in the world uses some form of tax system because taxes work and are relevant to what governments need

 

 

The question wasn't how best to tax the serfs, it was 'why do you need someone to rule over you?'

[Namutree]

 

 

 

Because who ever made that meme is an idiot.

 

Better?

 

Better.

 

 

Doubling down on retardisms is never better.

 

The meme isn't right, but it's an improvement. Did you prefer the last one?

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

 

Let's make a better argument. Why do you need someone to rule over you?

 

Now that's a good question

 

We need order and structure because many people are incapable of doing the right thing, like paying tax, unless they are forced to

 

So governments represent a collective system that allows things to function like the maintenance of institutions, examples of  these include healthcare and education, and without institutions you will have countries and there citizens living in a benighted state where they just don't progress 

 

That's one of the biggest failures in Africa, the failure to maintain institutions in  both the  private and public sector

 

 

So paying tax to your overlord(s) is 'doing the right thing'? You choose 'paying taxes' of all the examples in the universe one could come up with as doing the right thing? And you need your overlords to make sure you pay taxes to them?

 

There's some circular logic fail for ya. Also, paying taxes has as much to do with doing the right thing as God has to do with choosing and blessing monarch X that claimed 'divine right'.

 

 

Taxes are a primary way a government is able to maintain institutions and invest in the growth of a country

 

I don't consider the government overlords but the custodians of ensuring a country is functional 

 

What would be your suggestion for a government to generate revenue and before you answer that consider this, every single government in the world uses some form of tax system because taxes work and are relevant to what governments need

 

 

The question wasn't how best to tax the serfs, it was 'why do you need someone to rule over you?'

 

Because for every form of decision making you need an arbiter that has the last word, otherwise people will splinter off into smaller groups that are ripe for the taking by larger ones. The best way for social groups to operate is under the guidance of an individual or a group of like minded individuals that have a sense of direction.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Because for every form of decision making you need an arbiter that has the last word, otherwise people will splinter off into smaller groups that are ripe for the taking by larger ones. The best way for social groups to operate is under the guidance of an individual or a group of like minded individuals that have a sense of direction.

 

That's a fallacy. If they are "like-minded", then they do not need a coercive body to compel them to cooperate. The State actually destroys cooperation, because instead of getting to know your neighbors, working things out, compromising, and taking responsibility for your community--people petition to paternal state. This doesn't create bonds or society. At best, this creates proxy aggression were no social cohesiveness can ever reasonably or realistically formed.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Mr. Magniloquent

[Zoraptor]

Like Valsuelum points out, people seem to think you can't be an anarchist in the Rothbardian sense, because somehow being an anarchist implies willfully adhering to an implausible hive-mind of whatever commune you're growing apples and heaving hemp shirts on.

Baro' believes that anarchism is an inherently 'left' philosophy, that's all, instead of being inherently left/right agnostic. It isn't helped by most anarcho-capitalists relabelling themselves as 'Libertarians' and being decidedly non anarcho anything when it comes to protection and improvement of corporate, as opposed to governmental, privileges- but then again you do also get leftist anarchist groups that believe that various types of wrong think should be punishable by death or whatever. Neither is particularly true to the tenets of what I'd refer to as mothership anarchism because one results in everyone being slaves to the powerful, just powerful executives rather than powerful politicians (also being run by powerful executives, so plus ça change.., là), while the other doesn't really believe in the freedom to think, just the freedom to agree.

 

A political philosophy with admirable philosophic goals, but crap practical implementation of those goals. Not exactly a surprise.

[Orogun01]

 

Because for every form of decision making you need an arbiter that has the last word, otherwise people will splinter off into smaller groups that are ripe for the taking by larger ones. The best way for social groups to operate is under the guidance of an individual or a group of like minded individuals that have a sense of direction.

 

That's a fallacy. If they are "like-minded", then they do not need a coercive body to compel them to cooperate. The State actually destroys cooperation, because instead of getting to know your neighbors, working things out, compromising, and taking responsibility for your community--people petition to paternal state. This doesn't create bonds or society. At best, this creates proxy aggression were no social cohesiveness can ever reasonably or realistically formed.

 

I was actually talking more along the lines of a cabinet or a senate.

 

It also looks as if you have a very misguided view of communities; its weird how you hold the state accountable for what in your example is a choice by the community. Plus, you don't put forth any explanation as to why communities gravitate towards the state for solutions.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

 

Because for every form of decision making you need an arbiter that has the last word, otherwise people will splinter off into smaller groups that are ripe for the taking by larger ones. The best way for social groups to operate is under the guidance of an individual or a group of like minded individuals that have a sense of direction.

 

That's a fallacy. If they are "like-minded", then they do not need a coercive body to compel them to cooperate. The State actually destroys cooperation, because instead of getting to know your neighbors, working things out, compromising, and taking responsibility for your community--people petition to paternal state. This doesn't create bonds or society. At best, this creates proxy aggression were no social cohesiveness can ever reasonably or realistically formed.

 

I was actually talking more along the lines of a cabinet or a senate.

 

It also looks as if you have a very misguided view of communities; its weird how you hold the state accountable for what in your example is a choice by the community. Plus, you don't put forth any explanation as to why communities gravitate towards the state for solutions.

 

 

People gravitate towards The State for solutions for a variety of very common reasons.

1. The State exists. Why bother negotiating with anyone when you can simply get The Masters to do what you want without consideration? It doesn't always work out that way--but that's why people pursue that avenue.
2. The State exists. How many thousands of years did it take people to seriously challenge the legitimacy of the church?
3. The State exists. Coming to solutions outside of The State, or without its blessing often provoke its attack. See homeschooling, food co-operatives, small businesses, etc.
4. Indoctrination, erm, compulsory education in State (approved) schools. Civics. Pledge of Allegiance. It's a secular religion.
5. Laziness. (See bullet #1)
6. Fear. (See bullet #1)
7. Greed. (See bullet #1)
8. Ignorance. (See bullet #4)
9. Evil. (See: Politicians, Ulterior Motives, etc.)

Vestiges of monotheism are probably more significant that I note here, but this is a pretty casual list.

[Valsuelm]

 

Like Valsuelum points out, people seem to think you can't be an anarchist in the Rothbardian sense, because somehow being an anarchist implies willfully adhering to an implausible hive-mind of whatever commune you're growing apples and heaving hemp shirts on.

Baro' believes that anarchism is an inherently 'left' philosophy, that's all, instead of being inherently left/right agnostic. It isn't helped by most anarcho-capitalists relabelling themselves as 'Libertarians' ....

 

Very few anarchists self identify as a Libertarian. I personally have only ever encountered one who does, and they do it for pragmatic reasons (as the word 'anarchist' has a lot of bad stigma associated with it, as yesterday's 'terrorist' was the 'anarchist') . I've little doubt there's others out there who do it for similar reasons, but it's far from the majority. Most anarchists I've met, seen, or read self identify as an anarchist or nothing at all.

[Valsuelm]

So lets see.... So far we have these reasons given for someone to rule over you:

 

a) We need rulers so someone can collect taxes from us.

b) We need rulers so we can have education and health care.

c) We need rulers to act as arbiters.

d) We need rulers... well just because we end up with them.

e) We need rulers to protect our property rights.

 

There are easily disputed.

 

a) Brain is broken via severe cognitive dissonance. Circular logic fail is often a symptom of this unfortunate condition. Might also be a masochist.

b) Education and health care haven't been provided to the populace at large by rulers throughout the vast majority of human history or even today in a great many places. This fact alone proves that these are not valid reasons for the existence of rulers as rulers exist aplenty without them. Education and health care also exist without rulers, and have since before history began being recorded. Even amongst Statists the value of government involvement in health and education is vehemently disputed, as there are a great many Statists who think the ruling class has no business dictating on matters of education or health care.Why would any sane person want a ruler to tell them what education or health care they can, cannot, or must have? Such a person is a slave.

c) While a ruler can be an arbiter, an arbiter is not a ruler. Most arbiters are not rulers, and being a ruler is not necessary to be an arbiter.

d) Either brain is broken via severe cognitive dissonance, or one has just never before considered the question seriously (it's not one with a simple answer, or one with an answer that can quickly arrived at, especially for anyone that was raised to worship the state, as almost everyone in the western world has been)

e) Why must your protection come from someone who rules over you? Governments/Rulers have stolen and destroyed more private property than all other folks in recorded history combined. Exponentially so. You're a hen hoping for protection from wolves, and could likely find much better protection for your property than from the ruling class.

 

Anyone else have a better answer to the question...

 

Why do you need someone to rule over you?

 

...than the ones already provided?

Edited April 10, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Namutree]

 

e) Why must your protection come from someone who rules over you? Governments/Rulers have stolen and destroyed more private property than all other folks in recorded history combined. Exponentially so. You're a hen hoping for protection from wolves, and could likely find much better protection for your property than from the ruling class.

 

It doesn't have to be some one who rules over me. It needs to be some one who rules over those whom would steal from me. A government is a useful tool for mutual protection.

 

Governments also use the power of force to keep society unified. Without a government to hold society together it will very likely disintegrate into a collection of weak micro societies unable to achieve anything of importance. Note that no society (that I'm aware of) without a government has ever been powerful or prosperous.

[BruceVC]

So lets see.... So far we have these reasons given for someone to rule over you:

 

a) We need rulers so someone can collect taxes from us.

b) We need rulers so we can have education and health care.

c) We need rulers to act as arbiters.

d) We need rulers... well just because we end up with them.

e) We need rulers to protect our property rights.

 

There are easily disputed.

 

a) Brain is broken via severe cognitive dissonance. Circular logic fail is often a symptom of this unfortunate condition. Might also be a masochist.

b) Education and health care haven't been provided to the populace at large by rulers throughout the vast majority of human history or even today in a great many places. This fact alone proves that these are not valid reasons for the existence of rulers as rulers exist aplenty without them. Education and health care also exist without rulers, and have since before history began being recorded. Even amongst Statists the value of government involvement in health and education is vehemently disputed, as there are a great many Statists who think the ruling class has no business dictating on matters of education or health care.Why would any sane person want a ruler to tell them what education or health care they can, cannot, or must have? Such a person is a slave.

c) While a ruler can be an arbiter, an arbiter is not a ruler. Most arbiters are not rulers, and being a ruler is not necessary to be an arbiter.

d) Either brain is broken via severe cognitive dissonance, or one has just never before considered the question seriously (it's not one with a simple answer, or one with an answer that can quickly arrived at, especially for anyone that was raised to worship the state, as almost everyone in the western world has been)

e) Why must your protection come from someone who rules over you? Governments/Rulers have stolen and destroyed more private property than all other folks in recorded history combined. Exponentially so. You're a hen hoping for protection from wolves, and could likely find much better protection for your property than from the ruling class.

 

Anyone else have a better answer to the question...

 

Why do you need someone to rule over you?

 

...than the ones already provided?

So you don't believe that governments have a valid purpose and the reasons given for the role of governments you dismiss

 

So how do you suggest the world and countries should be managed ?

[Barothmuk]

So how do you suggest the world and countries should be managed ?

Let those with the most social, political and economic power freely dominate the globe without restriction. When they form an organized structure to protect their privileges and combat the inevitable dissent we’ll simply not call it “the state.”

[Zoraptor]

Very few anarchists self identify as a Libertarian. 

 

That's kind of the point though, as it runs both ways. A self identified Libertarian is usually almost indistinguishable from a self identified anarcho capitalist in actual policy. The libertarian is just avoiding using the 'negative' anarcho label. The same thing has happened to an extent on the left as well, 'Libertarian Socialists' and the like are practically the same as anarcho marxists/ syndicalists, they're just avoiding the anarcho label as well. Practically, they're much the same, though there are more significant divergences on the left side of the anarchist spectrum.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Zoraptor

[Luj1]

 

So how do you suggest the world and countries should be managed ?

Let those with the most social, political and economic power freely dominate the globe without restriction. When they form an organized structure to protect their privileges and combat the inevitable dissent we’ll simply not call it “the state.”

 

Orwell, here I come !

[213374U]

It doesn't have to be some one who rules over me. It needs to be some one who rules over those whom would steal from me. A government is a useful tool for mutual protection.

 

A government is useless for mutual protection. Neither the police nor the laws they supposedly enforce can effectively prevent you from being robbed, raped or killed, as evidenced by statistics of crime. Sure, they may find the perp later and throw him in jail for a while, but that's not protection, it's revenge. Further, imprisoning people isn't an effective deterrent and in fact the whole prison system is known to be a factory of hardened criminals (read up on recidivism and sentence length) and a source of social stigma that is difficult to remove. This in turn makes it harder for past criminals to re-integrate well in "normal" society.

 

And that's without even going into actual occurrences of state-sponsored robberies, rapes and killings.

 

Literally the only thing that can prevent other people from doing bad things to you (i.e. protect you) is people not wanting to do bad things to you. Maybe stop being so afraid and just thank your neighbors for not being stone-cold killers.

 

 

Governments also use the power of force to keep society unified.

 

...wow. That sentence there gave me the willies. Unified for what? Unified under what criteria? And make people conform to it under threat of violence? Sounds a lot like fascism.

 

Look, I understand that you take great pride in and identify with the accomplishments of people randomly born at an arbitrary distance from you who happen to speak the same language or not. I respect your right to join with whomever and do things you deem great but about which I don't give a toss. Just let me ****ing opt-out, and don't threaten me with imprisonment or death if I don't want to participate, ok?

Edited April 10, 2015 by 213374U

[BruceVC]

 

Literally the only thing that can prevent other people from doing bad things to you (i.e. protect you) is people not wanting to do bad things to you. Maybe stop being so afraid and just thank your neighbors for not being stone-cold killers.

 

 

Governments also use the power of force to keep society unified.

 

...wow. That sentence there gave me the willies. Unified for what? Unified under what criteria? And make people conform to it under threat of violence? Sounds a lot like fascism.

 

Look, I understand that you take great pride in and identify with the accomplishments of people randomly born at an arbitrary distance from you who happen to speak the same language or not. I respect your right to join with whomever and do things you deem great but about which I don't give a toss. Just let me ****ing opt-out, and don't threaten me with imprisonment or death if I don't want to participate, ok?

 

 

Nope sorry you can't op to  leave civil society, you need to continue to pay your taxes and receive the benefits of living in  civilized  and progressive country. Or you need to go off the grid and reject all the comforts that you receive 

 

I always find it hypocritical and humorous  to hear people say things like " I don't want to be part of the system...I don't want to participate " while they sit behind there keyboards with there smartphones lamenting " how terrible things are" 

 

My advice is if you are so opposed to the system go live in rural Africa for 1-2 years...understand what is really means to not be part of the system. Then you will be back begging to participate I can guarantee you that

[Namutree]

Further, imprisoning people isn't an effective deterrent and in fact the whole prison system is known to be a factory of hardened criminals (read up on recidivism and sentence length) and a source of social stigma that is difficult to remove. This in turn makes it harder for past criminals to re-integrate well in "normal" society.

That really depends on the motivations for the crime. Arresting people for crimes like drug use is folly since the common motive of using drugs isn't long-term profit, but rather immediate enjoyment. Arresting thieves does reduce theft however as most people weigh the risks vs rewards in regards to crime motivated by rational profit. If people knew they wouldn't be imprisoned for robbing a store, you could bet robbery would be far more common.

 

 

 

Governments also use the power of force to keep society unified.

 

...wow. That sentence there gave me the willies. Unified for what? Unified under what criteria? And make people conform to it under threat of violence? Sounds a lot like fascism.

 

Unified for defense. Having a government ensures your society will fight as a single entity. Michigan likely has less military power than Canada. If the US had not maintained itself as a single unified society; there would be no certainty that if Canada were to invade; any one would help us. We would just be overrun and conquered; what would our fate be then? That would be up to Canada. If we're unlucky we get forced into slavery and all our land taken from us. If we're lucky we get absorbed into Canada and made into second class citizens for a few decades.

 

Remember what happened between the Native Americans and the US? They were a collection of micro societies. How did that work out for them?

[Namutree]

 

Look, I understand that you take great pride in and identify with the accomplishments of people randomly born at an arbitrary distance from you who happen to speak the same language or not. I respect your right to join with whomever and do things you deem great but about which I don't give a toss. 

I take no pride in anything I didn't have a hand in personally, and I don't care about something as silly as a common language. Language is just a tool for communication; I don't care how communication is accomplished as long as it is accomplished.

 

EDIT: Oops. I was trying to edit the last post, not make a new one!

Edited April 10, 2015 by Namutree

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

Because for every form of decision making you need an arbiter that has the last word, otherwise people will splinter off into smaller groups that are ripe for the taking by larger ones. The best way for social groups to operate is under the guidance of an individual or a group of like minded individuals that have a sense of direction.

 

That's a fallacy. If they are "like-minded", then they do not need a coercive body to compel them to cooperate. The State actually destroys cooperation, because instead of getting to know your neighbors, working things out, compromising, and taking responsibility for your community--people petition to paternal state. This doesn't create bonds or society. At best, this creates proxy aggression were no social cohesiveness can ever reasonably or realistically formed.

 

I was actually talking more along the lines of a cabinet or a senate.

 

It also looks as if you have a very misguided view of communities; its weird how you hold the state accountable for what in your example is a choice by the community. Plus, you don't put forth any explanation as to why communities gravitate towards the state for solutions.

 

 

People gravitate towards The State for solutions for a variety of very common reasons.

1. The State exists. Why bother negotiating with anyone when you can simply get The Masters to do what you want without consideration? It doesn't always work out that way--but that's why people pursue that avenue.
2. The State exists. How many thousands of years did it take people to seriously challenge the legitimacy of the church?
3. The State exists. Coming to solutions outside of The State, or without its blessing often provoke its attack. See homeschooling, food co-operatives, small businesses, etc.
4. Indoctrination, erm, compulsory education in State (approved) schools. Civics. Pledge of Allegiance. It's a secular religion.
5. Laziness. (See bullet #1)
6. Fear. (See bullet #1)
7. Greed. (See bullet #1)
8. Ignorance. (See bullet #4)
9. Evil. (See: Politicians, Ulterior Motives, etc.)

Vestiges of monotheism are probably more significant that I note here, but this is a pretty casual list.

 

Hyperbole and emotion aside there where some good points there. Yet they describe a malfunctioning state, if your argument is that the State is corruptible and should therefore be done away with I would ask you if you think you're perfect or otherwise will you do away with yourself. It seems like an extreme solution for a problem that doesn't require it, government needs and overhaul not an amputation.