Mr. Magniloquent Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) 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. 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. The State exists. How many thousands of years did it take people to seriously challenge the legitimacy of the church? 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. Indoctrination, erm, compulsory education in State (approved) schools. Civics. Pledge of Allegiance. It's a secular religion. Laziness. (See bullet #1) Fear. (See bullet #1) Greed. (See bullet #1) Ignorance. (See bullet #4) 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. I do not think that an anarchistic society would be a utopia. I recognize that evil exists, and shall persist indefinitely. It is my belief that there are better ways to deal with human nature and societal complexity. My main grievances are thus: Distilled to logical conclusion, compulsory government is immoral; and therefore can never ultimately do good. The State does more to foster and insure evil than such a structure can possible prevent or mitigate. The State actually fosters significantly worse harm on a catastrophically greater scope than would ever exist otherwise. The State prevents people, both directly and indirectly from pursuing more realistic, practical, and effective solutions. It's not that I think I am perfect, or that other humans are. I do believe that The State prevents humans from becoming better people though. Much like dogma and superstition are the underdeveloped person's substitution for philosophy, The State is the religious cognitive dissonance of those not yet brave enough to acknowledge history and human nature. Edited for clarity. Edited April 11, 2015 by Mr. Magniloquent 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now