The State Is a Deluded, Dangerous Religion

and killed hundreds of millions more than that

 

For most of human history, government was localized and democratic. Then humans made a transition away from hunting and gathering to agriculture, which resulted in the emergence of the state. Since then, it has been nothing but nonstop war, famine, disease, rapine, plunder, thievery and fraud. Oh, and for the past seventy or eighty years, humans have come inches away from destroying themselves via a nuclear holocaust.

If you're looking for a more modern example of a decentralized, democratic political order, then I would suggest looking at America between 1776 and 1789, when the Articles of Confederation were in effect. And despite the propaganda characterizing the confederation as a failure, it was actually quite successful.

No, democracy is when a defined people rule themselves instead of being ruled over by self-appointed elites and outsiders.

A nation consisting of thousands of local democracies is an oxymoron. You cannot have a monolithic political entity that consists of thousands of subdivisions. Each democracy is effectively a nation unto itself. If they banded together for purposes of self-defense, it would be under the aegis of a confederation, not a nation.

Through diplomacy and treaties, the same as any other international league or confederacy.

If people cannot be trusted to govern themselves, then how can they be trusted to govern others?

 

The private sector is overwhelmingly responsible for that prosperity, and that computers are a product of the state is an outright falsehood. It's akin to claiming that the inventor of the wheel is more responsible for modern automobiles than Henry Ford. Not surprised at all that gov-edu indoctrinees believe such cowflop though, they have spent enormous time and resources over the years reinforcing the false to conceal the true.

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa364.pdf

Here's the truth behind U.S. prosperity if you are educable.

 

First of all you must define "state". What is it other than a group of people that have defined a set of rules, where in a democratic society all the people are at least nominally a part of that group? How, by this definition could a "state" not exist? Don't people always organize into groups?

 

It was the hunter and gathers who plundered and raped the peaceful farmers. The state emerged to protect the farmers.

 

It has always been so. It beats the hell out of anarchy.

 

The sad part is that at this present time we may have the most uneducated population in matters of civics, government and manipulation of information. How is a party that was center-left just a couple years ago very left-center today? I'm sure "The Greatest Generation" in the afterlife must be rolling their eyes when they see that all they fought for and the tyranny they had sacrificed their lives to overcome are about to be the Dogma of the land. The country rots why good men just stand by. Shame.

 

The private sector does not exist above the bartering level among individuals without the state

 

It cannot be avoided, despite the best efforts.

The US Constitution was written to avoid this, and included checks and balances to do so. Sadly, human nature leads to corruption. Any government will grow like a cancer until it becomes unmanageable. This is what we have today, as Orwell suggested.

 

Orwell actually supported a large socialist state

 

I won't argue with that, but my point is that no matter which flavor, government soon grows authoritarian and out of control. It soon becomes Big Brother.

The authors of the USC were also aware of out of control government, and tried to prevent that with the principles they included in the founding document.

 

Well Orwell did hate the authoritarian state. But that can be independent of socialism.or capitalism

 

Have already posted that the state is a necessary evil in my first post, but the especially gigantic, evil state we currently have in the U.S. is not necessary for the private sector to innovate. Your claim was that the computer used to create posts on this forum is a "product" of the state, and that claim is false due to being a gross distortion.

 

Don't like it where you live like the United States ,Leave, I have no issue with a large and far reaching government as long as key rights are set down at the Constitutional level its the Big Government that provides my social welfare I need to survive as a severely disabled person. But the government is backed by the might of its extensive armed force and the legal system behind it so good luck saying your not under its power for being born here.

 

Yes. Talk is cheap and action is a hassle.

 

I want the state to be as small as necessary. So only about 50 percent bigger in some areas

 

As do many people. The problem is determining "necessary". Everyone seems to have a different idea what that is.

 

Well that sure is true

 

Well no, you need more than that to get there. Every legal US resident implicitly agrees to live under US jurisdiction, as codified in the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof and treaties made under US authority; and while I'm not prepared to argue Korematsu one way or the other, making a prima facie case that the Japanese internment was unconstitutional is easy peasy, while your claim here only stands if it was constitutional.

Well that's certainly convenient, seeing there is, ipso facto, no way of actually knowing what went on in such tribes; but elementary understanding of human nature suggests there is no reason to believe outrages against humanity are less per capita in polities encompassing a few thousand people than in those encompassing millions.

Funny that you bring him up, seeing it was a state that gave him safe harbor from that which would have turned him into soap and lampshades.

The people who lived under it evidently thought otherwise; but of course you're much more qualified to render a judgment than they were.

 

You're suggesting that government invented money? Good luck proving that one.

 

Why is the authoritarian answer always "if you don't want to lick the boots of your rulers and obey their arbitrary authority, leave!". They have no legitimate right to rule, and if they don't like that being pointed out, then they can do something about it, or not.

 

What objectively legitimate source entitles anyone to force that agreement upon those who live within a certain area?

 

A necessary evil. Since if you don't have a state, another state (one that's likely even worse) will eventually take over.

This is the same sort of mentality that preveiled in Medieval Europe when towns and people put themselves under the protection of a feudal lord, swearing allegiance to be protected.

Or look at the chaos in Somalia which has a practically non-existent government, and gangs led by strong men have informal control over local areas.

The main point where anarchy fails is criminals who would form large organized crime groups, squeezing extortion money out of the people and oppressing them, as well as the possibility of foreign invasion.

 

Nonsense.