The State Is a Deluded, Dangerous Religion

A lie.

 

Somalia has had a central goverment for decades. It's located in Mogadishu. Incidentally, this is where most of the violence in Somalia occurs. The reason for this is obvious: They are fighting for control of the state and its illegitimate powers. But if you go to tribal Somaliland, where the corrupt and dysfunctional central government holds little sway, you will see a relatively peaceful, stable society based on cultural bonds and voluntary association between like-minded individuals. So, ironically, Somalia actually proves the exact opposite of what most people intend when they bring it up.

States ARE large, organized crime groups who extort and oppress the people. That's what states have ALWAYS been. The ONLY difference between a state and a local street gang is that the state uses sophisticated mind control to deceive people into believing that the state's criminal activities are somehow legitimate.

What makes you think people cannot defend themselves without a state?

 

The only way to abolish the state is to change people's minds. I believe the best way to change people's minds is through peaceful persuasion. I know that must sound strange to statists who prefer to change society with coercion and fraud, but peaceful argument is a much more rational and moral way to influence others.

 

one example of a society in history without a real central government, that did work was the ancient Isrealites during the time of the Judges, although it was still a time of violence and there were many raids going on.

However, according to the Christian and Jewish perspective, this system only worked because the people were under the protection of God and had not turned evil enough yet.

There were also strong family and tribal structures in place, something that cannot be ignored.

 

The smallest a government can be without becoming anti-democratic is roughly the size of an organic community.

 

The longest and most successful form of human organization occurred in the absence of central governments. Central governments have only existed for a tiny fraction of human history, and in that short time they've caused unthinkable levels of death and destruction. The only reason this incredibly violent institution continues to exist is because it is violent. Without instilling terror in people, the state would have no authority and would cease to exist.

 

It is true that smaller democracies tend to be much more responsive to the people, often have higher living standards than their larger neighbors.

 

Humans are meant to organize into relatively small groups. It's how evolution designed us. The state, aside from being a criminal enterprise, goes against human nature.

 

Fake facts are an important tool in the statist toolkit.

 

Not at all. Every society, big or small, has the right to make rules by which its members agree to abide; and those who do not, if they cannot persuade the majority to change those rules, need to vote with their feet. To say otherwise is to say the majority should bow to the will of the minority.

 

Societies are nominal entities. They have no rights. Only individuals have rights. And no individual has the right to appropriate another individual's property without consent. This truth does not magically change when individuals begin acting in concert with one another.

 

You present a false dichotomy. If the minority also doesn't "make rules" then the majority doesn't have to bend to that minority.

And, it's not as if your ideal society exists. There is no place where a minority doesn't make the rules. Even if there is a majority vote, it's a small minority that writes the rules and an even smaller minority that convinces the mob to go along. So long as there's power over others to be had, those others will be ruled by a minority.

 

But practically we need a government much larger than that

 

So are you an anarchist?

Did you realize your Avatar is a flag of the none colonies which were part of a state?

 

Invented? I dont know. But they sure print it now

 

No one born in the US implicitly agrees to that from birth. They are all indoctrinated by the state run education system to agree to that just like many are indoctrinated to follow a religion.

 

Great thread BTW but democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

If we must have some sort of order we must have a necessary evil, some form of government and unfortunately history has taught us that all governments tend to tyranny given time. No government on this planet is immune to that. I'm of the opinion that the founders had it philosophically correct in establishing a Constitutional Republic but ****ed it up in practice by creating a defective Constitution. The biggest defect being that they created no practical way to enforce the Constitution on the US government. While they did create a mechanism to amend it and therefore there is a provision to fix some of the defects, they left the power to amend it in the hands of those in control and not The People, a blatant conflict of interest. And so we're left with a powerful rogue government that is nothing like what the founders envisioned and absent a revolution (see my signature), it is what we're stuck with. And so in practice, the last bunch of Presidents have committed numerous war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against the Constitution with impunity.

 

I would like to see a national referendum system in the US for major issues. At least the people would get a vote

 

It makes exactly as much sense to say the above is a nominal statement.

How about the right to act in concert with other like-minded individuals? Do they have that?

And if yes, what's the difference between that and the right of a society to make laws?

What's missing is any conflict between this and anything I said.

 

Although that sounds like a good idea in theory it is democracy in practice (two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner). For example, suppose the issue is to make abortion a crime? It is possible a majority would vote yes.

 

Your confusion is due to the use of the word "State" or "The State". The OP is using the term "State" to refer to Gov't in general. This is a different that talking about some State within the United States.

For example: The Chinese Gov't is "The State"

 

The people can not vote for things that are unconstitutional. Or they can vote on anything and it gets reviewed by scotus.

Checks and balances

 

I do not think these extreme examples are helpful. Few people disagree that the totalitarian regime under Stalin was evil.

What people often to not understand is the evil within our own Gov't - and Gov'ts in "supposedly" non totalitarian States.

Understanding the more subtle evils within Gov't in General (State Power) is critical. Without the general voter understanding these evils it is difficult - if not impossible - to safeguard society from the evils of Gov't - abuse of power and descent into totalitarianism.

The natural tendency of any State/Gov't is to increase its power. It is no secret that power corrupts and more power corrupts more.

So many accept the increase in Gov't power (and concurrent removal of safeguards put in place by the founders which are there to prevent 1) increasing power and 2) the subsequent abuse of that power) on the basis of "Trust".

People - despite often railing against Gov't - still will believe that in General, the Gov't is acting in our best interest. That our intelligence agencies are acting in our best interest and are generally good honest people - That our Military is protecting us from the big bad world and is a force for good in the world .. and so on.

This logic is fatally flawed. This "Trust" is fatally misplaced.

Even if the perspective that our bureaucratic institutions are generally acting for "Good" and are not inherently "Evil" is correct (Military, CIA, NSA, FBI, Police and so on ) - this does not justify removal of the safeguards that are there to protect us from Gov't.

While these State institutions may be "Good" in the moment - this does not mean they will be good in the future. Can anyone guarantee that 100 years from now we will not have descended into totalitarianism ? - of course not. In fact it is a historical certainty that at some point we will get there.

The natural tendency of the State is to increase its own power. Removal of the safeguards (because Gov't happens to be relatively good today) paves the way for totalitarianism in the future.

None of the regimes you mention started out as totalitarian horror shows. These nations - at least some of them - had safeguards in place.

Specific steps were taken down a certain path - in Germany for example - prior to Hitler obtaining the power that he did.

1) Control of the Media - use of State Intelligence agencies to create and disseminate propaganda.
2) Reduction in Gov't Transparency - using state power to attack those who would out Gov't crimes "Whistle Blowers"
3) Attacks on Freedom of Speech
4) Arbitrary Detainment - Search and Seizure - increasing police powers
5) Violation of Rule of Law principles - "Innocent until Proven Guilty" - "One person not to be responsible for the actions of another" - Equal Justice under the Law .. and so on
6) Utilitarianism (what is will increase happiness for the collective) as justification for law - doing an end run around essential liberty and consent of the Governed - the principles on this nation - and Western Democracy in general - were founded.
7) Fear of an external threat to take away essential Liberty - Ramping up the "fear factor".

I left out a bunch of stuff but this should suffice. (This is off the top of my head btw).

So what is happening in this nation ? ALL of the Above.

Will we find ourselves in the land of Totalitarianism next week ? - Certainly not but, the safeguards are being removed which is clearing the way for our travel down that path.

 

We're in the soup, slowly getting boiled, and we don't know it.

 

That would work if the proposed legislation was first vetted/edited for constitutional compliance by an independent committee of constitutional scholars. But then what would be the purpose of Congress (other than to just propose legislation)? And what about the President's role in signing it into law?

I'm the last guy to trust SCOTUS (an unelected bunch of lawyers) to decide what's constitutional and what isn't.

Agreed as long as these make sense.