What Capitalism Has Done For Us

[Game_Over]

You could choose to be inside or outside of those walls then, but you can't now - the walls have been extended to the edges of the land.

You seem to have a rather romantic idea of the state too. IIRC, 1066 was when the country was invaded and all the land was taken by the victor. It wasn't a voluntary exchange, but rather 'give us your stuff or your head will be on a stick'.

We had a feudal system, so in effect it just amounted to a change of management

Also, the Normans were Norse Men ie Vikings and many of the conquered were also descendants of previous Viking invaders or Roman Invaders.

Oh and I forgot the Anglo Saxons who were also invaders

At the end of the day, if you can't or are not willing to fight, you will just be subjugated by someone else who is.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Game_Over

[mch]

Can anyone define what Capitalism is in essence ?

Where does Mammon fit in ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon

are we areally all living in hell ?

[wonderpup]

Removing a monopoly on violence, doesn't mean that everyone needs to be a pacifist. It just means that violence is used and handled in a different way.

The problem is that you persist in this notion that 'the state' is an imposition on humanity, rather than a product of humanity. Maybe the reason that the state has a monoply on violence is simply because it's the best way to organise large complex societies. The alternative is to have to worry about every encounter with a stranger on the basis that they may deploy violence against you.

For example we could abolish all law enforcement and issue every citizen with a semi automatic pistol. Now everyone is armed and everyone is a lethal threat.

So if you jump the queue at the supermarket, or take a parking space someone else felt they had a claim on, you stand a small chance that they will take out their gun and kill you. Of course, if they do they then risk a revenge attack by your friends or relatives, which may act as a restraining force- or it may not, depending on how angry they are on the day.

This kind of arrangement might work in a way- but the price is that you would be subject at all times to violent attack by strangers or anyone who got pissed off with you.

So you would be replacing the organised monopoly violence of the state with a chaotic disorganised violence at the individual level.

Maybe the reality is that your way has been tried in the past and found wanting- and that a state organised monopoly on violence was arrived at because it offered the best solution to the problem of violence in complex societies involving encounters between strangers on a daily basis.

There has to be a reason why every human society of any size has organized itself in this way- and I'll give one hint here- this arrangement was not imposed on those societies by an evil alien race from mars.

States exist because for most people most of the time they offer the optimum trade off between personal liberty and anarchy.

So you need to make your case as to why your disorganised form of violence is superior to the state organized variety- what you cannot do- however- is make that case by sneaking in the premise that in your world people will not be violent in the first place.

Edited March 5, 2012 by wonderpup

[Game_Over]

The problem is that you persist in this notion that 'the state' is an imposition on humanity, rather than a product of humanity. Maybe the reason that the state has a monoply on violence is simply because it's the best way to organise large complex societies. The alternative is to have to worry about every encounter with a stranger on the basis that they may deploy violence against you.

For example we could abolish all law enforcement and issue every citizen with a semi automatic pistol. Now everyone is armed and everyone is a lethal threat.

So if you jump the queue at the supermarket, or take a parking space someone else felt they had a claim on, you stand a small chance that they will take out their gun and kill you. Of course, if they do they then risk a revenge attack by your friends or relatives, which may act as a restraining force- or it may not, depending on how angry they are on the day.

This kind of arrangement might work in a way- but the price is that you would be subject at all times to violent attack by strangers or anyone who got pissed off with you.

So you would be replacing the organised monopoly violence of the state with a chaotic disorganised violence at the individual level.

Maybe the reality is that your way has been tried in the past and found wanting- and that a state organised monopoly on violence was arrived at because it offered the best solution to the problem of violence in complex societies involving encounters between strangers on a daily basis.

There has to be a reason why every human society of any size has organized itself in this way- and I'll give one hint here- this arrangement was not imposed on those societies by an evil alien race from mars.

States exist because for most people most of the time they offer the optimum trade off between personal liberty and anarchy.

So you need to make your case as to why your disorganised form of violence is superior to the state organized variety- what you cannot do- however- is make that case by sneaking in the premise that in your world people will not be violent in the first place.

Exactly.

TBH I'm not sure what's going on here - because I'm pretty certain we used to disagree a lot.

[Game_Over]

Can anyone define what Capitalism is in essence ?

Where does Mammon fit in ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon

are we areally all living in hell ?

Well if you are living in Croydon

the answer is probably yes.

[Traktion]

The problem is that you persist in this notion that 'the state' is an imposition on humanity, rather than a product of humanity. Maybe the reason that the state has a monoply on violence is simply because it's the best way to organise large complex societies. The alternative is to have to worry about every encounter with a stranger on the basis that they may deploy violence against you.

For example we could abolish all law enforcement and issue every citizen with a semi automatic pistol. Now everyone is armed and everyone is a lethal threat.

So if you jump the queue at the supermarket, or take a parking space someone else felt they had a claim on, you stand a small chance that they will take out their gun and kill you. Of course, if they do they then risk a revenge attack by your friends or relatives, which may act as a restraining force- or it may not, depending on how angry they are on the day.

This kind of arrangement might work in a way- but the price is that you would be subject at all times to violent attack by strangers or anyone who got pissed off with you.

So you would be replacing the organised monopoly violence of the state with a chaotic disorganised violence at the individual level.

I can't even remember anyone getting into so much as a scuffle in a supermarket, because someone pushed in. This isn't because there is a state policeman on the end of a phone or even because there is a private security guard - most people just don't tend to feel the erg to violate one another, without reasonable cause.

Why? Because society dictates social norms. It defines how people should behave, in order to fit in.

Ofc, you get odd balls who like to steal stuff and violate people, but they can be dealt with through voluntary local policing (as it used to be) or through private security agencies (paid for via insurance).

TBH, this isn't the sort of violence which concerns me - it can be dealt with - it is the institutionalised theft and violence which is the problem. Manipulating people through taxation (theft) and legislation (threat of violence) is the problem.

You could argue that a minarchist state would need very little taxation or legislation, with this small state being better than anarchism. However, the law, policing and defence services which people claim should be provided by the state, do not need to be supplied by the state at all; if they are services people require, they will organise themselves and/or pay for them.

Maybe the reality is that your way has been tried in the past and found wanting- and that a state organised monopoly on violence was arrived at because it offered the best solution to the problem of violence in complex societies involving encounters between strangers on a daily basis.

There has to be a reason why every human society of any size has organized itself in this way- and I'll give one hint here- this arrangement was not imposed on those societies by an evil alien race from mars.

States exist because for most people most of the time they offer the optimum trade off between personal liberty and anarchy.

So you need to make your case as to why your disorganised form of violence is superior to the state organized variety- what you cannot do- however- is make that case by sneaking in the premise that in your world people will not be violent in the first place.

I think the non-aggression principle is something worth aiming for.

If violence and theft are considered a bad thing, that means no one should be doing either without consequences. This includes the state.

You could argue that minarchism uses very little institutional violence. You could say it only steals to fund defence, law and order. However, even these things do not require theft to fund them either.

I do have more support for minarchists than those who support big government though. At least they recognise that taxation is evil, but believe it is unavoidable.

Big government statists on the other hand, think that it is ok to steal and violate people, as long as the biggest majority think it is ok. This is the theft and violence which I think is particularly disgusting, as there is no attempt to consider the tyranny of majority rule, as long as they get their piece of the pie.

I went from a minarchist to an anarchist, as I couldn't keep making excuses for the state's actions, especially when there are alternatives. It is a position of principle, a school of thought - violence isn't the solution to our problems.

I just request that people don't steal from me, nor violate me. It isn't much to ask, is it?

[Game_Over]

I can't even remember anyone getting into so much as a scuffle in a supermarket, because someone pushed in. This isn't because there is a state policeman on the end of a phone or even because there is a private security guard - most people just don't tend to feel the erg to violate one another, without reasonable cause.

Why? Because society dictates social norms. It defines how people should behave, in order to fit in.

Ofc, you get odd balls who like to steal stuff and violate people, but they can be dealt with through voluntary local policing (as it used to be) or through private security agencies (paid for via insurance).

TBH, this isn't the sort of violence which concerns me - it can be dealt with - it is the institutionalised theft and violence which is the problem. Manipulating people through taxation (theft) and legislation (threat of violence) is the problem.

You could argue that a minarchist state would need very little taxation or legislation, with this small state being better than anarchism. However, the law, policing and defence services which people claim should be provided by the state, do not need to be supplied by the state at all; if they are services people require, they will organise themselves and/or pay for them.

I think the non-aggression principle is something worth aiming for.

If violence and theft are considered a bad thing, that means no one should be doing either without consequences. This includes the state.

You could argue that minarchism uses very little institutional violence. You could say it only steals to fund defence, law and order. However, even these things do not require theft to fund them either.

I do have more support for minarchists than those who support big government though. At least they recognise that taxation is evil, but believe it is unavoidable.

Big government statists on the other hand, think that it is ok to steal and violate people, as long as the biggest majority think it is ok. This is the theft and violence which I think is particularly disgusting, as there is no attempt to consider the tyranny of majority rule, as long as they get their piece of the pie.

I went from a minarchist to an anarchist, as I couldn't keep making excuses for the state's actions, especially when there are alternatives. It is a position of principle, a school of thought - violence isn't the solution to our problems.

I just request that people don't steal from me, nor violate me. It isn't much to ask, is it?

Well it is actually

Because it only takes 1 person in a million to destroy your life.

Unfortunately

[easy2012]

The problem is that you persist in this notion that 'the state' is an imposition on humanity, rather than a product of humanity. Maybe the reason that the state has a monoply on violence is simply because it's the best way to organise large complex societies. The alternative is to have to worry about every encounter with a stranger on the basis that they may deploy violence against you.

For example we could abolish all law enforcement and issue every citizen with a semi automatic pistol. Now everyone is armed and everyone is a lethal threat.

So if you jump the queue at the supermarket, or take a parking space someone else felt they had a claim on, you stand a small chance that they will take out their gun and kill you. Of course, if they do they then risk a revenge attack by your friends or relatives, which may act as a restraining force- or it may not, depending on how angry they are on the day.

This kind of arrangement might work in a way- but the price is that you would be subject at all times to violent attack by strangers or anyone who got pissed off with you.

So you would be replacing the organised monopoly violence of the state with a chaotic disorganised violence at the individual level.

Maybe the reality is that your way has been tried in the past and found wanting- and that a state organised monopoly on violence was arrived at because it offered the best solution to the problem of violence in complex societies involving encounters between strangers on a daily basis.

There has to be a reason why every human society of any size has organized itself in this way- and I'll give one hint here- this arrangement was not imposed on those societies by an evil alien race from mars.

States exist because for most people most of the time they offer the optimum trade off between personal liberty and anarchy.

So you need to make your case as to why your disorganised form of violence is superior to the state organized variety- what you cannot do- however- is make that case by sneaking in the premise that in your world people will not be violent in the first place.

Very good indeed.

[Police]

Fear of rape is vital ingredient of the State - and women are great proponents for their formation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/11/rape-somalia-women-famine

Edited March 5, 2012 by Police

[shipbuilder]

Exactly.

TBH I'm not sure what's going on here - because I'm pretty certain we used to disagree a lot.

Well you're both statists, although I'm pretty sure you would disagree on the size and functions of the state. Left vs right is nothing more than different views on what the state should do.

Everyone bangs on about a smaller state, but then what are the 'right' things for the state to be doing? You want the state to regulate capitalism and enforce the law, but then why can't I have an NHS and free education? What makes your claim on the state's functions more valid than mine? And yes, a healthy and educated workforce do create wealth.

Therein lies the problem with the debate - unfortunately the state has never shrunk and has never been more beholden to corporate interests - so who is living in fantasy land exactly?

[shipbuilder]

The problem is that you persist in this notion that 'the state' is an imposition on humanity, rather than a product of humanity. Maybe the reason that the state has a monoply on violence is simply because it's the best way to organise large complex societies. The alternative is to have to worry about every encounter with a stranger on the basis that they may deploy violence against you.

For example we could abolish all law enforcement and issue every citizen with a semi automatic pistol. Now everyone is armed and everyone is a lethal threat.

So if you jump the queue at the supermarket, or take a parking space someone else felt they had a claim on, you stand a small chance that they will take out their gun and kill you. Of course, if they do they then risk a revenge attack by your friends or relatives, which may act as a restraining force- or it may not, depending on how angry they are on the day.

This kind of arrangement might work in a way- but the price is that you would be subject at all times to violent attack by strangers or anyone who got pissed off with you.

So you would be replacing the organised monopoly violence of the state with a chaotic disorganised violence at the individual level.

Maybe the reality is that your way has been tried in the past and found wanting- and that a state organised monopoly on violence was arrived at because it offered the best solution to the problem of violence in complex societies involving encounters between strangers on a daily basis.

There has to be a reason why every human society of any size has organized itself in this way- and I'll give one hint here- this arrangement was not imposed on those societies by an evil alien race from mars.

States exist because for most people most of the time they offer the optimum trade off between personal liberty and anarchy.

So you need to make your case as to why your disorganised form of violence is superior to the state organized variety- what you cannot do- however- is make that case by sneaking in the premise that in your world people will not be violent in the first place.

By definition the state is imposed. People organising themselves from the 'bottom up' is not a state, because such a system is voluntary. Perhaps you should look at where enclosure of land, taxes etc. all originated from and how long the state in its current form has actually existed for.

[shipbuilder]

The problem is that you persist in this notion that 'the state' is an imposition on humanity, rather than a product of humanity. Maybe the reason that the state has a monoply on violence is simply because it's the best way to organise large complex societies. The alternative is to have to worry about every encounter with a stranger on the basis that they may deploy violence against you.

For example we could abolish all law enforcement and issue every citizen with a semi automatic pistol. Now everyone is armed and everyone is a lethal threat.

So if you jump the queue at the supermarket, or take a parking space someone else felt they had a claim on, you stand a small chance that they will take out their gun and kill you. Of course, if they do they then risk a revenge attack by your friends or relatives, which may act as a restraining force- or it may not, depending on how angry they are on the day.

This kind of arrangement might work in a way- but the price is that you would be subject at all times to violent attack by strangers or anyone who got pissed off with you.

So you would be replacing the organised monopoly violence of the state with a chaotic disorganised violence at the individual level.

Maybe the reality is that your way has been tried in the past and found wanting- and that a state organised monopoly on violence was arrived at because it offered the best solution to the problem of violence in complex societies involving encounters between strangers on a daily basis.

There has to be a reason why every human society of any size has organized itself in this way- and I'll give one hint here- this arrangement was not imposed on those societies by an evil alien race from mars.

States exist because for most people most of the time they offer the optimum trade off between personal liberty and anarchy.

So you need to make your case as to why your disorganised form of violence is superior to the state organized variety- what you cannot do- however- is make that case by sneaking in the premise that in your world people will not be violent in the first place.

If you really believe that the state is a natural form of organisation 'of the people', here's a thought experiment - say the Isle of Wight or some other part of the UK declared itself independent - they wanted to self-organise police, health etc, pay no taxes, receive no services. How would the government react to that, even with the most benevolent state that has ever existed, what do you think would happen? Contrast this with your reaction, the reaction of the people of the UK.

Do you think that the reaction from the state and people would be similar? Therefore can you really say that the state and the people are one and the same?

Did the people and the state agree about the last Gulf war?

[Game_Over]

By definition the state is imposed. People organising themselves from the 'bottom up' is not a state, because such a system is voluntary. Perhaps you should look at where enclosure of land, taxes etc. all originated from and how long the state in its current form has actually existed for.

States did arise by people organising themselves from the bottom up.

And when States collapse, whichever group of humans organise themselves the fastest become the new state.

[Game_Over]

Well you're both statists, although I'm pretty sure you would disagree on the size and functions of the state. Left vs right is nothing more than different views on what the state should do.

Everyone bangs on about a smaller state, but then what are the 'right' things for the state to be doing? You want the state to regulate capitalism and enforce the law, but then why can't I have an NHS and free education? What makes your claim on the state's functions more valid than mine? And yes, a healthy and educated workforce do create wealth.

Therein lies the problem with the debate - unfortunately the state has never shrunk and has never been more beholden to corporate interests - so who is living in fantasy land exactly?

I would have free health care and free education, but it would not be provided by the state

The money would be provided by the state, but not the service

given how inefficient the state has proven to be in providing such services.

Anyway - the state is going to shrink all over the Western World

because the Big State Social Welfare model is utterly bankrupt

for exactly the same reasons that Socialism has always ended in economic failure.

[Game_Over]

If you really believe that the state is a natural form of organisation 'of the people', here's a thought experiment - say the Isle of Wight or some other part of the UK declared itself independent - they wanted to self-organise police, health etc, pay no taxes, receive no services. How would the government react to that, even with the most benevolent state that has ever existed, what do you think would happen? Contrast this with your reaction, the reaction of the people of the UK.

Do you think that the reaction from the state and people would be similar? Therefore can you really say that the state and the people are one and the same?

Did the people and the state agree about the last Gulf war?

The Government was democratically elected by a potential electorate in the tens of millions.

So if a million people protest against something that does not make a governments actions illegitimate

Otherwise we would effectively have mob rule.

And the Scottish people want to have a vote to become independent and the UK Government are going to let them leave if that is what they wish to do.

[Game_Over]

Fear of rape is vital ingredient of the State - and women are great proponents for their formation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/11/rape-somalia-women-famine

Apparently human beings don't behave in that way.

Only they clearly do.

[Traktion]

Well it is actually

Because it only takes 1 person in a million to destroy your life.

Unfortunately

So, because someone may commit a crime, they are forced into state slavery? Nice!

[shipbuilder]

I would have free health care and free education, but it would not be provided by the state

The money would be provided by the state, but not the service

given how inefficient the state has proven to be in providing such services.

Anyway - the state is going to shrink all over the Western World

because the Big State Social Welfare model is utterly bankrupt

for exactly the same reasons that Socialism has always ended in economic failure.

[shipbuilder]

States did arise by people organising themselves from the bottom up.

And when States collapse, whichever group of humans organise themselves the fastest become the new state.

Which ones?

[mfp123]

If you really believe that the state is a natural form of organisation 'of the people', here's a thought experiment - say the Isle of Wight or some other part of the UK declared itself independent - they wanted to self-organise police, health etc, pay no taxes, receive no services. How would the government react to that, even with the most benevolent state that has ever existed, what do you think would happen? Contrast this with your reaction, the reaction of the people of the UK.

Do you think that the reaction from the state and people would be similar? Therefore can you really say that the state and the people are one and the same?

Did the people and the state agree about the last Gulf war?

whatever group holds the power becomes the state. unless you can somehow guarantee no group will take power.

[Traktion]

I would have free health care and free education, but it would not be provided by the state

The money would be provided by the state, but not the service

given how inefficient the state has proven to be in providing such services.

Anyway - the state is going to shrink all over the Western World

because the Big State Social Welfare model is utterly bankrupt

for exactly the same reasons that Socialism has always ended in economic failure.

A slight change to what we have now then. Wow - that will fix everything!

The only way the state can shrink and maintain any sort of organisation, will be if they slash the rent seeking from top to bottom. I doubt they will do that though, so failure it will be.

[shipbuilder]

whatever group holds the power becomes the state. unless you can somehow guarantee no group will take power.

Well you can guarantee that no group can take power.....by refusing to recognise or legitimise their power by granting them powers of state.

[Police]

If a State abolitionist party won a General Election in a stable democracy is it unfeasible to think that the State might not be abolished?

Why do such parties not exist?

Edited March 5, 2012 by Police

[mfp123]

Well you can guarantee that no group can take power.....by refusing to recognise or legitimise their power by granting them powers of state.

so in a free society youre now imposing your ideas that your not allowed to group together or organise yourself.

are businesses allowed to form, can unions form, can neighbourhood watch groups form.

its not for you to decide what people can and cant do in a free society.

the state is natural in the sense that people do form groups and do organise themselves, and they do tend to impose themselves on each other to promote their own agendas.

[Traktion]

whatever group holds the power becomes the state. unless you can somehow guarantee no group will take power.

That is one reason why it doesn't deserve legitimacy. A group telling others what to do, through the most efficient use of theft and violence, is by implication not the group you want there.

If more people decide that they don't want the 'help' from the state, it will either have to accept that their power is dwindling or they will have to lash out and reveal its true colours.

People say that we are governed by consent, but as soon as this assertion is challenged, we are told that we can't withdraw our consent. Somehow, every individual is forced into state slavery, unless the other slaves give them permission not to be... which they won't.

Unless there is a mechanism where people can withdraw consent on reasonable terms, the idea of individuals giving consent is a fantasy.