What is Anarchy?

[loseyourname]

One can argue the opposite that the world has more violent hot spots now than ever before, and the world stands closer to destruction than ever before with a rogue state such as America being the sole superpower.

I hope you realize this is an argument against anarchism. You are saying the US has grown too powerful and is bullying the rest of the world. This is exactly why we need some form of accountable oversight, to keep individuals from growing too powerful and bullying the rest of us.

I don't want to come off as insulting, but if anyone believes that the U.N. or Geneva, or NATO are designed to promote "peace", they are more gullible than a baby believing his parents that he will get a chocolate toy car the size of a truck.

NATO is designed to ensure the defense of the US and its allies. It never claimed it was designed to promote peace, which is a word you needn't put in quotations, given that you are using it in its literal sense.

This is not to say there is no violence, but compare the violence under feudal Europe with the absence of the State, or the violence in the Old West, with that of the 20th century when political systems reached their heights.

People wage war on each other. You act like it's something that has become worse since the inception of political systems. Warfare has become larger-scale with the invention of better weapons, that's it. The death tolls these days are a lot lower than they were in WWI and WWII, mostly because of the elaborate treaty systems and mutual deterrence keeping large nations from warring with each other. If these didn't exist, what would stop some crazy powerful individual from firing nukes at everyone?

Besides, are you honestly trying to tell me that feudal lords and kings treated their subjects better than the US government treats me? Hell, if I'm ever a successful runner of a large business, they'll treat me like a king. What peasant ever had that opportunity?

[Anonymouse]

I hope you realize this is an argument against anarchism. You are saying the US has grown too powerful and is bullying the rest of the world. This is exactly why we need some form of accountable oversight, to keep individuals from growing too powerful and bullying the rest of us.

This thinking is deeply flawed. How is that an argument "against anarchism"? If you don't know by now I am arguing within your standards, within your framework of "peace" and "UN" and "Geneva" and "Conventions" or "world government". It was only meant to highlight how a superstate causes more damage, than say an individual. Can you seriously compare your analogy? Governments int he 20th century kill roughly 200 million people, yet it's individuals you fear? You don't trust individuals acting within themselves, because they might "have too much power and bully you", yet you trust these same individuals to be selfless public servants if cloaked in the mantle of State authority? You would want to criminalize an individual for committing murder, yet you would support the State which sponsors wholesale murder? Your logic is indeed twisted if you reside with such fallacies. The difference between individuals bullying one another and States, is statistics and millions of deaths.

NATO is designed to ensure the defense of the US and its allies. It never claimed it was designed to promote peace, which is a word you needn't put in quotations, given that you are using it in its literal sense.

That's a good point, NATO was designed only to resist the threat of Communism. Now that the Iron Curtain is down, what is the point of this organization? Why was it not dismantled? Instead, it took on a monolithic form of its own, which helps prove all the more why it is a mafia like bully organization.

People wage war on each other. You act like it's something that has become worse since the inception of political systems. Warfare has become larger-scale with the invention of better weapons, that's it. The death tolls these days are a lot lower than they were in WWI and WWII, mostly because of the elaborate treaty systems and mutual deterrence keeping large nations from warring with each other. If these didn't exist, what would stop some crazy powerful individual from firing nukes at everyone?

People wage war on each other? I don't know which definition you are using, prehaps metaphorical, but war is used to signify armed conflict between nations or states or governments, holistic entities. Wars have become worse with the inception of political systems, and States, not only with the rise of technology, but of the mass-mindedness nature that accompanies a State. This was the age of conscription, mass armies, and total war. You no longer meet armies against each other, and fight them, you fight against "everyone" such as women and children, en masse, because this is no longer a "gentlemans war" as in feudal Europe, it is total war. Why would a crazy powerful individual fire nukes? You know loser, sometimes I wonder at the responses you muster. Such statements lack all base in reality. The only time nuclear weapons were used, was by a State, on an already defeated country, and why people shouldn't fear Iran or North Korea obtaining nukes, since they only want to deter the United States. During the Cold War, two sides had it, and it created deterrance, just like if everyone was armed, crime would be committed less. Statism has done a thorough job of brainwashing people to the point where they fear individuals more than the State. Again, lets compare, States have killed roughly 200 million people with political systems in the 20th century alone. How many have individuals killed, acting alone, without influence from a State or political system?

[dusken]

I am through with this again. All of your arguments are "you don't understand this...you don't understand that," when it is perfectly clear that I do, while you evade the points of my posts by repeating yourself even though I addressed your ideas. First you say that it is fallacious to think about it in terms of "can't," then you spend useless paragraphs tell me that it can. Phuck that. I will just go back to what I said before, Callahan's article is completely useless. Period.

[loseyourname]

This thinking is deeply flawed. How is that an argument "against anarchism"? If you don't know by now I am arguing within your standards, within your framework of "peace" and "UN" and "Geneva" and "Conventions" or "world government". It was only meant to highlight how a superstate causes more damage, than say an individual.

You argued that interactions between nations are anarchic and that the US has become too powerful within that lack of a world government structure. That shows the trouble with anarchy - the strongest individual (in this case, the strongest individual state) becomes too powerful and imposes itself on other individuals (in this case, other individual states).

Can you seriously compare your analogy? Governments int he 20th century kill roughly 200 million people, yet it's individuals you fear? You don't trust individuals acting within themselves, because they might "have too much power and bully you", yet you trust these same individuals to be selfless public servants if cloaked in the mantle of State authority?

I certainly don't trust our government, not any other government in existence. But you can't argue that just because the ones we have wage war and commit atrocities that none should exist. I've used the same argument to say that because the churches we have are responsible for so much evil, we should not have churches. You did not accept the argument then. Why do you accept it now?

You would want to criminalize an individual for committing murder, yet you would support the State which sponsors wholesale murder?

When did I say I would support a state that commits murder? If you extend your argument, you must conclude that because some individuals murder, we should abolish all individuals.

Your logic is indeed twisted if you reside with such fallacies. The difference between individuals bullying one another and States, is statistics and millions of deaths.

You act like there would be no warfare if there were no states. People group with like people. There was widespread warfare well before the existence of political states. The Jews committed genocide on the native people of Canaan. Muslims invaded and plundered large portions of the Indian subcontinent. Catholics destroyed many Islamic cities. Whether people group because of religion, politics, or economic status, they will group, and then they will kill each other.

That's a good point, NATO was designed only to resist the threat of Communism. Now that the Iron Curtain is down, what is the point of this organization? Why was it not dismantled? Instead, it took on a monolithic form of its own, which helps prove all the more why it is a mafia like bully organization.

And? You've only proven that the current system is a bad one. You'll get no argument from me there. It doesn't follow logically that all political systems and nation-states are necessarily bad.

People wage war on each other? I don't know which definition you are using, prehaps metaphorical, but war is used to signify armed conflict between nations or states or governments, holistic entities.

No it isn't. Bloods and crips war with each other on the streets of Los Angeles. Neither is a state.

Wars have become worse with the inception of political systems, and States, not only with the rise of technology, but of the mass-mindedness nature that accompanies a State.

So Ghenghis Khan and Richard the Lionheart were more civilized? Where are you getting this reasoning? Wars became worse with the inception of elaborate treaty systems and entangling alliances and with the technological capability to wage more widespread warfare. This is why I favor an isolationist foreign policy and non-aggressive national defense.

This was the age of conscription, mass armies, and total war. You no longer meet armies against each other, and fight them, you fight against "everyone" such as women and children, en masse, because this is no longer a "gentlemans war" as in feudal Europe, it is total war.

That is a change in military strategy due to the breakdown of codes of honor. It has nothing to do with politics.

Why would a crazy powerful individual fire nukes?

I have no idea why he would. That is rather beside the point. It is only an illustration. The point is that someone could. Believe or not, if you have the money, a nuclear weapon is not difficult to build. If not for the paranoia of the state, someone could. People do some crazy things.

You know loser, sometimes I wonder at the responses you muster. Such statements lack all base in reality. The only time nuclear weapons were used, was by a State, on an already defeated country, and why people shouldn't fear Iran or North Korea obtaining nukes, since they only want to deter the United States.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's ever happened before. The point is whether or not it can happen. You can't deny that it's a possibility. I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I do know how to build a nuclear bomb. All I would need is the right amount of weapons-grade plutonium. I'm sure I'm not the only person out there with this knowledge. If not for deterrence from homeland security, if I was insane, I just might do it.

Statism has done a thorough job of brainwashing people to the point where they fear individuals more than the State. Again, lets compare, States have killed roughly 200 million people with political systems in the 20th century alone. How many have individuals killed, acting alone, without influence from a State or political system?

You know damn well that isn't a fair statement to make. There is no way you can say the death-toll would have been less if not for the existence of states. You can only bemoan those states that actually perpetrated the atrocities, not all possible theoretical states.

This is all quite beside the point anyway, as I do not favor any political system that is currently in existence or had been in existence at any point in the 20th century. You have no quarrel with me there.

[Anonymouse]

You argued that interactions between nations are anarchic and that the US has become too powerful within that lack of a world government structure. That shows the trouble with anarchy - the strongest individual (in this case, the strongest individual state) becomes too powerful and imposes itself on other individuals (in this case, other individual states).

That nations are anarchic has nothing to do with the U.S. being a superstate. That the marketplace is anarchic, or your relations with your neighbors are anarchic has nothing to do with the U.S. The U.S. perhaps is not as powerful as it seems, and as the case with Iraq, it is no longer in control of events. That is the whole point of vertically organized systems, the ability to regulate, and control; the idea that central planning is good. But as we see in Iraq, the U.S. had no exit strategy, and instead of being in control of events, it is only responding to them, that is the result of "unintended consequences" as Mises would say, which all vertically integrated systems are subjected too, per the theory of complexities and chaos. In other words, the bigger systems get the more they will move to chaos, the same applies any other thing. The more the any system grows, the more there are variables and events that the system of central planning cannot control. Your analogy in reference to the State and the individual makes no sense, for I already addressed it. States in the form of political systems, have killed 200 million people in the 20th century. How many have individuals killed, acting alone, without the influence of any political system or State? The answer is most glaring, and we can refer only to feudal Europe or the Old West as examples of such.

I certainly don't trust our government, not any other government in existence. But you can't argue that just because the ones we have wage war and commit atrocities that none should exist. I've used the same argument to say that because the churches we have are responsible for so much evil, we should not have churches. You did not accept the argument then. Why do you accept it now?

Why should States exist, period? They are a monopoly of power in a given territory, and as with all monopolies they tend to be corrupt, break down in moral order, and abusive. I'm afraid that I can argue that because something such as the State is based on coercion and aggression, and that it is not justified, unless you are arguing that somehow coercion and aggression are justified. Just because there exists murder, does not mean it is justified, it is the same thing as the State. Your argument that the Churches are responsible for so much evil does not equate with the State, even at the apogee of its power.

When did I say I would support a state that commits murder? If you extend your argument, you must conclude that because some individuals murder, we should abolish all individuals.

You do support a State that committs murder. All States committ murder. States are legalized murder. We criminalize individuals for murder, yet the State is perfectly fine to committ murder, in the form of war, in the name of "the people". We criminalize individuals for stealing, yet the State can steal in the form of taxation, or eminent domain, and our political conditioning would not allow us to call it so. On the contrary, we must conclude that if we criminalize individuals for these crimes, we must hold the State to the same standards. Your analogy that we should rid of individuals makes no sense, for that is already what is the case, we criminalize only individuals, and therefore your analogy is flawed. I don't expect you to admit this.

You act like there would be no warfare if there were no states. People group with like people. There was widespread warfare well before the existence of political states. The Jews committed genocide on the native people of Canaan. Muslims invaded and plundered large portions of the Indian subcontinent. Catholics destroyed many Islamic cities. Whether people group because of religion, politics, or economic status, they will group, and then they will kill each other.

You see, this is the misconception. Most of you, in an ardent zeal to defend the State, jump to erroneous conclusions that lack all base in reality. No one said there will be no violence ( war being defined only between States here ). It is the degree to which we are speaking of. If we can lessen it, we should. Your examples are not relevant to the warfare unleashed by the State. How would those deaths, compare to the ones incurred by the State? I am not even talking of the anything before the 20th century, for in that century alone, the amont of deaths unleashed by the State is enough to surpass the whole medieval period. That there will be violence is not denied, but to what degree can we lessen it. If the State has proven to be more destructive than anything else, it surely must not be a correct idea.

And? You've only proven that the current system is a bad one. You'll get no argument from me there. It doesn't follow logically that all political systems and nation-states are necessarily bad.

All nation-states are not necessarily bad, but most tend to be, and those that aren't will gradually move to be, as that is in the nature of the State system itself, for its survival it will become abusive, expansionist, and resort to diminishing liberties, taxation, regulation, and on a scale that only grows more and more.

No it isn't. Bloods and crips war with each other on the streets of Los Angeles. Neither is a state.

You see loser, I am extending war to only signify the State. Bloods and crips have nothing to do in this discussion, and they are, quite frankly if anything, a result of the State system, which has created an atmosphere and reasons for such people to rise, in fact, most criminals are a result of the State system.

So Ghenghis Khan and Richard the Lionheart were more civilized? Where are you getting this reasoning? Wars became worse with the inception of elaborate treaty systems and entangling alliances and with the technological capability to wage more widespread warfare. This is why I favor an isolationist foreign policy and non-aggressive national defense.

This has nothing to do with the example of warfare becoming 'total war', and I urge you to stop making erroneous assertions that are not related to the discussion. Kahn of Richard the Lionheart did not destroy populations after they had surrendered, States do. Stop bringing up silly examples, which have no bearing on the discussion, nor the theory.

That is a change in military strategy due to the breakdown of codes of honor. It has nothing to do with politics.

You clearly display your lack of knowledge regarding history, warfare, and politics. Now you have forced me to demonstrate how the change in the nature of political systems and States, changed the idea of warfare. The idea of consription is the result of the French Revolution. Since then, nothing has been the same. It radically changed the nature of war as we know it because of consription. The difference between armies in the past that fought for loyalty or mercenaries for money, and the conscripted soldier was for the conscripted soldier there was no incentive to fight. They were unwilling civilians whose enthusiasm for fighting and killing was limited at best. What they had to do now, was they had to be taught to hate the enemy, propaganda. Soon you had trained soldiers under arms and a reserve capacity. So when one power adopted this system, as the French, it forced the other countries to adopt it as well, such as Germany, and so on and so forth, in order to not be outnumbered. In the words of the American author, Hoffman Nickerson:

During the last century and a half civilization has recreated the armed horde. Previously a rarity, it has become the accepted instrument of any great military effort. It has not however come alone. Exactly a hundred fifty years ago in 1789-shortly after the United States had sought to protect themselves against democracy by their Federal Constitution-the French Revolution began. From that time to our day democratic ideas have come to dominate politics just as the mass army has dominated war. It is the thesis of this book that the two are inseparably connected with each other and with a third thing, barbarism

And States assumed an increasingly "national" character, in which mass mindedness and collectivization were the norm, so too the military was affected by this radical change. So you had Pan Germanism, or Pan Slavism or Pan Italianism. And in tandem one can track the rise of collective armies in amss marches and synchronized marches and rallies and movements. This is one of the psychological roots of national socialism and communism, for they loved uniformed mass performances. It is important to understand that this idea of Democracy and the State system, nationalism went hand in hand. Terms like "The National Peoples Army" were all over.

And since the conscripted soldiers had to be taken from the populace at large, they had to be indoctrinated with propaganda, and they were made to hate the enemy collectively, since the enemy was that of the other State. Now individuals associated themselves with their State. These days the mass media plays in on the 'evilness' of the enemy, by stressing the evilness of the enemy, and the crimes commited by this enemy, sound familiar?

So with World War I the "world had to be made safe for democracy", and World War I, was no longer a war between monarchs or lords, it was a war between entire nations, and an ideological crusade. After WWII the mass surrendered Germans were treated not as war prisoners protected by the Hague, but as "Disarmed Enemy Forces" and suffered roughly a million. So now war was not about outmaneuvering your enemy to just win the battle, it was a war between peoples and ideologies, to kill as many people from the other side as possible, and became wars of extermination, as we call "total war" in which towns, women, children, were destroyed. So we can see how wars evolved from clashes between crowns or lords, to clashes between entire peoples. A mercenary of the past belonged to different nationalities and once signed up and paid for, could fight for anyone. That wars became State institutions and democratic mass minded, you could destroy civilians. And since technology had progressed, all the better. Curiously enough, it was the Third Reich that wanted to ban aerial warfare except on well defined battle fronts. So with WWII you had entire cities such as Dresden, Frankfurt, Munich, destroyed except for the industrial factories, strangely enough.

I have no idea why he would. That is rather beside the point. It is only an illustration. The point is that someone could. Believe or not, if you have the money, a nuclear weapon is not difficult to build. If not for the paranoia of the state, someone could. People do some crazy things.

This is a baseless claim. If everyone had a nuclear weapon, no one would use it, for it would mean their own self destruction, hence why in an anarchic system, everyone would be armed. So yes, individuals could get a nuclear weapon, but if they would they would not use it, no different than many States obtaining a nuclear weapon. On the contrary the only time it was used was by the U.S. when no one else had it.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's ever happened before. The point is whether or not it can happen. You can't deny that it's a possibility. I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I do know how to build a nuclear bomb. All I would need is the right amount of weapons-grade plutonium. I'm sure I'm not the only person out there with this knowledge. If not for deterrence from homeland security, if I was insane, I just might do it.

This is silly, of course it is possible. Anything is possible in this world, it's possible for humans to fly. Is it probable? Hardly. The example of individuals obtaining nuclear weapons is a very weak one, for it is no different than States obtaining them. When they all have them, no one uses them. I don't see why you dragged this non-issue into this discussion.

You know damn well that isn't a fair statement to make. There is no way you can say the death-toll would have been less if not for the existence of states. You can only bemoan those states that actually perpetrated the atrocities, not all possible theoretical states.

Of course the death toll would have been less had States not existed, because then there would be no entity that would capitalize on our fears, mobilize our fears and mass mindedness. Take a look at feudal Europe, or the Old West, as an example of where the State was lacking. How do they compare with Statehood?

[loseyourname]

How many have individuals killed, acting alone, without the influence of any political system or State? The answer is most glaring, and we can refer only to feudal Europe or the Old West as examples of such.

Come on, man. You know you can't make that comparison. Entities that are not states have little opportunity to war with each other as long as there are states. Without states, these other entities would be more powerful, and the numbers would go up. Besides, you're again not arguing with me here. I don't support any state that existed in the 20th century. You can't say that just because many of the more powerful ones committed great numbers of murders, that all states are necessarily bad. What did Andorra do that was so evil? What about Morocco?

Why should States exist, period?

I've never said that anything we have now should exist. Something must exist to curtail the power of individuals and to enforce contracts. That is all. Whether or not it would even still be considered a "state" I don't know.

Just because there exists murder, does not mean it is justified, it is the same thing as the State. Your argument that the Churches are responsible for so much evil does not equate with the State, even at the apogee of its power.

I'm afraid that the effects of the church on medieval times was far more deleterious than the effects of the state on the 20th century. Civilization was set back hundreds of years by the church. Forget the number of deaths. The only reason that is the case is that one, there were less people around back then, and two, there was no comparable entity to war with the church, and so the murders were limited mostly to individuals, rather than the murder of large groups.

You do support a State that committs murder. All States committ murder. States are legalized murder. We criminalize individuals for murder, yet the State is perfectly fine to committ murder, in the form of war, in the name of "the people". We criminalize individuals for stealing, yet the State can steal in the form of taxation, or eminent domain, and our political conditioning would not allow us to call it so.

Do you even pay attention to what I type? When did I ever say I support taxation, or eminent domain, or warfare? These are not necessary aspects of a state. Even if every state that has ever existed has committed these crimes, it doesn't mean they have to. Think outside the box a little.

You see, this is the misconception. Most of you, in an ardent zeal to defend the State, jump to erroneous conclusions that lack all base in reality. No one said there will be no violence ( war being defined only between States here ).

Surely you can see that if you define warfare as fighting between states, then the abolition of states will by definition rid us of warfare. That doesn't mean large-scale killing will be gone, or even lessened.

All nation-states are not necessarily bad, but most tend to be, and those that aren't will gradually move to be, as that is in the nature of the State system itself, for its survival it will become abusive, expansionist, and resort to diminishing liberties, taxation, regulation, and on a scale that only grows more and more.

I think you're being a little close-minded and more than a little pessimistic to assume that all states must eventually come to this. I don't think this is the case, provided that very little power is given to the state in the first place. Given that no state of the type that I advocate has ever existed, I don't see how you could possibly say that.

You see loser, I am extending war to only signify the State. Bloods and crips have nothing to do in this discussion, and they are, quite frankly if anything, a result of the State system, which has created an atmosphere and reasons for such people to rise, in fact, most criminals are a result of the State system.

People have fought with each other, as groups, since the days of hunters and gatherers. Tribal groups fought with each other. You can't argue that most fighting is necessarily a result of the state. Even if a lot of it is today, and I agree that it is, that is only because of flaws in our current state, not because of any inherent flaw in the concept of a state.

This has nothing to do with the example of warfare becoming 'total war', and I urge you to stop making erroneous assertions that are not related to the discussion. Kahn of Richard the Lionheart did not destroy populations after they had surrendered, States do. Stop bringing up silly examples, which have no bearing on the discussion, nor the theory.

Then stop bringing up example that have nothing to do with what I advocate. Not all states do these things. Large states with too much power do this. This is not the state that I advocate.

You clearly display your lack of knowledge regarding history, warfare, and politics. Now you have forced me to demonstrate how the change in the nature of political systems and States, changed the idea of warfare. The idea of consription is the result of the French Revolution. Since then, nothing has been the same. It radically changed the nature of war as we know it because of consription.

What the hell does this have to do with anything I've said? Have I ever given any indication that I am in favor of conscription? You are clearly showing your lack of knowledge of what your fellow poster is actually talking about.

This is a baseless claim. If everyone had a nuclear weapon, no one would use it, for it would mean their own self destruction, hence why in an anarchic system, everyone would be armed.

Not everyone could do it. That is exactly my point. It isn't difficult from a technical standpoint, but the money it would take makes it impossible for all but a handful of very powerful people to ever attain one. Besides, you seemingly have agreed with me that mutual deterrence, whether by individuals or by states, is the way to go here. In essence, this issue is the same regardless of whether or not states exist. The issue is with one state becoming too powerful. If the US had no standing army - only a minimal national guard and coast guard - and no powers of taxation, it would never have had the A-bomb.

This is silly, of course it is possible. Anything is possible in this world, it's possible for humans to fly. Is it probable? Hardly. The example of individuals obtaining nuclear weapons is a very weak one, for it is no different than States obtaining them. When they all have them, no one uses them. I don't see why you dragged this non-issue into this discussion.

For exactly this purpose - to show that the situation is not dependent on the existence of states.

Of course the death toll would have been less had States not existed, because then there would be no entity that would capitalize on our fears, mobilize our fears and mass mindedness.

This is where you are wrong. The death toll would have been less had those states in question not existed. Almost all of the murders you cite from the 20th century were committed at the hands of several large, powerful nations. There is no reason to blame all states. You are just scapegoating and oversimplifying the situation.

[Anonymouse]

Come on, man. You know you can't make that comparison. Entities that are not states have little opportunity to war with each other as long as there are states. Without states, these other entities would be more powerful, and the numbers would go up. Besides, you're again not arguing with me here. I don't support any state that existed in the 20th century. You can't say that just because many of the more powerful ones committed great numbers of murders, that all states are necessarily bad. What did Andorra do that was so evil? What about Morocco?

This is basically a nice way of dodging the intended question, namely how States mobilize our fears into mass mindedness and warfare and cause wars and genocides, whereas individuals do not. Your whole response here is basically one blob of resorting to opinionated double talk that has no bearing to the discussion, nor the question posed.

I've never said that anything we have now should exist. Something must exist to curtail the power of individuals and to enforce contracts. That is all. Whether or not it would even still be considered a "state" I don't know.

This statement once again, goes back to the initial question intended, namely that you believe individuals acting alone without involvement with the State are dangerous, yet you trust these same individuals whose power you want "curtailed", as selfless public servants when cloaked with the mantle State authority. The contradiction still pervades, and you have no way of dodging, namely because your stance is not ethical, since I define States as monopolies of aggression, coercion, and violence, and none can ever be justified hence I do not make a contradiction. Your above response namely advocates aggression, coercion, and violence on behalf of the State. Why should a State "curtail power" of individuals?

I'm afraid that the effects of the church on medieval times was far more deleterious than the effects of the state on the 20th century. Civilization was set back hundreds of years by the church. Forget the number of deaths. The only reason that is the case is that one, there were less people around back then, and two, there was no comparable entity to war with the church, and so the murders were limited mostly to individuals, rather than the murder of large groups.

This is simple anti-Christian dogma regurgitated ever since the Enlightenment onwards from the fanatics of the "Age of Reason", and further reflects your lack of historical and cultural profundity. Anyone who argues that the Church in medieval times was far more harmful to civilization, than the political systems and Nation-States of the 20th century, must have uber Church bias. The most liberating political force in history has been Christianity, any anyone familiar with late Roman history and the early medieval period as I am, can attest to this. Christianity shattered the unity of the ancient pagan world, and the source of that unity was the State, hence European civilization went through a period of having no State in the feudal age. The Christians, especially the early Christians in the early feudal period, recognized no earthly authority, and could be dubbed "anarchists" by modern perceptions. You can see why early Christians were savagely persecuted not because they were Christian or believed in Jesus, but they did not recognize the political authority, refused to worship the Roman emperor.

Contrary to your perception of the Church, the Church became the countervailing authority of that society putting checks and limits on the authority of the State. Lord Acton was correct when he stated that the practice of political liberty in Europe largley arose because of the Churhc-State conflict of the medieval world, and it was this period that gave rise evnetually to the individualism and classical liberalism, individualism, etc., etc. because Europe went through a period of being Stateless, contrary to societies like Russia, which explains why instead of going from feudal society to capitalism, went directly into socialism, because it did not go through this period of absence of State, and this is affirmed by the world reknowned historian and former mentor of Bill Clinton, Carroll Quigley who wrote the monumental works, Tragedy and Hope, and The Evolution of Civilizations. However, I only refer the reader to the writings of St. Augustine, or St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics.

Further, this medieval fragmentation of the State fostered other human institutions other than the State, many times ignored, such as the family, the guild, the feudal lord, and so forth. This meant that the state had to share its authority with other equally legitimate human institutions. No human institution may exercise ultimate authority, contrary to now, which the State is the ultimate authority. But nowadays there is no unbiased dialogue about the Church, just like about race. Most references about Christianity are simply propaganda and biased, and academia, entertainment, the media, view Christianity as a tyranny standing in the way of the equality and multiculturalism promoted by the State and other bastions of humanity. In doing so, intellectuals in academia, mostly of the Leftist-Statist persuasion have created an intellectual Berlin Wall. Whether the Church is being denounced as homophobic or misogynistic or simply perverted or hindering civilization, the suggested solution is always the same, subject the Church to more control by the more "enlightened" authorities of the state.

Do you even pay attention to what I type? When did I ever say I support taxation, or eminent domain, or warfare? These are not necessary aspects of a state. Even if every state that has ever existed has committed these crimes, it doesn't mean they have to. Think outside the box a little.

They don't have to committ murder, they don't have to steal, they don't have to expand, but they all too often do. All States are coercive, and employ violence and aggression. Now if you maintain the argument supporting the existence of the State, you are in essence justifying aggression, violence and coercion.

Surely you can see that if you define warfare as fighting between states, then the abolition of states will by definition rid us of warfare. That doesn't mean large-scale killing will be gone, or even lessened.

This is a pointless statement since I never denied violence will not exist, but only lessen it, since violence has led man close to extinction thanks to State systems. You seem to prefer State condoned violenced, as opposed to individuals.

I think you're being a little close-minded and more than a little pessimistic to assume that all states must eventually come to this. I don't think this is the case, provided that very little power is given to the state in the first place. Given that no state of the type that I advocate has ever existed, I don't see how you could possibly say that.

Fact: All States employ violence, aggression, and coercion. If you maintain this is wrong and bad when individuals do it, and criminalize them, you don't hold the State to the same standards, and by "you" I don't mean you, but I mean the masses in general think this way, in this contradiction. Now to say that States do not employ violence, aggression and coercion, is untrue, so we are either left with, do you believe violence, aggression, and coercion are justified on innocent people, or not? Obviously in matters of self defense I would justify violence, but never intentionally on innocent people. If you maintain otherwise, you support that.

People have fought with each other, as groups, since the days of hunters and gatherers. Tribal groups fought with each other. You can't argue that most fighting is necessarily a result of the state. Even if a lot of it is today, and I agree that it is, that is only because of flaws in our current state, not because of any inherent flaw in the concept of a state.

You are once again making erroneous statements, ignoring the bulk of my argument, much like the dusken. He upheld the fallacious logic that I am advocating some kind of utopian society where there is no violence or killing. That is untrue. It is to the degree we are speaking, and the degree matters in this case. As I've said before, take a look at feudal Europe and the Old West, to see the scale of violence employed there, versus that employed by the State.

Then stop bringing up example that have nothing to do with what I advocate. Not all states do these things. Large states with too much power do this. This is not the state that I advocate.

All States employ violence, aggression, and coercion. In order to somehow justify a State you must show that they do not necessarily employ violence, aggression, and coercion.

What the hell does this have to do with anything I've said? Have I ever given any indication that I am in favor of conscription? You are clearly showing your lack of knowledge of what your fellow poster is actually talking about.

First of all, don't cherry pick only the part of conscription. I gave a detailed run down of the change of warfare in relation to democracy and the State. I see you did not bother to dispute that, which leaves me wondering, why did you make a baseless claim that it was only technology that changed the nature of warfare? So from the French Revolution, until now, we have developed the welfare-warfare State. Something else has to account for all the mass armies, national armies, conscription, and total war, other than mere "technology" which was your original claim. I addressed that, and I see no disagreement, ergo political systems are responsible.

Not everyone could do it. That is exactly my point. It isn't difficult from a technical standpoint, but the money it would take makes it impossible for all but a handful of very powerful people to ever attain one. Besides, you seemingly have agreed with me that mutual deterrence, whether by individuals or by states, is the way to go here. In essence, this issue is the same regardless of whether or not states exist. The issue is with one state becoming too powerful. If the US had no standing army - only a minimal national guard and coast guard - and no powers of taxation, it would never have had the A-bomb.

It was the State that developed the A-Bomb in the first place. It was the State that used it and still threatens to use it. Yet, it is individuals you fear. Much like up above when you stated the "State" is there to curtail power of individuals, because even though the State has caused genocides and killed 200 million in the 20th century, it is those dangerous individuals you fear. In fact, the propaganda is so thorough one cannot dispute this sort of logic with reason. In fact, reason would tell you that war is wrong, and the only one to employ war, in the full sense of the word, and how we know it, is the State.

For exactly this purpose - to show that the situation is not dependent on the existence of states.

Oh but it is dependent on them. States and individuals are not the same. An individual will question. A State is an amalgamation of individuals forged into a collective whole, that cannot question. The difference is 200 million people. See above on who or what created and used nukes.

This is where you are wrong. The death toll would have been less had those states in question not existed. Almost all of the murders you cite from the 20th century were committed at the hands of several large, powerful nations. There is no reason to blame all states. You are just scapegoating and oversimplifying the situation.

The point is those Stated did exist, and if it were not those said States, then it would be other States. Even then, nothing changes the facts, nor does it make any State's existence justified, since they are a monopoly of power, namely, violence and coercion.

[Gadelius]

Anarchy destroys freedom because it distorts reality. The motivation of work, the stuff out of which bread and circuses are fashioned, the substance of basic life: ARE being destroyed by it – not only in their physical being, but in their spiritual bases.

It is true that authority can corrupt, but so also can anarchy. It is true that power can corrupt, but so also can powerlessness.

Perhaps the most conspicuous error, however, is the folly of conferring power where it is certain to be misused and of weakening in the interest of any political theory, or speculation, those pillars of social order on which all true liberty and all real progress ultimately depend.

Then everything includes itself in power,
Power into will, will into appetite;
And appetite, an universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power,
Must make perforce an universal prey,
And last eat up himself

[ Shakepeare ].

[Anonymouse]

Anarchy destroys freedom because it distorts reality. The motivation of work, the stuff out of which bread and circuses are fashioned, the substance of basic life: ARE being destroyed by it – not only in their physical being, but in their spiritual bases.

It is true that authority can corrupt, but so also can anarchy. It is true that power can corrupt, but so also can powerlessness.

Perhaps the most conspicuous error, however, is the folly of conferring power where it is certain to be misused and of weakening in the interest of any political theory, or speculation, those pillars of social order on which all true liberty and all real progress ultimately depend.

Then everything includes itself in power,
Power into will, will into appetite;
And appetite, an universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power,
Must make perforce an universal prey,
And last eat up himself

[ Shakepeare ].

You have obviously not read the thread in its entirety and thereby have a distorted sense of what anarchy constitutes. I suggest you read the thread because I am curious how it "destroys freedom"? Furthermore, everyone including yourself seem to have misconception that what is advocated here is somehow "utopian", or "everyone running around looting and killing" like in Iraq, nevermind that the latter is precisely because of State induced violence.

As economics shows, it is precisely the present political systems, namely democracy, that is the biggest threat to what you just referred to as liberty, and what we mean by liberty is the private property rights of individuals, which is the basis of society itself. Thereby calling on regurgitated and warped political ideologies, that are all one and the same, except in their veneer, to protect liberty, is akin to believing that limited government works.

In any event, those who advocate anarchy do so from a normative or ethical position, and it is no wonder why utilitarians do not like and do not understand it.