We Do Not Need a State

www.lewrockwell.com...

Professor Long stresses that the state is just a bunch of people, not supermen. Its power is an illusion, coercing us only because we consent to be ruled. But education about the State, and alternative networks, empower an ever-greater number to withdraw their consent from the power-hungry, tax-eating, violent apparatus whose abuses result in many evils, including piles of dead bodies.

Anarchy, the absence of a ruler, is impossible, say its opponents. In fact, it is becoming ever more possible, and ever more necessary.

Follow the link to either listen through the browser or download a podcast of the interview.

I fully agree with Long and Rockwell's position - I have no need to be ruled by a bunch of thieving tyrants.

The State produces nothing and has no goods of its own. Before it can spend, first it must take from the producers of the country. It must use violence against the innocent to fund its evil programs.

The State can not wage war against another nation without first waging war against its own people.

The State must use violence against its citizens in order to force them into building bombs and bullets.

The State must use violence against its citizens in order to fund the mercenaries it sends to fight in foreign wars of aggression.

The State constantly uses violence against its own citizens to prevent them from controlling their own property and even their own bodies.

The State has sent more people to an early death than all other unnatural causes in human history.

Professor Long and Lew Rockwell aren't the only ones who see the evil of the State.

Philosopher Stefan Molyneux interviews Doug Casey:


Doug Casey is a highly respected author, publisher and professional investor who graduated from Georgetown University in 1968.

Doug literally wrote the book on profiting from periods of economic turmoil: his book Crisis Investing spent multiple weeks as #1 on the New York Times bestseller list and became the best-selling financial book of 1980 with 438,640 copies sold; surpassing big-caliber names, like Free to Choose by Milton Friedman, The Real War by Richard Nixon, and Cosmos by Carl Sagan.

S/F

The great American experiment has ended in failure. It was attacked by statists from its inception and it is apparent that they have succeeded.

One can wrap themselves in the flag if they like but I see the state as a taker of rights rather than a protector of rights. Our current governments (both State and Federal) trample their respective Constitutions with impunity.

I hear Somalia is nice this time of year and has no real government. Might try going there. See how it goes for ya.

You can make an anarchic utopia! Show us all how it's done!

As the conservatives say, America, love it or leave it.

Originally posted by whatukno
I hear Somalia is nice this time of year and has no real government. Might try going there. See how it goes for ya.

You can make an anarchic utopia! Show us all how it's done!

As the conservatives say, America, love it or leave it.

Wrong.

Somalia is a Federalist State. They are not anarchists. Nice try. No country has ever had true anarchy or true communism(without a state). You phail again.

Who's payrole are you on?

Let me guess? You love statism and hate public rule? Does that scare you?

So Big Corporate can manage your live better than you can? Is that what you are trying to say?

Lots of laughs at you defending this broken corrupt system like it owes you something.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Just tryin' to help y'all out, I mean if you hate the United States so much, and it's such a horrible place, then leave, go, go somewhere else.

Why whine and moan about it?

Go find a failed state somewhere, and make a anarchic utopia and show the world how it's done.

I'm just sick of people going on the internet and whining about stuff instead of doing stuff. Be it armchair revolutionaries who just sit on the net all day trying to get others to start shooting their fellow countrymen, or anarchists who to be honest act like spoiled brats and don't want to follow anyones rules.

Seriously? This is what an anarchist sounds like to me "Waaahh! You're not the boss of me! I don't wanna!"

Again, if the US is so bad, and you hate this country so much, move, leave, no one is stopping you.

Originally posted by bozzchem
S/F

The great American experiment has ended in failure. It was attacked by statists from its inception and it is apparent that they have succeeded.

But... that was the idea of this nation.... A group of states that run the country.... Not a country that runs the states....

no one said they hated the united states the country they are talking about the state the government , politics its pretty [snip] obvious man
USA is a country of great PEOPLE mlk jfk true heroes , i miss figures like them unfortunately they were murdered by those who are destroying your country while you basically label the posters above traitors under your breath

reply to post by TheGhostViking


Oh I know, I know, they want us to all live by no laws except some mystical magical "Common Law" that they just expect people to follow via the honor system with absolutely zero consequences when they violate someone else's rights.

For some reason these people think that no one ever commits any violent crimes, no one is ever robbed, no one ever gets murdered, no one ever is raped, no ones cars are stolen.

And the attitude of these people is if the above happens is, "So what!"

Humanity civilized itself, and these people seem to have the attitude that chaos is better.

I think people are simply tired of seeing their money being taken by the state (government) and spent in ways that are mind numbingly insane. There is a kind of voter revolution rising but sadly it's too late. Even with what we are staring at now I read where Obama is announcing his plans for more stimulous spending in his address tuesday. Who's money being thrown away again? OURS. The dollar is teetering on collapse. Its as if they are trying to push it off the cliff and sadly I think they are.

reply to post by HoldTheBeans


Except the problem with that theory is, it's not OUR money, that money is actually the property of the Federal Reserve. Every single dollar you have is representative of a debt to the FED.

They are spending their own money, not ours.

You ever hear the story of the rich boy who's daddy bought him a zoo.
He hated the animals being caged so he had the zoo staff fired and set the animals free.
He was last seen being devoured by a very happy lion.

Just another case of extreme idealism that wasn't tempered by common sense.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by TheGhostViking

 

For some reason these people think that no one ever commits any violent crimes, no one is ever robbed, no one ever gets murdered, no one ever is raped, no ones cars are stolen.

Your right in a way...but the government is much better at doing this than the average gangbanger

I wonder who commits more thefts, rapes, murders, etc..............the government or the people it "protects" us from.

I am not against government......just against the ammount of power they have and complete lack of accountability

reply to post by whatukno


Try printing up your own money and see how far that gets ya.

reply to post by whatukno


If you think Somalia is a good representation of Anarchy, just wait until the federal government finishes off the dollar.

The Somalis are living in a state of squalor because they existed under decades of totalitarian rule.

Now that rule has come to an end and you expect them to instantly become a first world nation?

Your argument is so utterly preposterous it's not even worth refuting.

The GOVERNMENT is what created the chaotic conditions in Somalia, and it will be our own GOVERNMENT that destroys our currency and reduces our standard of living to exactly the same conditions the Somalis are facing now.


By the way, now that the criminal looting government is out of the way in Somalia, business are starting to return:
news.bbc.co.uk...

the relative calm of the last few years has encouraged Somalis living overseas to put more money back into the country.

Please explain how there can be calm without government brutality??

This should be impossible by your reckoning, no?

Telling people that any government exists soley due to violence is like telling a fish he breaths water. Of course the fish, upon being told he swims and breaths a fluid substance, would reply 'what water?' The same is true with the common mans perception of the state, He has been raised, since birth, in the bloody waters of violence. He lives and breaths aggression and has not just been taught that such aggression is natural and necessary, but he has not been taught that it exists at all and is thus stupified when one of us fish who can peek its head above the bloody mirk of statism tells him that he swims in blood. It is simply inconcievable to most that their lives are essentially ruled at the point of a gun, and since that concept is highly uncomforatble and shocking, they will reject the notion outright and continue swimming happily in the States viscous bloodbath. The dog doesnt have to see the invisible electric fence in order to know that crossing it would result in unbearable pain and suffering.

Slaves only remained so for most of human history because they felt it was the natural order of things. The slaves themselves checked eachother and felt it was their place to serve. Life without the master was inconcievable as they knew nothing else as it has been that way since before their grandfathers grandfather. Before abolition no one could concive of a world that did not base itself on human ownership, and thus slavery continued for thousands of years before a few brave souls peeked their heads above the swamp of blood and dared to postulate that there was indeed another way, and that human ownership was evil on its face. A hundred years later slavery (overt and institutional) was eradicated and universally regarded and evil and counterproductive.

The same is true with the State, or more appropriately called a Monopoly of Violence. Most cant even entertain the notion that perhaps the problems that we all see clearly today are a direct result in our failth in the use of overwhelming violece to solve all our social problems. Most dont even see the gun that is held to their heads that is the very foundation of our 'cvilized' modern world. And yet some of us, small in numbers now, peek our heads above the bloodbath that is statsim and dare propose that we dont need violence to grow and evolve. We even have the conviction to tell our fellow slaves that indeed in order to grow we must case off the bloodstained facade of inifinite violence in order to evolve, and even survive. Sadly, like all slave cultures of the past, we are told to sit down and shut up, lest we harm our fellow captives. But as the gun pointed at all of us becomes more visible, and the system itself chokes on its own sputum riddled plasm and dies a painful death, we are here pointing out, correctly, that the gun itself is what caused this horrible catastrophy, and not who holds it and who it was pointed at. Statelessness is the future of an enlightened humanity, and we will come to realize this sooner of later, or we will perish, clinging to our outmoded and immoral ways that should have been outgrown mellenia ago.

So of course we dont need a State. All the imperical evidence is in, and its conclusive: violence does not work and will only destroy those who weild it. Not only do we not need a State, but we need to *not* have a State...that is if we wish to attain our potential as a species...and survive.

reply to post by mnemeth1


All I know is, if you hate the US so much and hate everything this country stands for, then wouldn't leaving that country be your best option?

It's obvious you hate this country, why would you stay in a country you loathe so much?

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
The ones who desire control will never present you with anything other than extremes to choose from.

The ones accusing us of being extremists,are the extremists.

Anarchy would be feasible,if people would shed their capitalist conditioning.

True socialism has never been allowed to exist for long,because governments would have less control than they seek to have.

Escape your self made prison people.

Imagine.

reply to post by whatukno


If a gang of murderers ran your neighborhood (which they do) and they terrorized and aggressed against you daily, do you think it would be legit for mmenth to say 'if you dont like it, just leave!' Wouldnt that imply that the gang was justified in its aggressions against you? Practically it might be best to get the hell out of dodge, but no one would pretend that you were leaving for any other reason other than to escape the violence directed towards you. If you were to stay and make a stand against your tormentors, you would probably be regarded as a courageous hero, and certainly you wouldnt be condemed for your heroic stand even if it resulted in you losing you life.

Clearly, then, the moral high ground is granted to those who defend themselves vs aggression and the attackers therefor must be condemed as the thugs they are. No good person would say 'the gang owns the hood and therefor you have no moral right to stay put and defend yourself, because, after, all they are a very powerful gang.'

But the point is moot considering there isnt a place on Earth (currently) that you can run to escape aggression. And even if one were to live in the woods, one wouldnt be truly 'free' as one would still be running away from ones attackers, much like we wouldnt never say we are 'free' from a murdered if he was actively hunting as you spent your entire life in hiding.

reply to post by Neo_Serf

If a gang of murderers ran your neighborhood (which they do) and they terrorized and aggressed against you daily, do you think it would be legit for mmenth to say 'if you dont like it, just leave!'

I would already be leaving or planing on leaving, why put up with that.

Clearly, then, the moral high ground is granted to those who defend themselves vs aggression and the attackers therefor must be condemed as the thugs they are. No good person would say 'the gang owns the hood and therefor you have no moral right to stay put and defend yourself, because, after, all they are a very powerful gang.'

No, more like people who want to whine and bitch and moan about something they think they have no control of and want no control of.

The society that the OP wants would be FAR worse than what we have today. He has the misconception that no crimes are ever committed by people. For some reason he seems to be under the impression that if there were no laws whatsoever that life would be a utopia and everyone would be so happy.

No actual thought has gone into the anarchist view of the world.

Without laws, those gang members that you used as an example WOULD take over. Without laws, corporations would rape this country till there wasn't a single drop of clean water or clean air or living tree. Without a government you think that corporations would have our best interests in mind? We WOULD be slaves, either to a violent street gang or a corporation.

reply to post by whatukno


You clearly havent delved into the beautiful and enlightening philosophy of non aggression. Anarchism simply is the result of the application of non aggression universally and without exception. Much like modern biology arrises as the result of the application of the scientific method.

A society without a monopoly of violence would not have 'laws' persay but that certainly doesnt mean it wouldnt have 'rules'. Of course we would all agree that humans need rules in order to coexist and any system the proposed otherwise fails on its face. But this is simply not the case with Statelessness. In an enlightened Stateless society (that we will of course not see in our lifetimes) social norms and rules would not be enforced at the point of a gun, as we can see the faliure of using aggressive violence to solve problems. Rules would be enforced through voluntary agreement and punishment would be administered not by aggression but by the most potent weapon that social humans can weild - the *withdrawl of consent*. Simply put, in the absense of a monopoly of violence that we all depend on currently to sort things out with all of the disterous consequences that entails, people simply would not cooperate with the small minority of humans who would initate force.

If I buy a house in a neighborhood the very first thing i will require in my contract will be that the seller will not enter into contract with anyone who initiates force against others. Since this desire is pretty much universal, it would be safe to say that everyone else in said hood' would also require this same clause. If I buy water, I will require that my water company will not engage with anyone deemed to be a criminal. Same for food, transportation or anything else that I buy or otherwise agree to. The very first thing I, no, we would require is a non cooperation clause with anyone who has been found to be guilty of aggression. There would be numerous 3rd party Dispute Resolution Organizations who would act as an insurance company of sorts whos sole role would be to uphold these agreements, and any company not complying would quickly be run out of business as no one wants to do business with theives and murderers. (except other theives and murderers, who are a tiny minority and would be powerless without the muderous ship of the State to flock to) Any criminal who refused to submit to justice would quickly find himself unable to attain even basic sustenance. He would be a prisoner in his own home, his power cut off, with no way to buy food, as if a company did enter contract with this known criminal, they would instantly be labeled an accomplice and they too would have *ALL* of their recources cut off. The criminal could not even leave his own property, as the property that surrounds him is all private, and anyone giving him safe passage would also be branded and outlaw and would face the same crushing (and indeed deadly) isolation he himself is subject to. Society would literally shut off to anyone who initiated force against another, and this self reinforcing system of 'shunning' would indeed be the ultimate incentive to not 'go rogue'.

Now our criminal has two options - stay in his own house which has become his own prison, but worse, as he would quickly starve to death. Or he could (and would) voluntarily give himself up and given the chance to repay and redeem his debt to his fellow man.

This is just one way it could work, I claim no monopoly on answers like the State does. It might seem inconcievable to you, and even to me at times since we were both raised to believe in the absolute neccessity of the State. Just remember tho, only 200 years ago slavery was regarded in the exact same way, and yet here we are and we all agree that we are far better off without the barbaric (overt) slavery of the past. And we wonder how people who lived then could have possibly tolerated it.

It should also be said that in a truly free society, the fabulous wealth generated across all strata would deem criminality like theft completely unnecessary. Of course crime would exist, but since it is the State itself that perpetuates crime as it makes non crimes such a drug use criminal, throws millions of people in jails, wages murderous wars ect ect...upon the removal of the main culprit the remaining crime would be no more than a mild annoyance to a future enlightened society that has cast aside the real criminals - those who claim the right to prosecute unlimited violence against everyone at all times...the State. This is the real criminal we need to focus on eliminating.