The Decline of Violence

[doodle]

But doodle, you didn't do any of that. People thousands of years ago decided to do that and you've decided to approve of its current incarnation. Furthermore, the organization you approve of doing the protection does far far more than that… it committed genocide against the people who lived on land you live on right now, and then gave that land someone who sold it to you. It kidnapped and enslaved Africans, then stood idly by while many of its own officers murdered them after they were supposedly freed, then it distributed drugs to their communities and then cracked down on the "drug epidemic". If our government was just a "night watchman state", your argument would hold a lot more water, but instead it's an oppressive, genocidal bully that happens to protect you because you were fortunate enough to be (I'm assuming) born white, male, and at least middle class during the late 20th century. The government might appear a bit more malevolent to you if you were a Native American, or black, or a French or Spanish resident of the Americas. Or a Jew in 1940s Poland… or Pol Pot's Cambodia… or Mao's China… or…

No, the government didn't do that...people did that....andthey have been doing that since the beginning of time. In fact, they used to do it a lot more than they do now if you believe in scientific evidence. Government is initially responsible for dropping the death rate from 25% to under 1%.  Yeah, I have to live under certain rules but I don't feel like I'm being oppressed. In fact I rather enjoy the stability. And when my neighbor comes home drunk and starts raising hell, I just call a number and don't have to go out there at 3 in the morning and start fighting.

[Pointedstick]

Yeah, I have to live under certain rules but I don't feel like I'm being oppressed. In fact I rather enjoy the stability. And when my neighbor comes home drunk and starts raising hell, I just call a number and don't have to go out there at 3 in the morning and start fighting.

Thanks for confirming what I said a few posts ago.

Out of curiosity, have you ever tried to do something highly regulated by your government, or had a highly-regulated hobby? Like own a gun, build a house, run a business, stuff like that. I can understand how you wouldn't feel oppressed if you weren't doing any of the things that make government want to oppress you. But please understand that many of us who have had these experiences do very much feel oppressed, and it's not just in our heads: it's because a bunch of the things we do are subject to hundreds of criminal laws, require endless licensing, permitting, and inspecting, and all kinds of burdens that it is generally up to us to meet or else we will be fined heavily or thrown in jail. But you'd never notice if you didn't participate in those activities, know anyone who did, or learn about it and feel empathy for the people who put up with it.

Also, what's with this drunk neighbor? Maybe you just need better neighbors. I could see how you could have a dim view of humanity if you're surrounded by barbarians.

[Mountaineer]

Tangentially related to this discussion.  Thought some of you might appreciate how a Pastor views some things that we get into on this forum.  Of course, his presuppositions are likely different than many on this forum, but he does make some interesting points to think about if you can open your mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFFPPmOf ... ploademail

[RuralEngineer]

No, the government didn't do that...people did that....andthey have been doing that since the beginning of time. In fact, they used to do it a lot more than they do now if you believe in scientific evidence. Government is initially responsible for dropping the death rate from 25% to under 1%.  Yeah, I have to live under certain rules but I don't feel like I'm being oppressed. In fact I rather enjoy the stability. And when my neighbor comes home drunk and starts raising hell, I just call a number and don't have to go out there at 3 in the morning and start fighting.

Bleh...Government IS people.  In many cases it's also a filtered and condensed collection of many of the very worst qualities present in humanity.  The Statists are always so quick to blame any atrocity committed by a government on "people" or a collection of individuals, but praise any positive gain as a product of the system..."Government."

[moda0306]

No, the government didn't do that...people did that....andthey have been doing that since the beginning of time. In fact, they used to do it a lot more than they do now if you believe in scientific evidence. Government is initially responsible for dropping the death rate from 25% to under 1%.  Yeah, I have to live under certain rules but I don't feel like I'm being oppressed. In fact I rather enjoy the stability. And when my neighbor comes home drunk and starts raising hell, I just call a number and don't have to go out there at 3 in the morning and start fighting.

Bleh...Government IS people.  In many cases it's also a filtered and condensed collection of many of the very worst qualities present in humanity.  The Statists are always so quick to blame any atrocity committed by a government on "people" or a collection of individuals, but praise any positive gain as a product of the system..."Government."

Just as "anti-statists" are so quick to blame any problem on government, and any accomplishment on the "private sector."

But we all know the term "statist" is bs from anyone's mouth but a pure anarchist, so we can pay that dog to bed.

we have had this discussion before and i don't think "we all know" any such thing, calling any definition of statist other than your black and white all or nothing version BS, unless used by an anarchist, just steals any usefulness from the meaning of the word and only serves to protect the pro state believers from understanding what it is they believe...

To me, what matters less than our ultimate goals is the direction we want to go in. I would call someone a "statist" who generally approaches problems by asking what the government can, should, or ought to do about it. Doesn't matter to me if they would stop short of total centralized control of everything. If the default attitude is, "what's the state's role?", then that seems like a statist attitude to me.

Conversely, one doesn't have to believe in total anarchy to favor less state action. One who approaches problems by asking what individuals can do, and generally favors a rollback of existing state action isn't in my mind a statist for failing to endorse total anarchy any more than a statist is a libertarian for failing to endorse total government control of everything. It's so much more about what direction you want to go in than what your end goal is, because most likely none of us will ever live to see our desired societal end goals realized.

At least, that's the way I see it.

my definition of statists VS non statists is probably not the dictionary approved version, i have heard some here define anyone who believes there should be any level of state at all, as "statist", and only anarchists as being true non statists, but i don't know if that is a terribly useful definition of the label.
the way i view it is if your answer to all, or most problems is more state and more government then you are a statist if your answer to all or most problems is less government/better quality government and more individual liberty and systems that foster it and the type of individuals that can handle it, you are "not a statist"

[moda0306]

Simon,

You can use that definition, but it's simply not correct... And is now being used as a pejorative towards "people who disagree with me on how to use the tool of government."

Some people could claim that a social safety net is a "system that fosters liberty," because it ensures some level of financial security for everyone atop which we can feel free to take risks.  We also have people who pound their chest about how our massive military "protects our freedoms."  So your definition is not only incorrect, but it is equally not useful, especially in a diverse crowd where we may disagree as to which systems "foster liberty," and which don't.

i can understand the visceral reaction if you take it a a pejorative (or if it is actually used that way) but it doesn't change the fact that if statist means "anybody who believes in any state solutions at all under any circumstances" then the word loses all meaning and tells you nothing.. if statist means someone who supports

the concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

or

the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

it means more (dictionary definitions)
notice the way these definitions are worded, which seems to me to imply that there are in fact degrees of statism and that a definition that separates those who support centralized control more often than non government solutions are statests, and those who, while they may support some government tend to support non government solutions more often are not....

[Kshartle]

Some people could claim that a social safety net is a "system that fosters liberty," because it ensures some level of financial security for everyone atop which we can feel free to take risks.

Since the social safety hammock can only be created by violating people's rights, if anyone claims it fosters liberty they have it backasswards. It stomps on liberty.

I will support your statist comment Moda. Sometimes even libertarians sound like NAZIs to me.

I am an extremist when it comes to principles of liberty.

[Kshartle]

Is that fair?

I'll tighten it up a little. This is over-simplified and leaving out some critical stuff. I'm taking a work-break for a little bit.
[/quote]

I didn't forget about this. There are a lot of moving parts I need to mention before summarizing.

[Libertarian666]

."

Some people could claim that a social safety net is a "system that fosters liberty," because it ensures some level of financial security for everyone atop which we can feel free to take risks.  We also have people who pound their chest about how our massive military "protects our freedoms."  So your definition is not only incorrect, but it is equally not useful, especially in a diverse crowd where we may disagree as to which systems "foster liberty," and which don't.

  supporting statisim as a solution to problem"A" but wanting the state out of your life to solve problem "B,C,and D " wouldn't make you a statist, yes you would be a statist in regards to your position on issue "A" but the term statist does not describe accurately your overall beliefs, somebody who believed the reverse and wanted centralized  government solutions to many or most problems (B.C.D and more) could accurately be described as a statist since their choice of a solution to problems are predominantly statism...

You're either for or against the legitimacy of an organized monopoly of violence; there is no middle ground.

so there is no legitimate government role ..at all... we have more anarchists around here than i would expect.

i don't know maybe my grasp of semantics is off on this one, but if everybody except a exceptionally small percentage of the population made up of true anarchists (except on this forum where they are more than well represented ) is a statist then to me the word means nothing, a minarchist = statist, a libritarian = statist, basically everybody= statist... how about if issue "A" is the defense of property and liberty.... statist....

[moda0306]

."

Some people could claim that a social safety net is a "system that fosters liberty," because it ensures some level of financial security for everyone atop which we can feel free to take risks.  We also have people who pound their chest about how our massive military "protects our freedoms."  So your definition is not only incorrect, but it is equally not useful, especially in a diverse crowd where we may disagree as to which systems "foster liberty," and which don't.

  supporting statisim as a solution to problem"A" but wanting the state out of your life to solve problem "B,C,and D " wouldn't make you a statist, yes you would be a statist in regards to your position on issue "A" but the term statist does not describe accurately your overall beliefs, somebody who believed the reverse and wanted centralized  government solutions to many or most problems (B.C.D and more) could accurately be described as a statist since their choice of a solution to problems are predominantly statism...

You're either for or against the legitimacy of an organized monopoly of violence; there is no middle ground.

What odd bedfellows we make...

[Kshartle]

  supporting statisim as a solution to problem"A" but wanting the state out of your life to solve problem "B,C,and D " wouldn't make you a statist, yes you would be a statist in regards to your position on issue "A" but the term statist does not describe accurately your overall beliefs, somebody who believed the reverse and wanted centralized  government solutions to many or most problems (B.C.D and more) could accurately be described as a statist since their choice of a solution to problems are predominantly statism...

You're either for or against the legitimacy of an organized monopoly of violence; there is no middle ground.

so there is no legitimate government role ..at all... we have more anarchists around here than i would expect.

i don't know maybe my grasp of semantics is off on this one, but if everybody except a exceptionally small percentage of the population  made up of true anarchists (except on this forum where they are more than well represented ) is a statist then to me the word means nothing, a minarchist = statist, a libritarian = statist, basically everybody= statist...    how about if  issue "A" is the defense of property and liberty.... statist.... 

Well I would not call a minarchist or libertarian a statist...I'd just call them anarchists waiting to emerge like a beautiful butterfly from their cocoon of still envisioning violence as a possible first solution for a few problems. At least they are no longer statist larvae.

[moda0306]

You're either for or against the legitimacy of an organized monopoly of violence; there is no middle ground.

so there is no legitimate government role ..at all... we have more anarchists around here than i would expect.

i don't know maybe my grasp of semantics is off on this one, but if everybody except a exceptionally small percentage of the population  made up of true anarchists (except on this forum where they are more than well represented ) is a statist then to me the word means nothing, a minarchist = statist, a libritarian = statist, basically everybody= statist...    how about if  issue "A" is the defense of property and liberty.... statist.... 

Well I would not call a minarchist or libertarian a statist...I'd just call them anarchists waiting to emerge like a beautiful butterfly from their cocoon of still envisioning violence as a possible first solution for a few problems. At least they are no longer statist larvae.

Funny, that's how I view the obsession with "property rights" within the anarcho-capitalist wing of statism .  A government of one claiming something is theirs that isn't is still kind of like statism.  Just "state of 1."

There are anarchists out there that believe property rights are just another form of command and control put upon some from others.  What would you call them?

[Kshartle]

if everybody except a exceptionally small percentage of the population  made up of true anarchists (except on this forum where they are more than well represented )

I would say it's likely that the intelligence of the average member here is higher than the gen pop.

[Kshartle]

A government of one claiming something is theirs that isn't is still kind of like statism.  Just "state of 1."

There are anarchists out there that believe property rights are just another form of command and control put upon some from others.  What would you call them?

#1. There is no such thing as a government of 1. That's called an individual. They rule no one but themselves.

#2. I would call them fools and they certainly aren't anarchists. They want to enforce a rule that people can't own property. Anarchy = no rulers. You need a ruler to enforce this rule and in fact it's impossible for no one to own anything because the one enforcing is the defacto owner since this person or group is in control and responsible.

[moda0306]

A government of one claiming something is theirs that isn't is still kind of like statism.  Just "state of 1."

There are anarchists out there that believe property rights are just another form of command and control put upon some from others.  What would you call them?

#1. There is no such thing as a government of 1. That's called an individual. They rule no one but themselves.

#2. I would call them fools and they certainly aren't anarchists. They want to enforce a rule that people can't own property. Anarchy = no rulers. You need a ruler to enforce this rule and in fact it's impossible for no one to own anything because the one enforcing is the defacto owner since this person or group is in control and responsible.

What if they're enforcing their "rule of no property" as an individual?  Sinc you can't have a government of 1, aren't they still anarchists?

Further, aren't we enforcing something either way, either with an organized group (government) or an individual (not-government)?  Either way, we're in a position where some concept must be "enforced."  What if my idea of what constitutes a valid extension of my individual sovereignty to the world around me (in other words, "property") is different than yours?  What if I have a tree house built on land that I've hunted on for decades and my fathers hunted on it as well... can you just come and claim it as your own because I hadn't built a fence around it?  What if I disagree with that?

I feel like I've asked these before, so pardon me if you've answered them and I've forgotten, but it seems to me we haven't settled that pesky issue of opposing claims on resources that existed before either of us were born.

If I'm wrong about my claim, then I'm "enforcing" that claim against others, and therefore I am not only creating a rule, but a morally invalid one.

[Kshartle]

What if they're enforcing their "rule of no property" as an individual?  Sinc you can't have a government of 1, aren't they still anarchists?

What if my idea of what constitutes a valid extension of my individual sovereignty to the world around me (in other words, "property") is different than yours?  What if I have a tree house built on land that I've hunted on for decades and my fathers hunted on it as well... can you just come and claim it as your own because I hadn't built a fence around it?  What if I disagree with that?

I feel like I've asked these before, so pardon me if you've answered them and I've forgotten, but it seems to me we haven't settled that pesky issue of opposing claims on resources that existed before either of us were born.

If I'm wrong about my claim, then I'm "enforcing" that claim against others, and therefore I am not only creating a rule, but a morally invalid one.

How does someone "enforce" a rule on themselves? You can't "enforce" anything on yourself. Anything you choose you do is a choice and choices aren't "enforced". Choices are what anarchy is all about. Everyone gets to choose whatever they do as long as they don't violate the rights of others to choose or steal their property.

It doesn't matter what your idea of a valid extension of your individual soverignty is.....it only matters what your actions are. If you try to hurt someone who hasn't aggressed against anyone or steal their property.....well that's a violation of their rights and you might pull it off, you might not. My argument is that people (us on this forum) should not choose this and not support this activity.

As for the treehouse.....is it your property or not? Again it doesn't matter if you disagree it only matters what you do. Maybe you can work out hunting rights with the owner, maybe he'll compensate you for the treehouse, maybe not. Who's property is it? Did he buy it from the owner and you've just been using it? You shouldn't assume that the deal you had worked out with the previous owner is still valid.

[Libertarian666]

  supporting statisim as a solution to problem"A" but wanting the state out of your life to solve problem "B,C,and D " wouldn't make you a statist, yes you would be a statist in regards to your position on issue "A" but the term statist does not describe accurately your overall beliefs, somebody who believed the reverse and wanted centralized  government solutions to many or most problems (B.C.D and more) could accurately be described as a statist since their choice of a solution to problems are predominantly statism...

You're either for or against the legitimacy of an organized monopoly of violence; there is no middle ground.

so there is no legitimate government role ..at all... we have more anarchists around here than i would expect.

i don't know maybe my grasp of semantics is off on this one, but if everybody except a exceptionally small percentage of the population  made up of true anarchists (except on this forum where they are more than well represented ) is a statist then to me the word means nothing, a minarchist = statist, a libritarian = statist, basically everybody= statist...    how about if  issue "A" is the defense of property and liberty.... statist.... 

A statist is someone who believes in the existence of a (or the) state, just as a theist is one who believes in a (or the) god. Of course, anarchists know that there are people who claim to be agents of a state, but disagree that those people are in fact the agents of anyone. Lysander Spooner clarified this issue very well.

you sure about that? the dictionary definition is, somebody who supports statism "the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty" according to the statists and the anarchists here, apparently that means basically everybody (except the anarchists)...
i don't know where that puts those who believe we need some limited government to protect peoples property and liberty, personally i wouldn't use the above definition of statisim or any definition of "statists as supporters of statisim" to describe those people...

like i said i may be off on the semantics but if somebody says... "x y z is what the statists want", i don't take it to mean that is what everybody (except anarchists) want, i take it to mean that is what the people who predominantly want more government or big government as the solution to problems want..

[moda0306]

What if they're enforcing their "rule of no property" as an individual?  Sinc you can't have a government of 1, aren't they still anarchists?

What if my idea of what constitutes a valid extension of my individual sovereignty to the world around me (in other words, "property") is different than yours?  What if I have a tree house built on land that I've hunted on for decades and my fathers hunted on it as well... can you just come and claim it as your own because I hadn't built a fence around it?  What if I disagree with that?

I feel like I've asked these before, so pardon me if you've answered them and I've forgotten, but it seems to me we haven't settled that pesky issue of opposing claims on resources that existed before either of us were born.

If I'm wrong about my claim, then I'm "enforcing" that claim against others, and therefore I am not only creating a rule, but a morally invalid one.

How does someone "enforce" a rule on themselves?

You're not.  You're enforcing it against others.  Others who may try to make the same claim you are making on resources.

It doesn't matter what your idea of a valid extension of your individual soverignty is.....it only matters what your actions are. If you try to hurt someone who hasn't aggressed against anyone or steal their property.....well that's a violation of their rights and you might pull it off, you might not. My argument is that people (us on this forum) should not choose this and not support this activity.

Your comment presupposes we know who has valid ownership of the property.  My whole point is that when said ownership isn't 100% clear, and violence arises, that my claim is being "enforced" by my defending said property as my own.

As for the treehouse.....is it your property or not? Again it doesn't matter if you disagree it only matters what you do. Maybe you can work out hunting rights with the owner, maybe he'll compensate you for the treehouse, maybe not. Who's property is it? Did he buy it from the owner and you've just been using it? You shouldn't assume that the deal you had worked out with the previous owner is still valid.

He didn't buy it from anyone.  He built a tree-house on the land and has hunted on it for decades and his family before that for generations.  My question to you is "Is this a valid claim on property?  Does he own the tree house he built?  Does he own the land he hunts on?"

If it is a valid claim on property, he has a right to ask others to leave who wander onto it, correct?  This is "enforcement."  I, as a free person, may feel quite free to roam where I choose.  If this conflicts with his idea of property, what then?  His will is being enforced against mine.  Perhaps legitimately... perhaps not... who's to say?  Is it that clear?

If it is NOT a valid claim, why isn't it?

If because he hasn't built signs and fences indicating "this is mine," does that mean someone else can come along, build those signs/fences, and kick the guy out of his tree house because he's now on "someone else's property?"

Can you see where there'd be dispute as to where property starts and ends, and what claims new-comers might be able to make by occupying the land and/or building structures on it?

[Kshartle]

What if they're enforcing their "rule of no property" as an individual?  Sinc you can't have a government of 1, aren't they still anarchists?

What if my idea of what constitutes a valid extension of my individual sovereignty to the world around me (in other words, "property") is different than yours?  What if I have a tree house built on land that I've hunted on for decades and my fathers hunted on it as well... can you just come and claim it as your own because I hadn't built a fence around it?  What if I disagree with that?

I feel like I've asked these before, so pardon me if you've answered them and I've forgotten, but it seems to me we haven't settled that pesky issue of opposing claims on resources that existed before either of us were born.

If I'm wrong about my claim, then I'm "enforcing" that claim against others, and therefore I am not only creating a rule, but a morally invalid one.

How does someone "enforce" a rule on themselves?

You're not.  You're enforcing it against others.  Others who may try to make the same claim you are making on resources. I don't understand the question then. Are you asking what happens when two people claim the same property? I thought you said what if someone enforces the rule of no property on themselves. If they go around trying to prevent other people from owning stuff well that's called theft.

It doesn't matter what your idea of a valid extension of your individual soverignty is.....it only matters what your actions are. If you try to hurt someone who hasn't aggressed against anyone or steal their property.....well that's a violation of their rights and you might pull it off, you might not. My argument is that people (us on this forum) should not choose this and not support this activity.

Your comment presupposes we know who has valid ownership of the property.  My whole point is that when said ownership isn't 100% clear, and violence arises, that my claim is being "enforced" by my defending said property as my own. How is it unclear? Who has owned it all this time? What property on Earth is not claimed by either an individual or a government? Antarctica? I don't understand the situation and I'm not trying to missunderstand deliberately.

As for the treehouse.....is it your property or not? Again it doesn't matter if you disagree it only matters what you do. Maybe you can work out hunting rights with the owner, maybe he'll compensate you for the treehouse, maybe not. Who's property is it? Did he buy it from the owner and you've just been using it? You shouldn't assume that the deal you had worked out with the previous owner is still valid.

He didn't buy it from anyone.  He built a tree-house on the land and has hunted on it for decades and his family before that for generations.  My question to you is "Is this a valid claim on property?  Does he own the tree house he built? Does he own the land he hunts on?"  He would own the treehouse if he built it upon his property. If he built it one someone else's property then that's kind of foolish. Did he think the rightful owner would never find out or sell the property to someone who would check? That is foolish and I would argue it's theft since the land doesn't belongs to someone else. Are you saying this land was unowned by anyone? Please show me the huntable land that is unowned by anyone. Again if you're talking about Anarctica and these two parties are willing to come to blows over an area without coming to an agreement....well ok

If it is a valid claim on property, he has a right to ask others to leave who wander onto it, correct?  This is "enforcement."  I, as a free person, may feel quite free to roam where I choose.  If this conflicts with his idea of property, what then?  His will is being enforced against mine.  Perhaps legitimately... perhaps not... who's to say?  Is it that clear?

If it is NOT a valid claim, why isn't it?

If because he hasn't built signs and fences indicating "this is mine," does that mean someone else can come along, build those signs/fences, and kick the guy out of his tree house because he's now on "someone else's property?"

On the last three....I can't really answer because I don't understand

Can you see where there'd be dispute as to where property starts and ends, and what claims new-comers might be able to make by occupying the land and/or building structures on it? No because I don't know anything about it. So far we know that you and your dad have hunted this area and built a treehouse and someone else has shown up and said they own the area. This is not enough to understand the situation. If they bought it from someone....why did they not check it out first and see you had a treehouse on it and talk with you about leaving?

[Kshartle]

You're either for or against the legitimacy of an organized monopoly of violence; there is no middle ground.

so there is no legitimate government role ..at all... we have more anarchists around here than i would expect.

i don't know maybe my grasp of semantics is off on this one, but if everybody except a exceptionally small percentage of the population  made up of true anarchists (except on this forum where they are more than well represented ) is a statist then to me the word means nothing, a minarchist = statist, a libritarian = statist, basically everybody= statist...    how about if  issue "A" is the defense of property and liberty.... statist.... 

A statist is someone who believes in the existence of a (or the) state, just as a theist is one who believes in a (or the) god. Of course, anarchists know that there are people who claim to be agents of a state, but disagree that those people are in fact the agents of anyone. Lysander Spooner clarified this issue very well.

That's a very good point Tech. I'm pretty satisfied with that description although I don't think it's useful to use in discussion because that definition has almost no acceptance....even among a lot of anarchists.

I've argued that the state is like a dragon or unicorn and doesn't exist, because it really doesn't. It's like claiming a forest exists because you see a bunch of trees. The forest doesn't really exist, only the trees exist, it's just easy and conveinent to call it a forest.

The government doesn't really exist, people who initiate the use of force exist and a majority of the population provides moral support for that use (democracy). Government is a just a word used for expediency.

[Mountaineer]

I've argued that the state is like a dragon or unicorn and doesn't exist, because it really doesn't. It's like claiming a forest exists because you see a bunch of trees. The forest doesn't really exist, only the trees exist, it's just easy and conveinent to call it a forest.

The government doesn't really exist, people who initiate the use of force exist and a majority of the population provides moral support for that use (democracy). Government is a just a word used for expediency.

I'm trying to get my head around this.  Would you also say that a family does not exist, only the mother, father, brothers and sisters, etc.?  It seems to me that although technically, for example a forest is only a grouping of trees, if the purpose of language and words is to communicate, then the words forrest, family, government etc. are helpful, just as the word love is well understood even if it is an abstract concept that is hard to physically see.  However, I feel I'm missing something here, help me understand.

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

You're either for or against the legitimacy of an organized monopoly of violence; there is no middle ground.

so there is no legitimate government role ..at all... we have more anarchists around here than i would expect.

i don't know maybe my grasp of semantics is off on this one, but if everybody except a exceptionally small percentage of the population  made up of true anarchists (except on this forum where they are more than well represented ) is a statist then to me the word means nothing, a minarchist = statist, a libritarian = statist, basically everybody= statist...    how about if  issue "A" is the defense of property and liberty.... statist.... 

A statist is someone who believes in the existence of a (or the) state, just as a theist is one who believes in a (or the) god. Of course, anarchists know that there are people who claim to be agents of a state, but disagree that those people are in fact the agents of anyone. Lysander Spooner clarified this issue very well.

Of course this means something like 99% of the worlds population are statists and even most anarchists are confused about the topic.

Whevener I hear people argue about religion or claim to be highly intelligent athiests I have to smile because i know they believe in a much bigger fantasy.

I'm an athiest but I can't say with 100% certainty that there is no God. I can say with certainty that the initiation of force is a violation of human rights so in that regard, a statist (common definition) to me is less rational than a theist.

[Kshartle]

I've argued that the state is like a dragon or unicorn and doesn't exist, because it really doesn't. It's like claiming a forest exists because you see a bunch of trees. The forest doesn't really exist, only the trees exist, it's just easy and conveinent to call it a forest.

The government doesn't really exist, people who initiate the use of force exist and a majority of the population provides moral support for that use (democracy). Government is a just a word used for expediency.

I'm trying to get my head around this.  Would you also say that a family does not exist, only the mother, father, brothers and sisters, etc.?  It seems to me that although technically, for example a forest is only a grouping of trees, if the purpose of language and words is to communicate, then the words forrest, family, government etc. are helpful, just as the word love is well understood even if it is an abstract concept that is hard to physically see.  However, I feel I'm missing something here, help me understand.

... Mountaineer

Those are helpful words....but they can lead to confusion when the implications aren't fully understood. People are "against" government. This is always failure because they aren't against what really exists....the initiation of force. You can't stop the government just like you can't arrest "wall street".

If a forest exists can you tell me how many trees it takes? if you ask 100 people you might get 100 different answers. That's because it definately does not exist....except as an idea. It's not tangible just like a government isn't tangible. Mathmatics aren't tangible either but they do exist as an idea exists. The initiation of force though....this exists in a very real sense. That's what people who oppose government or government solutions should direct themselves against. It becomes very clear then. Then the moral argument is strong.

Incindently, I think we could argue about the meaning of the word family and whether or not we are all just one big family, but there's no question that relationships like father, mother, brother, sister are very real. They really exist because those words just describe the origin of certain people's relationship to each other.

[Xan]

Kshartle, is it truly inconceivable to you that there are different definitions of property, and different ideas of what is and isn't ownable, and how to go about owning something?  And that therefore, two people can both have "legitimate" claims to the same property, whatever kind of property it may be?  Given that, do you believe that your fairy tale could ever possibly come true?

I've often heard leftists accused of immanentizing the eschaton, but never to the level that you're arguing for.  You're advocating a more extreme Utopianism than any Marxist I've ever heard.  You've created a consistent system in your own head and are baffled, BAFFLED why it doesn't work for absolutely everyone everywhere, and that anyone could disagree about it being the best thing ever ever.

I would have thought I was on your side as opposed to Moda in this debate.  But every time you type something, you make me want to associate with your side less and less.  It's like you're being deliberately dense or something.

Moda's point is like Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, which proved that something as logical and obvious as mathematics could never be consistent and complete at the same time.  In the same way, the only way to reduce force in the world is to use force.  Yes, it's a paradox, but the world is messy.  It just is.

...Now you're denying the existence of forests.  Do you not see how your desperation to "prove" your theory is leading you to ridiculous positions?  I mean, RIDICULOUS.  It's okay to admit you don't have all the answers all the time, it really is.

[moda0306]

I think a forest exists as an ecological entity.  There may be some debates as to the line that's drawn, but ecological systems are extremely important to recognize as systems more than the sum of their parts. As to our debate on property, I'll have to comment later tonight.