The state is often erroneously conflated as being synonymous with "the people." Nothing could be further from the truth. The state, comprised of specific individuals wielding power, is simply a monopoly of the use of force in a given geographic area. However it is formed, elected, or assembled, it is not fundamentally distinct from the mafia, save for its size and scope. Everything it does is based on the use of force, or the threat thereof. It is the gun in the room. To deny this is to delude yourself. I deluded myself for many years, even several after becoming a libertarian. The myth is a powerful one, but also very destructive.
I would argue that, ultimately, everything society does is based on force. It doesn't require a government for that to occur.
That's really bizarre. Everyone I've ever dealt with in my personal life has interacted with me peacefully, aside from a few kids on the playground in grade school, a few neighborhood kids when I was younger, and some nazi skinheads during my high school years. Everything I've ever purchased was based on voluntary interactions. I was lucky enough to have parents who did not abuse me (sadly, many children do not). So, I suppose you could say I've had a fortunate life in regard to violence, but virtually anyone I've ever known would say the same thing. When you purchased your car, your t.v., your home, rented an apartment, gone on dates, made friendships, opened a bank account, bought groceries, picked up some CD's or vinyl (remember that?), gone bowling, gone to the bar, purchased airline tickets - these involved someone using force? Perhaps I presume too much, but I would feel confident in guessing that all of these types of interactions did not involve the use or threat of force - no one was pointing a gun at you when you bought that delicious frozen yogurt, I trust. With the state, nothing is accomplished without force, or the threat of it. Ultimately, everything it does is paid for by taxation, borrowing (against the debt of future generations who have not consented, and likely would not), or by currency manipulation (printing, essentially) which steals our labor via subtle inflation. If you or I decide we will resist these things (taxation is really the only one we can resist), then eventually we will be arrested, kidnapped, and jailed. If we resist arrest, then we will be shot. This is the reality that most people do not, or do not want to consider.
There does seem to usually be a monopoly on force -- if there isn't, that's because the various forceful factions are vying for supremacy, which is usually a worse situation for the local population. A monopoly on force is what people expect and demand from the government, because it allows for the possibility of peace. And most of us like peace. Someone always has martial supremacy. Best-case scenario so far, it's because the people invested that power in that someone.
In the genuine American way, the state is the individual American Man who the Declaration of Rights 1774 terms as having never consented to be governed, and the government is the governed men who have consented to be governed by the Individual American Man. It is the way that men ruled their nation/tribe before they appointed a king in the days of the Prophet Samuel. But this was overthrown soon after the American Revolution when the fake Americans raised an army to attack the men of Massachussets known as the Shay Regulators. Ever since then, the public servants have been our masters, especially after they made the Constitution. One of the early things done by George Washington under the new Constitution was to attack the farmers in the Appalacians and kill some of them for not paying a tax on their corn. See Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner http://jim.com/treason.htm Our politicians are so much in love with killing people and taxes that when the Federal Reserve told Congress in the mid 1940's that taxes were no longer necessary to fund the government, that Congress chose more war and more taxes instead.
Be careful what you say...anarchy in every instance brings violence...so you voluntarily wish to bring about anarchy? Maybe you are simply bantying about your intelligence to impress people.
I disagree. Taxation is no more based on force than capitalism is. None of those purchases you're talking about were entirely voluntary. Force is still required in order to back the claims to property behind all of those transactions.
Exactly. If the shopkeepers didn't have legal authority behind them to retain their property, stealing their goods would be preferable to paying for them. Force insures ethical behavior. Granted, force can also be used for very unethical behavior.
I consider myself a philosophical anarchist, meaning that it is a position I take via logic, reason, evidence, and principle. I don't believe you can just take down the state and expect nothing to replace it. IMHO, the only way a stateless condition will arise, will be through decay of state services, where the market provides public goods in lieu of the government. It would have to be an evolutionary process. Anarchism is a very new idea, in the long view of history. Most of its proponents have lived in the 20th century, with the earliest thinkers in the 19th century, such as Gustave de Molinari. In other words, I don't advocate for anarchy in the sense you are describing. I am simply appealing to people's reason and sense of morality in order to attempt to rationally persuade. It would be impossible to attempt to physically stop the state in this day and age; they simply have far too much firepower and force. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of people don't even understand the basic ideas of market anarchy (or anarcho-capitalism, if you prefer), let alone support such things. Most people are very much enmeshed with the state, both in their ideology, their education, and their personal lives. In many ways, we all work for the state, some are just working more directly than others. I also subscribe to the notion that the history of the world is really the history of childhood. This essentially means that society will only be as peaceful or violent as how children are treated. There has been much research done in the last twenty years of the neurobiological effects of physical abuse, trauma, and even "everyday" spanking, all of which are immoral forms of violence. However, people treat their children, on the whole, much better than in times past and I believe that we are very slowly moving towards the day when most parents will no longer hit their children. When we get to something closer to that day (and I know how bad it is out there, I have worked with abused/neglected children for several years), we will get closer to having a society where violence is far less common, where the perceived need for a state will be less. The debt crisis will probably end the welfare state as we know it, which is also a horrible, contemptible way of keeping people dependent on the state for financial aid, reinforcing the single-parent, multi-child household, where stress overwhelms everyone and outcomes are highly correlated with abuse/neglect, trauma, neighborhood violence, corrupted education systems, and a host of other problems. As I mentioned, anarchism is a relatively new idea. Most people I speak to simply reply "well, that's just not possible." I used to think this way as well. However, the same thing was also said about slavery. There was a time when slavery was practiced all across the world, in virtually all cultures. There were similar arguments made against it - that you could never totally get rid of slavery, that it was inevitable, natural, and all the rest. It seems we have seen the death of slavery as a universal practice - I happen to believe the same may one day be said about the state. It's not likely to happen in my lifetime, but I do believe it will happen.
Force is justified in defense of legitimately acquired property. I don't oppose the use of force in defense - I oppose the initiation of force. In other words, it is perfectly moral for a woman to mace or even shoot someone who is attempting to rape her. Similarly, it would be perfectly moral for you to use force against me if I tried to harm you or steal your wallet. Property rights are inextricably bound to the non-initiation of force. If it were moral/acceptable to initiate force, then the rape or theft I described above would be considered acceptable, which obviously no sane person would say they would be. All of the transactions I described did not involve the initiation of force, but government always initiates force when it taxes, prints money, or borrows on the backs of the unborn. Theft is the initiation of force.
I think you'll find that, out of rational self-interest, most people support the idea of force only in defense, but without a state, obviously the ability to defend yourself isn't going to be equal to everyone else's. The state at its very core is just a more practical means of establishing a basic force for everyone to defend themselves with. It's obviously corrupted and used for other purposes as well, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater doesn't really solve anything.
Yet, without a state, individuals would very much desire protection and dispute resolution services. Dispute resolution organizations (DRO's) would very quickly begin to work with one another and have contracts which would handle specific types of disputes. One's ability to work with others (and I think we all agree that humans are cooperative, social animals who need each other to survive) would very much rely on their reputation and DRO insurance. This would quickly develop into a series of very serious consequences for those who would violate others' property rights (again, property rights include one's body). If you violated your contract with a DRO (would be based on competitive, polycentric law production) or dropped it without obtaining new coverage (and DRO's would likely communicate with one another to ensure such problems would not occur), then other DRO's would know about the individual dropping their coverage and then the violator would not be able to contract labor/time/etc. with others and would be at an extreme disadvantage. There are a myriad of situations that would demonstrate how such a system would work, but I think you get the idea.
All of the transactions you described did involve the initiation of force, at least as much as government taxation.
No a lot of what they do is appeasing people supplying their needs, making them feel like a part of something, giving them security and stability. To say the state simply uses violence doesn't give them enough credit or deal with the most powerful aspect of it's existence. The fact that people feel they need the state because it provides them with the needs of belongingness, safety, biological and physical needs. To deny that is to ignore the alternative systems primary goal which is to offer a better alternative of supply of these needs. People will only become part of a better system if they know they will receive these otherwise they will be fearful of fundamental change. Force is the states greatest weakness. Force is always a double edged sword. It creates ignorance, dependence, and instability. States must always be able to justify force lest they be brought down from within. The state that has it's people grateful to it will succeed much more then a state that keeps it's people in fear. Force is only used if either idiotic belligerence or it is the best option for the state. Efforts on America are wasted as well as in most first world countries. It's better to birth anarchism in a land of the havenots then it is in the land of haves. Let the haves see the alternative, witness it for themselves and they will realize the superior coarse that lies ahead of them.
