Joe Contrarian said:
Sadly, it's been obvious for some time, you have flipped your noodle, because so long as other more, shall we say malignant powers, don't share your flowery never-never-land philosophy,
Mmmhmm. And if you've been paying attention there isn't one instance in which I state that a full-out stateless society would be desirable so long as some states still exist. (Existing megastates, that is, not city-states.)
Though the way you write it it's as though you are a little confused by the fact that states would never vote themselves away. I'm not delusional about this; I fully realise that a stateless society will come about as a result of people relying less and less on gov't and more on individual responsibility. A slow death of the state, if you will.
a robust military industrial complex is absolutely necessary, in order to defend our values and keep the peace, against organized powers who encroach on their fellow man.
I notice that you state 'powers who encroach on their fellow man' and not 'powers who encroach on
us.' No military industrial complex is needed to police the world, except in the minds of people in love with that kind of power-overreach. It exists, yes, but it's not necessary. Humans survived millenia without either the state or global hegemons.
Again, I'll ask you to read your history. Without the U.S., your world as you enjoy it today would not exist.
Technically,
I would not exist were it not for the US. My grandfather was born there, and my parents both met at a dance stateside. Your butterfly effect position doesn't provide justification for the existence of a state, it only demonstrates that things would be different if the state did not exist. I'm pretty well aware of that fact.
You say, "let the people fend for themselves and find their own way." Sounds great in abstract philosophical gibberish. Pragmatically, if individuals are under siege by other governments or outside influences (Darfur, for example; Iraq for example, before we got there) the civilized world is just supposed to sit back and do nothing? Allow the slaughter to continue infinitum with no end or hope in sight? What part of word 'oppression' don't you understand? These kinds of slums breed the kind of hatred and brainwashing that came to our shores on 9/11.
Still not sure how this supports your view that the existence of the state is a moral imperative since all these horrors that you list are the result of the existence of the state in the first place. Your 'solution', more state power to counter wayward state powers, is the same justification socialists use to expand the gov't. If it's broke, we need more gov't!
Unfortunately, when push comes to shove, you're all talk. As a single female you couldn't fend for yourself in a stateless society, if you even tried. You could live in a "gated community" sure, (although in a true free-market, I doubt you could afford it) but what would happen once you ventured outside into the world of anarchy? Would a Mike Tyson like entourage with hand grenade launchers need to accompany you to a Raptors game?
Let's flip this around: in your stateful world, how protected am I, as a single defenseless female? In my lifetime, I've been raped, had an abusive mother, and have had more than one male take a swing at me. Glancing around quickly through these events, I saw no state-funded security to help me. I was on my own anyway.
If things are so hunky-dory, from a security standpoint, why do gated communities exist in the first place? And why do you presume that they would be more expensive in a free market? Isn't it true that most prices
fall when the gov't takes their paws off of it?
As I said before, you can replace "state" with non-statist terms such as "gated communities" and "tribunals." In the end, you're playing a game of semantics and back to the point where modern civilization began: THE STATE! (Surprise!)
You are confusing a small community, where people are voluntarily members (once they reach adulthood, anyway) with the megastates, where leaving is a long, drawn-out process.
It is beyond obvious you (as well as most other ACs towing the party line) have not remotely thought through your "anti-state" views, because had you done so, you would be able to answer some very simple practical realities I have placed on your plate. Instead, just like the ostrich, you ignore the realities that do not cozily fit into the 'Pandutopia' and solider on – sneering at and celebrating "anti-US milestones."
I'm not too sure how many times I need to state this, but I'm not well-versed enough on the philosophy to answer
all of your questions. I've given you all kinds of links which answer some of the basic things you bring up (to which you guffawed) and advised that you present your views to Phaedrus, who has far more than two years worth of reading on the topic behind him. Apparently you aren't really as interested in learning about this (which would indicate some sort of objectivity) as you are in fighting with me. I notice, still, that you never, not once, have poked at him for holding the same views. Why is that, I wonder?
