State Hate

[Siegerkranz]

Imagine John, Jane, Richard, and Joe. John harvests food, Jane makes clothing and other household items, Richard gets water, and Joe provides housing. Each require each other to survive. If they exchange their items for one another, everyone is happy. Suddenly, some innovation in home construction leads people to build their own homes. Now, Joe is fucked since he can’t buy other goods, but Joe hatches a plan. Joe also happens to have good weapons and so Joe forces others to sell to him. Joe now worsens everyone else’s lives to survive.

Everyone hates Joe. Now, Joe is only worrying about maintaining stronger force than everyone else. This is an artificial exchange of goods because the means are destructive means. In the use of destructive means, the harmonious balance derived from natural pressures is now disrupted. Joe has created a state, a monopoly of force and it shall be treated as a monopoly.

It's due to the abandonment of deriving reward with construction by the state that it’s unlikely that any use of destructive means will ever lead to lasting effects. Destructive forces require the constructive forces to carry out their ends and the constructive always seeks the least destructive for their own ends. This means that destructive forces must make a net profit which leads to a positive cycle. All destructive means must change the system if not for profit.

World peace is attained by fair power distribution and fair power distribution is measured by world peace. No destructive means are ever required in a world in where everyone is given things in proportion to their share of power. If someone has artificially obtained power and refuses to renounce it, perpetrators are forced into using force because they will win.

Life without the state does not mean the abandonment of force, but the redistribution of force. This allows for anything to occur within natural limits. This for instance means that slavery wouldn’t be prohibited. In this, no one would ever have to worry about the ‘sexual marketplace’. The sexual marketplace is an artificial creation of the state which arises from the abolishment of slavery. The sexual marketplace serves an important function of the state which is the artificial interdependence (altruism) of the inhabitants of the state. For racialists, this would solve the Great Replacement through slavery as people could buy and sell different races of human. This would also remove much of the artificial scarcity which is human labor through slavery. Most problems for inhabitants of the state is the need for others which the state created.

All problems come from the state

 

[Paladin]

 

[sub5chud]

Ok

 

[Horatio Alger]

The state is needed since it is the most effective vehicle of resource extraction for military purposes as per Charles Tilly. The first society that develops a state will easily conquer other social groups, thus necessitating the proliferation of the state model if said groups want to avoid subjugation

That's why it spread rapidly from Europe to the rest of the world

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=nHE2XZEAAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=nHE2XZEAAAAJ:rbm3iO8VlycC

 

[Horatio Alger]

Ok

 

[Siegerkranz]

The state is needed since it is the most effective vehicle of resource extraction for military purposes as per Charles Tilly. The first society that develops a state will easily conquer other social groups, thus necessitating the proliferation of the state model if said groups want to avoid subjugation

That's why it spread rapidly from Europe to the rest of the world

I'm not a liberal, I'm a libertarian ancap so the article you linked doesn't apply to me. This is especially important because it weighs opinion more than natural incentives unlike a corporation or natural pressures due to the nature of the state as a monopoly as I address. The article you linked says "The first problem with liberalism is that it wrongly assumes that humans are fundamentally solitary individuals, when in fact they are social beings at their core." That's like saying everyone doesn't want eternal life, some want money in regard to material issues. Material issues are guided by natural pressures, not sentiment. The material world isn't a fairytale. It's first and second points uses a sort of dreamscape in where wills decide the material world.

The state is needed since it is the most effective vehicle of resource extraction for military purposes as per Charles Tilly. The first society that develops a state will easily conquer other social groups, thus necessitating the proliferation of the state model

Tilly never claimed that states were economically optimal, just that they were militarily and organizationally dominant in early modern history. Have you never heard about the failures of literally every command-run economy? I don't think there's a single historical example which shows a command-run economy beating a free market. Why must the a force extract resources as you say? Sure, the state may extract resources, but it can never allocate nor foster a large pool of resources properly and most efficiently because it is not by natural pressures which press decisions. I don't see why you believe individuals can't collectively defend without the formation of an inefficient monopoly. A collective of force is not necessarily a monopoly. Force is no different than any other resource in the free market.

 

[Horatio Alger]

I'm not a liberal, I'm a libertarian ancap so the article you linked doesn't apply to me. This is especially important because it weighs opinion more than natural incentives unlike a corporation or natural pressures due to the nature of the state as a monopoly as I address. The article you linked says "The first problem with liberalism is that it wrongly assumes that humans are fundamentally solitary individuals, when in fact they are social beings at their core." That's like saying everyone doesn't want eternal life, some want money in regard to material issues. Material issues are guided by natural pressures, not sentiment. The material world isn't a fairytale. It's first and second points uses a sort of dreamscape in where wills decide the material world.

Tilly never claimed that states were economically optimal, just that they were militarily and organizationally dominant in early modern history. Have you never heard about the failures of literally every command-run economy? I don't think there's a single historical example which shows a command-run economy beating a free market. Why must the a force extract resources as you say? Sure, the state may extract resources, but it can never allocate nor foster a large pool of resources properly and most efficiently because it is not by natural pressures which press decisions. I don't see why you believe individuals can't collectively defend without the formation of an inefficient monopoly. A collective of force is not necessarily a monopoly. Force is no different than any other resource in the free market.

Since any social group that recreates the state will always militarily dominate others, the best course of action is for other social groups to create their own states to best defend themselves

 

[Siegerkranz]

any social group that recreates the state will always militarily dominate others

This is an assumption without reason

 

[Horatio Alger]

This is an assumption without reason

Why else would it rapidly proliferate across the globe?

Why else would it be the dominant political regime in the planet?

Because a state is the best way to militarily defend yourself against other states

 

[Siegerkranz]

Why else would it rapidly proliferate across the globe?

Why else would it be the dominant political regime in the planet?

Because a state is the best way to militarily defend yourself against other states

You could apply this empirical reasoning to any moment before major innovation took hold to say it wouldn't take hold

 

[Horatio Alger]

You could apply this empirical reasoning to any moment before major innovation took hold to say it wouldn't take hold

Currently, it is the best form of political organization for the purpose of self protection on the planet

That could change in the far future, but not any time in the foreseeable future

 

[Zer0/∞]

This is an assumption without reason

Just read any history book, you will find massive empires conquering every smaller state in their vicinity until they became too large effectively govern.

 

[Siegerkranz]

Just read any history book, you will find massive empires conquering every smaller state in their vicinity until they became too large effectively govern.

You could apply this empirical reasoning to any moment before major innovation took hold to say it wouldn't take hold

 

[Siegerkranz]

The state must be hated in the incel mind because it is the sole cause of their inceldom due to its relation to slavery. Slavery solves all incel problems.