4 ms·

this describes the current "capitalist" system we have today, where powerful individuals can lobby the state to create laws favouring them directly. the problem

this describes the current "capitalist" system we have today, where powerful individuals can lobby the state to create laws favouring them directly. the problem is, of course, the existence of the state.

RobertoG 9y ago
Of course. Maybe you can point us to some examples, current or historical, where human societies thrived without the existence of the state.
- adynatos 9y ago
  sure: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part17 http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part17 should i tell you who will build the roads next?
  - aidenn0 9y ago
    The bigger issue is that societies organized around a state tend to conquer societies not so organized, because states are much better at forming armies
    - adynatos 9y ago
      so you agree that the state is almost always the initiator of aggression? if so, it's simply immoral to allow it to exist, just as you wouldn't allow organized crime to exist. my opinion about the state stems fully from morality, as presented in the non-aggression principle.
      - aidenn0 9y ago
        If you believe in any form of consequentialism, unilaterally disarming is rarely the moral choice.
        adynatos 9y ago
        of course not, the moral choice is to give everyone equal access to weapons and military equipment.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
There's no "of course" about it. If you're going to claim that the problem is the existence of the state, you need a lot more evidence than "of course". Certainly you cannot claim the support of Adam Smith in your assertion.
- adynatos 9y ago
  sufficient evidence was provided by Rothbard, et al.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    Sufficient to claim that the problem is the existence of the state? No, I don't think that they provided anything like sufficient evidence for that claim. Rothbard did a lot of claiming, I'll grant you that. Sufficient evidence for such large claims? No.
  - f00_ 9y ago
    >natural rights philosophy >evidence choose one

RobertoG 9y ago

Of course. Maybe you can point us to some examples, current or historical, where human societies thrived without the existence of the state.

adynatos 9y ago
sure: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part17 http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part17 should i tell you who will build the roads next?
- aidenn0 9y ago
  The bigger issue is that societies organized around a state tend to conquer societies not so organized, because states are much better at forming armies
  - adynatos 9y ago
    so you agree that the state is almost always the initiator of aggression? if so, it's simply immoral to allow it to exist, just as you wouldn't allow organized crime to exist. my opinion about the state stems fully from morality, as presented in the non-aggression principle.
    - aidenn0 9y ago
      If you believe in any form of consequentialism, unilaterally disarming is rarely the moral choice.
      - adynatos 9y ago
        of course not, the moral choice is to give everyone equal access to weapons and military equipment.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

There's no "of course" about it. If you're going to claim that the problem is the existence of the state, you need a lot more evidence than "of course". Certainly you cannot claim the support of Adam Smith in your assertion.

adynatos 9y ago
sufficient evidence was provided by Rothbard, et al.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Sufficient to claim that the problem is the existence of the state? No, I don't think that they provided anything like sufficient evidence for that claim. Rothbard did a lot of claiming, I'll grant you that. Sufficient evidence for such large claims? No.
- f00_ 9y ago
  >natural rights philosophy >evidence choose one