6 ms·

The problem is that the State exists to abuse the rights of the people I don't understand how or why profits ending up on private hands is bad, you are a priva

The problem is that the State exists to abuse the rights of the people I don't understand how or why profits ending up on private hands is bad, you are a private hand and the State robs you all the time

andybak 3y ago
> The problem is that the State exists to abuse the rights of the people The state exists for a multiplicity of reasons - some of which are harmful and some of which are beneficial. And if the state doesn't exist then other actors will step in to and will also do a mixture of harm and good. Any attempt to handwave away the nuance just sounds silly.
- mughinn 3y ago
  The existance of the State is an infringement on your rights, any good that comes out of it isn't really an argument. It's akin as saying that killing all poor people would eradicate poverty, so it is harmful in some ways but it has some benefits Other actors would also be States, we the people should fight against all States, not just the current one
  - fmajid 3y ago
    Because human rights are so well-protected in Afghanistan, Somalia or other such failed states. The alternative to a functioning state is not some techno-anarchist utopia, its warlordism and feudalism. Even the Taliban were seen as preferable to that (they got their initial political capital by rescuing boys kidnapped by warlords to be used as catamites).
    - malermeister 3y ago
      The techno-anarchist utopia is neo-feudalism. They just hope to be on top this time.
      - mughinn 3y ago
        You should not convince people that your fantasies are mine
  - andybak 3y ago
    > The existance of the State is an infringement on your rights, Which rights are these and by what authority are they bestowed? Let's assume I'm an athiest for the sake of argument. You're positing the existence of natural rights without specifying how they came into being and how they are enforced. Generally "rights" in the normal sense of the word are created by... well... states. I'm not naive and I'm aware of the history of anarchist thought. But I'm not sure which flavour you're espousing.
    - mughinn 3y ago
      A right is not given to you by an authority. You are free to live your life, as long as you don't control/damage other people. The State takes away your right to live your life and use your property, and empowers Corporations to make them richer at your cost. In the meantime, the State murders a lot of people. Your rights must be enforced by yourself until free-market alternatives to the State are created
      - andybak 3y ago
        A "right" is entirely theoretical unless there is a way to ensure it is reflected in reality. That, sadly, is why any analysis of "rights" is vacuous unless it is accompanied by an analysis of "power". I wonder if you might be confusing "ought" for "is"?
polyamid23 3y ago
Please build your own roads then...
- cpursley 3y ago
  Actually (and ironically), Chile has a really interesting experiment in private toll roads. So it can be done.
  - mypastself 3y ago
    Is there an in-depth article on the topic? I’m interesting in learning about this, but I haven’t had much luck with English language articles on Google.
- mughinn 3y ago
  Oh no, what a nightmare, if you want something done you have to pay for it There is a lot of material to read on the denationalization of roads, it's not impossible by any means
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    If only those authors had channeled their fantasies into an art form other than economics, perhaps the world would be a more beautiful place. At least the combination of ideology and internet connection is mainly psychologically destructive. It’s a step up from ideology and gunpowder’s uncanny ability to provide close-up views of friends bleeding to death. Pragmatism might be defined as anti-ideological or it might be rooted in empiricism or actually it is quite the opposite of pragmatic to even wonder about such things. We can talk, we can agree, we can use our physical and common senses, and we can do things together that are meaningful and make sense. We don’t really need the modernist requirement of axioms and their extrapolations. Sure, rocketry benefits from models and empirical results and for a very simple reason: reproducing the results and proving to yourself that your ideas work through direct experience, the foundation of science itself. The liberal arts are by necessity of a different epistemological foundation for a simple reason: we cannot currently model the entirety of our world in ways that are conducive to falsification. We get hints and generalizations. History is the foundation of these disciplines and trial-and-error across decades of lived experience the laboratory. This necessarily adds a political dimension as everyone needs to be convinced to be willing participants in near planet-sized experiments. For the most part people are satisfied with public roads and conservative with their approach to locomotion. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. There we go, a workable definition of pragmatism pops out at the end.

andybak 3y ago

> The problem is that the State exists to abuse the rights of the people The state exists for a multiplicity of reasons - some of which are harmful and some of which are beneficial. And if the state doesn't exist then other actors will step in to and will also do a mixture of harm and good. Any attempt to handwave away the nuance just sounds silly.

mughinn 3y ago
The existance of the State is an infringement on your rights, any good that comes out of it isn't really an argument. It's akin as saying that killing all poor people would eradicate poverty, so it is harmful in some ways but it has some benefits Other actors would also be States, we the people should fight against all States, not just the current one
- fmajid 3y ago
  Because human rights are so well-protected in Afghanistan, Somalia or other such failed states. The alternative to a functioning state is not some techno-anarchist utopia, its warlordism and feudalism. Even the Taliban were seen as preferable to that (they got their initial political capital by rescuing boys kidnapped by warlords to be used as catamites).
  - malermeister 3y ago
    The techno-anarchist utopia is neo-feudalism. They just hope to be on top this time.
    - mughinn 3y ago
      You should not convince people that your fantasies are mine
- andybak 3y ago
  > The existance of the State is an infringement on your rights, Which rights are these and by what authority are they bestowed? Let's assume I'm an athiest for the sake of argument. You're positing the existence of natural rights without specifying how they came into being and how they are enforced. Generally "rights" in the normal sense of the word are created by... well... states. I'm not naive and I'm aware of the history of anarchist thought. But I'm not sure which flavour you're espousing.
  - mughinn 3y ago
    A right is not given to you by an authority. You are free to live your life, as long as you don't control/damage other people. The State takes away your right to live your life and use your property, and empowers Corporations to make them richer at your cost. In the meantime, the State murders a lot of people. Your rights must be enforced by yourself until free-market alternatives to the State are created
    - andybak 3y ago
      A "right" is entirely theoretical unless there is a way to ensure it is reflected in reality. That, sadly, is why any analysis of "rights" is vacuous unless it is accompanied by an analysis of "power". I wonder if you might be confusing "ought" for "is"?

polyamid23 3y ago

Please build your own roads then...

cpursley 3y ago
Actually (and ironically), Chile has a really interesting experiment in private toll roads. So it can be done.
- mypastself 3y ago
  Is there an in-depth article on the topic? I’m interesting in learning about this, but I haven’t had much luck with English language articles on Google.
mughinn 3y ago
Oh no, what a nightmare, if you want something done you have to pay for it There is a lot of material to read on the denationalization of roads, it's not impossible by any means
- williamcotton 3y ago
  If only those authors had channeled their fantasies into an art form other than economics, perhaps the world would be a more beautiful place. At least the combination of ideology and internet connection is mainly psychologically destructive. It’s a step up from ideology and gunpowder’s uncanny ability to provide close-up views of friends bleeding to death. Pragmatism might be defined as anti-ideological or it might be rooted in empiricism or actually it is quite the opposite of pragmatic to even wonder about such things. We can talk, we can agree, we can use our physical and common senses, and we can do things together that are meaningful and make sense. We don’t really need the modernist requirement of axioms and their extrapolations. Sure, rocketry benefits from models and empirical results and for a very simple reason: reproducing the results and proving to yourself that your ideas work through direct experience, the foundation of science itself. The liberal arts are by necessity of a different epistemological foundation for a simple reason: we cannot currently model the entirety of our world in ways that are conducive to falsification. We get hints and generalizations. History is the foundation of these disciplines and trial-and-error across decades of lived experience the laboratory. This necessarily adds a political dimension as everyone needs to be convinced to be willing participants in near planet-sized experiments. For the most part people are satisfied with public roads and conservative with their approach to locomotion. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. There we go, a workable definition of pragmatism pops out at the end.