7 ms·

For the average person, they've grown up in a world where they've learned through school, the media, their parents, and 95% of other sources of knowledge about

For the average person, they've grown up in a world where they've learned through school, the media, their parents, and 95% of other sources of knowledge about this world that the State (in an abstract form, not with an R, D, or other political party affiliation tied to it because of those currently in power) is a protector, friend, keeper of order, etc. To attack or criticize the State (in abstract terms) and say that it could potentially abuse it's power, is like saying that your parents or some other loved one could potentially betray you. If someone tells you your mother or father could potentially steal from you because their name is tied to your bank account, how does that make you feel? Do you feel like this person is right, or you do get defensive and say that could never possibly happen? Most defend their parents and their parents' trustworthiness. The same goes for their view of the State. The difference between your parents and the State though, is that different individuals of varying trustworthiness move into and out of power. As this happens, eventually some bad actors will gain power, and those who depend on that established trust will be badly hurt.

thanksgiving 12y ago
> If someone tells you your mother or father could potentially steal from you because their name is tied to your bank account, how does that make you feel? Do you feel like this person is right, or you do get defensive and say that could never possibly happen? Most defend their parents and their parents' trustworthiness. The same goes for their view of the State. We hear about child celebrities getting cheated out of their income by their parents. We know this can happen but I guess we assume they are exception rather than the norm?
- bsbechtel 12y ago
  Of course it can happen, but think about YOUR own gut reaction if someone said this about YOUR parents. Unless you had an extremely traumatic childhood or are estranged from your parents, I'm guessing your response is "Not possible." It's a similar reaction to people's own governments (I guess you could call this Nationalism?). The problem is worse when you identify as an "R" or "D" and the same letter you identify as is in the White House (or whatever head of government position for your country). Paul Graham wrote an essay about this at one point, I believe.
  - thanksgiving 12y ago
    I think you explained it perfectly. I think we can carry the analogy a bit further. Even with my best interest at heart, my parents will do what they think is best for me and will nudge and push me towards what they think I need to do. So even assuming that the powers that be have our best interests in mind, they are still people and are prone to make false assumptions about what's best for us. Are you talking about this essay? http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
    - bsbechtel 12y ago
      Actually is was this one: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html And to further your point, I want to see the good in people and believe that those who hold power in positions in the State want to do good, and will do what they think is best, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is. The problem is when the State fails, whether it is because of incompetence, misunderstanding, misguided intentions, or true intent to do harm, those who are dependent upon the state are the ones who suffer.
  - philwelch 12y ago
    I don't know many people who unconditionally trust both of their parents, actually.
TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
Oh come on, not even socialists believe the State can do no wrong. The public are more cynical than you take them to be.
- bsbechtel 12y ago
  Clearly not cynical enough to want policies that protect themselves from the dangers of the State.
- coldtea 12y ago
  Not cynical enough (in the us I mean). They mostly believe the state is incompetent, or that at worse politicians can steal money or favor their buddies, etc. Doesn't go as far as to question issues of democracy, abuse, etc.
  - DamnYuppie 12y ago
    My anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. Many have no trust of the government or those supplying the politicians their campaign funds. These conversations are simply kept quite and not generally found on mainstream media outlets.
yodsanklai 12y ago
Very true. Propaganda was so successful that even when you rationally know States are bad, your heart tends to give them the benefits of the doubt. Like "they did that in the past, but we're more civilized now", "our president is such a nice guy, he wouldn't do anything evil - he said it won't happen again", "it happens in other country, but mine is better".
- bsbechtel 12y ago
  I found this post from a few months back particularly thought-provoking: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/12/03/eric_garner_grand_jury_how_would_we_cover_the_decision_not_to_indict_a_police.html# http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/12/03/eric_garner...
dd36 12y ago
That's why the U.S. system is split into three branches. Also, your use of the term "the State" is ambiguous. The State could mean a system of laws with law enforcement and dispute resolution. People believe in a system of laws - fight for it, even. You have to remember: the state is a technology. It was developed by our ancestors to solve certain problems. It's not a panacea that solves every problem and I, frankly, only know straw men that think otherwise.
- baddox 12y ago
  Most people probably don't believe that the state can solve every problem, but a large portion of people do believe that the state (and even only the state) can solve certain extremely important problems, like building infrastructure, producing a legal system, and producing a monetary system and economy.
  - bsbechtel 12y ago
    The further into the past a decision regarding the State solving a problem for a society was made, the more its citizens today assume that decision was the best option and the private sector failed. This assumption is often based on the fact that there are no, or very few, competing alternatives left to solve that problem. The reason there are very few remaining alternatives is largely because (in most systems of government today) the State has taken tax dollars from the private sector's solutions, thus starving them of resources, to fund it's own competing solution. So, the State is taking resources from it's competitors and then provide an alternative (normally at subsidized prices), which makes it's competitor's market share smaller and also sets pricing at unsustainable levels. There is only one outcome, ever, to this type of arrangement, regardless of whether or not the State actually offered the best solution to its citizens.
    - rndmize 12y ago
      > The reason there are very few remaining alternatives is largely because (in most systems of government today) the State has taken tax dollars from the private sector's solutions, thus starving them of resources, to fund it's own competing solution. I find this very doubtful indeed. The state by and large spends money on things the private sector has no interest in, such as welfare systems; I fail to see how this starves/steals from private sector solutions (no one makes money by supporting old people; no one makes money providing medical help for the poor; no one makes money by polluting less; no one makes money off going to the moon, though lots of people make money off the research that comes from it, etc.)
d23 12y ago
> For the average person, they've grown up in a world where they've learned through school, the media, their parents, and 95% of other sources of knowledge about this world that the State (in an abstract form, not with an R, D, or other political party affiliation tied to it because of those currently in power) is a protector, friend, keeper of order, etc. To attack or criticize the State (in abstract terms) and say that it could potentially abuse it's power, is like saying that your parents or some other loved one could potentially betray you. This is cringeworthy. I knew HN had a Ron Paul bent, but has it been completely overtaken by 15 year olds? Go ask ANYONE, your cashier, your hairdresser, or the random joe working on your car -- the standard line of thinking isn't that the government is some nice friend and protector. The standard line of thinking is that government is dysfunctional and politicians are corrupt. You people pick up a copy of 1984 and suddenly you're all mini-orwells running around spewing your "insights" to whoever will stand around long enough to pretend they care. > If someone tells you your mother or father could potentially steal from you because their name is tied to your bank account, how does that make you feel? Do you feel like this person is right, or you do get defensive and say that could never possibly happen? Most defend their parents and their parents' trustworthiness. The same goes for their view of the State. Oh, wise sage, please enlighten us with more of your wisdom. Tell us the story of the bunny going to the store to buy milk this time!
- youngthugger 12y ago
  Thank you I'm tired of this constant distorted view its really sad considering hackernews is built around intelligent conversations.
- bsbechtel 12y ago
  I think I proved my point here.
- daeken 12y ago
  While I do tend to agree with you, this is a content-free comment; it has no purpose but to mock the parent commenter. When commenting, please keep things civil and constructive.
  - 12y ago
rayiner 12y ago
Let me offer a counterpoint. The average Internet anarcho-libertarian has grown up so coddled by the benefits of first-world government they don't even understand why they need it. They go out in the street and feel safe and think that's just how human societies are. They talk about jack-boot thugs, but they've never experienced fear of a real one. They have no experiences that would let them comprehend a world without a monopoly on violence. A world where small groups of people using organized violence can terrorize the majority. A world where the background threat of violence at the hands of government is replaced with in-your-face actual violence from the vicious people among your fellow man.
- harryh 12y ago
  There are some striking anti-vaxxer parallels here.
  - alexqgb 12y ago
    It's also like the religious fundamentalists who insist "you can just pray the gay away." As far as most people are concerned, the premise that all violence is absolutely unnecessary is not a widely held position. Indeed, it's more commonly seen as an exercise in extreme wishful thinking, on par with believing that it's possible to walk on water or leap from a building and fly. Sure, you can flatly insist "the ends don't justify the means" but this is begging the question in that it assumes the means in are unequivocally wrong. Most people aren't about to make that assumption when it comes to violence. In other words, the tack taken by our friendly anarcho-libertarian here is is a bit like hitting a baseball and making a dash straight for second base. Sorry, kid, but nope. To get to second you've first got to convince us that all violence is absolutely, supremely wrong in each and every case. Only then will the "ends don't justify the means" argument have a leg to stand on. Good luck.
    - bsbechtel 12y ago
      >>As far as most people are concerned, the premise that all violence is absolutely unnecessary is not a widely held position. This is a straw man that, quite frankly, I'm left scratching my head as to where you got it from. People commit violence when they can get something they want by doing so, and won't face repercussions for the violent act. The places around the world that are widely considered the most violent countries are those that have strong (sometimes authoritarian) central governments, and few rights individuals can exercise to protect themselves on a local level. Examples - China, Russia, Brazil, the Middle East. The reason this is the case is because the vast majority of citizens in these locations are law-abiding citizens, meaning they won't break the law to own a gun to protect themselves, or take other measures necessary to ensure their own protection, other than depending on the government (either local or national). Then, what happens is government law enforcement fails, because we're human and we all make mistakes - national law enforcement may not be present, local law enforcement may be corrupt or incompetent, or hundreds of other reasons failure could take place. When the law enforcement fails though, regardless of the reason, those law abiding citizens who don't have any means of protecting themselves are now vulnerable to pretty much anyone. I hope you realize, and can think deeply enough, to understand that the problem of violence is not one that has a binary solution to be solved only via monopoly powers of government. There are literally thousands of creative ideas that can be tried to combat violence...before resorting to coercion by the State. If you read the other posts here, you would understand how those ideas could be explored, and also why they have pretty much died out. No libertarian or anarcho-liberterian lives in a fantasy world where they think they can just 'wish away' violence. They just understand the answer to violence is not as simple as a vote for 'yes' or 'no' on a ballot box. If that's the world you wish to live, then great. If not, I suggest you open your mind a bit, expand your thinking, and at least consider what the other side has to say.

thanksgiving 12y ago

> If someone tells you your mother or father could potentially steal from you because their name is tied to your bank account, how does that make you feel? Do you feel like this person is right, or you do get defensive and say that could never possibly happen? Most defend their parents and their parents' trustworthiness. The same goes for their view of the State. We hear about child celebrities getting cheated out of their income by their parents. We know this can happen but I guess we assume they are exception rather than the norm?

bsbechtel 12y ago
Of course it can happen, but think about YOUR own gut reaction if someone said this about YOUR parents. Unless you had an extremely traumatic childhood or are estranged from your parents, I'm guessing your response is "Not possible." It's a similar reaction to people's own governments (I guess you could call this Nationalism?). The problem is worse when you identify as an "R" or "D" and the same letter you identify as is in the White House (or whatever head of government position for your country). Paul Graham wrote an essay about this at one point, I believe.
- thanksgiving 12y ago
  I think you explained it perfectly. I think we can carry the analogy a bit further. Even with my best interest at heart, my parents will do what they think is best for me and will nudge and push me towards what they think I need to do. So even assuming that the powers that be have our best interests in mind, they are still people and are prone to make false assumptions about what's best for us. Are you talking about this essay? http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
  - bsbechtel 12y ago
    Actually is was this one: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html And to further your point, I want to see the good in people and believe that those who hold power in positions in the State want to do good, and will do what they think is best, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is. The problem is when the State fails, whether it is because of incompetence, misunderstanding, misguided intentions, or true intent to do harm, those who are dependent upon the state are the ones who suffer.
- philwelch 12y ago
  I don't know many people who unconditionally trust both of their parents, actually.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago

Oh come on, not even socialists believe the State can do no wrong. The public are more cynical than you take them to be.

bsbechtel 12y ago
Clearly not cynical enough to want policies that protect themselves from the dangers of the State.
coldtea 12y ago
Not cynical enough (in the us I mean). They mostly believe the state is incompetent, or that at worse politicians can steal money or favor their buddies, etc. Doesn't go as far as to question issues of democracy, abuse, etc.
- DamnYuppie 12y ago
  My anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. Many have no trust of the government or those supplying the politicians their campaign funds. These conversations are simply kept quite and not generally found on mainstream media outlets.

yodsanklai 12y ago

Very true. Propaganda was so successful that even when you rationally know States are bad, your heart tends to give them the benefits of the doubt. Like "they did that in the past, but we're more civilized now", "our president is such a nice guy, he wouldn't do anything evil - he said it won't happen again", "it happens in other country, but mine is better".

bsbechtel 12y ago
I found this post from a few months back particularly thought-provoking: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/12/03/eric_garner_grand_jury_how_would_we_cover_the_decision_not_to_indict_a_police.html# http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/12/03/eric_garner...

dd36 12y ago

That's why the U.S. system is split into three branches. Also, your use of the term "the State" is ambiguous. The State could mean a system of laws with law enforcement and dispute resolution. People believe in a system of laws - fight for it, even. You have to remember: the state is a technology. It was developed by our ancestors to solve certain problems. It's not a panacea that solves every problem and I, frankly, only know straw men that think otherwise.

baddox 12y ago
Most people probably don't believe that the state can solve every problem, but a large portion of people do believe that the state (and even only the state) can solve certain extremely important problems, like building infrastructure, producing a legal system, and producing a monetary system and economy.
- bsbechtel 12y ago
  The further into the past a decision regarding the State solving a problem for a society was made, the more its citizens today assume that decision was the best option and the private sector failed. This assumption is often based on the fact that there are no, or very few, competing alternatives left to solve that problem. The reason there are very few remaining alternatives is largely because (in most systems of government today) the State has taken tax dollars from the private sector's solutions, thus starving them of resources, to fund it's own competing solution. So, the State is taking resources from it's competitors and then provide an alternative (normally at subsidized prices), which makes it's competitor's market share smaller and also sets pricing at unsustainable levels. There is only one outcome, ever, to this type of arrangement, regardless of whether or not the State actually offered the best solution to its citizens.
  - rndmize 12y ago
    > The reason there are very few remaining alternatives is largely because (in most systems of government today) the State has taken tax dollars from the private sector's solutions, thus starving them of resources, to fund it's own competing solution. I find this very doubtful indeed. The state by and large spends money on things the private sector has no interest in, such as welfare systems; I fail to see how this starves/steals from private sector solutions (no one makes money by supporting old people; no one makes money providing medical help for the poor; no one makes money by polluting less; no one makes money off going to the moon, though lots of people make money off the research that comes from it, etc.)

d23 12y ago

> For the average person, they've grown up in a world where they've learned through school, the media, their parents, and 95% of other sources of knowledge about this world that the State (in an abstract form, not with an R, D, or other political party affiliation tied to it because of those currently in power) is a protector, friend, keeper of order, etc. To attack or criticize the State (in abstract terms) and say that it could potentially abuse it's power, is like saying that your parents or some other loved one could potentially betray you. This is cringeworthy. I knew HN had a Ron Paul bent, but has it been completely overtaken by 15 year olds? Go ask ANYONE, your cashier, your hairdresser, or the random joe working on your car -- the standard line of thinking isn't that the government is some nice friend and protector. The standard line of thinking is that government is dysfunctional and politicians are corrupt. You people pick up a copy of 1984 and suddenly you're all mini-orwells running around spewing your "insights" to whoever will stand around long enough to pretend they care. > If someone tells you your mother or father could potentially steal from you because their name is tied to your bank account, how does that make you feel? Do you feel like this person is right, or you do get defensive and say that could never possibly happen? Most defend their parents and their parents' trustworthiness. The same goes for their view of the State. Oh, wise sage, please enlighten us with more of your wisdom. Tell us the story of the bunny going to the store to buy milk this time!

youngthugger 12y ago
Thank you I'm tired of this constant distorted view its really sad considering hackernews is built around intelligent conversations.
bsbechtel 12y ago
I think I proved my point here.
daeken 12y ago
While I do tend to agree with you, this is a content-free comment; it has no purpose but to mock the parent commenter. When commenting, please keep things civil and constructive.
- 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

Let me offer a counterpoint. The average Internet anarcho-libertarian has grown up so coddled by the benefits of first-world government they don't even understand why they need it. They go out in the street and feel safe and think that's just how human societies are. They talk about jack-boot thugs, but they've never experienced fear of a real one. They have no experiences that would let them comprehend a world without a monopoly on violence. A world where small groups of people using organized violence can terrorize the majority. A world where the background threat of violence at the hands of government is replaced with in-your-face actual violence from the vicious people among your fellow man.

harryh 12y ago
There are some striking anti-vaxxer parallels here.
- alexqgb 12y ago
  It's also like the religious fundamentalists who insist "you can just pray the gay away." As far as most people are concerned, the premise that all violence is absolutely unnecessary is not a widely held position. Indeed, it's more commonly seen as an exercise in extreme wishful thinking, on par with believing that it's possible to walk on water or leap from a building and fly. Sure, you can flatly insist "the ends don't justify the means" but this is begging the question in that it assumes the means in are unequivocally wrong. Most people aren't about to make that assumption when it comes to violence. In other words, the tack taken by our friendly anarcho-libertarian here is is a bit like hitting a baseball and making a dash straight for second base. Sorry, kid, but nope. To get to second you've first got to convince us that all violence is absolutely, supremely wrong in each and every case. Only then will the "ends don't justify the means" argument have a leg to stand on. Good luck.
  - bsbechtel 12y ago
    >>As far as most people are concerned, the premise that all violence is absolutely unnecessary is not a widely held position. This is a straw man that, quite frankly, I'm left scratching my head as to where you got it from. People commit violence when they can get something they want by doing so, and won't face repercussions for the violent act. The places around the world that are widely considered the most violent countries are those that have strong (sometimes authoritarian) central governments, and few rights individuals can exercise to protect themselves on a local level. Examples - China, Russia, Brazil, the Middle East. The reason this is the case is because the vast majority of citizens in these locations are law-abiding citizens, meaning they won't break the law to own a gun to protect themselves, or take other measures necessary to ensure their own protection, other than depending on the government (either local or national). Then, what happens is government law enforcement fails, because we're human and we all make mistakes - national law enforcement may not be present, local law enforcement may be corrupt or incompetent, or hundreds of other reasons failure could take place. When the law enforcement fails though, regardless of the reason, those law abiding citizens who don't have any means of protecting themselves are now vulnerable to pretty much anyone. I hope you realize, and can think deeply enough, to understand that the problem of violence is not one that has a binary solution to be solved only via monopoly powers of government. There are literally thousands of creative ideas that can be tried to combat violence...before resorting to coercion by the State. If you read the other posts here, you would understand how those ideas could be explored, and also why they have pretty much died out. No libertarian or anarcho-liberterian lives in a fantasy world where they think they can just 'wish away' violence. They just understand the answer to violence is not as simple as a vote for 'yes' or 'no' on a ballot box. If that's the world you wish to live, then great. If not, I suggest you open your mind a bit, expand your thinking, and at least consider what the other side has to say.