Every major accomplishment of Human history has been due to Statism

anarkiddies btfo

>tfw he lives in post-national state era of globalization and still believes the communist state myth from the 1850

>Libertarianism
They're not anit-government/state, they just want it on a leash

>the state

Are you telling me that people who vast resources who wouldn't need to give them up to a "state" through "taxation" couldn't use those raw resources to do any of those things?

Furthermore, what makes any of those things of any value? The person with the resources will use them to create something of value to them. The pyramids mean jack shit to us except someone built them a long time ago and that was cool, but we don't look to them and say "wow, and it was all thanks to having a centralized state," we look at them and say "wow, egypt had the MANPOWER and RESOURCES to create this." Any megalomaniac with the resources could do the same no matter where or when, state or no state.

>property existing without a state
If you're going to just use force to defend your property you might as well set up a state while you're at it.

This guy gets it

>Cavemen sit in cave
>hostile caveman enters
>one kills him, the others don't interact
>call this cave and its inhabitants "a state" because we feel like it

There's no reason to classify a bunch of people who happen to live in the same area a state. Are bohemian enclaves "states" then too?

For the record, I'm not an anarchist.

>cavemen building the pyramids

>Are you telling me that people who vast resources who wouldn't need to give them up to a "state" through "taxation" couldn't use those raw resources to do any of those things?

They could, but no matter how rich a given person is within some state, the state can always acquire more resources than that person by taxing him. Hence, taxation opens up the door to bigger projects than any one person no matter how wealthy could afford.

Furthermore, there is merit in handing resources over to people who cannot use them merely for their own personal benefit (if they can, the state is corrupt and useless).

Bullshit. Also, they have this knack for allying themslves with every fringe movement that comes along which makes me question whether or not they're really a cult/terrorist group waiting to happen.

But the state doesn't only focus on that one area. The sum total of those collected resources go to many different sectors, with very little focus on the individual parts other than the fact that they exist.

The lack of allocation of resources to NASA and its private competition, SpaceX, will either validate the need for government allocating resources on its own or whether it gets in the way in the end.

Every major disaster of Human history has been due to Statism.

Name one place where anarchy works

Did permission have a cap on top like in this pic?

What was it made of

define accomplishment

How are the pyramids an accomplishment? Why are building universities, writing laws, putting people in space, etc. accomplishments?

also
>the state discovered America
I didn't know prehistoric Asian hunter-gatherers had a state

>Asian

le meme xDDDDDDDDD

where exactly is the demarcation between people organizing each other and the state anyway? what do anarchists even mean by the state? isn't a state the natural conclusion of any sort of human organization at least bigger than a small tribe?

They came from Asia, so Asian

>Capitalism itself exists thanks to the State maintaining the Rule of Law
HA HA HA HA HA!

Capitalism is rich smart people ripping off dumb poor people.

It's pure greed and reptilian brain activity.

Fuck your neighbor and take his money.

That's it. Basic pre-caveman animal bullshit.

Grow the fuck up Polly Prissypants.

Right, this is why I can never get on board with full communism

forgot pic

>has been

But capitalism is literally destroying out planet right now.

Is statism gonna fix that too?

fug

>Communism, [...] and all other variants that seek to do away with the State
What the fuck are you on about?

Communism is a prime example of Statism.

>the statist view of writing

it's popular for people to think that literacy is and always has been a completely controlled enterprise, and to an extent that's true, but you're being a shit historian and tbhh shit thinker if you dont know that literacy is a function of both reception and production, that is reading and writing, and develops in unpredictable ways outside the control of the state.

It doesn't need to work it is anarchism

In practice, not in their purported "theory"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
>In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal") is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.

>There is nothing Humans cannot do when we pool our resources together.

Holocaust
Genocide
Nuclear Terror
Systemic Racism
Pogroms
Gulags

Yup, you're right. No limits whatsoever.

>Gulags
>A bad thing

You get rid of political enemies without killing them... it's better than a guillotine making the streets of Paris running red

Stalin confirmed for most civil leader of all time

>without

Not without, by. By killing them. That's what statists do. They label YOU an enemy of the state, and YOU are executed.

No.
Neither in theory, nor sometimes in practices.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory#Establishment
Once you get increasingly commie, the state would whither away, according to Marx.
Of course, i don't care what people say their system will develop like, be the author Marx, or some other commie dweeb, or whatever austrian econoautists and ancap facebook zealots.
The results are usually the same.
Mate, the written word, from it's inception, either developed in a country because the state needed to organize, or because religion.

>replicated the big bang
people actually believe this

>Mate, the written word, from it's inception, either developed in a country because the state needed to organize, or because religion.

and even if that were totally true (pieces of it may be), conditions change

>Implying individuals don't kill for arbitrary reasons

Individuals killing individuals is the history of mankind.

Slaughtering people by the millions is the history of statism.

>conditions change
And show me an example of non-meme writing developed outside of those contexts

>Slaughtering people by the millions is the history of statism.
>He thinks he needs a state to do mass killings, and people haven't done that on their own;

The state enforces the value of the fiat currency capitalists take from dumb poor people, though.

I mean at the very basic level there has to be some sort of an entity that enforces order, or else people cannot focus on higher pursuits not related to immediate survival.

>Libertarianism
>Do away with the state
Good thing libertarians don't seek to do that then only reduce the influence of the state on individuals as much as possible.

"Hey Bob I'll give you some of my milk if you give me some of your bread"
Capitalism it's not a zero sum game.

go to bed stirner

You're right comrade, we need to maintain equality of wealth between the workers and the entrepreneurs/investors, doing away with all forms of class distinctions so as to [COLLAPSES]

>Pyramids
Not an accomplishment

Nonetheless, says it all

Hi, I'm Robert

not an argument

Ups

>Libertarianism, Communism, Anarchism, AnCap and all other variants that seek to do away with the State are retarded and go against the very concept of civilization and Human nature.
>Implying civilization and the nationstate are intertwined

into the trash it goes

All states are corrupt. None are useless, at least not to those profiting from said corruption.

The concept of just government is just as irrational as communism. People occupy the posts in government, and people are corrupt.

This is why communism cannot work, and why just government cannot either.

/Inb4 the singularity. When people no longer are able to bully others, then there will be freedom. This requires that people do not rule others, by definition.

I, for one, will be grateful when our benevolent robot overlords take over.

This.

>go against the very concept of civilization and Human nature.

Those are some fantastic spooks you got there, statist.

Enforce order=slavery

That's not really a rebuttal. Continuing nihilism into the domain of mereological nihilism doesn't negate political nihilism. Address his first argument or shut the fuck up.

That's an American invention (spurred by anarcho-capitalists, actually). Libertarian is another name or what are effective anarchists everywhere else. It's distinct from anarchism in that it refers to other, non-anarchist ideologies as such as autonomism, council-communism, and situationism.

No.

>Not an accomplishment
Nigger are you fucking serious? It was the largest structure in the world for 3,800 years. It was built entirely by free labor over 500 years before the invention of the spoked wheel and the mathematical precision of its engineering is insane.

And it wouldn't have been possible but for the primitive despotic state that arose in Egypt and allowed individual strongmen to pool (relatively) vast reserves of wealth and manpower and order public works projects such as the pyramids.

He showed that his argument that the state isn't real implies that nothing is real.

Libertarianism isn't anarchy like you think it is
Commies ended up making some pretty statist countries

Also, your last part is filled with spooks

anarcho-capitalism is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion. If your conception of government is that it is a parasite detracting from the common man, then anything less than its full eradication is ideological defeatism, the Neville Chamberlain of ideological stances. Purists will not only shun you, they'll use your ideological heterodoxy as a political weapon to drive you out of the decision making process.

This is why the French Revolution ended with a reign of blood followed by an imperial state, and why the Bolshevik Revolution ended with a totalitarian dictatorship And why Naziism lead to extermination camps. This is how it works in every ideology. Bad money has a way of driving out good money.

The final goal of the libertarian and the anarcho-Capitalist is the full privatization of society, including state functions, and the total commodification of labor. It would be a neo-feudalist state though, not a true anarchy, and it would invariably be a totalitarian dictatorship in everything but name, just like the rest.

I thought I've read somewhere the pyramid used mostly paid labor but payed in stupid shit like garlic or dates

I hate modern education so much.

But at what point has the state begun overreaching?

When they encroach upon your bedroom?

When they limit your ability to obtain a certain substance under the guise that it is a "gateway drug"?

which probably speaks more to the primitive nature of their barter economy than it does to any malicious intent on behalf of the Despot.

Individuals are capable of acting, states are not unless they "act" through individuals.

You tried tho.

>come to this thread to read an interesting discussion on the state
>it turns into a commie-wank instead

fuck this board so much

Individuals cannot act unless acting through cells

>show me the state is a thing

It exists as a concept, as do individuals.

Shut the fuck up if you could not understand a simple implication.

You are looking for simple answers where there are none. Government, nay civilization itself, is a constantly adapting, theorizing and testing entity. No question can be settled forever because context is always changing. These are questions that every society must continually debate amongst themselves until the end of time.

The problem with anarchists and libertarian types is that they don't get that humans are a species that live in groups to survive. Any group needs rules that govern interactions to function and thus survive, and those rules can only exist if there is some ability to enforce them. Any population size that exceeds the ability for everyone to know everyone else personally, and thus operate using simple social pressures, must create a codified impersonal system of rules to be administered consistently. This of course necessitates an authority ,whether democratic or authoritarian, to decide upon and enforce those rules and WHOOPS! you have a government. Libertarians, Communists, and Anarchists wanting to get rid of government and states are like Ant's going without a colony or Bee's without a hive. You can't get rid of states without getting rid of humans because states whether democratic or tyrannical are an integral part of humanity.

That's why you leave your computer and go outside, and meet real people.

In practice they almost did it too. The Bolsheviks came close to abolish the Tsarist state. It resulted in almost total chaos.

First of all, Libertarianism needs a state regardless of what whiney neckbeards say. Capitalism itself (as you said) flourished because of the state.

I'm not going to argue with you on the fact that statism has contributed to the wellbeing of individuals.

According to most anarchists, I'm a statist simply because I believe we should be ruled.

But the reason I'm against statism is because it doesn't allow for humane interests. And by "humane", I don't mean "activism" or "charity"; what I mean by "humane", is that statism doesn't follow a natural order; it utilizes anxiety to perpetuate surplus and progress. Capitalism and statism will always be "progressive" in the sense that people always maintain an anxiety and fear of being stagnant or regressive.

I mean, look at every species of mammal on Earth. Every one of them is content with their own lives; they're content with having to go out and forage constantly for food. They're content with shitting on the grass. They have no need or desire for anything that "aids" them or makes work easier, because work isn't seen as a chore or anxiety. ONLY in the middle class can a person enjoy his/her job, because it's only the middle class who have no fear of losing their money.

Religion and political beliefs are very indicative of the kind of society and people that have those beliefs. For hundreds of years, the Romans, the Greeks, The Norse, the Japanese, and any civilization that was a feudalist civilization, had more than one god, and they were as humane as the societies that worshiped those gods; being lustful, greedy, charitable, and sometimes stupid. The monotheist gods, on the other hand, were strict, non-human, lawful and often evil; such is the religion of a statist society where the rule of law replaces the rule of honour and loyalty.

No state has ever practiced "statism" itself. A state is merely a tool in order to achieve political goals. This is why some states went as far as destroying themselves, as they gambled to achieve something. Such historical events show that the state necessarily needs its external reference in order to form itself, usually in the form of ideals.

A state which concerns itself merely for its own preservation leads to a decaying state, as it has lost sight of its original purposes, and/or has already achieved its practical limitation (as a tool). If that is statism, then it will certainly be a terrible idea.

Once you get Agriculture going, it starts to happen. Because with Agiculture, you can start making a mega farm, but a mega farm can't be moved. The herd animals can be moved, but not the crops.
Its also a size thing. Instead of tribe being 15-20 people, the agriculture tribe can be 50-100 people.
Because tools is a thing, the tribe can make better tools than before.

Before that, there might be conflict because Tribes want to use the same hunting grounds, but its far smaller in scale.
Then again, I am talking to you, a Modernite.
As a Modernite, you don't understand what a city state is, or a migration tribe with agriculture.
As a modernite, you are used to fixed defended borders, and live in a state where warfare is viewed as something bad. The roots of said view comes from Enlightened Pacifism, British "Muh Price for War", etc or American/British/Euro Isolationism

Anarchists who isn't learned will do the same mistake.
Even something like Clan Island(Iceland) only existed as long as they wheren't invaded, and they where so painfully aware of that, that they converted to Christianity per council decree to avoid getting invaded.

>For hundreds of years, the Romans, the Greeks, The Norse, the Japanese, and any civilization that was a feudalist civilization, had more than one god, and they were as humane as the societies that worshiped those gods; being lustful, greedy, charitable, and sometimes stupid. The monotheist gods, on the other hand, were strict, non-human, lawful and often evil; such is the religion of a statist society where the rule of law replaces the rule of honour and loyalty.
Nigga, wtf are you talking about?
Those societies were more cruel than whatever christian medieval state.

>Any population size that exceeds the ability for everyone to know everyone else personally, and thus operate using simple social pressures, must create a codified impersonal system of rules to be administered consistently.
And then you get meme-anarchists that say "well, we just need to revert to small communities, then"

>Revert to tribalism
>Only reason there is no major wars is because of lack of technology
>Area runs out of tribal migration ground, suddenly: Massive war until 20-30% of the population remains

But atleast you wont have an evul government(For about 20 years).
Doesn't that make it all worthwhile?

Hi. I'm Robert, too.

there's no reason to suggest immaterial things are not real objects, especially if they play some identifiable role in structuring objective social relations, as a state does.

Zomia

The Nile valley?

I contend that enforced order perpetuates a struggle for immediate survival, and the repression of real virtue, more so than having a lack of such an enforcing entity.

The institutionalization of education, religion and law enforcement by the order-holding, bourgeois elitists certainly appears to me as being a constriction of my autonomy. It's constricting to the point that I've felt pressured to go buy a diploma, pay tithe and question nothing, and abide by laws that were only implemented to raise money for the state.

In my experience of the college system specifically, I've borrowed money from the bourgeoisie to follow a curriculum sanctioned by the bourgeois and purchase a diploma so I can get a bourgeois-approved job with a high enough return-on-investment-potential to pay the bourgeoisie back in time before interest adds up too much.

Sure, I could drop out and buy a library card or go traveling, but the flow of books is filtered to benefit the interests of a society sculpted by the bourgeois and I don't have the money, the patience or a reputably upright background enough to buy a bunch of visas.

Seems as though, instead of having the time or freedom to contemplate shit that really matters with respect to our evolution as a species, I'm relatively limited in my options: become a corporate sell-out, become a hermit, become the crazy doomsayer on the corner, become the voice of freedom and consequently have my credibility attacked and be assassinated, or i could become an hero. Under the current order-obsessive model, I don't see much wiggle room for pursuing truth to the fullness of what truth deserves.

>enforced order = slavery
I think this guy's got it. The western world still depends on institutionalized slavery to function; the bourgeoisie is just clever enough to hide its true motives under the guises of honor, virtue, higher learning and societal betterment.

>TL;DR I'm with and Marx on this one. If that, please read.

Please, for the love of god, read up on Zomia.
>that has historically been beyond the control of governments based in the population centers of the lowlands.
Scandinavia basically had the same shit in the Inland(i.e Telemark and killing of Priests), and the Lappland(Sami).
Its not a Anarchy, its merely a area thats so far away from natural infastructure(I.e major rivers into lakes), that empires that claim the area can't actually conveniently go there.

So I repeat: Please for the love of God, read up on Zomia.
The reason Zomia is a big deal, is that its so far away from convenient land areas, that the local city states didn't want to go there.
The local empires sent a diplomat, and asked them to occasionally send taxes.
The modern nation state can just annex it by building roads, but technically its a area of so lose borders it might lead to Nation being built over night.

What is your first language?

Look up Revolutionary Catalonia and the Paris Commune and tell me that "anarchism doesn't work" you dumb authoritarians.

>t. I am upset my parents wouldn't let me pursue an Art and Theatre major

Free State of the Three Leagues.

Despite its name, a real anarchist confederation in the Swiss canton of Graubünden.

They were irrelevant shitholes