Why do people support states when they can be individualist anarchists?

Why do people support states when they can be individualist anarchists?

Because anarchism isn't a functional system

Anarchists seem to offer very little real evidence that their ideal society would lack the problems of the current one, or any realistic method of transition that doesn't involve a murderous revolution, or a way to practically stop another state emerging.

Giving a small amount of people a monopoly on force is good, because authorities have the power to quickly resolve disputes and prevent feuds perpetually escalating. Draco is considered a tyrant today but there's a reason his contemporaries loved him.

Friendly reminder that you (referring to anarchists) can go out into the wilderness and live a life completely off the grid to fulfill your anarchist dream any time.

People are too stupid for anarchism.

There is nothing wrong with a police state, if it were up to me all digital communication would be monitored, everyone's DNA and fingerprints would go into a database and there would be hd omnidirectional cameras every 15 feet in public.

Shut up you edgelord faggot. Think about practicalities for once on your life instead of steering to the retard political fringes because power fantasies and ideological commitment gives you a boner.

The anarchist's opposition to the state comes from communism, even if they pretend to fully repudiate it (much like the democrat's theory of equal beings comes from Christianity, even if they pretend to distance themselves from it and vilify it). But despotism comes before both of them. Despotism is the start of everything — what allowed us to part ways from the animals and forge our own future. It was strong human beings who took control of the herd and turned it into a tribe, the tribe into a city, the city into a nation, the nation into an empire, the empire into a culture, and finally the culture... into an Overman. And it is the strong (no-longer-so-)human being who, once more, will lead the way by lighting the match that will send up the entire world in flames.

anarchism — savagery — which again can only be temporary, instantaneous even (if not utterly fictional). The moment the strongest men in the group step forward, new governments and government mixtures and nations spring forth, and the game begins anew.

Buddhists, Christians, democrats, socialists, communists, anarchists: Precisely because none of them already have the utopia that they are all so desperately looking for, it'd be ridiculous to take their absurd, incoherent ravings seriously, as ridiculous, indeed, as taking business advice from a homeless person.

The increased level of stress in the modern world is a reflection and direct consequence of the increase in the extent of the order of rank inside our culture (the Western one, that is). Instead of many little hierarchies, you have a gigantic one, in which everyone feels the weight of many more others on top of him than before. This is globalization. And globalization is efficiency (which is to say progress). You have two options then. Engage with globalization — and either reap the rewards if you are above average, or the extra stress if you are below —, and don't engage globalization, by, I don't know, moving to a desert island or Siberia or something and living like a savage. Either way neither I nor anyone else is going to give a fuck about you if you are below average, which is precisely the reason you are so stressed. Claiming that disengaging from globalization is a solution is of course a ruse, because no one ever does that (i.e. no one takes the Siberia option). They don't even want to limit the extent of their own country's globalization, because when this actually happens they whine about high prices and falling quality of life. At most they try to grab as much as they can of the fruits of globalization while giving back as little as possible. And that's why they are so stressed, because leeching is a far more nervously taxing strategy than simply giving, which is what the above average do, which is why they are above average.

Instead of being retarded, at least be right-libertarian if you worry about muh freedoms. Anarchism is pleb tier.

Because all anarchist thought can be reduced effectively to one of two sentiments

1. Trying to make all human social interactions voluntary, which is beyond impractical, its completely impossible.

2. Simply trying to get rid of the State. This doesn't work at the level of absolute conflicts of interest. Ultimately when multiple institutions cannot form a compromise, the question arises can another institution force them. If it can, then the resulting network of institutions is just splitting the organs of the State up into more divided components [a questionable victory for individual liberty], if none can, the result will be war.

Because you're more likely to have a nasty, short, and brutal life. A strong state protects you against other people.

>I have absolutely no respect for privacy, nor can I comprehend the vast amounts of resources that would be wasted on such an endeavor specifically to find out someone's secret fetishes and haplotypes (because that's pretty much all you would find 99% of the time)
>inb4 le nothing to hide maymay

>a world with a 100% incarceration rate for crimes that occur in public or leave behind Dna

Oh wow yes how hellish.

Protein: you don't need a 100 million guys monitoring CCTV round the clock to make them effective.

>You committed [X] victimless crime, it's time to lock you up in an institution that costs the taxpayer $100,000 per year not to mention a total loss of economic productivity because you no longer have a job, oh and by the way your wife and children's lives will be irreparably harmed for lack of a husband/father figure

and all because you couldn't follow the speed limit on an otherwise empty road.

I'm not even talking about the manpower, you colossal faggot. Do you realize how much hardware would need to be put into place to monitor every single public venue in the state of Rhode Island by itself, not to mention the sheer amount of data that would be collected and stored? Even the NSA is laughing at your sheer stupidity in thinking that you can efficiently set up and maintain a complex system of that magnitude.
Also this , regimes which crack down on security are known to be among the most corrupt, abusive, and hard-lined in existence.

Oh yes, just because there are more cameras and Dna databases we're all of sudden treating speeding 5 miles over the limit like a felony, look how fast you're resorting to ridiculous straw men because you have no argument.

There is something wrong with a police state because the law is not always correct, and if the state gains absolute power like that then they would have no reasons to be just, fair, or moral in their laws at all. Youre condemning humanity to permanent slavery.

funny that you use the word tyrant

Has an anarchist ever actually refuted pic related?

You do realize that with greater surveillance comes a greater risk of someone abusing the information gathered via surveillance?

Do you have any fucking idea how cameras there are in most cities already and how many people ended up getting arrested just from grainy security cameras from 7/11 and traffic lights being patched together?

Imagine how much money would be saved in the long run if human patrols were replaced by an extensive CCTV network in hd.

Going for a walk in a large city at night wherever you want and knowing if anyone is stupid enough to do anything to you they are 100% going to jail. What a dystopia.

I know he was a legislator and not a king but that image fits how people see him ime.

The risk is somewhere between the risk posed by Google knowing your favorite brand of amine pillow from crawling your gmail account and a police man deciding to crack open your skull because he's having a bad day. I.e. manageable

>oing for a walk in a large city at night wherever you want and knowing if anyone is stupid enough to do anything to you they are 100% going to jail. What a dystopia.

Until you realize politicians define crime, the punishments for crime and can selectively choose what to enforce.

Perpetual surveillance violates the premise of "innocent until proven guilty", because unless we're presumed to be guilty, there's no need to monitor everyone constantly.

>manageable
>these violations and abusive practices occur daily in western society and many of the perpetrators end up with a slap on the wrist or just plain getting away with it
>these conditions would only escalate further under the ideal police state you wish to set up
>manageable

I wouldn't want a world without rebels, troublemakers and degenerates. They have a place, however ignoble it may be.

Perpetual surveillance is here already, it doesn't seem to violate innocent until proven, even if it did using muh cawnstitooshun doesn't do much against the essential benefits of it from a theoretical standpoints, neither does automatically assuming a situation would arise where grandmas are getting ten year prison sentences for littering on camera.

>Perpetual surveillance is here already, it doesn't seem to violate innocent until proven

That's most of the reason it's controversial with bullshit like PRISM. You're trying to make it worse.

>ven if it did using muh cawnstitooshun doesn't do much against the essential benefits of it from a theoretical standpoints

The fact that you reference human rights so derisively shows exactly why faggots like you can't be trusted in government. Benefits are never "theoretical", they're practical and real or nonexistent, and you exclusively pay attention to your autistic desire for SUPERSAFETY while simply ignoring the misery and loss of agency it would cause, the paranoia and hatred it would engender, and the extreme potential for corruption it allows.

>neither does automatically assuming a situation would arise where grandmas are getting ten year prison sentences for littering on camera.

Perhaps not, but cops are already assholes today and I see no reason why giving them more power would magically lessen abuse of authority. Emulating North Korea won't make any country happier or more propserous, because totalitarianism is inherently conductive to suffering as history repeatedly demonstrates.

If you're allowed to be photographed in public, cctv does not violate any constitutional rights, having MORE cctv would probably cause LESS abuse by the police (along with them wearing body cams) not more.

Assuming proper surveillance and forensics tools would implicitly leads to widescale abuse by the state is the same as assuming arming officers with batons and guns will always implicitly lead to them seeking bribes and extorting regular citizens.

How exactly does an anarchist society prevent states from springing up?

States provide more stability and security.

Having them more heavily armed does lead to escalating situations and brutality though.

>1. Trying to make all human social interactions voluntary, which is beyond impractical, its completely impossible.
So, because removing all crime is impractical or completely impossible, that means we shouldn't try?
>2. Simply trying to get rid of the State. This doesn't work at the level of absolute conflicts of interest. Ultimately when multiple institutions cannot form a compromise, the question arises can another institution force them. If it can, then the resulting network of institutions is just splitting the organs of the State up into more divided components [a questionable victory for individual liberty], if none can, the result will be war.
It's not zero-sum. If two individuals or organizations cannot work together or compromise, then they can find someone who can.
A strong state protects me only as far as I continue contributing to it. In a state, an individual is under the constant threat or use of violence.
From refusing to participate in a warlord's adventures, including the use of violence. Modern states depend on compliance and respect for its authority for it to function; when individuals refuse to comply they are attacked, because the system is capable of using violence against minorities, if the majority refused to comply the system would collapse. Fear is one reason why the majority complies, but mostly its because they think it's "moral" or necessary to obey the state and for the state to exist.
Stability from what, other gangs? Security from what, theft (taxation), kidnapping (arrest and prison), murder (Execution and war)?

So basically your society would require, at a minimum, that the entirety of the population believe the same things you do, across endless generations, without the use of force. If at any point a warlord were to form a state, even if it was supported by a minority of the population at first, the anarchist bubble would burst and be forced into warring factions.

All systems require the majority to believe in its legitimacy, anarchism included.
>If at any point a warlord were to form a state
If people didn't believe in statism and had the means to defend themselves from outside aggression, the warlord wouldn't be able to form one. Warlords gain their power through being capable of oppressing those who can't fight back and they gain their legitimacy from the myth of authority.

There might always be crime and bandits who might decide they want to rule the land, but people are capable of defending against the level of violence when it rarely becomes a problem, whereas the violence of the state is universal and pervades the entire society and is practically impossible to fight against.

It is objectively true that the narrower the monopoly over violence in a state, the lower the levels of violence citizens of that state suffer from. This has been proven, over and over again. For an ideology that claims to want evidence for the utility of a state, the fact that anarchists refuse to accept this overwhelming proof is itself proof that anarchists are just infants, not interested ins serious discussion with adults,

The difference being is that anarchism has no way to reinforce its legitimacy. Even if everyone, today, on the entire planet, started believing in anarchy, eventually everyone would die out and be replaced with new generations who may not hold the same beliefs. Eventually someone will rise and exploit the power vacuum that exists in stateless societies, we've seen it time and time again throughout history.

Basically all you're proving to me is that anarchism is a utopian ideology, which I already knew.

>Stability from what, other gangs?

Yes.

>Security from what, theft

Yes

>kidnapping

Yes

>murder

Yes

>HURR BUT U DO AL DOSE THINGS URSELV

So would an anarchist "state", it would merely rely on a local posse to enforce the law instead of a professional law enforcement apparatus. Or are you trying to claim that theft and murder simply wouldn't happen in an anarchist state?

>All systems require the majority to believe in its legitimacy, anarchism included.

No, anarchism requires CONSENSUS, not a simple majority. You're not going to FORCE people to not voluntarily form a state, are you?

>you! follow the NAP or I shoot!

It's actually worse than that, the NAP is a useless doctrine that resolves exactly zero problems. Say an an-cap and an an-com get into an argument about 'your' farm:
>The land belongs to me! You're breaking the NAP by throwing me off!
>But Comrade, no man can own land, it belongs to the people! You have broken the NAP by building a fence around the People's land!

Arguing the NAP gets you no-where. The real argument is, does property count as a "natural right" or not? Ancaps simply assert that it does, but there's literally no reason to beleive them, and even if it were true, no piece of land anywhere on Earth has a complete and "voluntary" history of exchanges, at some point every piece of land was stolen , breaking the legitimacy claims of the current owners and exposing the lie at the core of ancap ideology.

>It is objectively true that the narrower the monopoly over violence in a state, the lower the levels of violence citizens of that state suffer from
Are you saying the narrower the right of the state to use violence equates to the less violence the citizen receives from the state? How does this tautology say anything about anarchism?
There is no legitimacy in anarchism since it is the absence of any system of coercion. People live there lives without fucking with any people. Some of those people will create organizations that people can willingly and voluntarily join and leave. There is no need for some legitimacy for using coercion because there is no coercion.

There is no power vacuum in anarchy since there are no structures of power that have roles that need to be filled. The power of the state and similar organizations derives from the individuals underneath it complying, if no one complies there is no structure to coerce them. People would not comply since they would not believe in the authority of power hungry criminals and would use violence against those criminals if they didn't fuck off. The difference between a criminal and a dictator is a criminal is an individual no one respects and can be dealt with on an individual basis, whereas a dictator has the respect/fear/compliance of those under him and with those followers he is able to oppress others. In anarchism people have the means to defend themselves from criminals and the absence of the delusion that sees those criminals as kings.
>So would an anarchist "state", it would merely rely on a local posse to enforce the law instead of a professional law enforcement apparatus
If you don't understand anarchism you shouldn't argue against it. There is no taxation, prisons, or conscriptions in anarchism, nor are there laws. There is only peaceful, voluntary interaction and if you turn to violence people will respond with violence against you.

There is no such thing as a voluntary state. If someone wants to voluntarily join a quasi-state where they are told what to do and punished for disobeying, that's their choice. The problem comes when this organization decides to force others to stay in it or into it.

Anarchism requires nothing at all than for people to live there own lives without coercing others. No consensus or vote required.

>Are you saying the narrower the right of the state to use violence equates to the less violence the citizen receives from the state? How does this tautology say anything about anarchism?

Is that what I said? Or are you an illiterate? The violence citizens experience is lower when the state has a tighter monopoly over force. Not "just" the violence those citizens suffer from their state, all violence, from all sources, period.

>If you don't understand anarchism you shouldn't argue against it. There is no taxation, prisons, or conscriptions in anarchism, nor are there laws.

You claim I don't understand anarchism and then you drop a howler like this? Read a book, moron.

There is only peaceful, voluntary interaction and if you turn to violence people will respond with violence against you.

On what basis? If I rape your daughter to death, you still can't touch me because I haven't initiated violence against YOU.

>Anarchism requires nothing at all than for people to live there own lives without coercing others.

Literally, physically, impossible.

>The violence citizens experience is lower when the state has a tighter monopoly over force.
So, the more controlling and dictatorial a state is, through violence of course, the less violence the citizens experience? There might be less violence between individuals, but that is irrelevant since it is made up by the constant violence or its threat by the state.
>You claim I don't understand anarchism and then you drop a howler like this? Read a book, moron.
Not an argument.
>On what basis? If I rape your daughter to death, you still can't touch me because I haven't initiated violence against YOU.
No, I never said that.
>Literally, physically, impossible.
>it's literally impossible to do the absence of an action
Fuck, someone should've told everyone else that who usually go about their day minding their own business.

You obviously don't know anything. Not about anarchism, not about "statism",not about violence, not about law, not about morality, not about physics, really there's no beginning to your knowledge. I was going to keep mocking you but it's clear you're a moron so I wont bother.

Best reaction image I could find desu

>Fuck, someone should've told everyone else that who usually go about their day minding their own business.
How does anarchism handle required positive externalities? The only anarchism that makes any sense at all is anarcho-primitivism.

What are required positive externalities?

Let's say someone builds a factory. Where does the smoke go? Either it wafts over other land, reducing its value, making people sick, and violating the NAP, or the people owning the land band together and force the factory owner to install scrubbers, again violating the NAP, or the factory owner installs scrubbers before the factory opens, an implicit violation of the NAP through perceived threat.

I'm not an ancap and I don't believe in the NAP, but regardless, the factory owner is transgressing against others by polluting; I believe ancaps also believe that. His property rights end where my wellbeing begins.

>, the factory owner is transgressing against others by polluting
How does a factory *not* pollute.

It's more of a question of how could a capitalist factory not pollute and remain competitive, and it couldn't. If all factories were expected and forced not to, then they would scrub their CO2, recycle their materials, store their toxic waste in permanent barrels instead of dumping it in the river, etc.

>and forced
As I said before, the only anarchism which works is anarcho-primitivism.

Because the state is the product of class relations in society. And as long as classes exist, the state will be rebuilding itself over and over

A better example is domestic settings.

Smoky coal causing deadly smogs in London only being stopped by legislative action. Or contemporary concern over diesel engines in urban areas.

I mean it's a moot point, as no roads to drive a diesel engine on, but still there does not seem an effective means of addressing everyday pollution from individuals.

The best idea for any place that is crime ridden would be to release posters depicting criminals and police working in cahoots with eachother. That would stir up the ire of the public.

And humanities get out

Well people depend on each other so people will band up in family, gang, tribe, state. Idea isn't bad but it has proven in history to not be self sufficiant as everything has.

What were the other two books Sargon recommended? I forgot.

I'm not an anarchist retard, but this is clearly wrong.

>Precisely because none of them already have the utopia that they are all so desperately looking for,
Christians aren't trying to establish a utopia unless your a weird sect of Protestantism. idk where you get that idea from.