That’s why I had to leave teaching. The Department Of Education will tell you everything to do down to the most minute detail. They know people hate it. I pray to God the Department Of Education gets abolished. Yes a lot of women will lose jobs but good!!! That would be better for society anyway!
They are putting more more women on the government payroll every day.
That’s one of the ways they get the women to be Democrats. Make sure their salary it’s pretty good, a lot of state benefits that everybody has to pay for and they will always vote Democrat to keep their job
No, worse. Hypocrites. Pretending to be conservative, and then, even though they are not supposed to have physical relations before marriage, the conservative females are groping their boyfriends in front of everyone!
It’s disgusting and these Republicans always vote against anything conservative. They will vote for feminism for gay rights for the things that make America weak and evil.
I’m not trying to strawman here, but at some point a somewhat coercive behavior must be employed if one seeks to disallow the impact of another person’s ill behaviors, whether that action involves banishment or something else.
I’m tired of addressing this same straw man. The threat of RECIPROCAL violence is always on the table even when no state exists. If anything, the state forbids you from seeking justice when the worst criminals run free and run for office. I debunk your objection here: https://sotiris.substack.com/p/punishing-criminals-in-the-absence
Ok, the “objection” I had was more a question of what constitutes a state. When does a corporation resemble a state closely enough to begin being classified as one (a rose by any other name and such)? An insurance company used to protect one’s interests starts looking like organized governance.
You're more than welcom to condemn states as immoral due to their foundation in the use of force. But those states dominate the world for a reason: because that force allows them to. Any stateless society must be able to meet that force with equal or greater force. Otherwise, it won't matter how moral it is.
I imagine we would need a coalition of stateless societies working together to defend against states. Right now if the US were to become stateless it could still defend itself quite easily as long as it was not in a condition of chaos, it is the nature of the culture and people that matters more than the political framework (ie anarcho-capitalism could potentially work quite well for Americans or Northern Europeans but would be a complete failure in Africa).
I'm not as optimistic as you are. Coordinating decentralized systems has always been one step removed from herding cats. It is not at all clear to me that stateless societies could coordinate the kind of infrastructure, long term planning, and unified policy that would allow them to sustain themselves in a military conflict against centralized states.
Trust me I am no optimist. I have little faith in humanity. The optimist here is you because you place your faith in a centralized monopoly of violence (government) and cross your fingers hoping for the best. I just trust human incentive, and with that, with the right knowledge, we can form decentralized stateless systems of self-government.
I think we would need some kind of system to provide a basis for leaders to emerge and work together when necessary against external threats. The most plausible approach seems to be something along the lines of Moldbug's neocameralism idea to me, which you could argue isn't true anarchism but I think it would still maintain the core values imo. If you had people choosing to move to different territories that had been purchased by particular corporate executives and working for them in exchange for contractual citizenship that could be revoked by either party, as you see in a lot of cyberpunk fiction where your job is linked to your national identity, you would not have to deal with the kind of exploitation and oppression of having a single state controlling a territory of fixed size and not allowing any political competition even if there are a significant number of people with different needs and interests.
I wholeheartedly disagree. It is not force that keeps stars in power. It is people's erroneous presumption that the state is morally justifiable. Proof of this is the state's desperate need to constantly propagadize. If it were only force, then propaganda would be useless. The people collectively possess more force than any state.
Man, I have only one question - why aren't you still my subscriber too? I believe we think alike in many ways.
I do absolutely agree with you too. I always loved Ancient Greece and Rome - not so much. Greece was always free, Rome wasn't truly free even before the Empire IMO.
You're conflating weakness with immorality: the rapist can and does overpower his victim; the conquering army does rape and pillage its way through the defeated people's land. How? By being more powerful.
Though every empire has eventually succumbed to stagnation and decadence - that is; become weak - this has only meant that they too were conquered in their turn.
Virtually the whole world has now been overrun by authoritarianism. As abhorrent as violent coercion is, the fact remains that has been consistently effective.
Moral indignation alone cannot turn back the tide.
Wait. You thought the strong ruled the world? Nah. This world rewards quantity over quality. The many sheep will devour the few wolves. This is literally what democracy is.
If we're serious about creating a stateless society, and not just playing word games on the internet, then we must be absolutely, brutally honest about what it is that we confront. We must see the world as it is, and not how we might wish it to be.
That’s why I had to leave teaching. The Department Of Education will tell you everything to do down to the most minute detail. They know people hate it. I pray to God the Department Of Education gets abolished. Yes a lot of women will lose jobs but good!!! That would be better for society anyway!
They are putting more more women on the government payroll every day.
That’s one of the ways they get the women to be Democrats. Make sure their salary it’s pretty good, a lot of state benefits that everybody has to pay for and they will always vote Democrat to keep their job
Are Republicans any better though?
No, worse. Hypocrites. Pretending to be conservative, and then, even though they are not supposed to have physical relations before marriage, the conservative females are groping their boyfriends in front of everyone!
It’s disgusting and these Republicans always vote against anything conservative. They will vote for feminism for gay rights for the things that make America weak and evil.
Absolutely.
Here's a question: are there any circumstances under which coercion is necessary?
No. And to catch the usual strawman, disallowing murder is not coercion.
I’m not trying to strawman here, but at some point a somewhat coercive behavior must be employed if one seeks to disallow the impact of another person’s ill behaviors, whether that action involves banishment or something else.
I’m tired of addressing this same straw man. The threat of RECIPROCAL violence is always on the table even when no state exists. If anything, the state forbids you from seeking justice when the worst criminals run free and run for office. I debunk your objection here: https://sotiris.substack.com/p/punishing-criminals-in-the-absence
Ok, the “objection” I had was more a question of what constitutes a state. When does a corporation resemble a state closely enough to begin being classified as one (a rose by any other name and such)? An insurance company used to protect one’s interests starts looking like organized governance.
This addresses your objection: https://sotiris.substack.com/p/state-vs-statelessness
Not if there’s competition.
You're more than welcom to condemn states as immoral due to their foundation in the use of force. But those states dominate the world for a reason: because that force allows them to. Any stateless society must be able to meet that force with equal or greater force. Otherwise, it won't matter how moral it is.
I imagine we would need a coalition of stateless societies working together to defend against states. Right now if the US were to become stateless it could still defend itself quite easily as long as it was not in a condition of chaos, it is the nature of the culture and people that matters more than the political framework (ie anarcho-capitalism could potentially work quite well for Americans or Northern Europeans but would be a complete failure in Africa).
Indeed, culture plays a huge role. Cultures that don't value freedom will never want to be stateless anyway
I'm not as optimistic as you are. Coordinating decentralized systems has always been one step removed from herding cats. It is not at all clear to me that stateless societies could coordinate the kind of infrastructure, long term planning, and unified policy that would allow them to sustain themselves in a military conflict against centralized states.
Trust me I am no optimist. I have little faith in humanity. The optimist here is you because you place your faith in a centralized monopoly of violence (government) and cross your fingers hoping for the best. I just trust human incentive, and with that, with the right knowledge, we can form decentralized stateless systems of self-government.
I think we would need some kind of system to provide a basis for leaders to emerge and work together when necessary against external threats. The most plausible approach seems to be something along the lines of Moldbug's neocameralism idea to me, which you could argue isn't true anarchism but I think it would still maintain the core values imo. If you had people choosing to move to different territories that had been purchased by particular corporate executives and working for them in exchange for contractual citizenship that could be revoked by either party, as you see in a lot of cyberpunk fiction where your job is linked to your national identity, you would not have to deal with the kind of exploitation and oppression of having a single state controlling a territory of fixed size and not allowing any political competition even if there are a significant number of people with different needs and interests.
I wholeheartedly disagree. It is not force that keeps stars in power. It is people's erroneous presumption that the state is morally justifiable. Proof of this is the state's desperate need to constantly propagadize. If it were only force, then propaganda would be useless. The people collectively possess more force than any state.
Man, I have only one question - why aren't you still my subscriber too? I believe we think alike in many ways.
I do absolutely agree with you too. I always loved Ancient Greece and Rome - not so much. Greece was always free, Rome wasn't truly free even before the Empire IMO.
“Why aren’t you still my subscriber too?”
But I'm your subscriber though.
You're conflating weakness with immorality: the rapist can and does overpower his victim; the conquering army does rape and pillage its way through the defeated people's land. How? By being more powerful.
Though every empire has eventually succumbed to stagnation and decadence - that is; become weak - this has only meant that they too were conquered in their turn.
Virtually the whole world has now been overrun by authoritarianism. As abhorrent as violent coercion is, the fact remains that has been consistently effective.
Moral indignation alone cannot turn back the tide.
Immorality is weakness.
Then how is it that the immoral rule the world?
Wait. You thought the strong ruled the world? Nah. This world rewards quantity over quality. The many sheep will devour the few wolves. This is literally what democracy is.
If we're serious about creating a stateless society, and not just playing word games on the internet, then we must be absolutely, brutally honest about what it is that we confront. We must see the world as it is, and not how we might wish it to be.
Sheep do not eat wolves.