Politics is an immoral dead-end

[srqrebel]

So much to respond to... yet so little time (at least until a little later today) 

After catching up on reading this thread since yesterday, there is one post that struck me as so dramatically absurd that I just have to respond now:

The issue is not just that the state is illegitimate. The root of the issue is that the state does not exist. It is a shared hallucination, a mental delusion unfortunately suffered by a majority of people which, if it were suffered by a minority, would likely be pronounced a mental illness, or a religion.

If the State does not actually exist, then what was it that I ran headlong into a couple of months back when I was placed in handcuffs for utilizing the most efficient method of transportation at my disposal without permission?  A lone maniac acting entirely on his own initiative to impose his twisted will on me?

I watched Lauren being kidnapped by several individuals with guns and hauled off to a concrete and steel cage where she was kept against her will for 36 days.  These criminals certainly presented the appearance of acting in concert with each other to achieve the mutual objective of coercing Lauren to suffer for disobeying rules that they themselves did not make, but others did.

If the State is so imaginary, then how can it have such a real effect on my life?  Come to think of it, if the State is not just illegitimate, but does not actually exist, why bother voting in the first place?  Monopoly empires are imaginary, too -- but at least the entertainment is better.

Ok, enough with the sarcasm.  I certainly agree that it is supported by mass mental delusion.  The State itself strictly consists of the laws, buildings, people, and tools that act in concert to form it.  There is no question that all this is very real, and together those things comprise an institution (since they act in concert), and that institution is the State.  It is very real in the same way that the mafia is real.

The only part that is an illusion is the notion that we need the State to function as a society.  This is indeed a false notion, with no basis in reality whatsoever.  But that notion is not the essence of the State -- it is merely the rationalization that supports a very real institution.

[J’raxis 270145]

So much to respond to... yet so little time (at least until a little later today) 

After catching up on reading this thread since yesterday, there is one post that struck me as so dramatically absurd that I just have to respond now:

The issue is not just that the state is illegitimate. The root of the issue is that the state does not exist. It is a shared hallucination, a mental delusion unfortunately suffered by a majority of people which, if it were suffered by a minority, would likely be pronounced a mental illness, or a religion.

If the State does not actually exist, then what was it that I ran headlong into a couple of months back when I was placed in handcuffs for utilizing the most efficient method of transportation at my disposal without permission?  A lone maniac acting entirely on his own initiative to impose his twisted will on me?

I watched Lauren being kidnapped by several individuals with guns and hauled off to a concrete and steel cage where she was kept against her will for 36 days.  These criminals certainly presented the appearance of acting in concert with each other to achieve the mutual objective of coercing Lauren to suffer for disobeying rules that they themselves did not make, but others did.

If the State is so imaginary, then how can it have such a real effect on my life?  Come to think of it, if the State is not just illegitimate, but does not actually exist, why bother voting in the first place?  Monopoly empires are imaginary, too -- but at least the entertainment is better.

Ok, enough with the sarcasm.  I certainly agree that it is supported by mass mental delusion.  The State itself strictly consists of the laws, buildings, people, and tools that act in concert to form it.  There is no question that all this is very real, and together those things comprise an institution (since they act in concert), and that institution is the State.  It is very real in the same way that the mafia is real.

The only part that is an illusion is the notion that we need the State to function as a society.  This is indeed a false notion, with no basis in reality whatsoever.  But that notion is not the essence of the State -- it is merely the rationalization that supports a very real institution.

I think what he was saying is that the state is just an illusion created to surround and organize those laws, buildings, people, and tools and make them appear larger and more glorious than they really are: a simple collection of people with buildings, laws, and tools to make you do what they want. Human beings seem to like to create imaginary structures to pass off responsibility for their own acts. Gods, demons, corporations, and the State.

[d_goddard]

I have no idea who Joel Winters or Dan Itse are.

Freedom-fighters who are full-time volunteers and have been elected into the NH State House.

Joel was one of the co-sponsors of the bill that got NH out of the Federal "Real-ID"
Dan has submitted a bill to opt NH out of the North American Union.
They are both members of the NH Liberty Alliance.

If you believe, as I do, that there would be real and immediate benefit in forcing the State government back down to Constitutional size, I suggest joining us in the Liberty Alliance:
http://nhliberty.org/join

[MaineShark]

The technical definition of "anarchy" is a social system in which all interactions are based upon the unanimous consent of those who are party to them.

I would argue that the more appropriate word for that is "peace"

Peace is a symptom of anarchy.  "Peace" is not a system.

Ok, enough with the sarcasm.  I certainly agree that it is supported by mass mental delusion.  The State itself strictly consists of the laws, buildings, people, and tools that act in concert to form it.  There is no question that all this is very real, and together those things comprise an institution (since they act in concert), and that institution is the State.  It is very real in the same way that the mafia is real.

No, the State does not actually exist.  Point to "the State."

Same goes for "the mafia."  Point to it.

You can point to individuals, and items, but none of those is "the State."  The State is an image created by fantasy.  How do we know that?  Because the State has properties that no real thing can have (eg, the "right" to initiate force).  Images can certainly do damage.  The pen is mightier than the sword, supposedly.  The image of "the Jewish menace" killed millions, despite the fact that there was no real "Jewish menace."  Images are very effective, even when they aren't images of anything real.

The image of "the State" can certainly inspire others to oppress and kill, without ever being something real, itself.

Joe

[jaqeboy]

The technical definition of "anarchy" is a social system in which all interactions are based upon the unanimous consent of those who are party to them.

I would argue that the more appropriate word for that is "peace"

Peace is a symptom of anarchy.  "Peace" is not a system.

Oops, yeah, I read too fast on a break.

Peace would be the description of the condition, not of the system. However, anarchy is not a system either, it's the recognition, by naming, of the state of having no ruler.

[srqrebel]

Ok, enough with the sarcasm.  I certainly agree that it is supported by mass mental delusion.  The State itself strictly consists of the laws, buildings, people, and tools that act in concert to form it.  There is no question that all this is very real, and together those things comprise an institution (since they act in concert), and that institution is the State.  It is very real in the same way that the mafia is real.

No, the State does not actually exist.  Point to "the State."

Same goes for "the mafia."  Point to it.

You can point to individuals, and items, but none of those is "the State."  The State is an image created by fantasy.  How do we know that?  Because the State has properties that no real thing can have (eg, the "right" to initiate force).  Images can certainly do damage.  The pen is mightier than the sword, supposedly.  The image of "the Jewish menace" killed millions, despite the fact that there was no real "Jewish menace."  Images are very effective, even when they aren't images of anything real.

The image of "the State" can certainly inspire others to oppress and kill, without ever being something real, itself.

Joe

Hmm... interesting take.  In that sense, many other things that we take for granted aren't "real" either -- i.e. consciousness, financial empires, education, ecological systems, ideas, etc. etc.  These are all concepts that really exist only in our minds (oops... more images created by fantasy)

It all starts with a faulty premise, held by a large number of individuals -- namely, that a collection of laws and enforcers, along with their tools, are needed to maintain order.  This premise leads to very real laws, tools, buildings, and employees, that can be pointed to -- all of which act in concert with each other.  To efficiently convey this fact, I use the term, or concept of "institution" -- and to distinguish this institution from other institutions, I call it "the State".

Concepts are tools of consciousness used to identify and categorize patterns for the sake of understanding and conveying the realities we experience.  While I see what you're saying, and it is a valid point, it is not the point.  The point is that the institution of "State" is a valid concept, whose constructs are real and can actually be pointed to, but it is founded on a faulty premise.  Does it really make sense to dismiss an institution as "not real" simply because 'institutions' are mere concepts?  To me, it makes a lot more sense to go after the faulty premise that sanctions and facilitates all of these criminals in our midst, not the concept that is used to grasp and convey the big picture.

[srqrebel]

Incidentally, the reason I am so tenacious about this relatively insignificant point, is that it is not the first time I have encountered this assertion (that the State is not real), and it never made any sense to me.

[jaqeboy]

The technical definition of "anarchy" is a social system in which all interactions are based upon the unanimous consent of those who are party to them.

I would argue that the more appropriate word for that is "peace"

Peace is a symptom of anarchy.  "Peace" is not a system.

Oops, yeah, I read too fast on a break.

Peace would be the description of the condition, not of the system. However, anarchy is not a system either, it's the recognition, by naming, of the state of having no ruler.

Btw, in the vein of studying systems, I've been invited to sit in on the work of the regional Rainbow Family group's council. I don't know their entire process, but they do actually have a process, which is apparently described in their mini-manual (Wikipedia article for Rainbow Gathering, unofficial webpage, mini-manual) which is downloadable (I think) - haven't done the research yet.

In a separate thread, maybe we can "compare and contrast" different "systems" or "processes", that even could possibly be implemented amongst our fellows, to some extent.

[srqrebel]

I think what he was saying is that the state is just an illusion created to surround and organize those laws, buildings, people, and tools and make them appear larger and more glorious than they really are: a simple collection of people with buildings, laws, and tools to make you do what they want. Human beings seem to like to create imaginary structures to pass off responsibility for their own acts. Gods, demons, corporations, and the State.

Okay... but what would be the proper term to use when referring to this illegitimate collection of people with buildings, laws, and tools?

Perhaps a more accurate term would be "the criminal empire", but then the average person would not know what we are referring to.

[srqrebel]

Peace would be the description of the condition, not of the system. However, anarchy is not a system either, it's the recognition, by naming, of the state of having no ruler.

Exactly, and that is why I tend to refer to myself as a free-marketeer, not a mere anarchist.  I visualize the free market as a system that generates a significantly higher degree of order thanks to the invisible hand, than our current centralized system of rulers.

[Vitruvian]

No, the State does not actually exist.  Point to "the State."

As srqrebel has already proved, the term State is shorthand for "the individuals who comprise a territorial monopoly on ultimate decision making."  The State does exist, but not independently of these individuals.

[J’raxis 270145]

I think what he was saying is that the state is just an illusion created to surround and organize those laws, buildings, people, and tools and make them appear larger and more glorious than they really are: a simple collection of people with buildings, laws, and tools to make you do what they want. Human beings seem to like to create imaginary structures to pass off responsibility for their own acts. Gods, demons, corporations, and the State.

Okay... but what would be the proper term to use when referring to this illegitimate collection of people with buildings, laws, and tools?

Perhaps a more accurate term would be "the criminal empire", but then the average person would not know what we are referring to.

Someone on the FSP forum referred to them as the "people dba 'government.'"

[MaineShark]

Peace would be the description of the condition, not of the system. However, anarchy is not a system either, it's the recognition, by naming, of the state of having no ruler.

No, as I said, while the meaning of the word (ie, its derivation) is "without a ruler," the actual technical definition does refer to a system in which unanimous consent is used for all decisions.  The only way to be "without a ruler" (and still have multiple individuals present) is a system of unanimous consent.

Concepts are tools of consciousness used to identify and categorize patterns for the sake of understanding and conveying the realities we experience.  While I see what you're saying, and it is a valid point, it is not the point.  The point is that the institution of "State" is a valid concept, whose constructs are real and can actually be pointed to, but it is founded on a faulty premise.  Does it really make sense to dismiss an institution as "not real" simply because 'institutions' are mere concepts?  To me, it makes a lot more sense to go after the faulty premise that sanctions and facilitates all of these criminals in our midst, not the concept that is used to grasp and convey the big picture.

No, a grouping of individuals can certainly exist.  I could get together with some folks and form a roving school that meets at our houses and has no physical "address," and it would still be real.  What makes the State fantastical is that its described properties are not things which can actually exist.

I think what he was saying is that the state is just an illusion created to surround and organize those laws, buildings, people, and tools and make them appear larger and more glorious than they really are: a simple collection of people with buildings, laws, and tools to make you do what they want. Human beings seem to like to create imaginary structures to pass off responsibility for their own acts. Gods, demons, corporations, and the State.

Okay... but what would be the proper term to use when referring to this illegitimate collection of people with buildings, laws, and tools?

The State.  Non-real things can have names.  The name "dragon" refers to a non-real thing, for example.

No, the State does not actually exist.  Point to "the State."

As srqrebel has already proved, the term State is shorthand for "the individuals who comprise a territorial monopoly on ultimate decision making."  The State does exist, but not independently of these individuals.

Expressing an opinion is not proof.  Except in the world of megalomaniacs.  I doubt sqrebel would consider himself to have "proved" the point by merely discussing it.

Nor would demonstrating that you can label something, prove that it exists.  As in the case of dragons and unicorns and other fantastical creations.

Someone on the FSP forum referred to them as the "people dba 'government.'"

I like that, other than calling them "people."  I don't think that they have earned that much respect.  How about "common thugs dba government"?

Joe

[error]

So much to respond to... yet so little time (at least until a little later today) 

After catching up on reading this thread since yesterday, there is one post that struck me as so dramatically absurd that I just have to respond now:

The issue is not just that the state is illegitimate. The root of the issue is that the state does not exist. It is a shared hallucination, a mental delusion unfortunately suffered by a majority of people which, if it were suffered by a minority, would likely be pronounced a mental illness, or a religion.

If the State does not actually exist, then what was it that I ran headlong into a couple of months back when I was placed in handcuffs for utilizing the most efficient method of transportation at my disposal without permission?  A lone maniac acting entirely on his own initiative to impose his twisted will on me?

I watched Lauren being kidnapped by several individuals with guns and hauled off to a concrete and steel cage where she was kept against her will for 36 days.  These criminals certainly presented the appearance of acting in concert with each other to achieve the mutual objective of coercing Lauren to suffer for disobeying rules that they themselves did not make, but others did.

If the State is so imaginary, then how can it have such a real effect on my life?  Come to think of it, if the State is not just illegitimate, but does not actually exist, why bother voting in the first place?  Monopoly empires are imaginary, too -- but at least the entertainment is better.

Ok, enough with the sarcasm.  I certainly agree that it is supported by mass mental delusion.  The State itself strictly consists of the laws, buildings, people, and tools that act in concert to form it.  There is no question that all this is very real, and together those things comprise an institution (since they act in concert), and that institution is the State.  It is very real in the same way that the mafia is real.

The only part that is an illusion is the notion that we need the State to function as a society.  This is indeed a false notion, with no basis in reality whatsoever.  But that notion is not the essence of the State -- it is merely the rationalization that supports a very real institution.

I know. I was there, remember?

Anyway, you haven't proven the State exists, only that people believe in it, and that those people commit violent and immoral acts.

[jaqeboy]

From Rainbow mini-manual:

There is no authoritarian hierarchy here. It works because each of us takes the responsibility to make it work. Part of that responsibility is a pledge we keep to each other :

    * we pledge to respect and care for each other in all things
    * we pledge to drop all forms of violence in our relations with each other
    * we pledge to deal with each other up front and with open hearts.