Politics is an immoral dead-end

[J’raxis 270145]

...

The only way you can possibly say that the state doesn't exist is by changing the definition of state.

Exactly right. The common definition of the State was crafted by statists. A theist would most likely present you with a definition of god that presupposes its existence, too.

If the state is an illusion, then statist society would be what?  An illusionary society?  Of course a society is just as illusionary as a state, perhaps more so.  So a statist society would be twice as imaginary as a state.  I also guess that all the taxes I pay are illusionary too.  Along with the imaginary government agents who knock on my door asking why I haven't paid any taxes. 

What would be the point of voting even?  Voting to do what?  Voting to influence an imaginary system?  What favorable direction can you possibly move an imaginary thing towards?  Make it even more imaginary?   

The point I was trying to make is that the State is an illusion—the people arming themselves with the label are certainly not. Those taxes are going to those people. And voting works, to some extent, because those people claim they'll abide by the wishes of the voters (provided of course the wishes of the voters aren't too radical, but that's another story).

In the United States, we tend to conflate things like country, nation, state and government, but these terms all have separate meanings, and in most political systems, and theories thereof, the terms are clearly defined. Most often, the State is the invisible, mystical entity which holds sovereignty over the people, the government is the physical apparatus by which it does so, a country is the physical chunk of land over which the State holds its sovereignty, and a nation is a self-identifying group of people who come together usually through claims of shared language or culture. These are the definitions I tend to use when getting into political-theory discussions.

And my claim is that this invisible, mystical entity known as the State is simply an illusion created by the people who come together in order to conduct their activities. Here is an interesting article that dismisses the State in a similar manner as I am.

Merely believing in the State lends it legitimacy: You can't call yourself an atheist while believing that God exists.

I myself am often guilty of conflating government and state in many of the posts I make outside of this thread, since so many other people use the terms interchangeably. I am trying to be highly specific in this thread so as to avoid confusion, including painfully precise use of capitalization, italics, and underscoring.

[buzzard]

When you resist something gov't does, you or somebody has to come up with some voluntary alternative. 

Why? The alternative is already there. Come on over for dinner.
Got a project you need help with? Whattaya need? I'm pretty handy.

Some of the services that gov't provides are actually quite popular, and in high demand. 

Why is someone demanding a service? There's obviously something in this statement that denotes a great lack in what government can and will provide. Demanding the government do something is pointing at me to provide you with something through them taxing me. (Taking food off my table). Need something? Look at other avenues. Need a hand with something? My number is in the book.

[anthonybpugh]

The statists came up with a definition to describe something.  They did so because they are describing something which has an existence. 

That article is little more than nonsense.  Because the author has trouble establishing ownership of a cop car the state somehow doesn't exist?

Where do you get this definition that the state is a invisible mystical entity that claims sovereignty?  If that is the definition you are using, then you are wrong.  I have honestly never heard anyone ever put forth that notion.  I did a quick search and haven't been able to find anyone who even hints that they hold your definition.   

We have a simple definition for State.  All aspects of that definition are true.  We can go out and observe them happening.  We can observe political associations.  We can observe people claiming authority over a territory and we can observe their rules and their rule making.  We can go out and observe their institutions.  You can shake the hands of those invisible and mystical entities who claim sovereignty.       

[MaineShark]

MaineShark,

Lay off the attitude.  Although we were not introduced, we have met face to face.  I was at the Thanksgiving lunch at Karl Bisel's house (coincidentally, I brought a dish your wife could eat safely).  Please stop treating me as if I were an enemy.  Or do you treat every stranger this way?

I treat anyone who behaves the way you do in this way.  I judge others solely based upon their own actions and words.  I treat them no different online than I do in person.  If you had introduced yourself at the party, I would have treated you the same way that I treat you here.

I also note that, yet again, you have changed subjects rather than addressing the points which were raised.

Besides, your question presupposes that I think voting is wrong at all.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner."

This isn't wrong enough for you?  Thousands of people, including myself, have heard you say that phrase on-air, yet you defend the democratic process of electoral politics viz. your girlfriend, Julia.  Do you not see the contradiction?

He was demonstrating using that process against itself.  "Poetic justice" is a powerful thing.  Why grind ourselves to dust against them, when we can make them fight themselves?

The State is a myth.  It does not exist.  You cannot "destroy" it, because it isn't there to be destroyed.  The groups which claim legitimacy under the pretenses of that myth have their own self-interests, even if they work together to oppress others.  It is certainly possible to pit those groups (real entities) against each other, rather than having to fight them.  It is also possible to cause them to fight themselves, because of the machinations of their own system.  Hitler lost WWII because he killed off his best generals.  He killed off his own generals because they were a threat to his power.  They were a threat to his power because of the system which he created... et cetera

Causing internal squabbles is generally the only way to destroy a more powerful opponent.  That's how Ghandi drove the British out of India.  He couldn't face them "head on" on the battlefield, but he could play to the sympathies of the public and cause internal strife against the colonial powers.

The statists came up with a definition to describe something.  They did so because they are describing something which has an existence.

Everything in your post has already been addressed.  Simply stating "you're wrong" doesn't make it so.  This particular claim that I quoted (just for one example) was already demonstrated fallacious, with the analogy of dragons, which are a defined entity, which nevertheless does not actually exist in reality.

Joe

[anthonybpugh]

Everything in your post has already been addressed.  Simply stating "you're wrong" doesn't make it so.  This particular claim that I quoted (just for one example) was already demonstrated fallacious, with the analogy of dragons, which are a defined entity, which nevertheless does not actually exist in reality.

Simply stating that you demonstrated an argument to be fallacious based upon an absurd analogy doesn't make it so either. 

How in the hell does your analogy demonstrate anything?  The State does not exist because Wookies don't live on Endor. 

[J’raxis 270145]

Everything in your post has already been addressed.  Simply stating "you're wrong" doesn't make it so.  This particular claim that I quoted (just for one example) was already demonstrated fallacious, with the analogy of dragons, which are a defined entity, which nevertheless does not actually exist in reality.

Simply stating that you demonstrated an argument to be fallacious based upon an absurd analogy doesn't make it so either. 

How in the hell does your analogy demonstrate anything?  The State does not exist because Wookies don't live on Endor. 

Your argument was that the State exists because it's defined as such. He and I showed you examples–dragons and gods—of things that, just because they are defined, does not prove they exist. We didn't disprove the existence of the state with these arguments, but we countered your attempt at proof. In other words, try harder to prove it exists.

[MaineShark]

Simply stating that you demonstrated an argument to be fallacious based upon an absurd analogy doesn't make it so either.

Can you find any fault in that argument?  Calling it absurd is not the same as demonstrating a fault in logic.

How in the hell does your analogy demonstrate anything?

You claimed that the fact that "the State" can be defined is proof that it exists in reality.  I demonstrated an example (one among very many) of an entity which can be defined, but which has no existence in reality.  One counter-example is more than enough to demonstrate that your claim is false.

Joe

[Vitruvian]

I treat anyone who behaves the way you do in this way.  I judge others solely based upon their own actions and words.  I treat them no different online than I do in person.  If you had introduced yourself at the party, I would have treated you the same way that I treat you here.

MaineShark,

The purpose of philosophy, and the discussion thereof, is to discover truth; your demeanor suggests that this not your goal.  If you want to contribute to the conversation, be civil, or you may soon find that no one is willing to talk to you.

Your argument was that the State exists because it's defined as such. He and I showed you examples–dragons and gods—of things that, just because they are defined, does not prove they exist. We didn't disprove the existence of the state with these arguments, but we countered your attempt at proof. In other words, try harder to prove it exists.

I don't see how you could possibly dispute the bare existence of the State, as Anthony (and Wikipedia) has defined it, i.e. "a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area."  This definition does not speak to the legitimacy of the State (a condition that, we have agreed, cannot be fulfilled), only to its de facto dominion.  The definition you have offered, on the other hand, seems to require legitimacy as a prerequisite.  Do you deny that there exists a band of thugs (we can call them a "political association") that exercises "effective dominion" over the "geographic areas" of New Hampshire, the
United States, etc.?

[shyfrog]

I treat anyone who behaves the way you do in this way.  I judge others solely based upon their own actions and words.  I treat them no different online than I do in person.  If you had introduced yourself at the party, I would have treated you the same way that I treat you here.

MaineShark,

The purpose of philosophy, and the discussion thereof, is to discover truth; your demeanor suggests that this not your goal.  If you want to contribute to the conversation, be civil, or you may soon find that no one is willing to talk to you.

Your argument was that the State exists because it's defined as such. He and I showed you examples–dragons and gods—of things that, just because they are defined, does not prove they exist. We didn't disprove the existence of the state with these arguments, but we countered your attempt at proof. In other words, try harder to prove it exists.

I don't see how you could possibly dispute the bare existence of the State, as Anthony (and Wikipedia) has defined it, i.e. "a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area."  This definition does not speak to the legitimacy of the State (a condition that, we have agreed, cannot be fulfilled), only to its de facto dominion.  The definition you have offered, on the other hand, seems to require legitimacy as a prerequisite.  Do you deny that there exists a band of thugs (we can call them a "political association") that exercises "effective dominion" over the "geographic areas" of New Hampshire, the
United States, etc.?

twist...twist...twist

[MaineShark]

I treat anyone who behaves the way you do in this way.  I judge others solely based upon their own actions and words.  I treat them no different online than I do in person.  If you had introduced yourself at the party, I would have treated you the same way that I treat you here.

MaineShark,

The purpose of philosophy, and the discussion thereof, is to discover truth; your demeanor suggests that this not your goal.  If you want to contribute to the conversation, be civil, or you may soon find that no one is willing to talk to you.

That's a laughable statement from you.  Many here have been having thoughtful discussion of the subject, while you have been asserting, ex cathedra that we are all evil and that the State is legitimate.  You have refused to answer even basic questions about your supposed "moral" philosophy.  No one "seeking truth" starts out with "you are all evil, and must bow down to me."

And you are the only one claiming to ignore me, even though you don't actually do it.  Yes, I'm clearly in great danger of finding that "no one is willing to talk to" me.  Even those who make it a point to do so, don't do it.

I don't see how you could possibly dispute the bare existence of the State, as Anthony (and Wikipedia) has defined it, i.e. "a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area."  This definition does not speak to the legitimacy of the State (a condition that, we have agreed, cannot be fulfilled), only to its de facto dominion.  The definition you have offered, on the other hand, seems to require legitimacy as a prerequisite.  Do you deny that there exists a band of thugs (we can call them a "political association") that exercises "effective dominion" over the "geographic areas" of New Hampshire, the United States, etc.?

In part because that isn't an accurate definition.  Not even vaguely.  Wikipedia is not exactly a good source for philosophical definitions.

A "political association" could be a band of anarchists who mutually agree to certain rules for themselves.  It is not a "State" until it specifically asserts a "right to initiate force" and exert dominion over others.

Joe

[Russell Kanning]

People come up with complicated reasons not to stand up to "the state". It is hard to defy the thugs. Some try to rationalize away their inaction. Arguing with them might not convince them to change their minds or behavior.

[MaineShark]

People come up with complicated reasons not to stand up to "the state". It is hard to defy the thugs. Some try to rationalize away their inaction. Arguing with them might not convince them to change their minds or behavior.

And some argue that the State should be stood-up-to using a variety of methods, including both political and apolitical means.

Joe

[anthonybpugh]

In order for such a comparison to be made, there has to be some similarities between the two and there cannot be any differences which would make the comparison invalid.  Is there anything similar between the concept of a dragon and the concept of the state?  Absolutely not.  One is a big lizard and the other is a type of association.  You are attempting to compare apples and oranges. 

To claim that you have found one thing which can be defined yet doesn't exist does not mean that it is so in all cases. 

Furthermore, just look at the definitions of the two.  A dragon is defined as a MYTHICAL monster.  The definition of dragon already establishes that it is imaginary.  The definition of the state does not indicate anything about mythical or imaginary anything. 

I also have never made the claim that something exists simply because it can be defined.  State has a certain meaning, ie. a political association.  Does it exist?  Well is there anything out there that can fit its definition?   Yes, there is something that does fit its definition therefore the state exists. 

In part because that isn't an accurate definition.  Not even vaguely.  Wikipedia is not exactly a good source for philosophical definitions.

Who says that?  I used wikipedia to define the term.  If you disagree with the definition provided by wikipedia, then provide another.  Until then, their definition will suffice and will be the one that I continue to refer to.   

A "political association" could be a band of anarchists who mutually agree to certain rules for themselves.  It is not a "State" until it specifically asserts a "right to initiate force" and exert dominion over others.

So does this mean that you finally concede that the state exists? 

[buzzard]

 

[MaineShark]

In order for such a comparison to be made, there has to be some similarities between the two and there cannot be any differences which would make the comparison invalid.  Is there anything similar between the concept of a dragon and the concept of the state?  Absolutely not.  One is a big lizard and the other is a type of association.  You are attempting to compare apples and oranges.

That makes zero sense.  We aren't talking about the entities in question.  We are talking about the notion of definitions guaranteeing real referents.

To claim that you have found one thing which can be defined yet doesn't exist does not mean that it is so in all cases.

I never made that claim.  That claim is nonsensical.  Who would claim that all things which are defined, refer to non-real things (which is what you just claimed that I said)?

Furthermore, just look at the definitions of the two.  A dragon is defined as a MYTHICAL monster.  The definition of dragon already establishes that it is imaginary.  The definition of the state does not indicate anything about mythical or imaginary anything.

The definition of "State" includes logically-impossible properties, making it non-real by definition.

I also have never made the claim that something exists simply because it can be defined.  State has a certain meaning, ie. a political association.  Does it exist?  Well is there anything out there that can fit its definition?   Yes, there is something that does fit its definition therefore the state exists.

Yeah, you never said

The statists came up with a definition to describe something.  They did so because they are describing something which has an existence.

at all.

Who says that?  I used wikipedia to define the term.  If you disagree with the definition provided by wikipedia, then provide another.  Until then, their definition will suffice and will be the one that I continue to refer to.

The term has been defined multiple times in this thread.  Including in the post which you just quoted.

A "political association" could be a band of anarchists who mutually agree to certain rules for themselves.  It is not a "State" until it specifically asserts a "right to initiate force" and exert dominion over others.

So does this mean that you finally concede that the state exists?

Does it say that the State exists?  No?  Then I don't.

Ye gods, this is just silly.  I'm writing in plain English, here, and nothing in that says that the State exists.  Are you having trouble understanding what's been written, or are you intentionally mis-representing things to try and support your insuperable position?

Joe