0 sats \ 14 replies \ @DarthCoin 30 Jan 2023 \ parent \ on: Can a Statist also be a Bitcoin Maxi?? bitcoin
Then why do you need a state to enforce a property?
Who is this "state"? Is the state part of the contract?
Who is giving the authority to a "state"?
Because there exists people who will try rob me of that property.
If your answer is protect it yourself, I would say you're not anti-state, you're actually just pro-mafia.
reply
hahaha so you really think the state will protect you. LOLOLOL
The state will the first one to rob you, not others.
reply
Exactly. You pay one mafia or another, but in a large enough society this is inevitable.
reply
Only inevitable for those who refuse to choose Liberty and small, localized voluntary associations, rather than cave to any mafia (no matter how large or small).
reply
I'm with you on small, localized voluntary associations.
I would say that more than likely, that association will develop rules for arbitrating disputes that essentially constitute "a state". In the event that such voluntary association breaks down, you essentially have mob rule, not unlike the democracy you have such disdain for (and rightly so).
The reality is social organization is challenge, and musing about it philosophically as opposed to practically can easily lead to mental masturbation.
reply
Whatever agreements, contracts, covenants, etc. that might be established between consenting parties - is up to those parties to agree upon.
One does not have to convey an acceptable alternative to every statist scenario in order to solidly establish and recognize the wickedness of what exists in the current norm. None of the "what-if's" does a SINGLE thing to legitimize the countless ways that statism is an afront to Liberty... Here. Now. Actually!!
My individual responsibility is to function within society in a manner that is consistent with my stated principles. It would be contradictory for me to suggest imposing my worldview upon others.
What is appropriate for me (IMHO), is to speak about these principles.
If Liberty was successfully used as propaganda toward achieving statism, centuries ago... Then perhaps it will work as an effective tool toward promoting the true merits of the principles of Liberty, today.
reply
Ok, so this where I get back to mental masturbation. Forget about every statist scenario, I posed one, extremely simple and practical scenario. Who is going to defend my property (besides me)? Without at least some practical thinking, you're essentially just painting a "wouldn't it be nice" scenario.
If your definition of "a state" is simply the coercive governments we have today, then sure I'm no statist.
Practically speaking, it sounds like what you're describing is just setting up a better, voluntary oriented "state". So it feels like we're just arguing semantics.
reply
I will answer your one extremely simple and practical scenario with the following question - Who would you suggest is [responsible] for defending your property... Besides yourself?
It is not semantics. And I am not referring only to the coercive governments that exist today. I am referring to ALL coercive governments. Any that exist today, and all that might hope to exist in the future. I reject coercion. I reject mob rule, no matter how small.
Also, I have not made any inference that I would personally support anything that resembles a voluntary "government."
I advocate for reciprocal agreements between consenting individuals. I advocate for personal accountability, and personal integrity in keeping with the principles of Liberty and non-aggression.
You may perceive those to be wishful thinking.... If so, then what ethical principles guide your steps? Am I duty-bound to my fellow man to provide for his needs in some sort of altruistic manner? Am I not accountable for my own actions (and inactions!)?