a group like the Regional Defence Council of Aragon could hold them back. — NOS4A2

I rest my case.

I think you noticed it too Isaac: — Cuthbert

Indeed.

when the state are the most powerful weapon around, the rich use them to further their goals. If the state were not around, the rich would simply use the next most powerful weapon available ( — Isaac

That much of our oppressive system has been installed and maintained by the state is an irrelevance unless one can show that they did so uncoerced and against the will of all of the remaining population. Otherwise they are merely the tool de jour, not the cause.

In my mind the proper role for government is to defend liberty, or to go extinct. The moral and just way to fund any institution is voluntarily, whether through subscription, donation, etc. — NOS4A2

Recipe for a Mafia. 'Voluntary' contributions to 'protection'.

But I suggest to you that market regulation is also important. For example, border control and health and safety. Thanks to https://www.caa.co.uk for example, I do not have to worry much about either getting on a plane, or a plane falling on me, because unsafe operators are banned from the country. Recently, under the influence of small government advocates, building safety regulation has been relaxed. The result is freedom for builders, and this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire

And that is why I for one fear laissez-faire. It results in abysmally low standards in everything, and pollution, exploitation and death. I want doctors to be regulated, electrical equipment to be safe, food to be fit for consumption and so on. I want government to deal with the mafia and the snake oil salesmen as well as protecting me from the Mongol hordes.

NOS, advocating "separation of state and economy" – pure ideology (Žižek) – is no less delusional than the notion of "separation of structure and dynamics" in engineering (or no less incoherent than "separation of mind and body" in theology / metaphysics). — 180 Proof

The idea that someone owns the state and has the monopoly on violence as soon as he hits a certain net-worth isn’t worth thinking about. Not even Moses could come up with a sillier scapegoat. I cannot be convinced that this monopoly will disappear as soon as a goatherd comes to power.

The state is not a social institution run anti-socially, just waiting about for some moral vanguard to bring it to its teleological purpose—no greater leap of faith can be found—it is an anti-social institution running exactly how it was designed to run.

Any discussion which begins with "I don't want to pay taxes" (paraphrasing) is deeply suspect in its integrity.

Any hand-wave that excuses the appropriation of wealth through taxation is incredibly obsequious. Clearly a desire to benefit from it inheres in these remarks?

Thanks for the honesty.

Protection rackets aren’t known for their voluntary association. But the underlying practice is extortion, which is exactly how the state funds itself.

It is my understanding that Grenfell Tower was the product of British “social housing”, the landlord being the the borough Council—the State.

Just to be clear, no laissez-faire has existed, so the “results” are difficult to come by. Virtually every activity occurs under the jurisdiction and oversight of a state.

You want the State to be the sole arbiter of safety. I do not. How can we reach a moral resolution to this impasse?

You want the State to be the sole arbiter of safety. I do not. How can we reach a moral resolution to this impasse? — NOS4A2

Health and safety needs funding and it needs coercive power. If there is some way this can be provided other than by the state I'd love to hear about it. ???

I agree that the state is in many ways just like a mafia, that is why I bring it up. However, I like to think that a democratic government is somewhat less corrupt, somewhat less arbitrarily violent than a Mafia would be in the absence of governmental opposition. I could be wrong...

But what I see happening, that I think you will probably disagree with, is that governments of nation states are losing their power to multi-national corporations, which are largely immune from government regulation. Far from fearing the strength of the state, I fear its weakness and its vulnerability to complete subversion and take over by corporations with agendas entirely at odds with those of ordinary people.

no laissez-faire has existed — NOS4A2

Of course it has. It's the law of the jungle.

I disagree only slightly. Multi-national organizations are certainly growing in wealth, many of them having a GDP greater than many nation states. But power, to me, is different than wealth. Corporations can only beg and bribe for privilege, and regulatory capture and rent-seeking behaviors arise only when there is an institution willing to provide such privileges. Ordinary people, too, must engage in the same behavior to affect any end that satisfies their own needs, and there’s no shame in it. In my mind, the organization that has the final say in the matter, whether to follow the agenda of a corporation or ordinary people, has the power.

As for health and safety, it seems to me that if one doesn’t want its services he shouldn’t have to pay for it. So maybe something like a subscription or membership program could work. Whether it would work or not, I’m unsure, but it would at least be an ethical relationship.

Compared to central planning, a light touch of "free market" laissez faire makes wonders.

And of course it's not a recipe for everything.

And...that's basically it. End of story.

:smirk:

:up:

The idea that someone owns the state and has the monopoly on violence as soon as he hits a certain net-worth isn’t worth thinking about. Not even Moses could come up with a sillier scapegoat. — NOS4A2

You mean a sillier straw man, which is all this is. "As soon as he hits a certain net-worth"? What kind of idiocy is this? Is this truly where your mind goes when you hear that the wealthy "own the state"?

The state is not a social institution run anti-socially [...] it is an anti-social institution running exactly how it was designed to run.

So it's designed to be run by plutocrats? Maybe. Certainly looks that way.

Actually, what you're really describing is the corporation. Take a look at how that functions. I assume you're even more against them, yes? No, I forgot -- they don't have the "monopoly on violence." They're complete tyrannies with zero democratic participation, but at least they don't have the "monopoly on violence."

So let's turn all our rage to the one institution that's potentially democratic, and away from the institution that's unabashedly anti-democratic (which also happens to own and run the state).

"Abolish the state!" Fine. Oddly enough, I share that goal in the long run. But I also like to face the current reality.

The wealthy absolutely adore people like you. "Useful idiots" indeed.

I think I get it:

Abolish the state. Why? Because they allow the corporate sector to own and run it. No state, no plutocracy.

It's democracy's fault, ultimately. So don't blame the corporations or the corporate sector -- who are totally unaccountable; they're just representing their interests along with all other interests, including the "little guys." Rather, blame the existence of the state, where leaders are somewhat responsible to the demos.

I realize now that NOS is a Rothbard wannabe. Too bad. Anarcho-capitalism is a sick, preposterous joke.

Every time this NOS wanker pretends to be anti-statist, it pays to remember that he will defend state action until his dying breath so long as that state is headed by his favourite billionare rapist.

He's about as anti-statist as a pair of horse balls.

The wealthy don’t posses the monopoly on violence. The state does. The state, not the wealthy, can murder you in the street with impunity, throw you in jail, or confiscate your wealth. . — NOS4A2

If this is what you believe then your really naïve since it is pretty much a given that those who have enough wealth/power can often commit murder (or more likely get someone else to do it for them so they don't have to get their own hands dirty) and violence just as much as the state can. Often the people running the state are mere puppets of those who are already wealthy and who have power and will start wars, jail, and/or prosecute those who cause problems that are wealthy. While it might sound like a "nice" idea for people who share your views to get rid of all state and government entities and just let the uber rich just do what they want, but that would merely make matters worse and turn such countries/governments into autocracies or neo-feudalism which is basically what has happened in China and Russia where the uber wealthy/powerful can arrest people for whatever reason and/or confiscate whatever wealth anyone for merely being labeled a terrorist/enemy of the state.

If there is absolutely no separation between the wealthy and those who run government then it merely means those with money and influence run/control EVERYTHING and they can do ANYTHING they want without fear of any prosecution.

Slavery is still legal in the United States constitution, for example, so long the slave is the property of the American justice system. But if you’re fine with being controlled by politicians and bureaucrats, and those politicians and bureaucrats turn out to operate in the service of the wealthy, I guess that’s just too bad. — NOS4A2

While slavery may be illegal in most Western countries, there are still many uber wealthy people that still have enough resources to buy and have slaves. Without any governments to make it illegal to have slaves the uber wealthy can easily turn anyone they want into slaves if they wish to do so.

Most politicians are one way or another in the pockets of those that have money or at least very influenced by them. It is you who are fooled into thinking that the politicians/state want people to be mindless and obedient plebs an not the people who are themselves in control of the politicians themselves.

I’m not sure why any community requires the wealthy or the state to help them. It’s not “a given” that this should be so. But I can go to any large city in North America, wherever the state is at its most powerful, and look around to see what your state help amounts to. Not a whole lot. — NOS4A2

I guess then you have never be poor and/or out of work and have had to try and find a way to make ends met. Or have ever be rob, ever have had to drive a car, go to a public school, or have ever had a medical issues that was too expensive for you to pay for. Without a income there are many elderly, disabled, etc people that can not survive without some kind of subsidy to help them pay for what they need and you have to be incredibly dumb (or incredibly insolated from the rest of the world) not to understand that they many of the most wealthiest people out there would rather see such people die than have to spend money to help them.

The wealthy don’t posses the monopoly on violence. The state does. The state, not the wealthy, can murder you in the street with impunity, throw you in jail, or confiscate your wealth. — NOS4A2

The wealthy ARE the state.

Read War is a Racket by Major General Smedley Butler to dispel some of this naivete.

"I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism."



You appear to have no clue about the historically obvious cahoots wedding big business to government.
The revolving door? - does that ring any bells?

In short: DUUUUDE. READ SOME HISTORY. Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq by Stephen Kinzer is a great place to start, a valuable overview. United Fruit figures large: a de facto branch of US government. ETCETCETCETC

States create and control corporations. Corporations, like you and I, are considered legal entities, largely subject to the same state laws. Corporations, like you and I, are subject to taxation. You and I can create a corporation. We cannot create a state. We can run a corporation to beneficent ends. We cannot run a state towards beneficent ends. You and I can engage with a corporation on a voluntary basis. We cannot engage with a state on a voluntary basis. So you have it all backwards.

If by "potentially democratic" you mean we get to vote for another mammal to control how we live and to steal the fruits of our labor, I want nothing to do with it.

The wealthy ARE the state.

Sorry, I’m not going to pretend the State is a one-to-one ratio with a single socio-economic class, especially one so amorphous, fuzzy and stereotypical as The Wealthy. Every private citizen, wealthy and poor, is under the jurisdiction of The State and its laws. That these laws often favor the wealthy or are not applied equally is not due to the wealth of the beneficiaries, but to State malfeasance, incompetence, and greed of state officials.

The implication of all this “the wealthy are the state” talk is that you’d rather be governed by The Poor. But we’ve seen all these so-called proletarian revolutions and what they amount to: usually genocide.

We can compare our naivety. If I’m so naive on the topic it should be easy for you to name a wealthy person who has committed murder and violence “just as much as the State has”; or name one wealthy person in Russia or China who has arrested someone and confiscated his wealth. I can give countless examples of States engaging in such behavior.

It’s a good thing there are compassionate, not-so-wealthy people such as yourself out there spending your efforts to help the elderly, disabled, the poor etc. to compensate for the lack of wealthy concern. But in effect you’re not helping, but advocating that the state and the wealthy—others—should help the poor wherever you refuse to. Equating compassion with tax-paying and statism is one of the greatest evils in the history of mankind, in my opinion.

States create and control corporations. ... You and I can create a corporation. We cannot create a state.... — NOS4A2

This doesn't make sense.

Sorry, states authorize corporations. I appreciate the quibbling.

Sorry, I’m not going to pretend the State is a one-to-one ratio with a single socio-economic class, especially one so amorphous, fuzzy and stereotypical as The Wealthy. Every private citizen, wealthy and poor, is under the jurisdiction of The State and its laws. That these laws often favor the wealthy or are not applied equally is not due to the wealth of the beneficiaries, but to State malfeasance, incompetence, and greed of state officials. — NOS4A2

You have no idea what you're talking about. Read a fucking book.

The implication of all this “the wealthy are the state” talk is that you’d rather be governed by The Poor. — NOS4A2

Here we have a ludicrous, ad hoc leap of unreason.

Have a nice wank.

Sit and spin. You have nothing.

You have nothing. — NOS4A2

I have the facts. You have the fantasy. Enjoy.

What is the state exactly? Could we have rule of law without one? Do we want rule of law?

I’ve defined it as the organization of the means of appropriation of the labor of others, basically a system of exploitation. It’s known as the so-called “conquest theory of state”, which contrasts with the notion of the social contract. Voltaire said it best:

“The art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of the citizens to give to the other”.

But states also provide defense for the community, a sense of identity, merchant law, incarceration of criminals, social services, etc.

Why would you boil it down to just exploitation? That's seems pretty skewed.

And what about rule of law? Are you for or against it?

Re the "revolving door" linking big business and government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

"This theory gained a new level of importance in the United States, following the 2008 crisis, when prominent government figures insinuated that previous and future hirings in the financial sphere manipulates the decision-making of eminent government members when it comes to financial matters.[2]

Governments hire industry professionals for their private sector experience, their influence within corporations that the government is attempting to regulate or do business with, and in order to gain political support (donations and endorsements) from private firms.

Industry, in turn, hires people out of government positions to gain personal access to government officials, seek favorable legislation/regulation and government contracts in exchange for high-paying employment offers, and get inside information on what is going on in government.

In fact, the regulator while in office takes actions and makes decisions enabling him to cash in later when joining a firm he has regulated. These actions are termed as bureaucratic capital. It is essentially inside knowledge of the system, including any loopholes that might exist. ‘Bureaucratic capital’ consists also of good relationship with the lower-level bureaucracy. ‘Bureaucratic capital’ therefore enables the bureaucrat to cash in later thereon, after exiting the public sector and joining a firm in the sector he previously regulated. Thus, the bureaucrat can abuse the previous position to increase income in a legal way.[3]

The lobbying industry is especially affected by the revolving door concept, as the main asset for a lobbyist is contacts with and influence on government officials. This industrial climate is attractive for ex-government officials. It can also mean substantial monetary rewards for the lobbying firms and government projects and contracts in the hundreds of millions for those they represent.[4][5][6]

Consequences of the revolving door movement
Scientific papers have demonstrated the consequences of the revolving doors practice and the side effects of those movements are numerous. These can be beneficial either for the companies or for the regulatory bodies.

Authors, such as David Miller and William Dinan, have claimed that there are risks when going in and out of revolving doors.[7] The consequences of this movement can be conflict of interest or the loss of confidence in the regulating institutions. Another possible side effect of the revolving door practice is that regulators could give away confidential information held by the financial institutions.[8] which would give companies the possibility to get access to information and people involved in the decision-making process of regulating authorities.[9] Revolving doors can also lead to unfair competition advantage as well as an unfair distribution of influencing power.[10] Economic distortion can be explained through the fact that so-called too-big-to-fail firms generate their power in the market through the mechanism of the revolving door and not through salient choices. This is due to the fact that big companies have more money than smaller ones and can thus allow themselves to hire more revolvers.[10]"

This theory gained a new level of importance in the United States, following the 2008 crisis, when prominent government figures insinuated that previous and future hirings in the financial sphere manipulates the decision-making of eminent government members when it comes to financial matters.[2] — ZzzoneiroCosm

Note that while you referred to "big business" the hypothesis under examination is about financial institutions. "Big business" historically refers to private industry, not finance.

Since the financial sector is unusually prominent now, it doesn't seem odd that talent would go back and forth between government and financial institutions, just as the early to mid 20th century talent usually had military experience, so fostered military-private sector relationships which weren't always kosher.

Suppose that there are two means with which man can satisfy his needs. One is the application of labor and voluntary exchange; the other is the appropriation of someone else’s labor and voluntary exchange—theft, robbery, extortion, exploitation. The state, having no wealth of its own, chose the latter. Whether it provides services or not, the underlying mechanism of exploitation remains. Adding on top of that the monopoly on violence, the regulation of its citizen’s livelihoods, and its jurisdiction over all land and properties in its dominion, we have a relationship that is tantamount to the master and slave.

I do believe in something like the rule of law, that all people and institutions should be subject to the same laws, principles, customs, whatever, but that’s just another reason why it bothers me that states can get away with theft, murder, kidnapping, imprisonment, but anyone else would not.