We are little more than domesticated tools for its disposal. States monopolize power away from its constituents. — DifferentiatingEgg

Well, maybe, but that also applies to private individuals, no? The rich and wealthy set up their own principalities which exert power and control over others. And those guys don't ask permission once every four or five years.

Well, see, there's your problem you think people can own land, and empty land at that. What stops someone from settling empty land? The state.

There's not enough room! All the bits are taken aren't they? — bert1

There are many bits that have not been taken by private individuals, but the collection of bits -- taken or not -- are pretty much under the control of a state. And states jealously guard their bits.

I'm not sure why you blame the state more than you blame private interests. — bert1

Probably because @DifferentiatingEgg is "state-averse". He sees the state mainly as a burden upon the people, rather than a creation of the population. The state-averse do not see the predations of private individuals and corporations.

Probably because — BC

Actually, I don't generally think much of the state cause I do what I want regardless of the law because I'm generally not a malicious person. I can be cruel at times, like today, I knew it would eat at me for the rest of my life not relaying my father's last conversation with me to his step mother. She was crushed, and even though I felt a little at odds telling an old woman who I once cared about, as to how she played a huge role in destroying my fathers dreams and his family, it had to be done. I'll probably end up contacting her again here in a few days to let her know that I forgive her, but I'm going to let a B ruminate on just how ignorant and insulting her actions truly are to my father and my family in general. That aside...

I'm talking shit about the state simply because I understand what States do, as I worked for the state for quite some time. At first it was just a cool gig, that was less corporate bullshit, more of my speed in aggressiveness and activity. But you begin to see and realize things like you're really just a paid gangster. Im mostly building upon ideas to understand them better and get more experience discussing certain aspects.

Well, see, there's your problem you think people can own land, and empty land at that. What stops someone from settling empty land? The state. — DifferentiatingEgg

Yes, the state enforces legal rights in land, which rights it has created itself. And as @BC said, states enforce their own rights in land, which they themselves created. Nevertheless, democratic states are a necessary evil because the alternatives are worse. If you remove the state you just get powerful individuals or powerful groups which seize what they want and then legitimise that power and control by saying they have a right to it. They write the right down and it's alright because verily it is written, perhaps by God in some cases. Might becomes right. Democratic states are a little better than this, and some are a lot better. And it seems to me that it is hostile private interests that are keeping democratic states from improving.

If we had an infinite plane of green and pleasant land, maybe we could ditch a state. Everyone starts off at a point with a wheelbarrow, pick, shovel, axe, sword and hoe, like Minecraft. We all head off in different directions until we find a bit with enough space to make a go of it. Where two people want the same bit and start waving their swords, it's OK, because one can go and find somewhere else further out. No one ever needs to fight because there is an infinity of resources. There's still a problem though. Early settlers will soon be hemmed in on all sides, making their area finite. This might be fine until they have children and start running low on resources. So then it's time to fight. So lets modify this experiment in statelessness (or anarcho-capitalism I suppose) such that the plane itself is expanding, so that even the bounded parts of it are getting bigger. A bit like dark energy. So there we go - we can get rid of states if we have an infinitely expanding space of resources. Otherwise, I'm a Hobbesian.

As a panpsychist I'm just now wondering if dark energy might not be the will of matter to increase its sphere of influence. I'll write to the Nobel Prize people tomorrow and see what they think.

But Hilbert's Hotel can accommodate infinitly many new guests. Making the infinite finite means it's defined identity is actually finite, not infinite. Thus your example here is poor imo.

I'll address a few points later, I'm going back to sleep for the time being though, also cause I need to ruminate some more on the topic cause I normally don't consider this topic much.

How does that affect the argument? Could you join the dots?

I edited the prior, but will get back to you Sir.

I edited the prior, but will get back to you Sir. — DifferentiatingEgg

:up:

Yes, the state enforces legal rights in land, which rights it has created itself. — bert1

When the United States was a brand new nation, it had possession of the land between the Atlantic coast and the Mississippi River, but it didn't really occupy all that land. State occupation of this territory had to await settlers. The Northwest Territory Ordinance was passed in 1787 and established the legal basis for occupation by settlers, and the eventual creation of territories and then states. Wisconsin, the most "northwest" of the NW Territory, wasn't entered into the Union until 1848.

The open land was surveyed, packaged, and sold. The Homestead Act of 1862 aimed at settling the much larger expanse of open land west of the Mississippi. Settlers (citizens or immigrants intending to stay) could acquire 160 acres of free land by living on it for 5 years and improving it.

According to the historian Oscar Handlin, the land-system of medieval Europe was much different. The 'state' might be no more than the local lord (strong man). There was no open land: peasants had developed an unofficial but binding system of land-and-labor sharing which prevailed for centuries, and was usually (but not always) productive enough to maintain a steady population of crop producers.

In the 18th century, for not altogether well understood reasons, the population of Europe started to grow and the old system of land and labor sharing proved insufficient, resulting in surplus population beyond its means to support. Then what? Westward Ho across the ocean to the unsettled land of the New World (unsettled by Europeans, that is).

Handlin's books on immigration treat the wrenching dislocation of people moving from nations where land, labor, and social mobility were fixed to the socially fluid conditions in cities and on the frontier.

Thanks, I didn't know most of that.

Actually, I don't generally think much of the state cause I do what I want regardless of the law because I'm generally not a malicious person. — DifferentiatingEgg

A pleasant, law-abiding person in a more-or-less democratic state can live without constantly worrying about the State and its malevolent agents. I also don't think about the State that much, either. I'm reasonably pleasant, and mostly law-abiding.

There are times when being pleasant and law-abiding are not enough. During periods of political upheaval, activities which are legal may become verboten, such as when Red Scares and various witch hunts have used the machinery of the state. Unionizing is legal, as are strikes. That doesn't prevent the State from employing police forces to help break a strike. Being a member of the Communist Party USA has never been illegal, but being a member could end one's career in Hollywood, government, or academia (during periods of anti-communist fervor).

The State might, but not always, object to disruptions of public order. For some odd reason, the state mostly put up with the disruptions of the Occupy Wall Street movement, probably because it was fairly good theater and no threat to business. ACT-UP got a much more negative response. It was also good theater, but the actors were diseased pariahs (to use one of their phrases) and was aimed at Big Pharma as well as at the State. j

Campus demonstrations against Israel's war on Palestinians (their phrase) have irritated agents and quasi-agents of the state. Campus demonstrations in 2025 are interfering with US policy no more than campus demonstrations interfered with US policy in 1970, but the State doesn't like it -- then or now. So, call in the police. State (and quasi-state) authorities don't like being contradicted, argued with, demonstrated against, or denounced.

It doesn't matter that the net effect of most demonstrations are pretty much zero.