Anti-statism VS Minarchism/Nationalism скачать в хорошем качестве

Anti-statism VS Minarchism/Nationalism

You say that you have a problem with my analogy that "Advocating statism is similar to advocating slavery on the off chance the slave master will do what you want. You say, "political positions are supposed to be about the ideal, so it doesn't make sense to only advocate something if the promised result is guaranteed." I think you're missing my point, your position is invalid because from a practical position it gets you nowhere, it doesn't fail simply because it's not guaranteed to work. I maintain that it is very comparable to advocating slavery on the off chance that you might find yourself in the position of power. Now assuming the metaphor is valid, surely you can see how advocating slavery doesn't necessarily help you to achieve a particular political goal (this is assuming you don't know who will end up being a slave). You say the citizen agrees with the state on certain things and so the metaphor fails. Well, the slave will always agree with the slave master on certain things. For example the slave will always agree that the slave should be kept fed, rested, and generally in good health. But both relationships are forced, and so they inherently contain conditions that both parties would NOT agree to voluntarily. That is the common ground that this metaphor is trying to express. The fact that there is "not one person controls the state" is irrelevant to the point I am making. You say "we all have some control over the state", and so to compare it to slavery is invalid. Well the bottom line is that people do NOT have equal control over the state, by what political theory you think we would? If you don't want to pursue more power disparity, then why don't you simply advocate NO state? A state by it's very nature is an attempt to shift power towards a certain group. If you're afraid of this growing population of inferior people in the United States, how does supporting a system that will give them equal say help you in the least? You say I am against uniformity in laws. Well, I am not simply against "uniformity in laws", I don't believe in them. Laws are a projection of collective morality, and there is no grand collective morality that we all follow. So therefore there is no grand collective morality that we all follow. There will always be people who don't believe in property rights, there will always be Muslims who support Sharia law, there will always be bigotries of all kinds. To say that you are just going make the law uniform doesn't change the reality of the situation. You can't say you're going to shoot everyone who disagrees with you either because you're never going to run out of people to shoot. We never really quite agree, there is no objective morality, it's all just shifting and changing based on perspective and evolving circumstance. I'm not a pacifist, and most people agree that there is a place for violence as a means to self defense. But it's a different story to try to spread your political ideology through violence. If there was some "objective morality" that could be discovered and agreed upon by all rational people, then it might make sense to just kill off all the deviations from the truth, but it's not that simple. The only way to guarantee our ideas are superior is to allow them to be scrutinized through logical debate, simply because this process tends more than anything to favor the most logical. The process of war itself is indiscriminate about what ideas are being spread. You may think you're right, but everyone thinks they're right, and I would argue that I am finding many little ways in which your logic isn't very sound right here. So to think that you philosophy is simply "correct" and so it's justified to spread it through violence or whatever other means, that's pretty much the basis of all war ever; Some people somewhere think that they're right and that they should be able to spread their ideology through violence. Take fundamentalist Christianity for instance; if you fight them in a war of guns and bombs, you will most likely lose. In the United States, they have the numbers and the conviction to win, and the fact that what they believe is obviously false is irrelevant. However, if you fight fundamentalist Christianity in the realm of debate, you have the advantage. Of course if a fundamentalist Christian cannot be reasoned with and he is going to kill you, I support using violence for self defense. But it still makes NO sense to use violence to wipe out destructive dogmas. If you advocate war, statism or any other form of terrorism, then you empower the groups that rely of the suppression of rational discourse. You may create the state hoping to enforce your secular utilitarian vision, but it's also quite likely that the state will be taken over by the religious majority and other cultures you wish to protect yourself from. (ran out of room, continued in comments)