It's an oddly transactional view, the one expressed here. As if making an exchange were the only human interaction, and "What's in it for me?" the only consideration.

Or even the main consideration.

There's a deep poverty in such gross oversimplification. Worse, those who suffer from it may well not understand that they do so suffer.

And so the thread meanders on...

Neither 'stateless individualism', which is license, nor ''statist individualism', which is legalism; are forms of liberty insofar as liberty means socially accountable self-governance.

If I could choose to be governed or not... — NOS4A2

Yes, "if" – but you don't get to choose, nobody does, any more than you get to choose the body, family, society or class you're born into, etc. "Why must you be governed?" You/we mustn't, just like you/we mustn't speak English. Instead: Why are you/we governed? Because, NOS, as your wannabe-gangster hero Individual-1 keeps saying the quiet part out loud: "They're mine, mine, mine ..." Wtf?! :mask:

You want to abolish the centralizing authority of the state? First abolish the ego-centralizing psychology in our social arrangements. In a post-Indigenous, imperialistic, overpopulated world, the realpolitik of cosmopolitan social contractualism, where it is effective, is the statist counterweught to 'failed state terrorism' or 'Dark Ages warlordism'. But what about a counterweight to "the tyranny of the state"? Democratize the economy as much as practically possible.

Political democracy in the absence of economic democracy (aka "economic autocracy" (becomes neoliberal corporatocracy)) has always been a failing project. Political autocracy (i.e. statist tyranny) is the manifest policing infrastructure required in order to protect economy autocracy. Read A. Smith closely. & Read P. Kropotkin closely. Read D. Schweickart & T. Picketty closely.

It’s the State. They formed when one group of predatory men sought to exploit the rest. There is nothing public about the State except that they do it all in the open. — NOS4A2

Yes, but you are claiming that when you do it, it isn't the state. The divine right of NOS to his private army etc. Privacy is itself government - thou shalt not forage in my garden. My agri-culture necessarily excludes you, and there can be no privacy without government. Privacy entails contractual agreement just as much as community. You and your insistence on your private property are the predatory and disagreeable government you complain of. Alas for you," To live outside the law you must be honest."

Obviously, despite how bad it looks, to be g***erned is better than not to be or, more accurately, it's the lesser evil. @schopenhauer1, this should be right up your antinatalism/pessimism/Schopenhauerism alley!

I don't think I should be governed. I'm an adult who can make my own choices in life. I went down to a nice farm the other day and introduced myself to the folks down there. I was interested in country life. I saw that they lived off the grid, self-sufficient, independent, and happy. They let me stay the night, which was wonderful of them.

Later that night after I killed them in their sleep, I woke up in the morning happy that I had gained the sense of peace, and land, that they had. It was fun picking some of the tomatoes that had ripened and eating off of the land as God intended. I stayed for a few days until I got bored and moved on, but I don't think I'll ever quite forget the experience of being completely free and self-sufficient out there in the wilderness.

NOS, your problem is you see the world only through your viewpoint, and no one else's. Also, you believe, like the gentleman above, that there is nothing wrong with your viewpoint of the world. Many of us walk around as individuals thinking we have it all figured out. We don't. We need other people to point things out to us, and at times, stop us from doing terrible wrongs to others. People who participate in society without issue understand this.

Now I don't think you yourself are a bad person or that you would have done anything to those folks. But you have an incredibly high sense of your own self-worth and capability. You're the guy who believes they would survive the zombie apocalypse. You see the world's truth, and cannot understand why others do not. So of course to you, you see government as worthless. To help, you have to realize its not about you. You alone don't matter in the equation. Government is about people, every shade, and type. Government is about people who would not survive the zombie apocalypse, those who would enslave and kill others, and then people like you who would be just fine dodging zombies all day with your stockpile of food and water.

If you want to understand why people need to be governed, the answer is to meet more people. Government is a tool of the human race to ensure survival of groups of people. Different groups of people have different needs that good governments serve.

I’m quite certain that you and I could come to some sort of agreement, neighbor to neighbor, and abide by that agreement without including a third party. We could abide by it because we have consciences and it is the right thing to do. Rather, if your agreements need to be governed by a third party, I fear your word probably means little.

I do not know what unspoken agreements you speak of. But if you speak them they are no longer unspoken. How can I agree to such an agreement?

Yes, but you are claiming that when you do it, it isn't the state. The divine right of NOS to his private army etc. Privacy is itself government - thou shalt not forage in my garden. My agri-culture necessarily excludes you, and there can be no privacy without government. Privacy entails contractual agreement just as much as community. You and your insistence on your private property are the predatory and disagreeable government you complain of. Alas for you," To live outside the law you must be honest."

I wouldn’t do anything like a state. I’ve only claimed that there are ways to organize without the state, on grounds of voluntary rather than involuntary cooperation, and only claimed such as a counter argument to the suggestion that a state is required. Unlike the state, I would not monopolize any of those activities, nor would I regulate anyone’s lives and livelihoods, that is, until they sought to regulate mine. If Unenlightened wants VIP access to my garden or other people’s things you might try asking nicely.

Note how no one can answer why they themselves need to be governed. I expected as much. It’s always someone else who needs to be governed, like the murderer in your condescending fantasy. Someone else needs to be governed so I can drink clean water. Someone else needs to be governed because I don’t want to be mugged. And because you cannot single out this someone else, everyone must be governed. To protect you from these bogiemen you’re willing to put up with and justify despotism, whether hard or soft, on entire populations of people, so that you can carve out a safe habitat somewhere on the spectrum of slavery.

But your government is an actual murderer, slaver, liar, brigand, knave. The historical record makes this clear. So who protects you now?

“Government is a tool of the human race to ensure survival of groups of people.” No greater propaganda has been uttered. The state cares only for its own existence. There is no right it hasn’t violated, no law it has not broken, no truth it hasn’t suppressed, to benefit itself. It’s not the institution you claim it is; it is an anti-social institution. You’re not participating in society; you’re aggrandizing the state at the expense of society.

If Unenlightened wants VIP access to my garden or other people’s things you might try asking nicely. — NOS4A2

You and your bloody rules imposed by your bloody army.

because you cannot single out this someone else — NOS4A2

It's you.

You and your desire to steal and appropriate another’s things is not unlike the State’s.

It's you.

It’s always someone else.

You and your desire to steal and appropriate another’s things is not unlike the State’s. — NOS4A2

You silly boy! what makes it yours? Your own say so? Or do you have some kind of bill of sale or other social contract that bestows it on you?

My garden? Not because I say so, but because I can justify it. I built it, planted it, and tilled it. If you can justify why it is yours, perhaps you can have it.

It’s always someone else. — NOS4A2

Not just someone else. You.

I can justify it. I built it, planted it, and tilled it. If you can justify why it is yours, perhaps you can have it. — NOS4A2

I'll have a crack. I'm a better gardener than you, so I deserve it.

Not just someone else. You.

Someone you do not know nor have ever dealt with. Another bogieman.

I'll have a crack. I'm a better gardener than you, so I deserve it.

How do your gardening abilities justify you having another person’s garden?

My garden? Not because I say so, but because I can justify it. I built it, planted it, and tilled it. If you can justify why it is yours, perhaps you can have it. — NOS4A2

And what if I reject your justification? Well today we have a government, a court of law, a police to arbitrate between the two of us.

In you vision, it is a matter of whether I and my posse are strong enough to take your land from you if I reject your justification of owning it. And actually I quite fancy my chances there.

Never mind me, there are plenty of people around who will not care much for your justification that you should own your land. Good luck is all I can say.

Why should we be governed?

A good criminal would surrender his weapon, would thrust both his wrists forward to be handcuffed, and walk quietly with the prison guards to his cell! :cool:

It’s true. I would assume, perhaps wrongly, that you have a conscience, and some modicum of respect for the livelihood of others, their labors, and so on. Absent that we are at an impasse, and you’ll have to try and take it.

How do your gardening abilities justify you having another person’s garden? — NOS4A2

How does you having built it, planted it, and tilled it justify you having it?

I created it and nurtured it. It wouldn’t exist had I not done so. How does your superior gardening abilities justify your claims to it?

And if you were to look at history, it is pretty clear that there are plenty of people out there who would be happy to take over your home, by hook or by crook. Same is true even if you look at today's society, there are plenty around who would be more than happy to relieve you of your home.

So yes, I would say your assumptions are wrong and would lead to dominance of the the ones who can enforce there dominance.

How does your superior gardening abilities justify your claims to it? — NOS4A2

How does you having created it and nurtured it such that it wouldn’t exist had you not done so justify your claim to it?

It’s true. And history does not look kindly on them.

And we learnt from history and have democratic government, as least in some places.

But I also reject your notion that history does not look kindly on those who took things by force. Many of the kings of yore, that are legendary, did exactly that. And were rewarded for it through the perpetuation of their legend.

That is my justification. Now we weigh that against your justification, which I suppose is coming any moment now.

A state prohibits rule of the people. It’s very function is the rule of some people.

Now we weigh that against your justification — NOS4A2

By what process?

It is better than the alternate - rule by the few that control the best army.

At least we have rule of the few who have to be selected in a ballot by the many.

Deliberation.

Deliberation — NOS4A2

Alright. We have a big long discussion. We still disagree. Now what? Fisticuffs?