Is the State inevitable? Where Libertarians and Communists join hands

[Paprika]

I am not sure whether Singapore has anything in the way of defense beyond police. I would not be surprised to know Singapore does not have much military.

Google is your friend.

[Paprika]

As far as actual examples of statelessness go, we already have the example of Somalia;

Isn't it more accurate to say that though the Somalians have rejected the liberal democratic state, they have moved back to their own government by individual clans? Though these clans aren't recognised internationally, the people are still governed by strict laws enforced by authorities.

[Epoetker]

Illegal immigration is harming the US precisely because of government interference and regulation on both sides of the border.

This is one of those "not even false" statements that comes as the only answer when you take libertarianism as an article of faith. Try:

Laws restricting immigration are failing to be enforced because the personnel in charge of enforcing them are paid in large amounts of money, prestige, and social/career position by private businessmen and public politicians and civil service workers to fail to enforce them.

Some of those individuals work for the government of Mexico, but the most effective and influential majority are home-grown profiteers. But if you are a better authority than someone who actually works in the immigration bureaucracy, go right ahead and defend that statement.

The less the degree of government intervention in both countries, the less difference the border between them will make.

Even if true, why the heck should the US strive to become more like Mexico, whether by active or passive action? What about Mexico makes you eager to get the average American mistaken for a Mexican, especially since most Central Americans I've talked to are eager NOT to be mistaken for such?

Government cannot be carried on by automation or hyper-simplified first principles; it requires human judgment, experience, and decision-making of the sort shown above. Please confirm that you are not in fact a robot (avatar doesn't help) before continuing.

[Darth Executor]

Yeah, because they both thought that creating a massive, powerful state would solve all our problems and eventually become redundant once all the problems were dealt with, thereby giving way to statelessness. A government not unlike the one envisaged by yourself, ironically enough. They also rejected private property rights and the subjective theory of value.

I harbor no delusions that anything can ever solve all our problems this side of heaven. It is precisely because of this that the state I envision bears little resemblance to the Soviet Union or communist ideals. The state will always be necessary. That the Soviet Union shares some things in common with my potential government doesn't mean what you think it does. It's simply evidence that communists, unlike libertarians, can at least produce an independent society.

The Non-Aggression Principle is simply that the initiation of aggression is never justified, and that use of violence is only justifiable when used against those aggressing against you.

Yes.

There is no example of God breaching this in the Bible whatsoever.

There are plenty. The plagues of Egypt, for example.

Every act of divine punishment described in the Bible was meted out against aggressors such as the Canaanites

The Canaanites never attacked God, actually. Thank you for another example of God breaching the non-aggression principle.

or people who broke their agreement with God (agreements they freely entered into.)

Not all breaches of agreement are aggression. That's the third example.

A related principle is that of the philosophy of Voluntaryism, which states that all interactions between free agents should be voluntary.

You can find this verse right there at Rational Gaze 24:7.

This is also reflected in the Bible. A fact that should be obvious, even to those with only half a brain.

Well that might be obvious to those with half a brain but to everyone with their brain intact it's pretty obvious that God is pretty much a supreme dictator, who does whatever He wants and ultimately crushes anyone who stands in His way. If you want to look at a supernatural example of libertarianism, you'll probably find that Hell, where all burn, is far more free, egalitarian and non-coercive than the Kingdom of Heaven.

As far as actual examples of statelessness go, we already have the example of Somalia; unironically touted by statists as (somehow) being an example of the failures of anarchism. The irony is that Somalia became better off under statelessness than it was under its prior government.

Somalia isn't and never was stateless, so it's a poor example. Most likely it gets used as an example because the only time you can come close to the libertarian ideal is during a civil war where there is no clear authority, but the reason why it doesn't last is because states are vastly superior to "voluntary arrangements" or whatever idiocy people with no understanding of human nature come up with. This is a very important point to drive home: the State has succeeded so thoroughly that it's virtually impossible to find a stateless society. Even hippie communes are de facto members of whatever state their territory is in, no matter what their members might otherwise bleat.

Illegal immigration is harming the US precisely because of government interference and regulation on both sides of the border. The less the degree of government intervention in both countries, the less difference the border between them will make.

Nope, Mexico is a faiure because on average, its people are failures. Government non-interference wouldn't change that. THe US would continue to be more successful and Mexicans would continue to move to the US and turn huge chunks of it into failures, just like they did back home and like they are doing now under quasi-libertarian immigration practices.

[Rational Gaze]

As we all know, the musings of Engels and Marx got us the Soviet Union.

Yeah, because they both thought that creating a massive, powerful state would solve all our problems and eventually become redundant once all the problems were dealt with, thereby giving way to statelessness. A government not unlike the one envisaged by yourself, ironically enough. They also rejected private property rights and the subjective theory of value.

Not only is the Non-aggression Precept idiotic as general philosophy, it's laughable to claim it has anything to do with Christian theology which is decidedly authoritarian in nature. God Himself breaches it countless times.

The Non-Aggression Principle is simply that the initiation of aggression is never justified, and that use of violence is only justifiable when used against those aggressing against you. There is no example of God breaching this in the Bible whatsoever. Every act of divine punishment described in the Bible was meted out against aggressors such as the Canaanites, or people who broke their agreement with God (agreements they freely entered into.) A related principle is that of the philosophy of Voluntaryism, which states that all interactions between free agents should be voluntary. This is also reflected in the Bible. A fact that should be obvious, even to those with only half a brain.

As far as actual examples of statelessness go, we already have the example of Somalia; unironically touted by statists as (somehow) being an example of the failures of anarchism. The irony is that Somalia became better off under statelessness than it was under its prior government.

One need only look at how much damage illegal immigration has done to the US to see what libertarian policy would do to Singapore.

Illegal immigration is harming the US precisely because of government interference and regulation on both sides of the border. The less the degree of government intervention in both countries, the less difference the border between them will make.

[Darth Executor]

If you don't agree to stop using the L word I will unsubscribe.

Cry some more plz.

I don't see the point of your last statement.

Of course you can't, you can't even figure out what we're talking about.

I am not an expert on Singapore and its environs and I doubt you are.

I'm not an expert but I'm fairly knowledgeable of it, something you should have been too if you were gonna bring it up.

Maybe we ought to discuss the problem of security (e.g., defense of a wide territory like say France) in general terms instead.

The only security problem in France, like elsewhere, are open borders nutjobs at all levels of government who allow all sorts of trash to cross borders unmolested. IE: libertarians, liberals, corporate fat cats and other assorted wandering and stationary undesirables for whom the land they dwell in exists only to nourish their egos and pocketbooks.

[Truthseeker]

Umnm, this is the whole point of the thread. You

If you don't agree to stop using the L word I will unsubscribe.
Of course I may decide to do so anyway, given that this quote seems to indicate a scatterbrained guy.

I am beginning to think you are veritably insane. The non-aggression precept says you can't initiate violence. Not agreeing to it doesn't mean you can or must initiate violence whenever you feel like it.

I don't see the point of your last statement.

What debate? So far all you've proven to be is a test dummy for my axe throws.

I am not an expert on Singapore and its environs and I doubt you are. Maybe we ought to discuss the problem of security (e.g., defense of a wide territory like say France) in general terms instead.

[Darth Executor]

Will you please stop using that L word? You don't know its theory in the first place, especially regarding uninvited immigration.

No I will not libertarian trash. Open borders is not only the primary libertarian view but also the logical conclusion of a philosophy that places liberty above all else (IE: the open border libertarians are logically consistend whereas the closed border ones are hypocrites).

[Truthseeker]

Fear of an international response keeps them away, not to mention that Singapore has money and a militarized police force. There's no such fear if Singapore simply lets them in as per libertardian doctrine.

Will you please stop using that L word? You don't know its theory in the first place, especially regarding uninvited immigration.

[Darth Executor]

I now think that's a ridiculous argument. If Singapore is now in "a sea of third world savages," how long do you think it would last? I am not sure whether Singapore has anything in the way of defense beyond police. I would not be surprised to know Singapore does not have much military.

Fear of an international response keeps them away, not to mention that Singapore has money and a militarized police force. There's no such fear if Singapore simply lets them in as per libertardian doctrine.

[Darth Executor]

You are debating an issue I am not interested in.

Umnm, this is the whole point of the thread. You

Hello? Do not steal. Do not murder. I am beginning to think that you are very bad to debate.

I am beginning to think you are veritably insane. The non-aggression precept says you can't initiate violence. Not agreeing to it doesn't mean you can or must initiate violence whenever you feel like it.

Nice debating you.

What debate? So far all you've proven to be is a test dummy for my axe throws.

[Darth Executor]

If there are few readers, no more than 5, anyone of you moderators has my permission to shut this thread down.

This is my thread and I don't want it shut down. Moderators, please disregard Napoleon's post.

[Truthseeker]

Libertardians would institute open borders and with Singapore being a prosperous nation-state in a sea of third world savages it would get reduced to ruins in no time. One need only look at how much damage illegal immigration has done to the US to see what libertarian policy would do to Singapore.

I now think that's a ridiculous argument. If Singapore is now in "a sea of third world savages," how long do you think it would last? I am not sure whether Singapore has anything in the way of defense beyond police. I would not be surprised to know Singapore does not have much military.

[Truthseeker]

I do have a question. Do you really believe that a society - the USA for example - could exist without any government? If not what exactly do you believe?

"Any government" is a very broad term. Anyhow, what about when in the mists of long ago most people belonged to no more than tribes or families? If you want more answer, we need to agree on the definition of "government." I do accept that many groups require a leader or a set of leaders, possibly hierarchal. For example, a big business like Microsoft.

[Jedidiah]

I do have a question. Do you really believe that a society - the USA for example - could exist without any government? If not what exactly do you believe?