[ThePublicOpinions]

War is the health of the state, wrote Randolph Bourne. It is also the sole providence of the state. War is a racket, one of the oldest and most profitable to a few, but extremely costly to everyone else. It is only through the power of coercive taxation and the ability to debase the currency that war can be funded. Were we to abolish all governments, were markets to reinstitute sound uncounterfeitable money (gold) how then could we have war? We could not.

Anarchy means world peace.

[Rei Murasame]

I think you would have a serious problem primarily because there would suddenly be an awful lot of weapons lying around that an awful lot of people are trained to use and have aspirations to put to use in re-establishing borders along cultural and religious lines.

Total anarchy would basically last about a week, before someone decided to settle a dispute with organised force. From there you would see countries re-assemble themselves.

Also, the first thought that occurred to me when I looked at the title of this thread, was the prospect of flying British mercenaries into Africa to re-establish Rhodesia and British East Africa. It just popped automatically into my head. Because that is the sort of thing that would happen. If the world were suddenly without borders, what else do you think would happen? All kinds of people would be trying all sorts of things.

I'm sure that similar thoughts went through other people's heads when they saw this as well.

[Decky]

We would just be being killed by armies belonging to the rich instead of army belonging to state (and lets face it the state belongs to the rich anyway). You are right, the resulting "conflicts" would not be wars, but it's just a semantic issue. We would still get armies going about killing people.

[Rei Murasame]

Yes, and another horrible phenomenon that we might see is multinational companies hiring private security firms, or becoming private security firms which could then be used against poor workers as a sort of 'Pinkerton group'.

[Decky]

Yes, and another horrible phenomenon that we might see is multinational companies hiring private security firms, or becoming private security firms which could then be used against poor workers as a sort of 'Pinkerton group'.

You have to remember anarchist/ libertarian types see that as being fine and good rather than being a horrible phenomena. After all rich people deserve life more than the poor. They have earned it through hard work (which no poor person has ever done obviously).

[ralfy]

No, because one will need governments to abolish governments. Also, the financial elite will prop up more.

[ThePublicOpinions]

First of all, the concerns you have about being killed by armies are very real concerns for many people today. That is to say, what you fear MIGHT happen already happens. But none of you at all have addressed my argument (perhaps because it is inconvenient for you?). Without the power of coercive taxation and the ability to debase the money supply, no one could pay for war and there would be no economic reason to go to war. War is INCREDIBLY expensive. IF someone or some organization is paying for it themselves, they would never do it. It is only when you can con the taxpayers into financing this racket that someone can do it.

[Chill]

You will miss those wars after you abolish all the governments.

[Rei Murasame]

War is INCREDIBLY expensive. IF someone or some organization is paying for it themselves, they would never do it.

This is not true historically, seeing as wealthy families and trade organisations have always been willing to put their own money where their mouth is in order to buy arms and organise raiders.

The great Cecil Rhodes himself practically began his rise to fame on the Jamestown Raid.

[ThePublicOpinions]

This is not true historically, seeing as wealthy families and trade organisations have always been willing to put their own money where their mouth is in order to buy arms and organise raiders.

What private wars have there been on the scale of the wars of the state? Yes, people will use violence - it is effective - but violence is not war. If I punch someone in the face, you wouldn't call that a war. Individuals or non state organizations are capable of retail violence - only the state can do it wholesale.

[Rei Murasame]

I'm not really seeing a difference here, if I assemble two battalions of 'raiders' and take over some place and draw a border around it and then start administering it from day to day out of the study in my house, then I have effectively created a state, right?

[ThePublicOpinions]

If your argument is 'governments may arise out of anarchy' then I agree, this is a possibility. Perhaps even very likely. But if the WORST thing you can say about anarchy is that some day there might be a government again, well that's not a very compelling argument, imo.

[Rei Murasame]

I would say it's compelling because by rinsing down everything now, it guarantees that whoever forms a government next, will be able to do whatever they feel like without the historical baggage of nations or any of the particular obligations that might come with that.

For example, what happens if you abolish the nation-state, and Exxon-Mobil creates its own state directly on top of your town?

[ThePublicOpinions]

For example, what happens if you abolish the nation-state, and Exxon-Mobil creates its own state directly on top of your town?

Nothing probably. The demand taxes and we laugh at them. But Exxon-Mobil isn't in the state building business. They are in the oil selling business. I don't see what would influence them to try to establish a government, especially in an area that has made it quite clear (by abolishing the last one) that we will not tolerate any governments.

If we had a society that abolished our current government, presumably because everyone read Rothbard and agreed with him, it would probably be pretty difficult for some tin pot dictator to come along and set up shop. The rule of the governing always rests upon the consent of the governed.

edit :
and you realize that what you are worrying about already exists? There already is a government in my town. If a state is so terrible, shouldn't we worry more about abolishing the current one than about anything else?

[Rei Murasame]

and you realize that what you are worrying about already exists?

Ah, but that's why I selected Exxon-Mobil, because they are already right now part of your government and capable of actually deciding on policies. That's the capitalist state in action, isn't it?

They are in the oil selling business. I don't see what would influence them to try to establish a government

So that they can use your tax money to subsidise their operations of course.

If a state is so terrible, shouldn't we worry more about abolishing the current one than about anything else?

Because what I'm trying to illustrate is that this argument should be about the type of state, and not whether there should be a state at all. The state is just an instrument that manages the day to day operations of the group who run society.

For example, having financiers as the group who run society, would result in them trying to moving toward having a state that is as close to a nightwatchman state as the population would tolerate without revolting, while retaining the ability to also use the state as a bailout machine for themselves.

To me it seems that the only way to prevent them from doing that, is to not have them commanding society in the first place.

[ThePublicOpinions]

Exxon mobile is separate from the government. Certainly there is collusion between government and business, but I don't think this is really a valid criticism of exxon mobile. Of haliburton, yes. I could be wrong here, I am not especially acquainted with exxon mobile. Why do they say they are part of the government? The capitalist state is an oxymoron. States are anti-capitalist. I do not defend the modern socoi-economic system. I do not defend corporatism. I do not defend economic fascism. I defend capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production. I oppose and seek to abolish the state.
You think the debate should be about what type of state we have. But the state is evil. The state uses violence and coercion in order to further it's aims. This is not some states, this is all states. I will presume that you think the state should further such aims as education, health care, the roads. Yet how can you justify the coercion that is taxation? Do you use violence in your every day life? If you see your neighbour has a new car, do you take a gun and point it at his head and demand he reliquinshes it to you? If I were to do that to someone, would you not condemn me? So why should we have separate moral standards for individuals than for organizations? Why can the state use violence or the threat of violence to obtain revenue?

[lubbockjoe]

Would abolishing all governments mean world peace?

No.

Your solution does not address the source of war. Humans are the source of war.

Governments, apart from human agents, are incapable of war. Humans are capable of war because they have agency.

[J Oswald]

Would abolishing governments mean world peace?

Absolutely not. Abolishing governments would mean that the power to instigate large-scale violence would be turned over to the teeming masses, which would in time make the whole world look like Somalia since there would be no way to prevent them from acting violently.

[SecretSquirrel]

People are violent... it comes from our primate heritage. We will never be rid of the scourge of violence

[lubbockjoe]

People are violent... it comes from our primate heritage. We will never be rid of the scourge of violence

I think this is the first time we agree...

Would abolishing all governments mean world peace?

Absolutely not, for the reason SS and I state: people are violent.

Why all this talk of evil government while missing the real source of evil?