I originally posted this nearly five years ago, but I would still stand by every word.
1. I agree with the Augustinian view of the state as a robber band writ large.
2. I agree with the Stirnerite view of political obligation. Why should I obey this guy just because he’s the president, king, mayor, etc.?
3. I agree that democracy is a system where five wolves and sheep vote on what to have for lunch.
4. I agree that the death and destruction perpetrated by states make that of individual criminals look trivial by comparison.
5. I agree with George Bernard Shaw that democracy replaces the rule of the corrupt few with the rule of the incompetent many.
6. I agree that the state exists to monopolize territory and resources, protect an artificially privileged ruling class, expand its own power and subjugate and exploit subjects.
7. I agree with Hayek that the worst gets to the top.
8. I agree that the insights of social psychology show that most people are creatures of the herd.
9. I agree that the herd is the permanent enemy of the superior individual.
10. I agree that values are subjective, that life is ultimately a war of each against all, and that survival of the fittest and the will to power are the only true laws.
Everyone seems to say all of those things yet swear that anarchists are the devil. No wonder people can’t get ahead… always subconsciously affected by how they’re hating on their true self. LOL
Personally, I think they’re all true… however, I hate being labeled because it’s so limiting to the perspectives of others. That’s probably why I’ve rarely referred to anyone by what they believe in or stand for, aside from calling Hitler a Nazi.
As I recall, my friend of many decades, you could have penned those words in your earliest days and they would have been as true then as they were five years ago and today.
If you have been anything, it is consistent in what you believe and what you hold to be dear and true.
“I agree with the Augustinian view of the state as a robber band writ large.”
You only agree with half of Augustine, he argues that a state can be defensible if it maintains justice.
“I agree that the death and destruction perpetrated by states make that of individual criminals look trivial by comparison.”
Somewhat misleading, since the we don’t have an either criminal or state, there are other nasty things out there such as non-state actors (NSAs). In the fast NSAs were worse than states such as Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and Tamerlane. At the present states seem worse than NSAs, but will the trend hold. I mean if its the Song Dynasty or Genghis Khan the choice seems pretty clear.
“I agree that values are subjective, that life is ultimately a war of each against all, and that survival of the fittest and the will to power are the only true laws.”
If the will to power is the only law and all morality is subjective than statism is be definition, at least not bad, and probably good. If the person with the power wills that his dictatorship is legitimate than it is, only so long as he can keep it. The anarchist critique of the state only makes sense in the realm of moral absolutes where the state violates some transcendent norm. Otherwise it just looks like the anarchists are whining about sour grapes.
Most of the other points you make I am in agreement with.
Funny video about Augustine and the Pirate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iEZEIlyQcc
These are all a predator’s reasons for objecting to the dominion of other predators. What’s the difference between you and a psychopath?
“The anarchist critique of the state only makes sense in the realm of moral absolutes where the state violates some transcendent norm. Otherwise it just looks like the anarchists are whining about sour grapes.”
Point well-taken, but you could also say the state is merely an environmental hazard akin to a pack of grizzly bears preying on humans. It’s possible to recognize the practical need of driving off the grizzlies without getting on a moral high horse about them (although many of our animal rights friends would no doubt side with the grizzlies). I view the state specifically and predatory humans generally the way I might view natural disasters. It’s a waste of emotional and psychological energy to condemn them. It’s better to devote that energy to resisting them and repairing the damage they cause.
Of course, we can say humans are different from animals and impersonal natural phenomena because humans have moral agency. But I think the moral agency of humans is overrated. There’s plenty of evidence that many sociopaths are simply born that way (see Jeffrey Guinn’s biography of Charles Manson or Ben Hect’s biography of Mickey Cohen) and that others are created by the earliest childhood experiences (see Dr. Park Dietz’s examination of mafia hitman Richard Kuklinski). Also, the evidence from social psychology shows most people get their sense of morality, and even their perception of reality, from cues taken from peers and leaders (Milgram, Zimbardo, Asch, the “Third Wave” experiment).
“What’s the difference between you and a psychopath?”
Well, some folks seem to think there isn’t any, lol.
What did I say that you specifically disagree with?
What reasons, if any, do you have for objecting to the state?
Disagree? With those ten points? Don’t really. But Anonymous above is right that warlords are worse if you don’t happen to be the warlord. Warlord.
A tribute to Keith Preston:
and to Attack the System:
You’re very lucky that humans are willful blind & jawdrop stupid & your followers will never figure it out.