>The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organisation for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the “private sector” and often winning in this competition of resources.>With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense: such as “we are the government.” The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical; it is also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must he paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and therefore nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabour this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or less degree.>We must therefore emphasise that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us”. The government does not in any accurate sense “represents the majority of the people” but even if it did, even if 70 per cent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 per cent, this would still be murder, and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority. No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that “we are all part of one another,” must be permitted to obscure this basic fact. why cant normies understand this shit? It is an indisputable fact that the state is not a legitimate institution and that it is maintained through the use of force, why do they defend it so much?
Into the Gulag with you!
>>24744363>why do they defend it so much?women and weak men aquiesse to the most violent and the rest is stockholm syndrome.
>>24744363Eat shit Ivan
>>24744363Why is it so hard for lolberts to understand that, when living together, certain principles can be decided and enforced upon (like the NAP) ?For instance, if 5 people living together want to enforce the NAP but one of them doesn't, does his refusal grant him the capability to disavow the NAP ? Can he harm others by mere virtue of having chosen not to accept it ?This is like explaining to a first grader what politics is, why the state represents collective will etc. It baffles me how far retarded bankers can go without realizing that there is an idea of a "common interest" that is applicable to any people living together.
>>24744455This is a major part of Hoppe’s ideology tho
>>24744455>Can he harm others by mere virtue of having chosen not to accept it ?you are free to do whatever you want as long as it doesnt affect other peoples properties or freedom. about the rest: >>24744465
>>247443632015 called, it wants its flat earth of political theory back.
>>24744465>>24744487>The NAP is presupposedOnce again you run into the issue of who is actually there to enforce it. Not only is the NAP arbitrary (this is true for any moral or ethical principle btw, unless a higher power dictates it), you can't effectively ground it without presupposing a moral authority to enforce it.Hoppe himself only pushes the problem farther by essentially reducing the state to covenants or private law agencies. By doing this, not only does he completely misses the concept of what a "nation" is and its current iterations (a community of people seeking to live together), he's just advocating for a "reset" of sorts. This goes back to what I was saying earlier and how lolberts are fundamentally misinformed. You can't have a community without certain principles (yes, even the NAP). You can't have moral principles without a state. And if you can have a state to enforce principles, you might aswell opt for rational ones. Then, it might suddenly become "rational" for people to opt for socialist modes of production etc. Once reduced to that state, libertarians only end up advocating for either some form of "great reset" where everybody could choose where to form states, or devolve into bland neoliberals convinced that the economy works better under their system. Iirc Nozick talks about this, presenting libertarianism as this framework for utopia in "Anarchy, State, and Utopia"
>>24744363Cultish programming.Same with the gold worshiping division. The two cults support each other btw. Can't be rid of just one of them. Need to kill both.
>>24744363>why cant normies understand this shit?Because they're told they live in a democracy, where the government represents the people, and they're retarded enough to believe it.The irony is that we now have the technology to instigate direct democracy on a national scale. There's no reason why citizens can't decide on policy by regular online voting. But the political class aren't going to allow that, and most of the plebs are too lazy to bother, or too retarded to understand the issues. They are content to delegate their democratic responsibilities to the politicians. For as long as this situation persists, we will live under an oligarchy whose self-interest is paramount.
>>24744381If i didn't get benefits id be homeless honestly. That being said ill never be a full blown commie either. Third way economics like distributism and market socialism are superior to either.
>>24744920In very white societies, morals are generally 99% not handled by the state
>>24745505I've long speculated liberal democracy can work provided the state is composed of 99.9% white people. I dare someone to refute that.
They're basically monarchists.
>>24745588But for how long?Democracy just become a game of selling off favours from the government coffers in exchange for votes, as soon as women get the vote you're basically fucked.
>>24744363>We must therefore emphasise that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us”. Not right now, but it has much more potential to truly reflect "us" than the impersonal market algorithm does.
>>24746422Easy: indentured slavery.
The use of force is legitimate. Liberals can tongue my anus.
>>24746422ya the fact that "based trump" instituted a massive tax increase via tariffs and still expanded the deficit means its just so fucking over, monetarily speaking. who will stop the spending? urban libs depend on gibs to buy votes, and red states are all full of uneducated poor people who need transfer payments to survive, so all those congresspeople who talk a tough fiscal responsibility game in sound bites refuse to cut anything.
>>24744363>why cant normies understand this shit?Because commies were saying that shit way before, and then it was imperative to psyop everything that commies say out of normie brain.
>>24746592>communists complaining that the state depends on use of force ya normal people hear this and think wow communists are unbelievably stupid or dishonest. but but marx said... no. we have 100 years of authoritarian hellscape lived experience, but but that wasn't real c... shut the fuck up.
>>24744455This is your brain on legal positivism.
>>24746590This has deeper historical reasons than you think.
>>24746590My advice? This might sound crazy, but... we simply give the government more money.THIS time it will work out.
>>24744920>this is true for any moral or ethical principle btw, unless a higher power dictates itSo if the State says it's moral to have sex with kids, is pedophilia now moral?
>>24746623i'm pretty sure the state only says what's legal and illegal not what's moral?
>>24746632>this is true for any *moral* or *ethical* principle btw
>>24746632People see laws and immediately interpret them as morals.Without a religion they worship the most powerful entity available which happens to be the state or the media.
>>24744363>not legitimateThe existence of the state, or at the very least of a formalised legal order, is a precondition for any notion of legitimacy.>maintained by violenceSociety is maintained by violence, with or without a state. Violence is one of the foundational principles of any social organisation larger than a few families. Read Hobbes, read Machievelli, read Burke, read Schmitt, then grow up. The primary function of social organisation is to regulate violence, not to do away with it.
>>24746687>Society is maintained by violenceLibertarians don't disagree with this statement, they believe that the only legitimate use of violence is to stop aggression.
>Millions of paragraphs of mucho-texto tier lolbert manifestos>BILLIONS of dollars in astroturfing money from satanic pedophile oligarchs>1 (one) world leader actually tries following austrian economic dogma to the letter>State completely fails and needs to be bailed out in 1.5 yearsJust remember that this is what you're engaging with when you indulge lolberts at face value.
>>24746721Ah yes, all the problems of Argentina are the result of... *checks notes* ...too much capitalism.
>>24746709Yes. They are wrong.
>>24744363the government not being representative doesn't make it illegitimate. there's a huge gap between this and that
>>24746725But >>24746687's point seemed to be that libertarians objected to the state on the basis of it being violent, not on the basis of it being aggressive. Libertarianism and pacifism are two distinct ideologies, which completely undercuts that line of argument.
>>24746724>all the problems of Argentina are the result of... *checks notes* ...too much capitalism.Unironically yes.
>>24746724that's correct yes
>>24744455The existence of compact does not imply that all actions by the state represent the tenets of compact.
>>24746687What about Max Weber? Gotta throw some political sociology in there too
