Quote:
Originally Posted by timj219
Nothing I wrote is even remotely like "the state can do no wrong to its citizens".
Nothing I wrote is even remotely like "the state is just because the state says it is just".
Your ramblings about the revolution have no relevance to this discussion that I can see.
Your ramblings about the private sector have no relevance to the discussion that I can see.
Just because worse things could have happened to workers than child labor, starvation wages, deathtrap working conditions, goon squads for trying to organize etc does not mean those things are not abuse. Do you even think before you post this stuff?
Your fantasy compromise makes no sense to me and also has no relevance that I can see to what we've been discussing.
You keep saying there is serious scholarship arguing for ending government. I've never seen or even heard of any and you have yet to provide any so I wish you would drop it.
The rest of your post is so confused and disconnected to anything we've been talking about that I don't even know what to say about it.
I asked you to bring a serious argument if you had one. This entire post is nothing but misrepresentions of my post and off topic ramblings.
|
Ok, so you admit I win.
Once again, you have not responed in any real way to what I posted. I will ask you this, again:
Did the founders have a right to leave the Brittish state?
Perhaps we can work from here. Or you can explain to me the difference in your argument and my characterazation of it.
If I am correct in my understanding, you posit that the state is legitmate because it is a social contract, or something similar?
Is this correct?
If it is a social contract, then we have agreed with it, and this is why we must obey it.
Is this correct?
If those two are correct, it would seem that the state can do whatever it pleases because we have agreed to it. In other words, the state can do no wrong. I am interested in having a serious discussion, but you very rarely do anything but tell me I am wrong. You never provide me with reaons that I am wrong.
In what sense are voulantary agreements abuse? Are you suggesting that people are siginging up to be abused? Let's assume that you get what you want and all sweat shops are forced to close. (I imagine you apply the same argument to current-day sweat shops.) This means that the workers are forced to do something even worse than working in a sweat shop. How is this good. Oh you great humanitarian, you.
As for scholarship, I just listed 2 or 3 books whose main argument is to end the state because it is unjust. I also gave you CVs of four anarchists. Most of the things they have written are in the sphere of anarchy. I have, to this point given you the name of 5 tenured professors (three endowed chairs) that are anarchists. This scratches the surface.
Please tell me how I misrepresented your post rather than just telling me that I did. That is how a debate works.