The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors.

No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner. Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more complete organisation, or else it is an adaptation to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately ‘wolf states’.

Oppenheimer was clearly trying to emphasise the nature of the states that arose. However, no matter how accurate the description of their nature (which it is), selectively quoting the first paragraph on its own makes out that states only arose through conquest. Oppenheimer was forced to qualify that and admit that they sometimes arose after the manner of the fable.

Certainly that does not affect the nature of states, but the selective quotation earlier, and even Oppenheimer’s own downplaying, obscure several things:-

- The actual historical facts mean that many, perhaps most, original states did indeed begin in that pre-emptive way rather than through overtly visible conquests; Rome, the ancient kingdom of Israel, the Gupta Empire, and no doubt others have traditions to that effect. Plus, of course, there were many instances of consolidation, Oppenheimer’s other pathway to states.

- By only considering the risk of overt conquest, people will not hear any warning of the other ways of reaching states (pre-emption – unwitting suicide as self-defence – and consolidation) and they will risk falling prey in those ways, just as the revolting Americans did.

- And specific arguments such as the ones in this thread risk “trying to prove too much” and/or they risk relying on things that are not actually true to prove their point, when they could actually be made sound by resting them on the nature of states. That is something that is independent of any origin in conquest, because it shows up regardless. That is, the arguments here fail because they go further than they need and/or because they rest on the often false assumption of past conquest, when they could quite easily be recast to rest quite soundly on present oppression.

The pursuit of truth should not avail itself of convenient error.

http://areyoutargeted.com/2009/12/11/a-neurolinguistic-programming-homework-assignment/

I like your idea of going ahead with living free and avoiding and ignoring the state as much as possible. I think that’s good agorism. I made up a backronym Avoiding Government and Operating Realistic Individualistic Sensible Markets.

Your idea about living off the grid is not of any consequence to me. I live partly on the grid, mostly off – I don’t own property or vehicles in my name. I think each individual has to choose for himself how to live.

Certainly there are difficulties with being exposed like the Branch Davidians were in a collective trying to live apart. On the other hand, check out Cappadocia for people living far from the state for hundreds of years. Entire communities entirely hidden underground. Amazing stuff.

Thomas Jefferson seriously implied that contemporary states were based on social contracts: that all men are created equal, with inalienable rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

People seriously quote that shit and seriously believe it. They pass around little printed copies of the constitution and declaration of independence. The constitution for that country Jefferson helped found says that “we the people” did ordain and establish this constitution for these united States of America.

People seriously imply that the constitution is a contract, a modern nation state’s social contract. People seriously believe that governments give a shit about consent. Therefore they insist that everyone should register and vote. People seriously believe that classical liberalism makes sense.

Maybe none of the people you know, but quite a few. I don’t believe that classical liberalism ever worked, and I believe that it is mistaken to suppose that governments care about consent. What Alvin and Heidi Toffler wrote about surplus order in 1990 is more true than ever.

Governments exist for the benefit of those who run the government, so they can take property from the unwary for their own use. Whether you’ve encountered people with “Restore the Republic” or not, they are out there, and they really think they can get classical liberalism to work, if only the right people were at the reins of the state.

I met a social activist who was active in the 1960s and 1970s. Her generation helped end the military draft (for which a great many people have failed to thank her) and helped get Nixon to resign and exposed the Pentagon papers and helped end recruiting for the CIA and military on many college campuses, etc. And she believes that “government can be a force for good” if only the right people run it.

It is very sad. But people really do believe this nonsense. And the state really is not worth having.

Perhaps many of us actually live “free,” as you describe it, without even realizing it.

Thanks you, Rod.

Best Regards,
b
911=usRAEL

I’m not really trying to make an argument, sorry if it came across as that. I was simply stating that in my experience the level of freedom I actually feel in real life is far more a product of my own choices than anything else.

With the food example, if food were taxed at 100% I’d just grow my own and completely avoid all imposition on my food freedom.

I actually have a car. The example I used was just that – an example. I guess it was a bad one, because as babette mentioned, most people (including me) actually need a car to get around and its not a luxury item.

Here is another (hopefully better) example … A few years back the state here decided that everyone had to have a boating license, and register their boats even if they were under a certain length. (even jetskis etc). The charge to make this law was led by a group of state officials who had fancy cabins on a popular lake, and they didn’t like jetski noise – I’m not kidding.

I owned a 16′ Zodiac, and used it all the time for fishing and exploring. At first I really got upset about the new stupid law. But then I turned it around and simply decided to live AS IF I were a free person and totally ignored the licensing and registration laws. I did so for four years before I sold the boat for personal reasons.

During that time, I told nobody. I didn’t brag about it. My boat had an old number printed on the side from someone else, which I guess looked sort of official. Most of the people I boated with got the license, and they never new I didn’t have one. Nobody even noticed.

I just decided to live completely free from all state restrictions on my boat – simple as that. If I had been stopped by the coast guard, I would have probably received a fine; a consequence that was mine and mine alone to deal with. Once I came to totally accept every consequence that came with living like a free-boating man, the anger and fear seemed to slip away.

And no, I have no interest in forming some sort of commune where people isolate off the grid. No interest at all in that. This is just a personal perspective I hold, and its kind of a work in progress, actually.

Starting this January, the state has decided that it will be illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving a vehicle. Once again I (and everyone here) will have to decide – am I going to live like a free man and accept the consequences of ignoring the ‘law’? Am I going to get angry and work to defeat this one stupid law and devote my time and life energy to that… or am I just going to live … free?

From my perspective, if you fight all your life to change the state, you’re probably not going to get very far. But just devote the same energy to changing yourself and your mindset and your circumstances … and I think you’ll actually live freer than 99% of the people on this planet. Is it perfect? Nope. Nothing is perfect. But at least I appear to have A LOT of control over myself and my choices … I seem to have very little control over what other people do.

Peace,
R

What of those who in colder regions where necessities are miles away? Do we ride our bikes in blizzards to fetch groceries or go see a doctor?

Cars are not a luxury, but a necessity, in some places. But we’ll be forced us to give them up, you’ll get a good glimpse at misery, not freedom.

Serfdom for everyone, except the “elites” of course.

b
911…

Remember what the gov. did to the Branch Davidians and others for wanting to “live free and off the grid.”

Gov. despises freedom of the individual. One straggler, here and there, is ok. But groups of people who prefer to live “off-the-grid” are in danger of getting shot/roasted.

None of us is truly free.

Whatever freedom one can muster comes from having NO debts, living frugally whilst preparing physically and emotionally to do with even less.

If Copenhagen goes through, we’ll all have to.

Best Regards,
b
911=usRAEL

Your argument reminds me of the folks who claim a flat national sales tax would be a voluntary measure.