ProIndividual Assumes Egoic Individualism

The user ProIndividual left one too many comments on one of my older videos. The comments consisted of arguments commonly made against the existence of the State, and since I hate having to condense my writing when replying to multiple posts left on YT's restrictive comment sections, I'm making a blog out of it. Feel the exhilaration yet?

His comments, from first to last:

• This video started off badly by presenting a fallacy in it's title. There is no necessity of a state, or involuntary government coerced through a Rights-stealing social contract. If you want a voluntary state, have at it. But do not force me to particpate, as that would be coercion. I don't want to be punched, but I wouldn't outlaw boxing either. You can do whatever you want to yourself, even if harmful, just quit making me do it to. Stop punching me, I'm not a boxer.

The title is not fallacious. For something to be necessary, a subject must at a certain point simply depend on it. For the subject's notion of that dependency to be ill-conceived, those asserting it as such must provide evidence to back up their extraordinary claim. They're on the outside looking in, telling someone else that they have more knowledge about a circumstance they themselves don't exist under. So what do they see as evidence aimed at removing any doubt that people commit a fallacy when it comes to their reliance on the services provided by States? This evidence is private charity.

Naturally, Anarchists and Anti-Statists dismiss every last example in history where private charity in all its radiant glory still failed to deliver the volume of alleviation covering people's basic needs, as was successfully delivered by States, and continues to be. They dismiss this because, in their minds, the individuals most inclined to contribute to private charities have always been stifled by taxation. As such they weren't in a position to donate as nearly often or as exceedingly as they would have had it not been for the State. This argument assumes far too much about the unknown and philanthropy, while ignoring basic mathematics. Taking a glance at the big picture, one can easily see that the taxed amount is too minuscule to warrant anything approaching the estimates Ancaps like to flirt with. The speculation here is as contrived as their analogies to religion, as they're unable to point to specific examples in the past, approved by credible historians, where stateless societies managed to cover the basic needs of all their inhabitants through the whims of private charities. No such examples exist, because this has never happened in the past, thus the nascence of States.

We would also have to adjust any archaic philanthropic examples brought to the table, to the ramped population growth which can only result in the profligacy of the familiar poor breeds poor domino effect, ad infinitum, leaving us with a gravely higher volume of indigence in need of voluntary alleviation. Make no mistake, the assorted safety nets provided by States are necessary. That is of course, if we care to take seriously the undeniable destituteness which makes up a good chunk of the world's population.

Also of note is that under Statism, charitable contributions are often subject to special tax exemptions. This fact flies in the face of the predictions Ancaps like to make regarding the increased number of donations Statelessness is bound to generate, rendering their philanthropy talking points as hogwash. The number of truly selfless donations is rescinded (and then some) by the number of donations made for the purpose of generating good PR, with the donors knowing full well that they'll break even at a later date as long as they claim all the donated goods&plenty on their tax return. If anything, the current tax system enhances incentive to donate, contrary to what we've been hearing. Just because the donations may be contaminated with aspirations of PR and special tax exemptions, doesn't mean that poor people are unable to benefit from them.

As for the analogy to boxing/assault, it belongs on a pro-Statism video in which the speaker makes the specific case for world-wide Statism, where ownership of every last acre of habitable land is claimed by States. I didn't argue for that in the video he commented on, so I view this as a non-sequitur. Now, most Anarchists probably don't see it as a non-sequitur because the reality they currently exist in has everything to do with overarching global Statism. What they have to keep in mind, and what I should have made an effort to specify in this video, is that none of this is encompassed under the definition of Statism itself.

Merely discussing a concept or theory doesn't box me in to making excuses for every last manifestation of it. I discussed Statism in the context of its definition. Statism is defined as the application of States to achieve societal goals. End of. Anything beyond this amounts to instant speculation. When I defend States, I do so without submitting myself to the whims of Anarchists' projections targeting everything my words may or may not entail. My goal was to illustrate the dogma of believing that everything States touch must eventually turn to shit. Unless a defender of States makes it explicitly known that he/she is arguing for a world-wide overtake of well established markets, it is unreasonable as well as reactionary to just presume that such a mission is inherent to the baggage carried within. The reason States are as widespread as they are is because an overwhelming majority of the world’s population believes in the safety net. If Ancaps wish to change this, they will have to do it with a logical argument, instead of by simply imposing their sensibilities onto the argument and reaffirming them arduously.

Anarchists may also point out that my own lack of preference for State-run global domination is irrelevant, as I'm not attempting to have myself voted into power, but someone else whose mind I do not have the ability to read, whereas I'm merely a component of a tiny fraction of the electorate. This line of thought imposes conveniently impossible standards onto any counterargument anyone can muster up, because they're essentially asking for access inside other people's minds. They don't request this access when it comes to any other profession which they must submit to, only politics.

People know that they have to place a certain level of trust in doctors, vets, engineers, lawyers, detectives; all individuals who make money off of issues people deal with on a daily basis. Nothing about politics qualifies it to be the lone exception to this submission of dissipating trust routinely made by civilized people.

There's nothing rational about believing that everyone who works for a living doesn't mean you harm with their business, except for politicians. If I were to out myself as a candidate in the upcoming election right now, my lack of preference for complete world domination would suddenly become suspect, as I'd be revealing something as irrelevant as my field of study and career of choice. Talk about career-oriented discrimination. Policymakers could pass dozens of the most highly advanced polygraph exams, but it would still not be enough to rid them of their suspicions. The good news is, no one is ethically obliged to rid them of their suspicions. They can hold prejudiced views towards every last policymaker all they want. Stateophobia is neither a rational argument, nor an ethical one.

• The difference between boxing and assault is voluntary particpation. If you like being beat up, I won't stop you. If you like S&M sex, go for it. But don't equate rape to S&M kink, boxing to assault, or voluntary govt to involuntary govt. If you want that life, go ahead...I will not choose it, and that should be fine. I do not need to trade Natural Rights of Man for civil rights in a social contract, and vote on others' lives.

There is also a difference between assault and self-defense. If people choose to collectively form a self-defense mechanism in the form of public services and safety nets encompassing a geographic district, those ideologically opposed to the project should be prohibited from benefiting off of the services in effect unless they pay into the system just like everyone else. A refusal to pay, simultaneous with a refusal to vacate the area of the project, has nowhere to go but one of the following:

A. You stay and freeload off of those who paid into the system, as the systems in place are widespread and reciprocal.

B. You stay and everyone else is forced to shut down operation so to cater to your sensibilities of right and wrong.

The only time either A or B becomes remotely acceptable is when the State literally forces you to continue living within the geographic region under its rule, either by putting up fences or by prohibiting air travel. Some Anarchists view their current circumstance as being interchangeable with being literally forced to live in a State, because they have no immediate alternative options, and even wrecks like Somalia have too much State oversight for their taste.

As mentioned before, it is unfortunate that they don't always have viable options when it comes to their idea of a sanctuary, but this applies to anyone who has any issue with the prevailing system, which includes just about everyone. At the end of the day, people have to come to terms with the fact that a lack of demand for Statelessness (or any other breed of political change) amounts to a lack of justification to impose such change onto those who desire no part of it. The services provided by States are not exempt from demand and supply 101, and there is currently an abundance of demand for them. If people are told to boycott highly popular businesses they find to be ethically depraved, extend that line of thought to States instead of just playing victim; The very same kind of faux victim-playing Ancaps accuse anyone who isn't content with simply boycotting businesses, of succumbing to.

This is usually where they'll complain how "love it or leave it" is not a rational argument, and by doing so they're just ignoring A and B, or are arrogant enough to assume that everyone else should just drop what they're doing so to cater to their ideology.

If Anarcho-George walks into a movie theatre without paying admission and refuses to leave when repeatedly asked to, should the process of his removal from the theatre lead to his assault, it's no one's fault but his own. I'm for the operation of movie theatres for the people who wish to be legally obligated to pay for the services provided by them. Anarcho-George may disagree and is perhaps under the impression that there are too many movie theatres nowadays, and they take up too much space, and that he remembers the good ol’ days when he watched movies for free back in his hometown. Problem is, when Anarcho-George is told that he is actually free to go to back to his hometown, he just cries majority rule. He imposes the theatre onto himself, and then points to the 99.9% of the people who have no problems paying for the tickets, as his oppressors.

Let's do one better. A small community opts to construct a drive-by movie theatre, with a monstrously huge screen as well as intensely loud speakers, the entertainment value of which transcends onto the entire community. In light of this, the community is conned off, with proper notification as to why. Knowing this, Anarcho-George enters the premises and refuses to pay for a ticket each time a movie is played. Should he have a right to do this? No, he should be forced to pay or be forced out of the community. To argue otherwise is to possess overinflated reverence for one individual at the expense of more individuals.

The fact that lots of Anarchists may not enter this type of community and are instead born into it with no Stateless option within arm's reach, is a grievance they should take up with the procreators who imposed this circumstance on them, instead of people like me, who oppose any and all imposition of life onto individuals whose sensibilities cannot be predicted for until it's too late. In other words, take it up with your Statist parents. If your parents are also Anarchists and still saw fit to impose life on you despite knowing that there’s no chance in hell of a Stateless option available to you during your lifetime, they’re even worse than the Statist parent.

• There is still a singular law in anarchism, "Do No Harm".

Oversimplified mush. He's completely ignoring the fact that with most policies, it's the people themselves who have diametrical views on what Do No Harm means, instead of the wicked State. A pro-lifer and a pro-choicer are both under the impression that they're defending individual liberties. If abortion remains legal in any given Stateless society, as the abortion clinics previously owned oe overlooked by the State now become private property owned by a pro-choice advocate, you will still have the same pro-life crowd calling it murder and a perverse oppression of the individual rights of the clunk of cells they deem a morally relevant entity under the "Everyone Has The Right To Life" mantra. If abortion becomes illegal in any given Stateless society, since all of the abortion clinics previously owned/overlooked by the State now become private property of a pro-life lunatic, you'll have the pro-choice crowd screaming "The Right To Bodily Autonomy!". Imagine that, unavoidable cries of individual oppression under Statelessness.

One side will end up feeling robbed, regardless of the non-existence of States, or the fact that a majority vote no longer shapes the legality/illegality of abortion. The system is perceived as being the root of the problem, but is mostly superfluous. And I haven't even touched on the fundamental issue concerning the timeline of the developing nervous system. The mother should not have the right to full body autonomy once surpassing the 6th month of her pregnancy, as the issue of sentience becomes a factor in the thereafter. But absolutists on both sides clinging to extremes will disagree.

As is the case with abortion, those who proselytize the non-aggression principle with mostly (IE: nothing but) taxation in mind, need to wake up to circumstantial nuances impeding on their principles. In other words, quit being raging absolutists. You want absolute property rights for some redneck who buys a bunch of open land right next to your building and decides to use it as a pig farm, effectively stinking up your entire neighborhood? Technically, he's not initiating force against anyone and is keeping to himself. Who decides as to whether he should be allowed to get away with the stench? HOAs? Why? Because they planted a flag on that land? Because they were there first? Sure sounds like Statism-lite to me.

Something tells me the redneck will agree with that assessment, but the rest of the residents will not, and vice-versa for the inverse of any such scenario. There are many more examples of how Statelessness isn't going to fix the actual problem, that being people’s fundamental disagreements regarding where the individual rights line ought to be drawn in respects to convoluted circumstances. These conflicts being settled democratically, rather than by a handful of landlords, should be preferable to anyone who doesn't have elitist notions of reality. Or is this just about owning the working class, since a functioning democracy and labor go together like peanut-butter and jelly. I wonder.

• Natural Law is converted to common law in order to interpret it case by case. Once interpretted, Natural Justice is used as a "court system". It need not be a monopoly system. Either way, anarchists will not advocate disorder, chaos, and violence...they will advocate such violence causes loss of individual sovereignty, so one can be "tried" in these non-monopoly "courts", and "punished" (more like compnensation/rehab/what have you). You want folks jailed for not giving into theft,us; violence.

The second half of this comment is a little incomprehensible, but in the first half he’s arguing as if I at any point cried chaos to any Anarchist. In the video he’s commenting on, I specified that I’m not addressing Anarcho-Primitivism, so the tangent doesn’t apply to anything I said.

Non-profit monopolies have their positives and negatives. Not having to waste tons of money and resources on patronizingly excessive advertising so to out-compete all your rivals, is a positive. For-profit businesses have to work towards several ends, while non-profit ones need concern themselves with only one. I’ve been on both ends of the spectrum, having worked for the gov’t and the private sector, so I know a little something about how profit-seeking owners operate. They don’t sweat shortcuts undermining the quality of service, whenever the wheels spinning in their heads lead them to conclude that they've got a decent shot of of getting away with it. This type of scheming is a non-issue when it comes to any honest non-profit business, since remuneration is never seen as some parasitic blight.

• And fuck majorities too, why do you care what the stupid, ficle, and almost always wrong mob wants? Collectives are just tyrants in multitudes.

And we're brought right back to the irritatingly inescapable pickle of having either majority votes shape policies (which will impact those very majorities) or the landlord whose own best interests, as history reveals, have nothing to do with what's fair or humane for most people. You want to see an entire country owned by 17 blue-bloods who inherited their property and have zero reverence towards the value of honest hard work? Awesome, but it's not going to be imposed here. You'll have to find an island of your own for your laboratory testing, and I'd like to see it, because I know that if you deprive people of proper compensation for the value of their labor, and you do it for an extended period of time, these same stupid, ficle, and almost always wrong mob formers will get fed up and actually utilize their mob power, as they've done throughout history, and as they're doing today around the world, albeit in smaller doses.

• Besides, defending statism in debate is like masturbating with a cheese grater...not only is it painful and stupid, but it's not nearly as pleasurable as the guy who FORCED you to do it had promised...lol.

This comment suggests that he has had some experience defending Statism. Either that or he's just speculating. Having defended Statism, I can vouch that I at no point felt any of the above mentioned ghastliness. I guess there's a joke in there somewhere about somebody forcing me to defend Statism. Because it's all forced. Get it? Forced! Hahahahaha.

Ugh.