Out of Pod Experience

I snipped aggressively to keep the post more easily read and what not.



The State is always parasitic. The State produces nothing, all it can do is consume and redistribute, and it does so by force. Government only does one thing well, get bigger.

The problem is, when it comes to leaders in a government, it is not just words. Force is also used. If someone can be a leader with just words, and never need to initiate force, then by all means, go ahead. Though as soon they rely on the apparatus of the State to force others, they are tyrannical, diseased as you put it. The State is the application of force over a given geographical area. The State is a disease.

Is it any surprise that those who want power and want to use force against others are attracted to that very thing? The State is the application of force over a given geographical area. What better place to exert control over others than an institution of legalized violence.



If people are so stupid, and there are always rotten apples, then why collect all that power in one place for even more grand examples of stupidity? This is one of the points of the philosophy of liberty, of the U.S. Constitution, of the Rights of Man, of the Magna Carta.

Yes people can be stupid, and there are always rotten apples, so let's not concentrate all the stupidity in one place and make it a very nice tool for the rotten apples. When power is concentrated, it is more easily abused and much more susceptible to corruption. Absolute power and all of that.

Again, why is it not voluntary? Because people are stupid? That's not an answer, it's an excuse.

If the goal of Social Security, was to help those in need, then wouldn't a good leader have encouraged charity instead of institutionalized theft? The fact is, they were not good enough leaders to express the so called 'common-good' and encourage voluntary charity, instead had to resort to violence and the threat of violence.

Is the use of force in the common-good? "I'm going to lock you in a cage, so Grandma Thompson doesn't have to eat dog food." ... or "If you see Grandma Thompson doesn't have enough to eat, why not go share something with her and make a friend."

You tell me, which one is better for the common good?



Yes people will still do horrible things to other people, with out with out the existence of the State. That doesn't excuse the existence of the State. If anything, it exposes the folly of the State. On top of all the bad things we can do to each other, let's create an institution that makes it legal! yay! Yes, people are stupid, as you say.

Inconsequential? Hardly.

Also I note you use the all too common military analogy. Armies have leaders, "deputies", aka officers and NCOs. And armies are great at destroying things and absolutely suck at creating things. The use of the military analogy, for the organization of society is an all too common mind set, it is an illusion.

We do not need a military like hierarchy to conduct our daily affairs. Much less, care for the sick, build roads, dig ditches or make pencils. Ever read the essay "I,Pencil"?




Society, an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
- American Heritage Dictionary

Just which society would crumble? When we do see a State fail, it tends to happen rather suddenly. The Society(ies) that was/were confined by the force of the State suddenly have to adapt. Had the State not been there, imposing its will upon the people, such dramatic and sometimes messy adaptation would not occur. Likely instead, it would have had time to evolve in a much more peaceful manner.

It is the imposition of the State and then sudden and dramatic removal of the State, that creates the chaos, not the lack of a State.



If States always kill them selves in the end, why bother?

Pandora's Box most terrifying evil: hope.


Ok yeah, going and labelling hope as something evil is going a bit too far, but sometimes, too much hope can cloud someone's judgement. So, in a way, too much hope can bring the downfall to any civilization.

But in the end, it's just as Kitty said: No matter how evil a leader was, no matter how horrifying an entire country's collapse was, due to said horrible leadership, there will always be people, people with the best intentions you could possibly have, people clinging to the hope that *this* time it'll be different, we learned with their mistakes we're not like them, so we'll do better.

And it works at first, then the ravages of time come, and one (or several) *******(s) manages to climb up to power and **** up everything, and then we're back to square 1. It's a cycle. An endless cycle that, amazingly, gets improved every time it happens. But in the end, it still falls.


And slavy, while it's true that I used a militaristic way of organizations, truth is, most things are organized in a way that stems from the military. there are community leaders, which may, or may not seek guidance to the higher powers and so on.

That's true, and we see the same pattern over and over again. That however does not excuse 'doing it again', or excuse some clown, begging for more government and making every excuse for it. Instead, for me, sets them up as an object of ridicule and scorn.

Oh and a side note ... "gets improved" ... perhaps, though the rise of the super states and/or their ideologies, have destroyed more lives and property, as a percentage population, than any other time in history.

Is it better to stay dumb and suffer the consequences or point out the stupidity when we see it?

Just turn on the news, read these forums, any place where some clown express confidence or belief that government needs to be involved.