A first problem here is related to the method of thinking and the way in which you offer validation for your claims. Depending on how the statement has been validated, it will acquire another truth value. The truth status of a claim could be:
- Tautologically true. Example. All men are human. This is so, just by definition, given the fact that a man is defined as a male human.
- Provable. Meaning that all untruth in the claim can only be the result of untruth in an explicitly-stated list of underlying statements, possibly, recursively, turtles all the way down to some basic statements that we ordinarily designate as axioms. Statements are provable only within an axiomatic system. Example. The claim that 3 < 5 is provable, since 5 is an element of the succession chain (repeated application of the successor function) of 3. Another example: participating in a lottery is forbidden behaviour in Islam because the Quran condemns gambling.
- Falsifiable. Meaning that we can conduct experimental testing in order to find counterexamples for the claim. Example. We can repeatedly cook water to 100 degrees and verify that it will start boiling.
- Corroborated. Ultimately we always rely on testimonies as to whether facts have truly occurred. Fact-checking is an important method for historians and other professions. Note that this method only verifies if one particular event has taken place. It does not say anything about the repetition of such events and certainly does not try to predict the future. Example. John was born on 15 Jan 2001. Why? We have three witness depositions of people who were present at his birth: two nurses and a doctor. All three signed off as witnesses for this fact.
Unsubstantiated. No accredited method has been used to validate the claim. Therefore such claim is neither true nor false. It could be either. In non-Aristotelian, many-valued logic, it could even be both. Therefore, in absence of real validation, a claim must be considered merely ideological.
To cut a long story short, everything that you have said about the alleged necessity of a National State are not tautologically-true, nor provable, neither falsifiable, and not even corroborated, but merely unsubstantiated ideological claims.
Concerning your and Hobbes' claims in detail:
- A state is necessary because, in a vacuum of total instability, there is essentially a constant state of war
- "international law Geneva convention" would be needed
- In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain
- consequently no Culture of the Earth
- no Navigation nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea
- no commodious Building
- no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force
- no Knowledge of the face of the Earth
- no account of Time
- no Arts; no Letters
- no Society
- continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.
A first remark is that there is a tremendous amount of confusion between progress in technology and National States. The State has never produced any progress in technology. The State's core instrument is the use of force, while technology, on the other hand, is the result of
freely collaborating individuals. It is especially the
freely aspect that makes technology people so libertarian.
For example, you can find the technologically most-advanced communities from the globe on the tor network, where there is absolutely no State nor government in place whatsoever. In fact, it is exactly the freedom from States and governments that make these communities so technologically advanced. The reason why the technology clan is hardcore libertarian, anti-Statist, is exactly because the State is an impediment to progress, if only because its incessant use of force disturbs us while freely collaborating. Hence, there is no love lost between technology and the State.
format_quote Originally Posted by
cooterhein
Islamic regions are giving us several examples of what it looks like to be, in effect, stateless, or to some extent for an area to be outside the normal realm of control for any particular state. How is that working out in the Levant, or in Waziristan?
Well, you can of course easily prove that Waziristan is always in state of war, if you incessantly drone-bomb the people there. The same holds true for the Levant. It is not hard to prove that there will always be a war going on there, if you continuously have fighter jets bombing the area. The place can impossible settle down in those circumstances. The same holds true for Somalia.
One important reason why these places remain at war, is because outside powers try to impose their views on government there. They want to impose a National State under their control there.
What you are claiming amounts to saying: If you incessantly keep bombing Islamic regions, they will not be doing well. My answer to that is: Yes, you are right. I totally agree.
format_quote Originally Posted by
cooterhein
education, police force, skilled professional with her during birth, academia, potable water- would you do it yourself, the roads be kept up, would you do that yourself? Who would pay you for it, and how would that be financed?
When the State establishes a monopoly on a particular activity, say, formal education, it will indeed become the only source of education. It is not hard for the State to establish monopolies. All that they need to do, is to use their core instrument: the use of force. So, yes, since the State will use force to prevent anybody else from providing education services, the only remaining provider, the State, will indeed look absolutely necessary.
It is not that the State would be doing a good job in the field of education, or that people would not want other service providers. It is rather that the State will prevent this from happening by using guns and state-orchestrated violence.
The same holds true for everything else you mentioned. The State will prevent at gunpoint that anybody else dares to solve any of the problems that you have mentioned. This does not mean, however, that the State will actually solve it by itself. More often than not, the problem will just remain unsolved. Example. We need a road somewhere. The State will not build it, because they do not want to. At the same time, they will prevent at gunpoint that anybody else would do it.
So, yes, now that the State has become necessary, because otherwise nobody else will exercise its monopolies, the State needs lots of money. Of course, you are not supposed to mention the problem that there is absolutely no link or relationship between the amounts of money that the State will extort from its population and the amounts actually needed to exercise its monopolies.
The State is entirely predicated on the use of force and State-orchestrated violence. The use of force itself is nowadays very much predicated on the use of technology, At the same time, technology itself is the product of the technology clan, and not the State. From there, you can probably understand why the technology clan keeps asking the State if they really count on us for continuing and expanding their systems of mischief, because we are not their friends at all, and we are totally unreliable when it comes to assisting the State in their use and abuse of force.
format_quote Originally Posted by
cooterhein
prevent people from invading, beheading you, and taking your female relatives as sex slaves.
The use of force requires at least two important ingredients. One: the determination and will power to do do what it takes Two: technology.
Concerning will power, you and I know that, for example, the Islamist extremists score several orders of magnitude higher in terms of will power and determination than the staff of any State armies, police, or other security departments. If it were only an issue of will power, the State would not even exist.
Concerning technology, you and I know that it is the hardcore-libertarian technology clan that controls it. One weird thing about technology is that you need to understand it, in order to control it. States do not understand anything at all. People do. As soon as you understand technology, you will get heavily influenced by collaborating with other people in the clan, and gradually but surely adopt hardcore libertarian views. We are fundamentally anti-Statist. Therefore, the State should never count on the clan, because one of our hobbies is to incessantly stab the State in the back.
Furthermore, we do not make any technology a secret. In fact, we refuse to do that. It would prevent us from collaborating freely. Therefore, most technology leaks almost immediately, and is accessible not just to the State but also to its enemies. Seriously, we like it that way. This levels the playing field. Therefore, you can expect that on the long run only one fact really matters: will power. As you know, the staff of State security departments have pretty much zero credibility in that realm. Their enemies look much stronger in that respect. In other words, you probably understand who I think will win the ongoing conflict between National States and Islamist Extremists.
But then again, this suits me absolutely fine, because I find National States several orders of magnitude more detestable than the Extremists.