mac

>where did I say that (that the State [is] morally superior, that [it] has superior knowledge about what people's values should be.." (?)

Here:
>“Gambling, alcohol and smoking are health, not moral issues, why shouldn't the state, as representative of its citizens warn of the dangers inherent in using nicotine and alcohol or gambling.”

You must assume that the state knows better than the people what the people’s values are and what they should be as concerns gambling, alcohol and smoking; and that aggressive violence is justified to get the funds for its unsolicited “warnings”.

But how does the state know better? It’s highest claim is only that it represents the people you presume incompetent to know what’s good for them.

“since the state is product of society…”

So are thieving, murder and rape. So what?

There’s several fatal defects with your irrational beliefs in favour of the state.

Firstly, there’s no evidence or reason for the belief that the state is more representative of society or the social good, than people are by their voluntary actions and consensual relations. No justification for the state so far.

Secondly, the electoral system provides no evidence that any given action of the state represents society; nor that we “signed up” for democracy:
http://economics.org.au/2010/08/no-social-contract/

Thirdly, even if it did, mere majoritarian opinion doesn’t justify using aggressive violence to get what you want. But that’s all the state has on offer – anti-social force. *Real* social action is consensual, which society can and does provide by itself.

“I don't know whose political philosophy you are criticising, it certainly isn't mine.”
Unless you support the abolition of state meddling in other people’s freedom to choose their own peaceable behaviour, including gambling and drugs, then the above critique identifies problems in your political philosophy which you have not justified.

“the most pernicious propaganda these days is produced by corporations, not by the government”
Nonsense. The law against misleading and deceptive conduct does not apply in politics or government; only in trade or commerce. You have just been brainwashed into believing untruths and defending systemic fraud.

Dear Daffy,

Thank you so much for these references!

Despite its limitations, we must not discard the function of exoteric religion: most people are not yet ready to go beyond.

It was quite challenging and radical to view scientism as yet-another valid exoteric religion - not only that, but even match original Buddhism as its esoteric continuation. I did comment a few times in this forum that atheists can in fact be as religious as their theistic counterparts. While for me science represents vanity, I know others whom science brings to the threshold of religion, especially after being abused, lost faith and disempowered by corrupted 'religious' institutions, when as a result they could see only one set of footprints (http://www.footprints-inthe-sand.com/index.php?page=Poem/Poem.php). How strange and marvellous are the ways of the Lord!

Though very long, it was more than worthwhile reading the subtle comparison between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.

Dear Praxidice,

<<Whether or not 21st century western civilizations have really advanced with consumerism, politically-correct-ism, sport-ism, child-worship-ism is another subject again.>>

I have no answer, it is really hard to compare. It's like asking which kindi songs are more stupid than others. For us they are all stupid, but in the end those kids increase their vocabulary and musical skills through those songs, which is really what matters at that stage.

Jesus, this Mark Christianson is an interesting case.

Mark starts out by putting the boot into religious moral authority, then sticks the boot into the notion that democratic governments have any moral authority, and lastly reams out the "cultural elites."

I would diagnose Mark as a classic Anarchist, because his position conforms to that of a committed Anarchist. Anarchism, for those having trouble remembering their high school history lessons, completely rejected the concept that either church or state had any moral authority to make laws. Anarchists believed that somehow a society could exist where everybody simply did what they wanted to do, without bothering to have an organised and generally agreed upon concept as to what constituted correct behaviour.

Anarchism as political force was all the rage with the Left Bank Parisian intellectuals who were enamoured of the concept that people should do whatever they wanted. (Ironically, "intellectuals" today are not much different, they still despise the society they choose to live in) The Anarchists instigated a campaign of bombing Parisian restaurants to emphasise their point, and to show their displeasure ar society laughing at them. But, after making an enemy of all of organised society, their leaders were quickly rounded up and guillotined.

The Anarchists made the mistake of so many other utopian movements, which promised Nirvana to the human race, provided that the human race stopped being human, and instead became programmable robots that only acted on logic and reason. They forgot that human beings have an instinctive desire to be part of a self protecting group. And that created a need to create an organised society where there was a general agreement upon what constituted correct behaviour.

The idea that a community can exist without rules is, frankly potty. The purpose of governments is to create organised societies and make the rules. Even the Romans put up with psychotic Emperors because they knew that tyranny was preferable to anarchy. In democratic countries, ordinary people have some say in what those rules should be. For Mark to complain about that, makes me shake my head in pitying wonder.

Dear LEGO,

Churches have a moral authority to make rules because they are (today) a voluntary organisation. You don't have to take off your shoes - but then you may not enter a mosque.

Yes, it is an instinctive human desire to be part of a self protective group, but this does not mandate non-voluntary 7-10-digit-strong groups of people, without general agreement upon what constituted correct behaviour, that cover the whole earth along with its seas, islands, all that's below and all that's above.

Yes, communities need rules and that's fine as long as you may leave the community if you don't accept those rules, if you can just pack up and walk across the valley to another community that has acceptable rules for you, or in the absence of such, find a lonely cave and live there undisturbed.

The root of this evil of large states hogging the whole earth, is not the Church or the state, but rather overpopulation. However, both mainstream Churches and states tend to encourage it.

One of the favourite tactics of statists is to cry "anarchy!" when anyone questions their doctrine of unlimited monopoly arbitrary power. The idea is that if you're not willing to put up with Caligula, or its modern forms, you must be the kind of guy who thinks blowing up restaurants makes for a better society.

This is false for various reasons.

Firstly if the justification of a particular use of power - say to restrict gambling - is questioned, the desirability of social order in general is not in issue. The question is whether social order better consists in people's freedom to do what they want with their own property, or restricting those freedoms based on threats of force and arbitrary power. Even if it’s the latter, that doesn’t justify a creed of unlimited arbitrary aggressive power by a territorial monopolist as the statists maintain.

Secondly, not even the anti-state case depends on an argument that the state should be abolished. The argument is that good social order arises, and ought to arise from the moral and practical principle of non-aggression against the person or property of others; - Not from a territorial monopolist of aggression, granting itself a licence to use threats and commit frauds and crimes which it declares illegal for everyone else, as the statists irrationally believe.

Thirdly even, at the wilder shores, if abolition of the state's security monopoly resulted in a scramble for power by competing armed gangs, with the most powerful taking over the commanding heights of society, imposing obedience, extracting tribute, and granting itself privileges – how is that any different from states? That doesn’t prove that anarchy would be worse – it proves that states are no better!

Fourthly, everyone has been subjected to compulsory indoctrination for at least 10 years during their formative years by the state. What makes you think you haven’t been brainwashed in favour of the state? If you were, the signs would be factually false beliefs and logically false reasoning reposing a circular credulity in the necessity and beneficence of the state,

(cont.)

and that’s exactly all the statists ever put up.

Fifthly, most explanations of the state are ex post facto. They take the state as a given, and then try to figure out the reasons for it. So we get this unhistorical nonsense about how it’s society’s decision-making mechanism. In fact, states always originate either by an armed gang taking over and ruling by a double standard, or by continuing succession from one. The question is always whether aggressive force is justified, which the statists always ignore.

Sixthly, the idea that security, or the production of law, or adjudication of disputes, must intrinsically be supplied by a monopolist of territorial aggression does not stand to reason. In fact multiple private providers already produce many of these services. The classic example was the US Department of Homeland Security contracting out the security of its HQ to a private firm. Private adjudicators abound in commercial disputes, each producing his own case law. (They are actively hindered and made dearer by monopolist behaviour from state courts which would be illegal if done by business.) Citizens of different countries can carry on successful personal and commercial relations between themselves without an overarching monopolist of force, thus demolishing the statists’ argument.

Seventhly, the fact a state provides a service is not evidence that state provision is necessary or beneficial. It’s evidence that they used their monopoly power to displace competition by operating at a loss which the beneficiaries were able to force someone else to pay for.

The fact that the community needs rules does not justify states.

The arguments for freedom do not depend on the idea that without states everyone would be nice to each other. Defence against aggression will always be necessary. However that is no justification for states, who are by far the worst offenders.

It is enough for me to show that the statists' claims are irrational and probably brainwashed. In their deep structure, they are no different to the ideas that supported the mediaeval church and all its abuses.