EmperorJulian

"JKJ suggests a society in which there are predators and prey, with predation unchecked by any state."

No I don't. Where did I suggest that? Provide a direct quote.

What I suggest, or rather proved, was that social contract theory has no basis in reality or reason, and provides no justification of government or the State.

The fact you feel strongly about the State, doesn't justify you:
1. fantasising untrue bases for its existence
2. expecting others to share your untrue beliefs, or
3. misrepresenting me.

Social contract theory was made up in an attempt to provide some rational real-world justification for the State other than 'divine right of kings'. But nothing you, or anyone, has ever said, provides any more justification for social contract theory, than divine right of kings, as a justification of the existence of the State.

It is misrepresenting the issue to suggest that I believe there should be no protection against aggression.

But you have not given ANY reason why the problem is improved by a monopolist of aggression.

Your reference to WWII is a fight between States: you're proving my case, not yours.

In the final analysis, you have merely ASSUMED that the State reduces the amount of aggressive violence, which is all that Bill and Daffy Duck did.

But you are only able to reach this conclusion:
a) by taking it as your premise, which is illogical, and
b) by ignoring the State's mass murders, mass stealing, mass predation, which is orders of magnitude bigger and worse than anything any private parties have done, or were likely to do, in the absence of the State's hugely scaled-up abilities to commit such aggression.

Democratic states have been historically the worst for aggressive war.

So that's a total fail on your part, Emperor Julian.

Try justifying the State without recourse to fables and circular assumptions. Go ahead. Try.

Bill, Daffy
Got that evidence of the social contract there yet fellers?

A simple "No" will suffice.

Dear Julian,

«Kumbaya in any form wouldn't stop the predators»

For sure, nor even would a comb or an ear-plug, but between a totalitarian coercive state, a mega-predator that imposes itself over all the inhabitants of a large area without their consent - and Kumbaya, there are still a number of other options that are capable of stopping predators without the introduction of new ones.

Yuyutsu seems to be seeking to describe a state as a sort of tyranny by picking as an example a totalitarian state, not constrained by any culture and structure that gives the community any control of it. Thus no more than a straw man.

JKJ's straw man consists of a state that is "all-knowing, all-powerful and benevolent - in fact a God".

The importance of the Coral Sea battle was that a state that was treated as a god by a nation of predators sought to sweep away the state that protected us from predation born either internally or by aggression.

Another of JKJ's easily derided straw men is a written contract that we and the state voluntarily sign. Erect the straw man, strike him down - nothing shown to be true or false.

There is a state that protects us from predators because of the cultural and legal structure behind and embedded in it, a structure that has taken centuries of struggle by otherwise-prey against state and non-state predators (an ongoing process) to establish and defend.
The result can be labelled a "social contract" but the name given to it is mere semantics. Let's call it a wheelbarrow if you like. It exists with the consent of the governed and protects us from predators who would, if not confronted by the state's hammer, reduce us to prey. Most of those who most desire us to regress to being without it are likely to be frustrated wannabe predators or wishful kumbaya dreamers.

EmperorJulian

Whether the State can be justified is a different issue. The present point is, it’s not based on a social contract. It’s not a “straw man” for me to point out that your alleged social contract is unevidenced.

If you want to argue that the social contract does exist, then:
1. If it is in writing, post a copy of it and show where you and I signed
2. If it not in writing, admit it
3. Prove the parties, the offer, its terms, and the acceptance
4. If you can’t prove any of these, admit that such a contract doesn’t exist
Note: the existence of the State doesn’t ipso fact prove agreement, any more than the existence of the mafia proves its victims’ consent. It's mendacious circularity.
5. If you say that, whether or not it’s a contract, it’s based on the consent of the governed, prove the consent.

Either prove, or admit you can’t and are wrong.

Words have meanings. Contract requires offer and acceptance. By saying the State could equally "be labelled" a wheelbarrow or other non-contract, you are admitting it’s not a contract.

Tax is by definition a compulsory exaction. Obviously if people *consented* to pay tax, there’d be no need for tax. Everyone would just send in as much money to the Consolidated Revenue as they agreed to send; and the State’s total revenue would be no less. Your theory is laughably, obviously, untrue. Not even the State agrees with it!

“There is a state that protects us from predators …”

Does it protect us from statist predators? Does it protect us from having as much of our property, liberty or life violated as the state decides? Specifically answer both questions, please.

During WWI, as many as 100,000 soldiers died in one day. 20,000 people died per day for each day of WWII. The central banks steal by state-legalised filching literally trillions of dollars from the people every year.

By ignoring State predation, and tying your justification of the State to consent, you lose both the social contract and justification arguments.

Try harder.

Education is the key. Like all 'keys' the state(s) like to limit just how much we know i.e. allows us to know, thus allowing us access into knowledge on a need to know basis. Its propaganda arm (the MSM) likewise controls the information we get, but flavoured with the various herbs and spices to the taste of our masters. The 'wings' of politics also flavour the meal. Only last week KFC brought out a new pack called the LNP Pack...it's full of right wings and Parson's Noses. Last month they called it the Labor Meal... with left wings only.

What I have enjoyed in my association with OLO and other similar blogs, is the fact most posters here seem to know (or discern) that the basic soup being fed to us has these added flavours. For that reason I have not subscribed to, or payed for, news-stand papers, nor online publications which reflect the government of the day's preferred flavour for many years now. Our masters do not like the populace to be educated, because ignorant, obedient, misinformed drones are generally compliant drones.

Well before 9/11 and the War On Terror we had all sorts of wars, wars on drugs (that went well) wars against Communism etc. As Yuyutsu put it earlier: "The way to stop this bigger-than-life terrorism, is to turn off the projector."

Unfortunately, most Australians and I suspect US citizens as well, would not know anything more about the world other than what comes onto their screens at night before the football scores are given a post mortem. Even more unfortunate is the fact these people will probably cast their votes at the next elections and this reflects the dumbed down populace we live amongst. The more informed specimens would probably watch 'Sixty Minutes' or 'Q and A' to get better balanced view.

OK, call it an informed expectation if you are into semantics.

Proof of consent: The people are not held at bayonet point and state officers are not hanging from lamp-posts to the jeers of an angry populace. Of all the institutions that are the subject of protest movements in civilised countries the state isn't one of them although its failures through corruption to protect us from non-state predators are.

By how many millennia would we have to regress to get back to the time before humankind set about developing states?