I never will see anything to be more dangerous to humanity than the State.
I mean, when high tax rates drive my friends out of their country, then I don't appreciate the State. When the govt jacks the price of medicine through the roof, I don't appreciate that. I don't appreciate not being allowed to put anything in my body that I want to.
When the wreckless public spending causes hyperinflation, I won't appreciate the State.
When my parents lose their house, it's because the govt made borrowing more attractive due to below market short term interest rates and taxation of savings.
For most of human history, the power structure has been that there is an autocratic ruler, with a small supporting class, and perhaps 98% of society are serfs who spend their days and their lives serving that power, either contributing labor to farm and construct, or as soldiers to kill and take or to defend the power of the ruler from other rulers.
You prefer that to a state under democracy, with a constitution guaranteeing individual rights, and a principle that the government with their consent?
But let's take the alternative you seem to suggest to those autocratic powers as well. Human history is filled with them as well, in the earlier stages, whether pre-Rome, or the dark ages in England, or the early days in China or Japan or many others. The stateless 'anarchy' you want. It was filled with minor warlords who organized, and led small to medium sized tribes, where everyone had to follow the rules of the tribe to contribute, and the tribes ruthlessly murdered one another for gain.
Taking China as an example, you can see the long progress from this 'anarchistic' situation of tribes living brutally, to the gradual consolidation of power that allowed civilization to develop and advance. Medicine, the arts, and all kinds of other things only possible in a larger civilization with a state that gave some breathing room to citizens from the state of barbaric war people find themselves in without that state.
Japan, the same. It was after consolidation, the creation of the shogunate, they began to be able to develop culture - poetry, and other arts - that was more 'civilization'.y
You have a very naive and incorrect idea that it's possible to have some stateless utopia. It's not. What you can have is a better state, a worse state, or barbarity.
You could use learning more history to get some appreication that your paranoia of the state is misplaced - and that you don't appreciate the danger of power in 'private' hands.
You get a taste of that in the early days of the industrical revolution, where a few wealthy owners had a situation where people could work or starve, and working meant unsafe conditions, working at least six 16-hour days, for barely enough to eat, alongside their children and subject to the dictatorial power of their employer. There's a reason there was a labor struggle for decades where people would risk their lives. And that's only a taste of how bad things get in yoiur state-free unintended dictatorship of private power.
Where you get no power, no vote, no wealth, no constitutional rights, where you are reduced to survival to serve the needs of those who have the power and wealth.
Workers in 1890 factories didn't get to vote or have say in improving the condititons they had. That's only part of how far back you want to take things in your paranoia of a state.
Your views remind me a bit of the sort of reaction of Ayn Rand. People who go through some traumatic oppression - though in your case it's not something that happened - tend to get a bit warped by it. Rand reacted terribly to the oppression of the Soviet state - and ni reaction created some false utopia where another extreme was the solution, where altruism was evil and selfishness the only morality. That was clearly only an extreme rejection of the Soviet system - which had at its core some societal concern for the good of the people, but itself an extreme reaction to the horrible abuses of power of the Czar system that it replaced. And I've no doubt the Czar system had its benefits when formed, likely as part of that unification to prevent the violent condlict of regional tribes I mentioned.
Your views are not based on any apparent understandings of societies, but rather a sort of obsessive paranoia about the imperfect aspects of the system you know.
That's the sort of thinking that leads to the type of utopianism that's especially dangerous.
The French and English beheaded their kings, opposing that tyranny - only to find they had created a new tyranny. The English put the beheaded King's son back on the throne.
While they were radically opposed to the 'tyranny of the royal state', they didn't go to some stateless utopia - merely a more democratic state as the best solution. There's a reason.
It'd be nice if you could experience the attempt to do what you want and see how horribly it goes, but it's not pracitcal to give you a society to learn that. So, learn from history.
When power is taken from a state, it doesn't go to 'the people'. It goes to new, smaller, generally more tyrannical leaders - some form of tribalism. Worse for 'the people'.
Or, in today's corporatocracy, it goes into the hands of the wealthy and powerful private owners - who give people a lot fewer rights than the people vote for themselves.
In that case, the people find themselves stipped of the power to vote on taxes, education, healthcare, environmental protection or anything else restricting the powerful.
Remember the lesson in Rome - after it becamse an empire with an emperor, they always said they were a government 'of the people', with a Senate representing the people. It was a complete fiction - but they continued to give it lip service for centuries, because it was a useful myth. It helped prevent the people from revolting under tyranny.
That's the sort of faux-democracy we can expect when your prescription against a democratic state is followed - the power going into the hands of an Orwellian, dictatorial state.
You already have some taste of it today, as you see money in elections determining who those elected 'really serve', over 'the people', much of the time.
Save234
Facebook
Twitter