“What essentially sets a nation state apart, which is the monopoly on violence.” ~ Barack Obama

Maybe if the government's FCC hadn't oligopolized the media we wouldn't have it this bad...

And I seriously do not believe you can beat violence with violence.... not truly, not in the long-run. You beat brainwashed violent people with education over generations. That is what will create real change away from the slavedrivers.

Phillip, why would I want to vote in a system that advocates violence. Regardless of who is in power, congress or senate they are paid for by money that is stolen from people in the name of taxation and if you do not pay men with guns will come to your house and kidnap you and throw you in a cage. It does not matter who is president or in government they are paid for with stolen money. Why is it okay for them to steal money when it is not okay for you or me?

Some people seem to be afraid of the truth. The truth is that the people that are in government are paid with stolen money.

There IS more to it than that.

There really is no correlation between intelligence and violence. Violent people in inner-city gangs are not less intelligent. They are certainly less educated, but not less intelligent. But less educated doesn't correlate with violence either. The least-educated person in the 21st century is more educated than virtually all people in the 19th century, yet virtually all people in the 19th century did not have the equivalent of gang-level violence in their lives. So this claim doesn't logically make sense.

The correlation that holds true is violence and childhood upbringing. That is, this is a parental issue.

I am NOT a fan,.... but it is a fair ethical point to make.

Anyone who WILL - "Call in the Dogs" to maintain order in the pack,.....will.

As I stated above,....not the only issue involved,......but a fair statement.

Jesus cant maintain Rome.

p.s. - - -I dont think that peace and freedom NECESSARILY lead to "prosperity" either,.................but we have now gone into the realm of a real thinking persons discourse.

Mike Shanklin does not appear to me to be a libertarian - Maybe someone should google 'Voluntaryist' or 'Voluntaryism' Then one may see where Mr. Shanklin's philosophy lies.

The definition of "violence" that Michael is using includes "the threat of violence," I presume.

If I put a gun in your back, shoot you, and take your wallet, there's no question that I've committed a violent act against you. If I put a gun in your back, and demand your wallet or else I will shoot, so you then hand me your wallet, and I walk away without harming you, I would still call this a violent act, even though no physical harm has come to you. If I don't even have a gun on me, and I demand you wallet or else I'll come find you later and shoot you, that's a violent act. If I demand a portion of what's in your wallet, otherwise I'll send you a latter that demands a portion of what's in you wallet, and if you don't comply then I'll make a phone call demanding what's in you wallet, and if you don't comply then I'll send someone else over to your house to lock you up, and if you don't comply with that then I'll have that person shoot you.... etc. etc. etc.

As you can see, these are all fundamentally the same thing, no matter how many layers of complexity I add, at the end of the scenario is "comply, or you'll be shot." The complexities don't change the nature of the situation. This is how government functions.. everything the government demands has a violent act at the other end of it enforcing your compliance.

The thing is, that the creation of the Nation-State is a process that cannot be rejected. Also, there is a difference between threatening and violence as threatening may result in violence or may result in nothing at all. If I don't comply, then I get evicted my home, get onto the streets and live off a soup kitchen. Our society isn't free of costs since all these luxuries that you and me are enjoying are the results of taxes. I'm sure you drive down a highway right? Why of course you probably do. How do we keep those nice highways in good conditions? Taxes. How about those schools? You can have a fit economic future without those right? Well, taxes of course. How about if someone broke into your home? Who do you call? The police of course. Payment? Taxes. I get all these things through taxes so I ask, why should I stop paying my taxes if I get these benefits in return? This is called a cost benefit analysis. You and I pay taxes not because we fear violence, rather its because we know we're getting something good in return that allows our society to continue moving along.

"The thing is, that the creation of the Nation-State is a process that cannot be rejected."

I'm not sure what this means. I reject this idea the same way I reject the idea of murder, rape, etc. So if you could clarify, that would be helpful.

"Also, there is a difference between threatening and violence as threatening may result in violence or may result in nothing at all."

Certainly a threat of violence may not result in actual violence. If I hold a gun to your head and demand your wallet, and you hand me you wallet, I may walk away without causing any bodily harm to you. But we would still call this a violent act, no? At the very least, we would recognize that this is wrong and immoral.

"Our society isn't free of costs since all these luxuries that you and me are enjoying are the results of taxes."

I'm not trying to live cost-free.. not sure where that assumption came from. I buy food from the grocery store or from restaurants, and I am perfectly happy to pay for that. If I don't pay, there's no threat of violence, I simply don't get food from them, and that's my choice. I have no such choice about whether or not to pay for government "services" that happen to be geographically near me. I'd be more than happy to subscribe to police services if I found them valuable, and I'd also accept the responsibility that if I had no such subscription that I would have no recourse to call police if I needed such help.

"I'm sure you drive down a highway right? Why of course you probably do."

Yes, and I have no choice in the matter when it comes to survival. If I am a slave in a country where slavery is legal, I will eat the food that my master gives me because it's the only way I can survive. This doesn't mean that I am condoning slavery, nor does it mean that I owe my master work because he gave me food.

Providing someone a service that they don't ask for does not give one the right to demand payment. If you believe it does, then please tell me where you live so I can come paint your house and then demand payment, even though you never asked me to paint your house :-).

In a voluntary transaction, like making a purchase at a store, or subscribing to a gym, I as a consumer have choices, such as being able to shop at any of the available vendors, or not shopping at all. With the state, they provide some service at a price and level of quality they dictate, and I pay for it with the threat of violence, with no choice in the matter to negotiate price or service provider.

"You and I pay taxes not because we fear violence, rather its because we know we're getting something good in return that allows our society to continue moving along."

Perhaps you pay taxes because you feel that what you're getting in return is of a great value. And that's fine, I would never stop you from engaging in that activity if you believe it's working for you. I don't feel that I'm getting value. I would like the opportunity to choose another provider for personal protection, for fire protection, for education, etc., but I have no such option, and all of this is the way it is because of the threat of violence to comply with government edicts.

"I would like the opportunity to choose another provider for personal protection, for fire protection, for education, etc., but I have no such option."

Also, when I mean government is a process, I mean that when humanity developed, we established the first government institutions when we had food surpluses as an organized system of distribution was needed when we specialized into new classes of workers and administrators who no longer relied on farming. That system evolved into city states, to the first empires, and eventually into the first nation-states.

Why would you bother with having a system whereas, fire protection and education suddenly became a profit motive? If your house was burning and you had no money, what then? Oh well you have no money so too bad for you, your house is going to burn down. Well you can always send your child to one of those elitist private educations or simply brainwash them t your ideology by homeschooling them or whatever. Ok, paying taxes and getting something in return by the way is called incentive and not violence. Do you want to see a society where everything is stamped with a price on it's head? Do you want to have your house broken into and call the police in order to ask how money getting your life saved would cost? Living life based off profit motives for everything is extremely dehumanizing since you're seen not as a human being rather, as a money bag walking around. Basically, you don't understand economic justice nor do you recognize economic disparities. Now, we have a government and we don't like the way its using tax money so what does one do? Vote and be politically active. Voting is a check on government since we put people into government in order for them to do what we want them to do. The problem is when people stop caring about both government and stop voting altogether.

"Also, when I mean government is a process, I mean that when humanity developed, we established the first government institutions when we had food surpluses as an organized system of distribution was needed when we specialized into new classes of workers and administrators who no longer relied on farming."

This is an interesting story, but it's not at all what happened. Government initially had nothing to do with the distribution of food, which didn't happen on a mass scale until the 19th century (prior to that, most people farmed their own food and there was no food distribution system), however governments been in place for over 6,000 years.

One of the first governments were created by the Egyptians, who fabricated their gods in order to scare their populace into compliance, and coupled that with violence, far more outward than what we have now, slavery and such.

"Why would you bother with having a system whereas, fire protection and education suddenly became a profit motive?"

Because a system where people have something to gain by providing good service insures that service is good. Education is government-controlled; education sucks. Health care is government-controlled; health care sucks. Technology has virtually no government involvement; technology is awesome. I can buy my food (which is distributed not by government, but by private food manufacturers and distributors) from whomever I want, I can get my hair cut wherever I want, I can hire whoever I want to work on my house.. it is self-interest (in the case of the market, this is usually profit and competition) that causes services to be provided well but as inexpensively as possible. When one has no competition (fire, police, schools), there is no incentive to provide valuable or affordable services.

"If your house was burning and you had no money, what then? Oh well you have no money so too bad for you, your house is going to burn down."

Let's put this into perspective. Private market fire coverage costs about $16/year. If you buy your house and have a mortgage on it, no doubt the bank who provides the mortgage would require that you have fire coverage in order to protect their investment, so your mortgage would increase by $1.33/month. If you rent your house, then the landlord has the same coverage as part of the terms of his mortgage. If you own your house outright, well then it's difficult to imagine that you successfully made 30 years of mortgage payments yet can't afford to pay $16/year for fire coverage.

If you're seriously interested in knowing how these sorts of things can work without government until you recognize the necessity of no government. But asking these questions at this point is jumping the gun, because it seems like you're just evading the initial point that government is violence.

"Ok, paying taxes and getting something in return by the way is called incentive and not violence."

I'm certainly open to that possibility. I laid out a very logical argument showing how taxation is violence, so if you want to refute it, I'm happy to read your argument. But your response needs to be more than "it's not violence." If I work out a mathematical proof showing that the sum of the square of the two sides of a right triangle are equal to the square of the hypotenuse, and you disagreed, I would be justified in dismissing your disagreement as nonsensical if it was in the form of "nuh-uh!" :-)

"Do you want to see a society where everything is stamped with a price on it's head?"

Absolutely! How about you pay your taxes so you can have everything the government provides, and let me pay for things as I need them? I have no problem with that, as I said before, if that's what you want to do, I would never try and stop you. All I'm asking is why you have such a problem with me not doing that, why you're advocating the use of violence against me if I don't comply with how you want society setup? If I opt for private fire coverage and can't afford it, and my house burns down, isn't that my problem and not yours? I'm not saying you have to give up what you have through the tax system, I'm just saying don't include me and others in it, and let me deal with the consequences of that choice.

"Do you want to have your house broken into and call the police in order to ask how money getting your life saved would cost?"

I've been broken into 4 times (3 times in my car and one time in my place of business). I called the police each time, and they were useless. None of my stolen property was ever recovered, nor was I ever compensated by the thieves. I would much rather have been able to hire someone, who was motivated by the fact that I was hiring them and they were getting paid for results, that would then have an incentive to provide a valuable service to me.

"Living life based off profit motives for everything is extremely dehumanizing since you're seen not as a human being rather, as a money bag walking around."

Are you saying that the government is not de-humanizing? That they steal money from people in order to provide service to them because they care about people? This doesn't seem to make any sense to me. People who care about me do not threaten me with violence in order for me to turn over my property to them. I'm a walking money bag already, the difference is simply how people get money from me.. do they offer to provide me something of value in exchange and let me make the choice as to whether or not to engage in a transaction with them, or do they provide a service to me without my choice and then threaten me with violence if I don't pay for it?

"Basically, you don't understand economic justice nor do you recognize economic disparities."

No, I think I understand that very well. Economic disparities correlate with power disparities. One of the biggest power disparities in recent history was the Soviet Union, where the vast majority of people were poor and there was an upper class of super rich. In freer countries, like the U.S., wealth is much more evenly distributed. Even people classified as "poor" have cell phones, air conditioners, cable TV, etc.

But "economic disparity" where some people are wealthy and other people are not is not in and of itself a problem. Some people choose to work extremely hard and smart and make lots of money, other people don't; and people's economic situations should reflect those choices.

"Now, we have a government and we don't like the way its using tax money so what does one do?"

My primary issue is not the way tax money is used, but that it's taken without consent to begin with. If a mugger steals my wallet, I'm not going to quibble over how he spends the loot, I'm going to make known that the fact that he stole my wallet is immoral.

"Vote and be politically active. Voting is a check on government since we put people into government in order for them to do what we want them to do. The problem is when people stop caring about both government and stop voting altogether."

If it were possible to get rid of government by voting, voting would be illegal :-).

I like anachy too anon. but lets not pretend that the same type of violence occures under anachy that happens under government. Its still just a small group of assholes leveraging the violence against the masses willing ness to cow to it. the violence is inherant toi humanity not the governemnts we make or the lack there off.

That's a very good point.. yes, the violence is something built in to some people (or taught to them early by their fail parents). So even in anarchy, there will be violence.. I don't think anybody is disputing that.

One of the key components of violence is sanction. If you can kill someone in front of a thousand people and they'll all look the other way, you have less incentive to avoid killing people. However, if that group is going to give you hell for committing murder, you're far less likely to do it.

The government operates on violence, that is its sole means of action, "Do what we require, or don't do what we prohibit, or we will kill you." And this happens because it is sanctioned by most people. The reason it's sanctioned is because it's largely invisible to them; they don't recognize the violence inherent in the state, so they turn away and allow it to happen. Michael Shanklin's goal, from what I gather, is simply to expose the violence so that people recognize it for what it is, with the hope that such recognition will cause people to withdraw their sanction, thus decreasing the amount of violence as a whole.

No I'm getting it from the Morman massacre and the decimation of Native americans and sudden violent end that hundereds of thousands of people met in that space where no Police came to find out why no courts proclaimed the guilty or innocent and so they where slaughtered together. Yes even under government and many times because these terrable things have happened but at least there was some one to bring justice or at the least bare witness and give testimony to history of the crimes committed,. in that fairy tale old west of yours how many victims went quietly into that night never to be seen or heard from again? thats what no government means, It means no one is coming to look for you when the Monsters drag you and your loved ones into the night. I like Anachy but at least I'm honest with myself and others about the cost of that freedom.

When it comes to murder, the private sector cannot compete with government. Where government may protect the lives of a dozen or even a hundred people, it kills millions in their place, such as Bush ordering the deaths of over a million Iraqis, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

There is no scenario where violence is not committed, at least not in the near future. But with less government, and even especially with no government, there is less violence. There was no greater murderer of Native Americans than the U.S. Government.

It was not the calvery that killed the majority of indians it was ordinary greedy people who had no athority to answer to so they killed and took what they wanted. Your right violence is inherant and i still say that a mob can produce the same acceptance as any organized government. the differance is a government needs to hide it cause it knows its limits in so far as the publics ability to hold those involved responcable. the mob has no such fear as they are in a posission to murder with out fear of anything short of full reprisal by an equal force which is harder to acomplish than exposing a couple of corrupt assholes and having them hung. that is the differance we are discussing.

"It was not the calvery that killed the majority of indians"

It was the U.S. Government as a whole. Actually, disease killed a great number of them, but the government killed far more than any private individuals.

"it was ordinary greedy people who had no athority to answer to so they killed and took what they wanted."

This doesn't make any sense. "Ordinary greedy people" do not kill on a mass scale because killing people to steal their property is risky.

"Your right violence is inherant and i still say that a mob can produce the same acceptance as any organized government. the differance is a government needs to hide it cause it knows its limits in so far as the publics ability to hold those involved responcable. the mob has no such fear as they are in a posission to murder with out fear of anything short of full reprisal by an equal force which is harder to acomplish than exposing a couple of corrupt assholes and having them hung. that is the differance we are discussing."

But history disagrees with your theory, since mobs do not form and kill people on a mass scale. There are extremely rare occurrences throughout human history of mobs forming and killing each other (the 1990s riots in LA, for instance, but certainly not an organized event). It is actually governments that form in an organized fashion and kill millions of people. Governments are responsible for the deaths of at least 250 million people in the 20th century. No group of private individuals who are bent on mass-violence could ever hope to top that. Murder is the one thing in which government efficiency out-paces the private sector.

Mobs dont organise? What about the taliban or the millicias in sudan or the french revolution or the bolshavics in Russia or the KKK in the south ordeath squads in brazil and peru or the barbarians that sacked Rome or just that crowd at the last republican debate clapping and chearing for Rick Perry and his record of exicutions or Pauls let sick people die. Theres a hand full just off the top of my head. Im done with this merry go round conversation I cant hardly hear you your head is so deep in the sand of your fairy tail land where there is no law and eveything is peaceful. Bye bye.

"Mobs dont organise?"

The definition of a mob is "A large crowd of people, esp. one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence." So yes, mobs, by their very definition, are not organized.

"What about the taliban or the millicias in sudan or the french revolution..."

If you're going to include those in the definition of "mob" (and I have no problem if you'd like to do so), then you might as well include the U.S. Government and every other as well, which has killed far more people than all of these other "mobs." The reason governments can get away with it is because, as I've said before, the violence is hidden. The only viable method of reducing or hopefully eliminating this violence is by exposing it. Violence committed by the KKK or the Taliban is far less than that committed by the U.S. Government specifically *because* people recognize it as violence. As long as people continue to believe that government is not violence, then violence by government will continue at uncontested levels.

"or just that crowd at the last republican debate clapping and chearing for Rick Perry and his record of exicutions"

Yes, I found this especially disturbing. But cheering is not an act of violence, nor an act of organization on the part of the participants.

"or Pauls let sick people die."

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but I did see that debate, and to be fair this is not at all what he said, so this is a strawman.

"Theres a hand full just off the top of my head. Im done with this merry go round conversation I cant hardly hear you your head is so deep in the sand of your fairy tail land where there is no law and eveything is peaceful. Bye bye."

That's another strawman, so if you discontinuing the conversation and no longer misrepresenting my position is the alternative, then we're in agreement that that's the best plan of action for you.

It just didn't pay to be rude when everyone around you is armed to the teeth.

Seems like you're not counting the confrontations between settlers and indigenous people.

reposting my reply from above.

No I'm getting it from the Morman massacre and the decimation of Native americans and sudden violent end that hundereds of thousands of people met in that space where no Police came to find out why no courts proclaimed the guilty or innocent and so they where slaughtered together. Yes even under government and many times because these terrable things have happened but at least there was some one to bring justice or at the least bare witness and give testimony to history of the crimes committed,. in that fairy tale old west of yours how many victims went quietly into that night never to be seen or heard from again? thats what no government means, It means no one is coming to look for you when the Monsters drag you and your loved ones into the night. I like Anachy but at least I'm honest with myself and others about the cost of that freedom.

The U.S. Government was the largest murderer of the indigenous people.

Bullshit, private greedy individual theives and crooks killed and took what they wanted from the natives of this land the government just sanctioned it for a while till saner and more decent folk came to power.Strangely enough it was the same with nazi horrors much of it was only accomplished by the efforts of the neighbors who helped themselves to their victims belongings. anything else you want to dissagree with or was it just that little myth?

"Bullshit, private greedy individual theives and crooks killed and took what they wanted from the natives of this land the government just sanctioned it for a while till saner and more decent folk came to power."

Even if this is an accurate portrayal of history (it's not, BTW), this doesn't say much about the effectiveness of government in its stated goal.

"Strangely enough it was the same with nazi horrors much of it was only accomplished by the efforts of the neighbors who helped themselves to their victims belongings."

You're kidding, right? You're saying that 12 million people killed by the Nazis was not the fault of the Nazis but instead of private individuals being greedy?

"anything else you want to dissagree with or was it just that little myth?"

I'll disagree with every one of your myths, not just that one :-).

Government is violence.. we've already established that. Your argument is that we need the violence of government because if we didn't have it, then even more violence would pop up in its absence. That's like if I told my wife that I had to beat her monthly, because if I didn't, someone else would beat her daily. This form of argumentation fails both logically and in practice:

- Logically, there is no null hypothesis (like that episode of "The Simpsons" years ago where Homer claimed that the bear patrol must be working properly because no bears had been spotted in Springfield).
- Practically, it promotes that which it aims to prevent (violence).

Dont fucking put words in my mouth! My argument was that your system of anarchy will contain as much violence as this one does under government that was my original argument. I was making points on how ordinary people get together with or without sanction by the government and kill others and take what they want from them all the time especialy when their is no rule of law under an organized system of government. You want to peddle your Bullshit about a peaceful world without law when that world never did and never will exist. as I stated above I'm done with your debate style of denying eveything your opponet says with that never happened. Have fun burying your head in the fairtail sand. and have yourself a fucked day.

"Dont fucking put words in my mouth!"

You're projecting -- You've done nothing but put words in my mouth.

"My argument was that your system of anarchy will contain as much violence as this one does under government that was my original argument."

You didn't make that argument, you made an assertion (in other words, you simply said it was so, you never made an argument to support the claim).

"I was making points on how ordinary people get together with or without sanction by the government and kill others and take what they want from them all the time especialy when their is no rule of law under an organized system of government."

You pointed to incidents that don't compare to the levels of violence perpetrated by governments. Governments have killed at least 250 million people just in the 20th century. Even the most dangerous country on earth (highest murder rate is Honduras) doesn't have that much private non-government violence. If you're trying to make a point empirically, then it's not going to work, because the statistics are not in your favor.

"You want to peddle your Bullshit about a peaceful world without law when that world never did and never will exist."

My view is to reject violence of any kind. Your view is to choose one form of violence over another, which ends up with you continuing to accept violence as a solution. The psychological traumas you must have gone through as a child are apparent, and I feel a lot of empathy for you. You may want to ask yourself how I, some random person on the internet that you've never met and will never have an impact on your life whatsoever, can trigger such anxiety and anger in you, which you've explicitly expressed here:
"and have yourself a fucked day.

>Implying that roads, bridges, and rights wouldn't exist without government

Yepper, pretty much. i.e. if I want to, I can drive from California to N.Y. instead of Tweeting. The reason I can is that we have an "inter-state" system that was paid for by taxes from people across the nation. Maybe people paid those taxes because, we are "the United States of America" (which part of that doesn't imply a government 2 U? ;-)

Who says everyone needs to vote? Some people shouldn't.

My god "that I don't believe in"! Are you an American? Have you heard of this most horrible form of government called "democracy"? Word is that it's the worst, well, except for all the others! I may not like people once I know them, but I would never encourage anyone not vote. I'm a vet and I did my part helping protect the nation so we could have a vote on who help guide US and help control OUR government.

And I totally support your right to make the effort to get support for your ideas. However, if it is your expectation that the laws of the land will defend you and yours, then "when in Rome.." should be the rule of any polite guest (as I assume you must be as you do not support this government and therefore our constitution i.e. the government is actually "dictated" in that very document, but keep it secret, ok? ;-)

It's sad that we continue to have echoes of "the master race" crowd who still want US to believe in meaningful differences between chimp descendants based on skin color, shape of the head or many, many other insignificant issues. I refuse to believe that in your heart you really don't believe that anyone can become "literate" no matter how long they have not been able to read! As for what passes for "thinking" that can be a "thinking" exercise in and of itself. ;-).

I agree that you shouldn't vote.

Excellent decision!