The header is taken from a book by Albert Jay Nock,
who was a classical liberal anarchist (taking the dictum
"that which governs least, governs best" to its logical
conclusion.) I think Thoreau could qualify as such an
anarchist as well. This sort of anarchism should be
distinguished fromthe socialist anarchism of Bakunin,
Proudhon, and their ilk.

You don't have to be a utopian or quasi-utopian anarchist
to appreciate the attitude towards the State expressed
in the header, however. The State, in its primitive form,
was invariably a despotic slave-holding form, intent
primarily on conquest and the exploitation of labor.
That it has evolved to something more domesticated doesn't
detract from its essential nature as the presumed monopoly
on force in a geographical area. Force is what the State
is about. It is essentially a protectionist organization,
which promises to keep us safe from Hollywood-style
excitin' home invaders, as well as invasions by other,
presumably worse, States.

Shrikeback@gmail.com wrote in news:e7461db6-60a7-40f0-93a2-508628e20977
@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com:

My only disagreement, Shrike. Civilization emerged first, but the State
appeared shortly thereafter. See the "Origins of Politics" thread.

But the State is surely the most destructive social institution humans have
ever devised, hands down. It is in a class by itself.

During the 20th century alone governments were directly responsible for
well over 300 million deaths, untold injuries and destruction. And that
figure does not even include deaths and destruction from wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

"Publius" nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B078BAFFB800mpubliusnospamcomcas@216.196.97.136...

On Aug 29, 5:05 am, "tooly" bellsouth.net> wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:43:50 -0500, Publius wrote:

Like people, "THE STATE" comes in many forms.

"ZerkonX" X.net> wrote in message news:pan.2008.08.29.10.51.27@X.net...

True, but most of those forms are bad by any reasonable definition of the
term. And ALL of them, at least as they presently exist, are coercive.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:04:11 -0500, jigo wrote:

Well Paine said that society is born from human virtue, government from
human vice so I suppose he would agree with you.

To me, 'bad by any reasonable definition' invites a need for something
less absolute than simply being 'bad'. So, all are bad but not all are
equally as bad so some are better than others although even the best is
bad.

Somewhere along the line, maybe Paine again, I read a description of all
European governments as starting with some local thug robbing the most
land from the most people with the most force. Then setting themselves up
as being a ruler giving parts of his robbery out to his favorite
followers. From there all else followed.

On Aug 29, 11:04 am, "jigo" all.com> wrote:

"Government is sometimes an enemy and sometimes a friend. Government
exalts some of us and oppresses others of us. At times, governments
are aligned with our religious, economic and social views, and at
other times—misaligned.

Shrikeback@gmail.com wrote:

That's not the only way. But yes, the history is obscure. Or Pre-history
of the dozen Anatolian cities that emerged 10,000 years ago. They looked
like adobe pueblos, with thousands of people. but there's no
administrative center. No palaces.

No evidence of war among them either. That really didnt show up until
logistics were worked out, and you need some sort of inventory system to
do that.

"The Substance of Civilization" according to Sass, is economics. You
need an agrarian base to provide the food for the city. When hominids
switched from hunting/herding to agriculture, the amount of land needed
to support a community shrank by a factor of 500.

Abundance like that creates peace. Only after all the land was under
cultivation and disputes arose over who owned it did the rise of the
warrior elites, which we still have, begin. And it is they, not
civilization, that need slavery and despotism.

"tooly" bellsouth.net> wrote in news:nYOtk.18261$rD2.1807
@bignews4.bellsouth.net:

No. I'm a minarchist. But I admit I have no idea how to prevent a minarchy
from eventually degenerating into a maxarchy (totalitarianism).