Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The State is immoral

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
The state is based in immorality.

The state has a monopoly on the use, or threat, of force (violence) and this is immoral. The state demands that we pay taxes and will ultimately use force (violence) against us to make sure we comply. The state uses force against other countries where it sees fit.

I am very thankful for youtube user stefbot, Stefan Molyneux, for exposing me to this way of looking at things. It actually took a while for this to really sink in for me but it's now starting to seem clearer and clearer to me that 99% of political bickering that goes on is irrelevant because we are all ignoring the elephant in the room which I've pointed out above. Instead of an elephant, it's actually a gun that's in the room. The gun of the state which is pointed at all of us.

Here's one of his more popular videos that helps summarize what I'm talking about.



I don't pretend to know the method to make a transition to a stateless society but it doesn't matter.

It's akin to if during the slavery days in America someone was saying "Yeah, it might be wrong to own other human beings like property but if we eliminate slavery, who is going to pick the cotton? Although I agree slavery is morally wrong, we shouldn't eliminate it because there is cotton to be picked."

It's the same thing with government (the state). Sure there are things that we rely on the government for right now in our current system, but the fact is that the state is based in immorality and so it's a non issue as to how we will sort these things out (who will educate the kids, who will build the roads, etc.)

My journey into politics thus far has been 0-27 years old : apolitical, 27-29; leaning to right wing, conservative

and now, 29 1/2; The state is immoral and all politics is mainly theater to mask the inevitable corruption that results from the immoral premise of allowing the state to have a monopoly on the use and/or threat of force.

The past has taught me never to be too attached to my beliefs, convictions, etc. because chances are, some new evidence or perspective will soon come along to shake my foundations and make me reevaluate things. However, this new way of looking at the state for what it really is seems to me to be an airtight argument.

I honestly have my doubts as to whether humanity can ever get to a point where the state can be left behind (as opposed to moving towards a more 1984 type scenario as is happening right before our eyes) but from a philosophical standpoint, I feel that it is our duty to try to move towards a stateless society because the state is based on immorality.

Again, I don't have the answers as to how to make a proper transition to a stateless society or what that society would look like but I truly believe that it is the best society we can strive towards. No threat of the use of force for non compliance, no trade barriers, no ridiculous drug war, no more massive corruption, etc...no perpetual gun in the room.

Political discussion can get pretty ugly pretty fast so I'll avoid discussion that doesn't seem constructive after this OP. My hope and main intent in posting this is to simply expose some people to this way of looking at the state.




posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
gotta love stefan moloynex or however its spelled, if only more people listened



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by thegoods724
 


I agree. I think most sensible people would agree with this way of looking at the state if they were at least exposed to his ideas and the arguments he puts forth. People will forever debate about the details of politics, which candidate, party or policy is better etc. but most never take a step back and consider that the structure of the system itself is completely flawed and based on an immoral premise of giving the state a monopoly to use violence and the threat of violence as it pleases.





new topics
 
2

log in

join