It's amazing to me the trust that the average person gives the State - given the horrible results that it produces. Knowing that there *actually are* people like Per and the folks at the Mises Institute out there keeps me from becoming black-pilled. Thank you for offering some sanity in this crazy world.
As you reduce the capacity of the state progressively downwards via a Bitcoin standard the state would be less and less impactful in perpetuity. That's the dream anyway.
this argument that anarchism is bad because if we end the state, thered be another state again, that there would be a power vacuum or that the state is inevitable, thus we should have a minimal state to stop other states from forming, always striked me as stupid. The same could be said about many other things, why should you clean your room if its always gonna get dirty and dusty again?if you clean your room that's going to create a power vacuum and more dust is going to appear, so you should just have a minimal amount of dust in order to keep more dust from accumulating. why should we try to stop all types of murder, rape and theft? things like theft will always exist, theyre inevitable, if we were able to abolish all types of crime it would be much easier for other people to commit crimes again, so we should have a minimal amount of crime to stop more crime from happening, etc. it might be the case that, indeed, the state is inevitable, maybe if we abolish the state we will just have another one and theres no possible imaginable measure we can establish, like cryptocurrency or decentralized intitutions, to stop the state from forming again, so what? the state is still an unethical institution, even when we assume that the state is inevitable, which i dont believe it is, this still does not make the state ethical, just like the fact that crime is inevitable does not make it ethical, because thats what the state is, it is a form of institutionalized crime, it is the organization of the political means. Furthermore, if the state comes back again after 20 years or something, what is stopping the people from just abolishing it again if it was already abolished one time? it would probably be much easier to abolish it the second time because it would be much weaker and the people would not have been already brainwashed in mass into believing in it through public schools.
this argument that anarchism is bad because if we end the state, there'd be another state again, that there would be a power vacuum or that the state is inevitable, thus we should have a minimal state to stop other states from forming, always struck me as stupid. The same could be said about many other things, why should you clean your room if its always gonna get dirty and dusty again?if you clean your room that's going to create a power vacuum and more dust is going to appear, so you should just have a minimal amount of dust in order to keep more dust from accumulating. why should we try to stop all types of murder, rape and theft? things like theft will always exist, theyre inevitable, if we were able to abolish all types of crime it would be much easier for other people to commit crimes again, so we should have a minimal amount of crime to stop more crime from happening, etc. it might be the case that, indeed, the state is inevitable, maybe if we abolish the state we will just have another one and theres no possible imaginable measure we can establish, like cryptocurrency or decentralized intitutions, to stop the state from forming again, so what? the state is still an unethical institution, even when we assume that the state is inevitable, which i dont believe it is, this still does not make the state ethical, just like the fact that crime is inevitable does not make it ethical, because thats what the state is, it is a form of institutionalized crime, it is the organization of the political means. Furthermore, if the state comes back again after 20 years or something, what is stopping the people from just abolishing it again if it was already abolished one time? it would probably be much easier to abolish it the second time because it would be much weaker and the people would not have been already brainwashed in mass into believing in it through public schools.
