Hacker News Reader

Comment by adynatos | Hacker News Reader

this describes the current "capitalist" system we have today, where powerful individuals can lobby the state to create laws favouring them directly. the problem is, of course, the existence of the state.

View on HN

Of course.

Maybe you can point us to some examples, current or historical, where human societies thrived without the existence of the state.

sure: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part17 should i tell you who will build the roads next?

The bigger issue is that societies organized around a state tend to conquer societies not so organized, because states are much better at forming armies

so you agree that the state is almost always the initiator of aggression? if so, it's simply immoral to allow it to exist, just as you wouldn't allow organized crime to exist. my opinion about the state stems fully from morality, as presented in the non-aggression principle.

If you believe in any form of consequentialism, unilaterally disarming is rarely the moral choice.

of course not, the moral choice is to give everyone equal access to weapons and military equipment.

There's no "of course" about it. If you're going to claim that the problem is the existence of the state, you need a lot more evidence than "of course".

Certainly you cannot claim the support of Adam Smith in your assertion.

sufficient evidence was provided by Rothbard, et al.

Sufficient to claim that the problem is the existence of the state? No, I don't think that they provided anything like sufficient evidence for that claim.

Rothbard did a lot of claiming, I'll grant you that. Sufficient evidence for such large claims? No.

>natural rights philosophy >evidence

choose one

Reply on news.ycombinator.com