Wishing for statelessness

Do you want a short, brutal, life? For permanent war on YOUR doorstep that there's no means to detach or distance via any proxy?

This is pretty much what humanity was like until the last 100 years or so when socialist policies started being implemented.

Yet nowhere near as brutal as the State of Nature, the sovereign is the only means by which stability is possible for innovation, technology cannot progress under the state of nature, only through conventional wars do we get Atomic bombs and bulpups.

States either put wars on my doorstep or force people to fight in wars thousands of miles away. Considering states and their issues have caused countless billions to die from famine, war, and genocide, I think we should be open to other ideas.

Sounds pretty metal to me. I'm down.

There's nobody that doubts the inherent violence of the state, however, without a state you would have even more war, in your backyard, no means to actually avoid conflict, which in a world of limited resources even with the miracle of production, combined with the natural sin of man and it is perpetual war for everyone, and not of particulars. The destruction of the state is to destroy the dam, not a proposition of a new model.

t. future liberal

...

archeological evidence suggests that most early deaths were murder, not natural

My dream is a Mad Max-esque future

Statelessness is pretty much just another word for dystopia.

It is only through the firm hand of a totalitarian state that a perfect society that benefits all can be created.

which proves hobbes right because?

Holy shit it's the Hegelian dialectic in action

It proves the State of Nature means a state of constant senseless murder for all humanity

except murder wasn't constant or senseless.

Then why are so many skulls from before civilization bashed in with makeshift axes and rocks?

I'm not disputing that violence existed, I'm disputing that it was a)happening all the time and b)was completely pointless. Even the most ancient of tribes still had developed social rules that would punish senseless murder, otherwise humans would have wiped themselves out thousands of years ago.

Go back, read theory, then come back.

Tribal society is society, State of Nature by definition isn't society

imagine being this spooked

so the state of nature never existed, gotcha. Guess we should stop pretending Hobbes is relevant now.

Hobbes is relevant in that he is incredibly important to the development of materialism. And the state of nature exists whenever there is a civil war, when the sovereign is challenged.

im all for it. bring it on.

i was being hyperbolic but yes this is true.
even during situations of total war people still organized themselves in various ways. if having a tribal society means there is no state of nature then the state of nature never existed.
my main point is that Hobbes was wrong about how statelessness meant chaos and violence. That was only true in a few select circumstances but generally speaking in the absence of the state humans still practiced social organization and they definitely weren't murdering each other willy-nilly.

Life is nothing but a relation of powers. By limiting one powers the state opresses the people. but the truth is proprety will always exist unless all people would comply to others for example somebody who wants to punch someone, he goes there and ask if he can punch him if he denies that he is considering himself as his propety and is being facistic and is opressing people.please prove me wrong.

Actually, yes, kinda.

I'm already too old. As is, I basically have a dis-incentive to do anything - I don't like this artificial equilibrium in which people aspire to be respectable. Raise the stakes, knock a few useless fuckers off, watch all these idiots who only act according to archetypes try and make out how to survive in a society where life and death are real and ever-present. I'd only get to watch a little while, and that's the way it ought to be.

Humans can organize into governing bodies without pointing guns at one another. Dictatorship of the masses, a true dictaorship of the proletariat. You don't need a fucking soveirgn OP, human civilization existed without kings for a very long time.

...

We don't need an alienated organ of repression that enforces property rights and class rule in order to organise in a collective manner.

...

Hobbes is diquehead

Within in-groups Hobbes ideas are completely false. For out-group interaction the archeological evidence is hotly debated and by its nature incomplete. At best the only thing the state did was increase the scale of inter-"tribal" violence.

I'm not an anarchist, I believe states as a concept are beneficial, but Hobbes is not an argument. Like most classical social theorists actual psychological, anthropological research has shown many of their ideas to be false.

All those things sound great actually

Hobbes is the only good liberal theorist.

First off, the existence of in-group/outer-group conflict is still a negative thing even if everything's sunshine and lollipop inside of your group. Having to worry about security sucks.

Moreover, whether the state of "war of all against all" is the state of nature doesn't really have much to do with whether that's a good state to be in. Humans didn't enter into the world suddenly; we inherited social organizations that previously existed. However, as time has gone on various social factors have gradually eroded the influence of various groups over the individual. The argument Hobbes is making is, if the state system was destroyed, people would have naught to return to but their own selves and this would provoke bloody civil war rather than the continuance of civil society. And indeed, institutions like the family and the community have largely eroded under capitalism. It's not at all obvious that, if capitalism fell, people would automatically and immediately switch to other social systems rather than pure individuality and hence breakdown of civil society.

A lot of skulls from after the rise of civilisation were also bashed in with fancier axes and rocks. And there are way more of those skulls

...

Why not? Is comfortable slavery preferable to painful freedom?

This.
Watching dipshit "alphas" get stabbed in the balls would make my own dying of tetanus worthwhile.

wasn't Hobbes vindicated when anthropologists went into the Amazon in the 60's and found the murder rate of tribal people's was a gorillion times what we have now?

How would stateless societies deal with issues that extend beyond their relative sphere of influence? The global issues?

Problems like climate change, resource scarcity, overpopulation, environmental destruction and pollution, also perhaps genetic engineering or geoengineering by other nation-entities, or heck, just large-scale resource conflicts between whoever wants the resources and whomever is already living in the area - there are, to my mind, problems that a non-unified syndicalist arrangement of communities just isn't well-equipped to deal with regardless of the social health and freedoms they enjoy as not being part of a larger nation-entity, but if anyone here has ideas about how a stateless arrangement of humanity could begin to deal with these issues I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts on the subject.

Shit post.
Instead of a 'short, brutal' life I get a dragged out, meaningless one, with no lack of war on my doorstep.

Bump

The "State of nature" that Hobbes talks about is a spook. It's purely speculation of what life would be like without a state with the purpose of justifying the states existence.

...

'Big' problems would have to be solved through negotiations between decentralized governing bodies, taking input from whatever economic/social/technical associations exist, and getting popular assemblies to ratify it. It would be similar to the system that exists today to ratify agreements and treaties between states, except that absent of capital and the profit/growth motive they might actually be able to get stuff done.

Unless you're looking for an individualist/anti-government anarchist's answer, because fuck if I know how that would work.

Good job, babby, now move on to Locke, Rousseau, and Marx. You'll get thwre!

No ruuules, maaan

...

Bootlickers in a nutshell.

Well, if you compare that to other radically different societies around the world, all this proves is that the so-called "human nature" is shaped by material conditions.

Take the Semai people, for instance. Their existence and culture alone BTFOs the Hobbesian notion of an intrinsically evil humanity.

I would rather live one day standing than 100 years on the knees.

Like I said in , Hobbes' argument doesn't necessarily rely on humanity being inherently evil. It may well be that the origins of humanity lie in families and communities rather than as atomized, amoral individuals; however, it might also be the case that as time has progressed such institutions as families and communities have eroded away leaving naught but the State and removing even that would lead to the ruin he talks about.

Can all the people that believe mankind is inherently evil please just kill themselves for the betterment of all?
Kthx.

I guess your definition of war is a spook.

I for one welcome my benevolent police force overlords that protect me against evil people by shooting me first after mistaking my can opener for a rocket launcher

propaganda works

He directly points towards Native American cultures as evidence of the unbridled state of nature, though:

Wew. You shouldn't be using that argument here, it belongs in a museum and you belong in a guillotine if you unironically believe it.
Humans have somehow managed it when we made flint axes, animal hide clothing and fire.