THE STATE VS. THE INDIVIDUAL

It's essentially a false dichotomy as the State is, itself, made up of individuals with their own self-interests, ethical principles and philosophical outlooks. The state itself is just an abstraction we've conceptualized for intellectual convenience in the modern age. Even since we detached the State from the Monarchy, we've needed to further abstract it and atomize it from reality until such questions as, "State v. Individual?" seem relevant, much less deep, when in fact they are dead end questions detached from reality.

"The State" just means, in practice, who has Sovereignty. That's the real question. The modern liberal state does it's best to reject and delay the answer to what Carl Schmitt calls, the "Question of Sovereignty"; or, who is sovereign? Who designs, enforces and maintains Order in light of exceptional circumstances? (Which is really all "the state" and "sovereignty" is; a singular will, or the act of a singular will, being imposed on a group of people. Awhile ago I conceptualized it in light of the ancient story, "The Sword of Damocles."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles

Essentially, modern liberal democracy disperses the Sword of Damocles such that there is no threat, and so no one acknowledges sovereignty, because it is not necessary to risk acknowledging it; yet.

Read some Carl Schmitt if you really want to delve into THAT can of worms.

In The Republic however, it is asked of Socrates why the Guardian class cannot enjoy the pleasures of a free society.
Outside of arguing for a lack of incentive, it seems Plato says we could surely give everyone wine, women, and that sort of happiness, but that isn't what the Just or healthy state is about.

Seems pretty opposed to the idea of any sort of Marxist materialism, since the soul of the state he tries to design in finding justice, is more akin to a Form, an ideal over a reality.

The State and the Laws as abstractions are exactly what I'm going for.

Noooooooope. Stop putting words in my mouth. What about Sombart or the OrdoLiberals? You're not listening to (or, rather, understanding) what I'm talking about. If you don't understand, you should ask questions rather than jumping to conclusions.

(cont) also, nothing you said is Socratic at all. That's Plato. You're retarded for thinking the Republic has anyfuckingthing to do with the "real" Socrates.

One could look into the actual purpose and historical reasons for governance in certain ways as to find this answer.

The overwhelming trend within nations (and even before nation-states were a reality) is that it seeks to hand power to those deemed responsible for the upkeep of the body politic. It has been done many ways, but all lead to this idea: He who is responsible should rule. Across time it has been handed to the clergy, a single dictator, all land-owning men etc. But the original purpose and design of government is to take those invested in the state and make them run things. Not for themselves, mind you. It was and is clearly understood that the ruler rules for all.

these anons have it. When given to the appropriate people, a true citizen will gladly spend their lives as currency to purchase a better future for their fellows who live after. That is what a citizen (one who is charged with ruling) does. It is why many kings went into battle despite having many generals. Self-sacrifice and WILLING surrender of the self for the group is the true moral marker of the citizen.

Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo fell upon his own sword to prove the point that even great men are nothing to the health and welfare of the state.

I apologize, seems to be a habit of mine,
4U and for Socrates.

I guess I'm just using Socrates as a character in the dialogues without making it clear that is who I'm discussing, not actual Socrates.

Thanks for the help, user. I will do more research.

Also

okay Holla Forums.

saged and reported

How can they be against each other if they are one in the same? The State is comprised of indivuald who each have a different disposition. The only thing most of us agree on is that we want to be safe. So we have the State. This is one of the reason why I will never understand anarchist, if you dispose of the State it will be replaced by another State.

If you want to find an argument for fascism go to Book VIII of the Republic and find the part that is very anti-democratic, how the son of an oligarch will be poisoned by the 'lotus-eaters' or democrats into becoming an apathetic degenerate. It's on line 560 I think.

"For the rest of his life he spends as much money, time and trouble on the unnecessary desires as on the necessary."

You'll find better arguments with Aristotle though.

"Most people are readier to submit to compulsion and punishment than to argument and fine ideals." - Book X, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

Some quotes from Aristotle's Politics

"That one shall command and another obey is both necessary and expedient." - Book I

"To leave the number of births unrestrained, as is done in most states, inevitably causes poverty among the citizens, and poverty produces faction and crime." Book II

"A state is an association of similar persons whose aim is the best life possible." - Book VIII

"One who is to become a good ruler must first himself be ruled." - Book XIV

"We should choose war for the sake of peace, work for the sake of leisure, necessary and useful things for the sake of the noble."

"Those who cannot bravely face danger are the slaves of their attackers." - Book XV

"Let there be a law that no cripple child be reared." - Book XVI

"The unseemly remark lightly dropped results in conduct of life kind." - Book XVII

It's like Marxism in that Marx straight up took Plato's idea of abolishing private property and the family, and sharing wives, etc. and applied to everybody everywhere forcibly through the state. But I just said that, didn't I?

The individual always puts his interests first.

It is the intelligent individual who realizes that his interests are best served by a healthy state.

You children will more likely be defended against invasion, they will have jobs, health care, healthy mates, IF THERE IS A HEALTHY STATE. You're playing the law of averages, and that's how it works for a k-selected individual.

r-selected individuals just shit out as many kids as possible and hope for the best.

Holla Forums?

Nice try Chaim.

>>>/gaschamber/

This is exactly what I'm looking for.
A conception of the state in terms of values systems, cultures, and ideals.

If you want to understand the state, I believe you have to look at it as a natural extension of the human condition itself rather than something external forced down upon people. In my interpretation, the state is really just any governing authority of any sized community of people. A "community" of just one person still has a state, a governing authority - the person himself. When you have a small community of people, say a village, a "state" naturally forms as a means of organising that community. The "state" is never absent, it simply shifts form depending on the selective pressures of the community it needs to govern. A community of people who are threatened constantly by potential invasion will organically form a "state" capable of responding to these threats. Likewise, a community built around trade and commerce will organically produce a state that best facilitates this way of life. This is why I think the distinction between the state and the individual is misguided, as I feel that the state is a ultimately manifestation of the collective of all individuals. The state draws its power from the people since without them, it would not exist, and the people draw security and other important institutions from the state, since without the state, these things would not exist. The relationship between the state and people is symbiotic, but when either one becomes parasitic off the other, the whole system collapses.

You can build good individuals without a good state, but you can't build a good state without good individuals. This is why top down state creation will never work in the long run.

You can't build individuals without a state.

also,

Since Rome is such a well documented case of heroic self sacrifice for the state; one could use the case of Cincinnatus for this argument.

I advise you to do your own research, but TDLR:

Now a society that seeks to maximize the individual would have Senators wheeling and dealing with the Samnite enemies to save themselves.

They did not. They instead went to an elder statesman and soldier, Cincinnatus and grant him dictator status. He disbands the Senate for a short time and then levies every Roman for the war effort. This was prototype total war 2000 years before Napoleon and the Levee en Masse. The individual was made to be a cog of the state. Cincinnatus then left power once the threat was removed. This again proves that the individual's (Cincinnatus) desires and dreams of power are secondary to the continued health of Rome.

Hell, ive even argued that Caesar is simply what happens when the people of a republic/democracy can no longer support the state due to lack of civic virtue. The state of Rome survived millenia after the original bloc of Romans lost their civic pride. Because great men were willing to continue the state for the betterment and future of Romans.

i think you can.

The well-maintained state is simply the easiest and most efficient way to build individuals.

A state is merely an association of similar people. The bigger the community the more self-aware you become.

There is no such thing as an individual. The human being only has a place within the context of the group. Therefore the group is more fundamental than the human being.

The State is the enemy of the people. The individual always before the State. Do not confuse State with Nation. They are not the same.

All mental masturbation.

Look at what you have learned in this life experience, and find the philosopher who best allows you to verbalize what you have learned.

The State gives the individual a purpose and meaning beyond his own sphere of life. The individual has an infinite amount of desires, yet a finite amount of resources. This serves as the basis for the law of supply and demand, which is intrinsically related to the state. If you were to stop here, you'd have a utilitarian argument. Adam Smith and J.S. Mill will help you here.

You escape the utilitarian sphere when you recall that the individual is not a perfectly rational and self-interested actor. He has feelings, and among his desires are included selfish drives that by nature turn him away from himself, and care for individuals other than himself. You have to mov away from the abstract "rationally self-interested individual" and describe them more concretely. There is man and woman.

Most immediately, men have a desire to procreate with women to produce offspring. Women desire the to procreate with men to produce offspring. Thus, the household emerges. The household serves as the basis of a healthy state. Man is both head of the household, and citizen of the state. His natural capacity to engage in detached, logical, abstract reasoning makes man suited to be a citizen of a state. This is Aristotle's Politics, page one.

The woman is intuitive, and nurturing. Much of what she knows is unconscious. She just has a feeling of what is right, yet cannot verbalize it. She raises sons, who in their turn will grow up to be citizens of the state.

A family makes man and woman happy, because it gives them something beyond themselves to work for, i.e. their children. Further, the family is the basic unit that provides legitimacy and sovereignty to the state. The state needs to family to be in tact if it is to remain in power. Here, you can utilize Confucius. Conversely, the family needs resources and safety to survive. The state provides the fundamental element that ensures a family's survival, well-being, and happiness: private property rights. John Locke.

In essence, the State and the Individual, must both necessarily exist, since man is a political animal. You know from experience that being alone sucks. Its unnatural to be alone because it is not man's nature. Further, the State and the Individual mutually support themselves, with the State giving the individual a reason to live, and the individual giving the State a reason to exist. It goes both ways.

This beautiful harmony is what all here at Holla Forums truly desire.

Eric Voeglin called this phenomenon Caesarism. It naturally emerges as a result of the alienation of individuals from others, the State, and their own higher nature the degeneracy produces. Degeneracy is the a lack of moral discipline, and a lack of a unified conception of the good. Liberal states by definition produce degeneracy, since the type of liberty espoused leads to the lack of moral discipline - the concept of the good is self-interest which by nature precludes the emergence of a unified concept of the good. The liberalism of the French National Convention always produces a Napoleon. A desire for a God Emperor is a result of loneliness and desparation of escaping one's loneliness.

On a related note. This is the reason the Greek city states fell to Phillip II of Macedon, and why the Western Roman Empire fell to Odoacer and eventually the Ostrogoths and Theodoric. A desire for a strong individual heading a strong state. As I said. Both are necessary.

Is a society greater than the sum of its parts?

Your answer will determine whether you are individualist or collectivist.

I've heard of ordoliberalism, but what exactly is it? What defining characteristics does it have?

That's not necessarily true, but you're definitively formulating the right ideas.

Everybody is purely self-interested. Evolution has revolved around the survival of the self and therefore all impulses and emotions we exhibit stem from this inherent impulse for survival.

However there are instinctive exceptions such as herd mentality and the desire to preserve our offspring which promote the survival of the collective in order preserve our species.

"The state" is a communal conglomerate that forms when a group of inherently self-interested individuals possess a high enough capacity for intelligence in which they all mutually agree to assume a specialized role to further the prosperity of the community, and in extension themselves.

This "intelligence" is the ability to rationally predict future outcomes and act accordingly to them. In advanced civilizations many citizens actively or passively know that assimilation and compliance with the state/civilization is beneficial to the self and thus cooperate with the community in a specialized role.

The state doesn't give individual's a purpose, rather it is merely a natural result of intelligence, survival instinct, and a large group of individuals.

Individualist here.

The state should respect the individual in the same way that the individual should respect the state.

Reason; the state is formed by individuals and is controlled by individuals, but the individuals are protected by the state, thus there needs to be a balance in this relationship.

bump

This.

Depends on how the parts are arranged. If a society is arranged in the manner I have described, then yes, society is quite literally a whole greater than the sum of its parts.

For any n that is a natural number, n

These are proximate causes. Voegelin actually stated the ultimate cause emerges from corruption among elites. Caesar is a hero figure who sets things right against incompetent and malevolent elites whose policies produce the epiphenomenon you mentioned. You can see similar patterns among Confucian political philosophy, which sought ways from this happening in the first place (junzi versus xiaoren, the rectification of names).

The problem with this view is that the left and the (((elites))) have hijacked what it means to be corrupt and what it means to be virtuous. Caesar and his supporters still had access to a wealth of norms and ideology via the classics and their culture. The average man on the street, the soldier, and others saw the corruption.

But today, being morally, socially, culturally, economically, and politically bankrupt is seen as a virtue. Or something to be ignored/suppressed or explained away by beltway hipster male journalists. This is due to the left's control of the ideological apparatus (education and media). You can take an outside view on this, and say there is something objective about corruption and virtuous elites, but the general populace, the institutions that promote or defend against a nascent Caesar, and other entities are not going to be able to make that distinction if what they have learned is that 21st century Napoleon is a bad oy vey racist man.

Like you said, the French liberalism produced Napoleon. Think of what today's liberalism would produce. A Caesar in South Africa, for instance, would look like Julius Malema or that "Rhodes must fall" faggot, because of ideology like white privilege that inverts.

If you want a full-Caesar (and Trump is yet to convince me that he is a full Caesar) to arise from the chaos successfully, you are going to have to first smash this mechanism in place.

We humans have conscious and subconscious knowledge. Without discussing the details of where this knowledge originates (this is metaphysics) we know that one has a so called "gut" feeling. This gut feeling, which we instinctively and intuitively known, is best expressed by the female mind. It is man's job to rationally verbalize and systematize this intuitive feeling to produce a Volkgeist.

Further, the State as Volkgeist does give us a purpose. We produce the State. We produce our own purpose by producing the state by our speech and actions. Thus, what we say and do actually has a meaning behind it.

This is what I mean. When the individual that respects the state, it is a nationalism. When the state respects the individual, it is socialism. All that you have said is correct, and you know this instinctively. This is not an accident.

As Heideggar said. Only a god can save us. Rather, a God of Creation and Destruction.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_creation_myths

In Heliopolis, the creation was attributed to Atum, a deity closely associated with Ra, who was said to have existed in the waters of Nu as an inert potential being. Atum was a self-engendered god, the source of all the elements and forces in the world, and the Heliopolitan myth described the process by which he "evolved" from a single being into this multiplicity of elements [think the parts of the Volkgeist]. The process began when Atum appeared on the mound and gave rise to the air god Shu and his sister Tefnut, whose existence represented the emergence of an empty space amid the waters. To explain how Atum did this, the myth uses the metaphor of masturbation [basement dweller], with the hand he used in this act representing the female principle inherent within him.

We create first in our minds the finished product. Then we destroy, as the seedling bursts into existence. From unseen, it grows quietly, and becomes seen. Thus, the other account of creation occurs.

The Memphite version of creation centered on Ptah, who was the patron god of craftsmen. As such, he represented the craftsman's ability to envision a finished product, and shape raw materials to create that product. The Memphite theology said that Ptah created the world in a similar way. This, unlike the other Egyptian creations, was not a physical but an intellectual creation by the Word and the Mind of God. The ideas developed within Ptah's heart (regarded by the Egyptians as the seat of human thought) were given form when he named them with his tongue. By speaking these names, Ptah produced the gods and all other things.

there is no group without individuals you retard. fuck some of you are so stupid.

But there don't exist any individuals who aren't apart of some sort of group. The second you are born, you are apart of a number of different groups.

FALSE DICHOTOMY, THE STATE WILL INEVITABLY SUCCUMB TO BEAUCRATS WHO FANCY THEMSELVES PRIESTS AND ARISTOCRATS, AND THE INDIVIDUAL IS FAULTY AND SELFISH.

NOT STATE VS THE INDIVIDUAL, BUT NATION AND COMMUNITY VS INDIVIDUAL AND SELF.

COLLECTIVISM VS INDIVIDUALISM IS THE ZEITGEIST OF ALL AGES.

Don't Confucians consider the sheng (sage) was a superior being?
To my understanding, he posited the concept of the junzi as a more attainable path for men to take, since becoming a sheng was impressively difficult.

That begs the question: should we be looking for the actual sages in our society along with the junzi, or can a man be a junzi in the absence of sages to guide him?

Sages appear once every millenium. They have sheng ming (Godlike intelligence). If you were to look for a sage, how would you find him? And how would you know that you found him. No one can just say: here I am. I am the long awaited sage. I am able to speak the logos of Amun, the One behind the Ogdoad.

Which reminds me. Individual and state, like man and woman, are yin yang self-similar fractal images of each other.

Bingo!

Holla Forums is on a roll tonight!

*the union of individual and state, self and community is Geist. A fractal self-similar iteration of the union between man and woman. Both produce life.

COLLECTIVISM VS INDIVIDUALISM IS THE ZEITGEIST OF ALL AGES.

GOD IS THREE BUT ALSO ONE. THE FORM ITSELF CONTAINS A LESSON AND A TRUTH, FOR IT IS GODHOOD BORN OF SYNTHESIS OF THE ZEITGEIST, A COLLECTIVE AS AN INDIVIDUAL. THUS ARE WE WROUGHT IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, BUT BORN IMPERFECT, FOR OUR SYNTHESIS MUST BE OBTAINED BY OUR OWN HAND THROUGH SELF-REFINEMENT, WHICH IS ALCHEMY. THUS IS THE SECRET OF MAN AND WOMAN REVEALED TO US, AND THE NATURE OF THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE LAID BARE UPON IT'S BATTLEFIELD, WHICH IS US.

WE ARE COMMANDED TO LIVE CHRISTLIKE LIVES. CHRIST WANDERED THE WILDERNESS, DIED, AND RETURNED IN FIRE AND GLORY. ASK AND YEA SHALL RECEIVE. SEEK, AND YEA SHALL FIND. KNOCK, AND THE WAY SHALL BE OPENED.

A RIGHTEOUS MAN MAY EAT THE FILTH OF THE WORLD AND PURIFY IT, BUT WHAT ISSUES FORTH FROM HIS MOUTH MAY DOOM HIM. HE DEFILES OR REDEEMS HIMSELF BY HIS OWN ACTION ALONE. LIVE AS THE LIVING WORD HAS LIVED. THE WATER OF LIFE SATES KNOWLEDGE, A GIFT FROM THE FOUNTAINHEAD. THE ETERNAL FIRE CLEANSES THE HEART, STOKED BY THE RESTLESS HAND WHICH SEEKS. DEATH IS NOUGHT BUT A CECESSION OF TIME. EMBRACE IT AND MOVE BEYOND IT, AND IT WILL HOLD NO STING. YOU SPEAK NOT WITH A LIVING MAN, BUT A GHOST OF MEMORY AND LIGHT.

The Absolute is Universal Truth. Lord Shiva the Destroyer drank poison to save the universe after the gods churned the ocean at the advise of Lord Vishnu the Preserver.

Churn the ocean of chaos to produce the order of an immortal Volkgeist. In the name of the State (the preserving Father), the Individual (the destroying Son), and the Volkgeist (the immortal Holy Spirit).

Going to have to side with Jesus on this one.

The moment you say that my life is nothing more than a sacrifice I should throw away immediately if you say so to benefit "the state" is the moment humanity is no more advanced than a hive of insects.

HEAVEN IS A HIERARCHY. IN HELL, ALL ARE EQUAL. HELL IS A DEMOCRACY. HEAVEN, A KINGDOM.

THE MAN WHO GIVES ALL OF HIMSELF FREELY SHALL BE MADE FREE, BUT THOSE WHO GIVE THEIR VICES REIGN SHALL BE SLAVES TO THEM IN THIS LIFE AND IN THE NEXT.

TYRANTS TEACH THAT A MAN MUST CHOOSE BETWEEN LIBERTY AND DUTY. A WISE MAN KNOWS THAT HE IS LIBERATED BY HIS DUTY.

THE MOMENT A MAN BELIEVES HE IS WORTH NOTHING, IT IS SO. THE MOMENT A MAN BELIEVES HE IS WORTH MORE THAN THE WORLD, THE WORLD TURNS AGAINST HIM. STORMS CARVE AWAY MOUNTAINS AND TIDES DRAG THE THRONES OF KINGS BENEATH THE SEA. IS THE LIFE OF A RAINDROP THEN IGNOBLE? PRIDE GOETH BEFORE DESTRUCTION, AND A HAUGHTY SPIRIT BEFORE A FALL. YIELD TO THE LIVING WATER PROFFERED UNTO YOU, NOT TO THE FLESH THAT NOW CONTAINS YOU.

You sure convinced me. I might as well kill myself now since I have no freedom.

There's definitely a hierarchy. And a king.

That's enough. You sound like a fanatic. Filtered.

low energy madman

Was Jesus an anarchist? He was certainly a revolutionary.

ALL MEN HAVE BEEN GIVEN WATER BY THE GRACIOUS HAND, BUT MORE WILL DIE OF THIRST THAN WILL QUENCH IT AND LIVE ETERNAL.

THE PATH TO SALVATION IS BUT A SINGLE SINCERE STEP THROUGH A DOOR THAT IS HELD OPEN FOR YOU. THE PATH TO UNDERSTANDING IS AN ENDLESS ROAD WHOSE DESTINATION IS UNKNOWABLE.

WHO THEN IS IT? THE ARCHTRAITORS WHOM FOREVER ARE GROUND BENEATH GNASHING TEETH? THE STUPEFIED BEAST THAT DEVOURS THEM, ROBBED OF THE MIND HE WAS ONCE SO PROUD OF, THAT DANCES TO MUSIC OF THE STRINGS UPON WHICH HE IS PULLED, A MERE PUPPET IN A DIVINE COMEDY?

THERE IS NO THRONE IN THE LAKE OF FIRE. THERE IS NO CROWN BEYOND THE OUTER DARKNESS. THERE IS ALL THAT IS OF THE KINGDOM, AND THERE IS ALL THAT IS NOT. THE SPIRIT WAR IS WAGED OUT OF BITTER SPITE, TO SHRINK THE HOSTS OF THE ENDLESS AGE.

Low energy LARPing

Aren't you a little ray of sunshine.

Lad.

He never told anyone to obey the government.
He whipped the money changers and attacked degenerate roman values.
He famously said"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, [coins with his stupid mug on it] and to God the things that are God's"

Romans 13:1-7

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Christians are commanded to respect lawful authority and yield to good rulers, as well as to act as executors of wrath and revenge upon those authorities who abuse their power and commit evil acts.

That's Paul, not Jesus. Jesus never showed any respect for authority. He never said, "Good point, wise rabbi." But the "state of lawlessness" definition of anarchy I don't think works since Jesus did believe in the golden rule. I don't think Jesus believed in obedience to any earthly rulers.

He's not talking about government power, but the power of god.
The last line about paying tribute to those who deserve is also severely anti-authoritarian since only those who deserve it receive tribute.
You have no case.

u wot m8?

Matthew 23
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples:

“The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.

So practice and observe everything they tell you.

But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.…

WREKT
OWNT
BTFO

nice biblical dubs, but ur wrong bro;

Powers that be are ordained by God, and if you resist them, then you resist God, and thus are damned.

I can lead you to water, but if you want to not read what's right in front of you, I can't make you.

Do you actually want me to go quote you to verse where Jesus says to his disciples to go out and preach, and they need not concern themselves or be afraid to preach, because they will be filled with his words and speak the knowledge of God that God wishes to be shared? Do you want me to quote it for you exactly, as well as the parts where they started preaching in languages they didn't even know, just to drive it home?

Because I can do that.

I'm getting the impression you're playing the Reddit game of "you have to prove my presupposed conceptions wrong, but under increasingly strict criteria I will arbitrarily change until eventually you can't, at which point I declare victory."

The powers that exist in the world exist because God ordained them. We are commanded to follow those authorities who are good, and to fight against those which are tyrannies, which we will be able to identify as such by the fruits that are born of their efforts.

If you don't want to accept that because you're too busy being a fourteen year old edgelord on Summer break, that's fine. But fuck off.

Nice slide shill

Jesus essentially insulted the leaders but added that they should not be ignored when pretending to be good by teaching Moses's laws.

I don't know what's more autistic. Announcing that you're filtering someone like anybody gives a shit, or continuing to respond to them after you publicly claimed to have filtered them.

There are four actual, obvious shill threads up right now you could be shitting on, instead of being a sperglord over here.

If you can't quote Jesus, I'm not interested. Sorry.

I like how "forum sliding" had become "anything you insufferable autists don't like".
I wish I could say "That's what it's supposed to be", but you know… it's not.

that feel when Hellenic Faggots haven't converted to Kek.

You must be Jewish. Only a Jew or a top shelf sperglord would be this unfathomably autistic about minute details that only matter in your own head. No wonder you're an anarchist.

Kek is pretty funny, but Gambler's Bias is nothing new. It stands to reason that any high-speed thread would scoop the majority of the dubs and trips that occur during it's window of activation.

This is the problem with so many chan jokes. They're jokes, but we repeat them often, and sometimes I think some idiots actually believe that shit.

Right, but groups are a collection of individuals. Individuals exist without the group. Your logic is fucking stupid.

Nigger, the State is the ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE. The Nation is NOT the State. A Nation can dorm a State, but as history has shown time and time again that once this occurs it brings about the destruction of the Nation. Why? Because as I stated already the State is the enemy of the People and the People form the Nation. States are antithetical to Nations. Hitler was on the right track in regards to spirituality/ideology of his nation as that's what truly ties a people or folk if you will.

wait a sec r u trying to trick us into doing your research for you?

I think he drank the poison because he agreed to live by the laws of Athens, and in doing so had to accept their judgement. It seems a little Autiste-ian, but it's logically consistent, which is the point.

I wish I was there to hear what they said firsthand but I wasn't and what's been recorded isn't interesting. Paul was brave but not interesting from an ethics perspective.

Very true. So far in the conversation a lot has been said about relations between the individual and the state but if a proper definition of government has been given, I have missed it.

I recommend Isabel Patterson. Excerpt from The God of the Machine (1943):

''Let any sequence of actions in which government is involved be examined. The first thing government does and must do is to issue an edict or pass a law. No edict or law can impart to an individual a faculty denied him by nature. A government order cannot mend a broken leg, but it can command the mutilation of a sound body. It cannot bestow intelligence, but it can forbid the use of intelligence. What is the prime provision to put a law in effect? There must be an "enabling clause," and an enabling clause is one which appropriates money or materials from taxes laid upon private resources, in cash or kind or labor. A private person who seizes the goods of another is a criminal; this action is reserved to government. Likewise, government by its judiciary branch may try persons accused of capital crimes and put them to death. It is in the physical power of individuals to kill one another, but it is never held to be their right to do so unless in self-defense (of which vengeance is felt to be an extension). That a man may not be the judge of his own cause, it is thought proper to depute authority for vengeance, and so far as possible to supply aid in self-defense. That is the power of death. The power of life cannot be deputed or delegated. Government then is solely an instrument or mechanism of appropriation, prohibition, compulsion, and extinction; in the nature of things it can be nothing else, and can
operate to no other end.''

If this definition is accepted, I think we must inevitably conclude that a state can never be little more than night watchman state since everything it tries to do other than maintaining a justice system, police force, military will result in an overreach of prohibitive and compulsive laws that will demoralize a people in the long run.

Holla Forums probably dreams of an ascetic well regimented society under a strong capable Führer because that image is the perfect antithesis to the complacent decadent culture we've inherited. I believe however, that it is not freedom and wealth that made us bloated, but rather the overreach of government, promising to take care of us from cradle to grave. Government's core function is to make sure contracts between individuals are observed, anything it tries to do other than that will result in degeneracy.

>>>Holla Forums

Incorrect. I am speaking of the concept of "the individual" as used in the western liberal tradition. It is not the same thing as a single human being and has a specific definition within the liberal framework.

The individual is an atom, self-contained, cut off, etc. Other terms used when referring to the individual are man, economic man, or rational actor.

This false conception of "the individual" is behind all of leftism, from liberalism to anarchism to Marxism.

A good book on this topic is "Inventing the Individual: the Origins of Western Liberalism" by Larry Siedentop

amazon.com/Inventing-Individual-Origins-Western-Liberalism/dp/0674417534

No it is the same thing, your pov is through a collectivist lens trying to find justifications to subjugate other individuals.

PS Marx spent 500+ pages attacking this individualist because Marx wasn't a fucking individualist. He was a collectivist faggot.

Marx was an individualist.

And check out the book I posted. One of the fundamental concepts of all leftism is the individual.

Then you don't deserve to know the truth, nor are you genuinely interested in knowing.

marx pointing out the obvious. the real broblem was all the faggots who made hay off of that hacks work ( lenin, mao, i.e. commie revisionists) too much is made of marx, i suspect the hebe turd factory called the popular press that take the works of their own and polish those turds to make them attractive to the enthusiastic (but neive) goy.

You don't deserve to know the truth.

k-selected individuals have longer time preference, to use the modern terminology.

every r-selected "civilization" collapses because of their short term thinking. Look what the jews did to russia.

A good or bad state depends mostly on its effect on your quality of life and therefore reproductive output, from a biological perspective. Long term reproductive output is generally more important, if you use k-selected strategies.

If you start looking at things beyond reproductive success, you have to consider the state on those specific issues.

Ultimately, we're biological beings.

Prescriptive vs proscriptive law is the battle of all ages. Positive vs negative law.

You can get a collective through the consent or the subjugation of the individual.

One is morally correct, the other is morally repugnant.

If everyone is armed to the teeth and strong, you don't get a libertarian paradise, you naturally get a National Socialist community.

Weakness breeds communism and degeneracy like semite religions

Are you talking about a state that gets its legitimacy from a collection of families, i.e. the Volkgeist, or the state as an arbitrary aggregate of self-interested individuals competing for social status?

I already made the distinction here

You obviously mean that the state as a bundle of strangers living together is the enemy of the people. This is true. Individuals competing with each other for social status also compete with the state. The state, like the individuals composing it, acts in its own self-interest because it is run by individuals seeking to maximize their own self-interest, social status and pleasure seeking.

It is in the best interest of the state to give you speeding tickets, parking tickets, i.e. to make a profit off any transgression of its laws that promote only safety and security. The state, for its own gain, actually expects you to break the law. It profits, either by fining you, or by jailing/executing you and thus eliminating another individual from its pool of competitors.

This state, growing in size and strength using these methods, has also taken your women through welfare. It is in the state's interest for the wife to divorce rape you, to make you a beta provider to feed the apparatus of the state, to emasculate you so you can't even stand up to it, to not even allow you to think or speak about it in the way you see now, with these words.

To this state, you're just another competitor.

Regarding this state, yes, it is an enemy of the people. It has godlike power and strength. It is in its interest that you are most likely alone and not getting laid, like me.

However, we are still political animals. By nature, we organize and make families, which in turn produce communities, and the living state as Volkgeist. I want nothing else but to cease and transcend my desire to be with a woman. But my genes absolutely prevent me from doing so. In the end, the enemy is our own nature, which as a collective we have failed to domesticate.

Liberalism is a disease because the concept of a completely detached rationally self-interested individual is a disease. The reasons for this are stated above. It fails to acknowledge the difference between potential and actual. An individual detached from others is an abstraction. In real life, all individuals detached from others have the potential to cease this detachment, and rejoin their group. As we all know, loneliness is very unpleasant, leads to depression, and shortens lives. There is no such thing as a pure individual completely detached from a group in mind and spirit. Such an individual is either a beast or a god.

Wrong. Again, this is social contract theory. It assumes individuals made such an agreement consciously and rationally in the first place, which further assumes the individuals involved were rationally self-interest detached units that need not even be involved with a goverment, had things been reasoned out differently.

This contradictions your assertion that we are fundamentally biological, because our biology compels us to be part of a group, i.e. a family, prior to the musings of rational deliberation, let alone agreement making.