I have no formal study on this topic but I have strong opinions about personal sovereignty and individual liberty.
I’d like to start with question, and a few thoughts I have about it.
The phrase “anyone who opposes the state is etc.”
At least from a devil’s advocate position... I don’t oppose the state I oppose the structure of our relationship with it. In many ways I love it. The state is a powerful tool, arguably one of humanity’s most useful, but unlike other tools it’s not just an inanimate object that only works while we have it in hand with intention. It’s autonomous and needs to be in a state of constant correction in order to function for the purpose of making society work. Our problem with the state isn’t the state it’s our lack of vigilance in wielding it. Come at me 😁
The state is not an inaimate object. It is the idea that some people have the authority to rule others. Our present relationship with the State is the only kind there can be. It is not a tool that can be used for a net benefit. The State is not society. It does not serve society. It does not organize society, and does not exist for the benefit of anyone outside the political class.
Think the One Ring as a good analogy for its allure and its destructive nature. Public choice economics and numerous psychological studies demonstrate the way power corrupts and draws the corrupt. Monopolies promote waste and abuse, and the State is the source of all monopoly power.
We need "vigilance in wielding it?" Ain't gonna work.
I didn't claim it was. I began with it isn't an inanimate object. And while in practice the State, more often than not, is exactly as you claim, that some people have authority to rule over others, it behaves that way because we empower it to do exactly that. The problem, as I see it is not the institution, it's that we've given it the ability to sustain itself without putting up protections to keep it from feeding on us in order to do so. The State has gone from the law and order "leadership" civilization needs to enforce the social contract to a beast, if you will, that eats everything to promote infinite growth, including us.
Regarding your list of what the State isn't. I could argue for or against any one or all of those points, so I'm not incomplete disagreement, but blankets statements like that focus on all the negative aspects the State has adopted because the citizenry doesn't do the work to ensure it works the way it should.
If we took all of the human corruption out of the State you’re left with just people trying to work together which isn’t inherently bad at all. It’s when an individual or small group seize the power we grant the State and wield it against us for personal gain that it becomes an institution of violence and oppression. So with this in mind I don’t understand the hard stance on zero net benefit. I agree it’s currently not serving that function but it could if that’s how we train it. In summary, I think the State can be the pinnacle of organized leadership but our lack of oversight lends to it becoming a governing force and I think that strikes at the heart of anarchy. Society needs leaders to get things done but governance is a different tool than leadership and I personally think it’s often inappropriately deployed as leadership. Getting to the intricacies of how and why it works or doesn’t seems more productive than just scrapping the whole thing with nothing to replace it with.
You said, "...it’s not just an inanimate object..." My apologies if I misinterpreted your verbiage.
The State is an inherently parasitic idea. The Constitutional experiment here in America is often cited as the best effort ever made to tame it and turn it into a beneficial thing. It revealed its true nature even hen most notably in Washington's first term with the causes for, and response to, the Whiskey Rebellion. And then there were the Alien and Sedition Acts under Adams. It has always been an inherently corrupt and inherently corrupting force in opposition to society and the voluntary economy.
Sure, you can argue against my statements. Heck, people argue that the Earth is flat. But if you try to remove the human element from government by humans, you're trying to argue in a fantasy land.
Government and leadership are opposed concepts. People choose to follow leaders voluntarily. Government compels obedience by threat and duress. Yes, we need leadership and organization, and that is why I oppose the idea of Statism. It is antithetical to the miraculous complexity of society.
Are you at all familiar with the economic calculation problem? Let's set aside what I said about the nature of power as a corrupting influence, and assume everyone in government is there for purely noble reasons, and act selflessly. They have an information problem that cannot be overcome. They cannot calculate what production is needed for society. They cannot calculate the allocation of scarce resources. they cannot weigh which courses of action are most beneficial.
Sure, they have loads of statistics available, and let's even assume they are all accurate and wisely interpreted. They still don't know what everyone else values, or how those value scales shift even from moment to moment in the course of a day. Their organized, central planning with altruistic motivations and virtuous intent is still necessarily misguided, and must be done by the use of coercive force against those who disagree.
No worries. I could’ve used more precise language. You made a lot of points, most of which I agree with, and I want to offer a proper response but there’s a lot there to unpack so I’d like to address it in bits if you find that acceptable.
I had two paragraphs on the concept of inherent corruption but it was taking more time and forking into more explaining than I’m prepared to sit down and commit to at the moment so I’ll get back to you when I get my thoughts in order.
No worries. It took me years to sort through my own prejudices and preconceptions before I accepted my current views on the State, it nature, and its purpose.
Check @badquakerdotcom's archive links post. There's a multi-part repost of Davi Barker's examination of authoritarian sociopathy delving into the psychological effects of power there.
If you recall, I began this discussion playing devil's advocate but I believe I've come to the conclusion my own prejudices and opinions are getting in my way.
The entire reason I wanted to argue on behalf of the state is to look for ways to disempower the negative impact it has in society while further empowering positive impacts, if we can agree there are any, which I’m not certain I can off the top of my head that would be any different than pointing out the benefits to fascism. If anything good can be found in it it’s seriously outweighed by its failures, thus moot.
Maybe I’ll be able to focus and weigh in on the next post. 😁