Statism: The Road to an Unattainable Utopia
How many times can something be tried before it’s counted as a failure? How many different flavors and shades of something can be attempted before an alternative should be sought? How far down the road should somebody take a failing idea before they’re considered to be a madman? Well, apparently all of these things apply to self-governance, since peace has been so widely used by so many, that it’s mad to even suggest it. At least, that’s what the statists would have you think. Often, anarchism is automatically kicked under the carpet with little address, and it’s shrugged off as merely being an unattainable utopia. It’s so sadly paraded around as an overly defeated concept, that it doesn’t even require a proper dismissal. It’s almost rattled off, as a form of a greeting between these individuals, in order to identify people of similar political beliefs. I would much sooner make the case that the system that’s been tried for thousands of years should be looked over once more, that it’s even the strongest flavor of attempted unattainable utopias that humanity has ever conceived.
Statist is defined as the desire to have a state. Statism is the act of having a state present. If there’s borders, if there’s a monopoly on force that enforce those borders, if there’s taxation at all, and if the land it claims rule over is stolen, you have some nasty symptoms of statehood on your hands. States go back for thousands of years, and in those thousands of years, there’s been quite a large number of bodies that have piled up as a result. Two hundred and three million lives were thrown away by governments in the twentieth century alone. If the system was aiming to build towers of bones and sinew, the system is clearly very effective. If the system was supposed to protect anyone, or to defend liberty in any form, it’s bleeding its bodies through its lying teeth in spectacular failure.
To put this into a different perspective, if there’s a project that requires some form of engineering, and the very foundation is flawed, the structure will fail every single time. What if that same foundation has been used for thousands of years, and people are bickering over what’s being built on the foundation, rather than turning to the faulty foundation? No matter what is done, if the root of the problem is at the core of every clone or every built system, it’s going to result in failure. There are those that enjoy this foundation, the Nazis and communists, the pirates and the looters. As I’ve mentioned before, whether or not you view the system as a faulty one depends on your definition of faulty. For some, death could mean that the system is working exactly as it was intended. For those who don’t identify as psychopaths, I present to you a question: are you willing to address what the problem is, or are you going to keep building on what amounts to a sinking building?
It would be far more far, then, to start to question the very foundation of the sinking building before any alternatives are brought into scrutiny. You must first realize that the building is sinking before alternatives can be desirably sought. Why do states fail? Why do states result in blood being spilled? Why do states silence, oppress, steal, and war? Critics of anarchism will often put forward the warlord argument. They’ll admit that individuals who would oppress, steal, attack, and murder exist, then they’ll claim that the state is a requirement to stop these individuals. Without the state, warlords would rise to power, and they would oppress, steal, attack, and murder. Well, they’re half way there, they at least admit that these individuals exist, but they fail to see that these individuals find power to be attractive, as by their very own description of the actions that they would seek. Why would a warlord confine him or herself to just a tiny bit of power when they could run for congress? What happens when there are many warlords? The system being described to stop these individuals depends on a large amount of centralized power, so if these warlords wanted more power, wouldn’t it be as simple as just joining the state? After all, the actions that the warlords are attributed with engaging in are routine actions for the state to engage in. The state taxes — it’s an involuntary payment method that resistance results in violent actions, taken by the state — it is theft. The state wages wars to guarantee its rule, and the state even fires on the very populations it claims to protect for speaking out against it. Isn’t the state inherently acting as one gigantic band of warlords?
If this above argument can be made against warlords, why can’t the same one be used to point out the inherent mechanics that are used to keep the state alive? For somebody to even reach the conclusion that these actions by the warlords are negative, they would have to first conclude that the actions are negative, irrespective of who is perpetrating them. The state’s long lasting existence can be attributed to people falling back on what they’re used to, even if they don’t enjoy what’s in front of them, and especially if they’re yet to realize that. People are scared of change, so people cling to what they’ve been taught their entire lives. Having the fear that they have for these atrocities, and being fearful that any other system would present them more often, they forsake themselves to face subjugation, to experience them over and over again at the hands of a different menace than the warlord that they fear.
Once more, I’ll present my original question: How many times can something be tried before it’s counted as a failure? Did the foundation not fail, and the building just needed to be built differently? Was there simply not enough distribution of wealth? Was there simply not enough war? Maybe the state was too kind to the dissenters? Those protesters were asking for it, after all, weren’t they? The more and more the state is sculpted differently, the same heinous and perverse actions are found to be present even more. Yes, I am an anarcho-capitalist, and yes, I do have interests in anarcho-capitalism. I’m not asking you to blindly become an anarcho-capitalist yourself. All I am asking is for you to question the inherent structure that statism builds itself on. I think it’s long past due since any other way of living has been tried, and I think the state’s reign of slavery has long since expired. Won’t you reconsider the system, that’s supposed to protect, that finds itself sitting on a throne of sinew, flesh, blood, and bones? Won’t you notice what it rests itself on? What it sits on? The foundation that it grows from and nourishes itself from? An entity that exists solely on violence must engage in routine violence to survive. To imply that such a violent institution could cease all of its violent actions, but maintain the same mechanisms it currently employs, would be complete denial of the consequences that actions carry. To suggest that changing the structure from any other point, than from the ground up, would be suggesting that we all live in an unattainable utopia.
from Libertarian Gaming
If you liked this article, conside tipping the author through this link: