Proof that government can be moral, peaceful, efficient and just, since it has seemed to be the opposite throughout history.

This is completely wrong. 14,000 years ago, as the first civilizations began to coalesce, the likelihood a male would die a violent death was near 30% The chance of living past 40 years was very low. Now consider the 20th century, during which two world wars were fought, several genocides perpetrated, etc., as you wrote. Males died violent deaths, including all crime along with the wars, at around 2% If you lived in a more civilized part of the planet last century, you stood a fine chance of living to 70. The downward trend from 30 to 2% over the last fourteen millenia is very consistent, and highly correlated with civilization and organized states.

Good luck to you if you find yourself living in a state of anarchy (Venezuela, Syria anyone?). You better be prepared to be very lonely, or you need to be a seriously bad-assed, well-armed motherfucker.

Don't take my word for it, though. Here's a scholarly, but easy and quick read on precisely this subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Measure_of_Civilization

The chance of living past 40 years was very low

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's kind of hard to live past 40 if many can't make it past infancy. I believe that if you did survive infancy, it was very likely and easy to make it to 60-70.

its pretty much confirmation bias as hes looking for things that confirm his worldview

and hes pretty much pretty similar to christian/muslim radicals cus he'll never ever change his beliefs

I suggest we put MSGB in forest with a few hundred people, take away all their stuff and tell them they can do whatever they want.
Lets see how long it will take until they come back to the goverment again.

+1 Onoma and Conservative.

this is why I stopped shitposting on my nationalism since the election. nothing interesting will happen here for a while and people were getting tired of me milking the same cow. It gets boring.

Pros of statism:
-Collectivzation of best of humanity, resulting in best of humanity pushing it forwards scientifically

Cons of statism:
-Collectivization of worst ofhumanity, resulting in worst of humanity sparking violence and destabilizing humanity as a whole

Also, how do we know that anarchy would not reach the amounts of bloodshed of statism? Bloodshed levels could be reached as many fights across the globe could result in same bloodshed. Not much of an improvement, if any.

I have never gotten the gall of folk who ask for how anarchism will work. Anarchism wasn't responsible for WW1, WW2, the cold war, the war on terror. Anarchism wasn't responsible for slavery, serfdom, indentured servitude or other forms of forced labor. Anarchism wasn't responsible for the Armenian Genocide, Holocaust, or Holodimir. So the burden of providing proof, rests with statists, and they must provide proof for the value of organizing society through violence (government). Proof that government can be moral, peaceful, efficient and just, since it has seemed to be the opposite throughout history.

Problem with this argument- not all statist governments didn't participate in acts like this. Example being Switzerland. I've yet to hear of acts of violence on those scales (have not been at war since 1815). They're pretty moral (whose morals are we going by? Republican? Stalinist? Democrats?) and just.

On the flipside, could anarchy be moral, efficient and just?

You are confusing Anarchy with Civil War.

It's peculiar how people so easily confuse anarchy and civil war... just like people confuse feminism and man-hating... hmm....

i hayt da gov

dey S P Y on me !!

satelites in da sky ! murco ship ! chem twail! mk U L T R A H! iloominazi ! it

R E E L

Venezuela is awful now because of rampant socialism and big government. Syria is awful because everyone wants to rule there.

I suggest we put the statists in a woodland, and give them guns. In no time, you will see them at each other's throats vying for power over one another.

To Genghis: Yeah and neither government or anarchy has brought dragons to earth to lay waste to farmlands and sheep. It's not like anarchy was responsible for any of those things either.

Statists would likely divide into factions until they agree enough with each other.

They'd have guns at the ready, but I think they'd find common ground to unify and maintain a governance, if not at least peace between factions.

Well, don't argue like that, MGSB.

dingus khan

1990-on, roughly 500k-700k folk were killed each year from common murders (which, keep in mind, are actively tried to be stopped by government). Roughly 50-100k were killed each year from war. 12+ million each year died from not having access to healthcare or welfare of any kind.

I'll take government.

Edited 5/23/2016 21:08:22

I suggest we put the statists in a woodland, and give them guns. In no time, you will see them at each other's throats vying for power over one another.

Then we'll know putting humans in an anarchial state is bad as violence is high as humans try to gain power.

Well you see how extremism can effect the chances of that in the Syrian Civil war. ISIS is one such extremist faction, and they're standing in the way of peace. The KWP is another, being a communist group bent on dominating the Middle East.

But Butler, without a state, life is brutish, violent, and short. Just like in Somalia. Didn't you study your Leviathan?

why dont u actually practice what u preach

buy a one way ticket to somalia

get a gun and live ur fantasy

Well it can be brutal and short in a statist society too. X knows that well, he was in Eritrea.

and life can be pretty good as well

look at NORWAY, AMERICA, UNITED KINGDOM, and so FORTH