No.316314
What is the difference between a cop shooting you in the face, and a gang member shooting you in the face? What makes the former 'legit' and the latter 'criminal'?
Has there ever been one example in human history of that invisible entity calling itself 'government' that didn't exist outside of its self-declared right to kill you if you didn't do what it said? That a tiny minority (or even one single person) one day declaring "I am in charge, now. Bow down or I'll murder you." and everybody else inexplicably nodding and going along with this psychotic nonsense?
I'm not being an anarchist nor a lolbert. I fully understand the need for this objectively nonsensical situation in order for humanity to function and prosper. Without somebody holding a bigger stick than someone else, that someone else has no reason to behave himself.
And there is no stick bigger than God.
There wouldn't be ~3 billion Christians and Muslims if somebody didn't convince them all (with violence) that if they misbehaved that after they died an invisible sky fairy would exercise incalculable sadism by trapping them in trillion-degree lava for the rest of time.
And the only reason that this schizophrenic idea stuck is that somebody with a big stick told everyone else that "this bronze age book of barbaric bedtime stories is all true and in fact nothing is more true than it, so do what it says or I'll kill you AND THEN you will 'die the second death' by being trapped in trillion-degree lava until the end of time".
What is the point of this OP? Nothing, really. Just had this on my mind while lamenting that existence in its current form was a ghastly mistake, if there really is some sort of unmoved mover and ground of all things that created it. And that if there is no outside-of-time-and-physicality lawmaker behind the invisible concepts we call the laws of nature, that all there has ever been and all that there ever will be is a fully-automatic universe consisting of incomprehensibly small bits and bobbles bouncing around in the cosmic void, then there is no such thing outside of things, that what we call "concepts" are just us trying to cast invisible nets around invisible nonsense to try and make sense of an ultimately senseless existence.
Happy fucking Caturday.
No.316318
Often it is instead a mutual contract of violence, signed in blood by all parties.
The agreement in post-revolutionary France was that the French common citizen would engage in violence on behalf of the state through the service of conscription which was legitimized because the leadership of the state would themselves be subject to violence by the people through public trial. Hence Robespierre's march to the guillotine legitimizing the Republic for a time and having reinforced stability in what would otherwise have been an internal collapse. Rather than the invisible entity of an entity declaring that it would kill you, this was the visible entity of a representative agreeing that you had the authority and legal obligation to kill.
The agreement of harvest kings in water empires being that the king had the right to distribute the resources of heaven because his office is akin to a priest and chief of sacrifices, and the king would lose the mandate of heaven in the event of a poor harvest and so would be sacrificed to the gods. The practice of sacrificing kings to the skies proved unpopular among kings who frequently changed state religions wherever possible, hilariously in the khanate of the Khazars which is one of the few examples of a non-semitic race being converted to Judaism en masse just to avoid the need to propitiate the gods with royal blood. Again, rather than the invisible entity declaring itself your absolute killer, this was a visible individual declaring itself the mediator of both life and death, accepting the power to mete out death in exchange for the death penalty if it could not equally mete out life.
A state is not only composed of its appointees, employees, mercenaries, and elite, nor of its borders and materials. A state is composed of all of its participants, including those held in chattel slavery. Unlawful violence within a state is often a state of violence dividing blocks of a state; this is sometimes dignified by the name of "civil war," even when against what are by and large criminal enterprises such as the opium growers of Afghanistan in their war against the Taliban. The fact that one army is illegal and the other is legal does change the nature of the conflict and does mean that the state is dysfunctional, but a state whose legal use of force is applied recklessly without an illegal army in the field in opposition is also considered a dysfunctional state, little different from one in which an illegal army acts unopposed.
No.318550
its kinda ironic to write walls of shit theorising about this, when a lot of governments seem to be just hiring reformed criminals to be cops now.
Like it used to be you couldnt have tattoos and be a cop. But then every wannabe thug now is covered in tattoos, so they had to relax that.
In my shithole country, every cop reminds me of a crim, they are practically indistinguishable.
tl;dr you are a dumbass
No.318732
>>318546acckkshooaallyy…
It's just a jewish dictatorship.
No.318734
No, it's not true that everyone's religious faith is motivated by avoiding hell. That's just a totally false statement. I'm not even sure it's worth bothering correcting. Just google "why are people religious" or read any number of accounts of people who are religious
No.318735
>>316318Your idea is so cool, how didn't I think about it before
A mutual social contract of violence! That's the fully realized State!
No wonder I feel difficult to apply the Classical Marxist definition of State to ancient China. State is nothing the violence of ruling class over other classes, but I always feel that the ruling class in ancient China wasn't that powerful.
Most of the time, State in Europe is either pure Yin or pure Yang, but State in China is Yang with a small Yin. The social contract "Mandate of Heaven" is always written in big font that the ruler have right to rule over society, but in tiny font a hidden clause that in case of failure, the ruler may need to pay by blood…
Briliant!
No.318739
>>318735can you elaborate a bit on what are the yin and yang qualities of a state?
i'm not chinese
No.318770
>>318734The two largest groups of believers (christians and muslims) make 55% of the world's population.
So you're right that not everyone buys into that nonsense, but a lot of people do.
Hindus (especially poorer ones) also indirectly buy into the idea they suffer massively in their current life because of karmic retribution from previous lives, not because their government is an incompetent failure.
No.318772
>>318735That exclusion clause existed in European monarchies as well.
Monarchs only got to keep their head on their shoulders as long as food and shelter was guaranteed to the masses.
If it was, they got away with an infinite amount of graft, theft and corruption.
The average person throughout time never cared about anything else than food and housing.
Entertainment as in "bread and circuses" was just a crutch to further focus the masses on gladiatorial games instead of political issues like wealth inequality.
No.318835
>>316314>sky fairyYou are not smart as you think you are, midwit.
>schizophrenicA normalfag and redditor modern nuspeak for wrongthink.
No.318836
>>318772>graftYou meant grift?
Graft is type of corruption.
No.318840
>>318770>Hindus (especially poorer ones) also indirectly buy into the idea they suffer massively in their current life because of karmic retribution from previous livesNot so far from truth, majority of hindustani normalfags are really disgusting people even when compared to western normalfags.
>not because their government is an incompetent failure.First and foremost their govererment simply does not care.
No.318850
If it wasnt for government people with disability and mental illness would suffer 10x more.
unless your country are in war people like us have no reason to be against it.
No.318852
>>318850also, thank god im not american, take that in consideration.
No.318853
>>318850>people like usPeople like what? Celibate men? Celibacy isn't a disease so we don't benefit from it in any government.
No.318854
>>318850the gov welfare system in a lot of countries just makes the situation worse and is very hostile to the misfortunate.
In my country its been cited as the reason for mass suicide multiple times.
No.318870
>>318850Some people here are thirdies and our ""governments"" have never cared. My NEETbux is funded by my parents and I assume it is the same for all the unfit in the past. Back when people still had communities, whenever there is surplus resources, they take care of each other. There is plenty of prehistoric human remains of disabled people who had lived for a relatively long time. No government needed.