This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: The Nature And Origin Of The State

Tyler Durden's picture


The next in a continuing series (most recently: Law and the State).

Submitted by Free Radical

The Nature and Origin of the State

The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. – Albert Jay Nock

It is imperative that we understand, first of all, that “Everything the state is capable of doing it does through compulsion and the application of force.”  Even apologists for the state cannot deny this fact.

Neither can its apologists deny (at least convincingly) that “every State has been and is a class State, and every theory of the State has been and is a class theory,”i  acknowledgement of which can be found as far back as Plato, who, having addressed the settle-ment of formerly nomadic tribes in The Statesman, depicts – with obvious approval – their conquest and subjugation in The Republic:

Plato gives us a mythological yet very pointed description of the conquest itself, when dealing with the origin of the “earthborn,” the ruling class of the best city. Their victorious march into the city, previously founded by the tradesmen and workers, it described as follows: “After having armed and trained the earthborn, let us now make them advance, under the command of the guardians, till they ar-rive in the city. Then let them look round to find out the best place for their camp – the spot that is most suitable for keeping down the inhabitants, should anyone show unwillingness to obey the law, and for holding back external enemies who may come down like wolves on the fold.” This short but triumphant tale of the subjugation of a sedentary population by a conquering war horde … must be kept in mind when we interpret Plato’s reiterated insistence that good rulers ... are pa-triarchal shepherds of men and that the true political art, the art of ruling, is a kind of herdsmanship, i.e., the art of managing and keeping down human cattle.ii

Even so, Plato’s pupil Aristotle rejected this “art,” placing the origin of the state more palatably, albeit mistakenly, at the end of a purely organic process:

The belief in the kinship origin of the State has been among the most deeply rooted manifestations of the Western faith in development continuity. The popularity of the belief owes much to Aristotle’s celebrated triadic scheme of evolution – from family to community to State – and has been nourished in modern times by frequent appeals to irrelevant and historically unconnected ethnographic materials. As is true in so many other alleged instances of developmental continuity, the fact of logical continui-ty has been converted into the supposition of historical continuity within a specific area or chronology.iii

Moreover, not only was it assumed, following Aristotle, that “from such an original social order … there had developed, through gradual differentiation, the fully developed State with its class hierarchy;”iv  it was also assumed that said order developed because all productive land had been settled:

All the teachers of natural law, etc., have unanimously declared that the dif-ferentiation into income-receiving classes and propertyless classes can only take place when all fertile lands have been occupied. For so long as man has ample opportunity to take up unoccupied land, “no one,” says Turgot, “would think of entering the service of another” …

... The philosophers of natural law, then, assumed that complete occupancy of the ground must have occurred quite early, because of the natural increase of an originally small population.  They were under the impression that at their time, in the eighteenth century, it had taken place many centuries previous, and they na-ively deduced the existing class aggroupment from the assumed conditions of that long-past point in time. v

Never questioning their assumptions, it simply did not occur to these thinkers that they could

… determine with approximate accuracy the amount of land of average fertility in the temperate zone, and also what amount is sufficient to enable a family of peas-ants to exist comfortably, or how much such a family [could] work with its own forces, without engaging outside help or permanent farm servants. … Let us as-sume that, in these modern times, thirty morgen (equal to twenty acres) for the average peasant suffices to support a family.

… [T]here are still on the earth’s surface, seventy-three billion, two hundred million hectares (equal to on hundred eighty billion, eight hundred eighty million and four hundred sixteen thousand acres); dividing into the first amount the num-ber of human beings [at the time, 1914]…viz., one billion, eight hundred million, every family of five persons could possess about thirty morgen (equal to eighteen and a half acres), and still leave about two-thirds of the planet unoccupied.
If, therefore, purely economic causes are ever to bring about a differentiation into classes by the growth of a propertyless laboring class, the time has not yet ar-rived. …

… As a matter of fact, however, for centuries past, in all parts of the world, we have had a class-state, with possessing classes on top and propertyless laboring classes at the bottom, even when population was much less dense than it is today. Now it is true that the class-state can arise only where all fertile acreage has been occupied completely; and since

… all the ground is not occupied economically, this must mean that it has been preempted politically. Since land could not have acquired “natural scarcity,” the scarcity must have been “legal.” This means that the land has been preempted by a ruling class against its subject class, and settlement prevented. Therefore, the State, as a class-state, can have originated in no other way than through conquest and

Thus, while it would be too much to say that property is theft, it is not at all be too much to say that insofar as people have historically found themselves without property, it is not because those “best endowed with strength, wisdom, capacity for saving, industry and caution, slowly acquire[d] a basic amount of real or movable property; while the stu-pid and less efficient, and those given to carelessness and waste, remain[ed] without pos-sessions.”vii   Rather, it is because one group simply forced itself on another

...with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic ex-ploitation of the vanquished by the victors. viii

And thus do we come once again to the all-important distinction between society and the state:

There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring suste-nance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires.  There are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others … the “economic means” … and the “political means.”

The state is an organization of the political means. No state, therefore, can come into being until the economic means has created a definite number of objects for the satisfaction of needs, which objects may be taken away or appropriated by warlike robbery. ix

What society giveth, in other words, the state taketh away, first through territorial conquest; then through the establishment of a monopoly on the use of force; and, finally, through the use of said monopoly to confiscate the inhabitants’ property – the “objects” created “for the satisfaction of needs” – via the legalized theft of taxation.

And no matter how successful it has been in indoctrinating its people to believe oth-erwise, the American state is in no way an exception. On the contrary, it is thoroughly an organization of the political means, as were the colonies that preceded it:

The first fortunes on the virgin continent were out-and-out political creations – huge tracts of [conquered] land and lucrative trading privileges arbitrarily bestowed by the British and Dutch crowns upon favorite individuals and com-panies. ... The early royal grants … were the sole property titles of the newly created landed aristocrats.x

While the received truth regarding the subsequent creation of a constitutional republic is decidedly different – nothing less than a miracle, in fact – the real truth is that the United States Constitution, like all constitutions, was “not instituted to limit government but rather to enhance the political power of an elite that [sought] to entrench itself.” After all, the United States Constitution was written by and for a small class of property-owning adult white males, who limited the vote almost exclusively to themselves and, in the process, massively centralized what had been a loose federation of newly independent states.

Thus, instead of the “model for the protection of man in a state of freedom and order” that Jefferson imagined it to be, the American state, both before and after its founding, was a model of conquest and subjugation – not only of the continent’s native inhabitants and the millions of others imported from another continent but of the human detritus endlessly washing up on its shores.xi  As such, the American state is simply another state and, like any state, is therefore “an evil inflicted on men by men” that persists solely through the indoctrinated enslavementxii  of its people.

And to make matters worse, even some who are not indoctrinated but, on the contrary, recognize the state as the evil that it is, compound that evil by maintaining that the preservation of society nonetheless “justifies the action of the organs of the state.”

This is a very serious proposition – so serious, in fact, that the very foundation of human morality hangs in the balance, and with it the very viability of civil society. If, therefore, humanity is to have any hope of ridding itself of its nemesis, it must be shown that because the state is inherently evil, there can therefore be no justification for its existence.

So to this task we turn next, via another brief foray into metaphysics: “Evil and the State.”


i  Franz Oppenheimer, The State, Copley Publishing, 1914, p. 4; online version here.
ii  Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1962, 1966, p. 49.
iii  Robert Nisbet, The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order and Freedom, ICS Press, 1990 (Oxford University, 1953), pp. 90 and 91.
iv  Ibid., Oppenheimer, p. xix.
v  Ibid., p. 6.
vi  Ibid., pp. 6 and 7.
vii  Ibid., Oppenheimer, p. 5.
viii  Ibid., p. 8.
ix  Ibid., pp. 12 and 13.
x  Ferdinand Lundberg, America’s Sixty Families, Vanguard Press, 1937, p. 50.
xi  “[P]oor laborers will be so plenty as to render slavery useless.” – Revolutionary Connecticutian Oliver Ellsworth replying to revolutionary Virginian George Mason, as quoted by Forrest McDonald in Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution, the University Press of Kansas, 1985, p. 51.
xii  “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 01/29/2011 - 13:43 | 916195 Malcolm Tucker
Sat, 01/29/2011 - 14:32 | 916319 AnonymousAnarchist
AnonymousAnarchist's picture

Introduction to a Stateless Society

If you only read one thing there, make it Hasnas' The Obviousness of Anarchy (pdf).

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:52 | 916507 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

Superb, AA, thanks so much for the link.

Based on the series so far, Free Radical obviously agrees. And I very much look forward to the remainder.

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 06:57 | 917580 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

People need security against criminals and adjudication of disputes.  These are services. There is nothing magic about these services.  These services need not be provided by a monopoly provider in a given geographical area (what you call the "state"). Instead of paying taxes against your will you can purchase security and adjudication services from who you trust. No elections, instant accountability, perfect maintenance of power by the people and their "power of the purse", no attempts by a monopoly of force to out-law free market money (usually gold and silver), and no incentive for criminals to capture the power of "government" as they always try to when the  "state" is a monopoly  of force that can criminally force its will against non-criminal people.

In a free market of governmental type services any entity that provides security or adjudication services that goes criminal finds it has no customers, or just a few - the criminals (a small minority), and that is not going to sustain them and they will instantly find they are in conflict with all the security providers that remain servants to their non-criminal customers.

Please study up on voluntarism.  For a historical example, Ireland before the British conquest had free markets in adjudication services (Brehon law) and free market in security services, what historians refer to as a network of "kings" or "tuatha", but kings who could loose their customers instantly if they behaved like criminals, and who faced greater penalties for breach of Brehon law as they were considered privileged due to their position. Any free person who could obtain enough "customers" could become a "king" under this system. 


Here are some links to expand your awareness of the issue:


To get a historical perspective on most of known "state"  history you can check out:

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 11:08 | 917701 Quixotic_Not
Quixotic_Not's picture

Anyone that believes in voluntarism,  forgot to include the variable of human nature into the equation...and taking examples from ancient agrarian cultures, that in the end was destroyed by a greater force is complete bullshit.

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 16:12 | 918327 CH1
CH1's picture

Sorry, Q, but you are wrong. Voluntaryists (at least the majority) believe in the use of force, just not the initiation thereof. They DO account for human nature and its dark eruptions.

The Voluntaryists are right. The statists are wrong.

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 17:02 | 918503 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

Quite right, CH, voluntaryists (true libertarians) are by no means pacifists and instead have a firm belief in the right of self-defense, which can involve violence (to the point of death to the assailant) but not aggression, which is the initiation of violence or the threat thereof.

The state being an aggressor by nature (if "only" through the theft of taxation), you therefore have the right to defend yourself against it by any means you deem necessary. Yes, you can instead choose to submit to the aggression, as most do, but submission is not consent. And as soon as you are supported by enough of your fellows (e.g., Tunisia, Egypt), the state quickly finds itself on the run. Only temporarily, perhaps, as one statist regime merely gives way to another. But the process is accelerating, meaning that it won't be long before it finally dawns on people that replacing one set of bums with another is an exercise in futility. 

Watch, then, for it to dawn on Americans that its central government is just such a futile enterprise, with one or another state finally calling it quits and lighting the fuse accordingly.

Tue, 02/01/2011 - 13:22 | 924139 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

And what a wonderful moment for the human race that will be!

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 18:37 | 918717 AnonymousAnarchist
Sun, 01/30/2011 - 18:35 | 918711 AnonymousAnarchist
AnonymousAnarchist's picture

Anyone that believes in voluntarism, forgot to include the variable of human nature into the equation...

How do you figure? It seems to me that the person who believes the way to bring order to society is to grant some people a monopoly power to create and coercively enforce rules - create a government - is the person who does not understand human nature. In fact, human nature is a strong argument in favor of anarchy.

You're also assuming that all anarchists/voluntarists/abolitionists/etc. came to their beliefs for purely utilitarian reasons. That is not the case. Many anarchists are anarchists for purely ethical reasons. "To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified". So, while minarchists, state-socialists, [insert favorite form of statism here] all believe aggression (non-defensive force) is justified (even if for different reasons), anarchists maintain that aggression is never justified. There are anarchists (like David Friedman) that argue for anarchy on utilitarian grounds but I wanted to point out the ethics-based argument you are ignoring.

...and taking examples from ancient agrarian cultures, that in the end was destroyed by a greater force is complete bullshit.

I'm not sure to which culture you're referring but the Icelandic Free State was never destroyed by a greater force and there are societies that have avoided states for thousands of years. Examples are moot anyway. People who argued against the abolition of slavery would use the same non-argument ("there aren't many examples of societies without slavery").

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 19:45 | 918800 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Dick  and  Anon'

Thanks for all the links, i'll try to read them all. Just want to say i joined this site coz it's the only place i've seen 2 guys with my views of zero Govt.

Penny dropped for me about 6 or 12 month ago, not sure, but everything then fell into place. Think triggered by another penny, the free market competition mechanism and how that distributes power which pinged why Govt will never ever work, because it's a monpoly power structure. 

Regards the background and philosophy you guys know so deeply I'll try to catch up but my basic belief is we are herd/pack animals. It's not the philosophy, its quite natural, we just are sociable and behave well amongst the herd to get along (no rules or even police required).

Not sure how that stacks up against your beliefs but willing to test any idea with you scholars. Here's to freedom and hopefully bringing it about  ;)) 

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 19:55 | 918812 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

Welcome aboard, ZG, and well understand the "fell into place" feeling. Very cleansing, first off, like a long-overdue shower; then towel off and run.

Look forward to the continuing conversation.

And thanks again, AA, for the Hasnas link. What a landmark essay.


Mon, 01/31/2011 - 12:41 | 920634 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Have you any ideas how we bring about 0.0000 Govt after it collapses during this Depression?

We're going to see big social changes and people ripe for a new way and ideas. And we're going to be working 'downhill' with the majority in that everything Govt stood for will be patent to everyone it made worse not better. Govt will be a 4 letter word. So we're going to see a changing of the old guard (GOP and Dems gone) and new Parties emerge with completely different views to reflect Joe Public.

My fera is the Tea Partys' small Govt mantra is just a clear-out of the big old Aliens parasites and the TP's will simply be carrying new baby Aliens inside their chests ready to burst out and repeat the exact same rape of liberty and theft and impoverishment of societies wealth. Small Govt is not the solution to Big govt. It's the same virus, the same dumb structural mistake.

And you can't have a Party running for zero Govt running into the same structure that you want to fold. So the only solution is an online petition far as I can see. When the Govt collapse comes you have a declaration from the populace they want no Govt.

there's already a large part of the population to appeal to, the near 50% who never vote because they're sane enough to understand it doesn't change anything!

Appeal to them and the disalusioned who did vote, it's going to be a big part of society to pick up signatures.

This also usurps the parasites usual tactics of becoming ingratiated with whatever new Parties emerge. They bide their time and slowly but surely work over the leaders of the new Parties. If you have an online petition this minority scum cannot work over a handful of leaders. Their usual tactics are nullified.

Any new parties are also hamstrung with the petition. They'll look anti-democratic if they force Govt on a petition of say 30-60 million people who say they do not want any Govt structure.

The Petition is the best solution I can think of to push the 'No Govt' agenda and achieve our aims of a free society and free markets. 

Tue, 02/01/2011 - 13:26 | 924153 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

We await your reply Quiotic_N to see if you are capable of actual thinking.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:06 | 916405 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

If you're going post off-topic, at least acknowledge the fact with an explanation or, better, an apology. Otherwise, you're just rude.

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 00:03 | 917340 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

I hope there's a real dust up in Saudi Arabia.  It's about time the "King" shared his wealth.  I hope the people become commies and take it.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 13:46 | 916206 Salinger
Salinger's picture

D.G. White, is that you?

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 14:05 | 916252 redpill
redpill's picture

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose
Nothing, and that's all that Bobby left me

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:48 | 916493 Quixotic_Not
Quixotic_Not's picture

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose

Too bad, so sad, but for the progeny of the huddled masses, the suicide of some drunken whore is exponentially more important than the Epoch of Democratic Republics due to the Age of Reason...

Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom." ~ Patrick Henry

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.  ~ John Adams

Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company...Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ~ George Washington

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 19:06 | 916875 nmewn
nmewn's picture


Sat, 01/29/2011 - 14:10 | 916271 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture


Sat, 01/29/2011 - 14:11 | 916274 CH1
CH1's picture

The real story about the state:

Oh, and the post was excellent. :)

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:12 | 916400 Azannoth
Azannoth's picture

There was a great author who spelled out All whe worries on our day and age, pitty that he died 2 years ago

He published 40 books, was a member of Mensa he does not hold back and as a person with high IQ he writes plainly about sensitive and difficult topics


Warning: his writings may change your view on History, Science, Religion and Philosophy read at your own discretion

If you live in Germany this site may be blocked for you (use a web proxy)

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 23:18 | 919193 Alienated Serf
Alienated Serf's picture

umm, not gonna lie, i didn't read it, but how about human liberation, not just white liberation.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:52 | 916510 Quixotic_Not
Quixotic_Not's picture

Thank you comrade, I'm sure you're ecstatic about the total incorporation of the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto into the US Kapitalist Pig .GOV...

And now for The real story about the origin of the USofA:

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions...Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience. ~ John Locke 1690

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 19:38 | 916924 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture


Sat, 01/29/2011 - 14:15 | 916282 Victor Berry
Victor Berry's picture

Society?  Isn't that just aother code word for socialism?  God [sic] forbid that America becomes a society!

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 06:44 | 917573 CH1
CH1's picture

In its pure form, the word is okay, but in actual use these days, you are right.

When they say "social" anything, grab your wallet!

PS: In the old days, it was a verb: "In society with family and friends."

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 14:17 | 916286 InconvenientCou...
InconvenientCounterParty's picture

The dangerous question becomes; is the rapid expansion of human population a tool of the state to gain control of the individual?

If you think that through a little, you might ease off the "state is evil" proposition. States are simply one of many emergent human organization schemes in support of biological imperitive. It's neither good nor bad.

If "the state" as a human construct, is limb of a tree, maybe understanding the trunk and roots will help? Philosophy is sadly, a dying meme in western culture. With it goes the internal compass of conduct.



Sat, 01/29/2011 - 17:46 | 916737 hooligan2009
hooligan2009's picture

bravo, i am glad someone had the vision to state this...we are way beyond the sophistry of politics as a means to determine strategy or economics to measure the past allocation of resources when polluted by the politics of regulation.

I think the real politik, which economics and logistics can support, is the allocation of scarce resources and the provision of minimum standards of living given reources.

The article is a great scene setter in that it provides the outlines of past and now unsuitable structures that are needed to meet current needs. The days of the old markets are similarly dead. You can't change the ability of an asset to produce a return by the way it is financed. Paper money or M3 is not a revenue producing stream, it is a penalty at best and a temporary tool. Money supply is not some perpetual motion machine that creates assets.

Anyway, well said.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:08 | 916774 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

@ Inconvenient

Your first sentence is total delusional rubbish. You need to be tripping out to connect those 2 dots. 

Your second sentence suggests the State is a social construct neutral in its effect, "neither good nor evil". The State is a monopoly power structure, a central planning structure and an elite structure. On all 3 counts it is designed to be garbage, baked in to be elitest and constructed to be a parasite.

As for Philosophy "losing the internal compass of conduct" I'd say philosophy is the ART of losing your compass up your rectum. Social inetraction is the moral compass, it keeps us all in check, keeps us all honest. Both philosophy and Govt are detached and lead to various stages of delusion from the street. Neither has added to humanity, one, the State, has systemically destroyed, impoverished and suffocated it.

Namely the State has proven itself to be a failure and attract the garbage of humanity to its elite power structures.

Remove the State and we remove 90% of the troubles we face because it is the major breeding ground and ratchet of parasites in society. We then return to a free wealth generating society and free competitive markets (another part the State perverts for monopoly power corporatists). Government is not the solution, it is the problem.

The State has patently failed throughout history. It is now bankrupt from Europe to America and further. The people have no voice in this corrupt to the core parasitical structure. We've tried, it's failed. Game Over  

The only 2 models that work for the benefit of humanity: Freedom & Free Markets.   

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 14:35 | 916290 YHC-FTSE
YHC-FTSE's picture

+1 Interesting. 


Amongst the many worthless - especially those who go around calling anyone even slightly left of Genghis Khan, "socialists", there are a few Americans who deserve to be lauded for the way they lived their lives. One such individual who passed away this month is worthy of mention. Since nobody else has mentioned him on ZH, I would like to express my deep condolences to those who knew and loved him:


Robert Sargent Shriver. November 9, 1915 – January 18, 2011. American Statesman and Activist.


My thanks for all he has done for his country and humanity. Dr. Ron Paul is probably the closest you have to his type of quiet activism, humanitarian efforts, and vision for a world that knows no hatred. 

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 16:41 | 916609 Goldilocks
Goldilocks's picture

… another Genghis Khan reference.

(from the movie 'Blood and Bone' ... kind of ‘Fight Club’ey)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~






~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 17:50 | 916742 hooligan2009
hooligan2009's picture

as far as I know, Ghenghis had no God, other than the "Sky Father". That being the case, he was probably taking the mickey out of the stupid religious types he was busy conquering at the time, in a small unimportant country on his way back from kicking the shit out of the Xin.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 14:24 | 916304 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

 Interesting post, well done.  A quick check gives

Arable land utilized (1994)  16 x 10^6 km^2

Potential arable land          38 x 10^6 km^2

Human population = 7 x 10^9

1 acre = 0.0040 km^2 or 1 km^2 = 250 acres

I therefore get 2 x 10^-3 km^2 per person

giving 0.5 acres of arable land per person

I would say that this not bode well....

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:12 | 916417 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

 Not sure what your point is


Sat, 01/29/2011 - 14:48 | 916361 born2bmild
born2bmild's picture

Nice double check. I wonder if the 'potential arable land' figure is up to date? We can do a lot with what we previously thought worthless and use what we already have far more efficiently.

and for you cold climate folks


Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:14 | 916420 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

  All depends on energy, in particular liquid hydrocarbons. Be careful in what you mean by efficient.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:39 | 916436 born2bmild
born2bmild's picture

I think closed loop systems are the most efficient. Wait, you want to talk about fuel efficiency:

Lets see, we already have fuel from algae which can double it's mass every 5 hrs during the daytime and be grown in wastewater in the desert.

This one really pisses the doomers off, here's a comment from physorg's recent article about LENR (cold fusion).

"According to a study published by the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, cold fusion has been replicated 14,700 times in several hundred major laboratories. I have a collection of over a thousand peer-reviewed journal papers describing these replications, which I copied from the library at Los Alamos. I have 2,500 other papers from national laboratories, EPRI, BARC the NSF and other mainstream institutions describing high-sigma replications. Why do you claim these replications are "illegitimate"? In what sense are they illegitimate?

I suggest you review the literature more carefully before making such assertions. See"


I'm not attacking you or anyone else, I just think the sustainability issues aren't really being looked at when the solutions already exist.

We haven't even begun to talk about the literally thousands of energy patents locked up at the US Patent office for - "national security reasons".





Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:46 | 916488 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

  Maybe I am being dense, but I have no idea where you are running with this.

If there was a point that I was making, it was that based on the concept of self-sufficiency, ergo "freedom from the state", we are well past the point of no return.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:57 | 916528 born2bmild
born2bmild's picture

We have the tools to be free from the state - selfsufficiency.


Sat, 01/29/2011 - 16:03 | 916543 born2bmild
born2bmild's picture

I'm also an old Bill Still fan while we are on the topic

(I know it's been posted here before but it still works)


The Secret of Oz:

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 16:55 | 916646 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

   Increased complexity does not lead to self-sufficiency, it only increases a reliance upon "The "State" to provide the infrastructure to enable the "self-sufficiency". The provider or enablers of the necessary infrastructure become "The State" by default because they are in a position to do so. All history has taught us, that they do so.

Moreover, in such a scenario, I would worried about my "neighbors" eyeing my self-sufficiency to increase their self-sufficiency, if you catch my drift. 

Face it, the problem we face is that roughly 5% of the population are sociopaths that ruin it for everone else. It is how we deal with that 5% defines our society, culture, and finally "The State" itself. Unfortunately, that 5% tends to gravitate into becoming "The State" because that is where the money and power are.


Sat, 01/29/2011 - 17:20 | 916689 born2bmild
born2bmild's picture

I thought my proposals decreased complexity, local everything we need. I live in CA, Reagan turned the 5% out onto the street. If someone wants to eye my self sufficiency I hope they like dogs or the neighbors guns. I hope the state doesn't worry about me growing veggies or fish, I don't even think Rupert Murdoch could convince anyone that is a threat.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 17:33 | 916719 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

  The 5% that Reagan turned out is most definitely not the 5% I am worried about or even referred to. A sociopath is someone that considers only themselves to the point where they feel that it is their right to take whatever they chose regardless of the cost to other people. Wall Street crawls with them. They are takers not creators. Although I am an athiest, Jesus was well aware of them and, for his time, described them to a tee.

  If you think using algae blooms to produce liquid fuel is not "complexity" than I shudder to think what you think is complex.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 17:42 | 916729 born2bmild
born2bmild's picture

There are books already available about doing it yourself or you could just look at the diy vid I posted (there are plenty more). Not sure who's side you are on honestly, unless you are one of those folks that gets overwhelmed at the idea of making pancakes.  I want to help you out but you seem really scared. Good luck to you.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 17:53 | 916750 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

  I am not scared for myself, only others, and when other people get scared, they tend to do really stupid stuff.

I do think that you have a somewhat romantic view of a  "Stateless society", history has shown that things don't always work the way youu think they should. Even the idea of "you and the neighbors" defending yourself smacks of naivete, it ain't gonna be some romantic western.

Lest, you misunderstand me, between my neighbors and I we have the following:



semi-auto 30-06

Desert Eagle

10 or so M-60s (they make a nice boom-boom)

and a few other goodies. God forbid if it ever came to actually needing to use them

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:02 | 916765 born2bmild
born2bmild's picture

Hey buddy, I'm a veteran. It seems like you might have already lost any arms race against the state. Maybe it's time to try something new.



Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:15 | 916785 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

 When the SHTF, I am not going to be worried about the state. I am going to be worried about roving packs of people wanting whatever they think I might have. Unfortunately, there will likely be more of them than any reasonable number of rounds I might have laying around...

If you think that you can create a self-sufficient society, sufficiently armed to defend yourselves, that is fine with me. But consider that one day, someone in your society will convince people that the "little society down the road" is ripe for the picking (or vice-versa). I'll leave it at that.

Nice discussion... we'll do it again sometime.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:28 | 916813 born2bmild
born2bmild's picture

"Face it, the problem we face is that roughly 5% of the population are sociopaths that ruin it for everone else. It is how we deal with that 5% defines our society, culture, and finally "The State" itself. Unfortunately, that 5% tends to gravitate into becoming "The State" because that is where the money and power are."

So you weren't talking about the state? Zombie proofing the home and garden with guns and dogs - check. I'm all for it. It seems prudent to show a lot of people that they can indeed provide for themselves without forming roaming gangs to go loot and pillage.



Sat, 01/29/2011 - 23:57 | 917333 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

I joined an Iphone 4 gang. But we had to disolve because the roaming charges got to be too much.

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 05:32 | 917553 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

When the SHTF, I am not going to be worried about the state. I am going to be worried about roving packs of people wanting whatever they think I might have.


So you will willingfully choose to ignore the lethalest threat on the board game.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 17:35 | 916720 MisesFTW
MisesFTW's picture


Sat, 01/29/2011 - 20:15 | 916993 Hulk
Hulk's picture

Behind every 14kw cold fusion experiment lies a 100kw coal powered generator, just look for the hidden wires...

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 02:25 | 917481 mathdock
mathdock's picture

Arable land (or an equalivalent hydroponic garden) has to have water pure enough to grow things.  The algae example you mention is a good one, provided there is access to "fresh" water (that is, water clean enough to  pull algae waste away), whether filtered/recycled or ready access to an upstream source. 

Some land is arable year-round, particularly in river valleys, while other land is good for a season or two, snowmelt permitting.  The upper US Plains are showing signs of dying soil where part-time arable land is being used full-time--(potassium) salt aggregation in the soil while the aquifer that washed the land recedes.  Until a good soaker (1000-year event) comes in to transport the salts away, the land won't be arable for long. 

The guys and gals working on desalination processes, both large- and small-scale, are the ones doing God's Work on behalf of countries like India and other high-density populations.  Ocean water can be pumped anywhere if need be.  Should we solve the water problem long-term, the food problem is solved at once. 

Population?  Will there be an eschatological wipeout of 1/3, or something approaching that value--self-inflicted, by the way--or will we settle in ZPG at around 10 Billion?  We are thirsty, indeed!


Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:07 | 916408 flaunt
flaunt's picture

No reason to complicate things... There is no "state," there's just a group of people with lots of guns.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:35 | 916454 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

There was plenty of arable land in britain in the 5th through 10 centuries. However a single peasant family is subject to droughts and crop failures, or loss of the head of the household. These idyllic peasant free farmers could not last through the centuries due to the severe consequences of a single crop failure. Gradually they gave up their free status mostly voluntarily since they did not have any other idea as to what to do.  Farmer coops had not been invented yet. It was fairly easy for a Lord Protector in a local area to gain control over the local villeins. They gladly gave up control for food security. In a feudal system both sides had responsibilities. It was the responsibility of the peasants to fight for their lord and provide for the sustenance of the governing classes. It was the responsibility of the Lord Protector to maintain the health and welfare of his subjects. It worked well for a while. People can't just walk away from the system and start farming and hope to survive through the generations in freedom, not then, not now. It takes really smart people to farm. If you don't think so why don't you go try it? Not just anybody can do it and some people will be propertyless workers no matter how much good farmland is available

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 17:10 | 916643 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

Nonsense. The guns are but part (albeit an enormous one) of a monstrous organizational reality with stupendous inertia:

And given how dependent the people have become on it -- whether for jobs or welfare -- they will only extricate themselves from it when it fails to provide one or both.

As it soon will, fortunately, though not without excruciating withdrawal pains.


Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:22 | 916429 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

These are interesting debates and I would encourage people to readl plato's treatise on politics.  This is where the basic definitions come from and it was considered authoritative for about 1500 years.  Enlightenment era reading are also interesting including our founding fathers.  Basically the conclusion of all was that a state was a necessary evil because humans were imperfect.  A state of anarchy cannot exist for long and even in somalia it is not quite as anarchic as people think.  Inevitable some group comes along to fill a power vacuum.  Monopolies on the use of force are also a necessary evil to some extent otherwise there is endlless fighting among various groups vying for power.  No one will leave a peaceful anarchic state alone.    It will either be conquered internally or externally.  Imagine the horrors of a propertyless state with no monopoly on the use of force.  The tragedy of the commons would be repeated endlessly and the loss of whales and apex bird predators from overwhaling and continued use of DDT would be the least of our worries in such a state.  Endless civil wars would occur as various groups fight for control.  The founding fathers had a fairly good compromise but even they knew it was an imperfect solution.  The people could control the arms, yet the states were allowed the monopoly of power through a well regulated militia of the people.  A propertyless state cannot exist because of the paradox of the tragedy of the commons.  Someone or some groups must take stewardship.  It was recognized that the only way to secure your rights of individual liberty was to have some recognition of the rights to property.  It was quite clear then, and it is quite clear now, that those who have some property and some financial means are able to secure their rights more easily.  It is your natural right to have personal liberty and the right to be treated equally under the law, but you are the one that must be vigilant against those who would take advantage and deny your rights.  Class distinctions are inevitable due to our imperfect human nature.  The right to own property and financial means is necessary to help secure one's natural rights against those who would try to take them away.  Monopolies of force are necessary to avoid endless civil war as various charismatic sociopaths fight with each other for power.  Yes it means that poor people have fewer rights.  That has always been the case even in places with communist governments.  Getting rid of private property and chucking the state out the window is not a solution and would bring on much worse horrors.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:42 | 916474 Tad Ghostal
Tad Ghostal's picture

The single greatest barrier to a more peaceful world is the widely held false belief that the initiation of force can ever be legitimate, and therefore must be institutionalized.  False premises will always lead to false conclusions.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:20 | 916796 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

If you are talking about the initiation of force I would agree.  If you are talking about defending liberty against the initiation of force by others, then some organized means of delivering force must be available.  We can't unilaterally disarm.  I wish we could, but the world doesn't work that way.  We can back off our 750 overseas bases and return to our original view of trade with all alliance with none, but we need the means of an organized defense.

Tue, 02/01/2011 - 13:52 | 924277 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

A distributed network defense comprised of multiple independent security provider organizations with similar intent are mighty tuff to beat.  You don't need a centralized and dangeous megga-military to be safe! Little Ireland with less than a million held off a much more populous England for hundreds of years, and kicked the Viking's asses so bad they finally gave up and never returned! It takes the mind of a slave to be a slave. Thus the state's need to control education because those who understand what freedom really is make terrible slaves.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:21 | 916766 MisesFTW
MisesFTW's picture

+1000 TCT

This author sounds like some 50-70 year old dolt tea partier who just isn't smart enough to wrap his or her head around what you just gifted to this commentary.

I've been to the mises institute and some tea party gatherings and some of these people are breathtakingly naieve.



Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:30 | 916817 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

I would consider myself a moderate tea partier who is pro gay and generally anti standing army.  Eisenhower was right about the military industrial complex. The USSR was really a Bangladesh with nuclear weapons, but the military industrial complex frightened the bejesus out of us into spending huge gobs of unnecessary money.  I have studied the history of economics and the rise of settled populations, so I can't be a pure libertarian either.  Pure wild west unregulated free markets don't self regulate over the centuries.  They evolve into rigid caste systems and class groups with little room for meritocracy.  Strange how liberty and a belief in meritocracy plants the seeds of its own destruction.  We need some structures to keep liberty and opportunity alive for all, yet not create moral hazard for the poor by easy unemployment, disability, and welfare.  We need to incentivize productivity without producing dynastic wealth, because that is the beginning of the end of all vigrous and economically dynamic republics

Tue, 02/01/2011 - 14:17 | 924367 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

I don't think you understand the power and security of a highly decentralized network of security and adjudication providers. Anarchic  Ireland was good for at least 1000 years that we know about, and probably much longer than that based on pre-written archaeological history.


The beinning of wealth is understanding, a work ethic, and voluntary cooperation that is mostly safe from predation. The end of wealth is agression and greed that uses the "state" to overpoweer and subjugate the productive. The "state" is an invention of those who choose to live by deception, stealing, and force. When a human does it to an animal it is called farming. When a human does it to a human it is called a "state".




Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:23 | 916797 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

"Monopolies on the use of force are also a necessary evil to some extent otherwise there is endlless fighting among various groups vying for power."

You obviously didn't read AnonymousAnarchist's post above (#916319) and the link that puts the lie to that and any number of other rationalizations for the state:

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:51 | 916848 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

I have read it and sympathisize with anarchy.  It is a utopia in many respects that we should all strive for.  However his fundamental thesis that people naturally seek to find peaceful solutions is false.  just ask Genghis Khan.  There are tons of charimatic sociopaths out there, a vestige of a very dark evolutionary past when times were really tough and it made sense for group survival to pit themselves against each other, or against other groups who believed that all arguments could be settled peacefully. 


Until the sociopaths are gone and until structures are in place so people can feel secure that they don't have to face the choices that occasionally occur, when one has to take advantage of another individual to survive, then the utopia of anarchy cannot exist, and any group who tries it now will be plundered.  It is an all or nothing proposition.  either the entire world evolves to a point where anarchy is suitable, or we live with imperfect governance.  It's like matter and anti-matter.  You cannot stop the sociopaths without organized force, whether they produce DDT, kill whales, or like to capture all the women and keep them to themselves.

Tue, 02/01/2011 - 15:13 | 924432 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

A society with non-monopoly security and justice/arbitration serivices is not a utopia, it is a highly effective means of building  a stable society that is quite resilient. You seem to be ignorant of voluntarist Ireland or Iceland. Whether you realize it or not you are spouting some of your statist mind programing.  Know yourself!

Tue, 02/01/2011 - 14:27 | 924406 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

Excellent link that brings up the central point that the political criminal class always seeks to corrupt the victim's capacity to think by corruption of language. This is one reason why I always use the term "voluntarism" instead of anarchy since what people have been brainwashed to think when they hear word "anarchy" does not correspond to a free market in governmental type services.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:27 | 916811 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

@ TopCallingTroll

"Getting rid of private property and chucking the state out the window is not a solution and would bring on much worse horrors"

Agree on keeping private property but on the second there is no worse horror than the State. How many false wars does this delusional murderous struture have to start before it sinks in: the State is the enemy within and the enemy outside too. 

The State is a monopoly power structure that not only attracts murderous scum but actually grows it by being detached from humanity (the street). Hitler and Stalin would not have been able to kills millions if the State apparatus was not in place. They didn't have the money to fund their own wars on their own people and abroad.

Remove the State and 90% of problems disappear because the dangerous scum in every society has no structural support.

Government, "democratic government" is a fraud. As a structure it is more than past its sell-by-date. It has proven to be the biggest criminal on the planet. Criminal in both the thieving role and the murderous role.

We as a society have moved on. We are self-sufficient and we have always been self-regulating. Government is a bankrupt structure. Enough already.

Freedom & Free Markets 

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:39 | 916831 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

how do you protect private property and regulate for the common good without a state?   Let's suppose the majority decide that they like whales.  How do they keep a minority from killing them off?  Or continuing to produce DDT?  How do you protect people from a group of sociopaths who just wish to take over by force? 

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:57 | 916855 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Whatever your fears about sick people, the ratchet of State power breeds those fears, funds those sickos, provides a power structure and indeed the weapons for those sickos.

So point 1. Removing the State apparatus REDUCES all fears of sick people running rampant in society. It reduces the funding, it reduces the support of public servents, it removes the military from misuse.

You bring up pesticide DDT, a perfect example of the State committing genocide. The ban on DDT in the 60's based on a book by an ignorant shrill environmentalist Rachel Carson has CAUSED 60 to 100 million deaths worldwide fro a preventable disease, Maleria.

 Up until the 60's before Govts worldwide banned DDT or bribed 3rd World Countries not to use it in return for aid Malaria was almost snuffed out by harmless cheap brilliant and effective DDT spraying. After the Govts ban deaths soared in the 3rd World, mainly poor women and their children.

The total deaths as mentioned range from 60 to 100 million preventable deaths, a murderous death toll greater than Hitler, Stalin and Maos murderous regimes combined.

"Democratic" Governments committed this global genocide based on fraudulent research and pure fuking ignorance (both rampant in Govt structures).  

So Point 2. Removing the Government structure REMOVES the breeding of ignorance and the distribution throughout society.

2 overwhelming reasons we should shut down Government forever

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 19:04 | 916871 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

I don't care if other countries use DDT, but I kinda like our DDT free state.  We don't need it in the goold ole USA.  YOu didn't mention the whales?  How do we save the whales?  Illiteracy is common when government structure is removed, or when it is enforced to maintain a hierarchy, and an illiterate subgroup in the population will naturally create a hierarchy.  I don't think that all human ills, foibles, and weaknesses are caused by the state.  Your assumption is that this is all secondary to a state apparatus.  I reject that assumption.  There is no way to test our beliefs unfortunately.  Human nature can be improved no doubt, but I think we are a long way from the utopia of anarchy.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 19:30 | 916915 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture


So you "like" the ban on DDT in the USA. That was not the point. Here's the point: the ban killed up to 100 million men, women and children across the world from Malaria which was almost extinct from its spraying. What do you "like" about that?

You ask "what about the whales?"

If you don't mind you seem more worried about whales than 100 million humans dying in the biggest act of environmental caused genocide in human history. How about if they'd murdered 100 million whales, would it sink into your fuked up little mind then?? 

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 19:08 | 916876 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

  Umm... so what is the balance against corporate power? And how is that power exercised? For the record, we have the worst of all worlds in that the government has been co-opted by the corperations. Figure out how to unravel that mess and get back to me.

   BTW, banning DDT is one of the most sane things we have ever done.


Sat, 01/29/2011 - 19:26 | 916906 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture


There is nothing "sane" about banning DDT. It prevents preventable deaths fro Malaria. It has no ecological side effects or danger to humans. It is harmless to us and ecology, it stops Maleria.

What is "sane" about banning a product that could have prevented up to 100 million (preventable) deaths buddy boy??? 

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 19:35 | 916921 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

  No ecological side

  As a certain Minister of Propaganda once said (and I paraphrase)

"When you lie, make sure it is big one. People see through the small lies but not the big ones"

And I ain't your buddy boy, I am trying to keep a civil tone, but I can't help the urge to tell you go back and masterbate to Ayn Rand.

That's it I am out....

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 20:08 | 916976 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture


You "like" the US ban on DDT but you don't know why! Just for your info a Propaganda Minister talks BS which is precisely what you're involved in because you've no evidence on DDT while slating one of the finest pesticides EVER discovered in history (it was awarded a Noble Prize for its contribution to humanity). So you're not only ignoring brilliant work, not only ignoring it could have prevented 100 million deaths, you're actually 'deciding' you prefer not to have it based on sweet f.a. If there's a definition for making ignorant decisions I can't find a better one than you.

The only thing worse than you is the actual worldwide Government ban on DDT spraying which is the very pinnacle of ignorance from that pinnacle of distributing ignorance, the institution called "democratic Government".

And in this vessel, this ratchet, this toilet for parasitical scum in society we find one of the greatest strains of scum, environmentalists. Who for 60 years have made the Iraqi Propaganda Minister look like a Saint and speaker of truth compared to their non-stop shite.

Because nobody can match the abject ignorance, contempt for evidence, both scientific and economic, nor match their bleating trumpeting of absolute BS like these delusional anti-man anti-everything parasites.  

I simply cannot wait for the day Govt goes bankrupt and puts these ignorant useless whaling retards in the gutter where they belong. Bring on the Depression

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 20:35 | 917030 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

This is only what DDT does to people, it does not include what it does to animals and raptors- from wikipedia:

Chronic toxicity [edit]Diabetes

Organochlorine compounds, generally, and DDT and DDE, specifically, have been linked to diabetes. A number of studies from the US, Canada, and Sweden have found that the prevalence of the disease in a population increases with serum DDT or DDE levels.[48][49][50][51][52][53]

[edit]Developmental and reproductive toxicity

DDT and DDE, like other organochlorines, have been shown to have xenoestrogenic activity, meaning they are chemically similar enough to estrogens to trigger hormonal responses in animals. Thisendocrine disrupting activity has been observed in mice and rat toxicological studies, and available epidemiological evidence indicates that these effects may be occurring in humans as a result of DDT exposure. The US Environmental Protection Agency states that DDT exposure damages the reproductive system and reduces reproductive success. These effects may cause developmental and reproductive toxicity:; padding: 0px;">
  • A review article in The Lancet states, "research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning ... toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation."[22]
  • Human epidemiological studies suggest that exposure is a risk factor for premature birth and low birth weight, and may harm a mother's ability to breast feed.[54] Some 21st century researchers argue that these effects may increase infant deaths, offsetting any anti-malarial benefits.[55] A 2008 study, however, failed to confirm the association between exposure and difficulty breastfeeding.[56]
  • Several recent studies demonstrate a link between in utero exposure to DDT or DDE and developmental neurotoxicity in humans. For example, a 2006 University of California, Berkeley study suggests that children exposed while in the womb have a greater chance of development problems,[57] and other studies have found that even low levels of DDT or DDE in umbilical cord serum at birth are associated with decreased attention at infancy[58] and decreased cognitive skills at 4 years of age.[59] Similarly, Mexican researchers have linked first trimester DDE exposure to retardedpsychomotor development.[60]
  • Other studies document decreases in semen quality among men with high exposures (generally from IRS).[61][62][63]
  • Studies generally find that high blood DDT or DDE levels do not increase time to pregnancy (TTP.)[64] There is some evidence that the daughters of highly exposed women may have more difficulty getting pregnant (i.e. increased TTP).[65]
  • DDT is associated with early pregnancy loss, a type of miscarriage. A prospective cohort study of Chinese textile workers found "a positive, monotonic, exposure-response association between preconception serum total DDT and the risk of subsequent early pregnancy losses."[66] The median serum DDE level of study group was lower than that typically observed in women living in homes sprayed with DDT.[67]
  • A Japanese study of congenital hypothyroidism concluded that in utero DDT exposure may affect thyroid hormone levels and "play an important role in the incidence and/or causation ofcretinism."[68] Other studies have also found the DDT or DDE interfere with proper thyroid function.[69][70]
It seems to be something more than what you are giving it credit for.



Sat, 01/29/2011 - 21:01 | 917067 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

  There you go, clouding a perfectly good discussion with facts... :)

I suppose the response will be "these were government funded studies and it is all part of a conspiracy to stifle the free markets"


Sat, 01/29/2011 - 23:27 | 917287 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Shean7k  and   Flakmeister

Your 'research' shows DDT "might" cause this and "could" cause that. I can see the pain, I hear your research, bit flakey with the words. So here's my research, actually it's more than that, its fuking REALITY:

60,000,000  to 100,000,000 people DEAD from a preventable disease (Malaria) - 1960's - 2011

How does your flakey "maybe" research threats stack up to actual GENOCIDE of Tens of Millions of real people you fuking brain dead retarded environmenalists???






Sat, 01/29/2011 - 23:58 | 917334 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Malaria is not a new disease. It has been around since mosquitos. 

You want to save one genetically weak group, while you imperil a genetically superior population with DDT. This is shortsighted. 

Further, it is not the only cure for malaria. Quinine is very effective and much safer.

Finally, the damage to raptors and animals is well documented. They share this planet and are important for all species in terms of diversity.

You write as if it is genocide. It isn't. All parts of the world have diseases- many are preventable. Heck, outlaw smoking. That will save more Americans than any other treatment.

Life is dangerous. It is more dangerous when you poison the planet.


Sun, 01/30/2011 - 00:14 | 917347 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture


What is MORE dangerous; "may cause" depleted sperm or "actual" 60,000,000 deaths?

"Quinine is very effective"... no it isn't (reality check) 60,000,000 have DIED while DDT has been banned and Quinine has been around. Face facts it's as useless as you are.

"the damage to raptors and animals is well documented.." birds were fed daily doses of DDT 2,000 times the levels they'd receive in the wild and there was NO effects. What's good for birds is good for all ecology (inc. man). All claims against DDT are white noise, you enviros are expert at it (and whitewash) to cover your complete pig ignorance of everything you've cried about for 60 years.

"Life is dangerous" yes life's never been more dangerous to the tune of 60,000,000 deaths because the State is ignorant and rotten and they listen to enviromentlist pressure groups who hate man and put birds above human life. And look what you're RESPONSIBLE FOR?

Genocide. Jail. Long (life) terms. For EVERYONE involved. US Govt, EPA, Rachel Carson, UN, World Health Org. All in the slammer for killing people. For the deaths of 60,000,000 innocent people that could have been PREVENTED. Let's take you fuking murderous genocidal parasites out 

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 00:42 | 917376 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

First, let's document the 60 million deaths and give a timeline- please use a source.

Please document the failure of quinine.

The raptors were dying in the wild. It was not testing, the Bald Eagle almost disappeared.

The claims are better documented then anything you've posted.

The funniest claim is in your other posts. You want no state intervention, but you seem to feel the state is responsible to create a cure and vaccinate people?

It is obvious you have an iron in the fire here. Your rant is incoherent at the end. You want to blame the world for a common infliction in the tropics. You want to poison my world to save yours- sorry, they can move. They can create their own cure. They can legalize DDT for themselves. Oh wait, why don't we just blame someone else? 

Quinine has been used in unextracted form by Europeans since at least the early 17th century. Quinine was first used to treat malaria in Rome in 1631.[2]During the 17th century, malaria was endemic to the swamps and marshes surrounding the city of Rome. Malaria was responsible for the death of severalpopes, many cardinals and countless common Roman citizens. Most of the priests trained in Rome had seen malaria victims and were familiar with theshivering brought on by the febrile phase of the disease. The Jesuit brother Agostino Salumbrino (1561–1642), an apothecary by training who lived in Lima, observed the Quechua using the bark of the cinchona tree for that purpose. While its effect in treating malaria (and hence malaria-induced shivering) was unrelated to its effect in controlling shivering from rigors, it was still a successful medicine for malaria. At the first opportunity, Salumbrino sent a small quantity to Rome to test as a malaria treatment. In the years that followed, cinchona bark was known as Jesuit's bark and became one of the most valuable commodities shipped from Peru to Europe.



Sun, 01/30/2011 - 00:46 | 917384 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture


The deaths are 'documented' and so are the bird  tests on DDT. The clue in the recorded Malaria deaths in 3rd World Countries is that they climbed immediately after DDT spraying was banned, from a point of almost complete success (irradication) while DDT was being used.

So, the health authorities SAW with their OWN EYES Malaria deaths spiralling out of control since the removal of DDT. Here's the question for you:

Should the Govt and Health officials be taken to court for genocide and jailed for CAUSING millions of preventable deaths from Govt policy? 

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 00:49 | 917390 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Listen up pinhead. Let's deal with REALITY, 60-100 million actual preventable deaths. Not your list of possible unproven side-effects of DDT. Can you get your head round reality? Deal with the deaths, not the threat of catching a cold or a reduced sperm count but actual rising death tolls running into Tens of Millions as Govt employees must have seen happening.

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 02:45 | 917490 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Well, if they're documented, then you can find them. Until then, you're just slinging shit and hoping it sticks. Now, grow up and do your due diligence and support your argument.

This site will help you. According to it there are one million deaths per year out of 250 million cases. These are estimates as the documentation is poor. Your numbers seem a little exagerated or they are for 60 to 100 years. 

Of course, these cases are concentrated in an area of the globe that could use DDT, without affecting us, yet they don't. You fail to address this fact. 

While it is an unfortunate tragedy, it is not my tragedy. It appears it is yours- I hope you are doing something about it- or do you just complain how government doesn't do it for you?


Sun, 01/30/2011 - 02:50 | 917497 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Here is another site: It has additional information and additional treatments that are used. It is presently found in two countries in North and Central America- Costa Rica and Belize. Sorry, no DDT.

Tue, 02/01/2011 - 15:37 | 924719 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

If it can be shown with convincing evidence that the use of DDT has caused traceable damage to any party, in a free market for adjudication the injured party(s) has no interference from a monopoly state to seek adjudication/arbitration for damages.  The more folks damaged, the bigger the problem for anyone who would damage another through the use of a substance if it is dangerous and if there is a free market in adjudication so that the rich and powerful cannot hind behind government law and regulations or just plain government corruption to evade restitution and full responsibility for their conduct. In a voluntarist society there in a great incentives for parties to make double sure they do not harm others for there is no law to hide behind and no "limit of liability" if they are a "corporation" either. 

Tue, 02/01/2011 - 15:25 | 924656 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

I don't think you are grasping that what ever you think a state can do for you can be done cheaper, more efficiently, and safer with a non-monopoly service provider.  Need security from thieves? This is a type of service.  You buy it from a specialist provider of security if you need it.  Need to resolve a dispute?  Take it to your PREFERED justice or arbitration service.  That's how it worked for over a 1000 years in Ireland. It works great.  You "fire" your service provider if they get any nasty ideas like involuntary taxation, outlawing the competition, acting like a criminal, trying to force you to use their monopoly money, etc, etc.  What you think you need from a state, you do not need a state to provide.  Once you get it the light bulb will go on in your mind.  You think it can't work? It can and does, just do your homework to learn about it!

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 05:34 | 917555 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

I am the King and here's why I should be King.



Sun, 01/30/2011 - 12:41 | 917792 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

This is a pretty typical statist argument. I would offer an alternative and a quick history lesson.

Plato was an elite within his society. He believed in democracy for the elites. The slave class was assumed as it was assumed you would always have one. This changes dramatically, the thrust of Plato's thesis. This is probably why Plato's is taught as it is taught in university- as an "everyman's philosopher". Seen against this backdrop, his beliefs are nothing more than a way to keep the elites from killing each other. A method of stabilizing their rule and taking every advantage of their slaves.


In modern society, common man still has to fight against this democracy of elites to hold onto his rights. 

IMHO, it is the monopoly of power that is the problem in your argument. There is no reason a community cannot create a local police or volunteer police to protect itself from marauders. Further, there is no reason the private market cannot create a common law judicial practice for the protection of private property.

However, rather than destruct the argument for community rule or anarcho capitalism, let us look at what we have: Can you deny the failure of our present system of statism? Can you give examples where it has not transferred our wealth to a small minority? Can you demonstrate how the judicial system acts in a fair and impartial manner? Can you point to a fair system of policing? Where the police are responsive to the people only?

The problem with your argument, is the same problem presented over and over: you argue for the continuation of failure in the face of the untried and untested. You parse that somehow you can perfect and change failure.

Social and political evolution require the development of new methodologies. More important, the COURAGE to attempt them, learn from our mistakes and refine a better community. It is neither easy nor safe. 

Still, what we are presently doing is clearly not working unless you are part of the democracy of elites. 

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:20 | 916432 Tad Ghostal
Tad Ghostal's picture

So many dashes . . . 

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:26 | 916447 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

Tyler is.

I get the feeds and understand that ZH is a 'club'.

This is true only because Tyler expends his Freedom, his Liberty, his TIME:

HIMSELF in organizing around the simple demand of being true.

Freedom demands honesty and honesty demands freedom.

ZH is the spark that revolutions are made of.


Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:40 | 916832 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture


Truth does not spark revolutions, oppression and economic decay spark revolutions.

The only "truth" uprisings hold is they want the scum off their backs. That is not a truth, that is wanting a system change. The Russian Revolution did not spark truth, it transited one sack of elite scum for another sack of oppressive communist scum. The people fought for change but they lost, a new parasitical scum was amongst them (Stalin, Lennon et al).

The only change we need is to remove Government, the parasites of societies favourite tool and weapon of choice. Democracy is dead, it is bankrupt.

When revolution comes, we must change the system, not the faces.

Government 1,500BC-201? RIP

A Free Society & Free Markets: two structures proven through time and all events to work 

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:33 | 916457 americanspirit
americanspirit's picture

Government as it exists today is no longer the state - it is simply a criminal conspiracy enforced by violence.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:36 | 916464 Atch Logan
Atch Logan's picture

Superb article.  Look forward to sequels.

Finally, someone has put forth something most can read and understand to show that America is really just a mythical concept, boyed up by eletist bull shit and the idea of Manefest Destiny, ha ha ha.

The problem, really, is not understanding this, it is finding a way to deal with the problem.  Historically, change comes through crises: the problem is who creates the change from crises.  In our case, crises was created by our central bankers and their poodles like the Bushes and Obama. In our case, the same people are using the crises to reinforce their policies, strengthen a police state, and further suppress a doped down and self indulgent public.

I refuse to believe that the answer lies in the concept of "community" or some idea that we all need to come together in a heart-warming embrace, sharing our gardens, loving one another and lovingly spreading our stashes around to the sound of Boccherini's guitar concertos. 

Pointing out the problem, as in here, is good.  But what in the hell do we do about it.  We got an idea from the Irish and we are getting a better education from the Egyptians, but where are our balls?

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 15:49 | 916500 Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture


Sat, 01/29/2011 - 16:49 | 916637 JS1234
JS1234's picture

What?  Did freshman sociology class get out early today?  Please spare us this ridiculous nonsense.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 17:33 | 916694 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

Point me to a freshman sociology class -- any sociology class -- that teaches this. And in the highly unlikely event that you can, how many Americans, much less the rest of the world's people, have taken it, much less internalized it.

Please spare us your ridiculous nonsense.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 17:36 | 916722 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

 Critical thinking is a truly lost art. Anyone who pursues it is branded an liberal left-wing intellectual by those people whose greatest fear is an informed open discussion of the real issues facing this country.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:17 | 916789 MisesFTW
MisesFTW's picture

Seriously? This article is egregious. 

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:26 | 916810 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

 I was not commenting on the article... merely a statement of fact.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:38 | 916835 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

Why, because it zeros in on the fatal flaw in Mises' otherwise brilliant work? I'm a great Mises fan myself, but I gagged when I first encountered this obvious contradiction.  I mean, what do its defenders care if the state is inherently evil? If it's necessary, it's necessary. So shut up and deal with it.


Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:26 | 916808 Zina
Zina's picture

So? What are you defending here? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism? The polemics between the two ideologies are on the Wiki:

Personally, I think both ideologies are bullshit. The mere existence of the State is far from being the biggest problem to humanity.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 18:55 | 916859 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

good post.  Good reference.  I learn something every day from zero hedge.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 20:55 | 917057 AnonymousAnarchist
AnonymousAnarchist's picture

Here is the state. Support it or don't. But don't pretend it's something that it's not. You can "believe" the state is necessary (just as many believe religion is necessary) but that's all it is. A "belief".

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 19:21 | 916883 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

@  Zina

Name me your 2 or 3 biggest problems with humanity and I'll explain how the State has a hand in them all.

Here's what the monpoly power structure of the State is currently involved in:

1. Genocide: Western and worldwide "democratic" Govts ban on pesticide DDT spraying has killed (murdered?) 60 to 100 million people (mainly poor women and their children) in Third World countries from Malaria since the 1960's. This is the single biggest act of genocide on a global scale in human history. It has largely gone unreported and worse nobody has been held to account for this entirely preventable (and still ongoing) genocide.

2. Two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, both contravening UN Laws set up after the Nuremburg trials that a country only has a right to attack when defending its own security (neither Iraq nor Afghanistan threatened the US or UK)

3. Govt is involved throughout the Western world in perverting free competitive markets on behalf of corporate monopolists through regulation to prevent free market competition. Almost no industry is left untouched from regulation of small and medium sized business including the tax code which taxes the small and gives breaks to Big Corps. This costs $Trillions in wealth destruction and more expensive products to citizens

4. Govt supports big banking interests, see Wall Street, European and Japanese bailouts, here again corrupting free markets working where dinosaurs (and frauds) should go bust allowing new vibrant entrants. Again costing society $Trillions 

Enuf already???

There is simply no other structure that has caused so much death, oppression, wealth destruction and misery than the monopoly power structure that is the State.

The only 2 structures that have worked best throughout time and in any environment is a free society and free markets.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 19:20 | 916894 gwar5
gwar5's picture

The Federal Reserve system is the power behind our "state" illusion of self government

Foreign and domestic policy is being made and determined by the central bankers

We're just along for the ride and to pay the bills and fight the wars.




Sat, 01/29/2011 - 19:59 | 916963 michael.suede
michael.suede's picture

Looks like half of zero hedge are statists.

I find this surprising.

I figured anyone enlightened enough to read zero hedge would be against having a gang of robber barons lord over their lives.

Then again, perhaps the people that dislike this story are robber barons themselves.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 20:23 | 917004 Eman Laer
Eman Laer's picture


Amazon Boobs, Ancient Gods and the End of Evil

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 20:23 | 917007 Ckierst1
Ckierst1's picture

"...the American state, both before and after its founding, was a model of conquest and subjugation – not only of the continent’s native inhabitants and the millions of others imported from another continent but of the human detritus endlessly washing up on its shores."


To these must be added those states of the old union that elected to secede prior to the War to Prevent Southern Independence.  Liberty shall rise again!

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 20:26 | 917009 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture


they have not realised the problem is Govt, its monopoly power structure... like the Tea Party movement, like the Russian and French Revolutions went to waste, as the Egyptian will too.

Each time it happens and we clear away the Alien beings of 'Big Govt', along come the Revolutionaries with "small Govt" as the 'solution'. All they're doing is carrying baby Aliens in their chests about to burst their way out and start the same process of building Big Govt up again which is absolutely fuking mindless

It is not the faces that needs changing, it's the system. Big Govt replaced not with small Govt but by no Govt. We need to replace the monopoly power structure not with a smaller version but a free competitive system. Not one bunch of parasites changed for a new bunch of parasites. But a free society and free markets with power distributed to people for them to decide. That is surely the most democratic, people power, not elite power, market and consumer driven, not carved up between parasitical elites  

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 21:04 | 917072 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

  So, lets get rid of government and replace it with corporations. Yeah, thats the ticket. You are intellectually bankrupt and naive if you believe even a quarter of what you write.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 21:18 | 917095 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

Corporations are one thing; corporatism is another:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Big Business is impossible without Big Government, in other words, and you would be well advised to understand the difference.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 21:28 | 917124 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

  Aside from semantics, I fail to see any difference whatsoever between what we said... The rise of corporations preceded the rise of big government in this country.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 21:45 | 917150 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

Once again, then, from the article:

"The first fortunes on the virgin continent were out-and-out political creations – huge tracts of [conquered] land and lucrative trading privileges arbitrarily bestowed by the British and Dutch crowns upon favorite individuals and companies. ... The early royal grants … were the sole property titles of the newly created landed aristocrats."

The state is corporatist by its very nature, in other words, the only question being how overt the connection. Socialism? Fascism? Take your pick. Or better, combine the two into this lovely brew:

The state, regardless of its form, can kiss my ass.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 23:37 | 917310 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Dick Buttkiss

Couldn't agree more. Big Govt props up Big Corpse. These dinosaurs left alone in the free competitive market would be ripped to shreds without the protection racket that is Big Govt.

Fears about Big Corps taking over a free society just don't understand their fear is fueled entirely by the Big Corps we have now, most of whom would disappear in short order if the free market was allowed to operate and smaller faster operators were allowed to shred these dinosaurs to pieces.

Fascism, that's where we are now. Big Govt propping up and protecting big fat lazy Corp dinosaurs who cannot compete and need Govts aid (screwing our money and our freedom and markets) to keep these national and global parasites alive.  

Fuk these fascist parasites 

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 21:39 | 917142 Fix It Again Timmy
Fix It Again Timmy's picture

In Western Society, it seems that sociopaths have the inherent qualities [a type of brain chemistry the result of genetic makeup] required to rise to positions of power in corporations or government - if that indeed is the case, our future looks very dim...

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 22:25 | 917227 Double down
Double down's picture

Junivile garbage, the stuff taught in kindergarten designed to be dismissed by an adult.

Please grow up

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 23:24 | 917295 vanderrook
vanderrook's picture

Free Radical,


(Love the handle, by the way...)

Great series of posts; you sir have a terrific grasp on law and the State. My compliments- most do not understand the root of all the bullshit is the "law makers".

I reached the conclusion a few years back that democracy was a false "religion", the Constitution was our religious artifact, and the very act of voting was a criminal act; each time voting is engaged in, all it does is take rights or property from someone by force, which is immoral; which makes the State- in ANY of it's forms- a criminal enterprise.

Kudos, sir.

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 23:58 | 917321 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

so you worked out the voters who did not vote were actually sane, and the ones who did were completely insane? ponzi GOP... vote ponzi Dems.... same insane ponzi whichever way you vote!!

Bernie Madoff's a total amateur compared to the Washington and European parasites

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 00:14 | 917351 Mark Noonan
Mark Noonan's picture

The State grew out of the human necessities of cooperation and security.  We must cooperate in order to live, and we must protect ourselves from marauders.  To say that the State, as a thing, is never anything but a conspiracy to despoil betrays an absolute ignorance of human history.

This is not to say that all States are good States.  There is something astounding in the way the States which rule in places like China and the Middle East are able to maintain control over servile populations for so long (this week's revolutionary ferment in Egypt is a bit of a departure from the normal behavior).  But States grow out of a human requirement - and there must always be a State in some fashion.


Sun, 01/30/2011 - 00:22 | 917360 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Mark Noonan

You say, "To say that the State, as a thing, is never anything but a conspiracy to despoil betrays an absolute ignorance of human history"

Fine, if this is a democracy release the financial penalties and then criminal threats and then the imprisonment (removal of our freedom) by removing the income tax authority. If this is a democracy we should have the right to choose (ie, power) wether we support the State and have our owbn decision on what our budget is.

Then the parasites have to please us. Listen to us. Instead of this extortion as it stands  

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 23:16 | 919186 Mark Noonan
Mark Noonan's picture


We don't live in a democracy - and, trust me on this, you never want to.  There is no perfect form of govermment, but the American experience gets us as close as we'll ever get.  Mixed in to our system - quite deliberately by the Founders - is monarchy, oligarchy and democracy; the whole being so ham strung that it is impossible for any one person or group to gain absolute power.  But even this sublime system is capable of being messed up - as we can see.  But if we simply return back to it, things will get much better.  But never perfect.

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 05:48 | 917557 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

People need security against criminals and adjudication of disputes.  These are services. There is nothing magic about these services.  These services need not be provided by a monopoly provider in a given geographical area (what you call the "state"). Instead of paying taxes against your will you can purchase security and adjudication services from who you trust. No elections, instant accountability, perfect maintenance of power by the people and their "power of the purse", no attempts by a monopoly of force to out-law free market money (usually gold and silver), and no incentive for criminals to capture the power of "government" as they always try to when the  "state" is a monopoly  of force that can criminally force its will against non-criminal people.

In a free market of governmental type services any entity that provides security or adjudication services that goes criminal finds it has no customers, or just a few - the criminals (a small minority), and that is not going to sustain them and they will instantly find they are in conflict with all the security providers that remain servants to their non-criminal customers.

Please study up on voluntarism.  For a historical example, Ireland before the British conquest had free markets in adjudication services (Brehon law) and free market in security services, what historians refer to as a network of "kings" or "tuatha", but kings who could loose their customers instantly if they behaved like criminals, and who faced greater penalties for breach of Brehon law as they were considered privileged due to their position. Any free person who could obtain enough "customers" could become a "king" under this system. 


Here are some links to expand your awareness of the issue:


To get a historical perspective on most of known "state"  history you can check out:

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 23:20 | 919195 Mark Noonan
Mark Noonan's picture


And it was Ireland's inability to develope a rational form of government which led to the English conquest.  Same thing happened in Poland.  A State is necessary because cooperation is necessary, as is collective defense.  The problem with the State is not inherent in it, but inherent in human beings - excellently pointed out in this thread is that we are Fallen; the least conception of Original Sin would clear up a lot of cob webs these days. You're dealing with people - you, too, are flawed...count yourself lucky if once or twice a year you're not mistaken on everything.  I don't trust you, either.  But I have to work with you - and so you and I shall form a State and we'll limit its power in order to limit our mutual abilty to mess each other up...but it will also be strong enough so that if a third party comes along to despoil us, we can defend ourselves.

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 23:20 | 919196 Mark Noonan
Mark Noonan's picture


And it was Ireland's inability to develope a rational form of government which led to the English conquest.  Same thing happened in Poland.  A State is necessary because cooperation is necessary, as is collective defense.  The problem with the State is not inherent in it, but inherent in human beings - excellently pointed out in this thread is that we are Fallen; the least conception of Original Sin would clear up a lot of cob webs these days. You're dealing with people - you, too, are flawed...count yourself lucky if once or twice a year you're not mistaken on everything.  I don't trust you, either.  But I have to work with you - and so you and I shall form a State and we'll limit its power in order to limit our mutual abilty to mess each other up...but it will also be strong enough so that if a third party comes along to despoil us, we can defend ourselves.

Mon, 01/31/2011 - 01:04 | 919409 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

No it's not necessary. It's really simple. You don't co-create with people who don't have the same goals as you. If you don't have the same goals as good voluntary people who seek to live in peace with each other then you can either hang on to the planet and we'll leave or you can adopt the same goals.

The king model of organization has been done to death for 5250 years. It's over. It's got no will to go on. It's creative fuel is spent, pissed away on stupid fruits of it's foul labors. God just can't make us chickens and keep on fucking us. I mean gather us under his big benevolent wing like the little chics we are. However it's spun these days.

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 02:34 | 917485 MisesFTW
MisesFTW's picture

Mark Noonan & TopCallingTroll

Kudos for an attempt on this article.

The anarchists or zero government types fill these comment sections with their emotion not their intellect. When an attempt on making a profound journey into a topic deep as this, government or the state should be looked at objectively for what it is and should not be connected to the author's or commentor's current emotions of being jobless, taxed, robbed, or whatever........ Emotion is blinding. Zerohedge's own, CD, has some nice work on this.

Sure the current government isn't the republic it was inteded to be. However, at one point it was. Duh? Once you can accept all governments, virtuous or sinnister, organically morph into something drastically different from it's original framework, you can understand why this article is intolerable. The U.S. Constitution should be conspicuous evidence of the desirability of the state. 'We can do it better than those taxing oppressive assholes.'

There most likely will never be a 'good' form of government as we humans are fallen. Atheists, you know what i mean. So take the good with the bad and realize it's never going to be perfect. Until we get rid of that damn scarcity of time and resources problem, there are always going to be poor and rich, oppressed and elite, princes and paupers.

Stateless societies are said to occupy most of human history. Most of that history was spent dicking around chasing animals with spears. So by all means, return to this gilded era if you must.

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 03:44 | 917526 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Humans are not fallen they are beaten down. We are forcibly included into a pyramid reality. The people on top are not ascended or better. They are just meaner and bigger dicks.

Now you look at that pyramid. Everybody above the merchant class is a lying stealing abusive fucktard, everybody below it is your fucking superiors moraly ethically and intellectually.

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 23:23 | 919204 Mark Noonan
Mark Noonan's picture


No, we're Fallen...of course, its hard to explain this to some one who is convinced otherwise.  Mostly because this requires explaining to the non-believer that he really is rather creepy, even though he might think himself a swell fellow.  And it doesn't help that those of us who understand readily admit to our own one likes another person to tell them they're messed up and need lots and lots of help just to be minimally decent (once again, because the non-believer already thinks himself a capital fellow; certainly much better than Creep X whom everyone agrees is a cad).

But, if you'll just think honestly about your life for a bit and start to write down each time you remember not being absolutely patient with idiots, you'll swiftly realize that there's a flaw in you...

Mon, 01/31/2011 - 00:53 | 919381 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Ya that's cute. Unfortunately as we decend to the end every channel of memory will open. The 10th channel popped open last year. The 11th channel will pop open this year. The 12th channel will pop open next year.

Are you trying to chain me to a perfection treadmill that never ends? Good luck with that preacher.

Ye are under the law until I perfect you and make you a law breaking abusing motherfucker. Sorry no slots left for the law breaking abusing motherfuckers. We got plenty. Or so we thought.

I'm really really comfortable with who and what I am. I'm talking really comfortable. But thanks for trying to help me be more self loathing. I appreciate that preacher man. I think I'll go read ONE fucking book and teach out of it for the low low price of a mcmansion and whatever hookers I can hide from congegration. Or are you the really creepy preacher type that molests little boys?




Sun, 01/30/2011 - 09:22 | 917639 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

To all of you who believe that government (the state) is necessary:

Supporters of government claim that government is necessary to provide the fundamental rules that bring order to human life in society. Without government to create rules of law, they contend, human beings are unable to banish violence and coordinate their actions sufficiently to produce a peaceful and prosperous society, and hence, are doomed to a Hobbesian existence that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

The proper response to this is: look around. Those of us residing in the United States or any of the British Commonwealth countries live under an extremely sophisticated and subtle scheme of rules, very few of which were created by government. Since almost none of the rules that bring peace and order to our existence were created by government, little argument should be required to establish that government is not necessary to create such rules. On the contrary, it is precisely the rules that were created by government that tend to undermine peace and order.

Read the entire essay. You'll be glad you did.

Mon, 01/31/2011 - 10:05 | 919927 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

   If you have read carefully what I have written, not once have I defended "The State". I only point out the inevibility of its rise. You must explain how you counter that, how you have checks and balances to control those that would create a state to serve their ends. (notice the the intrinsic tautology) Otherwise, you are engaging in wishful thinking and blind to the true nature of humans.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!