The Government you Deserve?

How do you guys feel about the statement, "You get the government you deserve?".

I've felt this way for awhile, at least to some extent. After finishing The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo, I was pretty much convinced.

The institutions of our society are a direct result of human action in the past. If you view the Market as the institution within which all human beings voluntarily trade and associate with each other, then its not implausible to say that our ancestors freely chose the state's deprivations over liberty.

If this is true, then I think it has profound implications for the future of liberty as well as the human race.

It's absurd on the face of it.

liege:

The institutions of our society are a direct result of human action in the past.

Which actions, and by whom?  Why do I deserve this government because of the actions of some?

liege:

If you view the Market as the institution within which all human beings voluntarily trade and associate with each other, then its not implausible to say that our ancestors freely chose the state's deprivations over liberty.

Unless you don't think in aggregates and prefer to analyse human action on an individual basis.

gocrew:

liege:

If you view the Market as the institution within which all human beings voluntarily trade and associate with each other, then its not implausible to say that our ancestors freely chose the state's deprivations over liberty.

Unless you don't think in aggregates and prefer to analyse human action on an individual basis.

If you take it as a historic datum this is obvious. Yet, it does not tell anything about the legitemacy of the oppressor nor about the individual. And I do not think that anyone can decide about what I deserve or not? From whom, why and most of on whose measures?

 

And here I thought government was forced on them without consent.  What do I know though?

liege:

The institutions of our society are a direct result of human action in the past.

Yup.  And the human action of today.

People choose the state.  Hoppe covers this.  Democracy allows non-property owners to control via majority, the property of others.  There is an incentive for democracy because it faciltates the transfer and redistribution of wealth according to special interest groups.

People don't really choose the state, they make the choices that the state offers them. You will never see a referendum asking if people want to be able to choose how their security is produced, because such an outcome would bring the collapse of the state, even if it will be obvious to everyone that it's better to have choice instead of no choice. People are only allowed to choose within a very narrow range of choices.

I think he's saying no one deserves freedom. Freedom is not something you're going to be automatically given. Freedom too, has a cost, and we haven't been bearing those costs. We've been too idle, to ineffective, to lacking. Maybe that's because there's not more of us than them. I don't know. But it stands that we are not owed freedom.

pairunoyd:

I think he's saying no one deserves freedom. Freedom is not something you're going to be automatically given. Freedom too, has a cost, and we haven't been bearing those costs. We've been too idle, to ineffective, to lacking. Maybe that's because there's not more of us than them. I don't know. But it stands that we are not owed freedom.

Morally speaking, we are.

liege:

How do you guys feel about the statement, "You get the government you deserve?".

I've felt this way for awhile, at least to some extent. After finishing The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo, I was pretty much convinced.

The institutions of our society are a direct result of human action in the past. If you view the Market as the institution within which all human beings voluntarily trade and associate with each other, then its not implausible to say that our ancestors freely chose the state's deprivations over liberty.

If this is true, then I think it has profound implications for the future of liberty as well as the human race.

I think this is a very colectivist way of looking at it. You get the government that some people in power or that people in power listen to deserve.

liege:

How do you guys feel about the statement, "You get the government you deserve?".

I've felt this way for awhile, at least to some extent. After finishing The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo, I was pretty much convinced.

The institutions of our society are a direct result of human action in the past. If you view the Market as the institution within which all human beings voluntarily trade and associate with each other, then its not implausible to say that our ancestors freely chose the state's deprivations over liberty.

To see this is the height of absurdity you only need to consider the case of subjugated peoples. When exactly did the Tamils freely chose Si Lanka government? And how are they getting the government they deserve when they resist that government every day?

It`s a really silly idea. Maybe the Jews got the government they deserved in National-Socialism?? Or maybe the blacks deserved to have been slaves?? After all you get the government you deserve. Of couse to say that is not only absurd, but also insulting. Well it is also insulting when it is said in generic terms like in this quote.

Marko:

It`s a really silly idea. Maybe the Jews got the government they deserved in National-Socialism?? Or maybe the blacks deserved to have been slaves?? After all you get the government you deserve. Of couse to say that is not only absurd, but also insulting.

And yet and still death takes us all. Do we deserve it? What course of action will you take to avoid it? Isn't keeping ourself alive a right, if not THE right? It's about me and not about you. Isn't it? It's not about creating a lovely collective. Maybe I error in my way of trying to fulfill my life, but do I need a do-gooder telling me how to live MY life?

pairunoyd:

And yet and still death takes us all. Do we deserve it? What course of action will you take to avoid it? Isn't keeping ourself alive a right, if not THE right? It's about me and not about you. Isn't it? It's not about creating a lovely collective. Maybe I error in my way of trying to fulfill my life, but do I need a do-gooder telling me how to live MY life?

Talk about beating around the bush...

It's already a burden to pursue immortality. Your only right is what you're able to provide. If you can't live, who can keep you alive?

I'll admit that technically speaking, the saying "You get the government you deserve" is kind of a gross generalization, that yes, is an observation fit for a collective. I certainly don't mean to imply that the random guy whom I don't know deserves to be robbed at gunpoint by a gang of thugs writ large.

But I still believe its very illustrative of the play of history. The human race has continually, with few exceptions, chosen more security at the cost of liberty. In a very real sense, the market has preferred instituionalized violence over complete liberty since the dawn of civilization. This has been, and continues to be, a voluntary choice on the part of human actors. Not everyone is choosing tyranny, but the majority are demanding it, and markets bow to majority opinion, no matter how unfair it is.

liege:

I'll admit that technically speaking, the saying "You get the government you deserve" is kind of a gross generalization, that yes, is an observation fit for a collective. I certainly don't mean to imply that the random guy whom I don't know deserves to be robbed at gunpoint by a gang of thugs writ large.

But I still believe its very illustrative of the play of history. The human race has continually, with few exceptions, chosen more security at the cost of liberty.

No it hasn`t. You say yourself the average guy is getting robbed on a daily basis. So how is that security? "Human race" chose nothing. The state chose for it.

liege:

In a very real sense, the market has preferred instituionalized violence over complete liberty since the dawn of civilization. This has been, and continues to be, a voluntary choice on the part of human actors. Not everyone is choosing tyranny, but the majority are demanding it, and markets bow to majority opinion, no matter how unfair it is.

Your definition of the market must be different from mine. Mine knows no coercion.

No the state does not bow to mayority opinion. Was the bailout mayority opinion? If it had anything to do with mayority then the rulers would be populists. They are not. They are scared crapless of populism.

Marko:

Your definition of the market must be different from mine.

The definition that I'm using was defined earlier: the voluntary interactions of acting human beings. And I'm looking at the history of those interactions. Overall, those actions have led us to a state-dominated society.

Marko:

No it hasn`t. You say yourself the average guy is getting robbed on a daily basis. So how is that security? "Human race" chose nothing. The state chose for it.

No society directly chooses to be robbed at gunpoint, though. They opt for security, and more often than not they end up with slavery, and a lot of times, they know full well the potential of the former becoming the latter.

"The State" has not been in existance as long as civilization. It is a fairly recent institution, dating from the sixteenth century. It has not chosen anything for the Human Race. Humans have instead opted to bow to states. It would be absurd to say that the state preceeded humanity and then subjugated it.

Marko:

No the state does not bow to mayority opinion.

I didn't say it did. I say that markets bow to majority opinion. If markets are nothing more than the voluntary interactions of human beings, and a majority of those human beings in a particular society decide to be ruled coercively, then they all get ruled, minorities included. And if a majority of those being ruled decide to stay ruled (either explicitly or tacitly) and not rebel then they all stay ruled, minorities included. Either that or they leave, although this isn't much of an option anymore.

And for the record, states, especially democracies, almost always bow to majority opinion. That's whats so bad about them.

liege:

The definition that I'm using was defined earlier: the voluntary interactions of acting human beings. And I'm looking at the history of those interactions. Overall, those actions have led us to a state-dominated society.

It`s not voluntary. We are against the state because it is not voluntary, but is instead coercive. The moment the state arose the interactions ceased to be wholly voluntary. Voluntary can not lead to non-voluntary. Coercion can only arise from coercion. State can arise only from coercion. State arose when there ceased to be voluntary and there was coercive. The state is the break between the two not the bridge.

liege:

No society directly chooses to be robbed at gunpoint, though. They opt for security, and more often than not they end up with slavery, and a lot of times, they know full well the potential of the former becoming the latter.

You are repeating yourself. 

liege:

"The State" has not been in existance as long as civilization. It is a fairly recent institution, dating from the sixteenth century.

The state has existed for 5,000 years now. It`s as old as the pyramids. Or do you think those were volunteers that built them?

liege:

I didn't say it did. I say that markets bow to majority opinion. If markets are nothing more than the voluntary interactions of human beings, and a majority of those human beings in a particular society decide to be ruled coercively, then they all get ruled, minorities included.

No that is nonsense. State is just a side product of class. A minority, privileged class of coercers living from plunder and a mayority underprivileged class of coerced getting plundered. It arose as some people seeked to become privileged and position themselves above other humans. Early rulers went so far as to actually proclaim themselves deities.  

Nobody decided they are going to be ruled coercively. That is a  grammatical contradiction. You can`t decide that you will be forced into something.

liege:

And if a majority of those being ruled decide to stay ruled (either explicitly or tacitly) and not rebel then they all stay ruled, minorities included. Either that or they leave, although this isn't much of an option anymore.

So now passivity is enough to condemn someone? If you don`t rebell then you agree with it? What sort of nonsense is that? It is not a crime to be meek, cowardly, or dull.

liege:

And for the record, states, especially democracies, almost always bow to majority opinion. That's whats so bad about them.

Yeah right. If every state move had to first be ratified by a mayority we would be a lot better off, as we would be spared a good portion of the crap. Democracies don`t bow to no mayority. Democracies frame the question and then give the mayority of those that are dumb enough to anwser an illusion of control.

You be the mayority and let me frame the questions and we`ll see who bows to whom. Now, shall I beat you up with a broom or with a stick? You are the mayority so you can anwser A.) broom or B.) stick.

Wow. I'm thoroughly convinced that you and I are not even on the same wavelength, Marko.

Lets clear some stuff up, first. "The State", technically, is a relatively new institution. It arrogates unto itself the use of coercion on its subjects. Coercion is not new, and political domination is not new. Nevertheless, "the State" saw its origins in Renaissance Europe. I believe that you are equating State with Coercion. They are not the same. The State uses Coercion.

Marko:

It`s as old as the pyramids. Or do you think those were volunteers that built them?

Yes, I do. In fact many historians also believe that the pyramids and other monumental structures in ancient Egypt were built by peasants during the flood seasons. They were not slaves, and they could've chosen not to assist the pharaoh's architects. They did so because it payed quite well. However, some projects did use slave labor, but not many.

Marko:

It`s not voluntary. We are against the state because it is not voluntary, but is instead coercive.

I said market interactions are voluntary. Even market interactions where coercion is involved. Everyone has a choice when faced with an aggressor: stand and fight, or allow the aggression to happen.

Marko:

The moment the state arose the interactions ceased to be wholly voluntary ... State arose when there ceased to be voluntary and there was coercive.

As I pointed out above, coercion existed before the state.

Marko:

Voluntary can not lead to non-voluntary.

I don't believe I stated this.

Marko:

Coercion can only arise from coercion.

I'm pretty sure coercion arises when somebody decides to take something unjustifiably from someone. Coercion doesn't need circular logic to give rise to itself.

Marko:

Nobody decided they are going to be ruled coercively.

As I stated earlier (when I was repeating myself), few people decide to be enslaved. Allow me to repeat myself once more. Many societies trade liberty for what they perceive to be security. Most often that security ends up being tyrrany, as in the state decides that you should be so secure, that its going to make decisions for you. This is coercion.

Marko:

You can`t decide that you will be forced into something. FFS!

But you can decide to make a deal with the devil.

Marko:

So now passivity is enough to condemn someone?

I never said it was.

Marko:

If you don`t rebell then you agree with it? What sort of nonsense is that?

I believe that standing by as aggression happens is a tacit approval of it. This is not a value-judgement against anyone. There is no need to become defensive.

Marko:

It is not a crime to be meek, cowardly, or dull.

I never said it was.

Marko:

Yeah right. If every state move had to first be ratified by a mayority we would be a lot better off, as we would be spared a good portion of the crap.

The majority of modern states were never really voted upon. They arose out of feudal/warlord arrangements without the full consent of the people most likely. Again, one has to wonder, if a newly emerging "state" was such a horrific thing to them, and if they held liberty so dear, then why did they stand by as older power elites structured a state apparatus around themselves? Could it possibly be that they at least approved of it, if only tacitly?

Marko:

Democracies frame the question and then give the mayority of those that are dumb enough to anwser an illusion of control.

Marko:

You be the mayority and let me frame the questions and we`ll see who bows to whom. Now, shall I beat you up with a broom or with a stick? You are the mayority so you can anwser A.) broom or B.) stick.

You're missing an important option. Any person being given the option of being beat with a stick or a broom has the added, implicit option of beating the shit out of the asshole who gave him the two other options in the first place. You should not forget that resistance is always an option.

BTW, democratic governments don't always act of their own volition. Government tends to cater to special, external interests, and politicians won't champion anything if there isn't something in it for themselves, whether that's money, power, or electability. If there is a question to frame, its most likely coming from outside the government apparatus. It could be a lobby, or it could be general sensibility of the people. Either way, the government will bow to a majority, be it a monetary one, or a simple electoral one.

 

liege:

Yes, I do. In fact many historians also believe that the pyramids and other monumental structures in ancient Egypt were built by peasants during the flood seasons. They were not slaves, and they could've chosen not to assist the pharaoh's architects. They did so because it payed quite well. However, some projects did use slave labor, but not many.

im going to assume that the egyptian pharoah wasnt a capitalist/entrepeneur and that to the extent that he taxed and 'spent' at least those that he had taxed were slave, as are we now under our present governments.

liege:

Lets clear some stuff up, first. "The State", technically, is a relatively new institution. It arrogates unto itself the use of coercion on its subjects. Coercion is not new, and political domination is not new. Nevertheless, "the State" saw its origins in Renaissance Europe. I believe that you are equating State with Coercion. They are not the same. The State uses Coercion.

No, a state is a monopoly on violence (coercion). It develops into a monopoly because it claims its violence is (only) legitimate. It claims that because that is the essential part of its PR without which it could not survive.

liege:

Yes, I do. In fact many historians also believe that the pyramids and other monumental structures in ancient Egypt were built by peasants during the flood seasons. They were not slaves, and they could've chosen not to assist the pharaoh's architects. They did so because it payed quite well. However, some projects did use slave labor, but not many.

The state is old. Taxes are ancient. As is monopoly on violence and claims of final arbitrage. An arbitrary laws passed down from the ruler on the society in his favour of course. 

Even totalitarianism is not a recent phenomena. It is 2,500 years old now and originated in Sparta.

liege:

As I stated earlier (when I was repeating myself), few people decide to be enslaved. Allow me to repeat myself once more. Many societies trade liberty for what they perceive to be security. Most often that security ends up being tyrrany, as in the state decides that you should be so secure, that its going to make decisions for you. This is coercion.

Why don`t you provide a historical example.

liege:

The majority of modern states were never really voted upon. They arose out of feudal/warlord arrangements without the full consent of the people most likely. Again, one has to wonder, if a newly emerging "state" was such a horrific thing to them, and if they held liberty so dear, then why did they stand by as older power elites structured a state apparatus around themselves? Could it possibly be that they at least approved of it, if only tacitly?

Fedual state was already a state. The privileged plundering class did have a monopoly on violence, with monopoly on judiciary a part of it and claimed their rule legitimate as per divine rights. This new emergence you speak of was just the state hiring a new PR agency. And it seems you at least was duped by it.

Why didn`t they resist?  Why wouldn`t you resist if somebody had a pike to your throat ready and you were unarmed? They didn`t resist because their rulers had a monopoly on violence in place. It is a natural state of the state to be organised and ready for war against its populace. It is not a natural state of the populace to be organised per military lines and fit for war at a heartbeat (not unless we are talking stateless clan society).

That being said they stil resisted their statist plunderers when they could get sufficiently organised. What do you think was Spartacus? Or Stenka Razin?

liege:

You're missing an important option. Any person being given the option of being beat with a stick or a broom has the added, implicit option of beating the shit out of the asshole who gave him the two other options in the first place. You should not forget that resistance is always an option.

Sure, I just don`t know why aren`t you out there duking it out with the cops then?

You condemn general populace from your high horse, but the general populace has through the ages taken part in rebellions and insurgencies. Have you?

liege:

BTW, democratic governments don't always act of their own volition. Government tends to cater to special, external interests, and politicians won't champion anything if there isn't something in it for themselves, whether that's money, power, or electability. If there is a question to frame, its most likely coming from outside the government apparatus. It could be a lobby, or it could be general sensibility of the people.

You seem to live in a delusion where elected politicans make the government. Government in a democracy is far bigger than that. To a large part politicians are just its red herrings.

liege:

Either way, the government will bow to a majority, be it a monetary one, or a simple electoral one.

Ah, so now we are talking about "monetary mayority" are we? That monetary mayority is a product of the state and of the government. Those at the helm of the state have power over the rest of us and therefore always proceed to make themselves a "monetary mayority". They don`t do it to be no "mayority" though. They do it so they can live in luxury.


BTW, you haven`t anwsered. Why aren`t states populist? If the general populace is statist to the core and freely chose the present condition, why do they fear populism so much? Why don`t they want populace putting forth its own suggestions?

______________

The state is a description of condition between plunderers and plunered where the plunderers claim they have a right to plunder. In days of yore the state relied mostly on brute force without caring all that much wether the plundered actually bought into legitimacy of plundering. Since then however the state has become more sophisticated and holds that waging a propaganda war, with the aim of duping the plundered into legitimacy of plundering, is as important as maintaining the monopoly on violence. It is important because the propaganda war helps keep people from organising and rebelling against the plunderers.

The state has always been a criminal enterprise, but it used to be more mugging and less fraud. Now it is more sophisticated and it is less mugging and more fraud. And you are on here blaming the victims of fraud??

Do you do the same when people get duped by non-state fraudsters??

You get the fraud you deserve?? 

"Sorry old lady, but you deserve to lose your house!"?

Mises states in Human Action that "no government (implying a minority, as no government is the majority) can be sustained without the at least tacit acceptance by the majority"  I can not cite the exact page and this is a paraphrase, not an exact quote.  But I believe that it is true.  Witness the fall of colonialism, the "success" of the Taliban.  If a majority population is willing to endure sufficient hardship, they can make governing them impossible.  The only answer left for the government is to attempt genocide and purge the nonconformists.  He also means that people will find non-violent ways to avoid the state - such as black markets and barter.

I am concerned (too weak of a verb) that we will see the attempt of the State to maintain its power when the majority is ready to throw off its yoke.  If there is still enough  individualism, reason, and pride left in America, that is.  Will the yoke be applied by the local police, when they come to seize your food stores for the common good?  Or perhaps by the Treasury agents, when they come to seize your stores of monetary assets to allow the continuation of government?  Every act of confiscation is another decision point - is the yoke accepted or rejected?  I am far more concerned about the State thrashing to survive than I am about private criminals.  And there is really no where left to hide.

Marko:

No, a state is a monopoly on violence (coercion). It develops into a monopoly because it claims its violence is (only) legitimate. It claims that because that is the essential part of its PR without which it could not survive.

Why do you keep equating things aren't synonymous? The state is not a monopoly on violence. The state uses a monopoly on violence to achieve its ends. You cannot be something that you use.

Yes, you're right that the state claims that only its violence is legitimate. This is precisly what makes it a uniquely modern institution. Before the rise of "the State" rulers were not necessarily exempted from the laws that they burdened their subjects with. Since then, a double moral standard has existed.

I highly recommend reading the first essay in a collection of essays edited by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, entitled The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production. The first essay is titled "The Problem of Security: Historicity of the State and 'European Realism'".

I believe the following quotes from the essay may help you:

It is our contention that one of the greatest mistakes of many libertarians has been to follow a simplistic scheme of power: to call “State” every form of political aggregation and to believe in the perennial nature of this human artifact ... This general lack of perception of the State as a historically shaped institution is understandable in light of the fact that contemporary libertarianism has developed mostly in America, a country plagued only recently and often inadvertently by statehood.

Marko:

Even totalitarianism is not a recent phenomena. It is 2,500 years old now and originated in Sparta.

I very much doubt that Sparta is the originator of totalitarian government. It may have been one of the first military dictatorships, but not the first despotic regime.

Marko:

Fedual state was already a state.

There were no feudal "states" per se. There were political arrangements based on the feudal system, but feudal lords did not place themselves above laws for the most part. Even their subjects understood that, no matter how oppressive laws were, their liege was not above them. The present may be dominated by "states", but the past necessarily wasn't. You can't just assume that modern institutions have always been around. To do so, in logic, is known as an argumentum ad antiquitatem, or Appeal to Tradition.

Marko:

This new emergence you speak of was just the state hiring a new PR agency. And it seems you at least was duped by it.

I may have indeed been duped, but then this would also suggest that many libertarian/austrian authors and essayists have been as well. Perhaps you are the only one who has been given the gift of perfect sight?

Marko:

Why didn`t they resist?  Why wouldn`t you resist if somebody had a pike to your throat ready and you were unarmed? They didn`t resist because their rulers had a monopoly on violence in place.

Can you prove that in all cases where a feudal arrangement evolved into a state that the evolution occured while a "pike was held to everyone's throat"? Feudal lords did not monopolize coercion or violence. A cursory understanding of the Germanic tradition of the "feud" would help you understand this.

Marko:

liege:

As I stated earlier (when I was repeating myself), few people decide to be enslaved. Allow me to repeat myself once more. Many societies trade liberty for what they perceive to be security. Most often that security ends up being tyrrany, as in the state decides that you should be so secure, that its going to make decisions for you. This is coercion.

Why don`t you provide a historical example

To name one close to home: post-revolutionary America. They traded an unworkable national government (Articles of Confederation) with the Consitituion. Certain liberties were abrogated so that the security of a more centralized government could be attained. This is an explicit exchange. Then again, during the War between the States, Americans stood by as Lincoln rode roughshod over the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the recently codified Rules of Warfare. The result was a near police state. This was a tacit exchange. In both cases, American society determined that liberty was not dear enough to defend. They may have wanted the security of knowing that they would not be harmed by not revolting, but they ended up being less free.

BTW, many historians believe that the birth of the American "state" occured during Lincoln's war against secession.

Marko:

Sure, I just don`t know why aren`t you out there duking it out with the cops then?

Can you prove that I am not? If proving a negative wasn't a logical fallacy, would it even be germaine? I don't even remember talking about cops. I remember an absurd scenario where someone offered me the option of being beat with a broom or a stick. Do cops in your area do this?

Marko:

You condemn general populace from your high horse, but the general populace has through the ages taken part in rebellions and insurgencies. Have you?

No, I haven't taken part in any rebellions or insurgencies. More importantly, I never condemned anyone. This is the second time you have accused me of condemning someone. Why do you keep doing this? Are you mean-spirited, or do you have a problem with reading?

Marko:

You seem to live in a delusion where elected politicans make the government. Government in a democracy is far bigger than that. To a large part politicians are just its red herrings.

A government is a large, often amorphous institution. Politicians can be seen as the executors of it. They are not the will of the government, however. The people are. In a democracy, the people act through majoritarian decisions. Politicians can naught but rubber stamp their will. True, they can manipulate public opinion, but the popular will is still making the decision to do or not to do something legislatively.

If a red herring is in itself a valid argument but one which does not address the issue in question, then what is the issue in question if politicians are nothing more than the government's red herrings?

Marko:

Ah, so now we are talking about "monetary mayority" are we? That monetary mayority is a product of the state and of the government. Those at the helm of the state have power over the rest of us and therefore always proceed to make themselves a "monetary mayority". They don`t do it to be no "mayority" though. They do it so they can live in luxury.

I do not know what each individual politician's intentions are, and neither do you. And no, a monetary majority is not a product of the state. It is simply a majority opinion in the form of money. Monetary majorities are how every market functions, free or not. In a very real sense, it is the volume of money which determines the success or failure of an institution, as the market patrons vote with their money. Monetary majorities are a product of the market. They accomplish much in states because there is incentive to bribe regulators and legislators who represent large, centralized governments.

Marko:

BTW, you haven`t anwsered. Why aren`t states populist? If the general populace is statist to the core and freely chose the present condition, why do they fear populism so much? Why don`t they want populace putting forth its own suggestions?

I never said that the general populace is "statist to the core". You have inferred this, and perhaps unfairly. In fact your assumption of this in a question is what is known as a plurium interrogationum in logic, which is also called a fallacy of many questions. I can't answer your question about why populations are so fearful of populism when I believe that they are "statist to the core" because I don't believe that they are statist to the core and in fact never said that. If you would like me to answer the question, 'Why aren't states populist?' then please provide me with the definition of populism that you prefer, and I will answer your question accoring to your definition.

Marko:

And you are on here blaming the victims of fraud??

I am not blaming the individual victims of fraud for anything. I'm making a case that it is humanity itself (as a whole) which determines its own destiny. So far, humanity has decided that oppression under the state is preferable to liberty in anarchy. This is nothing you nor I can change, despite how angry it makes you.

Marko:

Do you do the same when people get duped by non-state fraudsters??  ... You get the fraud you deserve??

Certainly. What kind of individualist would I be if I believed that people should not be blamed for the stupid things they get themselves into? I blame myself for the retarded things I do. It would be nice to blame others for my idiocy, but who would I blame. Society? The state?

Marko, almost all of our discussion has been fraught with numerous logical fallacies, you putting words into my mouth, you taking things personally, and you lashing out. In addition, in a lot of your arguments, I believe that you are arguing from the perspective of playing the victim. Beyond that, you seem to have a general misunderstanding of what I am trying to say. Also, you seem to have an incomplete understanding of the origins of social institutions. This is your problem. Instead of trying to make it mine, pick up a book, do some reading, engage in a little critical analysis, and fix it.

Let me know now if this thread is to be burdened indefinitely with the things I enumerated in the above paragraph.