On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 14:18:56 +1000
Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote:
> Quote:
> "Always and everywhere, when the masses are restless, even the most
> enthusiastic liberals immediately reverse themselves and become the
> most fanatical champions of the omnipotence of the State."
>
> I take exception to the historical absolute assertion "(They
> ["Liberals"] know very well that no state in history has ever been
> created by contract, and that all states were established by conquest
> and violence.)", in that around 1900, the Commonwealth of Australia,
> the federation of various states including New South Wales,
> Queensland, Victoria etc, was created by referendum and consent of
> the British parliament and the British monarchy,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and our beloved US are all ex
colonies/administrative divisions of the british empire - the
quintessential state created by conquest.
Even if some of the - partial - secessions were 'consensual'
as far as state agents were concerned, the new states never
got any consent from 'their' subjects.
And even if a state is not created by literal 'foreign'
conquest, it still operates exactly like an invading army.
Which is actually worse since it's your own 'countrymen'
the ones who are invading and plundering you.
> and not "by conquest
> and violence" even though it is true that the majority of states
> ("countries") in existence were created by conquest and violence.
>
> New Zealand and Canada and perhaps other Commonwealth states, I think
> share similar non violent histories, though I am no historian, so
> please do your own research if important.
>
> Setting aside this historical exception to the "conquest and violence"
> rule about the creation of states, the paper gives much to think and
> debate about.
>
>
> Quote:
> "Under the aspect of their earthly existence, the mass of men present
> so sorry and degrading a spectacle, so poor in spirit, in will and
> initiative, that one must be endowed with a truly great capacity for
> self — delusion, to detect in them an immortal soul, or even the
> faintest trace of free will."
Yes, the essay is interesting because it has a couple of very
contradictory positions like that one =P
Also, I like how Bakunin who is supposedly a 'collectivist' and
does have a demagogical collecvtivist streak actually ends up
siding with the indidividual and against society's 'authority'.
