The nation-state is all about killing people. Its sole reason for existing is that it’s better at killing people in large numbers than any other form of human organization. If you don’t like the idea of the state killing people, you don’t like the idea of the state. If you don’t realize this, it’s because your thinking is confused.
You local grocer would be laughed out of business if he whined that his customers were ‘apathetic’ because they refuse to buy his rotten bananas. But the politician whines in the same way when he charges people with apathy because they won’t buy his rotten promises.
did-you-kno:

Source

If you’re so fucking upset because someone said a dirty word on the Internet that you would rather spend your time disrupting Facebook groups and appealing to authority than doing something about the state, then you are of negative value to libertarianism. You do more harm than good.

'Nyeeh, you're harming the movement!' Go fuck yourself, you stupid fucking bitch! You don't even know what the movement is! You missed the whole fucking point! You don't like dirty words? Go be a fucking Democrat! We don't need you.

We need stand up guys with thick skin who can take a fucking punch and do a fucking bit. We need radical ideologues who hate the state. We need pretty girls who want to fuck guys like this. So take your half-ass, politically correct, pussy shit, take it into a voting booth, and pull the lever for fucking Hillary, because WE DON’T FUCKING NEED YOU!

A Dialogue on Social Justice →

Liberal: I come in the name of The People.

Skeptic: Which people?

L: The Downtrodden, The Dispossessed, The Exploited, The Victims of Malevolent Forces Beyond Their Control.

S: You mean swing voters on welfare.

L: I would not put it that way.

S: I didn’t think you would.

L: You are an apologist for the unregulated free market.

S: I am an apologist for private ownership.

L: You mean “Every man for himself.”

S: I mean “Every man with his own.”

L. Some people have more than they need.

S: I have a solution for that.

L: What’s your solution?

S: Sufficient economic growth, so that everyone has more than he needs.

L: But some people will still have more than others.

S: You are shifting the argument from “more than he needs” to “more than others.”

L: They are the same thing.

S: No, they aren’t.

L: I want a society in which everyone has what he needs. “From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs.”

S: Exactly how do you intend to attain such a society?

L: By voter mobilization.

S: I get it. “Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.”

L: You are resorting to rhetoric.

S: Yes, I am. But it is rhetoric based on logic.

(Source: moralanarchism)

When good people do bad things →

laliberty:

This is nothing libertarians didn’t already know…

“Although humans exhibit strong preferences for equity and moral prohibitions against harm in many contexts, people’s priorities change when there is an ‘us’ and a ‘them,’” says Rebecca Saxe, an associate professor of cognitive neuroscience at MIT. “A group of people will often engage in actions that are contrary to the private moral standards of each individual in that group, sweeping otherwise decent individuals into ‘mobs’ that commit looting, vandalism, even physical brutality.”

Several factors play into this transformation. When people are in a group, they feel more anonymous, and less likely to be caught doing something wrong. They may also feel a diminished sense of personal responsibility for collective actions.

Saxe and colleagues recently studied a third factor that cognitive scientists believe may be involved in this group dynamic: the hypothesis that when people are in groups, they “lose touch” with their own morals and beliefs, and become more likely to do things that they would normally believe are wrong.

In a study that recently went online in the journal NeuroImage, the researchers measured brain activity in a part of the brain involved in thinking about oneself. They found that in some people, this activity was reduced when the subjects participated in a competition as part of a group, compared with when they competed as individuals. Those people were more likely to harm their competitors than people who did not exhibit this decreased brain activity.

“This process alone does not account for intergroup conflict: Groups also promote anonymity, diminish personal responsibility, and encourage reframing harmful actions as ‘necessary for the greater good.’ Still, these results suggest that at least in some cases, explicitly reflecting on one’s own personal moral standards may help to attenuate the influence of ‘mob mentality,’” says Mina Cikara, a former MIT postdoc and lead author of the NeuroImage paper.

Hence the global “success” of states…

Related: , Re: A Person is Smart, People are Dumb, Panicky, Dangerous Animals, and #Democracy

Yep. Libertarians and dwellers in the previously anarchistic Internet have known this for years.

Anarcho-Capitalism FAQ →
The open source revolution is going to decentralize more of the world. Decentralization is not going to lead to revolution. Decentralization is going to lead to secession. I mean secession in Gandhi’s way. I mean the withdrawal of support. You don’t take up arms against the state; you simply refuse to cooperate with the state. You make it more expensive for the state to tyrannize you.

Libertarians understand that government — because it operates through force and faces no market test from customers free to say no — offers inferior services even when they would be perfectly legitimate if offered privately. (However, not everything the government does would have a legitimate counterpart in the private sector. Some “services” are intrinsically aggressive.) Libertarians also understand that trusting government to provide those services is a tragic mistake, because bureaucracies inexorably come under the control of those with the most political sway, no matter what the progressives say. On net and contrary to the politicians’ propaganda, wealth tends to be transferred up, not down. That’s how things work.

Libertarians understand these things, or ought to, but most other people don’t. Instead, they see government as a vast mutual-aid society (even if they are unfamiliar with that term): You pay your dues (taxes) and you draw benefits when you qualify under the various programs. If you don’t pay your dues, you are penalized because you agreed to pay them. (Agreed? Presumably by not leaving the country — a highly dubious assumption.) If you don’t like the rules, vote for people who will change them.

Advocates of individual freedom are unlikely to make progress if they don’t educate other people on what’s wrong with this picture.

did-you-kno:

Source