[Thorncorona]

I can't tell if you are trying to be sarcastic so I will respond in good faith.

> Why the hell can't I be free to move freely to a place where other people accept me? Why is it that a parasitic entity (the state) has to say whether they allow me in or not?

Because when a community decides to provides services to a people it must now have standards to decide who to provide services too. There are only 2 possible ways to solve this.

1: provide services to everyone. naturally this doesn't work.

2: provide services to nobody.

> Governments, or states, are responsible for most of the destructive behavior we see in human history.

This is a consequence of the state's monopoly on violence. By joining a society you voluntarily give up power to the government in exchange for services and protections.

Wars occur as a consequence of this exchange of power when states look out for their own interests, which include the interests of its people.

> Society has never been so peaceful as today.

Because the state has a monopoly on violence and has gotten more effective at enforcing that monopoly?

> Most private entities (companies or the third sector) do good for the people and benefit nothing from the misery caused by state actors and their wars.

I'm not sure if you are aware of the other functions that states provide but some of the functions you may find beneficial are ways to resolve conflict without violence, protections to people, and a standard of living. These are again, enforced with violence. Seeing as you moved from Brazil to the Netherlands I'm sure you are aware of the benefits you are granted.

[dredmorbius]

The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the legitimate use of violence.

All three words matter: state, monopoly, and legitimate.

That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state.

Absent this, one of three conditions exist;

1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread.

2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is tyranny or unaccountable power.

3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State.

The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy

[henvic]

> Because when a community decides to provides services to a people it must now have standards to decide who to provide services too. There are only 2 possible ways to solve this.

So, if you're a spoiled brat lucky to be born in a developed country with socialist tendencies, you're fine. However, suppose you're unlucky and were born in a poor country and now want to migrate somewhere to improve your quality of life. In that case, spoiled brats will do everything they can (including kidnapping you if you try) to stop you from doing so because you're the wrong race|social group|whatever.

You hold such awful vision and wonder if I am being sarcastic? What the heck. If you want to provide services to people, do it with proper and just means. Not by sacking people and pretending you want to give back to them whatever you deem essential services.

> This is a consequence of the state's monopoly on violence. By joining a society you voluntarily give up power to the government in exchange for services and protections.

No. I never did so. You were brainwashed with this stupid idea.

> Wars occur as a consequence of this exchange of power when states look out for their own interests, which include the interests of its people.

No. You're being incredibly silly. How come it was in the German people's interest to do what they did? How come is in North Korea's people's interest to do what they do? How come is in US citizens interest to invade other country and spend a trillion doing war overseas? Sure, some people will benefit from such arrangements. However, most everyone loses.

Besides, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge regarding the positive aspects foreigners usually bring to a territory. For example, most of them come in peace, and the net result is positive. I'm sorry you don't get something as basic as that.

> I'm not sure if you are aware of the other functions that states provide but some of the functions you may find beneficial are ways to resolve conflict without violence, protections to people, and a standard of living. These are again, enforced with violence. Seeing as you moved from Brazil to the Netherlands I'm sure you are aware of the benefits you are granted.

I'd be a fool if I believed in your stupid idea that I benefit from having most of my paycheck extorted from me here or most of my consumer power extorted from me back when I lived in Brazil.

No, most of my money I (or anyone else for that matter) pay doesn't come back as nice services from the public sector but go to harmful programs, intrinsically evil agendas, are used without any accountability, and so on. If I get back 5% in good services that I really need or want, I'd be surprised.

The poorest ones are even more negatively impacted than me by the state, and you probably believe that they get a lot of benefits. Your ideas about what the states do are incredibly out of sync with reality.