[andybak]

> The problem is that the State exists to abuse the rights of the people

The state exists for a multiplicity of reasons - some of which are harmful and some of which are beneficial.

And if the state doesn't exist then other actors will step in to and will also do a mixture of harm and good.

Any attempt to handwave away the nuance just sounds silly.

[mughinn]

The existance of the State is an infringement on your rights, any good that comes out of it isn't really an argument. It's akin as saying that killing all poor people would eradicate poverty, so it is harmful in some ways but it has some benefits

Other actors would also be States, we the people should fight against all States, not just the current one

[andybak]

> The existance of the State is an infringement on your rights,

Which rights are these and by what authority are they bestowed? Let's assume I'm an athiest for the sake of argument.

You're positing the existence of natural rights without specifying how they came into being and how they are enforced.

Generally "rights" in the normal sense of the word are created by... well... states.

I'm not naive and I'm aware of the history of anarchist thought. But I'm not sure which flavour you're espousing.

[mughinn]

A right is not given to you by an authority. You are free to live your life, as long as you don't control/damage other people.

The State takes away your right to live your life and use your property, and empowers Corporations to make them richer at your cost. In the meantime, the State murders a lot of people.

Your rights must be enforced by yourself until free-market alternatives to the State are created

[andybak]

A "right" is entirely theoretical unless there is a way to ensure it is reflected in reality.

That, sadly, is why any analysis of "rights" is vacuous unless it is accompanied by an analysis of "power".

I wonder if you might be confusing "ought" for "is"?

[fmajid]

Because human rights are so well-protected in Afghanistan, Somalia or other such failed states. The alternative to a functioning state is not some techno-anarchist utopia, its warlordism and feudalism. Even the Taliban were seen as preferable to that (they got their initial political capital by rescuing boys kidnapped by warlords to be used as catamites).

[malermeister]

The techno-anarchist utopia is neo-feudalism.

They just hope to be on top this time.

[mughinn]

You should not convince people that your fantasies are mine