[smalltalk]

What's a reasonable alternative? Anarchy? The "state" -- most rational people would say "government" -- you discuss is a collection of municipal, state and federal government, with differing goals and political orientations, and how should spectrum be allocated other than by a government agency? Where is it done differently? So I can't publish a book without the government's approval of it? Which government? Which agency approves books? As another poster said, what is correct in your post? You have to justify such ridiculous claims that are contradictory to reality.

[oleganza]

You know, it's not me who must provide a proof that "state is bad". It's other people who should prove how a construction called constitution + law + police + voting justifies violence of the police, soldiers and prison guards.

It is pretty obvious that any "law" or "regulation" is a description of punishment by taking your body or your property by force. Normally you are supposed to bring them yourself when politely asked, but you do that only because otherwise you'll be forced to under a gunpoint.

Also I don't need to describe to you how a happy society will live without centralized violence. It's up to every individual where and how to live. What I'm doing here on HN is simply pointing out the nature of the state and how it creates all the problems people are pissed off about. When people stop apologizing for state violence and simply understand that it is never justified, then we can talk seriously on alternatives. Thankfully, libertarians and anarchists have written tons of books already. But if you believe in state, you will never take a serious look at peaceful solutions.