States don't exist. But Cities DO!

[Jonathanr]

You have to be careful with your use of the word city, since others already misuse it.

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/

[NonEntity]

Jonathanr Wrote:You have to be careful with your use of the word city, since others already misuse it.

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/

Well Melbourne is of course a city. But that does not mean that what those who choose to enact violence against others are what makes up this city thing.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

From my perspective, there's some loosey-goosey play with the word exist. [if there was an intentional play in effect, that's fine and I just missed it]

First, I'd offer that marc's saying "there is no State" comes from taking Them at Their word(s), aka Their defining, not whether such 'exists' or not. THEY say it's a political association ("body politic" etc) and THEY define it i.e. duty of allegiance = duty to protect. He's simply taking Them at Their word(s) and pointing out the hypocrisy. The matter [sic] of existence or not isn't the point of that argument. [whether believing such exists is a crucial part of winning the argument, is a whole nuther question]

NonE and i have had a similar discussion awhile back about whether 'cultures' (Jewish, specifically) 'exist' (or not). It seems to me to boil down to how one defines their term(s). I might parallel it with whether lights exist. It's a bit of yes AND no. For if I find a flasher in line with light bulbs, those lights DO exist, and then no, that light (from the light bulbs) doesn't exist; yet light (as a sensed experience) exists (there's the existing sun for one example).

I find a debate about whether States versus Cities exist (or not) frivolous --yet indeed, it is potentially crucially and unnecessarily dangerous as to how it's believed. So I side with neither existing. Isn't it after all a matter of perspective. Inches to feet, feet versus miles?? Individuals exist much like light bulbs. Their actions are on (exist) then off (no longer exist). Are those actions cities? Are they states? Bonus question: are they nations? (if it's voluntary, then it's all good...)

What I hear Marc saying is what's significant/valuable in this evaluation: is one willing to use aggressive violence in support of what one's conceiving/perceiving (or even 'sensing')?

The point I offer for value is: in my experience, people tend to find easy (or easier) reinforcement for their resorting to/supporting violence (and labeling it, of course, as 'defense') when 'things' exist --thus are said to exist. See 'rights', 'God', 'good', 'evil', (the "p" word), for [strike]good[/strike] examples in support of my evaluation conclusion... ? 8)

[image=100,100]http://www.christmaslightsetc.com/images/productdetail/clear-twinkle-lights-sgw.gif[/image] Individuals exist; their cities DO... NOT... DO... NOT... :wacky:
(at least as to how i define 'exist'... for value... offered) :wishmeluck:

[Jonathanr]

NonE
My point is that a city, being a hub of people and free economic activity, is distinct from the protection racket that is the City of Melbourne. From the perspective of Marc's doctrine, there is little difference between the City of Melbourne, and the State of Victoria. They are both protection rackets which agree to coexist.

This is why I alert you to the misuse of the word city.

[NonEntity]

Sheesh! Of course I'm frivolous! We all are. Just another grain of sand on the beach.

Let me try putting it this way. If you had a culture without government, a completely free and voluntary culture, you would still find that cities would naturally form - but there would be no states as they are not natural, they are completely fictional and arbitrary. Cities are as natural a human function as frivolous arguments! :bootyshake: :tongue2:

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

NonEntity Wrote:Cities are as natural a human function as frivolous arguments! :bootyshake: :tongue2:

Well, seeing as how humans are natural, every and any "thing" they do is natural; hence seeing States are just as natural. How many humans seeing a State proves they exist, naturally? Technology just hasn't allowed states to be as compact as cities --yet; and in the eye of the beholder, of course? [why does the term "city-state" keep popping into my mind's eye here?]

If one is standing on say, the east (or should I say the Atlantic?) side of the Mississippi, it's natural 8) enough to say that one is standing in the state of Mississippi --as distinguished from the west/Pacific side (and the state au naturale, of Arkansas). Why isn't this as equally natural as a City? (one value being that a city like Jackson, a mere couple of hundred years ago, would have found it quite valuable to know this natural fact --seeing as how being in Arkansas meant an additional factor known as crossing said Mississippi)
Next, how does the aspect of nature/natural differ from said 'river' from two men driving metal posts along an equally curvy (or not) 'line' creating a state line?

How many people have to find an advantage (and at what proximity) before it comes to exist? (as a community> village> township> city >state...?) One might find it more difficult to establish where a state ends than where a city ends, but to the guy standing at said 'edge', factually, does the existence seem any less questionable at that perspective? Where does the "city" end --and begin, for that matter [sic]? And with such perspective (opinion?) why doesn't the word concept work for such, naturally, instead of the word exists? Granted, perhaps you're seeing/looking in a less geographical sense for a cities existence, but then with the likes of the internet, doesn't one city (call it Amazon? ) exist now?

Hopefully my point offered for value wasn't missed, but just in case: why drag the matter [sic] of exists into the cranial matter? Cities, like states, can be what, and all that they are labeled as concepts. [highlight=#FFFF80]People tend to ramp up their excuse for using violence over things that (f)actually exist*, so why even go there?[/highlight] What does it add to the reality? Might it be wiser to err on the side of NonExistence :bootyshake: (e.g. concept/notion/opinion) rather than existence (fact)? bonus question: is it possible that what got Us where we are, was seeing cities, then states, as facts/existing, thus in need of Control (The Big Apple)...? *[and arguably, for a very rationally justifiable, via an evolutionary sense e.g. an apple exists aka food aka satiatence aka survival aka fight over --or resolve]

[NonEntity]

Marc,

I guess the reason why I'm harping on this is that from my study and reflection it seems that cities (the actual dynamics of people congregating and sharing for mutual support and benefit, not the political entities) are pretty much the idea form of what we are seeking in having voluntary personal interactions on all levels (social, business, spiritual, artistic and so on.)

You are constantly attempting to promote barter and voluntary this and that, and it bothers me that in the same space you are denigrating the natural expression of those ideas.

That's my motivation. As I said, Jane Jacobs book is a real eye-opener (well, some Eyes anyway! :tongue2: ) in this regard and I once again recommend it as an examination into how social interaction of a voluntary nature creates workable living environments.

- NonEye2 :biggrinblue:

[Marc Stevens]

I'm real close to just banning you and letting loose with a torrent of personal attacks

Seriously though, I think you're not remembering things correctly. There is only one other book I've recommended as much as my own on the show, I'm sure you'll remember the name of it, I've recommended it quite often for obvious reasons. Remember me mentioning:



And I mentioned earlier Aristotle, the Greeks had hundreds of "city-states". Thought I would throw that in to muddy the water a bit more :frobro:

[eye2i2hear]

NonEntity Wrote:As I said, Jane Jacobs book is a real eye-opener (well, some Eyes anyway! :tongue2: ) in this regard and I once again recommend it as an examination into how social interaction of a voluntary nature creates workable living environments.

- NonEye2 :biggrinblue:

I feel you're quasi-strawmaning me (or is it Tinmaning? regardless, I'm not feeling the "oil"... :bootyshake: ). First, no I've not had access to Ms Jacobs book, so I can't hear her 'cause I can't see her ideas. My main point includes that it's not reasonable to say cities exist but states don't/can't; because that's all perspective (inches/feet/acres/miles/global). I have no negation of cities, as a label for observations of [strike]'natural'[/strike] inclinations of human interactions being valuable. Just (imho) stay away from [strike]saying[/strike] stateing they exist but states don't/can't.

--NonMarc`i

** noting, I've not gotten your intention when using the word exist; so I speak mostly from it's appeal to the Submitizen BoobUS ErectUS i.e. if it exists, it's Property=Controllable=Governable

sidebar: speaking of Ms Jacobs, tho not her book, I did digup this interview with her (tho I've not finished reading it yet, but looking fwd2).

[NonEntity]

eye2i2hear Wrote:My main point includes that it's not reasonable to say cities exist but states don't/can't; because that's all perspective (inches/feet/acres/miles/global).

Dude!

You can't seriously be missing the point I've attempted to clarify about three times so far: Cities form organically, but states are arbitrarily delineated. This is easy to see by looking at any map. Look at the cities which cross state lines, like Kansas City, San Diego/Tijuana, Cincinnati/Covington and so on. I was arrested years ago in Jellico, Tennessee and didn't know until much later after I had jumped bail and headed north out of town that the state line runs right through the MIDDLE of the city!

The boundaries of cities (the REAL boundaries, not the political boundaries) are formed by the choices people make voluntarily in where they want to live and where they want to develop their businesses. The governments attempt to control these actions, of course, but are only hinderances in the path of growth as opposed to totally defining the magical lines which create states.

- NonEyeMinded

[eye2i2hear]

Marc Stevens Wrote:[image=140,140]http://marcstevens.net/vol_city.jpg[/image]

speaking of... I turned up this that might be of interest to those with the book:

Quote:The Voluntary City:
Choice, Community and Civil Society*
...
*This paper expands Chapter 1 of a recent book of the same title (The University of Michigan Press, 2002).

14 pages, PDF here

======addendum======

GoogleBooks.de currently has The Voluntary City for online reading here (all 400+ pages).

[NonEntity]

Jane Jacobs (1916–2006) Wrote:Callahan and Ikeda congratulate Jacobs on what they call her "innate grasp of the power of voluntary exchange and spontaneous order" and her "methodologically individualist and subjectivist" approach to her subject matter. And they comment that "the parallels" between the ideas she formulates in her first book and "Hayek's conceptions of spontaneous order, local knowledge, and scientism are striking, especially since she was unfamiliar with Hayek's work at the time."

[right](emphasis mine)[/right]

- NonE

[inertia]

NonEntity Wrote:

eye2i2hear Wrote:My main point includes that it's not reasonable to say cities exist but states don't/can't; because that's all perspective (inches/feet/acres/miles/global).

Dude!

You can't seriously be missing the point I've attempted to clarify about three times so far: Cities form organically, but states are arbitrarily delineated. This is easy to see by looking at any map. Look at the cities which cross state lines, like Kansas City, San Diego/Tijuana, Cincinnati/Covington and so on. I was arrested years ago in Jellico, Tennessee and didn't know until much later after I had jumped bail and headed north out of town that the state line runs right through the MIDDLE of the city!

Does that mean if states had nebulous borders like cities sometimes do in real life, would that be better? In other words, if states formed "organically" just like the legitimately formed cities you're trying to sell, would you be OK with having states in the same sense that you're OK with having cities?

[NonEntity]

inertia Wrote:Does that mean if states had nebulous borders like cities sometimes do in real life, would that be better? In other words, if states formed "organically" just like the legitimately formed cities you're trying to sell, would you be OK with having states in the same sense that you're OK with having cities?

If there were some reason for states to exist the was to the benefit of the denizens of those areas, then they WOULD form organically, just as cities do. But there isn't such reason, and so they don't. They only develop as a means of "rulers" to control "citizens."

So, yes, that is the point. Cities DO form by themselves, states don't. That is the crucial example of the difference.

- NonE

[NonEntity]

Marc Stevens Wrote: I'm real close to just banning you and letting loose with a torrent of personal attacks

Hey, that could be fun! :biggrinblue:

Marc Stevens Wrote:Seriously though, I think you're not remembering things correctly.

WHAT??? Who, ME? Couldn't be. I have a mined lyke a steel trap. Awesome, dude, awesome. :rolleyes2:

Marc Stevens Wrote:There is only one other book I've recommended as much as my own on the show...

You have a BOOK?!? Way cool. What's it about? :tongue2: (Have I been banned yet? :wacky: )

Marc Stevens Wrote:I'm sure you'll remember the name of it, I've recommended it quite often for obvious reasons. Remember me mentioning:

Thanks for the reminder. I need to try and read that one.

Marc Stevens Wrote:And I mentioned earlier Aristotle, the Greeks had hundreds of "city-states". Thought I would throw that in to muddy the water a bit more :frobro:

Trouble maker!

- NonE :bootyshake: