The belief in statism is essentially the belief that certain parts of society like fiscal, commerce, healthcare, etc. should be controlled by a central governing body. This belief is actually merely a belief in a monopoly on violent force, since no state is able to enfore anything without the inherent or implied threat of violent force. The belief in government as a "necessary evil", therefore, is essentially a belief that evil is necessary. People who are truly peaceful and virtuous, then, cannot believe in government; since it is a legitimization of all the evils which happen in the world anyway. Therefore, anarchists accept that life is inherently filled with risk, and that two wrongs do not make a right (you cannot fight fire with fire). And obviously if it worked, it would work; the proof is in the pudding (there is no such thing as a successful government).
I think there's a lot of interesting ideas at work here, keyboardlover, and I'm curious to see where our ideas about politics intersect. I believe that there are some things that government is better at doing than individuals, but that there's nothing that a group of individuals cannot ultimately do on their own without a government. I'm of the general opinion that power over other people should be distributed as widely as possible (but not necessarily evenly). Ideally, power is distributed to individuals via the market. More on that later.
Government, in my eyes is 'evil' -- 'stupid' is perhaps a better label here, but one is easily confused for the other. I consider 'evil' to be defined as 'horribly inefficient'. Government is 99% of the time the least effective way to do anything. The most efficient use of money is to have the person who earned the money spend the money on themselves. The individual knows his or her desires more intimately than anyone else, and since they earned the money, they are most likely to spend it as economically as possible -- to maximize the utility gained. Government, by contrast, has a third party spending another person's earned income on yet another person. It maximizes inefficiency on all levels.
But government can and does impose useful restrictions on liberty. Building codes that restrict the freedom of builders are good -- they require that doors swing outwards, so that in a dangerous situation people can escape the building. These are restrictions on liberty, but they are useful because they make life safer for everyone. If you die in a burning building, your liberties are now gone.
The catch is finding that balance between individual liberty and public liberty.
This is silly: Singapore is a state entity and peaceful and prosperous, but the Rawandan genocide was a sub-state conflict. Then there is happy, happy Somalia...
Singapore is peaceful? LolWAT? Like their monopoly on violence doesn't directly impact their own citizens every damn day? You can always tell a statist's arguments suck when they bring up Somalia: Somalia's conflict has always been due to a struggle for bringing statism in Mogadishu. Since they have been stateless, all their industries are booming and their overall standard of living is much higher than it was. I will post some articles from the Mises Institute which will open your eyes to the reality of Somalia a bit later.
Wow! I went to Singapore. My brother-in-law lives there, and my wife and I visited him just last year. My impression was thus: a beautiful country. Imagine a golf course that encompasses an entire country and you would get the general picture. I had never seen median strips on highways look so perfectly groomed. In the U.S. we have yellow grass -- the Singaporeans have gardens on their median strips. Beautiful, beautiful country -- and I was warned in advance that they fine you very steeply for spitting on the street, graffiti, etc. Yeah, can you imagine a society that frowns on public urination, and fines you for it? ("But it's my right! --- and I'm not finished yet!") I work in NYC, where people routinely drop their house garbage bags in front of my business, and homeless people have the right to defecate on my doorstep -- so these rules were pretty attractive to me.
So my trip caps off with me, my wife and my brother-in-law and his family walking along a gorgeous boardwalk. The boardwalk is comprised of very thin strips of wood that curve into a kind of artful topographic wall alongside. And there are tiny little lights embedded in between the boards that twinkle. Being the kind of guy I am, I thought, "This is beautiful! It wouldn't last a week in the U.S.!" There would have been graffiti in days, gum and trash wedged into the crevices of the wood boards, a few pools of stagnant urine, etc.
See, in Singapore they fine you for that sort of thing and then they cane your feet, or your back. Not sure how I feel about it. Seems like there's positively no real punishment for people in the U.S. that make life miserable. Also, I asked my brother-in-law about the police. I hadn't noticed any -- at all! He said that they were all plainclothes. All of them. And there were cameras everywhere, which felt a bit weird. You know that you're in a bit of a police state, but it doesn't feel that way.
I chalk it up to cultural differences. Asians generally are very group oriented, with a tendency towards orderliness. (SEE: Aftermath of Fukushima Reactor Meltdown -- Japanese wait patiently in line for relief. Would that happen in the U.S.? Don't think so.) So I have a feeling that these laws are not generally need to be enforced.
All told, I think I like my society a bit more rough and tumble than the Singaporeans, but it seemed like a nice place to live, and it suits them.
How do you enforce any of those things in statism? At point of gun. So that's really all you're advocating.
I don't believe that there's any way to have a society without the presence of force. Government's primary function is to funnel all that power into a single, trusted (there's the rub) entity. If violent force were allowed freely to every individual, then might would be right. The strong would take from the weak, etc. -- that's not good. But with the sole authority to use force, people should be more wary of government than they tend to be.
As a voluntaryist, I don't think anyone should be forced to use vaccinations, seatbelts, parachutes, air bags, etc. It should be at their discretion, since I respect the right of people to be left alone, and not be forced to live in your violent world of oppression where guns are always inevitably aimed at peaceful people in order to "maintain order". You seem to tout "logic", but I see none in your arguments; only a legitimization of violence. Because that's all statism will ever be, and it's why statism is the most dangerous religion in the world.
Seatbelts? I think an individual has the right to decide whether they want to take a safety precaution so long as no one else's liberty is put at stake. If I don't wear a seatbelt, whom do I harm besides myself? Childseat laws I endorse because the child is not yet able to make their own decisions about safety. So those laws I do support. People should be allowed to smoke so long as their health problems do not become my financial burden. Parachutes -- not gonna touch that one, not aware of any laws regarding them. Air bags -- I don't think the government needs to regulate this. I think most companies would want to make them standard features without having their arms twisted by government.
Finally, keyboardlover, you refer to statism as the most dangerous religion in the world.
Sadly, I have to agree because the facts support you. The last century was the bloodiest century in human history, and the vast majority of the millions murdered were democides -- murdered by their own government. From Stalin's purges, to the Holocaust, to Mao's 'Great Leap Forward' -- they all lead to massive death, often preceded by misery. And yet, some people still have a massive hard-on for government.
Don't believe me? Look up 'The Great Leap Forward' -- millions of Chinese sacrificed on the altar of one man's really bad idea. They starved to death, which (this is morbid, I know) is probably the worst possible way to die.
Keyboardlover, I think there's a lot we agree upon, but we may disagree on whether government's are required. I think they are necessary, but should be treated with great caution.