Quote of the Day
Is the Hobbesian fear truly rooted in reality? If not, what happens to politics when we allow fear, not cooperation, to become foundational to our framework? Robert Nozick asked these same questions in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. These lucidly written pages extend these arguments even further—with some surprising conclusions.
Aeon J. Skoble—professor of philosophy, bestselling author, and acclaimed political theorist—makes a powerful case that the state as we understand it today is not only morally unjustifiable, but also, thankfully, unnecessary. It has only the power we mistakenly grant it. What if we didn’t?
Packed with urgent lessons, original insights, and unparalleled philosophical rigor, this book is essential reading for anyone who dares imagine a freer world.
Independent Institute
January 26, 2026
Deleting the State: Requiem for an Illusion – eBook, Paperback
I am extremely skeptical. I am of the strong opinion that governments are a necessary evil to protect the rights of the individual. Yes, when they go rogue they can be the greatest infringer of rights. But on the whole, with a well armed populus, they can be a net benefit to humanity.
That said, if the book were available in audible form, I would purchase it just to see what the author has to say.
Minimalist government can work great with high-0trust, high-IQ, homogenous societies.
Can’t worth with diverse, low-trust, diverse societies.
Sadly, large government can’t work with the later type of population, either.
Guess where the left wants us to go?
Depends on how you define “work”. Large government works quite well for the people in power, after all.
Good point.
For the purposes of this sort of discussion, it’s usually assumed that the ostensible purpose of the government is to organize and benefit the people of the nation they run, and so to “work” it means that the average people of the country ret more benefit than it costs them, overall.
However, we have been run by foreigners and a globalist “elite” seeking things that are clearly not to benefit the people of this nation, just their select favored groups and cronies.
Even the “select favored groups” aren’t the purpose or desired directly, merely means.
Of course, the cronies aren’t much better, really.
Horrible people for whom “other people” exist entirely for how much benefit they can squeeze out of them.
“I am extremely skeptical. I am of the strong opinion that governments are a necessary evil to protect the rights of the individual.”
Making a government you can manage to put up with is important, not for any “protecting rights” stuff (though of course, that would be much, much preferred!) but to keep some OTHER government from forming organically.
And by “organically”, pretty much what is meant is a “strong man” dictator, which is what will generally come fill the void.
“No government” in the modern sense of government can exist… but functionally, it disappears almost instantly, replaced by “war lords” and other desultory terms for dictator.
I see the protection from war lords/dictatorship as protecting the rights of the individual.
“I see the protection from war lords/dictatorship as protecting the rights of the individual. ”
Plenty of governments are better for their people than warlords/dictators without doing any noticeable amount of that.
“Please don’t be offended if I appear skeptical.”
Perhaps the ongoing historical churn of government forms is a dynamic search for something that may not be possible.
Was it Washington who opined: ‘A useful servant, but fearful master.’
Pretty safe to say we are way past the ‘useful’ portion of the quote.
In stating the obvious.
Is government necessary? No. But only in pure philosophical terms.
Governments are for people. And people have human nature. Which is under original sin. And makes him sinful by nature.
And sinful man must be governed. For he refuses to govern himself.
Governments are power. And power always attaches the worst of humans. And gives license to their sinful acts.
Asking government to protect rights is insane.
It is impossible for the humans that always seek out government positions to control themselves. At least for very long.
You’re asking a pit viper not to eat mice when it’s hungry.
Government corruption is as predictable as rain.
And so humans search for that prefect balance in which we can enforce good order and maintain peaceful lives. And enjoy the animating contest of freedom. While defending ourselves from the sinful nature.
The cycle of tyranny to freedom. them back to tyranny. Is what we have forgotten.
Our forefathers supposed the constitution for us. And demanded that we allow no change to freedom except under its strict guidelines.
And to this day it would serve us well if we would//could but recognize that its not the constitution that needs changed.
It’s the people that inhabit government.
We have lost/had stolen our ability to fight for that which we know is good, true, and beautiful.
We need to regain the freedom of our own conscience.
Learn to fight again for that which history has proven that be correct.
And not be swayed by the comfort of lies and conceit. Which are always just cover for laziness and grift. In ourselves and others.
The true fight is first in oneself.
Only then can we freely act in good conscience against the worst in government.
For those that refuse to govern themselves will only give excuse for all to be governed by the worst.
Can you do without any government at all? That’s a fascinating question, but only of theoretical significance.
A far more practical question: can you do with much less government than we have today? Clearly, the answer is yes. The next question is “how much less”? It seems pretty obvious the answer is at least 50%.
A corollary: how much less government is required by a strict obedience to the plain English words of the United States Constitution? L. Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman considered that question in their novel “Hope”. They didn’t put a number to it, but I would guess their answer is “at least 90% less” and I concur.
You can do without a formal government in pretty much the same circumstances that communism will work:
The community is small enough that everyone knows everyone else, and everyone is pretty much agreeing upon the standards of behavior for themselves and others and actually live up to those standards individually without prompting.
That’s about 50 people.
Larger than that, and you’re going to have to start having some kind of legislative process, which means there needs to be concomitant executive powers and a judicial system. If that means “village elders backed up strong young men”, that’s your government.
Certainly, but my point is that the Federal government is easily 10x what is needed by your definition, and easily 10x what is authorized by the plain words of the Constitution.
Civilization both allows and requires specialization. Our ancestors lived in nomadic Hunter gatherer tribes and there may have been a tribal shaman and a tribal leader but pretty much everyone else hunted and / or gathered. Basic civilization requires potters, basket weavers, Taylor’s, animal husbanding herders, brewers, tool makers, healers, farmers, etc. enforcement of the law and wielding sanctioned death are best generally left to soldiers when dealing with outside threats and to law enforcement for inside threats. Historically both soldiers and law enforcement were the same men. We need a minarchy to provide an effective military, law enforcement, emergency services, and to set standards, weights and measures. Pretty much EVERYTHING ELSE should be abolished as government provided services
Standards, weights, and measures do not require a government of the typewe aretalkingabour here. Think ASCII, HTTP, FTP, Underwriters Laboratory, etc.
Law enforcement needs to include a court system. Perhaps you meant that, but it is unclear to me as written above.
“But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” James 1:25
“So speak ye, and do so, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” James 2:12
That was written two thousand years ago, and I’ve posted it here many times. It isn’t a new, nor a revolutionary concept. It’s even older than the hills, so why can’t we ever get it right? It’s that most people want to make up their own ideas of what “liberty” means. Even though its true meaning has been available to us all along, we often prefer different, conflicting and inconsistent meanings.
And if sin (literally, “to miss”) is a violation of God’s law, then most people long to be at liberty to sin, whereas a few long to be liberated FROM sin. It’s a matter of both desire and situational awareness, and oftentimes one can block out the other entirely.
So your post is largely about how to build a sin-free world, because when you let a little bit of sin in, you end up with catastrophe down the road, guaranteed. It’s a package deal.That’s why the wages of sin has to be death, but that alone seems overly harsh for a Creator that is the epitome of love and mercy.
So what is He to do? How does He allow free will (without which there can be no true love, yet free will has led to sin) while at the same time perfectly upholding the law, AND perfectly uphholding justice, AND showimg perfect mercy? Well, it’s the most amazing plan in all of history. It’s the painful lesson we’re living through right now, but it has an amazing solution and a spectacular conclusion.
Well said Lyle!
What is the time frame for reaching the amazing conclusion?
Jesus said no man knows the hour or the day. But our father in heaven.
So I’m guessing after the big guy decides he has gotten everything he wants out of this world?
Jesus taught us not to worry to much about the big end.(Contrary to what many Christians do.)
As our own end is always at hand.
So… the claim is made with absolute certainty but no way of being ever proved wrong. Do I have this right?
Yup. Either you believe/have faith in the promise or not.
Totally up to you.
For both sides it’s a self-reenforcing delusion pretty much.
God gave you’all a handicap in that you have “reality” (I use the term loosely) on your side.
Pretty wild, huh.
When governments are outlawed, outlaws will have governments. If your neighboring outlaw finds you with no government, he’ll cover you with his.
That’s the point of armed citizens.
organized, disciplined, supported armed force taking initiative beats defenders eventually.
No team wins by strictly defense.