The State does not exist but is merely a pattern of human behavior (a meme), but I agree treating that meme as a parasite is probably the closest biological parallel. One consequence of this metaphorical view is that over long periods of time States which are less-parasitic and more helpful (closer to fulfilling the security function of the Night-watchman State, or of a legitimate private provider of security) will tend to outcompete those organizations which are more brutally parasitic. In my opinion, this was the source of the British Empire's strength (while ruling, thus transplanting relatively more efficient organizational structures to colonized peoples as in Singapore and Hong Kong) as well as the American Empire's strength (prior to ruling, thus failing to transplant efficient organizational structures, perhaps with the exceptions of Japan and Germany).
This explains so much! Excellent interview.
The tyrannical state only exists as a parasitic growth atop a living community, but it undermines its own sustenance by smothering its subjects who support it, and the antidote to the tyranny is to invest in that very community to the exclusion of the parasite.
The problems are global, and the solution is local. Zoom in, not out.
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=O91kCJONbdk
Because of the decentralized, peer-to-peer aspect of bitcoin and nostr, they are nearly ideal tools for this job.
#pintsWithAquinas #Christian #Catholic #subsidiarity #localism #distributism
Discussion
"The State does not exist but is merely a pattern of human behavior"
By that logic, you may say the same of any organization. they aren't beings to themselves, but families, friendships, and communities do exist. So, too, with larger and more formal social structures. Some of these structures are good for human flourishing, and some are negative, but this has mostly to do with the motivation of the individuals who compose the structure and their founding principles, and not so much by the fact that they are organized.
The true problem is the inversion of service. The family serves its members' happiness, and the happiness of the family is dependent on the happiness of its members. Likewise, a happy community is so because it's members are happy and it properly serves the happiness of the families who compose it. Finally, the state, kingdom, or otherwise governing structure ought to organize and serve the communities that compose it, not the communities serving the governing structure.
Localism is the future, not anarchy nor statism.
The family does not serve - only the individual members of the family exist to serve or fail to serve.
The idea that the State acts, that it can succeed or fail to protect you or to respect your rights, is a fiction that allows criminals to escape blame. Despite "our" persecution of the Nazis after the war, following orders is taken to excuse blatantly unethical and illegal behavior, as when an IRS agent commits extortion or a police officer kidnaps a person for a victimless "crime".
Under your vision of localism, are my neighbors seen as just, moral and lawful when they in combination violate my personal and property rights?
If yes, that is statism. If no, it is anarchism.
It's not so cut and dried. Statism and anarchy are not the two Boolean options, nor really is it a linear spectrum between them. These just happen to be the two most pitted against each other in these circles.
Localism puts power together with vicinity. The closer you are to something, the more authority you ought to have, including the most fundamental unit: the person.
A father properly leading his family is not statism. Sure, the opportunity for tyranny exists, as it does on every level of society, but his proper exercise of authority does not make him a tyrant.
The community can collectively decide to exclude a member if that member is in violation of others, such as a family of criminals, or mafia, can be legitimately ejected from a neighborhood. That is not statism, but the local people making decisions that are best for it. They can even collectively decide to appoint an individual to carry out such work for the good of the community and its members: in a word, a sheriff.
Statism itself is the view that the state is the source of authority, or that its authority is absolute, and anarchy is the denial that any authority is legitimate. Localism is the balanced understanding that authority does indeed exist, is legitimate, and ought to be held in as low a level as possible to achieve an end.
To illustrate, take sustenance. A family is rightfully concerned about each individual's food. The community ought not be concerned of a single individual's food, but it ought to be of whole families. A city ought not be concerned with a single family's food, but it ought concern itself with whole communities. The state ought not concern itself with a single community's food, but it ought to of whole cities. You get the picture.
Tyranny occurs when a higher authority concerns itself with a lower matter than is appropriate, and that is not limited to the state alone, or even the city. Localism puts that authority in the appropriate hands.
"Statism itself is the view that the state is the source of authority, or that its authority is absolute, and anarchy is the denial that any authority is legitimate. Localism is the balanced understanding that authority does indeed exist, is legitimate, and ought to be held in as low a level as possible to achieve an end. "
I don't agree with your definitions. Anarchism vests each individual with the same authority (ie legal rights and obligations) as any other. To defend archism (ie that some individuals possess an authority which makes it just and lawful for them to violate the personal and property rights of others) under the banner of localism is still Statism. You simply prefer a small, local State over one that is large and distant.
If every individual has the same authority, no individual has authority over another. That's one problem, because parents naturally have authority over children, and then who is to say when those children become adults?
Secondly, defending one's rights and property against a bad actor is in no way violating the bad actor's rights and liberties, but a just and expected response. If someone wishes to defend his rights and obligations from a violator, he may delegate that defence to another. Multiple people may choose to delegate that to the same person, and this we call a sheriff, judge, or otherwise "the authorities."
Statism, the state-centric view, is not natural, but that is not to say the state ought not exist. Localism is individual- and community-centric, and they naturally have the collective right and responsibility to defend their individual rights and responsibilities. The differentiation is that those rights and responsibilities do not originate with the state but are intrinsic to the person.
“Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the [local magistrate] or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?"