How did states/religions come about? Why are they still around?

NOTES

The history between the relationships of states and religions are very interesting to me, that is why I have taken upon myself to add this project to my list.

Reason for the creation of states:
At some point in human history, survival required the use of violence. Avoiding predators, catching prey, territorial conflict between groups and mating all required violence to function. Related to mating, the alpha of the group is usually chosen through their ability to beat another in combat. Over time, these hierarchical relationships had gotten increasingly complex - relationships between alpha and non-alpha within groups grew into an alpha/non-alpha relationships between families and alphas learned that they can take over other the groups of other alphas, which helped them gain power and ultimately, security. The elites of these groups then lead their societies against other elites of other societies. This hierarchical structure eventually grew into a state which then went on to take many forms.

Reason for the creation of religion:
An explanation of the unknowns.

Reason for the continued existence of religion and state:
Children raised in households where parental authority is not legitimated rationally but rather through blind allegiance which usually takes the form of a 'moral duty'. This corrupts children which leads them to believe in an omnipotent/moral deity or state.

Peace, War, Pacifism & Violence

Peace and war are not at ends as most people think. They are lumped together, they are two sides of the same coin, they are the yin and yang of society.

Political pacifists are hypocrites. They advocate non-violence but turn around and give your slave owners wages and pay for your 'protection' with your own money.
They free themselves of violence.

Individuals need to control their own violence.

Pacifism is not the answer, it only leads you to delegate your capability to use violence onto someone else.

Hobbes explains, we engage in the creation of a type of social contract in order to survive. As we are trying to avoid the state of war, we group together to keep us safe. Yet, nations are surviving within a state of nature, a state of anarchy. They are always subject to the same state of war, and they, although not perfectly, manage to settle there affairs... well, as best as ever-growing monopolizers can.

The Importance of Owning Violence

Republicans, conservatives, statist-libertarians, etc. all ramble on about personal responsibility. However, this includes owning your own violence, taking power over your own destruction and harnessing this capability instead of creating a collective, omnipotent, 'unfightable' power. There is no personal responsibility in creating a state, it is a collective responsibility.

When individuals are given this collective power and responsibility (Stan Lee, with great power comes great responsibility), they become power hungry psychopaths who think they hold the moral authority of society in their hands. Human beings are nothing but animals, and when these people have this power, they become the artificial alpha (fe)males of society and they are threatened by anyone who would challenge this position. Whats worse, the evil of the state only attracts evil to work for it. Only those that are willing to point guns will actually do it and these are our beloved police and politicians... of course, others may be willing to point the gun as well but what separates the 'bad' from the 'evil' is that, one of them claims the moral authority while being a blatant hypocrite. This is why I love the movie Fight Club as it separates the evil from the, more or less, bad or even, amoral.

Violence against the state

I consider violence against the state (i.e. police, politicians) as self defense. However, I do not advocate using violence for revolution. Gandhi had it right.

Killing politicians is not the answer, stopping the electoral process is. For every politician killed, another one is elected.

Other than non-violence, how a revolution may/should be carried out is beyond me... for now. I will need to get back to this subject later, but for now, I must work on my review of Hedonism.

Absolute Power

if everybody wants to reach absolute power
and absolute power is the use of force
then, everybody would want to be able to use this force.

absolute force is always resisted, but it does not matter how many resist.

governments have always been made to represent a true monopoly of power, such that there is no competition. However, in reality, although governments may hold the majority of violence, they do not actually hold any monopoly.

Controlling Violence

A Monopoly on Violence

Nobody wants violence inflicted on them. So, in an effort to try and stop this, human beings band together and form states to try to collectively govern this violence. However, this does not really 'stop' the violence because, not only does it use violence against its own populace, it uses it against those outside of the system. It creates a kind of 'join us or die' attitude. Individual potential for destruction turns into a much more powerful, collective one. However, there really is no such thing as collective property or collective power. Since only one will can be exerted on one object, a collective decision is ultimately the decision of individuals.


The Collective Body

Decisions are made within the brain of an individual. Since there is no collective brain, it is really difficult to argue that a collective decision can even be made. But it is possible when all brains come up with the same conclusion. If one does not agree, he can either be convinced, forced to obey, traded with or, in extremely rare cases kicked out or ignored. The collective fist, on the other hand, is something much more physical and objective. Whatever the brain comes up with, the collective fist enforces. A fist can only be stopped by another fist but that just means that the fist has been replaced by a stronger one. The only way to stop the cycle is to not be apart of it. Control your own violence, don't let your fists assimilate into the collective, but if you do, you will have very little control of what it does meaning that it could hurt those who you do not want it to hurt, including yourself.

Means vs Ends

Moral ends can only be achieved through moral means.
However, it is not the same case for money, as one can spend money to make money.
When calculating somethings moral praisworthyness, all actions commited must be taken into account.
Those who advocate the effeciency and morality of non-violence must also advocate the abolishment of forced taxation.