8 votes

What do you hate most about the State?

If there were one policy, department, or other State thing which you could immediately put an end to with only your say-so, what would it be? And, why is it at the top of your list?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The destruction of the balance of power

caused by the 'abdication' of the duties by Congress.

In short, flush all executive orders, and bad Supreme Court Decisions. This is Congress's duty, which it has been derelict in performing.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

I Would Eliminate Public Unions

Public employees and their ridiculous benefit package coerced from the State legislature must stop.

The fact that just because a

The fact that just because a person is born that the state is supposed to have authority over them. There is no contract with my signature on it that says I agree to be governed.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

I would do away with borders,

I would do away with borders, if only you guys knew what a pain in the ass it is to keep my wife from being deported. Mountains of paperwork and thousands of dollars to keep my family together.

God bless America and no one else.

Dishonesty and secrets

I would rid our society of those because no matter how ghastly reality can be it can only be fixed if people are aware of them. Secrecy breeds so much corruption which breeds lies and so on and so forth. This would also, of course, nullify every criminal organization that our government commands like the IRS, CIA, NSA, FBI and so on because they are all unconstitutional branches of government. They are all centralized power mechanisms and they are all hijacked. The Federal Reserve would not exist as they do not deal in honest money. That would force parents to be accountable to their children when they ask why the world is so fucked up. "Sorry honey your mother and father didn't do shit in the political arena and neither did their parents so you are fucked." Look your kids in the face and tell them that one and see if you aren't more motivated eh!"

Daylight savings time.

It is a feeble attempt by man to make the sun rise at his own bidding. ...and it's annoying. :-)

Galactic Fraud

The State presumes that I entered, voluntarily (!), into a contract with it, giving my consent to abide by all laws it passed prior to my birth and all laws and interpretations it makes thereafter. It acts on that presumption at all times in its' interactions with me, even to the point of using force. Further, it then presumes to determine, unilaterally, whether I have complied with the terms of our 'agreements', and levy punishment of its choosing if it deems not.

All under the pretext that my 'vote' is the basis for this voluntary contract.

This is fraud of a galactic order.

Authoritarianism creep

No branch of government seems to be immune.

robot999's picture


who institute it, run it, and enforce it.

"Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex". - Frank Zappa

Its very essence

It claims the power to harm with legal impunity.

I would reverse the States propensity to..

I would reverse the States propensity to increase and centralize power unto itself. The why is self evident, but the how is akin to changing the laws of physics!

I didn't read a single reply to this thread prior to posting because I did not want to be influenced. Now I'm gonna go read some of those replies!


An Immediate overhaul of the California State Constitution. It is flawed and has so many holes in it, just asking to be exploited. It breeds the Corruption in the State.

It really is disappointing with all of the efforts at changing things at the Federal level, at least in California, much of it will barely be noticed. CA may even turn further left if there is a true conservative in 2016.

The thing I don't like about

The thing I don't like about the state is that it allows no competition with itself.


I concur.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard


Those who initiate injury upon others need to be removed from society. The men and women fraudulently claiming to be the State are the single largest threat to peace and security that exists. 99.9999999% of all injury initiated by a human being against another that I have seen comes from men and women who claim to be the State yet all law and common sense makes it self-evident fact that it is impossible that such violent and deceptive individuals to ever be considered within any lawful body whatsoever.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

It's monopoly on the legal

It's monopoly on the legal initiation of force. Talk about a deal breaker...

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies"

All of it!

1. They steal your kids to put into indoctrination camps for 8 hours a day.

2. People ENJOY the indoctrination. Teachers, soldiers, politicians, policemen... PRAY that they keep their job, and their job is to indoctrinate. And they WORK THEIR BUTT OFF to get these jobs. And they get all kinds of praise for doing their job.

3. Because of the heavy disguise of the government, PEOPLE WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND basic and plain facts and principles; because they have warped their own logic to fit with the notion of "the protecting and loving government." Never again can you call a spade a spade. And simple things like kidnapping, theft, indoctrination, brainwashing, and extortion can never be called by their proper names. Instead we call them prison, taxation, school (education), and taxation.

According to you

it sounds like it isn't the state that's the problem, but the people.

"The trees" vs "The forrest"

So the forrest is made of trees. So when "the forrest causes harm," then we must mean "the trees cause harm."

And there is no way I would try to educate you on this, because you probably understand and can explain this better than I can....

But "there is no forrest, only trees," and "there is no government, only people."

So this is only a dispute on semantics.

RUSH ~ Trees

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.


But you guys admit that humans are predatory and will organize to rob and kill each other, and then advocate that people give up the one thing that protects them from this 99% of the time, because it isn't 100% perfect. Everyone else realizes by common sense the result would be much more predation and disorder and violence, but common sense can't bother utopian ideologues. There's no actual danger that anarchism will win. It's only accomplishment is making everyone in the libertarian movement look retarded.

Circular logic

But you guys admit that humans are predatory and will organize to rob and kill each other, and then advocate that people give up the one thing that protects them from this 99% of the time

If there are too many predatory people, then it would be dangerous to create an institution where some people have the legal right to rule over others because the predators will want to be part of that ruling institution.

People are bad so we need a government made up of people, to protect us from people who are bad...

I think Triple Billy gets paid to post...

Either that, or someone at the HQ is attempting to provide balance by acting like a hardcore statist. Either way, he/she/it is probably collecting a paycheck while posting.

My to sense/cents.


I have been having the same hunch for a while now. I wish Michael would catch on.

Good argument, guys.

Oh wait it was just a baseless conspiracy theory, nevermind. :D

What you'd really like is the freedom to preach nonsense without being challenged, so would love to have people you disagree with banned, even while pissing and moaning about owner/webmaster running his own property his way, all the time.

On the other hand, I take all comers, don't wish for anyone to be banned, and just laugh at the panoply of opinions, personalities and hurt butts on the site and their neverending pity parties.


People are bad, so lets create a state on our own terms because otherwise it could get even worse.

That is the minarchist argument, I don't know why you anarchists cling to your strawmen so tightly, you are just arguing with yourselves.

Ventura 2012

An example of common sense...

So I can show you how I think YOU ARE missing the point of common sense. Consider the following hypothetical conversation and decide what the common sense position is.

Statist: If there were no government, there would be no police to protect you. So in your anarchist dream society, people will steal from you occasionally!

Anarchist: "So how do we currently protect AGAINST THEFT?"

Statist: "The govt taxes you and pays the police to protect your property."

Anarchist: "But taxation = theft. So you are telling me... that to PROTECT AGAINST THEFT, you MUST FIRST STEAL (the tax money to pay the blue uniform)?

Anarchist: "And you are currently taxed at an effective rate of 50%. That means that in order for things to get as bad as they currently are in my anarchist society, that the level of theft would have to reach 50% for EVERY working citizen in order to reach the current level of theft."

Anarchist: "And so YOUR GREATEST fear, theft, IS OCCURRING NOW! It exists NOW. And it IS WORSE than a gang, it is a gang that has the ability to garnish your paycheck! And they never forget to take their cut."


So how does this make sense? To avoid theft, WE STEAL SYSTEMATICALLY AND PERPETUALLY.

It makes as much sense to say "To protect my wife from being hurt, I beat her up every night. Now I know she's safe."

You've misdefined theft to

You've misdefined theft to include taxation. Taxation is just and necessary, as long as people are free to take their property and leave the taxing social apparatus and seek greener pastures without any communal defense.

Taxation = Theft

This hardly requires any argument. If I steal $100 from you, then use it to pave your road, I STILL STOLE the $100 from you. But I am surprised you argue against such an obvious concept.


Bill, I would appreciate if you didn't treat me like a fool. In a recent post you basically called me a "fool" and have now basically said that "I lack common sense" and called me "utopian."

And you also said "that is not an argument" many times. So please, these are not arguments you present, they do not add information to the debate.

There are plenty of things I find you to be WAY OFF BASE ON, and I don't call you "utopian, foolish, idealogue, lacking common sense.." Even though I feel that way sometimes!