Arguing against the need for referees is stupid

Those arguing against the need for referees (i.e. the state) hide behind the non-argument that ‘the referee is the state and we don’t need a state.’ If any of these ass hats had a brain they would understand that the state we have is the state we asked for and voted on. If we don’t like the state, we need to get a new one. This is what revolutions are all about. This is what GIABO is about. This is what’s happening in Greece at the moment. The state has failed to represent the people so the people are seeking a regime change. The state in America after the reforms brought in after the 1929 crash gave rise to the ‘American Century.’ No state, no American century – as just one example. Anyone who says, ‘competition is the referee’ has obviously not read any Adam Smith or has any idea whatsoever about any of the ideas that came out of the Enlightenment. The words competition and rules are inseparable. To pull them apart and look at one without the other is just sophist crap from dickheads I’m tired of this intellectual laziness masquerading as insight when it’s just squawking by birdbrains with too much time on their hands.

27 comments on “Arguing against the need for referees is stupid
  1. Aaron says:

    I don’t get why we need a referee, Max. Surely the only reason it appears that we need one now is because the state is using it’s violence monopoly to weight the odds in certain people’s favour?

    No state interference no problem, right? Don’t like the fed devaluing your life savings to prop up the market? no problemmo, just switch to that other currency now that you are no longer forced to earn dollars and only dollars because you need to pay your taxes.

  2. snoop diddy says:

    Anarchists blathering on about a system of property rights is shambolic.

  3. stacyherbert says:

    @Aaron – from the days of Genghis Kahn, strong men have invaded and stolen from small anarchist paradises

  4. indeed says:

    I agree with this author. Eat him and take his money.

  5. Fernando says:

    A government enforcing property rights IS a government acting as a referee!

  6. Aaron says:

    Maybe I’m thinking a bit idealistically, rather than for our needs, right now, today.
    Presumably anarchists don’t suggest that we switch to anarchy overnight. Much like in Iraq (ignoring the fact that it was all bullshit), smashing the country to bits overnight and saying “Here you go. Deomocracy! Enjoy”, didn’t work (duh); it has to be an organic thing.

    Perhaps given a natural evolution towards anarchy people would find communal strength in indiviadual liberty.

    Given that, maybe a referee in the short to medium term is required afterall. I watched a video the other day where Stefan Moyleneaux was explainign why Ron Paul winning would be a disaster. But I think uncle Ron rocks and if he’s wise enough he can facilitate organic change over time, while being the ‘referee’ right now. Alot of faith to put in one man though.

  7. snoop diddy says:

    it’s sad but that’s the way it is. The default position isnt to mathematically make all the choices of humanity equal and therefore just, because we’re just a subset of the universe and it won’t let us. Just membranes trying to take in enough energy to survive another day in a universe that wants us dead. Enjoy the ride 🙂

  8. Dingleberry says:

    We need a referee,but seems like the ones we get are in bed with one side of the game. And try as we might, we cannot seem to get one that is fair, despite elections and such. Lobbying money and future sweetheart jobs for politicians take care of that. SO in that context, I agree. It’s not that we don’t need a ref, it’s just that it’s impossible to get a fair one. May as well go anarchist.

  9. William says:

    Well said, Max. Excellent. Right on. Agree 110%. Etc.

  10. William says:

    Although I’ve noticed sadly some internecine conflict over there with respect to the role of government which you have just defended (and I agree with).

  11. snoop diddy says:

    too many late nights for me trolling this place lol.

  12. Youri Carma says:

    Arguing against the need for referees is indeed stupid cause there never is a fair level of playing field and who’s gonna ban out the fraud? Competition? Don’t think so.

    Other example; Big multinationals nearly pay any taxes since they are in international safe tax havens while the small national businesses have to carry the full load of taxpaying.

    Dutch small businesses pay many taxes while the Netherlands is considred a tax flee resort for companies who come from outside. Best is to quite your business in the Netherlands set it up outside the Netgerlands and than come back ro enjoy the same light tax treatment as all the other multinnationals.

  13. Geoff says:

    The great problem I see is that the barriers of capitalism have given rise to a decentralized financial empire(oligarchy outside the state), which relies on arbitrage and fraud, thus negating the very nature of what the state is supposed to uphold; that is, the best interests of the people that the state represents. It seems like there are too many frictions underlying the disaggregation and aggregation of information and collaborative strategies around the world that cross boundaries. How does the global community who want a better future deal with that in the context of game theory? Alliances? Of what kind?

  14. LeroyJefferson says:

    The reason the too corrupt to fail banks exist is to pedal endless Government borrowing .
    That same Gov that has a 99% conviction rate at the Federal level.
    There are ten separate agencies to “Referee” Wall Street yet none of them do a thing to stop the fraud.
    Bankers don’t create the endless Wars/occupations around the world They just profit from it like many other Companies.
    Bankers didn’t import huge quantities of cocaine to sell to the American people the Gov did(“Dark Alliance”by Gary Webb)they just laundered the money for the Gov.(check out to see the trail of death that GUFOS has left behind)

    Thanks for all the work you have been doing to bring the Banksters to Justice but to leave the Gov out of the equation is what they want.I’m not saying no Ref,just one that runs the game fairly not corruptly.

  15. Dan says:

    “I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe–“That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.”


  16. frijah says:

    You can cry all you want about the need for a referee but what does it matter when the ref is ALWAYS bought? (Always has been and always will be) The statists are the juvenile ones here. Power corrupts. And government is a tool to preserve and expand power. Apologists for the state are status quo defenders who have identified with their own spoon-fed ideology. Rampant mismanagement of the planet’s resources and perpetual war and exploitation is the perpetual outcome of the marriage of economic and military power. The state is the pretext and defender of this situation and is an absolute con. Doesn’t matter what individuals you plug into this system, these conditions guarantee corruption. Humanity is under the spell of the authority hoax, the fiction of jurisdiction. To suggest anarchy would be worse than the way the world is run today is splitting hairs at best. More likely, it would mean decentralization of power and hence, greater balance, harmony and equilibrium. Either way it would be refreshing to see the intelligent commentators such as yourselves acknowledge the grand hypocrisy we live in. Empires built upon genocide backed by fiat wealth have imposed a system of slavery upon all humanity and invented an illusion to hide this fact. All wealth is stolen and illegitimate. Consider what would happen if all people stopped recognizing paper money? The veil would lift and we would see how things really are. Rule by force. Laws and the state exist to justify the extortion and keep the con going. It’s one form of violence or another, take your pick but at least be honest about it. What chance does love have in a world so pathologically organized?

  17. SilverMarks says:

    Blackbeard’s Book
    (Wall Street style)

    Black Book (gambling)
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    “Black Book” is the nickname frequently used to refer to a list of persons who are unwelcome in casinos. The name comes from the fact that the persons listed in the “book” are essentially “blacklisted”. The term can refer either to such a list officially maintained by a particular Gaming Control Board, or to the Griffin Book, whose information is shared between casinos.

    In the former case, persons listed are generally suspected of having, or known to have, ties to organized crime. Casinos are obliged by regulations to exclude all such persons from entry, and can be subject to sanctions from the Gaming Control Board for failure to do so.

    In the Griffin Book, published by Griffin Investigations, listed individuals are generally suspected of being, or known to be, either advantage players or outright cheaters at the casino games themselves. Thus, casinos find it in their own economic best interest to exclude such individuals. Those listed may be anyone perceived as a threat to the casino’s profits, including those that use legal and illegal means, such as card counters, people who mark cards, those who try to cheat slot machines or anyone else considered a threat to a casino, including players that the casinos believe are winning too much or too often. The book keeps pictures either obtained from a photo of the individual when detained or simply questioned and released or from surveillance photos. At least one successful defamation lawsuit has been brought as a result of the Griffin Book.[1]

    Gryphus (grýphonis) a legendary creature with the body of a lion and the head and wings of an eagle. As the lion was traditionally considered the king of the beasts and the eagle was the king of the birds, the griffin was thought to be an especially powerful and majestic creature. The griffin was also thought of as king of the creatures. Griffins are known for guarding treasure and priceless possessions…

    Guest post by William K. Black

    Video – Bill Black and Amy Goodman in Kansas City – Oct. 19, 2011


  18. Sidera says:

    Maybe have Stefan Moulyneux on for a little debate next time. Or maybe Doug Casey? See how that goes Max. The state is the reason for all the hardships in our lives today.

    End the state, end wars. Its a very simple solution.

    Capitalism is voluntary; the state is coercion

  19. don middleton says:

    Could the state own all the lands and waters within it’s borders and issue leases to private concerns? No income tax, period. Lease the right to generate electricity from moving water. Lease the right to lay track on land for rail. The idea is simple and endless in application. Leases could be tied to population levels and come to auction on some regular basis.
    Extractive business would pay royalties in addition to leases such as currently.
    Without a tax code, free enterprise could flourish and citizens could truly vote with their pocketbook.
    Of course it remains that manipulation of leases be guarded against, but simpler is better than the system we have.
    Patents and copyright are a tough nut…….how an invention’s benefit should accrue to the inventor and the society whose shoulders the inventor stood upon?
    Maybe it boils down to how much we love each other. Current events ask….where’s the love?

  20. Rachel says:

    frijah- will you marry me?

  21. 623-3 says:

    Of course when the players are more interested in their shiny Apple devices and the distract and divide tactics of some, they won’t be able to see when other players bribe the referee thus taking control over the game rules. They’ll blame the referee then, they should blame themselves.

  22. Kim Briggs says:

    Who referees the referees?

  23. Davrus says:

    Question for anarchists? In the absence of a state with a monopoly on force what is to stop, what is to stop organizations such as gangs, mafia, or Banks from developing their own force market share, even setting up their own localized monopolies?

    Or are we assuming that once we get rid of the state everyone will just “get along”?

    My current assumption is that if you don’t choose the referee, the referee is going to choose you. The problem is that we haven’t been choosing the referee for a long time.

  24. frijah says:

    Rachel – Must we invite the state into our dreamy neotopian love affair?

  25. al says:

    By all means, Max, please have him on your show again and liven it up. I’d love to see a one-on-one exchange rather than sniping back and forth at each other via blog posts. This is a debate I and the rest of your audience would be very interested in watching.

    Berwick is correct that your interview of him ended very suddenly after his proclamation of being an anarchist, and you looked disgusted as if to say “all right, enough of this guy.” Come on, Max. Let’s have the debate, and tell Berwick to bring it. Enough of the off-camera sniping.

  26. generation debt says:

    I agree with @al. Max and Stacy, please bring him back, this is one of the most interesting debates we face today. Honestly, I don’t see how we could go state-less unless every nation-state went state-less all at once. Let’s pretend the US miraculously becomes a destate, what then protects the people from other countries from coming in and taking land. We live in a global world, there is no cutting yourself off from the outside world.

    @Geoff good point about the decentralized nature of the institutions which operate outside the state powers and free from democratic influence. Institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and BIS are, as Adam Webb wrote, born deaf. There is no system in which the people of the world have a say in what they do. Isn’t this an example of what anarchy looks like when the powerful dominate. Now I guess the argument is that if you have no state then these institutions hold no power as there is no state to impose their power.

    A lot of good commentary in this thread, thank you all.

  27. MrJones says:

    Imagining pulling the referees out of a football or baseball game. I give it one or two quarters or 3 or 4 innings before all hell brakes out. Along the same lines, I can imagine one side bribing and paying off the referees. Only this time it would take twice as long before all hell brakes out. So thinking a game/economy can be played without a referee/government is nonsense. We just need a referee/government that works for both sides and can not be bribed. The problem I have with RP is he wants to eliminate the referees instead of forcing them to enforce the rules.

Watch the latest Keiser Reports:

Buy Gold Online
Buy Gold Online