Civilisation and Libertarianism

"The state is not the founder or the enabler of civilisation"

civilisation  A ^*society that has advanced (originally in cities, by history and etymology) beyond the presence of brutality and predations plus the absence of technological and social refinements that characterise barbarism, with which it is usually contrasted as an opposite. It would seem to follow that to be fully civilised is to avoid all ^*aggressive impositions and have maximal access to refinements. This entails respecting the individual ^*liberty of ^*persons and allowing the great productivity of ^*free markets; as ^*private-property ^*anarchy does and as all ^*political systems, ipso facto, fail to do.

The ^*state is not the founder or the enabler of civilisation (except, perhaps, to a limited degree when conquering far less civilised societies) but, rather, parasitic on and destructive of it. First and foremost, the state does not provide the ^*law that civilisation requires; rather, it undermines that spontaneous ^*law with its own aggressive ^*legislation. Nor is it civilising to ^*tax-fund or control other aspects, such as ^*art, ^*science, ^*education, and ^*healthcare: this simply makes them less ^*efficient.