Why do I accept the Lockean Proviso?

Well, one thing, looking back at yesterday's article that I overlooked, is that at the end of the day, I am a bit of a "statist". I support the idea of a state. Karl Widerquist tends to be a bit more skeptical of the idea of the state, and seems to believe that the modern state may fail the so called lockean proviso, or the idea that the state existing, despite the lack of freedom that can come with it, tends to be a net benefit to people subjected under it. Yet...the state is a coercive force, and has a history of sometimes treating people poorly. Including our own. I mean, we kind of exterminated most native americans and enslaved most black people, for example. And we subject people to wage slavery.

But let's face it, despite the state's flaws, I generally support the concept of a state. This does not mean I don't have issues with the state as it exists, but let's face it. Whatever evils exist under the state, could very well exist in a state of anarchy. For much of my political history, I tended to accept the arguments put forth by Hobbes' Leviathan, that without the state, that life is "nasty, brutish, and short."

I will say, listening to Widerquist at times and evolving my political understanding has made me wonder if this is always true, and if the state is always a good thing. It isnt, if it's hostile to your existence or enslaves you, well, you could make an argument against it.

But looking at modern western democracies? I would argue that the lockean proviso does apply to them, regardless of flaws. The primary purpose of the state is to provide security. Which it does. Beyond that, it should provide an environment for people to thrive in. Which it also does. Now, are western states perfect? No. I mean, my own country, the US, well, if it were a utopia, I wouldn't be writing this blog. But, regardless of the flaws, its existence is better than, you know, ANARCHY. And I do believe that the state can be reformed.

Despite this, I like Widerquist's arguments that because the state exists and imposes rules and social systems on people, and that its influence can't just be avoided realistically, that the state should compensate people for its existence. I think UBI both serves as reparations for otherwise flawed social structures, but at the same time, provides people with economic security and freedom that allows people to thrive. And that's why I call myself an indepentarian. I might not agree completely with Widerquist on the idea of the state, but I do like his arguments for indepentarianism and basic income nevertheless, enough where I call myself an indepentarian. 

I just wanted to clear that up.