Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Project Anarchia: Government is immoral, irrational and unnecessary.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    These United States.
    Posts
    403

    Default Project Anarchia: Government is immoral, irrational and unnecessary.

    I will begin this debate by stating that I am an anarchist, meaning that I do not believe a ruling class should exist. I will explain what I view as a ruling class, but I will address anarchy first.

    A lot of people confuse anarchy as chaos and disorder, but true philosophical anarchists see anarchy as the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by dictionary.reference.com
    anˇarˇchy
    [an-er-kee] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    a state of society without government or law
    .
    As I just mentioned, many people use the word "anarchy" in this context:

    Quote Originally Posted by dictionary.reference.com
    2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.
    The important distinction between the two definitions is that one of them assumes there will be chaos and disorder without government, while the other only acknowledges a society without government.

    What is a ruling class?
    A ruling class is a person or group of people perceived to have rights that people who are not in the ruling class do not have. Government is an example of a ruling class, as the group of people that comprise the body of government are the only ones perceived to have the right to pass laws. Government is also the only group of people believed to have the moral right to force people to give part of their earned wealth to government (taxation).

    Now that I have briefly described what a ruling class is, I will elaborate on the meaning of my title.

    Government is immoral because it uses force in order to intimidate people into complying with its demands, regardless of whether the demands are fair or morally legitimate. For example, people who do not pay their taxes because they believe it is funding an immoral and/or unnecessary act, such as a war that does not serve the nation's security interests, will be fined or imprisoned regardless of the reason for refusing to pay their taxes.

    Another example is imprisoning people for choosing to smoke a substance that is classified as "illegal", even if they are not hurting or affecting anyone but themselves. Not taking into account whether it is wise or not to smoke said substance, a person should have the right to choose what to put into his or her own body. A person or group of people does not have the right to tell another person or group of people what they can or can not do if the action does not affect or seriously harm anyone.

    Government is irrational because it requires the belief that a group of people have more rights than the rest, despite the fact that humans are all equal. If my group of 500 friends can not go door to door demanding money at gun point in return for services, such as building a road, what gives the group of people labeled as government the right to demand taxes?

    If 500 friends went around declaring that certain soda sizes were banned because the sodas contributed to the obesity epidemic, and that they would force any person who broke this edict to pay a fine of $100, they would not be taken seriously. However, if Bloomberg's failed attempt at a similar law actually succeeded, it would be considered as legitimate and would be enforced.

    As I mentioned previously, rights that people do not have can not be magically delegated to another group of people and suddenly become legitimate because of a label named "government".

    Government is unnecessary
    because everything can be achieved through voluntary cooperation among fellow human beings. To believe that government is the reason why beneficial outcomes occur for society is to believe that people would not attempt to do something helpful for society unless they were forced or paid by the government to do so.

    The same thing can be said about believing that government is needed to prevent evil or harmful actions from occurring. Believing this implies that people choose not to do evil acts or harm because they were told not to, rather than understanding it is wrong and not wanting to inflict harm on another person out of virtue.

    To be blunt and to the point, government has and always will cause more harm than good due to its very nature and the power it obtains.

    Please share your views and opinions! I can not guarantee a reply to every post, but I will try to address legitimate questions and arguments/opinions as long as I have the time.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    941

    Default

    I'll bite, if only to get some conversation started.

    __________________________________________________ ___________
    Quote Originally Posted by Golden Pure View Post
    Government is immoral because it uses force in order to intimidate people into complying with its demands, regardless of whether the demands are fair or morally legitimate. For example, people who do not pay their taxes because they believe it is funding an immoral and/or unnecessary act, such as a war that does not serve the nation's security interests, will be fined or imprisoned regardless of the reason for refusing to pay their taxes.
    You are born into a society that you willingly live and reside in. If you are currently permanently in a country that accepts and employs the social contract, then you are tacitly accepting the terms.

    Some of these terms mean accepting the will of majority opinion, which necessitates your complete compliance. You are protected as the minority, but not empowered.

    Some government requires your total compliance, which could potentially work despite it never having worked before. We have never employed Trotsky-ist dialectical materialism, so how would we know if a commune of that nature was ever established could succeed? Some government models are extremely difficult to gauge due to their largely unknown nature.
    Another example is imprisoning people for choosing to smoke a substance that is classified as "illegal", even if they are not hurting or affecting anyone but themselves. A person or group of people does not have the right to tell another person or group of people what they can or can not do if the action does not affect or seriously harm anyone.
    Ah, but it harms the society. contributing members of society are necessary for an independent, self-sustaining society. If you are doing anything in a society at all, even nothing, you are affecting the society.

    On top of this, drugs can seriously harm and even kill innocents. Robbery to pay for the next dose, car crashes, drug deals gone wrong, you name it. They are illegal for a reason.
    __________________________________________________ ___________
    Government is irrational because it requires the belief that a group of people have more rights than the rest, despite the fact that humans are all equal. If my group of 500 friends can not go door to door demanding money at gun point in return for services, such as building a road, what gives the group of people labeled as government the right to demand taxes?
    It's because your group of 500 neighbors haven't established land claim, borders, any type of social contract to ensure the tax investor sees a return on his money, a legal system, a judicial system and a governing body. Governments aren't held to the same standards as groups of people because they aren't the same thing.

    It would be more irrational to hold a disorganized group to the same standards as an organized governing body.
    If 500 friends went around declaring that certain soda sizes were banned because the sodas contributed to the obesity epidemic, and that they would force any person who broke this edict to pay a fine of $100, they would not be taken seriously. However, if Bloomberg's failed attempt at a similar law actually succeeded, it would be considered as legitimate and would be enforced.
    The problem with this is that you are ignoring the fact that it wasn't actually implemented completely due to the success of the governmental system, which I find ironic. We said that those laws were unnecessary and unwelcome, and we pressured representatives into denying the laws legitimacy.
    As I mentioned previously, rights that people do not have can not be magically delegated to another group of people and suddenly become legitimate because of a label named "government".
    The ability to pass laws and delegate funding is not a right that anyone in a democracy has or should have. If we don't like our rep, we can vote him/her out and they won't be able to continue to screw us.

    __________________________________________________ ___________

    Government is unnecessary
    because everything can be achieved through voluntary cooperation among fellow human beings. To believe that government is the reason why beneficial outcomes occur for society is to believe that people would not attempt to do something helpful for society unless they were forced or paid by the government to do so.
    Show me a society that thrived for any amount of time over, say a decade or two and that might hold some weight. The fact it, no such society exists or will likely ever exist under those guidelines.

    People kill and steal and rape and destroy if we aren't guided and aware of pressing justice. It's a nice sentiment, but not a realistic one. Humans are anything but what their namesake suggests; if you take Hobbes are his word, human are vile, amoral creatures and the state of nature is a zone of death and terror.
    The same thing can be said about believing that government is needed to prevent evil or harmful actions from occurring. Believing this implies that people choose not to do evil acts or harm because they were told not to, rather than understanding it is wrong and not wanting to inflict harm on another person out of virtue.
    Once again, this is too idealistic. What civilization do we have to speak of which depicts the virtue of this suggested society.
    To be blunt and to the point, government has and always will cause more harm than good due to its very nature and the power it obtains.
    You have yet to show a harm mutually exclusive to governmental over watch. You view taxes as thievery; anyone can steal. You view laws as oppression; anyone can threaten. You ignore the benefits and ignore your responsibility to the system that created them.

    Essentially, you want the apples without having to plant and support the tree that grows them, insisting that spontaneous apples taste better anyway, despite the fact that we have never seen a spontaneous apple in the first place.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    I do not take Hobbes at his word, but his idea of a "State of Nature" might happen if there was no government.

    I hate to cite a cartoon - and not a very realistic one - as an example, but ever see Aeon Flux? Aeon comes from an anarchist society, and her "goal" (such as it is) is to spread the benefits of this sort of society among a place that it perceived as a dictatorship.

    But that's where the whole theme falls apart. Aeon is supposedly the heroic freedom fighter, but she's completely incompetent, and at times, cruel and merciless, mowing down soldiers without a care. And she usually makes a fool of herself, often dying in the process. On the other hand, Trevor, the supposed dictator, actually seems like a benign ruler more often than not. (Both characters are morally ambiguous, and it seems like the conflict can best be defined as Law versus Chaos rather than Good versus Evil. The point is, Law usually wins and Chaos, meaning Aeon, usually turns out worse for wear.)

    But I digress. Some governments are good, some governments are bad, but with no government and no laws, there is eventually Chaos. No laws means people can do whatever the Hell they want and there's no legal authority to stop them. I mean, if 9/11 had happened in an anarchic society, not only would there be no way to investigate the terrorist act, there's be no reliable emergency services to help people. (How could there be? No government to fund the fire department or other city-run services that are paid for by taxes.) The result of 9/11 would have resulted in looting, then fires, then a plague that would have destroyed New York City after months - maybe years - of suffering.

    Not a pleasant thought, huh?

    Think about that.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    These United States.
    Posts
    403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    I'll bite, if only to get some conversation started.
    Thanks for taking the time to make a well-thought out reply.

    You are born into a society that you willingly live and reside in. If you are currently permanently in a country that accepts and employs the social contract, then you are tacitly accepting the terms.
    I didn't choose to be born into a world and country that operates under the current political system. I had no say in whether it should be implemented, how, and for what reasons. My decision to continue living in my country simply means I realized that to survive, I had to take the good with the bad. Moving to another country is also out of the question, since every country functions under a similar system labelled "government" as well.

    Some of these terms mean accepting the will of majority opinion, which necessitates your complete compliance. You are protected as the minority, but not empowered.

    Some government requires your total compliance, which could potentially work despite it never having worked before. We have never employed Trotsky-ist dialectical materialism, so how would we know if a commune of that nature was ever established could succeed? Some government models are extremely difficult to gauge due to their largely unknown nature.
    The "will of majority opinion" does not automatically make it legitimate or just. Would you tell the Jews of Nazi Germany that they were being protected as a minority, and that they should have complied with being prodded on to cattle cars to be shipped off to their death? Everything that was being done to them was "legal" under Hitler's rule and could not have happened without the support of the "empowered" people.

    Ah, but it harms the society. contributing members of society are necessary for an independent, self-sustaining society. If you are doing anything in a society at all, even nothing, you are affecting the society.

    On top of this, drugs can seriously harm and even kill innocents. Robbery to pay for the next dose, car crashes, drug deals gone wrong, you name it. They are illegal for a reason.
    Prohibition was enacted in the 1920's for the same reasons you are trying to justify the "War on Drugs" today, and both show a similar retrograde result.

    It's because your group of 500 neighbors haven't established land claim, borders, any type of social contract to ensure the tax investor sees a return on his money, a legal system, a judicial system and a governing body. Governments aren't held to the same standards as groups of people because they aren't the same thing.

    It would be more irrational to hold a disorganized group to the same standards as an organized governing body.
    In my example, I was trying to show that the end result would be the same thing if either group built or ordered the construction of the road. Whether 500 of my neighbors decide they want to build a road and have a specific project in mind, or whether it is the elected officials, one of the groups (the elected officials) has the power to approve or reject the idea, while the 500 neighbors would just have to hope it gets approved.

    The problem with this is that you are ignoring the fact that it wasn't actually implemented completely due to the success of the governmental system, which I find ironic. We said that those laws were unnecessary and unwelcome, and we pressured representatives into denying the laws legitimacy.
    Actually, the law was passed by NYC's Board of Health, whose members were appointed by the mayor and not voted in by the public. The only reason why the law is not in effect is because a NY Supreme Court judge struck it down. The majority of the public did not want the ban, but Bloomberg ignored public opinion and is still trying to enact the law by appealing to NY's highest court.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/ny...pagewanted=all

    The ability to pass laws and delegate funding is not a right that anyone in a democracy has or should have.
    You're correct, it is a fabricated right that no one should have. I'm sure you heard of the quote from John Acton: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

    If we don't like our rep, we can vote him/her out and they won't be able to continue to screw us.
    The reason why the Rep. would be able to "screw us" in the first place is because of the imagined power he/she is exerting via government. Electing a new person is like treating the symptom but not the root of the problem, which obviously in this case is government.

    Show me a society that thrived for any amount of time over, say a decade or two and that might hold some weight. The fact it, no such society exists or will likely ever exist under those guidelines.
    I find it ironic that you are willing to argue that

    Some government requires your total compliance, which could potentially work despite it never having worked before. We have never employed Trotsky-ist dialectical materialism, so how would we know if a commune of that nature was ever established could succeed?"
    yet claim that because anarchy in its true form has never been experimented with in society, it couldn't possibly work.

    People kill and steal and rape and destroy if we aren't guided and aware of pressing justice. It's a nice sentiment, but not a realistic one. Humans are anything but what their namesake suggests; if you take Hobbes are his word, human are vile, amoral creatures and the state of nature is a zone of death and terror.

    This is too idealistic. What civilization do we have to speak of which depicts the virtue of this suggested society.
    Of course people commit evil, but a group of said people with power declaring "you can't do that" by passing "laws" is not an effective incentive for people to all of a sudden be nice. Most people don't commit immoral acts because they know it's wrong and/or will likely cause retribution. Keep in mind that anarchy does not mean no organization or means of self-defense against aggressors, it simply means tax dollars won't be used to fund a public protection service (the police).

    If you think that there won't be protection against evil people without tax dollars funding the police, think about this: Is there a law forcing people to become officers? Without volunteers deciding to enroll for a job as a police officer, tax dollars to fund the department would be useless.

    You have yet to show a harm mutually exclusive to governmental over watch. You view taxes as thievery; anyone can steal. You view laws as oppression; anyone can threaten.
    Exactly, so what is the point of having a powerful, coordinated group committing even more harm on a larger scale?

    You ignore the benefits and ignore your responsibility to the system that created them.
    Government did not create the benefits, our ideals and capacity to critically think did. We do not need a coercive political structure to enjoy those benefits either, which would be outweighed by the harm of the system regardless.

    Essentially, you want the apples without having to plant and support the tree that grows them, insisting that spontaneous apples taste better anyway, despite the fact that we have never seen a spontaneous apple in the first place.
    What I want is for people to be able to plant their seeds and reap what they sow as they see fit, without anyone claiming to have a right to decide how others will live their lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    (Both characters are morally ambiguous, and it seems like the conflict can best be defined as Law versus Chaos rather than Good versus Evil.)
    I would define the struggle as oppression vs. freedom.

    But I digress. Some governments are good, some governments are bad, but with no government and no laws, there is eventually Chaos. No laws means people can do whatever the Hell they want and there's no legal authority to stop them. I mean, if 9/11 had happened in an anarchic society, not only would there be no way to investigate the terrorist act, there's be no reliable emergency services to help people. (How could there be? No government to fund the fire department or other city-run services that are paid for by taxes.) The result of 9/11 would have resulted in looting, then fires, then a plague that would have destroyed New York City after months - maybe years - of suffering.

    Not a pleasant thought, huh?

    Think about that.
    I think my above reply to The Federation covers this argument pretty well:

    Quote Originally Posted by Golden Pure
    Of course people commit evil, but a group of said people with power declaring "you can't do that" by passing "laws" is not an effective incentive for people to all of a sudden be nice. Most people don't commit immoral acts because they know it's wrong and/or will likely cause retribution. Keep in mind that anarchy does not mean no organization or means of self-defense against aggressors, it simply means tax dollars won't be used to fund a public protection service (the police).

    If you think that there won't be protection against evil people without tax dollars funding the police, think about this: Is there a law forcing people to become officers? Without volunteers deciding to enroll for a job as a police officer, tax dollars to fund the department would be useless.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Nowwhere and everywhere
    Posts
    942

    Default

    Originally Posted by dictionary.reference.com
    anˇarˇchy
    [an-er-kee] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    a state of society without government or law.
    2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.
    The important distinction between the two definitions is that one of them assumes there will be chaos and disorder without government, while the other only acknowledges a society without government.
    There is a reason that assumption is made though. As said above, without some kind of incentive, in this case a law, or governing body, people will commit "immoral" acts with little or no reprisal. A murder can go around killing as he likes, so long as he doesn't try and kill someone who is armed, or some such.


    To believe that government is the reason why beneficial outcomes occur for society is to believe that people would not attempt to do something helpful for society unless they were forced or paid by the government to do so.
    Consider the fact that people act in a fashion that they believe to be best for them. To take an example from economics, let us say there are two methods of producing a car. A very cheap method which produce a very large amount of pollution, or the environmentally friendly method that costs three times as much (these figures are arbitrary). In order to make money, and thus remain both competitive and thus in business, the company will produce using the very cheap but heavily polluting method. In order to get this company to use the environmentally friendly method, something must be done to compensate them for the extra cost. In that case, a government subsidy.

    Then, for another economically focused option, look at the old U.S. Standard Oil Company. John D. Rockefeller create a massive conglomerate company that controlled all aspects of the oil industry, making huge amounts of money. No one else could enter the industry, wages were driven down rapidly, and labor conditions were awful. You can find another example in the Carnigie Steel Company from about the same time. Similar things happened. Both of these companies could essentially charge anything they wanted for their product, as they could produce more, faster, and cheaper than anyone else in the market. Only problem was, they were driving the common man into the ground.

    Now, all three of these companies, two real, and one (to my knowledge) fictional have one thing in common with each other, and the actions of people at large. They acted in their own self interest. Instead of using their vast wealth for the "good" of society, both Rockefeller and Carnigie, generally sat on their wealth, hoarding it. In fact, this companies were deemed so harmful to the economy, the U.S government stepped in and forcibly dissolved them.

    Now, at that time, the U.S government was using a very hands off policy with the economy, one that frankly, could be described as according to your 1st definition, anarchy, or very near it. Companies could set their own wages, working hours, hell some of them even had their own currencies, and the government didn't give a damn. They might as well have not existed. Other companies were doing very similar things all across the country, oh, and throw child labor in there as well. And did I mention the vast amounts of corruption running rampant through these companies?

    So, to recap. Without any kind of laws, restrictions or whatnot, the economy gravitates towards a corrupt, monopolistic hellhole, with the working man driven into the ground, working long hours, potentially alongside his children for a couple of nickels an hour. Any and all attempts to try and change this resulted in the loss of your job, so that wasn't a good.

    Now, given the economics operates at a base level on the idea that everyone acts in their own self interest, i.e what is best for them, and at a base level most of our lives are governed by economic principles, we can predict that by and large people are going to act in their own self interest in general.

    The same thing can be said about believing that government is needed to prevent evil or harmful actions from occurring. Believing this implies that people choose not to do evil acts or harm because they were told not to, rather than understanding it is wrong and not wanting to inflict harm on another person out of virtue.
    Well firstly, you are assuming that every single person has the exact same morals and view or right and wrong as the next. This isn't true. Every single person has different ideas of right and wrong, generally these differences are minor, but sometimes people have radically different views of right and wrong. Or you could have a sociopath who just doesn't understand the ideas, or a psycopath who just doesn't care. How about crimes someone commits while drunk? That person's mental faculties are heavily compromised, so they probably didn't even stop to think about what they were doing until to late.

    The government and the laws it puts in place are frankly vital to keeping stability in society. Take gun control laws. Imagine if every single person over the age of 18 could carry a gun. Just think about that for a second, you walk past someone on the street, and for all you know, they are carrying a firearm under that jacket. If they wanted you dead, well, there isn't a thing you can do but hope they can't shoot. You can't even hope someone else will help you, since even if every one of the 50 bystanders are carrying a gun, each and every one of them is going to assume that the other will help you and carry on with their day.

    Another example is imprisoning people for choosing to smoke a substance that is classified as "illegal", even if they are not hurting or affecting anyone but themselves. Not taking into account whether it is wise or not to smoke said substance, a person should have the right to choose what to put into his or her own body. A person or group of people does not have the right to tell another person or group of people what they can or can not do if the action does not affect or seriously harm anyone.
    That doesn't affect others? Let us consider alcohol for a second. While there are a great number of "types" of drunks, the fact remains that unless you are really damn lucky, and being drunk doesn't do a damn thing to you, your drunkness will affect others. If you (I am using you as a general pronoun, not pointing fingers) an angry drunk, you might hurt someone, a flirty or promiscuous drunk you might sleep with someone and ruin a relationship, affecting at least two people. Oh, lets take the kicker here, drunk driving. You drive drunk, and you affect every last person on that road with you. Get in an accident? That affected everyone involved. Plenty of other people there.

    Even other substances, especially those you can OD on. Id you OD and die, well anyone who is close to you, friends family, children etc, are affected by that. Even if you don't OD, drug addictions are a serious problem that have and will continue to destroy families.

    Of course people commit evil, but a group of said people with power declaring "you can't do that" by passing "laws" is not an effective incentive for people to all of a sudden be nice. Most people don't commit immoral acts because they know it's wrong and/or will likely cause retribution. Keep in mind that anarchy does not mean no organization or means of self-defense against aggressors, it simply means tax dollars won't be used to fund a public protection service (the police).

    If you think that there won't be protection against evil people without tax dollars funding the police, think about this: Is there a law forcing people to become officers? Without volunteers deciding to enroll for a job as a police officer, tax dollars to fund the department would be useless.
    For the average man, yes it is. You are never going to be able to stop all lawbreakers, such a concept is ridiculous. You are right, most people aren't going to knowingly commit "immoral" acts, but consider that some people might consider those acts perfectly fine.

    Keep in mind that anarchy does not mean no organization or means of self-defense against aggressors, it simply means tax dollars won't be used to fund a public protection service
    How do you propose to have organization without a government? But what is to prevent that self defense from getting out of control. Modern self defense laws have a unnecessary force clause, which basically means that if someone is punch you, you can't stab/shoot/or otherwise mortally wound them. What is to keep things like that in check with laws and government.


    If you think that there won't be protection against evil people without tax dollars funding the police, think about this: Is there a law forcing people to become officers? Without volunteers deciding to enroll for a job as a police officer, tax dollars to fund the department would be useless.
    Consider this: If the government doesn't pay for the police, then that money must come from the private sector. That money must come from people with agendas, back room deals and more. Do you really want someone who can drag you law enforcement around by the ear with funding?

    And before you say that our current government can do that, no it actually can't. As it stand, if corruption is running rampant, there are authorities that a group can go to an report it, the way funding is doled out helps to keep things at a minimum, and frankly our policiains are to busy yelling at each other to go around controlling police forces.
    Take a moment to consider just how nothing nothing really is....If you understand this, then you just solved the universe.

    The truth that each person...each soul...is a book. And when we lay our feelings out in the open...and we give them no name...and we give them no author....and we give them no description.....who will actually read them..........?"

    Credit to Eevee for the amazing banner.
    Current fanfiction project: Pokemon: Absolution

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    414

    Default

    No government? Sorry, but without some sort of rule imposed upon people, there is NOTHING stopping evil such as murder, genocide, rape etc, as it would be A-OK with no laws, and no consequences against it. People would end up forming rules out of necessity and imposing them on others, in order to survive and be safe, which means government. It would take a very evil, not just corrupt government, to be even worse than anarchy. I don't see how anyone could possibly argue for anarchy. I'd need to see some very strong evidence to support such an extremely bold claim.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Yeah I don't see how the world could cope without a government for each country. No matter how bad they are each government does have a role and if it fails that the people in power get replaced. However if as we seen right now the people in power are corrupt or just damn useless but refuse to let go of their power then they should be removed by force and replaced with people who will do the job right. It may take a few tries and a lot of pain but in the end if people really wanted to a proper government could be formed that helps everyone out.

    Without government the world will fall apart. Your idea has to much a need on people actually being nice to each other and not being horrible to other people but as we know if given the chance people will do terrible things to each other. No government means no laws and no police, fire and hospital services. How would they be funded? They can't make a profit by helping people out that would be immoral and without these society would fall apart.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    98

    Default

    I think the assumption that people immediately become killing machines without a system of rules that punish them for certain acts is a flawed one. Certainly, a system that cannot effectively detain or launch some form of reprisal against criminals will ultimately be doomed by the actions of a few, but on the whole I can't say the typical human mind-set is to act directly at the expense of others whenever possible if one can get away with it.

    No, I think the role of government is a bit more complex than that. Only a portion of the laws in a typical Western government relate to outright criminal behaviour. Instead, many are dedicated to providing rules and structures for mundane activity; building houses, operating businesses, holding elections etc. Such laws provide a standard by which a society can engage in these activities without necessarily coming into conflict - everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet, so to speak. We can clearly see who is right and who is wrong when clashes do occur, we have a common framework to tell us these things.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    corn country
    Posts
    3,918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Golden Pure View Post
    A lot of people confuse anarchy as chaos and disorder, but true philosophical anarchists see anarchy as the following:
    Isn't this a literal impossibility? There are always laws -- written or otherwise -- and someone will always seize the reins of power. As well, if there are laws, there has to be someone to enforce them, otherwise they are meaningless -- those people are in a position of power and therefore a ruling party. It's not a matter of need, but it just shakes out that way.

    As SoulMuse stated, there's a good reason why people tend to associate a literal anarchy and an uncontrolled, chaotic state together. Simply put: Not everyone is a good person. People in the government are corrupt, immoral bastards. You know this, I know this, we all know this. If you suddenly cast them out of their governmental positions, they're not going to suddenly not be corrupt, immoral bastards. And what about all the evil people in society? If we had anarchy, do you think that Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy would have been stopped, short of someone else killing them? Of course not. There was no law to make murder seem bad, and even then, it didn't make them not kill -- it just gave society a means to remove them before they could do more -- and they would have if they weren't stopped.

    So, yes, government sucks. But the other option does too, and for the same reason -- because people suck. When you find a way to make everyone stop sucking, to the point where they don't need government and laws to babysit them, then maybe I'll consider your idea that we should get rid of said government and laws.
    3DS FC: 3926-4256-2399
    Ingame name: Coatlicue

    The usual links

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Golden Pure View Post
    Thanks for taking the time to make a well-thought out reply.
    Thanks for putting up with the wait for a response. Had a kitty go to the kitty hospital TWICE. He's much better now, though.
    On to the meat and gristle, then...

    I didn't choose to be born into a world and country that operates under the current political system. My decision to continue living in my country simply means I realized that to survive, I had to take the good with the bad. Moving to another country is also out of the question, since every country functions under a similar system labelled "government" as well.
    By staying in the country you were born and decided to take the good with the bad, you are acknowledging the social contract internally. This is a very similar concept to the common law marriage, for reference.

    The passing of time in a state of acceptance shows an inherent acceptance for the system as a whole and an agreement to live in conjunction with the rules and regulations of said system.

    The "will of majority opinion" does not automatically make it legitimate or just. Would you tell the Jews of Nazi Germany that they were being protected as a minority, and that they should have complied with being prodded on to cattle cars to be shipped off to their death? Everything that was being done to them was "legal" under Hitler's rule and could not have happened without the support of the "empowered" people.
    I never said majority will was a moral justification of acts of the government. This is why the U.S. and democracy around the world have protections specifically for those who have dissenting opinions, so they won't be targeted by society or gov't. Godwin's Law, BTW.

    Prohibition was enacted in the 1920's for the same reasons you are trying to justify the "War on Drugs" today, and both show a similar retrograde result.
    I won't dredge on about this issue, because it is less meaningful to discussion, but I'll say that drugs are different than alcohol in that they are far more addictive and detrimental to individual health, have much worse withdrawal symptoms, and are harder to come by, which warrants my observations.

    In my example, I was trying to show that the end result would be the same thing if either group built or ordered the construction of the road. Whether 500 of my neighbors decide they want to build a road and have a specific project in mind, or whether it is the elected officials, one of the groups (the elected officials) has the power to approve or reject the idea, while the 500 neighbors would just have to hope it gets approved.
    I had to read this twice to understand, but by saying neighbors "just have to hope it gets approved", did you mean it had by the people they were asking? I think that's what you meant, but I couldn't' tell due to your preferred verbiage.Working off that premise, I still think my original objections stand. The protections and services offered by government outweigh or are equal to the taxes and other services required by the citizen. If this weren't the case, they would be quite low on citizens in most cases.

    As a separate observation, assuming the 500 neighbors lived in your proposed anarchist society, they would just have to hope people wanted to fund them. That's fine and dandy for roads, but what about other infrastructure? People aren't going to willingly fund levees, dams, hydrogen fueling stations, mass transit, intermodal transit, or bullet trains despite the good many of these services would provide others in different areas than where the neighbors live.

    Actually, the law was passed by NYC's Board of Health, whose members were appointed by the mayor and not voted in by the public. The only reason why the law is not in effect is because a NY Supreme Court judge struck it down. The majority of the public did not want the ban, but Bloomberg ignored public opinion and is still trying to enact the law by appealing to NY's highest court.
    Ok... Then elect a new mayor. Our system isn't perfect, of course, but it is good; after all, we do have a judicial system that is balancing the decisions of the "ruling class", don't we? The weight of the argument is a point of concern, too- does a mandate on soft drinks really matter that much to you?

    You're correct, it is a fabricated right that no one should have.
    I specifically said that this "right" doesn't exist. Don't strawman me, I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but try to avoid it anyway. The creation of laws, for clarification, is a large, drawn out process that has many steps and is no the responsibility of any one representative.

    The reason why the Rep. would be able to "screw us" in the first place is because of the imagined power he/she is exerting via government. Electing a new person is like treating the symptom but not the root of the problem, which obviously in this case is government.
    You seem to contradict yourself here in your opinion on human nature, asserting no human is fit to lead because s/he would screw us regardless. I don't think they would, because, despite most people being crap, some are decent. Besides, if you vote him in or refuse to vote, it is essentially your fault that any issues that occur are occurring.

    I find it ironic that you are willing to argue that
    yet claim that because anarchy in its true form has never been experimented with in society, it couldn't possibly work.
    You are strawmanning me here again. I said find me one that lasted more than a decade or two. I know of only a few that lasted to even 25 years of age before crumbling. It has been experimented with and has failed, unlike a Trotsky-ist communism based on the original ideas of Marx and Engels. I might be odd for saying this, but I would like to see a combination of Marx and Rand. If it's possible, we have a utopia. It's really not, though...

    Of course people commit evil, but a group of said people with power declaring "you can't do that" by passing "laws" is not an effective incentive for people to all of a sudden be nice. Most people don't commit immoral acts because they know it's wrong and/or will likely cause retribution. Keep in mind that anarchy does not mean no organization or means of self-defense against aggressors, it simply means tax dollars won't be used to fund a public protection service (the police).
    We aren't just talking about robbery and murder here, though. Subtle laws against discrimination aren't even 100% effective, showing people's capacity for wrongdoing can be higher than even the law. While legitimacy is a major factor determining whether or not people should break or respect a law, fear of repercussion plays a large role as well.

    If you think that there won't be protection against evil people without tax dollars funding the police, think about this: Is there a law forcing people to become officers? Without volunteers deciding to enroll for a job as a police officer, tax dollars to fund the department would be useless.
    I don't understand how this supports your claim that a society without gov't would be better. How would we sufficiently fund this without tax payer money?

    Exactly, so what is the point of having a powerful, coordinated group committing even more harm on a larger scale?
    Two problems here. The first is that you don't truly believe that, or you wouldn't live here. The second is that you didn't actually show a harm separate from gov't that would absolutely only occur with a gov't. There are plenty, but under our gov't I don't expect to see these coming up all too soon.

    Government did not create the benefits, our ideals and capacity to critically think did. We do not need a coercive political structure to enjoy those benefits either, which would be outweighed by the harm of the system regardless.
    Ok, if you think this to be true, prove it. I'm not saying gov't is the best, I'm simply asserting it is better than anarchy. I'm arguing for the status quo, you are asserting different, so show me how the system of government is worse than none at all instead of just repeating that it is.

    What I want is for people to be able to plant their seeds and reap what they sow as they see fit, without anyone claiming to have a right to decide how others will live their lives.
    That's less anarchist and more libertarian, if you ask me.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    303

    Default

    While i agree with you golden pure that Anarchy is the solution, i believe currently, people are not stable enuf nor do most have true knowledge. The lack of these 2 things means that if the power that everyone has, is realized through Anarchy right now, civilization will collapse because of the things that the government does. The methods of enslavement produced by the government allows people to "relax". Most people are happy without knowing whats going on and that's fine, because its happiness and the current system though utterly flawed and which will doom humans in the future works at the moment.
    Untill Human-becomings as a whole gather the knowledge and acceptance through which will create the ideal situation where we can all work together, anarchy wont work. If the one thing holding a nation together which is the government is removed what happens is people will become issolated because of their individual differences. I mean this on a small small level.
    Now i no that from the true anarchy peace and harmony will be achieved. It will. But at this moment humans just aren't ready, we as a whole are to naive and ignorant to try to percieve the universe as a whole in which we are apart of. So instead its better to leave the one thing that represents humans which is our governments because it as a whole, allows messages of peace ( though rare they are) to travel across our planet.



    Through anarchy true peace will be attained by the natural bond between humans that we all have and our somewhat mutal gain to see others progress if we are.
    If i may speak through parrables i think my point will be highlited more clearly ^.^..

    An Ant knows its part of a whole, so it behaves that way with complete devotion, if it got the command to march across the desert it would and will because it knows no matter where it goes, it is part of a much bigger collony that it considers itself a part of, ants even build nests with their own living bodies for god sakes lol.
    But anyway, humans dont yet realize that we all act as a whole , collective consciossness and that when a majority of us think in a direction the entire race, because of our own consciousness and evolution of such, we will all natural be drawn and push in that direction, you may choose yes or no but its irrelevant because the whole has decided by a majority of thought.

    Humans are to naive and ignorant at this moment in history for everyone to realise the truth and live through it
    But if this happens and that beautiful blood red lotus that is true anarchy blooms, the seed that it will sow will produce
    knowledge and understand beyond many peoples understanding, because of the environment created by a self sustainning living system
    that is not caped, or "limited" by the influence that governments play..
    But as an Unknown which this possibility could be to many, people just don't yet know of or realize its possibilities, and so i say again, people aren't ready for it.

    In maybe 10years + enuf people will be thinking as one and we might be able to achieve this marvelous goal but i think its to early, if True pure anarchy was achieve right now
    people would end up being lost and many would starve to death and people as a whole would see theirselfs not as a whole but as a commodity, like the government does..
    Bug-Type Represent !

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Hoenn
    Posts
    213

    Default

    I'm a minarchist, so I do believe there should be some form of government, however its only role should be to cater the needs of the people.


    I'm not on much anymore...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    US
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Okay, I just want to say that I only read the first post because the rest are WAY TOO LONG. Anyway, I agree that government is immoral and irrational, but not unnecessary. The government I would like to see if one whose only goal is to protect the rights of the people. For example, people have rights to life and property, so a police force should be used to prosecute murderers and thieves. However, I think that police officers should have no more rights than civilians. This includes only having weapons that civilians can carry, and only using them against people for self-defense, as a civilian can. So that would be an example of starting to get rid of the ruling class.

    From the taxes standpoint, government should only spend money on protecting the people's rights. It should not spend money on foreign wars, and anything that can be done by private industry, should be done by private industry.

    So in conclusion, I agree that government has been immoral and irrational countless times in history, but we need it to protect our rights. There is no nation on Earth today that is in this ideal state, but with a major economic paradigm shift coming soon, that might change. More on this another time.
    3DS Friend Code: 4012-4489-0237

    My Friend Safari: Ground with Sandshrew (Slot 1), Camerupt (Slot 2), and Diggersby (Slot 3).

    NNID: garretslarrity

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Hoenn
    Posts
    213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by garretslarrity View Post
    Okay, I just want to say that I only read the first post because the rest are WAY TOO LONG. Anyway, I agree that government is immoral and irrational, but not unnecessary. The government I would like to see if one whose only goal is to protect the rights of the people. For example, people have rights to life and property, so a police force should be used to prosecute murderers and thieves. However, I think that police officers should have no more rights than civilians. This includes only having weapons that civilians can carry, and only using them against people for self-defense, as a civilian can. So that would be an example of starting to get rid of the ruling class.

    From the taxes standpoint, government should only spend money on protecting the people's rights. It should not spend money on foreign wars, and anything that can be done by private industry, should be done by private industry.

    So in conclusion, I agree that government has been immoral and irrational countless times in history, but we need it to protect our rights. There is no nation on Earth today that is in this ideal state, but with a major economic paradigm shift coming soon, that might change. More on this another time.
    Welcome to Minarchy, my friend.


    I'm not on much anymore...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •