Long term, virtually everyone would be better off under an anarchy. Apart from criminals and power-hungry war mongers. — Clearbury

There is no such thing as long term anarchy in this world. If something depopulated 99% of the world, maybe, but not in the world we live in. If government disappeared people would start organizing immediately. Surely you must realize that.

I have justified my belief. Perhaps you missed it. Here it is again: if governments determine what rights people have then the Jews had no rights under the Nazis (and thus in exterminating millions of Jews, the Nazis violated no one's rights, certianly not the Jews they exterminated).
The Nazis violated the rights of the millions of Jews they exterminated
Therefore, governments do not determine what rights people have.

That is a case. It is an argument and its conclusion follows from its premises and its premises are obviously true. — Clearbury

I don't follow your argument. Those people had no rights under Nazi rule, that's why they were exterminated. If they had rights they would not have been abused. This seems pretty clear, just like the slaves in the US had no rights. The second premise, that their rights were violated, is from the perspective of a different community, one other than the Nazi community who denied them of rights. This community has a different conception of what rights Jewish people have. Therefore, your argument seems to actually prove the opposite of what you claim. The rights that people have is something determined by the community.

Note, I am talking about moral rights here, not legal ones. — Clearbury

Morality deals with good and bad, "rights" is not the subject of moral philosophy. Rights consist of rules, and although they are usually consistent with ethical rules, they are more properly understood as legal rules. This misconception of "moral rights" could be the root of your confusion.

The issue is much simpler than people think. It is almost always wrong to use violence or the threat of it against another person. No one - no one worth arguing with, anyway - seriously disputes that. Yes, it can be justified under some circumstances - when one is in immediate danger or someone else is - but not otherwise. (There's of course room for a bit of debate over when one can legitimately use violence against another, but not much....every reaonable person is going to agree that the boundaries are pretty tight, even if there's no consensus on precisely where they lie). — Clearbury

I think this is a very faulty principle Clearbury. It is based in what "every reasonable person is going to agree" to. The problem is that there are very many unreasonable people in the world. And, those unreasonable people will not agree "It is almost always wrong to use violence". Being unreasonable, they perceive many instances when violence is called for. Because of this use of violence by unreasonable people, the reasonable people have reason to return that violence with defensive violence. Therefore your claim that "it is almost always wrong to use violence" is proven to be false by the fact that many people are unreasonable. Violence is a fact of life which needs to be reckoned with.

This is a powerful point. For our sense of security we would organise into small groups with hierarchy. These groups would compete for resources and all anarchy would break out in the most basic sense of the term "anarchy". What we are actually looking at is the law of the strongest. This would be a truly Darwinian survival of the fittest situation. Is that in line with our more lofty ideas about anarchy? Ideology and reality rarely meet, and when they do it is never to anyone's long term benefit. It all goes wrong.Think about everything that the mainstream is pushing at the moment - where's the facts? We need to simplify life - just to "live" and to "be" should be enough, but sadly it isn't in the current phase - it is serious stuff indeed, just to survive the urban jungle that they call civilization!! Poverty and homelessness are a heartbeat away with one wrong word, one wrong tweet!!! There's no doubt about it that some people are so frustrated that they would prefer anarchy - even it's worst manifestations - but for how long? Fending off attackers and bullies all your life, until you eventually die defending basic requirements for comfortable living. The very things that other groups - organised under anarchistic chieftains - seek to take from you, because they do not have those things themselves. Lofty ideals of living in peace and sharing are not proven to be part of reality - it's the stuff of our dreams!

There's a lot to be said on this matter. Or, one could just watch Lord of the Flies and call it a day.

A NatGeo documentary, even. People like stability, and to a lesser extent predictability. Makes much more sense to pay a predictable set amount (in taxes/insurance/etc) than for everything one owns including one's life, spouse, and offspring to be on the chopping block/proverbial table each day. No one fights a war with the intent of perpetuating conflict in the event of victory. Classic case of "the grass is always greener". "Far removed from conflict, the closer one gets to his treasures, the less they shimmer." But by all means, I hear flights to remote regions of African jungle are reasonable. You're welcome to try it out, if you'd like.

Yet that is what the state does. So yes, the state can protect our basic rights, but it cannot use force and the threat of force to fund such an enterprise. — Clearbury

The problem here is the complete omission of those who would not only defy your basic rights, but use -- not only threat of force -- but force, willfully and in many cases gleefully. Often times for the sheer joy of it absent of anything to gain or rectify ie. "for fun". This is the dynamic of the world we live in. So, your options are a structured society where disputes can be solved in a court of law and grievances can be made known socially enacting real social change, or you can have the same threats of force and use of force, with no accountability or avenue for recourse on your part whatsoever. Any sort of attempt to reframe this unchangeable dynamic is simply dishonest.

:up:

Yes, I agree. The choice is pragmatic if not ideal. We all want more liberty and freedom but unfortunately it comes at a price. That price - as unfair as it seems - must be paid because the alternative (anarchy) comes with absolutely no guarantees, and without some form of stability there can be no planning and no law - there can be no certainty insofar as we - as mere mortals - are able to predict! The tried and tested can be tweaked and made better, even if it is a difficult task in the face of so many obstacles. Anarchy is the unknown - and I envisage something like the 15th and 16th century clan wars in Scotland and Ireland. Consequently, at best it is the realm of ideas, ideals and unproven philosophy (by my definition: ideology). How many people delve into any sphere of the unknown with an attitude of hope and expectation of "This could work" only to be sorely - and quite literally sometimes - disappointed? The world is a terrible place and humanity is sometimes deplorable but we should stick with it as best we can. Things an only get better - or worse - but that's life!!