I take it to be morally self-evident that might does not make right. If I am more powerful than you, that doesn't mean I'm entitled to trample on your rights. I am simply more able to do so, but not more entitled to do so. So if it would be wrong for me to use force against you, then it is also wrong for a person with more power than I have to use force against you. And that now applies to the state and politicians. They have more power than the rest of us, but they are not more entitled to force us to do things than the rest of us. — Clearbury
I think all forms of government are unjust. Governments claim a monopoly on certain uses of violence and threats. I take that to be definitive. Government policies are backed by the threat of prison. — Clearbury
It is barely ever justifiable to threaten or use violence against another. It's normally only in extreme circumstances - where one's own life is in immediate danger - that it can be justified. — Clearbury
But though it is correct that the state is entitled to protect our basic rights, it is not entitled to force us to pay it to do so. If, for example, someone is attacking you, then I am entitled to help you out and even to use violence against your attacker if need be. But I am not then entitled to bill you for my efforts and use violence against you if you refuse to pay. — Clearbury
If the government stopped doing both of these things, then it would - to all intents and purposes - cease to be a government at all. It would just be another business competing in an open market. And that's anarchy. — Clearbury
I want to head-off a misguided criticism at the outset. I think many will be tempted to object that if all government agencies just disappeared overnight, then disaster would ensue. Regardless of whether or for how long this would be the case, the objection seems wrongheaded. — Clearbury
mayhem that would otherwise (temporarily) result — Clearbury
Putting aside moral factors for a minute, do you believe it is possible for groups of humans to effectively and humanely organize themselves without coercive rules assuming no change in human nature, whatever that means? Answer that question in the context of modern society in a world of 8 billion people. Also describe how such a society could be established in an ideal situation where you can specify starting conditions, i.e. go back 200,000 (or 2 million) years? If you can't give a positive answer to those questions, your moral complaints are meaningless. — T Clark
So. Maybe I'm wrong. Tell me how you would make it work out the way you want it to. — T Clark
Will it be by organized thugs, or a (transparent) democratic majority where all have a say? — jorndoe
The state has been conceived as a person for quite some time, for example in Hobbes, but at least as far back as Ancient Rome. — NOS4A2
Those in charge are people. And might does not make right. — Clearbury
Therefore, what it is just for those in charge to do can be determined by considering what it would be just for individuals to do to one another. — Clearbury
I think all forms of government are unjust. — Clearbury
2. The concept of "rights" only makes sense in the context of a governing body which can establish and protect those rights against negative actors. Otherwise its simply a value you hold, which has no bearing on anyone else but yourself.
The absence of unjust forms of government won't prevent forms of unjust governance from emerging out of the relationships between individuals. Some gangs thrive on being embedded within a population where they can avoid scrutiny and terrorize individuals, neighborhoods, and entire regions as a long as there's no government acting on behalf of the common good. Perhaps that's why all modern countries are ruled by forms of governments, and why anarchy has remained a half-baked idea for adolescents who don't like being told what to do.
I don't see how you're addressing the argument I presented. I am defending anarchy. Anarchy does not involve anyone 'organizing' us. It's the opposite of that.
If your point is that without some bosses there will be mayhem, then I explicitly addressed this point. I pointed out that, whether true or not, it misses my point, which is about what's just, not about what would minimize mayhem. — Clearbury
What do you mean by 'work' though? I am arguing that governments are 'unjust' (not that they don't work - whether they 'work' or not depends on what goals they're supposed to be achieving....if they're supposed to be creating a just world, then they don't work at all and it is question begging to say otherwise....if you conceive of them as having some other purpose, then maybe they work, maybe they don't...but it's irrelevant to the topic). — Clearbury
What is anarchy and where has it worked before? — Tom Storm
The concept of "rights" only makes sense in the context of a governing body which can establish and protect those rights against negative actors. Otherwise its simply a value you hold, which has no bearing on anyone else but yourself. — Ourora Aureis
There are not, nor can there be, any rules that forbid the setting up of any government, and you do not have to obey any governments that set themselves up. — unenlightened
This is true and would be meaningful if there were some way for people to choose not to be part of society — T Clark
The arbitrary rule of competing gangs and never-ending wars are fixtures of government rule and statism. — NOS4A2
..centuries of rivalry and infighting between city-states left the peninsula divided. During the 17th and 18th centuries, Italian economic importance waned significantly.
After centuries of political and territorial divisions, Italy was almost entirely unified in 1861 — Wikipedia on Italy
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.