No, I am ignoring those whose views seem to me to be indefensible. Like I say, life's too short to argue with people who a) can't recognize an argument and b) assert claims that enjoy no support from reason (and thus have no probative value whatever). But I am not preventing others from engaging with those people if they so wish, I just think that it's pointless for me to do so, given all they're doing is doubling-down on implausible claims. That's simply not interesting. What's interesting - intellectually - is showing how superficially implausible views are entailed by highly plausible claims.

This topic, note, is not about how best to argue and with whom. It is about the defensibility of anarchy. I have argued - and I really have made a case, whether you like it or not - that all governments are unjust.
My case, incidentally, is not original. It is a case made recently by professional philosopher Michael Huemer. So, if you think I have made no case, then you think that the argument of a well-respected professional philosopher is not, in fact, a case at all, but just a series of arbitrary assertions. How likely is that to be true? That doesn't mean the argument is sound, of course, but it does underline the absurdity of supposing it to be no case at all. It is a case. And it's a strong one.

It is clear to reason that it is unjust for individuals to use violence or the threat of violence against others apart from in rare cases where this is needed to protect a person's rights. And it is equally clear to reason that if a person decides to protect another person's rights, they are not entitled then to bill that person for having done so and extract payment with menaces. From those claims - claims that seem intuitively clear to the reason of most and that it would be intuitively highly costly to reject - anarchy follows.

In case you think governments do a good job of protecting your rights, look into how well police perform at solving crimes.

It's awful. I live in a first world country. And in my country, the police only 'solve' (and I put this in scare quotes because it reflects arrests, not convictions) 38% of reported crime (and note, they reckon most crimes aren't reported).

I just read an article on American conviction rates for serious crimes involving violence...the author concludes that approx. 2% result in conviction. 2% of the worst crimes are properly solved and result in the punishment of their perpetrator.

Feeling safe now?

The police are terrible - terrible - at their job. And of course they will be - why wouldn't they be? There's no competition.

It is clear to reason that it is unjust for individuals to use violence or the threat of violence against others apart from in rare cases where this is needed to protect a person's rights. And it is equally clear to reason that if a person decides to protect another person's rights, they are not entitled then to bill that person for having done so and extract payment with menaces. From those claims - claims that seem intuitively clear to the reason of most and that it would be intuitively highly costly to reject - anarchy follows. — Clearbury

As I pointed out to you, and you have still not replied, no logic allows you to move from the premise that it is only acceptable to use violence to protect rights, to the following conclusion, that it is almost always wrong to use violence, or that these are "rare cases".

This would require another premise, that it is not often that rights need to be protected. However, it is very obvious that such a premise would be false. Therefore the following conclusion of yours is not only invalid, because you have not provided the required premise, but if you did provide the required premise it would be false and the conclusion would be unsound..

It is almost always wrong to use violence or the threat of it against another person. — Clearbury

The fact is, that the world is full of irrational people, who do not respect the principle that violence is only acceptable to protect one's rights. Therefore you need to consider the possibility that using violence is commonly the correct thing to do.

And, you know that the world is full of irrational people, you've met a number of them in this thread. However, you would prefer to ignore those irrational people, and hope that they go away.

No, I am ignoring those whose views seem to me to be indefensible. — Clearbury

It's becoming glaringly obvious that you have a deeply flawed approach. Ignore all the irrational people in the world who commonly use violence irrationally, hoping that they will go away. Then keep on insisting that it is almost always wrong to use violence.

As I pointed out to you, and you have still not replied, no logic allows you to move from the premise that it is only acceptable to use violence to protect rights, to the following conclusion, that it is almost always wrong to use violence, or that these are "rare cases". — Metaphysician Undercover

That's a strawman version of my view. There are TWO premises that get one to the anarchist conclusion, not one.

First, a person is only entitled to use violence to protect rights (either their own or someone else's). Therefore that is all a government is entitled to do.

Now, if you had read carefully what I said in the beginning of this thread, or what I just said in the sentence above, you'll note that this means the government IS entitled to use violence to protect our rights. You've completely misrepresented my view, then, in supposing that I think the government is not entitled to protect our rights. It absolutely is entitled to do that, for that is something we're entitled to do.

The SECOND claim - that in conjunction with the first gets one to anarchy - is that though a person is entitled to use violence to protect another's rights, they are not entitled to use violence to extract payment for doing so (not from the person whose rights one has decided to protect, anyway).

As I stated very clearly, it is at this point that the government, if it sticks to what it is entitled to do, ceases to be a government at all, and is just a bunch of people touting for business in a free market.

Note, it does not matter how extensive or minimal our rights may be - that's not what my argument turns on - for all it requires is the truth of those two claims above.

That's a strawman version of my view. — Clearbury

I gave two quotes from you, concerning the conclusion I am talking about.. One, that it is unjust to use violence except in "rare cases", and the other, that it is "almost always wrong" to use violence. This is not a straw man, those are your words. And, I demonstrated that to be an unsound conclusion.

The SECOND claim - that in conjunction with the first gets one to anarchy - is that though a person is entitled to use violence to protect another's rights, they are not entitled to use violence to extract payment for doing so (not from the person whose rights one has decided to protect, anyway). — Clearbury

You don't think that a person has a right to get paid for their work? Is that what this claim is about? If you work for me, and I refuse to pay you, am I not violating your rights by not paying you?

Look, if you think the Jews had no moral rights under the Nazis then it follows that the Nazis did nothing wrong in exterminating them. I can't argue with someone who thinks that way. — Clearbury

Actually the Holocaust may not be the best example for your case.

SIEGEL: You write in "Black Earth" - and I'm quoting now - Jews who were German citizens were more likely to survive than Jews who were citizens of states that the Germans destroyed.

SNYDER: Yeah. Our image is of a progressive destruction of Jews inside Germany. But in fact, Germany, like most states that weren't destroyed, was a relatively safer place for Jews than the places where German power actually destroyed other regimes. Once we see this basic contrast that Jews in stateless zones had about a 1-in-20 chance of surviving whereas Jews in states had about a 1-in-2 chance of surviving, we have to ask the question about the causes of the Holocaust a little differently.

SIEGEL: And Hitler's attitude toward Poland or toward Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine was quite different from his view of France or the Netherlands or Denmark.

SNYDER: That's an extremely important point. It turns out that in order to carry out something like a final solution, you have to first destroy state institutions. So the order is very important. When Germany invades Poland in 1939, it does so with the intention of wiping out not just the Polish state but the Polish political elite, that is, physically exterminate the people who could support a state. — NPR interview with Timothy Snyder

The Holocaust is actually a pretty complicated event.

One, that it is unjust to use violence except in "rare cases" — Metaphysician Undercover

That claim of mine is true, but - as I just explained - my case for anarchy does not depend on it, for it is sufficient for it to go through that the two premises I described are true.

If you think you're often morally permitted to use violence against others then that's fine - I simply disagree and so, I'd wager, does virtually everyone of moral sensibility.

But to get to anarchy, it is sufficient that we are not allowed to decide to protect someone's rights and then bill that person and extract payment with menaces.

You don't think that a person has a right to get paid for their work? Is that what this claim is about? If you work for me, and I refuse to pay you, am I not violating your rights by not paying you? — Metaphysician Undercover

I am getting impatient with this constant strawman you keep setting up. If I, without asking you and without you commissioning me to do so, decide to make it my business to protect your rights, can I send you a bill for doing so and use violence against you if you decide not to pay? The answer to that question is obvious to virtually everyone: no. That's all my case requires.

Actually the Holocaust may not be the best example for your case. — Srap Tasmaner

I think it's perfect. For every reasonable person - and it is only reasonable people who are worth discussing philosophical matters with, as philosophy essentially involves consulting reason - agrees that the Nazis violated the rights of those whom they exterminated. And so as there is such universal agreement on the matter - at least among those who are sensitive to reason and not indifferent to it - then it serves as a useful and powerful demonstrator of the fact that moral rights are not given by our communities, but are had already by persons and that the whole business of trying to justify governments is about trying to show how a government of this or that sort is a more effective way of respecting them than another.

If you think you're often morally permitted to use violence against others then that's fine - I simply disagree and so, I'd wager, does virtually everyone of moral sensibility. — Clearbury

But you are not paying respect to the reality (truth) of the situation. The truth is that there is significant multitude of individuals in the world who do not have "moral sensibility", by your standards. The truth of this is evidenced by what you say about the numerous people in this thread "whose views seem to me to be indefensible", and so you chose to "ignore" them. Each one of this significant multitude of people lacking in moral sensibility, will interact with a multitude of other individuals (who may or may not have moral sensibility), on a daily basis, and each one may arbitrarily choose to use violence against these other individuals on an ongoing basis.

In these cases, where those lacking in moral sensibility, arbitrarily chose to use violence, the use of violence to protect one's rights is justified. As indicated by the statistics which may be revealed in this thread, a significant percentage of the general population are lacking in moral sensibility by your judgement. And each one of these may interact with a huge number of other people.

Therefore your claim that it is almost always wrong to use violence, and that the use of violence is only justifiable in very rare cases is completely and utterly false.

But to get to anarchy, it is sufficient that we are not allowed to decide to protect someone's rights and then bill that person and extract payment with menaces. — Clearbury

You did not answer my question, so I will ask you again. When a person provides a service to another, does that person not have a right to get paid for that service?

I am getting impatient with this constant strawman you keep setting up. If I, without asking you and without you commissioning me to do so, decide to make it my business to protect your rights, can I send you a bill for doing so and use violence against you if you decide not to pay? The answer to that question is obvious to virtually everyone: no. That's all my case requires. — Clearbury

Ha, ha, your logic (illogic) is laughable Clearbury. Again, you assume that "virtually everyone" will answer this question in the same way, "no", just like you assume "virtually everyone" with "moral sensibility" will not choose not to use violence. However, you neglect the reality and truth that there is significant multitude of individuals who do not agree with you. Are you familiar with John Locke's political philosophy, and the idea of "the social contract"?

Now, we have a large number of people who are not "morally sensible" by your standards, posing a threat of violence to you, and we have another group of people protecting your rights to be not violently treated by those with no moral sensibility. But these people are threatening to punish you if you do not pay for their service. And you believe that it is your right not to pay them because you did not personally commission them.

It looks to me, Clearbury, like you are in a situation where there is no alternative but to use violence to protect your rights. Violence is necessary. Your rights are being violated from the right and from the left, and you have no choice but to use violence to protect your own rights, because you refuse to pay those who have offered this service to you, and you need to protect your rights from their impending punishment, due to you exercising your right not to pay.

And here you are, saying things like ... it is unjust to use violence except in "rare cases", and the other, and it is "almost always wrong" to use violence. It's time for you to show your steel, demonstrate your temper, get out there and use some violence to protect your own rights, so we can all see what a hypocrite you are when you are freely choosing to use violence, while preaching that the use of violence is almost always unjustifiable.

But you are not paying respect to the reality (truth) of the situation. The truth is that there is significant multitude of individuals in the world who do not have "moral sensibility", by your standards. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am just repeating myself, but if someone wants to resist my argument by doubling down on grossly implausible claims, then that's fine. It'd be one thing if you could show how an apparently implasuible claim was entailed by some very plausible ones, but that's not what you're doing. You're just asserting that violence is justified under most circumstances. Fine. I think that's obviously false, but I don't think it's going to be worth arguing with someone who thinks it's obviously true, for I could only argue for it by appealing to cases about which you will think violence is fine and I not. So what's the point? You're welcome to your view, but I don't think it has anything to be said for it and so I don't see it as providing the basis for a reasonable challenge to anything I have argued. I am simply relieved that we are discussing this remotely and not in person, otherwise you'd no doubt have used violence against me by now!

Ha, ha, your logic (illogic) is laughable Clearbury. — Metaphysician Undercover

You see? I can't argue with someone like you.

You're just asserting that violence is justified under most circumstances. — Clearbury

That's bullshit strawman and you know it. I just demonstrated why your claim that violence is rarely justified, and hardly ever justified is false. I never implied anything close to what you say I said, "that violence is justified under most circumstances".

I can't argue with someone like you. — Clearbury

I've noticed. Anytime anyone uses evidence and logic, to demonstrate how unsound your arguments are, you say "I can't argue with someone like you". That's obvious, you really can't, because you'll lose the battle. Run along now, Clearbury, and don't trip on the tail between your legs.

What a mature response. You confirm what I already believed about you.

Yes, watch me. I can be just as immature as you are. You want to immaturely run away and ignore anyone who produces evidence and logic which proves your theory to be wrong. But we can run after you and hurl insults.

Please come out of your daydream and start to consider the way things are. In the real world irrationality runs rampant. And, you'll find that the real world full of evil is a safer place to live, than a fantasy world where everyone thinks the way you want them to.

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. — Clearbury

This seems to imply that what makes governments unjust is primarily the monopoly on violence. However, the monopoly is not constitutive. In and of itself, the monopoly on violence does not grant government any permission to use violence, rather it limits the violence of all others.

Government policies are backed by the threat of prison. — Clearbury

Some of them are, not all of them. And mostly the threat of prison isn't really what motivates people, though ultimately it can come down to that.

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.

If that is correct, then one can use what we are entitled to do to one another as a guide to what the government is justified in doing. If it would be wrong for me to make you do something, then it is wrong for the government to as well (other things being equal). — Clearbury

The devil though will be in the details of the "other things being equal".

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. I can ask you to pay - and it may be that you ought to pay me something for my efforts - but I cannot extract payment with menaces. That would be immoral.

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

Is that what the state does? I don't receive an invoice from the police if they stop someone from attacking me. The attacker might be billed, but the protected person is not.

I pay the government for clean water I receive (something you presumably don't object to). I don't pay directly for the more abstract work that goes into ensuring a stable supply of drinking water.

So I think your metaphor here is not quite apt. Obligations to the state are not obligations to a single individual and are not contractual in nature. You need a concept of a communal obligation for the state to make sense.

Assuming you woke up one day in some unknown community, would you be obligated to follow their rules about, for example, producing and distributing food? Or could you just refuse to help, taking what you needed without contributing?

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 don't think an open market could be described as anarchic. International relations are mostly anarchic. Do international relations follow a market model?

Are we entitled to force them to keep doing their jobs in order to avert the mayhem that would otherwise (temporarily) result? I don't think so. — Clearbury

Why not? "You can force others to avoid causing overwhelmingly harmful results" seems like a pretty convincing moral rule.

This seems to imply that what makes governments unjust is primarily the monopoly on violence. However, the monopoly is not constitutive. In and of itself, the monopoly on violence does not grant government any permission to use violence, rather it limits the violence of all others.

Another way to formulate it is that the government has the monopoly on crime. It can do and get away with theft, murder, kidnapping, for example, which are incidences of violence and coercion.

Another way to formulate it is that the government has the monopoly on crime. It can do and get away with theft, murder, kidnapping, for example, which are incidences of violence and coercion. — NOS4A2

But obviously the government does not actually have this monopoly, because other people commit plenty of crimes.

More to the point, this kind of argument just sidesteps the question of whether the state is moral by positing "crimes". But what's the moral significance of a "crime" here and how is it established?

But obviously the government does not actually have this monopoly, because other people commit plenty of crimes.

More to the point, this kind of argument just sidesteps the question of whether the state is moral by positing "crimes". But what's the moral significance of a "crime" here and how is it established?

The state shows no disposition to suppress crime, but only to safeguard its own monopoly of crime. They tend to only punish those who threaten their monopoly.

According to anarchism crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Unfortunately the state sustains itself through these activities. That’s why I can see no way to differentiate state agents from any criminal class.

The state shows no disposition to suppress crime, but only to safeguard its own monopoly of crime. They tend to only punish those who threaten their monopoly. — NOS4A2

As evidenced by what? Do small time drug dealers threaten the state's monopoly? I think not.

According to anarchism crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Unfortunately the state sustains itself through these activities. That’s why I can see no way to differentiate state agents from any criminal class. — NOS4A2

And according to me they're not. Claims without arguments don't get us anywhere.

As evidenced by what? Do small time drug dealers threaten the state's monopoly? I think not.

Does your government not deal in drugs?

And according to me they're not. Claims without arguments don't get us anywhere.

You have neither claim nor argument. What is a crime to you, then?

Does your government not deal in drugs? — NOS4A2

No?

What is a crime to you, then? — NOS4A2

A crime is committing an act defined as criminal by law.

If we'd like a less positivist definition, we could say a crime is a violation of social norms that's considered so severe that the community reacts with an explicit punishment.

Neither of those really works when applied to state power. As I have alluded to above this kind of anarcho-capitalist discourse suffers from ignoring social relations between people. It considers people self sufficient islands that are only engaged in contractual relationships.

But humans are always born into social relationships that come with obligations. These obligations don't need to be justified by reference to some wholly fabricated state of absolute independence. They need to be justified by reference to other rules for social interaction and organisation.

A crime is committing an act defined as criminal by law.

If we'd like a less positivist definition, we could say a crime is a violation of social norms that's considered so severe that the community reacts with an explicit punishment.

Neither of those really works when applied to state power. As I have alluded to above this kind of anarcho-capitalist discourse suffers from ignoring social relations between people. It considers people self sufficient islands that are only engaged in contractual relationships.

But humans are always born into social relationships that come with obligations. These obligations don't need to be justified by reference to some wholly fabricated state of absolute independence. They need to be justified by reference to other rules for social interaction and organisation.

That’s a common straw man. Anarchism does not consider people to be self-sufficient islands, and therefor does not suffer from it. Rather it considers people on an equal footing, and that one man is rarely fit to be another man’s lord and master. Statism, like slavery and feudalism, believes to opposite: that some men are fit to be other men’s lord and master.

There is little moral underpinnings to your definition of crime save that the act upsets some people. It lacks any clear principle and would treat any vice as a crime if enough people were against it.

There is little moral underpinnings to your definition of crime save that the act upsets some people. It lacks any clear principle and would treat any vice as a crime if enough people were against it. — NOS4A2

Yes. Hence why people commonly differentiate between morality and legality, or in this case criminality.

Moral behavior versus an official’s dictates. One prescribed by reason and the other by monopoly and power. I know which one I favor.

There are two issues here.

One is whether rights are better conceived as natural or positive. You believe natural, but you ought to at least look at the case for treating rights as positive. I don't know whom you should read to understand that view. Maybe someone here knows, or you could Google the usual sources.

The other issue is your central claim about the state. You're familiar with at least one case for anarchism. Another guy to look at would be David Graeber, but there are plenty of others.

And here too, you might consider looking at arguments for the state. There's obviously lots of writing there, but two I can recommend that I find interesting because they're not just theory are Timothy Snyder (whom I quoted on the Holocaust) and Acemoglu and Robinson, Why Nations Fail.

The best defense for legal positivism was arguably put forward by Herbert Hart.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concept_of_Law

That's the only one I know, so I wasn't sure if he was central to the field. I read that long long ago. He was an OLP guy.

Same. Legal positivism is extremely boring, unfortunately. I remember much of it was drawn from John Austin but I cannot be bothered to read it.

This seems to imply that what makes governments unjust is primarily the monopoly on violence. — Echarmion

Yes, that's fair, although it would also be the unjust use to which they put violence.

I take it to be obvious to reasonable people that it would be quite misguided of me to insist that I and I alone am the only one entitled to use violence to protect other people's rights, or indeed to protect some subset of people's rights. I am entitled to use violence to protect other people's rights (if those rights are directly under threat, that is). But I have no more entitlement to do so than anyone else, other things being equal. If I attempted to stop others from using violence to protect other people's rights, then I would be behaving unjustly.

Yet this is what the government does and it is partly what makes it a government rather than another thing. The government insists that it must be the one who polices our rights, or some of them. If my house is burgled, for instance, then I am not allowed to hunt down the burglars myself and conduct my own review into their guilt and the degree of punishment they deserve. All of this, the government insists, I must allow the government to do on my behalf, whether i want it to or not.

That is unjust. It'd be unjust if I tried to do that in respect of others, and so it is unjust of teh government to try and do it.

The other thing governments do - and that seems partly definitive of them - is extract payment for its services with menaces, regardless of whether anyone to whom the services are being provided has contracted them.

On its injustice: I take it that we can all agree that if the local mafia turn up at a business and say to the business owner "we are going to provide you with protection and you must pay us 30% of your profits or we'll smash your business up and imprison you" then this would be unjust behaviour on the mafia's part.

Yet that is exactly what the government does. It does not invite businesses to pay for its protection, but insists upon providing the protection and insists upon being paid. I take it to be obvious too that labelling a mafia a 'government' does no moral work and will not render justifiable what would otherwise have been unjust.

I accept that it may be that we can find no definition of a government that adequately distinguishes it from a mafia......but that, in effect, only operates to prove my point. For if we can recognize the injustice of a mafia, and if there is no relevant difference between a government and a mafia except in terms of how effective they have been at monopolizing the use of violence, then the injustice of one transfers to the other.

Some of them are, not all of them. And mostly the threat of prison isn't really what motivates people, though ultimately it can come down to that. — Echarmion

The injustice of the government is not a function of what motivates people to obey it, but the fact it claims a monopoly on the use of violence - and this is unjust - and that it will actually use violence against those who disobey its rulings. Maybe it will turn a blind eye to some, but the fact is it does imprison people (loads of people) because they disobeyed it.

To use the Mafia example: let's say I am running a small business and the local mafia turn up and tell me that I need to pay them protection money, or else. And I decide to pay them because I think they'll do a good job. That is, my motivation is entirely to do with how effective I think they'll be at protecting my business and has nothing to do with the threat of violence they made to me. Well, that doesn't affect the injustice of their behaviour on iota. So regardless of why people obey the governments rules, the government has no business producing any rules and making people obey them.

Is that what the state does? I don't receive an invoice from the police if they stop someone from attacking me. The attacker might be billed, but the protected person is not. — Echarmion

You're taxed to pay for the police whether you wish to be or not. And if you refuse to pay your taxes, the government will eventually imprison you.