CDZ Anarchy: Moral Imperative or Inherently Immoral?

[Brian Blackwell]

This thread follows the conclusion of a conversation between myself and Xelor on the following thread:

CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality


The transitional comment is provided here for easy reference:

"I have claimed that any moral person must conclude that governmental law is of no authority and therefore to support it would be both illogical and immoral. Illogical because it asserts a non-existent authority, and immoral because it demands that a person act immorally where divergences with their moral standard occur, while contributing nothing where they align (subsequently providing only the potential for net immorality).

This suggests that we must adopt the anarchist position by moral necessity; however, the proposition that anarchy is inherently immoral is antithetical to this conclusion. How do we resolve this contradiction?"

 

[OldLady]

How is it a contradiction again? Don't be all fancy about it, either, Brian, please.

 

[martybegan]

This thread follows the conclusion of a conversation between myself and Xelor on the following thread:

CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality


The transitional comment is provided here for easy reference:

"I have claimed that any moral person must conclude that governmental law is of no authority and therefore to support it would be both illogical and immoral. Illogical because it asserts a non-existent authority, and immoral because it demands that a person act immorally where divergences with their moral standard occur, while contributing nothing where they align (subsequently providing only the potential for net immorality).

This suggests that we must adopt the anarchist position by moral necessity; however, the proposition that anarchy is inherently immoral is antithetical to this conclusion. How do we resolve this contradiction?"

it all boils down to the difference between something in Theory, and the results you get from a real world application.

If you go with the notion of any form of government force being immoral, then yes, you can see anarchy as the moral solution to the issue.

However that theory does not assume the actual application of anarchy in the real world, which would probably devolve into some form of strongman/arms race fight between people of differing views, and thus the situation would end up devolving into the use of force anyway.

It's the same issue you run into communism in theory, and communism in practical application.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

There are actually people who think that removing all the impediments to people causing great harm to one another isMORAL?

That is the very antithesis of morality as anarchy can only result in the most ruthless holding sway.

 

[martybegan]

There are actually people who think that removing all the impediments to people causing great harm to one another isMORAL?

That is the very antithesis of morality as anarchy can only result in the most ruthless holding sway.

Unless you assume the perfect theoretical human who is not only willing to follow the rules when there are minimal rules, but will also not try to impose their own will via agressive action, or the threat of aggressive action.

 

[usmbguest5318]

There are actually people who think that removing all the impediments to people causing great harm to one another is MORAL?

That is the very antithesis of morality as anarchy can only result in the most ruthless holding sway.

Dear, God. The apocalypse must be nigh....

I think a reasonable case can be made that an anarchical state of mind as well as an anarchical is, in practice, inherently immoral.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

How is it a contradiction again? Don't be all fancy about it, either, Brian, please.

In the previous post, I argued that a moral person must adopt an anarchist position to remain moral. Xelor suggested that anarchism may be inherently immoral, which would be an obvious contradiction, so we came here to sort it out and figure out if this is so.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

This thread follows the conclusion of a conversation between myself and Xelor on the following thread:

CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality


The transitional comment is provided here for easy reference:

"I have claimed that any moral person must conclude that governmental law is of no authority and therefore to support it would be both illogical and immoral. Illogical because it asserts a non-existent authority, and immoral because it demands that a person act immorally where divergences with their moral standard occur, while contributing nothing where they align (subsequently providing only the potential for net immorality).

This suggests that we must adopt the anarchist position by moral necessity; however, the proposition that anarchy is inherently immoral is antithetical to this conclusion. How do we resolve this contradiction?"

it all boils down to the difference between something in Theory, and the results you get from a real world application.

If you go with the notion of any form of government force being immoral, then yes, you can see anarchy as the moral solution to the issue.

However that theory does not assume the actual application of anarchy in the real world, which would probably devolve into some form of strongman/arms race fight between people of differing views, and thus the situation would end up devolving into the use of force anyway.

It's the same issue you run into communism in theory, and communism in practical application.

It sounds like we’re faced with the old “utilitarian vs categorical” model of morality argument. I believe the former to be unacceptably volatile from the outset, while the latter provides stability. I don’t know that morality can ever yield perfect consequences, but I think a categorical standard limits risk significantly.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

There are actually people who think that removing all the impediments to people causing great harm to one another isMORAL?

That is the very antithesis of morality as anarchy can only result in the most ruthless holding sway.

This assumption abounds, but I humbly submit that it’s poorly thought-out. It assumes humanity to be a bestial horde that will devour itself if left in its natural state, then suggests the solution to be clothing a portion of that same flawed herd in immense power. Power, mind you, that far exceeds anything possible in the absence of the proposed institution.

Unless we’re trucking politicians in from other planets, how could such an institution do anything but magnify the very immorality cited to justify its existence? And that’s precisely what it’s done. Show me how the nigh-unto unfathomable body count racked up by governments throughout history could be matched on an individual level.

 

[martybegan]

This thread follows the conclusion of a conversation between myself and Xelor on the following thread:

CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality


The transitional comment is provided here for easy reference:

"I have claimed that any moral person must conclude that governmental law is of no authority and therefore to support it would be both illogical and immoral. Illogical because it asserts a non-existent authority, and immoral because it demands that a person act immorally where divergences with their moral standard occur, while contributing nothing where they align (subsequently providing only the potential for net immorality).

This suggests that we must adopt the anarchist position by moral necessity; however, the proposition that anarchy is inherently immoral is antithetical to this conclusion. How do we resolve this contradiction?"

it all boils down to the difference between something in Theory, and the results you get from a real world application.

If you go with the notion of any form of government force being immoral, then yes, you can see anarchy as the moral solution to the issue.

However that theory does not assume the actual application of anarchy in the real world, which would probably devolve into some form of strongman/arms race fight between people of differing views, and thus the situation would end up devolving into the use of force anyway.

It's the same issue you run into communism in theory, and communism in practical application.

It sounds like we’re faced with the old “utilitarian vs categorical” model of morality argument. I believe the former to be unacceptably volatile from the outset, while the latter provides stability. I don’t know that morality can ever yield perfect consequences, but I think a categorical standard limits risk significantly.

I think the discussion of various types of governing (even anarchy is a form of governance, i.e. the lack thereof) can allow one to think the ideal situations of each type can flow into reality. However we all know this is not the case.

Capitalism involving a republican form of government does the best job of dispersing power enough that true authoritarianism is difficult to achieve. Again it is not perfect, but it does the best to compromise between government power and individual (including business) rights.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I think the discussion of various types of governing (even anarchy is a form of governance, i.e. the lack thereof) can allow one to think the ideal situations of each type can flow into reality. However we all know this is not the case.

Capitalism involving a republican form of government does the best job of dispersing power enough that true authoritarianism is difficult to achieve. Again it is not perfect, but it does the best to compromise between government power and individual (including business) rights.

You speak reasonably, and I want to offer my assent to your suggestion, but I just don't see how a Republic solves the problem at all. Anarchy, like any social model, cannot succeed in excess of the net morality of its culture, but I do think anarchy is the only system with even the faintest chance of ushering humanity toward a peaceful, prosperous future.

It comes down to the old saying, "nature, to be commanded, must first be obeyed". ANY system that attempts to deny the inherent autonomy of man is doomed to endless chaos. Government, in all its forms, does just that. It is inherently coercive, which is the antithesis of cooperation. I don't see how this can possibly be denied. Should we back off governmental law to the point that it merely reflects the natural rights of the individual, it is no longer government. We can organize, we can cooperate, we can crowd-fund and have practical voluntary hierarchies, but we cannot resort to violent coercion and build a world of peace. That is impossible.

We have seen humanity rise to the occasion in times of great hardship. Man is highly adaptive. A free people CAN develop solutions that do not violate the one core principle at the heart of nearly all moral systems - do no purposeful harm, except in self-defense. There may always be those who violate this fundamental guideline, but they will always be FAR outnumbered in a free society. With government, the evil of these few is magnified when they grab the reigns of power (and they always do), and the moral are made to act immorally via their belief in government as a laundering mechanism for immorality. Theft is moral if it's called taxation. Murder is moral if it's called war. Imprisonment of non-violent offenders is moral if it's called law.

This MUST be cast off for mankind to move into the next phase of its evolution. It can happen peacefully, or it can rise from the ashes of a war-torn world, but it is an imperative shift, lest we be (at the very least) sentenced to an eternity of stagnation.

 

[martybegan]

I think the discussion of various types of governing (even anarchy is a form of governance, i.e. the lack thereof) can allow one to think the ideal situations of each type can flow into reality. However we all know this is not the case.

Capitalism involving a republican form of government does the best job of dispersing power enough that true authoritarianism is difficult to achieve. Again it is not perfect, but it does the best to compromise between government power and individual (including business) rights.

You speak reasonably, and I want to offer my assent to your suggestion, but I just don't see how a Republic solves the problem at all. Anarchy, like any social model, cannot succeed in excess of the net morality of its culture, but I do think anarchy is the only system with even the faintest chance of ushering humanity toward a peaceful, prosperous future.

It comes down to the old saying, "nature, to be commanded, must first be obeyed". ANY system that attempts to deny the inherent autonomy of man is doomed to endless chaos. Government, in all its forms, does just that. It is inherently coercive, which is the antithesis of cooperation. I don't see how this can possibly be denied. Should we back off governmental law to the point that it merely reflects the natural rights of the individual, it is no longer government. We can organize, we can cooperate, we can crowd-fund and have practical voluntary hierarchies, but we cannot resort to violent coercion and build a world of peace. That is impossible.

We have seen humanity rise to the occasion in times of great hardship. Man is highly adaptive. A free people CAN develop solutions that do not violate the one core principle at the heart of nearly all moral systems - do no purposeful harm, except in self-defense. There may always be those who violate this fundamental guideline, but they will always be FAR outnumbered in a free society. With government, the evil of these few is magnified when they grab the reigns of power (and they always do), and the moral are made to act immorally via their belief in government as a laundering mechanism for immorality. Theft is moral if it's called taxation. Murder is moral if it's called war. Imprisonment of non-violent offenders is moral if it's called law.

This MUST be cast off for mankind to move into the next phase of its evolution. It can happen peacefully, or it can rise from the ashes of a war-torn world, but it is an imperative shift, lest we be (at the very least) sentenced to an eternity of stagnation.

The problem is for this to work you can't use people, you would have to use programmed androids who meet all the requirements of the system you are proposing (which ironically would be the ultimate form of control, a control you are trying desperately to avoid)

To go to my old Dungeons and Dragons alignments for an example, you would need a population of entirely neutral good people or your anarchic system would break down either from lawful people wanting more order, Chaotic people not following any agreement come to, and evil people trying to use the system for their own gain and profit.

An I know republics like ours suffer from their own ideal conditions being subverted. We see it in how federalism has been ignored for decades in favor of more and more federal control. We see it also when local governments subvert the bill of rights, such as gun laws in New York City, or Ignoring 1st amendment rights by calling any business a public accomodation.

Still a democratic republic, and to me a federal version of that, using capitalism and property rights as the economic system is the best real world system we can hope for to work properly.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The problem is for this to work you can't use people, you would have to use programmed androids who meet all the requirements of the system you are proposing (which ironically would be the ultimate form of control, a control you are trying desperately to avoid)

To go to my old Dungeons and Dragons alignments for an example, you would need a population of entirely neutral good people or your anarchic system would break down either from lawful people wanting more order, Chaotic people not following any agreement come to, and evil people trying to use the system for their own gain and profit.

An I know republics like ours suffer from their own ideal conditions being subverted. We see it in how federalism has been ignored for decades in favor of more and more federal control. We see it also when local governments subvert the bill of rights, such as gun laws in New York City, or Ignoring 1st amendment rights by calling any business a public accomodation.

Still a democratic republic, and to me a federal version of that, using capitalism and property rights as the economic system is the best real world system we can hope for to work properly.

I think the D&D model is very useful, but you must admit this is all highly speculative. There is no way anyone could know what would happen, and we have to take this realization to heart when discussing this topic. That's why most of my conversation is about how government is a problem, rather than how anarchy is a solution.

I think when we make appeals to human nature, we often forget how significantly immersed we are in a world culture rooted in government and its effects. How can we know how people would respond in an environment without modern precedent? Are we to assume that with all our technological advancements, the removal of government would revert man back to his primitive state, or even the state he was in when he pioneered the American west?

I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to get into it deeply, but there are many, many ways in which government is responsible for the foul behaviors we attribute to human nature. The quickest thing i could say is that governmental culture largely robs man of his self-responsibility. And a democratic republic, specifically, pits neighbor against neighbor in an endless struggle over every conceivable topic, when in a free society, such matters would never even be a thought in his head.

 

[martybegan]

The problem is for this to work you can't use people, you would have to use programmed androids who meet all the requirements of the system you are proposing (which ironically would be the ultimate form of control, a control you are trying desperately to avoid)

To go to my old Dungeons and Dragons alignments for an example, you would need a population of entirely neutral good people or your anarchic system would break down either from lawful people wanting more order, Chaotic people not following any agreement come to, and evil people trying to use the system for their own gain and profit.

An I know republics like ours suffer from their own ideal conditions being subverted. We see it in how federalism has been ignored for decades in favor of more and more federal control. We see it also when local governments subvert the bill of rights, such as gun laws in New York City, or Ignoring 1st amendment rights by calling any business a public accomodation.

Still a democratic republic, and to me a federal version of that, using capitalism and property rights as the economic system is the best real world system we can hope for to work properly.

I think the D&D model is very useful, but you must admit this is all highly speculative. There is no way anyone could know what would happen, and we have to take this realization to heart when discussing this topic. That's why most of my conversation is about how government is a problem, rather than how anarchy is a solution.

I think when we make appeals to human nature, we often forget how significantly immersed we are in a world culture rooted in government and its effects. How can we know how people would respond in an environment without modern precedent? Are we to assume that with all our technological advancements, the removal of government would revert man back to his primitive state, or even the state he was in when he pioneered the American west?

I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to get into it deeply, but there are many, many ways in which government is responsible for the foul behaviors we attribute to human nature. The quickest thing i could say is that governmental culture largely robs man of his self-responsibility. And a democratic republic, specifically, pits neighbor against neighbor in an endless struggle over every conceivable topic, when in a free society, such matters would never even be a thought in his head.

Government should be seen as overhead, required for the "business" of society. Problems occur when government takes the forefront of society, which is where we are heading now.

Think about how a professional team sports league would run without officials overseeing the game and making sure the rules are followed, and you can get an idea of how people without government would work.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The problem is for this to work you can't use people, you would have to use programmed androids who meet all the requirements of the system you are proposing (which ironically would be the ultimate form of control, a control you are trying desperately to avoid)

To go to my old Dungeons and Dragons alignments for an example, you would need a population of entirely neutral good people or your anarchic system would break down either from lawful people wanting more order, Chaotic people not following any agreement come to, and evil people trying to use the system for their own gain and profit.

An I know republics like ours suffer from their own ideal conditions being subverted. We see it in how federalism has been ignored for decades in favor of more and more federal control. We see it also when local governments subvert the bill of rights, such as gun laws in New York City, or Ignoring 1st amendment rights by calling any business a public accomodation.

Still a democratic republic, and to me a federal version of that, using capitalism and property rights as the economic system is the best real world system we can hope for to work properly.

I think the D&D model is very useful, but you must admit this is all highly speculative. There is no way anyone could know what would happen, and we have to take this realization to heart when discussing this topic. That's why most of my conversation is about how government is a problem, rather than how anarchy is a solution.

I think when we make appeals to human nature, we often forget how significantly immersed we are in a world culture rooted in government and its effects. How can we know how people would respond in an environment without modern precedent? Are we to assume that with all our technological advancements, the removal of government would revert man back to his primitive state, or even the state he was in when he pioneered the American west?

I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to get into it deeply, but there are many, many ways in which government is responsible for the foul behaviors we attribute to human nature. The quickest thing i could say is that governmental culture largely robs man of his self-responsibility. And a democratic republic, specifically, pits neighbor against neighbor in an endless struggle over every conceivable topic, when in a free society, such matters would never even be a thought in his head.

Government should be seen as overhead, required for the "business" of society. Problems occur when government takes the forefront of society, which is where we are heading now.

Think about how a professional team sports league would run without officials overseeing the game and making sure the rules are followed, and you can get an idea of how people without government would work.

Comparing sports to government is only to say that we need organization and rules, to which I agree, but which does not require government. A sports team, as well as all business, accomplishes a high degree of organization on a voluntary basis. Despite millions of people being involved in some of these endeavors, no one is coerced with violence, and amazing things are accomplished every day.

What is the one thing that government brings to the table; the only key differentiating factor? Permission to use aggressive violence outside the scope of self-defense. An exemption from the generally-accepted rules of morality. It is the difference between a legitimate business and a mafia, but with the stigma washed away by religious ritial (ancient doctrine, oaths, men in black robes with ceremonial hammers, etc.).

Think of any function inherently exclusive to government (writing coercive law, enforcing law, taxation, war), and you will find that the reason it is exclusive to government is because it would be considered morally inappropriate if anyone else did it. This demonstrates that the only thing government adds to society is immorality; though it launders it psychologically such that we are willing to support it. In fact, not just willing, but eager; as we get all the benfits of immorality with none of the guilt.

“Pretty neat deal, huh? You know how we got it? We made the whole fucking thing up!”
- George Carlin

 

[Brian Blackwell]

There are actually people who think that removing all the impediments to people causing great harm to one another isMORAL?

That is the very antithesis of morality as anarchy can only result in the most ruthless holding sway.

This demonstrates the indoctrination: that the only impediment to people harming each other is government. Think of the implication... it suggests that if people were left to their own devices, they would just let themselves and others be brutally beaten, robbed, and victimized in every way, without ever lifting a finger to stop it.

If that’s what you think, then of course it sounds insane to do away with government. The problem is that it’s not actually what people think when we actually stop to consider it, but that idea is lodged in the brain, replacing critical thought, because we’ve been fed this idea since birth.

Meanwhile, who causes harm that can truly be called “great”? Governments or individual criminals? Monumental achievements in this area like Hiroshima or Stalinist Russia or countless examples throughout history... Let’s tally up body counts and see who comes out on top.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Apologies for my tardiness in obtaining one of these...

...and in turn composing this post.

There are actually people who think that removing all the impediments to people causing great harm to one another isMORAL?

That is the very antithesis of morality as anarchy can only result in the most ruthless holding sway.

This demonstrates the indoctrination: that the only impediment to people harming each other is government. Think of the implication... it suggests that if people were left to their own devices, they would just let themselves and others be brutally beaten, robbed, and victimized in every way, without ever lifting a finger to stop it.

If that’s what you think, then of course it sounds insane to do away with government. The problem is that it’s not actually what people think when we actually stop to consider it, but that idea is lodged in the brain, replacing critical thought, because we’ve been fed this idea since birth.

Meanwhile, who causes harm that can truly be called “great”? Governments or individual criminals? Monumental achievements in this area like Hiroshima or Stalinist Russia or countless examples throughout history... Let’s tally up body counts and see who comes out on top.

This demonstrates the indoctrination: that the only impediment to people harming each other is government.

“It's discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.
-- Noël Coward, Blithe Spirit​

The so-called indoctrination I received is that two categories of things, combined with sound/cogent intellectual acuity, impede people from harming "anything/anyone." The categories of impediments are:

• Laws and "laws" of some sort -- All laws/"laws" are constructs, and some of them are governmentally promulgated (codified) and some are not. Codified laws are made by governments, be it (1) a government of/by one (ostensibly) on behalf of all who are party to the community governed, as is the case with monarchy, or (2) government of/by some (ostensibly) on behalf of all who are party to the community governed, which is what republics and feudal governments are, or (3) government of/by all, which is what a direct democracy is.
  • Ethics -- Some ethical principles. become codified into law, some are implied in codified law but not explicitly stated, and some simply aren't addressed. The merit of a given ethical principle or dictum (conclusion) derives from the soundness/cogency of reasoning that produces it.
    
    • Morality is simply applied ethics; thus the legitimacy of application of any given ethical principle also derives from sound/cogent reasoning. Morality is where an ethical principle transforms into behavior.
    • Assumption: What is ethical and is not ethical is existential. It may be that we are or a given individual is ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of what is existentially ethical and existentially unethical, but that X or Y is, in a given situation, one or the other is nonetheless so.
  • Cultural norms -- Cultural norms arise from communities of varying sizes -- from one to billions -- forbearing (or not) their members' undertaking various forms of behavior. The merit of a given cultural norm (conclusion) derives from its popular appeal, which is why we call them "norms" rather than "principles;" however, soundness and/or cogency may but need not have anything to do with the conclusions (and resulting behavior) given/accepted as cultural norms. Like ethic principles, some cultural norms become codified into law, some are implied in codified law but not explicitly stated, and some simply aren't addressed.
• Natural obstacles -- Natural obstacles are things like rivers, mountains, other landscape characteristics and features, temporal separation/proximity, physical separation/proximity, bodily constraints, and so on. These things don't exist to facilitate or impede people doing harm to others, but existentially these obstacles can have that effect. Natural obstacles make it harder or easier to inflict harm or, for that matter, bestow favors. The extent to which they have either impact depends on the will of the person who'd inflict harm (or bestow favor).

Think of the implication... it suggests that if people were left to their own devices, they would just let themselves and others be brutally beaten, robbed, and victimized in every way, without ever lifting a finger to stop it.

Insofar as anarchy is the absence of an entity/being that codifies/defines and enforces some system of ethics and set cultural norms and that punishes violations thereof, anarchy has but two types of constraint and imprimatur: (1) non-governmentally (non-being/non-entity) promulgated and enforced laws and (2) natural obstacles.

Those two genres of constraint/imprimatur have active and reactive functionality/impacts:

Defensive and retributional (reactive) harm/hurt in the absence of government:

• If Bill's ethics sanction his hurting a trespasser onto or usurper of what Bill deems his "territory," he will do just that if he wills to do so and has the means and implements of doing so.
  • If Bill's ethics do not sanction his hurting a trespasser onto or usurper of what Bill deems his "territory," he will not exact harm/retribution or raise a defense, even if he wills to do so and has the means and implements of doing so.
    
    This "opposite" notion is commonly experienced. Many are the things we will to do but that we don't do because our ethics prohibit it. The saying "I'm better than that" fairly well depicts what I mean. For example, when someone dashes into the parking space for which I'd awaited the prior occupant's clearing the lane in order that I could enter it, my will is to "do something," perhaps vandalize the usurper's car, but to live up to my ethics I must be "better than that," so I "get over it."
    
    I happen to have enough wealth that were I caught, say, vandalizing the person's vehicle, I would pay the governmentally assigned penalty for doing so and it'd have no impact on my ability to do other things with the money I may be made to pay as restitution. It'd just be that I have to spend different dollars on those other things, but I'd still do those other things. If I were sufficiently less wealthy that the cost of making restitution impedes my ability to do other things I need/will to do, then that, along with the existence of (risk of having to pay) a governmentally assigned penalty and my ethics, would compel me to refrain from vandalizing the usurper's vehicle.
    
    My financial position notwithstanding, if I can identify the driver and later encounter him/her, I may express my dissatisfaction with his/her comportment, but that's as far as I'd take it.
    
    [Having thus explained/illustrated the functioning of ethics, I'm not going to repeat the "opposite" explanation/illustration for the remaining scenarios. Readers either "get it," or they don't, in which case they can ask for clarification.]
• If extant cultural norms sanction Bill's hurting a trespasser onto or usurper of what Bill deems his "territory," Bill will do just that if he wills to do so and has the means and implements of doing so.
  • If extant cultural norms do not sanction Bill's hurting a trespasser onto or usurper of what Bill deems his "territory," Bill may or may not exact harm/retribution or raise a defense, even if he wills to do so and has the means and implements of doing so. Whether he does depend on his ethics and taste for enduring his culture's (society's) retribution.
• If Bill's ethics and cultural norms sanction his hurting a trespasser onto or usurper of what Bill deems his "territory," but a physical obstacle prevents him from doing so -- perhaps the trespasser/usurper runs faster than Bill can or acts with sufficient stealth that Bill doesn't timely discover the trespass/usurpation in a way that allows him to identify the person -- Bill's resolve for retribution/defense may remain, so too may remain available to Bill the implements of exacting harm, but not all of the necessary means of exacting harm exist; thus Bill will do no harm.
  • Absent natural obstacles, only cultural norms and Bill's ethics stop him from raising a defense or exacting retribution.

Offensive (active) harm/hurt in the absence of government -- Having covered defensive/retributional scenarios, I'm hoping readers recognize the linguistic structure of the scenarios and can aptly apply it to the active/offensive scenarios; thus I'm not going to repeat all that just to cover the active side.]

• If Mary's ethics sanction her trespassing upon or usurping that which another considers as their own, Mary will do just that if she wills to do so and has the means of doing so.
  • If Mary's ethics do not sanction her trespassing upon or usurping that which another considers as their own, Mary will not do so, even if she wills to do so and has the means of doing so.
• If extant cultural norms sanction one's trespassing upon or usurping that which another considers as his or her own, one will do just that if one wills to do so and has the means of doing so.
  • If extant cultural norms sanction do not sanction Mary's trespassing upon or usurping that which another considers as his or her own, she may or may not do so, even if she wills to do so and has the means of doing so. Whether she does depend on her ethics and taste for enduring his culture's (society's) retribution.
• If Mary's ethics and cultural norms sanction her trespass on or usurpation of what another deems as their own "territory," but a natural obstacle prevents Mary from doing so, Mary's resolve to trespass or usurp may remain, but lacking the means and implements of overcoming the natural obstacle; Mary will neither usurp nor trespass.
  • Having the will, means and implements needed to overcome natural obstacles, and absent personal ethics or cultural norms militating against her doing so, Mary will trespass or usurp as she sees fit.

The preceding is a general exposition of the human condition. It's my assertion that the exposition given is accurate and representationally faithful. That said, I know too that the specific manifestation/implementation of the human condition within specific individuals varies. Observation informs us that some quantity of humans exhibit the above behavioral and cognition and others don't, thus while being representationally faithful, there isn't an existentially universal human condition. To wit, some people's ethics may, using the car example I provided, forbear vandalizing the car, and some cultural norms may do also.

Governments exist to implement constructs that balance the nature of the human condition such that harms and favors are, to an extent the preponderance of the governed deem "appropriate," equitably attenuated and granted, respectively. Government also afford communities with a measure of efficiency; they obviate the need for every member of a community to involve themselves in every situation whereby favors must be doled, defense raised or retribution exacted.

An individual may have a set of ethics that differs from those of the preponderance of the members of a community, be that community anarchical or governed. Such an individual has several options:

• "Get over it"
• Alter one's ethics
• Seek a different community, namely one that has either a government or cultural norms that align with one's ethics
• Attempt to change the nature of the implemented construct(s)
• Act in accordance with one's ethics and suffer the consequences meted out by the government or by the culture.

In light of all the foregoing, let's now address the central question of this thread: Is anarchy inherently immoral? In the thread that catalyzed this one, I posited that anarchy may be intrinsically immoral. In consideration of the above, I here modify that statement as follows

• Anarchy is intrinsically amoral; however by dint of its removal of one of the means for securing and/or motivating humans to behave morally -- after all, under anarchy, each individual is his own law giver and arbiter of that law -- anarchy increases the risk some individuals may immorally comport themselves. Because anarchy has that quality and offers no consequences for immorality, it is immoral, though perhaps not intrinsically so. Intrinsically immoral, however, is one's actively moving to create a state of anarchy within a community comprise of more than one.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.
-- Voltaire​

 

[martybegan]

The problem is for this to work you can't use people, you would have to use programmed androids who meet all the requirements of the system you are proposing (which ironically would be the ultimate form of control, a control you are trying desperately to avoid)

To go to my old Dungeons and Dragons alignments for an example, you would need a population of entirely neutral good people or your anarchic system would break down either from lawful people wanting more order, Chaotic people not following any agreement come to, and evil people trying to use the system for their own gain and profit.

An I know republics like ours suffer from their own ideal conditions being subverted. We see it in how federalism has been ignored for decades in favor of more and more federal control. We see it also when local governments subvert the bill of rights, such as gun laws in New York City, or Ignoring 1st amendment rights by calling any business a public accomodation.

Still a democratic republic, and to me a federal version of that, using capitalism and property rights as the economic system is the best real world system we can hope for to work properly.

I think the D&D model is very useful, but you must admit this is all highly speculative. There is no way anyone could know what would happen, and we have to take this realization to heart when discussing this topic. That's why most of my conversation is about how government is a problem, rather than how anarchy is a solution.

I think when we make appeals to human nature, we often forget how significantly immersed we are in a world culture rooted in government and its effects. How can we know how people would respond in an environment without modern precedent? Are we to assume that with all our technological advancements, the removal of government would revert man back to his primitive state, or even the state he was in when he pioneered the American west?

I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to get into it deeply, but there are many, many ways in which government is responsible for the foul behaviors we attribute to human nature. The quickest thing i could say is that governmental culture largely robs man of his self-responsibility. And a democratic republic, specifically, pits neighbor against neighbor in an endless struggle over every conceivable topic, when in a free society, such matters would never even be a thought in his head.

Government should be seen as overhead, required for the "business" of society. Problems occur when government takes the forefront of society, which is where we are heading now.

Think about how a professional team sports league would run without officials overseeing the game and making sure the rules are followed, and you can get an idea of how people without government would work.

Comparing sports to government is only to say that we need organization and rules, to which I agree, but which does not require government. A sports team, as well as all business, accomplishes a high degree of organization on a voluntary basis. Despite millions of people being involved in some of these endeavors, no one is coerced with violence, and amazing things are accomplished every day.

What is the one thing that government brings to the table; the only key differentiating factor? Permission to use aggressive violence outside the scope of self-defense. An exemption from the generally-accepted rules of morality. It is the difference between a legitimate business and a mafia, but with the stigma washed away by religious ritial (ancient doctrine, oaths, men in black robes with ceremonial hammers, etc.).

Think of any function inherently exclusive to government (writing coercive law, enforcing law, taxation, war), and you will find that the reason it is exclusive to government is because it would be considered morally inappropriate if anyone else did it. This demonstrates that the only thing government adds to society is immorality; though it launders it psychologically such that we are willing to support it. In fact, not just willing, but eager; as we get all the benfits of immorality with none of the guilt.

“Pretty neat deal, huh? You know how we got it? We made the whole fucking thing up!”
- George Carlin

Yes it does require government, because without it if one group decides it didn't like the rules it could impose their will on others via force or coercion. Government in this case is given said power exclusively when it comes to large scale interactions between people and groups.

It's not a question of morality to me giving government exclusive use of force in certain areas, it's a question of efficiency.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Yes it does require government, because without it if one group decides it didn't like the rules it could impose their will on others via force or coercion. Government in this case is given said power exclusively when it comes to large scale interactions between people and groups.

It's not a question of morality to me giving government exclusive use of force in certain areas, it's a question of efficiency.

Are you saying that there is no overlap between morality and efficiency? That if something is efficient, it obviates any question about its morality? I doubt you want to take that position, as its implications are horrifying. The benefits of "giving" government the exclusive right to use force do not render the moral question irrelevant. All immoral acts have benefits - that's the very reason why people act immorally. I suggest that the benefit you perceive is gained immorally by pretending you (and "the people") have the ability to grant rights in the first place, and by forcing your belief on others.

You don't support government because you want their power to keep you in control, and to take the fruit of your labor; you support government because you want that power wielded against me, and my children. You want them to forcibly take my money and spend it on things you deem worthwhile, whether I agree with your assessment or not - or even worse, whether I am morally opposed to them or not. I live in Queens, NY. Do you know how many people around here thought John Gotti was wonderful because he would bring fireworks on the holidays, or make things safer for the neighborhood? But there was a price for that; and instead of that price being paid by the people who gained the benefit, it was paid by others who were robbed and murdered.

And yet, you say "without government, one group could impose their will on others via force or coercion" -- but this is exactly what you are doing with government! Government doesn't prevent that from happening, it merely institutionalizes it. Can't you see that it's the only reason anyone votes in the first place - to have their will dominate their neighbors'? Think of how big corporations and bankers leverage their influence with government; how the bankers fleeced the nation to the breaking point, knowing in advance they'd land on a safety net of government bail-outs, paid for by the same people they robbed in the first place! Unbelievable! And this is the masterful system of cooperation and protection? We have to shed the cultural paradigm and call things what they are - it's an institution of immorality any way you slice it. It's justified by ritual, convention, and indoctrination; and people support it because they hope they'll come out on the winning end.

 

[martybegan]

Yes it does require government, because without it if one group decides it didn't like the rules it could impose their will on others via force or coercion. Government in this case is given said power exclusively when it comes to large scale interactions between people and groups.

It's not a question of morality to me giving government exclusive use of force in certain areas, it's a question of efficiency.

Are you saying that there is no overlap between morality and efficiency? That if something is efficient, it obviates any question about its morality? I doubt you want to take that position, as its implications are horrifying. The benefits of "giving" government the exclusive right to use force do not render the moral question irrelevant. All immoral acts have benefits - that's the very reason why people act immorally. I suggest that the benefit you perceive is gained immorally by pretending you (and "the people") have the ability to grant rights in the first place, and by forcing your belief on others.

You don't support government because you want their power to keep you in control, and to take the fruit of your labor; you support government because you want that power wielded against me, and my children. You want them to forcibly take my money and spend it on things you deem worthwhile, whether I agree with your assessment or not - or even worse, whether I am morally opposed to them or not. I live in Queens, NY. Do you know how many people around here thought John Gotti was wonderful because he would bring fireworks on the holidays, or make things safer for the neighborhood? But there was a price for that; and instead of that price being paid by the people who gained the benefit, it was paid by others who were robbed and murdered.

And yet, you say "without government, one group could impose their will on others via force or coercion" -- but this is exactly what you are doing with government! Government doesn't prevent that from happening, it merely institutionalizes it. Can't you see that it's the only reason anyone votes in the first place - to have their will dominate their neighbors'? Think of how big corporations and bankers leverage their influence with government; how the bankers fleeced the nation to the breaking point, knowing in advance they'd land on a safety net of government bail-outs, paid for by the same people they robbed in the first place! Unbelievable! And this is the masterful system of cooperation and protection? We have to shed the cultural paradigm and call things what they are - it's an institution of immorality any way you slice it. It's justified by ritual, convention, and indoctrination; and people support it because they hope they'll come out on the winning end.

I'm an Engineer so by nature I deal with things that can actually occur and happen, not theoretical exercises in what is possible if all the proper conditions can be met.

Your views and points all require removing the human condition from the equation, and that is impossible unless you remove the humans from the equation. As society of rigorously programmed androids might remove the need for government, but you end up without the need because you have eliminated free will at it's source instead of controlling it from above.

In anarchy the tribal infighting and outfighting would be orders of magnitude worse because the overall controlling authority we call government would not be around as the "600 lb gorilla" in the room keeping everyone playing nice. (or close to nice)

Actually Gotti's actions would be something you would probably see in an anarchic society, strongmen running their little kingdoms as they see fit, and handing out things to their populace to keep them on their side.