CDZ Anarchy: Moral Imperative or Inherently Immoral?

[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.

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.

Ok, but realize that, though you cite pragmatic reasoning based on known values, your position relies heavily on speculative predictions (tribal war and mafia control). The inherent immorality of government is here and now, and has been for thousands of years.

Remember that organization and defense of individual rights are not necessarily removed in a voluntary society. The only thing being removed is the inequality of rights between those that call themselves agents of government and those who do not.

You claim that government is needed to mitigate the inherent flaws in humanity, but the solution only raises one portion of that flawed humanity into a position of great power, thus magnifying the very problem you seek to mitigate. Think about it... unless, as you stated, you removed the free will of humanity or replaced government with androids, what else could it possibly do?

The only thing you’ve added to the equation is the immagined right of one group to commit coercive violence. It removes the only mitigation - self-defense. When cops arrest you for growing prohibited plants (a peaceful act), few people would support your right to gun them down, because they are “allowed” to do this; whereas if your neighbor attempted to cage you, others would acknowledge your right to self-defense. How does this result in less violence? It doesn’t, as is clearly shown by the fact thay the body counts racked up by governments FAR exceed anything possible by individuals (mafia included).

 

[jwoodie]

Morality is a shared set of values. Anarchy is an amoral form of disorganization that is incapable of productivity and usually results in an authoritarian overreaction.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

Very clearly stated. I largely agree with your comments, but I think we need to define the fundamental qualities of government in order to evaluate your description. The motivations for the creation of government is not in question, but whether that intent can ever match the real-world construct is subject for some debate. In simple terms, what people intend is the creation of a powerful force for good. Given that it is impossible to have any large-scale agreement on what constitutes "good" (other than in the most rudimentary form, e.g. it is good not to rob or kill innocent people), there is an inherent impediment to successful implementation.

What makes government fundamentally different than any other form of organization? It is the notion of authority. It is the inequality of rights; namely, the right to coerce via violence. This seems to fly in the face of equitable attenuation and granting of harms and favors. For government to be government, it must have rights that others don't have; and since government consists of human beings, it means some human beings must have rights that others don't have. Given that rights are intrinsically related to free will, this is a denial of human nature itself; as there is no innate quality discernible among individuals that would distinguish them as possessing more or less free will.

In order to accept this premise of inequality of rights, it is necessary to suppose government to be something other than a grouping of human beings. This is evident when the police officer or soldier attempts to deny personal responsibility by saying, "I'm just following orders". The implication is that their actions are not their own (which is clearly nothing more than a convenient delusion). The politician, who is seemingly the source of those orders, would also say, "As a mere representative, I am only doing the will of the people". The people, in turn, will say, "We vote, but we do not make law or give orders". So, what is the source of these actions? One would be left to conclude that it resides in no human person, but in a supernatural entity called "government". This mental construct has effects which are demonstrably destructive (see all of human history) because it releases everyone along the chain of personal responsibility. Nagasaki burns, and no person is held responsible, because it was an "act of war", and therefore an act of the mythical entity called "government".

This you have acknowledged by saying that the government obviates the need for every individual to dole out favors or exact retribution. But I submit that it is precisely the need to be personally responsible that maintains the bond between intent and application. Who among us would be personally willing to do the things we ask government to do on our behalf? Government is the authoritative right to coerce via violence. That is the only differentiating factor between it and all other forms of organization. If our intent is to feed the poor, in a self-responsible society, we must do so directly by our efforts or our dollars. But with government, we ask that others use threats of violence to obtain a portion of our neighbors' wealth and give a portion of those acquired funds to the poor. Few of us would be willing to issue this threat ourselves; and even those who now perform this action would likely be unwilling to do so if not under the cover of "law", which grants the illusory abdication of responsibility described above.

The reason why I cited indoctrination is because the "appropriateness" of this system is only accepted by the masses due to cultural immersion in the implied and expressed assertion that it is so, and the ted by faux-philosophical justifications) that it is so. When the subject switches from government to the individual citizen, it would no longer be deemed appropriate by the overwhelming majority of people. If there is any question about this, just ask them if they would accept a tax, or a traffic ticket from you personally. Ask if they would feel comfortable violently dragging their neighbor to a cage in their basement for sleeping with a prostitute.

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.

Considering the above investigation, is it really true that anarchy increases the risk that some individuals may immorally comport themselves? We have just demonstrated how government definitively inspires people to behave in ways that they never would if not under the cover of "authority", and to support immoral actions by others that they would never perform themselves. Also, the magnification of immorality that occurs when an immoral person is in possession of the power created by government cannot be denied. Imagine the power of Hitler in an anarchist society. It would be nigh unto negligible relative to the historical fact.

Considering that it is not law, but threat of violence that dissuades would-be criminals, an armed society is more of a deterrent to criminals than law enforcers. Consider it from your own point of view... if you were going to rob a house full of people having a dinner party, which idea creates the more effective deterrent: three policemen catching you in the act, or three rednecks with shot guns? The police will most likely try to arrest you and bring you to prison where you will be faithfully fed three meals a day. The rednecks... God only knows what they will do.

No law does not mean no consequences. Consequences are more likely to be issued by a dramatically larger percentage of the population without granting a minuscule fraction of that population a monopoly on protection. They say "an armed society is a polite society", but I've never heard the word "polite" uttered in the same sentence as "police state". The former approach at least has the potential to yield a society of justice and equality; whereas the latter cannot, as inequality (and thereby injustice) is inherent to its nature.

This commentary casts significant doubt upon the notion of government being a motivation for humans to behave morally (despite the intent which inspires it), as well as the notion of anarchy increasing the risk of people acting immorally. With those core premises in question, I do not see how we can conclude that anarchy itself, or supporting anarchy, is inherently immoral.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Morality is a shared set of values. Anarchy is a transitional form of disorganization that is incapable of productivity and usually results in an authoritarian overreaction.

Anarchy is being equated with disorganization, which is not an appropriate. Organization and productivity may exist within a voluntary society. When you walk through a mall, everyone involved in that scenario is likely acting voluntarily, from resource gatherers, manufacturers, distributors, builders, advertisers, shop owners, consumers...

Even if you would like to cite law as facilitating some of this, remember that there is a difference between how things are done, and how they must be done. If all plumbers were killed tomorrow, would we never have plumbing again? Just because government performs certain functions now does not mean they must perform them to assure their existence.

 

[jwoodie]

Morality is a shared set of values. Anarchy is a transitional form of disorganization that is incapable of productivity and usually results in an authoritarian overreaction.

Anarchy is being equated with disorganization, which is not an appropriate. Organization and productivity may exist within a voluntary society.

Do you mean like a democracy? How else would a productive division of labor occur?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Morality is a shared set of values. Anarchy is a transitional form of disorganization that is incapable of productivity and usually results in an authoritarian overreaction.

Anarchy is being equated with disorganization, which is not an appropriate. Organization and productivity may exist within a voluntary society.

Do you mean like a democracy? How else would a productive division of labor occur?

I’m not sure what you mean - division of labor on what scale? Most business models would not need to change in a free society. Private industry uses voluntary hierarchy to create order now, and they may still do so.

Although I do not ultimately believe free market capitalism to be the best of all possible systems, it would likely be the most immediate and prevalent economic system since it mirrors what we have now very closely. But without the leverage of law, corporations would be more directly accountable to the consumer and the larger society, being wholly dependent on them for every aspect of their survival.

In any case, with no centralized authority, small pockets of people will be free to try any alternative method they deem desirable.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The motivations for the creation of government is not in question, but whether that intent can ever match the real-world construct is subject for some debate.

I suspect the ideal and what at any moment is the status of achievement of that ideal are not the same, not only because the ideal is hard to reach, but also because what a polity deems ideal varies over time. To wit, even if a government today achieved the ideal the governed sought, some decade from now, perhaps sooner, and certainly a generation later, the ideal will have almost assuredly have insidiously changed and government likely will not have kept-up with the pace of change in what be deemed ideal.

For government to be government, it must have rights that others don't have; and since government consists of human beings, it means some human beings must have rights that others don't have.

Yes, well, that's why I care more about politicians and public office holders' character than I do about any specific policy they may see fit to enact or enforce.


How did you get from this (bold)...

Given that it is impossible to have any large-scale agreement on what constitutes "good" (other than in the most rudimentary form, e.g. it is good not to rob or kill innocent people), there is an inherent impediment to successful implementation.

...to this...

Nagasaki burns, and no person is held responsible, because it was an "act of war", and therefore an act of the mythical entity called "government".

Seems to me the rudimentary agreement you identified went out the door with "Nagasaki burning." One, several, a whole society, and the preponderance of its members either find it anathema to set Nagasaki and its innocent residents ablaze or one/they/it do/does not. People whose ethics declare objectionable destroying Nagasaki and its innocents won't allow whatever differences they have with Nagasaki, its government or its people (innocent or otherwise) to be "resolved" by destroying Nagasaki, as it were.

Who among us would be personally willing to do the things we ask government to do on our behalf?

The people whose ethics allow them to do those things.

and the ted by faux-philosophical justifications

??? Is "ted" a typo?

• ...and the "spreading" by faux....
• ...and the "separation and scattering" by faux...

Did you mean "ted" that way? If so, do you mean "of faux..".rather than "by faux...?"

When the subject switches from government to the individual citizen, it would no longer be deemed appropriate by the overwhelming majority of people. If there is any question about this, just ask them if they would accept a tax, or a traffic ticket from you personally. Ask if they would feel comfortable violently dragging their neighbor to a cage in their basement for sleeping with a prostitute.

I don't think folks would mind doing those things if their ethics determine such actions are appropriate. I think they object to the personal risk they'd face from doing such things to someone who resists. If there were some basis by which folks thought their individual enforcement action may be supported by other individuals, I don't think they'd object.

To wit, how many individuals took it upon themselves to be "law" maker, "law" enforcer, "judge" and "jury" in the South between ~1865 to 1960-something, 1970-something? Many a lynching had nothing to do with any government instruction to do it. How often during the noted period did individuals threaten others with "something" -- for example, "you'd better keep your mouth shut, or you'll [or insert 'your wife,' 'your child,' 'your friend, etc] wish you had" -- that no government order sanctioned? Those were threats issued by individuals, as individuals, and without regard to what the government had to say about it. It happened enough that one couldn't even call it all that exceptional. It's what those individuals felt like doing and they did it.

We have just demonstrated how government definitively inspires people to behave in ways that they never would if not under the cover of "authority", and to support immoral actions by others that they would never perform themselves. Also, the magnification of immorality that occurs when an immoral person is in possession of the power created by government cannot be denied. Imagine the power of Hitler in an anarchist society. It would be nigh unto negligible relative to the historical fact.

• I don't at all agree that you've so demonstrated.
• Seems to me an immoral person's power is magnified every bit as effectively and detrimentally (or charitably) by governmental imprimatur as by that of non-governmental bolsters, in the examples I described above, cultural norm.
  
  Governments can and do inspire "right" action as well as deter "wrong" action. When government abdicates it's job of impelling and dissuading citizens to do right/abjure wrong (respectively), it's pretty much the same, with regard to the actions not encouraged/discouraged, as there being a state of anarchy with regard to whatever be the corresponding moral/immoral actions over which the government chose to do nothing.

 

[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.

Ok, but realize that, though you cite pragmatic reasoning based on known values, your position relies heavily on speculative predictions (tribal war and mafia control). The inherent immorality of government is here and now, and has been for thousands of years.

Remember that organization and defense of individual rights are not necessarily removed in a voluntary society. The only thing being removed is the inequality of rights between those that call themselves agents of government and those who do not.

You claim that government is needed to mitigate the inherent flaws in humanity, but the solution only raises one portion of that flawed humanity into a position of great power, thus magnifying the very problem you seek to mitigate. Think about it... unless, as you stated, you removed the free will of humanity or replaced government with androids, what else could it possibly do?

The only thing you’ve added to the equation is the immagined right of one group to commit coercive violence. It removes the only mitigation - self-defense. When cops arrest you for growing prohibited plants (a peaceful act), few people would support your right to gun them down, because they are “allowed” to do this; whereas if your neighbor attempted to cage you, others would acknowledge your right to self-defense. How does this result in less violence? It doesn’t, as is clearly shown by the fact thay the body counts racked up by governments FAR exceed anything possible by individuals (mafia included).

power always fills a vacuum. Your assumption is that the removal of government power will not create a void that would be filled by another form of power, on probably far less benign.

What is to stop some larger group in an anarchic society from deciding that IT doesn't like certain plants, and thus YOU shouldn't like the either.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

power always fills a vacuum. Your assumption is that the removal of government power will not create a void that would be filled by another form of power, on probably far less benign.

What is to stop some larger group in an anarchic society from deciding that IT doesn't like certain plants, and thus YOU shouldn't like the either.

A "power vacuum" only occurs when the populace assumes the very notion of power. Now, obviously, there's always the might-makes-right issue, but this is just the nature of things on this planet. Everyone from houseflies to humans have to watch their back and protect themselves, and this doesn't change with or without government.

But understand that I'm not calling for the violent overthrow of government tomorrow. I'm trying to encourage a change in the cultural consciousness (a much broader, long-term effort). If people could be made to understand their true nature (self-ownership) and embrace their true power (self-responsibility), they would not accept the authority of anyone over themselves. A dominator may still dominate them physically, but they will skirt his demands where they can, and resist/revolt where they think it may succeed. They will never accept the validity of any "power", and so there is no vacuum to fill.

Just imagine if every time a cop tried to boss someone around, a shootout resulted? How long do you think the institution of police domination could survive? How long could politicians hold sway over a people who do not accept their claim to authority? There are many variables not accounted for here, but I'm just trying to illustrate the point that the power to dominate resides in the mind of its victims. Like Gandhi said, “They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me. Then they will have my dead body, but not my obedience.”

And if you think the current power structure is "benign" it's only because you miss the scope of their domination. In the modern west, they do not use physical force primarily, but psychology. It can take years to unravel how this subtle mind control has influenced an individual. Often, the desires you believe are your own have been planted there by design. How many people deem "success" to be wealth and/or fame? How many people are slaves to a dollar that is manipulated by high-level bankers to lose value over time, such that people must work more and more to keep up with the materialistic desires fostered by the culture that surrounds them? Both parents are now working full time to keep up with the financial drain (and are usually still carrying tremendous mortgage and personal debt), and so they hand their children over to the state. And how does the state raise their children? Well, each day starts with making the children pledge their allegiance to the Republic, and the authoritarian reward-for-obedience model continues from there.

This is just the very tip of the iceberg, and I'm not suggesting that a widespread conspiracy is in play. Those who have the wealth and power to guide society certainly do so, and no doubt pool their efforts (financial backers/politicians/media moguls is an obvious example of how working in tandem can influence the culture), but most who maintain this system of psychological domination don't even know they're doing it. It only takes a few at the top of the hill to set the snowball rolling, and the rest takes care of itself. Just because you can't see the bars doesn't mean you're not enslaved.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The motivations for the creation of government is not in question, but whether that intent can ever match the real-world construct is subject for some debate.

I suspect the ideal and what at any moment is the status of achievement of that ideal are not the same, not only because the ideal is hard to reach, but also because what a polity deems ideal varies over time. To wit, even if a government today achieved the ideal the governed sought, some decade from now, perhaps sooner, and certainly a generation later, the ideal will have almost assuredly have insidiously changed and government likely will not have kept-up with the pace of change in what be deemed ideal.

For government to be government, it must have rights that others don't have; and since government consists of human beings, it means some human beings must have rights that others don't have.

Yes, well, that's why I care more about politicians and public office holders' character than I do about any specific policy they may see fit to enact or enforce.


How did you get from this (bold)...

Given that it is impossible to have any large-scale agreement on what constitutes "good" (other than in the most rudimentary form, e.g. it is good not to rob or kill innocent people), there is an inherent impediment to successful implementation.

...to this...

Nagasaki burns, and no person is held responsible, because it was an "act of war", and therefore an act of the mythical entity called "government".

Seems to me the rudimentary agreement you identified went out the door with "Nagasaki burning." One, several, a whole society, and the preponderance of its members either find it anathema to set Nagasaki and its innocent residents ablaze or one/they/it do/does not. People whose ethics declare objectionable destroying Nagasaki and its innocents won't allow whatever differences they have with Nagasaki, its government or its people (innocent or otherwise) to be "resolved" by destroying Nagasaki, as it were.

Who among us would be personally willing to do the things we ask government to do on our behalf?

The people whose ethics allow them to do those things.

and the ted by faux-philosophical justifications

??? Is "ted" a typo?

• ...and the "spreading" by faux....
• ...and the "separation and scattering" by faux...

Did you mean "ted" that way? If so, do you mean "of faux..".rather than "by faux...?"

When the subject switches from government to the individual citizen, it would no longer be deemed appropriate by the overwhelming majority of people. If there is any question about this, just ask them if they would accept a tax, or a traffic ticket from you personally. Ask if they would feel comfortable violently dragging their neighbor to a cage in their basement for sleeping with a prostitute.

I don't think folks would mind doing those things if their ethics determine such actions are appropriate. I think they object to the personal risk they'd face from doing such things to someone who resists. If there were some basis by which folks thought their individual enforcement action may be supported by other individuals, I don't think they'd object.

To wit, how many individuals took it upon themselves to be "law" maker, "law" enforcer, "judge" and "jury" in the South between ~1865 to 1960-something, 1970-something? Many a lynching had nothing to do with any government instruction to do it. How often during the noted period did individuals threaten others with "something" -- for example, "you'd better keep your mouth shut, or you'll [or insert 'your wife,' 'your child,' 'your friend, etc] wish you had" -- that no government order sanctioned? Those were threats issued by individuals, as individuals, and without regard to what the government had to say about it. It happened enough that one couldn't even call it all that exceptional. It's what those individuals felt like doing and they did it.

We have just demonstrated how government definitively inspires people to behave in ways that they never would if not under the cover of "authority", and to support immoral actions by others that they would never perform themselves. Also, the magnification of immorality that occurs when an immoral person is in possession of the power created by government cannot be denied. Imagine the power of Hitler in an anarchist society. It would be nigh unto negligible relative to the historical fact.

• I don't at all agree that you've so demonstrated.
• Seems to me an immoral person's power is magnified every bit as effectively and detrimentally (or charitably) by governmental imprimatur as by that of non-governmental bolsters, in the examples I described above, cultural norm.
  
  Governments can and do inspire "right" action as well as deter "wrong" action. When government abdicates it's job of impelling and dissuading citizens to do right/abjure wrong (respectively), it's pretty much the same, with regard to the actions not encouraged/discouraged, as there being a state of anarchy with regard to whatever be the corresponding moral/immoral actions over which the government chose to do nothing.

Hahaha, yes, the "ted" sentence got mangled. I don't know what I it was meant to say, but the point was that the "philosophy" offered to justify governmental rule in civics classes is bunk. Again, I have yet to hear an answer to the question "how can a body of people delegate rights to government that none of them have individually?" And don't get me started on "implied consent".

The ideal is not difficult to achieve, it is impossible via the prescribed method. This is because a consistent bloating of law is required to address new concerns, and eventually it becomes unmanageable or unacceptable to the public and a breakdown occurs. There is no way that the "solution" of violent coercion can ever produce a peaceful, productive society. It flies in the face of reality (i.e. the autonomous nature of man), and thus is doomed to failure, every time, with no exceptions. The only rule that can satisfy is self-rule (and self-defense where the self-rule of others fails), because this is the only framework that works with man's nature, not against it.

Of course there is the cultural influence, and things can go off the rails, with people being being willingly thrown into volcanoes, etc., but such are the dangers of adolescence. And I believe mankind is in a state of adolescence - expressing his will to a greater degree (largely via technology), but still tied to the comforting notion of parental power, and resorting to it by default in times of confusion or hardship. That is why times of confusion and hardship must be suggested by the nightly news on a daily basis. We must be made to feel that the world is too dangerous to go it alone. Should man gather the confidence of true adulthood, he would never accept the authority of other men. Maturity is nothing if not self-responsibile.

You admit that government (certain people) must have rights that others don't have, and so rest your hope in accurately discerning their character. Though, of course, there is the fact that you have but a few to choose from at any election, and it is easy enough for the wealthy and powerful to ensure that only the "team-players" appear before you as options. It is also easy enough to deceive people about the nature of one's character, especially since people are generally moral, and project their own goodness onto others. Psychopaths are particularly good at exploiting this weakness.

So fundamentally, you accept inequality of rights. One man has the right to rule (justified by political rituals which include the option to cast him aside after a few years, but only by replacing him with another), while other men cannot make law and must obey. And you accept this why? Because it is "necessary" lest we have chaos? Never mind whether perceived necessity may be cited to justify immorality, but this particular brand of necessity relies heavily on speculation about how human nature would express in a free environment. Considering the incessant worldview poisoning we receive since the time of our birth, the prospect of an accurate evaluation on this matter is highly dubious.

Consider the bombardment of violence and danger you have been subjected to via news media and entertainment. How many murders have you witnessed via these mediums? 10,000? A conservative estimate, to be sure. How many have you seen first hand? I have seen none. How many acts of cooperation and kindness go unannounced, while journalists scour the globe for every frightening circumstance they can serve up to the masses on a daily basis? Do you believe your worldview is unaffected? I would not be so bold as to assert this for myself, and I am actively trying to combat it and avoid it; many are not even aware of the depth of its influence.

Most people can agree that killing innocents is wrong. The reason why they abide Nagasaki is because of cognitive dissonance - the connection between murdering innocents and those bombings is broken by the lie of governmental authority. Of course they know what happened, but it does not resonate in the same way as a school shooting (though obviously it is orders of magnitude more atrocious). Law has been laundering immorality their entire lives, and they have been taught that there is a moral component to law; that its acts are acceptable because they are necessary for the larger public good. These are not logical conclusions, they are emotional, though many have clothed them in a pretense of philosophy. They are born of a fundamental trust in the legitimacy of authority, which was implanted into their thinking purposefully, and reinforced constantly.

Admitting edge cases, do you really believe that the bulk of the voting masses would feel morally justified threatening their neighbor with violence unless he regularly contributes a portion of his income toward their children's education? Or would feel justified busting down their peaceful neighbor's door and dragging him to a cage at gunpoint for growing a particular plant? And even if they did feel so justified on a few issues, would they feel justified doing these things on every issue their "representative" will be addressing during his term? Even if there is only one such issue that they would not feel justified acting on personally, by voting they have committed an act of violence by proxy that they would not have committed in a free society. And even if they agreed with ALL government action, sheer practicality or self-preservation would make it impossible or undesirable, and so the scope of one man's dominance over his neighbor would be drastically reduced. Plus, we must consider how, via politics, we are made to have a hand in issues that would otherwise not concern us at all. What does a man in rural Oklahoma care about transvestite bathrooms in New York? But by politics, he is made to rail against his fellow man and propagate further division concerning an issue irrelevant to his own life. He then acts upon those in New York by voting, when he would otherwise have no hand in affairs outside his natural range of experience and influence.

And you don't think I have demonstrated that government causes people to act by proxy in ways they never would personally? You don't think governmental authority provides a platform for magnifying immorality and expanding its influence far beyond what would be possible in a free society? Are you suggesting that Stalin and Mao would have had the ability to kill tens of millions without the influence of that superstitious belief in the minds of their followers? I humbly suggest that you overestimate their charisma. It was that deep-rooted belief in the seat of power these men occupied that garnered widespread compliance. A mere soapbox in the public square could never achieve influence of that magnitude.

 

[usmbguest5318]

here is no way that the "solution" of violent coercion can ever produce a peaceful, productive society.

I agree with the statement above, but as with post 23 where you introduced the idea, I don't have any idea of how "violent coercion" came into your remarks or what it has to do with mine.

Did you focus on "harm/hurt" and infer violent harm or hurt? Sure, I presented physical examples -- they're easy to visualize -- but you'll note that "territory" was written in scare quotes. Neither the trespass nor the harm/hurt need be physical, but one, the other or both can be.

 

[sartre play]

The discussion of various types of government,
good capitalism is regulated
socialism is used for things like infrastructure , police departments fire departments & to protect water & air.
Corporatism is the loss of regulations that allow big business to use money to buy our political leaders,
both capitalism & socialism are needed.
why would we support corporatism?

 

[sartre play]

None, not a single thought on this?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The discussion of various types of government,
good capitalism is regulated
socialism is used for things like infrastructure , police departments fire departments & to protect water & air.
Corporatism is the loss of regulations that allow big business to use money to buy our political leaders,
both capitalism & socialism are needed.
why would we support corporatism?

I’m supporting not having political leaders at all, so there is no one for big business to buy. I guess they’ll just have to reinvest or buy more boats with the extra cash hahaha

In any case, they will be directly answerable to the people for their survival with no governmental mitigation such as bail-outs or favorable swings in legislation.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

here is no way that the "solution" of violent coercion can ever produce a peaceful, productive society.

I agree with the statement above, but as with post 23 where you introduced the idea, I don't have any idea of how "violent coercion" came into your remarks or what it has to do with mine.

Did you focus on "harm/hurt" and infer violent harm or hurt? Sure, I presented physical examples -- they're easy to visualize -- but you'll note that "territory" was written in scare quotes. Neither the trespass nor the harm/hurt need be physical, but one, the other or both can be.

This was in response to your comments about government’s ability to meet the shifting ideals of the people. You said that it is difficult for government to do so, but I was making the case that it is, in fact, impossible.

“Violent coercion” is being used interchangably with “government” to relieve us of the obscuring influence of euphemism (as the only factor that differentiates government from any other organization is their fallacious “right” to coerce by threat of violence). “A peaceful, productive society” is being used to describe the ideal; so to imply that government’s only failing is not fully or consistently living up to the ideal is imprecise at best. Government is antithetical to the ideal, because violence represents the entirity of its contribution. Remove the violence and what’s left is no longer government.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I haven't finished reading your post 30, so don't go too deep yet on the assumption that I have. I haven't, which I why you're getting "snippets"....the snippets being merely my wanting to understand some of your terms...this snippet post is no different.

“Violent coercion” is being used interchangably with “government” to relieve us of the obscuring influence of euphemism (as the only factor that differentiates government from any other organization is their fallacious “right” to coerce by threat of violence)

??? Wuut? I'm still trying to comprehend your use of "violence/violent"

• "Government" and "violent coercion" are both nouns and synonymous. Yes?
• "Government" and "violent coercion" are both verbs and synonymous. Yes?

“Violent coercion” is being used interchangably with “government” to relieve us of the obscuring influence of euphemism (as the only factor that differentiates government from any other organization is their fallacious “right” to coerce by threat of violence)

??? Wuut? I'm still trying to comprehend your use of "violence/violent"
The traffic ticket you mentioned sometime ago....In considering the ticket delivery/receipt process or the fine payment execution, I don't see violence (standard meaning of the word) as being inherent to either situation; it could come about, but it doesn't have to. Is your notion of "threat of violence" that of "anything your bid to do that you don't want to do or don't like having to do?"

 

[martybegan]

power always fills a vacuum. Your assumption is that the removal of government power will not create a void that would be filled by another form of power, on probably far less benign.

What is to stop some larger group in an anarchic society from deciding that IT doesn't like certain plants, and thus YOU shouldn't like the either.

A "power vacuum" only occurs when the populace assumes the very notion of power. Now, obviously, there's always the might-makes-right issue, but this is just the nature of things on this planet. Everyone from houseflies to humans have to watch their back and protect themselves, and this doesn't change with or without government.

But understand that I'm not calling for the violent overthrow of government tomorrow. I'm trying to encourage a change in the cultural consciousness (a much broader, long-term effort). If people could be made to understand their true nature (self-ownership) and embrace their true power (self-responsibility), they would not accept the authority of anyone over themselves. A dominator may still dominate them physically, but they will skirt his demands where they can, and resist/revolt where they think it may succeed. They will never accept the validity of any "power", and so there is no vacuum to fill.

Just imagine if every time a cop tried to boss someone around, a shootout resulted? How long do you think the institution of police domination could survive? How long could politicians hold sway over a people who do not accept their claim to authority? There are many variables not accounted for here, but I'm just trying to illustrate the point that the power to dominate resides in the mind of its victims. Like Gandhi said, “They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me. Then they will have my dead body, but not my obedience.”

And if you think the current power structure is "benign" it's only because you miss the scope of their domination. In the modern west, they do not use physical force primarily, but psychology. It can take years to unravel how this subtle mind control has influenced an individual. Often, the desires you believe are your own have been planted there by design. How many people deem "success" to be wealth and/or fame? How many people are slaves to a dollar that is manipulated by high-level bankers to lose value over time, such that people must work more and more to keep up with the materialistic desires fostered by the culture that surrounds them? Both parents are now working full time to keep up with the financial drain (and are usually still carrying tremendous mortgage and personal debt), and so they hand their children over to the state. And how does the state raise their children? Well, each day starts with making the children pledge their allegiance to the Republic, and the authoritarian reward-for-obedience model continues from there.

This is just the very tip of the iceberg, and I'm not suggesting that a widespread conspiracy is in play. Those who have the wealth and power to guide society certainly do so, and no doubt pool their efforts (financial backers/politicians/media moguls is an obvious example of how working in tandem can influence the culture), but most who maintain this system of psychological domination don't even know they're doing it. It only takes a few at the top of the hill to set the snowball rolling, and the rest takes care of itself. Just because you can't see the bars doesn't mean you're not enslaved.

Again you still need programmable automatons to get the system you want. Our system, properly used, is the best balance between government power and individual rights. The problem is that currently it is NOT being used properly, and government power is being concentrated at the federal level, and most importantly in the federal bureaucracy, as far away from the people as possible. Add in a judiciary that has over-stepped its bounds on numerous occasions and you have the situation you have now.

As for your personal interaction issues with authority figures, again you will always have bad actors unless you can prevent them from happening, i.e. the equivalent of borg drones.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I haven't finished reading your post 30, so don't go too deep yet on the assumption that I have. I haven't, which I why you're getting "snippets"....the snippets being merely my wanting to understand some of your terms...this snippet post is no different.

“Violent coercion” is being used interchangably with “government” to relieve us of the obscuring influence of euphemism (as the only factor that differentiates government from any other organization is their fallacious “right” to coerce by threat of violence)

??? Wuut? I'm still trying to comprehend your use of "violence/violent"

• "Government" and "violent coercion" are both nouns and synonymous. Yes?
• "Government" and "violent coercion" are both verbs and synonymous. Yes?

“Violent coercion” is being used interchangably with “government” to relieve us of the obscuring influence of euphemism (as the only factor that differentiates government from any other organization is their fallacious “right” to coerce by threat of violence)

??? Wuut? I'm still trying to comprehend your use of "violence/violent"
The traffic ticket you mentioned sometime ago....In considering the ticket delivery/receipt process or the fine payment execution, I don't see violence (standard meaning of the word) as being inherent to either situation; it could come about, but it doesn't have to. Is your notion of "threat of violence" that of "anything your bid to do that you don't want to do or don't like having to do?"

Ah, yes, I see. When I speak of violent coercion I mean everything from the threat of violence to the actual use of violence to fulfill that threat. Anytime the chain of non-compliance would result in violence, the initial command is a threat of violence (a threat of death, to be more precise, though they may be able to overpower you for arrest before that final step becomes "necessary"). To see this clearly, you need only reverse the order in which you describe the situation: You may imagine if I said to you, "Sit in this chair, or I will kill you. But first I will yell at you, and if you still won't sit, I will take your wallet, then hit you with this spoon, then throw this net on you, but if you still won't sit, I will kill you." That's law. All law is intended to result in one of two outcomes - compliance or physical violence. This is the factor that defines government AS government; without it you just have a voluntary organizational body with no authority to rule.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Again you still need programmable automatons to get the system you want. Our system, properly used, is the best balance between government power and individual rights. The problem is that currently it is NOT being used properly, and government power is being concentrated at the federal level, and most importantly in the federal bureaucracy, as far away from the people as possible. Add in a judiciary that has over-stepped its bounds on numerous occasions and you have the situation you have now.

As for your personal interaction issues with authority figures, again you will always have bad actors unless you can prevent them from happening, i.e. the equivalent of borg drones.

I appreciate your recognition of the broken state of government, but that recognition stops short of the mark. Government may be broken according to the people's intent for it, but that's not the relevant concern. The intent itself is the problem. For a moment we'll put aside whether government should be what people want it to be, and focus on whether it ever could be what people want it to be.

I submit to you that it is government, not a free society, that needs automatons to make it work (though of course a free society would also work better with automatons). After all, a free society is no system at all; it's just man in his natural state (though now with the benefit of advanced technology). If it can be said to be a system at all, it is the system designed by the creator, or nature, or whatever power guides the organization of the universe.

We want people of moral virtue to take positions of power and make all their decisions based upon what's best for the people. But think about any other industry and consider - why do people do what they do? Does the pretzel manufacturer make pretzels from a noble desire for the populace to have snacks? No, he does it to make as much money as possible; i.e. to serve himself. This works out fine, since to achieve his goal he must provide a pretzel that satisfies the masses, and so it's win-win. This is the same for the overwhelming majority of people who do what they do (with the rare exceptions of the Mother Theresas of the world).

With government, we put up a sign that says, "Help Wanted: people to make rules the rest of us must follow; the goal being the overall benefit of the people at large". But what is offered in return for this? A salary, yes, but particularly at higher levels of government, the people who vie for these positions make way more money in their private endeavors. So what is the real appeal of the job? The power. Who shows up to take these jobs? Those who want power. In order for the system to work as intended, it would require that the people who apply for the position want power, but ONLY for the benefit of others; as to desire power for themselves (to profit or dominate) is considered a misuse of that power. Unlike the pretzel man, working in government for your own benefit is not win-win.

There are hundreds of high-level positions, and we suppose that they will be filled with hundreds of Mother Theresas, when in all areas of life we see that people take jobs or open businesses primarily for their own benefit. And do politicians need to satisfy the masses to succeed? Of course not. No one I've ever spoken with has been satisfied with government. Politicians just need to be charismatic, and spin their failures to look like honest mistakes, or failed attempts due to opposing forces, or even just present themselves as the lesser of two evils. Imagine the pretzel man offering such nonsense: "We know you've paid for pretzels but are getting rat tails instead. We are working hard to resolve this issue, and with your continued support, we know we can overcome this hardship!" He'd be out of business immediately. No one would keep spending their money on rat tails with the hope that someday they will get pretzels.

History shows us deception, cronyism, and corruption in governments everywhere, at all times, and yet we suppose that hope yet remains for the next snowball to survive the fires of hell. There is no chance that government can ever be what we want it to be, as long as humans are in those positions. Humans simply don't work that way. This is one tiny sliver of what's wrong with government as a concept, never mind the immensely important philosophical and moral considerations about inequality of rights, the fallacious superstition of authority, and the power of people to delegate rights they don't have themselves.

 

[martybegan]

Again you still need programmable automatons to get the system you want. Our system, properly used, is the best balance between government power and individual rights. The problem is that currently it is NOT being used properly, and government power is being concentrated at the federal level, and most importantly in the federal bureaucracy, as far away from the people as possible. Add in a judiciary that has over-stepped its bounds on numerous occasions and you have the situation you have now.

As for your personal interaction issues with authority figures, again you will always have bad actors unless you can prevent them from happening, i.e. the equivalent of borg drones.

I appreciate your recognition of the broken state of government, but that recognition stops short of the mark. Government may be broken according to the people's intent for it, but that's not the relevant concern. The intent itself is the problem. For a moment we'll put aside whether government should be what people want it to be, and focus on whether it ever could be what people want it to be.

I submit to you that it is government, not a free society, that needs automatons to make it work (though of course a free society would also work better with automatons). After all, a free society is no system at all; it's just man in his natural state (though now with the benefit of advanced technology). If it can be said to be a system at all, it is the system designed by the creator, or nature, or whatever power guides the organization of the universe.

We want people of moral virtue to take positions of power and make all their decisions based upon what's best for the people. But think about any other industry and consider - why do people do what they do? Does the pretzel manufacturer make pretzels from a noble desire for the populace to have snacks? No, he does it to make as much money as possible; i.e. to serve himself. This works out fine, since to achieve his goal he must provide a pretzel that satisfies the masses, and so it's win-win. This is the same for the overwhelming majority of people who do what they do (with the rare exceptions of the Mother Theresas of the world).

With government, we put up a sign that says, "Help Wanted: people to make rules the rest of us must follow; the goal being the overall benefit of the people at large". But what is offered in return for this? A salary, yes, but particularly at higher levels of government, the people who vie for these positions make way more money in their private endeavors. So what is the real appeal of the job? The power. Who shows up to take these jobs? Those who want power. In order for the system to work as intended, it would require that the people who apply for the position want power, but ONLY for the benefit of others; as to desire power for themselves (to profit or dominate) is considered a misuse of that power. Unlike the pretzel man, working in government for your own benefit is not win-win.

There are hundreds of high-level positions, and we suppose that they will be filled with hundreds of Mother Theresas, when in all areas of life we see that people take jobs or open businesses primarily for their own benefit. And do politicians need to satisfy the masses to succeed? Of course not. No one I've ever spoken with has been satisfied with government. Politicians just need to be charismatic, and spin their failures to look like honest mistakes, or failed attempts due to opposing forces, or even just present themselves as the lesser of two evils. Imagine the pretzel man offering such nonsense: "We know you've paid for pretzels but are getting rat tails instead. We are working hard to resolve this issue, and with your continued support, we know we can overcome this hardship!" He'd be out of business immediately. No one would keep spending their money on rat tails with the hope that someday they will get pretzels.

History shows us deception, cronyism, and corruption in governments everywhere, at all times, and yet we suppose that hope yet remains for the next snowball to survive the fires of hell. There is no chance that government can ever be what we want it to be, as long as humans are in those positions. Humans simply don't work that way. This is one tiny sliver of what's wrong with government as a concept, never mind the immensely important philosophical and moral considerations about inequality of rights, the fallacious superstition of authority, and the power of people to delegate rights they don't have themselves.

You are still railing for the replacement of something that is working, even imperfectly, for something that has never been successfully implemented. As the old saying goes, if you want to replace the fence in the middle of the field, first tell me why it was there in the first place.

Government may be that fence that you no longer want in the field, but tell me why we put it there first so we can figure out what will happen when we take it down.