No. They did not mean it literally. They understood that government is a double edged sword. I can't wait to see how you will take that figurative statement out of context.Do I really have to explain the figurative speech of what necessary evil means. I'm pretty sure our founding fathers said the same thing.You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe. So many that it would be illogical for me to correct them all. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written.Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.
Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.
Hierarchy can be based on status, like voluntarily heeding a more experienced person; and authority can have different connotations. You have authority to kick me off your property. Non-compliance is punishable via your right of self-defense, which naturally includes property as an extension of your labor. However, authority can also be used to indicate an expert in a given field. Not heeding such an expert is not morally punishable.
So we can have hierarchy without authority of the punishing sort. And even in the case of a business owner having authority to fire you and make you leave his property, that authority is based upon natural law rights of defense, and is thus non-aggressive. Governmental authority is different because it claims the right to make a command and punish without any valid defensive claim.
Anarchy, as an anti-political position, has no connotation of disorder. A corporation is highly ordered, and perfectly consistent with anarchy; as is a boy scout troop, baseball team, or a dungeons and dragons session. As it relates to government, anarchy is synonymous with voluntaryism (the belief that all human interaction should be voluntary, except in cases of self-defense).
If you want to call voluntary hierarchy “the right kind of government”, I’m fine with that, but typically we don’t use “government” to describe an organizational body which can be voluntarily disobeyed without punishment.
To say government is “a necessary evil that we can’t live without” is to suggest that evil is a requirement for man to survive and thrive. Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?
It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above an institution of immoral violence and work cooperatively without killing each other. Do you count yourself among these violent heathens? Your friends? Your family? Of all the people you’ve ever known, how many do you think would go around attacking people if there was no law against it? And remember that we are not defenseless without government; not by a long shot. But how many violent aggressors do you think you encounter each day, such that your worldview sees nothing but bloody mayhem in a free society?
So let me repeat what I wrote previously as it is still valid.
Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.
Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.
There's a failure to communicate, though I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies. To my mind, I directly addressed what you have said, but perhaps you mean something different than I'm perceiving.
I don't mean to misrepresent you; please don't think that. I'm not here to win an argument, but to find consensus on truth and reason. My position is born of logical necessity as I perceive it, via the best of my critical ability. My motivation for these discussions is to have my mind changed, or the rest of the world's, and I don't care which one it is. I just want everyone thinking clearly and perceiving truth for what it is.
You said, "we are going to have to reach rock bottom" to which I responded, "It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above". I'm interpreting your view as pessimistic, and making a case for a more hopeful view; namely that mankind can achieve a rise in consciousness without having it come to bloody mayhem. It's possible, if not likely. Where have I misread you here?
You say that "government is a necessary evil, you can't live without it", to which I reply, "Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?" This follows directly from what you said, doesn't it?
The hierarchy/authority thing seems to be a matter of which connotation we're using, but I've explained what I intend fully. If you think I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps elaborate or correct me where I'm wrong, if you care to. Repeating what was misunderstood the first time like it's a riddle I'm supposed to figure out isn't helping.
They did, and I think they meant it literally. These men understood natural law freedom. They explicitly said “all men are created equal” then created a system of inherent inequality. They said men had an “inalienable right” to liberty, then devised the means by which men exchange portions of that liberty for other perceived benefits. They knew what they were doing, and did it anyway. And their apprehension, warnings, and (dare I say) implied regret litters their writings.
What would a figurative connotation even mean? What word would be used in place of “evil” to change it to a literal statement?