But nutmeg is not evil! There is no "proper balance" of good and evil. Like darkness to light, evil is merely the absence of good, it contributes no quality of its own. Where the analogy ends is that In the context of light, we may have "too much" for our purposes, whereas with good, more is always better. We don't want a balance of good and "not good", we want as much good as we can get. This is why I say that you fundamentally misunderstand what government IS if you think it can provide any good at all. Government is an exploitation. It is an evil (the lack of freedom). There is no part of it designed to benefit you. Let's think of this in another setting...
Government is not evil, government is a tool used to bring about social order. It is not more evil than a hammer or a AR-15. All three can be used for evil, but none are evil in and of themselves. If you remove government you will have to replace it with another tool to bring about social order or you will just have chaos. Personally I say that is what anarchy is, but you seem to disagree. Whatever tool you replace government with will have the same propensity to be evil.
Consider employment. The employer pays an employee a salary of 50k per year. This employee's labor must create more than 50k per year in value, in order to justify his presence in the company. The employee, by definition, is receiving compensation for his labor below that which it is worth - he is being devalued, to the expressed benefit of the employer. The employer, in effect, would be stealing that portion of the labor, if not for the consent of the employee, which makes it a gift (whether he realizes this or not). No part of this system is designed for the employee's benefit. When he ceases to produce benefit for the employer, his presence is no longer justified, despite any benefit he is creating for himself.
This works just like slavery, but on a voluntary basis, which is why it is not a matter of concern for the anarchist; at least not at this time. The level of consciousness required to fully embrace this understanding of employment as devaluation is beyond that which is required to embrace the moral necessity of consent (which almost everyone already does in matters of rape, etc., but they have an indoctrinated blind spot as it relates to government). So, first things first. Learn to crawl toward freedom (the accurate valuation of the self), then learn to walk.
I do not say this as an insult, but you have such a simple minded view of the world. It seems in your world "fair" is all that matters. In the real world fair is a joke, there is no such thing and never will be.
The relationship between an employers and an employee should be one of mutual benefit, not one of equal benefit as such is not possible and because we do not share equal risk. I hope and hold pride in the fact that I provide more value for my employer than he pays me as it allows him to keep his business operating and keep giving me a very, very nice salary and a 12 grand raise like happened this year. I have no desire to employ myself, my job has one purpose, to provide me with the funds to live my life in the way that I choose. I do not work where I do because I love the company or even because the work is all that amazing (being a statistician is not the most exciting job in the world). But when I leave work I get to worry about nothing but what I am going to make my wife and I for dinner and when my next tee time is. That to me is worth more than money, so I say I am getting the better end of the bargin in my arrangement with my employer.
Government is a master. Its purpose is to enslave you. A democratic republic is a con. Its purpose is to make slavery seem like freedom. Evil is nothing if not deceptive. It creates nothing, only perverts. The perversion of freedom is what you are heralding as freedom itself. All power-grabs require an enemy, the protection against which is cited as the necessity for control. That enemy can be a foreign power, poverty, or "anarchy" as chaos.
Government is a tool, not unlike the computer I am sitting at right now. I do though agree with you about power grabs and the need for an enemy...almost like you make government to be the enemy. Hmmm....maybe there is something to that....
Anarchy is not really a substantive position; it is an apophatic proposition - it is defined by what it is not.
I actually agree with this, and what it is not is order. Anarchy is the absence of order.
