Last week I was talking/debating politics with two friends (one democrat and one republican). I argued against the government’s legitimacy. It came down to the Hobbesian argument: without government there would murder, rape and exploitation, and government is the only thing that keeps us from being greedy enough to do that to each other. They argued that without government some group would just take over and create government. Government needs that monopoly to keep us safe from each other.
I don’t know about you guys, but the only thing holding me back from stealing and pillaging and abusing people is the threat of government force. That’s the only reason I don’t engage in these activities yet I desperately want to…Therefore, I’m an anarchist
Not argue what is or is not “legit”. Just consequeces of actions ought to suffice. Also that we can’t use words like rape, murder, etc as any real term of use, they are simply customary legal terms.
realize that if :
without government there would murder, rape and exploitation, and government is the only thing that keeps us from being greedy enough to do that to each other. They argued that without government some group would just take over and create government.
is pretty much all that was said, no argument is presented, just a couple of statements.. Also note that the last sentence can’t be verified or falsified.
Your friends are conflating government with social order itself, a common confusion and one which the Establishment actively encourages. It is true that humans - or any social species - would go extinct without social order but it is not true that government contributes to social order. In fact, it mitigates against social order (just look at the long history of war).
Also realize that if we as a species were to act in a “war of all against all” manner we would have evolved that way, and custom would dictate as such. Through out history masses could always gather and overthrow the few and privilaged, this simply isn’t the case. This is a self - evident fact.
You’re right William. Plus, if people’s inclinations were to be in a war of all against all, what’s the point of submitting to a government authority? By submitting to a State, they are implicity admitting that they value cooperation and social order. It’s like someone saying, “if heroin isn’t illegal, everybody would do it en masse!” If you ask them if they know anybody who would use heroin, they can’t come up with anybody. It’s always the unkown chimera of “somebody else out there.” Unfalsifiable statements FTW.
Hobbes claims that in the state of nature, man is always going to be at war with one another, but governments are the groups that are always at war with eachother, so I ask a Hobbian, “What makes constant government warfare better than warfare in the state of nature?”
It’s kind of funny, when they argue that humans are not driven by greed, but rather altruistic and trustworthy, that is an argument for socialism. But when they argue that humans are selfish and unscrupulous, that is an argument for socialism too, because it means we need a state to keep people in line. It seems no matter in which way human nature is flawed, it’s an argument for socialism. You could just as well turn both of those around and make them an argument for capitalism. If people are selfless and honest, then we don’t need a welfare state forcing them to help the less fortunate. And if humans are only driven by self-interest, then socialism can’t work because people won’t be altruistic and give to society according to their ability.
Government is nothing more than a monopolization of those private institutions that existed to maintain the social order. Law and government are not synonymous. The Common Law preceded government and was private law. It has been appropriated by government and to a great extent changed as to render it ineffective. Law is necessary but one questions whether government is necessary, the latter being merely a monopolization of the former institution developed privately.
lol. OK I get it now, that is funny stuff. While I do remember the “this is Sparta!” line, I have done everything else to block that God awful movie out of my head. Honestly I have paid for and walked out of maybe two movies in my life, that was one of them,
Well, I do like the movie, it is visually stunning and I remember reading that story as a boy in a compendium of stories for boys (it included stories like Treasure Island, etc.) and it just blew my mind. I could envision every inch of the terrain in my mind’s eye and I just remeber being awed at the thought of a few hundred men holding up a million-man army.
But the movie is certainly a big piece of US military propaganda. Might as well have been filmed on location at the Pentagon. I’ve recently made peace with the lure of war movies and war stories… I put them in the same category as lurid tales of infidelity, cheating, bank heists, etc… they often make spectacular plotlines even while they depict great evil.
Real quick, the rest do via PM or something if you wish to carry on this off topic coversation (which I wouldn’t mind). It is based off of a comic book by Frank Miller, not the Herodotus tale of the Persian war.
"It is self-contradictory to contend that people cannot be trusted to make moral decisions in their daily lives but can be trusted to vote for or accept leaders who are morally wiser than they." -Murray Rothbard
It’s not like the only argument for democracy is a moral argument, or that people do make good political decisions. I think Public Choice economics has confirmed that more than anything else.
What about the people who want a government/central planning/regulations etc, and therefore support/vote for politicians who promise to coerce them into helping the poor, sick, old etc(or give the voters priviliges), i.e. what would stop them in an anarchy?