Oh, and I also forgot. If government was removed, would YOU go on a killing spree? Or would you refrain from killing your fellow human beings because it would be an intrusion on their right to life?
I’m willing to bet you are not really a savage animal, but a rational human being capable of empathy. Anarchism just recognizes that a government is at the very least a burdensome redudancy, and at worst, a tool of oppression that sets up the precedent for ambition and power and does not truly represent mankind’s best interest.
And, oh yes, I completely forgot; What can government do that people, realizing it is to their convienence to care for others (and in which, IMO the selfishness is negated) [and also the reason why gov. was formed] can’t do? In other words, what makes Government oh so special? Is it not based on respect? What anarchism says is that power is the corrupting factor, not nature.
Also, think about what you are saying. Humans are savage power-hungry animals. Okay, if that is the case, how can creating a from of organization that gives a minority of these savage power-hungry animals power and control over the other savage power-hungry animals STOP this nature from manifesting? It just doesn’t add up, unless you want to argue that people, when given the power they so lust, are all of a sudden converted into rational beings. But that sounds silly, does it not? Or what makes the government exempt from power-hungry savage animal status?
Anarchism is about respect and getting rid of unnecessary power over other individuals. You yourself noted that laws out of themselves don’t to anything. Respect and actually comprehending other’s rights leads to order. And Anarchism is the belief in this. It isn’t Sex Pistol-esque anarchy. It’s the liberation of mankind from a burden.
That reminds me of a thought I had, specifically about private roads, and the idea that some rich guy would build a road dividing America, then not allow anyone to use it.
I grew up in a small town, where almost all our water was supplied by a single water tower. Around the tower there was (and presumably still is) a chain link fence and a “Do not enter sign”. That’s it. A chain link fence was all the security we had for the source of our entire towns water. It would be so easy, if you think about it, for some anti social, insane wealthy person to poison our entire towns water supply. But guess what? In over 100 years, its never happened. Maybe, just maybe the idea that an institutionalized protectorate is all thats keeping us from total chaos, is false.
Here’s a thought. If I wanted to go on a killing spree right now, is there anything that the government has done, which could legitimately prevent me from doing so?
The problem is, we imagine these people because we are shown them on TV. That’s not to say that crazies don’t exist, but we are constantly seeing the Dr. Evils of the world on TV, conflating wealth with evil and violence when any reasonably intelligent person should be able to recognize that wealth is a byproduct of good, or that violence is not exclusive to the wealthy.
The layers of propaganda we are subjected to are so deep, and so pervasive, I think most people go through life in a fog, never questioning any of their premises. That’s what makes the internet so powerful. The capacity to get alternate opinions, and to break up and dissect propaganda.
Who is ‘they’? The monsters under your bed? A mob of psycopaths just waiting for the fabrics of government to be gone for them to strike? Some specific race? A particular organization? “They” is so vague and ambiguous it seems more like a cheap excuse for the lack of a rational argument.
First of all, as Rothbard points out, anarchy doesn’t mean everything is sunshine and roses all the time, it is just a better system from an a priori AND a practical standpoint than any that we have. The simplest justification for this argument is that almost everything “bad” that anyone says might happen under anarchy happens in our current system, and much of it is done BY the state against which citizens have no real recourse. Antisocial behavior doesn’t seem to perpetuate itself outside of government to anywhere near the extent that it does within government, and social forces to restrict that behavior are pretty powerful if there’s no nanny to rely on.
Secondly, under anarchy all exchange is voluntary, but you can still voluntarily choose to participate with others in some structured society, provided the property is all privately owned by the participants and there is freedom of departure, and that any one owning property within the system can challenge it. Plus, as Hoppe explains, private defense and legal services would take the place of public ones, providing those aspects of said services that are actually useful, and dispensing with the rest.
Ambition is already found in man, all that government indocrination does is take advantage of what is already in man. In addition, any group can indoctrinate ideas into man, and to posit that the government is the only institution to have done so is also ridiculous.
Setting the example is not indoctrinating ambition into man.
Where does the ambition, and power, in your opinion exemplified by government, come from other than from man, or did governments come before man?
Man can learn to control his ambitions, and natural instincts.
For power to have corrupted man, man would have already have desired power in the first place, and authority in no way whatsoever comes from technology.
Government is not the only source of power on this earth.
Cannot man overcome his instincts, or is he nothing but a bridled mule?
Crime can often be terrifyingly rational. There is no reason why a “rational” individual would always respect the rights of those around him, unless, of course, you have redefined the word to your own liking.
No it is not. There is absolutely no reason why, in an anarchy, some individuals would not be able to gain control over others. Furthermore, it is fully just for an individual to coerce others when a crime has been commited, yet if “no group can impose itself on another” how would one be able to bring those who violate other individuals to justice for justice presupposes one group forcing itself upon another in order to punish those who commit crimes.
Or because the “animal” portion to man being a “social animal” is more than just a harmless noun, but reflects the fact that homo sapiens contains violent instincts just like any other species on this earth.
Man is naturally violent, there is no way to rationalize around it, and all you can do is deny that basic fact.
Or because not all laws are good laws; the entire category of “law” that you utilize glosses over the fact that while some laws can protect society against criminals, other laws can produce black markets that pose an even greater threat to the prosperity of society than the activity the law attempted to ban.
Making individuals scared of the repurcussions of commiting a crime raises the cost of the action, and hence lowers the amount of crime that will occur.
Everyone should have a moral education, but that is not the role of government, and its laws.
You wrongly assume that everyone will agree with your moral reasoning. There are some sick specimens of homo sapiens that must be treated like the beasts they are when they commit violent acts against the innocent, and everyone ought to know the costs of commiting a crime.
Enforce its laws, and, yes, that does a lot to prevent man acting like a savage animal - it is a basic empirical observation that more efficient legal systems result in more peaceful societies.
Why would we see more than the status quo if the status quo is that man is a savage animal?
I have learned to control my instincts, I am not special in any way whatsoever. I desire to kill the men that wrong me, and I desire to steal what I most desire, but I believe that those actions are wrong, and I am disciplined enought to control myself.
Individuals have the capacity of controlling their instincts.
A piece of court paper with teeth will do so.
You overestimate the natural benevolence of man.
Theft will never cease, all that society can do is deter theft. Are you truly deluded enough to believe that there will be no theft in anarchy, that you can release all the criminals from jail, teach them about your moral principles, and a utopia will result? Man’s experiences teach otherwise.
It seems that you cannot understand a position that you do not already know for you have the habit, throughout your entire post of not understanding a single word I’m saying. Look at the above for an example.
I’ve actually not said this. Indeed, man is naturally ambitious, and power-hungry, but that does not make him incapable of overcoming his instincts. In addition, you completely butcher the word: “respect” as if it is impossible for an individual to respect something because he fears the consequences of disobeying it. While respect can result from an individual’s approval, fear is one of the greatest motivators for respect known to man. Furthermore, most individuals have realized that the most advantageous means of attaining their desired ends is through social cooperation, and in order to be a part of society, they must not use violence resulting in a very strong motivation for controlling violent instincts.
You really just do not understand what I am arguing, do you?
Anarchism is nothing but the abolition of government, you are redefining the term in order to better suit your desired ends, so yes my understanding of anarchy is absolutely right.
The author should do himself a favor, and actually read before you critique others:
This is nothing but a display that the author have absolutely no idea whatsoever what Christian dogma is as to original sin, and that he does not even have an argument against it other than showing his own ignorence as to what Christians have preached. Indeed, he did not even bother to quote a single source; probably because by doing so you would actually have to substantiate your claim, and that would require effort.
I would not do so for other reasons, I do not believe that one can rigorously justify man’s right to life without either consequentialist, or religious arguments; the entire idea that there is some “natural law” that gives man the right to life qua man is babble.
The whole argument is based on one presupposition, that human nature is greed and power.
Well, this idea is the old hobbesian claim and it does not become justified by bringing it up over and over again.
I do not buy in to that presupposition on various grounds.
First, there is my christian belief, which tells me that man is good, very good indeed as even the first sentences in the bible say. I agree though that this is only a personal conviction not proper for scientific arguing.
Second, and more scientific, humans, as all living things want to grow and live rather than shrink or even die. Humans developed a special way to help growth, a big brain that is and an ability we call reason. If we where only greedy predator than there would be no need to put 35% of our energy into a big brain. Check the comparative brain sizes of other predators that nature has brought about and you will see they go with much smaller brains and are successful. So why did we develop a big brain? Answer because it gives us the cabability for reasoning. Now reason shows us that it is better to cooperate with each other than to aggress. Because aggression always carries a bigger risk to be either injured or even killed, both of which we want to avoid at almost all costs. So resaon points us a way to minimize that risk by showing that the divison of labor is a much safer way to grow than aggression.
There are certainly mroe arguments one can make against Hobbes view, but those two I like best
You are perceived to be a moral nihilist, or some sort of other social pariah, that does not agree with others; obviously, you will be pre-disposed to commit all sorts of horrific violence if government were removed.
“Logic” dictates that you must be strawmanned as much as possible.
Or maybe everyone is just getting defensive as usual on the Internet & some of us need to break for tea. Probably both :\
