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.
Anarchist:If government was removed, would YOU go on a killing spree?
Excellent question.
Welcome to Mises.
MatthewF: Anarchist:If government was removed, would YOU go on a killing spree? Excellent question. Welcome to Mises.
indeed!
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
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.
Anarchist: If government was removed, would YOU go on a killing spree?
If government was removed, would YOU go on a killing spree?
And if not, then what makes you so special?
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Anarchist: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?
eliotn:You forget selfishness Anarchy fails because it is unstable - people will not live together in peace without laws. I
People work out laws when they need them even without any government. Check out the medieval mercantile laws, for example.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Anarchist:Oh, and I also forgot. If government was removed, would YOU go on a killing spree?
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?
Seph:some rich guy would build a road dividing America, then not allow anyone to use it.
Seph:some anti social, insane wealthy person to poison our entire towns water supply.
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.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Seph:the idea that some rich guy would build a road dividing America, then not allow anyone to use it.
An embargo is an act of war. fyi.
twistedbydsign99:An embargo is an act of war. fyi.
Not necessarily in a free society.
But would THEY?
scineram: But would THEY?
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.
scineram: Anarchist: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? But would THEY?
Tell me, how is the government stopping 'them' from doing it now?
twistedbydsign99: Seph:the idea that some rich guy would build a road dividing America, then not allow anyone to use it. An embargo is an act of war. fyi.
I think you need to explain your position.
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.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Anarchist: laminustacitus: Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous antropology here. Government does not indoctrinate ambition into man; rather, ambition, and the desire of power is naturally in man. Ridiculous? Government certainly does. Why does it promote nationalism (the focus on the abstract) and the wanting to expoit others rather than community? Doesn't government set the example by imposing it's views on society?
laminustacitus: Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous antropology here. Government does not indoctrinate ambition into man; rather, ambition, and the desire of power is naturally in man.
Ridiculous? Government certainly does. Why does it promote nationalism (the focus on the abstract) and the wanting to expoit others rather than community? Doesn't government set the example by imposing it's views on society?
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.
Anarchist:Doesn't government set the example by imposing it's views on society? Does it not set an example as politicians abuse their power and lobbyists promote the interest of the few?
Setting the example is not indoctrinating ambition into man.
Anarchist:If ambition and the desire for power is naturally in man, how come there has been so many political movements to undermine the ammount of power that can be acquired by an individual?
Where does the ambition, and power, in your opinion exemplified by government, come from other than from man, or did governments come before man?
Anarchist:Wouldn't it make more sense that every human being would advocate absolute power over each other and ALWAYS be competing to be "ruler of the world"? Why would an abolitionist movement even have existed?
Man can learn to control his ambitions, and natural instincts.
Anarchist:So it's power and authority (accidently acquired by technology, done to facilitate manual work) that have corrupted men.
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.
Anarchist: laminustacitus: Man has realized that the most advantageous means for attaining his desired ends is through society, and trusting other individuals in quid pro quo relationships. In addition, individuals are able to trust others, knowing that the laws of society will be enforced, and those who try to utilize violence as a means will be prosecuted. But if man was ambitious and power hungry, why would not every human being try to ensure his/her position in a government position?
laminustacitus: Man has realized that the most advantageous means for attaining his desired ends is through society, and trusting other individuals in quid pro quo relationships. In addition, individuals are able to trust others, knowing that the laws of society will be enforced, and those who try to utilize violence as a means will be prosecuted.
But if man was ambitious and power hungry, why would not every human being try to ensure his/her position in a government position?
Government is not the only source of power on this earth.
Anarchist:How come we see humility and philanthropy (giving to others, taking away from what you have, something that violates this principle).
Cannot man overcome his instincts, or is he nothing but a bridled mule?
Anarchist:And what is anarchy but trust in fellow men and their ability to be rational?
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.
Anarchist:It is placing equal authority over others, so no group can impose itself on another, and yet we all care for each other.
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.
Anarchist:And why do people use violence? Because they've been given a taste of authority and they want more.
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.
Anarchist:Anarchism tries to remove the very reasons for why people become violent (no, they are not naturally violent, you have to become "immune" to it by constant exposure to violence).
Man is naturally violent, there is no way to rationalize around it, and all you can do is deny that basic fact.
Anarchist:If laws naturally made men more moral and peaceful (and if that is advantageous to all), why would anyone DREAM of opposing laws? IF laws were the moral center, why do laws sometimes violate morality? Because they are not connected!
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.
Anarchist:What is the point of making people scared of commiting a crime?
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.
Anarchist:Why not have people understand WHY something is morally wrong. If you understand something, you don't need someone chasing you around and scaring you into obedience. If you understand 2+2=4, you do not need a teacher to follow you around reminding you about the concept.
Everyone should have a moral education, but that is not the role of government, and its laws.
Anarchist:You don't really need laws and jails, etc. If you have people understanding and caring for each other, and rationalizing, morality comes (naturally) with it.
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.
Anarchist: laminustacitus: Because man is often nothing but a savage animal. Oh, and what does government do to stop it?
laminustacitus: Because man is often nothing but a savage animal.
Oh, and what does government do to stop it?
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.
Anarchist: But if it was as savage as you say, why wouldn't we see more crimes from people taking advantage of existing social order to maximize their own profits?
Why would we see more than the status quo if the status quo is that man is a savage animal?
Anarchist:What makes you so special? Are you just a savage animal, looking on how to kill everyone else in the world?
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.
Anarchist:There isn't even enough police forces out there to stop "savage animals" worldwide from getting rid of any social order.
Individuals have the capacity of controlling their instincts.
Anarchist:A piece of court papers telling them it's not okay to be savage animals?
A piece of court paper with teeth will do so.
Anarchist: laminustacitus: Just because there is a law against theft does not mean that there will be no theft; rather, the law aims at persecuting those who partake in the behavior, thus deterring others. Actually more of an argument for anarchism. Laws and government don't do anything unless they are respected. If humans are capable of respecting such institutions, why shouldn't they be able to respect each other without laws and government telling them what to do?
laminustacitus: Just because there is a law against theft does not mean that there will be no theft; rather, the law aims at persecuting those who partake in the behavior, thus deterring others.
Actually more of an argument for anarchism. Laws and government don't do anything unless they are respected. If humans are capable of respecting such institutions, why shouldn't they be able to respect each other without laws and government telling them what to do?
You overestimate the natural benevolence of man.
Anarchist:You yourself stated that they don't do anything in actually stopping anything.
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.
Anarchist: laminustacitus: You really don't comprehend the arguments against anarchist, do you? You really can't think outside the box, can you?
laminustacitus: You really don't comprehend the arguments against anarchist, do you?
You really can't think outside the box, can you?
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.
Anarchist:Man is naturally ambitious and power-hungry, and yet they respect laws that aren't worth anything in and out of themselves, and when they could be maximizing their powers and ambitions by always breaking them.
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.
Anarchist:Man is powerful and ambitious and putting up a system based on power and ambition somehow stops this power and ambition from manifesting itself. Sorry, but it just doesn't make sense. I think YOU are the one unable to comprehend what anarchism really is and what anarchists truly believe.
You really just do not understand what I am arguing, do you?
Anarchist:Anarchism isn't JUST the abolition of government as you understand it. It's ANY form of unjustified authority over fellow human beings. Again, you misunderstand what anarchism really is.
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.
Anarchist:http://www.teeninfidels.com/board/showthread.php?t=46 Enjoy.
The author should do himself a favor, and actually read before you critique others:
:Then there are Christians that think man is inherently evil because God/Jesus/whoever said so. People subscribing to this belief should also consider that God and Jesus have no problem with slavery, killing people that work on Saturdays (or Sundays, depending), owning women as property, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, so don't believe the "inherently evil" part if you're not going to spend your weekends killing everyone you see working.
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 am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
Why this interest in me?
Anarchist:Or would you refrain from killing your fellow human beings because it would be an intrusion on their right to life?
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.
Anarchist:I'm willing to bet you are not really a savage animal, but a rational human being capable of empathy.
The two traits can co-exist.
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 :-)
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
laminustacitus: Anarchist:Oh, and I also forgot. If government was removed, would YOU go on a killing spree? Why this interest in me?
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 :\
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap