-
Clearbury
70I think all forms of government are unjust. Governments claim a monopoly on certain uses of violence and threats. I take that to be definitive. Government policies are backed by the threat of prison.
I take it to be morally self-evident that might does not make right. If I am more powerful than you, that doesn't mean I'm entitled to trample on your rights. I am simply more able to do so, but not more entitled to do so. So if it would be wrong for me to use force against you, then it is also wrong for a person with more power than I have to use force against you. And that now applies to the state and politicians. They have more power than the rest of us, but they are not more entitled to force us to do things than the rest of us.
If that is correct, then one can use what we are entitled to do to one another as a guide to what the government is justified in doing. If it would be wrong for me to make you do something, then it is wrong for the government to as well (other things being equal).
It is barely ever justifiable to threaten or use violence against another. It's normally only in extreme circumstances - where one's own life is in immediate danger - that it can be justified. If, for instance, you are living an unhealthy lifestyle, it is not justifiable for me to threaten you with violence unless you alter your ways. It is unjust for the government to do such things, then.
What about protecting each other's rights - aren't we entitled to do that for each other? Yes, we are. If someone is attacking you, I am entitled to protect you from that attack. So doesn't this justify some kind of libertarianism? The state is justified in protecting our basic rights, because that's something we're entitled to do for each other as well.
But though it is correct that the state is entitled to protect our basic rights, it is not entitled to force us to pay it to do so. If, for example, someone is attacking you, then I am entitled to help you out and even to use violence against your attacker if need be. But I am not then entitled to bill you for my efforts and use violence against you if you refuse to pay. I can ask you to pay - and it may be that you ought to pay me something for my efforts - but I cannot extract payment with menaces. That would be immoral.
Yet that is what the state does. So yes, the state can protect our basic rights, but it cannot use force and the threat of force to fund such an enterprise.
I think this same logic can be applied across the board: government policies - all of them - will either turn out to be directly unjust (in that the government is imposing on us something we would not be entitled to impose on each other - such as healthy lifestyles or something similar), or indirectly unjust in that it pays for what it is justly doing by unjust means: by taxation.
If the government stopped doing both of these things, then it would - to all intents and purposes - cease to be a government at all. It would just be another business competing in an open market. And that's anarchy.
I want to head-off a misguided criticism at the outset. I think many will be tempted to object that if all government agencies just disappeared overnight, then disaster would ensue. Regardless of whether or for how long this would be the case, the objection seems wrongheaded. This is because you are not entitled to use violence to prevent people from misbehaving in advance of them doing so. You can only use violence when others are actually using violence against oneself or clearly about to. But one can't justifiably use it in anticipation of people forming an intention to use violence against a person. That's too early. So, I think this kind of 'scare tactic' defence of government doesn't meet the point.
Plus, imagine that tomorrow everyone just decides not to pay their taxes and so everyone employed in a government position has no salary from tomorrow on. Are we entitled to force them to keep doing their jobs in order to avert the mayhem that would otherwise (temporarily) result? I don't think so. This shows, then, that we cannot use force to avert anticipated disasters, at least when those disasters are predicated upon others making free decisions to engage in the disaster-causing behaviour. -
Metaphysician Undercover
13.1kI take it to be morally self-evident that might does not make right. If I am more powerful than you, that doesn't mean I'm entitled to trample on your rights. I am simply more able to do so, but not more entitled to do so. So if it would be wrong for me to use force against you, then it is also wrong for a person with more power than I have to use force against you. And that now applies to the state and politicians. They have more power than the rest of us, but they are not more entitled to force us to do things than the rest of us. — Clearbury
You seem to be confusing "the state" with "a person". So your example ("If I am more powerful than you, that doesn't mean I'm entitled to trample on your rights. I am simply more able to do so, but not more entitled to do so.") is not relevant. The example compares the power of two persons, but then you go on to talk about the power of "the state". The state is not a person. So if you want to compare the power of the state to the power of a person, and the justifiability of the use of force by each one of these distinct entities, you need to start with a good definition, or conception, of what each one of these is. Otherwise it's a pointless exercise. -
T Clark
13.8kI think all forms of government are unjust. Governments claim a monopoly on certain uses of violence and threats. I take that to be definitive. Government policies are backed by the threat of prison. — Clearbury
Putting aside moral factors for a minute, do you believe it is possible for groups of humans to effectively and humanely organize themselves without coercive rules assuming no change in human nature, whatever that means? Answer that question in the context of modern society in a world of 8 billion people. Also describe how such a society could be established in an ideal situation where you can specify starting conditions, i.e. go back 200,000 (or 2 million) years? If you can't give a positive answer to those questions, your moral complaints are meaningless.
It is barely ever justifiable to threaten or use violence against another. It's normally only in extreme circumstances - where one's own life is in immediate danger - that it can be justified. — Clearbury
Do you really believe this? I would not be justified in using violence to stop someone from stealing resources - money, shelter, food, clothing - that I need? Or to stop someone from doing that to my family and neighbors? What if someone is dumping human, animal, or industrial waste in the river upstream from where I get my water? Or what if they dam the river and cut off my water supply?
But though it is correct that the state is entitled to protect our basic rights, it is not entitled to force us to pay it to do so. If, for example, someone is attacking you, then I am entitled to help you out and even to use violence against your attacker if need be. But I am not then entitled to bill you for my efforts and use violence against you if you refuse to pay. — Clearbury
Would it be acceptable for a group of people to get together and agree to give up some of their freedoms in order to ensure security and protection? Then, if someone didn't want to participate, they could do so, but they couldn't use any of the resources provided by the community - roads, police, fire departments, schools. This sort of approach was much more feasible back when there was a frontier where non-conformists could migrate. They actually do something like this in some communities. Fire protection is provided by non-government fire departments staffed by volunteers and funded by subscription. If someone refuses to subscribe, when there's a fire, the fire fighters will come to their house and make sure everyone gets out safely and protect nearby property owned by subscribers, but otherwise will not fight the fire.
If the government stopped doing both of these things, then it would - to all intents and purposes - cease to be a government at all. It would just be another business competing in an open market. And that's anarchy. — Clearbury
Do you really think that would happen? That it could happen? That it ever has happened? Ever in 200,000 years of human existence? My answer is "of course not," which means it's not anarchy, it's fantasy.
I want to head-off a misguided criticism at the outset. I think many will be tempted to object that if all government agencies just disappeared overnight, then disaster would ensue. Regardless of whether or for how long this would be the case, the objection seems wrongheaded. — Clearbury
As I noted previously, today we would have to live with the consequences based on conditions found in the modern world. Of course a disaster would ensue. Billions would die. Can you describe a mechanism by which society could transition from current conditions to your capitalist paradise?
mayhem that would otherwise (temporarily) result — Clearbury
Temporary? That's pie-in-the-sky. If it happened people would die, the most vulnerable first. Then order would reestablish itself following the path followed historically and 200 years later we'd end up right where we are now.
So. Maybe I'm wrong. Tell me how you would make it work out the way you want it to. -
NOS4A2
9.2k
The state has been conceived as a person for quite some time, for example in Hobbes, but at least as far back as Ancient Rome. -
jorndoe
3.6kIn a world of many, the true anarchist/individualist remains outnumbered.
Will it be by organized thugs, or a (transparent) democratic majority where all have a say?
There's no such thing as a perfect social system; the more individuals, the more unhappy about something or other, that's just history, statistics, and (only part-time rational) homo sapiens.
Genuine anarchy inherently remains as unstable as one against two, tending away therefrom, like the one anarchist being overcome/outdone by many cooperators.
Running with the least bad is rational enough, regardless of some personal sacrifices.
By and large, reasonably civilized societies tend to be democracies, but run with the anarchist idea, see where it goes.
, you'll have to weigh whatever personal grievances against this stuff. -
Clearbury
70I don't see your point. Those in charge are people. And might does not make right. Therefore, what it is just for those in charge to do can be determined by considering what it would be just for individuals to do to one another.
-
Clearbury
70Putting aside moral factors for a minute, do you believe it is possible for groups of humans to effectively and humanely organize themselves without coercive rules assuming no change in human nature, whatever that means? Answer that question in the context of modern society in a world of 8 billion people. Also describe how such a society could be established in an ideal situation where you can specify starting conditions, i.e. go back 200,000 (or 2 million) years? If you can't give a positive answer to those questions, your moral complaints are meaningless. — T Clark
I don't see how you're addressing the argument I presented. I am defending anarchy. Anarchy does not involve anyone 'organizing' us. It's the opposite of that.
If your point is that without some bosses there will be mayhem, then I explicitly addressed this point. I pointed out that, whether true or not, it misses my point, which is about what's just, not about what would minimize mayhem. -
Clearbury
70So. Maybe I'm wrong. Tell me how you would make it work out the way you want it to. — T Clark
What do you mean by 'work' though? I am arguing that governments are 'unjust' (not that they don't work - whether they 'work' or not depends on what goals they're supposed to be achieving....if they're supposed to be creating a just world, then they don't work at all and it is question begging to say otherwise....if you conceive of them as having some other purpose, then maybe they work, maybe they don't...but it's irrelevant to the topic).
Incidentally, you could minimize deaths by means of a brave new world-style government that didn't respect any individual's freedom whatsoever. But it wouldn't be just.
No one in charge escapes the moral responsibilities of an individual to other individuals. The responsibility of us as individuals is not to prevent one another dying. For example, if I plan on engaging in a dangerous hobby, you are not entitled to stop me. That doesn't magically stop applying if you acquire the power to stop me. And that's the point. Sometimes it is right to stop someone from dying, sometimes not. When it is right to stop someone dying, then you're entitled to do that. But you're not entitled to bill the person whom you prevented from dying.
So Sarah is holding onto the edge of the cliff and unless someone saves her she''ll fall to her death. You're close at hand and can easily help her. You're obliged to do that. And I think Sarah has a right to your assistance. But after helping her, you can't then demand payment for your time and effort with menaces.
Nothing alters if you're in government. The president or prime minister would also be obliged to help Sarah and not demand payment with menaces afterwards. Yet presidents don't do this - they make others help Sarah and then they bill Sarah and others for doing so and extract the payment with menaces. That is not just. We would recognize this on a small scale. Nothing changes if the scale increases. -
Clearbury
70Will it be by organized thugs, or a (transparent) democratic majority where all have a say? — jorndoe
Those are not opposites. You have thugs in charge so long as people think there need to be people in charge. You think in a democracy you get decent, good people in charge?!? You get thugs. Sophisticated thugs. You get in charge those who want to be. Good people don't want to be in charge.
You think governments aren't mafias? They're the most successful mafia in any given region.
Governments are monopolies. Do you think monopolies are a good idea? -
Metaphysician Undercover
13.1kThe state has been conceived as a person for quite some time, for example in Hobbes, but at least as far back as Ancient Rome. — NOS4A2
I would argue that these are faulty political theories. The problem being that anyone can produce a political theory designed for one's own special purposes. That's the approach of the tyrant. As dedicated philosophers, we scrutinize such theories for soundness.
Those in charge are people. And might does not make right. — Clearbury
Still, "people" is different from "a person". The former implies a multitude unified by some principle. The latter is an individual. The question is what unifies some, such that you refer to them as "people", yet others in your discussion are individuals, "a person". Obviously, the unified "people" have far more power than an individual person. You seem to think that there is something wrong with this, but it's just a simple fact of nature, that unified people as an entity, have far more power than distinct individuals as entities. If you want to negate this natural fact, or show it to be wrong, then you have some work to do.
Therefore, what it is just for those in charge to do can be determined by considering what it would be just for individuals to do to one another. — Clearbury
You have not provided the premises required to validly make this conclusion. Look at the difference between the relations, and consequent activities, required between individuals, to produce a unified whole, and the actions required to maintain an already established unified whole. The former involves principles of internal relations, designated as "good", conducive to unity. The latter must include principles to deal with external relations which are destructive to the unity, designated as "bad".
Anything conducive to unity can be understood as an internal relation, good, and anything destructive is external, bad. Under these principles any activities which are bad, are not understood as internal person to person relations, but are understood as external forces destructive to the unity. The destructive forces must be dealt with in ways other than as person to person relations which are conducive to the unity. Therefore they cannot be classed as the same.
It seems to me, like you want to deny the principle of "unity", and put every individual on equal standing. If so, then you cannot us terms like "the state". And if you speak about a special class of "people" who are "in charge", then you have to clearly identify what they are in charge of. So if you say that they are in charge of maintaining some type of unity, then this necessarily gives them special status to determine things which are destructive to that unity, and corresponding special powers to prevent these destructive things. -
Ourora Aureis
49
1. There is no such thing as entitlement, the universe does not have an inherent karmic system. No one is entitled to anything.
2. The concept of "rights" only makes sense in the context of a governing body which can establish and protect those rights against negative actors. Otherwise its simply a value you hold, which has no bearing on anyone else but yourself.
The state exists to act as a mediator between people and their values. It protects people against the threat of a "might makes right" system. Any power vaccum without a state will inevitably be filled by some ruling system, and typically the rulers are under no obligation to care for such cultural concepts as "liberty", "property", "rights" etc. The state is justified in its monopoly on violence because of the reality that would ensue if the state did not have such a monopoly.
Imagine that someone constructs a bomb that will explode unless someone dismantles it. If a person dismantles their bomb, they have damaged the property of the bomb creator. The creator might respond with "How dare you destroy my property, it hasnt caused any harm!", and under your argument against state collapse as a valid rejection of anarchism, this is a justifed reason to allow the bomb to tick down. It should be self-evident that the right to own property does not exceed the right for innocents to live, and that pre-emptive action is justified in the protection of higher rights, even when it may override lesser rights. -
jkop
893I think all forms of government are unjust. — Clearbury
The absence of unjust forms of government won't prevent forms of unjust governance from emerging out of the relationships between individuals. Some gangs thrive on being embedded within a population where they can avoid scrutiny and terrorize individuals, neighborhoods, and entire regions as a long as there's no government acting on behalf of the common good. Perhaps that's why all modern countries are ruled by forms of governments, and why anarchy has remained a half-baked idea for adolescents who don't like being told what to do. -
NOS4A2
9.2k
2. The concept of "rights" only makes sense in the context of a governing body which can establish and protect those rights against negative actors. Otherwise its simply a value you hold, which has no bearing on anyone else but yourself.
This is a common political superstition. It doesn’t make sense that we have to create a governing body so as to establish and confer rights upon ourselves. What you are really proposing is that you want to give a minority the right to create rights while refusing to keep that right for everyone else. -
NOS4A2
9.2k
The absence of unjust forms of government won't prevent forms of unjust governance from emerging out of the relationships between individuals. Some gangs thrive on being embedded within a population where they can avoid scrutiny and terrorize individuals, neighborhoods, and entire regions as a long as there's no government acting on behalf of the common good. Perhaps that's why all modern countries are ruled by forms of governments, and why anarchy has remained a half-baked idea for adolescents who don't like being told what to do.
There are plenty of gangs in modern countries, terrorizing individuals, neighborhoods, and entire regions, all while there are governments “acting on behalf of the common good”. So perhaps that isn’t why modern countries are ruled by forms of government, or at least they’re not doing a good job at it. -
Nils Loc
1.4kAnarchists/libertarians want to eat their cake and have it too. They always want justice in the absence of a formal system of justice. If everything were perfect, well life would just be peaches and cream until the end of days.
Imagine you're a Mexican avocado farmer and all of a sudden one day a gang of armed men show up and blackmail you to pay protectionist tax. This cartel "government" will always inevitably appear and you'll wish you'd had recourse to be protected by the services of a more enlightened/fair system. Of course there is the option of collaborative defense but that might take a commitment to share resources, to risk defending others so they will risk defending you.
Or, as T Clark mentioned, you have a nice piece of land with a river you rely on for subsistence, and one day it turns a mineral red and stinks to high heaven. You can't drink or fish anymore. Maybe you can't even stomach the smell. Too bad for you, if whoever is contaminating the river has a self-determined right to do so. Better break out the guns again and take back the purity of your river, if you can. Maybe your family is large enough and subservient enough to want to help you go to war. -
NOS4A2
9.2k
Statists love their made up scenarios and hypotheticals. The irony, though, is that your cartel government acts just like your enlightened one, with slight variation. At least with collaborative defense and other avenues of voluntary cooperation you don’t need to be exploited in order to keep their racket going. -
jkop
893
Right, when the government is corrupt or incompetent it is like an absent government, and instead of a ruling government open to scrutiny, you'll have the arbitrary rule of several competing gangs, and never ending wars like in the medieval cities in what later became Italy. -
T Clark
13.8kI don't see how you're addressing the argument I presented. I am defending anarchy. Anarchy does not involve anyone 'organizing' us. It's the opposite of that.
If your point is that without some bosses there will be mayhem, then I explicitly addressed this point. I pointed out that, whether true or not, it misses my point, which is about what's just, not about what would minimize mayhem. — Clearbury
What do you mean by 'work' though? I am arguing that governments are 'unjust' (not that they don't work - whether they 'work' or not depends on what goals they're supposed to be achieving....if they're supposed to be creating a just world, then they don't work at all and it is question begging to say otherwise....if you conceive of them as having some other purpose, then maybe they work, maybe they don't...but it's irrelevant to the topic). — Clearbury
As I wrote previously, if what you propose hasn't ever happened, won't ever happen, can't ever happen, then your idea is a fantasy. Meaningless. If you can't see that or show me how anarchy might work, then we'll never come to any resolution. That's my best shot. -
unenlightened
9.2kWhat is anarchy and where has it worked before? — Tom Storm
I would say that anarchy is the state of no rules, and it is the universal social condition. There are not, nor can there be, any rules that forbid the setting up of any government, and you do not have to obey any governments that set themselves up.
A slightly more interesting question Is "what is the difference between a government and a mafia?"
The answer is sometimes, 'little or nothing', but to the extent that there is a difference, it is that in governments, power itself is limited and tempered by justice, by bureaucratic tradition, by honour and moral fibre, and by democratic limitations. And possibly there can be other features - you tell me... -
T Clark
13.8kThe concept of "rights" only makes sense in the context of a governing body which can establish and protect those rights against negative actors. Otherwise its simply a value you hold, which has no bearing on anyone else but yourself. — Ourora Aureis
For me, this is the fundamental truth of political philosophy. -
T Clark
13.8kThere are not, nor can there be, any rules that forbid the setting up of any government, and you do not have to obey any governments that set themselves up. — unenlightened
This is true and would be meaningful if there were some way for people to choose not to be part of society. There are hardly any remaining frontiers on Earth. That's probably why Elon Musk wants to go to Mars. That's not an option for most of us. -
unenlightened
9.2kThis is true and would be meaningful if there were some way for people to choose not to be part of society — T Clark
There's no rule that says you get a choice, either. In fact you don't get a choice; you live in an anarchy and people set up governments and mafias everywhere. And they will do it on Mars too as soon as two or three are gathered together there, because that's just the kind of arseholes we are.
And if you think Musk is something other than a wannabe Mafia Godfather and divine emperor of Mars, you must be already living on the dark side of the moon. -
Ourora Aureis
49
Defining a value as a right does not suddenly imbue it with some objective foundation by which you can force or convince others to recognise your claim. If I can simply deny your "right" then it's nothing but a value, an idea you hold within your mind. However, if I cant deny your right without some threat of material consequence to myself, then its not just a value anymore, its been instantiated through physical force. Of course you could privatise such force, but you'd still be requiring an external organisation to protect your rights by giving them money (recreating a government, albeit smaller and with an elite in-group).
An idea which has no basis in the physical is fated to fade, for regardless of how elegant it may appear to you, it holds no bearing on anyone who doesn't percieve it the same. To put it another way, a thief does not care for words. -
jkop
893The arbitrary rule of competing gangs and never-ending wars are fixtures of government rule and statism. — NOS4A2
How is that possible before there was a government to rule those medieval gangs and city-states?
..centuries of rivalry and infighting between city-states left the peninsula divided. During the 17th and 18th centuries, Italian economic importance waned significantly.
After centuries of political and territorial divisions, Italy was almost entirely unified in 1861 — Wikipedia on Italy
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.
Categories
- Guest category
- The Lounge
- General Philosophy
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
- Interesting Stuff
- Politics and Current Affairs
- Humanities and Social Sciences
- Science and Technology
- Non-English Discussion
- German Discussion
- Spanish Discussion
- Learning Centre
- Resources
- Books and Papers
- Reading groups
- Questions
- Guest Speakers
- David Pearce
- Massimo Pigliucci
- Debates
- Debate Proposals
- Debate Discussion
- Feedback
- Article submissions
- About TPF
- Help
More Discussions
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum