Long term, virtually everyone would be better off under an anarchy. Apart from criminals and power-hungry war mongers. — Clearbury

There is no such thing as long term anarchy in this world. If something depopulated 99% of the world, maybe, but not in the world we live in. If government disappeared people would start organizing immediately. Surely you must realize that.

I have justified my belief. Perhaps you missed it. Here it is again: if governments determine what rights people have then the Jews had no rights under the Nazis (and thus in exterminating millions of Jews, the Nazis violated no one's rights, certianly not the Jews they exterminated).
The Nazis violated the rights of the millions of Jews they exterminated
Therefore, governments do not determine what rights people have.

That is a case. It is an argument and its conclusion follows from its premises and its premises are obviously true. — Clearbury

I don't follow your argument. Those people had no rights under Nazi rule, that's why they were exterminated. If they had rights they would not have been abused. This seems pretty clear, just like the slaves in the US had no rights. The second premise, that their rights were violated, is from the perspective of a different community, one other than the Nazi community who denied them of rights. This community has a different conception of what rights Jewish people have. Therefore, your argument seems to actually prove the opposite of what you claim. The rights that people have is something determined by the community.

Note, I am talking about moral rights here, not legal ones. — Clearbury

Morality deals with good and bad, "rights" is not the subject of moral philosophy. Rights consist of rules, and although they are usually consistent with ethical rules, they are more properly understood as legal rules. This misconception of "moral rights" could be the root of your confusion.

The issue is much simpler than people think. It is almost always wrong to use violence or the threat of it against another person. No one - no one worth arguing with, anyway - seriously disputes that. Yes, it can be justified under some circumstances - when one is in immediate danger or someone else is - but not otherwise. (There's of course room for a bit of debate over when one can legitimately use violence against another, but not much....every reaonable person is going to agree that the boundaries are pretty tight, even if there's no consensus on precisely where they lie). — Clearbury

I think this is a very faulty principle Clearbury. It is based in what "every reasonable person is going to agree" to. The problem is that there are very many unreasonable people in the world. And, those unreasonable people will not agree "It is almost always wrong to use violence". Being unreasonable, they perceive many instances when violence is called for. Because of this use of violence by unreasonable people, the reasonable people have reason to return that violence with defensive violence. Therefore your claim that "it is almost always wrong to use violence" is proven to be false by the fact that many people are unreasonable. Violence is a fact of life which needs to be reckoned with.

This is a powerful point. For our sense of security we would organise into small groups with hierarchy. These groups would compete for resources and all anarchy would break out in the most basic sense of the term "anarchy". What we are actually looking at is the law of the strongest. This would be a truly Darwinian survival of the fittest situation. Is that in line with our more lofty ideas about anarchy? Ideology and reality rarely meet, and when they do it is never to anyone's long term benefit. It all goes wrong.Think about everything that the mainstream is pushing at the moment - where's the facts? We need to simplify life - just to "live" and to "be" should be enough, but sadly it isn't in the current phase - it is serious stuff indeed, just to survive the urban jungle that they call civilization!! Poverty and homelessness are a heartbeat away with one wrong word, one wrong tweet!!! There's no doubt about it that some people are so frustrated that they would prefer anarchy - even it's worst manifestations - but for how long? Fending off attackers and bullies all your life, until you eventually die defending basic requirements for comfortable living. The very things that other groups - organised under anarchistic chieftains - seek to take from you, because they do not have those things themselves. Lofty ideals of living in peace and sharing are not proven to be part of reality - it's the stuff of our dreams!

There's a lot to be said on this matter. Or, one could just watch Lord of the Flies and call it a day.

A NatGeo documentary, even. People like stability, and to a lesser extent predictability. Makes much more sense to pay a predictable set amount (in taxes/insurance/etc) than for everything one owns including one's life, spouse, and offspring to be on the chopping block/proverbial table each day. No one fights a war with the intent of perpetuating conflict in the event of victory. Classic case of "the grass is always greener". "Far removed from conflict, the closer one gets to his treasures, the less they shimmer." But by all means, I hear flights to remote regions of African jungle are reasonable. You're welcome to try it out, if you'd like.

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. — Clearbury

The problem here is the complete omission of those who would not only defy your basic rights, but use -- not only threat of force -- but force, willfully and in many cases gleefully. Often times for the sheer joy of it absent of anything to gain or rectify ie. "for fun". This is the dynamic of the world we live in. So, your options are a structured society where disputes can be solved in a court of law and grievances can be made known socially enacting real social change, or you can have the same threats of force and use of force, with no accountability or avenue for recourse on your part whatsoever. Any sort of attempt to reframe this unchangeable dynamic is simply dishonest.

:up:

Yes, I agree. The choice is pragmatic if not ideal. We all want more liberty and freedom but unfortunately it comes at a price. That price - as unfair as it seems - must be paid because the alternative (anarchy) comes with absolutely no guarantees, and without some form of stability there can be no planning and no law - there can be no certainty insofar as we - as mere mortals - are able to predict! The tried and tested can be tweaked and made better, even if it is a difficult task in the face of so many obstacles. Anarchy is the unknown - and I envisage something like the 15th and 16th century clan wars in Scotland and Ireland. Consequently, at best it is the realm of ideas, ideals and unproven philosophy (by my definition: ideology). How many people delve into any sphere of the unknown with an attitude of hope and expectation of "This could work" only to be sorely - and quite literally sometimes - disappointed? The world is a terrible place and humanity is sometimes deplorable but we should stick with it as best we can. Things an only get better - or worse - but that's life!!

It just doesn’t follow from any of this that we require a master. If anything, the fear of others suggests we ought not to have one.

When I think about everyone I’ve ever met, and pick the individuals who I believe might run amok if government disappeared tomorrow, the number is very close to zero. And just dealing with people in my day-to-day leads me to believe that people aren’t as anti-social as statists make them out to be. Anarchism, in my opinion, has a more accurate view of human nature, one where people typically work together rather than at constant war with one another.

I agree, but people would still need to work together and that means hierarchy. It means there have to be bosses and that means that an ownership class would emerge and quickly. I think the initial vitality of an anarchistic situation or opportunity would be exciting and groups of people would try to cooperate along these principles, but human nature is such that this would break down. An archistic society is a fascinating concept but from a practical point of view it would be going back to the drawing board and starting again from scratch - we would then go through the painful process - a sort of MadMax movie!! -before arriving where we already are, with government. Why would the people become statists and form governments? For all of the obvious reasons: to protect ownership;to secure entitlement; to guarantee safety, etc.

It just doesn’t follow from any of this that we require a master. — NOS4A2

But when has a man with any worth ever not had a master? From birth, from walking, from basic reading and writing, to basic mathematics and scientific formulation, from learning to operate modes of transportation to being taught how to operate basic job equipment, to learning advanced skills. None of this could be possible without a greater more experienced person, whether that person is in the flesh or in the form of words in a book. I suppose one could take the trial and error route, at the expense of one's own safety and more egregiously that of those around him.

People don't like being constantly supervised as it feels restrictive, even if said supervision and apparent restriction prevents severe consequences. As well, people with great life experience and wisdom don't like having to spend their time babysitting every person who tumbles into existence. So it's a mutual dynamic that a man should become self-sufficient and able to govern his own household and immediate affairs. While there is no "master" in free and open societies, I feel it could be argued that biologically or by evolution, humanity has an ingrained "spot" in the brain for a figure of guidance and administration, be it a parent as a child, a teacher as an adolescent, or a supervisor as a young employee. Whether this spot is filled by the primal "bigger and stronger" person simply for the fact they happened to have been born bigger and stronger, or the wiser more experienced person for the fact society values virtue, wisdom, and effort over static physicality. We have a choice who we follow in structured society. It's a beautiful thing, wouldn't you agree?

When I think about everyone I’ve ever met, and pick the individuals who I believe might run amok if government disappeared tomorrow, the number is very close to zero. And just dealing with people in my day-to-day leads me to believe that people aren’t as anti-social as statists make them out to be. — NOS4A2

Consider whether or not you, or the average person, is capable of vengeance. Can a single violent crime (ex. the rape of a loved one) initiate a feedback cycle of violence in a community due to the natural need/impulse for retributive justice (tit for tat). If violence is by some measure socially contagious, or escalates new conflicts, then it may only take one bad apple to ruin the batch.

Blood feuds were common in societies with a weak rule of law (or where the state did not consider itself responsible for mediating this kind of dispute), where family and kinship ties were the main source of authority. — Wikipedia:Feud

Feud

Can a single violent crime (ex. the rape of a loved one) initiate a feedback cycle of violence in a community due to the natural need/impulse for retributive justice (tit for tat). — Nils Loc

Also to add, you can make a person or group of people believe anything with the right preconditions. A simple example would be framing a person for murder by placing an intimate item or lock of hair (if for some reason the person had unusual hair) at the scene of the misdoing. Oldest trick in the book. And in the heat of passion, fueled by a combination of horror, sorrow, and rage, even the mildest of men won't hesitate to ask questions second. Imagine being the framed, quietly minding your own business and some psychotic loon, or several, tries breaking down your door. You will also likely not hesitate to ask questions second, for there would be no time for any other course of action.

This stuff happens often. Not to mention flat-out lying. Some people thrive on chaos. It goes back to their upbringing. I've seen all kinds. Some for the attention, some for the sense of power/control, some for the "freedom" found only when all guardians are occupied, some for the sheer entertainment of it all. The list goes on.

Civil enforcers play many roles, but a major one is separating the belligerent parties until everyone is calm and no longer operating on pure emotion, their wits return to them, and facts can be made known.

I am arguing that all governments are unjust. That's a moral claim. I am not claiming that governments don't exist or won't emerge over time.
If I argue that killing someone is wrong, it is no reply to point out that people will kill people.

I don't follow your argument. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're just confusing violating someone's rights with them not having any. Look, if you think the Jews had no moral rights under the Nazis then it follows that the Nazis did nothing wrong in exterminating them. I can't argue with someone who thinks that way.

The problem here is the complete omission of those who would not only defy your basic rights, but use -- not only threat of force -- but force, willfully and in many cases gleefully. Often times for the sheer joy of it absent of anything to gain or rectify ie. "for fun". This is the dynamic of the world we live in. So, your options are a structured society where disputes can be solved in a court of law and grievances can be made known socially enacting real social change, or you can have the same threats of force and use of force, with no accountability or avenue for recourse on your part whatsoever. Any sort of attempt to reframe this unchangeable dynamic is simply dishonest. — Outlander

I'm afraid I don't follow your point. Are you just observing that there are people who enjoy violating the rights of others? I don't deny this. I am pointing out that those in power are among them!

What governments do is allow some of those who enjoy violating the rights of others the opportunity to do so on an industrial scale.

The poorest and most vulnerable are not safer under governments. Rather than depending on the generosity and decency of those around them, they depend on the generosity and decency of those in power. Now given that those in power are bad people - for good people do not seek it out - the vulnerable come to depend on the good will of bad people. That's not at all in their best interests.

Takethe police. They're rubbish. Everywhere they are rubbish. They're incredibly ineffective at solving crimes. And why wouldn't they be? There's no competition. How's that good? The most vulnerable are worse off for there being a government monopolized police force, not better off. A wholly unregulated private sector would provide much better policing than the state ever would. Or at least, I can see no good argument for thinking otherwise.

I have to say that you raise some strong points there! Yes, the police are not very good at what they do and it seems they exist not to solve crime. As you point out, it should be their job to solve crime, so why are they so reluctant to do so? There's much more that could be said. The vulnerable are the worst off, but I believe that their situation would be no better under anarchy! There's no doubt about it, that anarchy is the law of the strong, and the strong would rule the weak. This is of course the natural order, but nobody wants it- they prefer the comfort of civilization!

Everyone is different! I think I could be happy being a law unto myself, perhaps living in a nice self sufficient wilderness environment, but would I be happy taking orders, or complying through fear with stronger neighbours? My ideal then, stems from idealism - wouldn't it be nice - but reality has a nasty habit of cropping up and spoiling things. Robinson Crusoe was famously terrified, after his years of isolation, when he discovered human footprints in the sand!! Humans mean trouble! Humans often kill other humans or they commit other crimes. Civilisation has sought to bring order and security, but often things fall into decline. That is where we are today - in decline. That makes people fearful and it makes people question whether some other way would be better. Perhaps another way would be better, but it needs consensus and it can't just rely on presumption and good will. Anarchy can work for the individual and I think any belief system can work for an individual and their preference of lifestyle (Freedom of choice is important), but things get much more complicated when other people are involved!

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. — T Clark

Ought implies can. The idea that all forms of government are unjust must be rejected until it can be shown (against all available evidence) that the alternative is possible in a society larger than a modern-day commune. Even then it would likely come down to choosing one injustice over another, because there is no rule that rejecting one form of injustice leaves you with a (more) just state of affairs.

No, they did have rights and those rights were not respected. I am not sure I can argue with someone who thinks a person has a right if and only if the government of any community of which they are a member says they do. That view is so plainly false to me that I am at a loss to know how to argue with someone who is willing to embrace its implications. — Clearbury

I am not sure you can, either - at least you have not demonstrated such an ability. Saying that your opponent is obviously wrong and leaving it at that is a conversation-ender.

Thanks. I agree that the vulnerable would still be vulnerable under an anarchy, but I think they'd be better off overall. For the weak are weaker still under a government, as they are not allowed to protect their own interests in the way they see fit but must instead allow the government to do so on their behalf (if it sees fit, of course - there's nothing in the idea of a government that ensures those in power will care about promoting the interests of the weakest...indeed, this is unlikely given that the priority of those who seek out power is going to be to keep power, not promote anyone else's interests).

But whatever the consequences, we can, I think, see that a government - even one set up by those who think they know best how to look after the weakest - is unjust. For if all government employees ceased to be paid tomorrow, would they be obliged to continue doing their jobs? And obliged to such an extent that the rest of us could force them to do so? I think the answer to that is a clear no. And that shows, I think, that the obligation to look out for the weakest (which I do not deny we have), is not such as to permit others to use force to make us fulfil it. And so therefore the government is not allowed to use force either

Saying that your opponent is obviously wrong and leaving it at that is a conversation-ender. — SophistiCat

Yes, that was my goal. I don't wish to have a conversation with someone who thinks the Nazis didn't violate the rights of those whom they exterminated, or who can't see that this is what the view that rights are created by society implies. I wouldn't discuss mathematics with someone who thought 2 + 3 = 95 or 'an elephant', for what would be the point in that?

Ought implies can. The idea that all forms of government are unjust must be rejected until it can be shown (against all available evidence) that the alternative is possible in a society larger than a modern-day commune. Even then it would likely come down to choosing one injustice over another, because there is no rule that rejecting one form of injustice leaves you with a (more) just state of affairs. — SophistiCat

Just about everyone who has responded in this discussion has made an argument similar to yours. The OP has made it very clear that he doesn’t buy it. By his standards, I think the law of gravity is unjust also.

Saying that your opponent is obviously wrong and leaving it at that is a conversation-ender.
— SophistiCat

Yes, that was my goal. — Clearbury

And yet you keep talking.

Yes, that's because you never bothered to understand Ourora's point about rights. You could disagree with her, or meet her halfway by accepting her framing of rights and falling back on justice or the good. But you don't seem to be capable of an actual debate.

You keep saying things to me. Manners require that I respond.

I've made my position very clear and argued for my view. A view that entails that the Jews who were exterminated by the Nazis did not have their rights violated is obviously false - it is refuted by the absurdity of that implication - and someone who simply doubles-down on that implication isn't worth arguing with. Again, I wouldn't discuss the merits of an interesting sum with someone who it transpired is convinced that 1 + 1 = a banana.

I am pointing out that those in power are among them! — Clearbury

In a democratic society they can be removed. In a structure-less society, there is no process for doing this, at least not one that would last for very long as, devoid of morals, such is the default state of human will unrestrained. If the majority of people wish to target a minority group in an anarchy, they can do so much more easily and without any form of overarching legal repercussion than in a structured society with codified human rights.

What governments do is allow some of those who enjoy violating the rights of others the opportunity to do so on an industrial scale. — Clearbury

They also facilitate justice and due process to those who do, something not possible in an anarchy. Sure a rogue totalitarian state would not. That is a real concern, the concentration of power to a single individual or office. That is a bad form of government. There are good forms of government where law and order and justice for all is manifested, imperfectly, but more so than a system where it's not even entertained. I find your above quote similar to saying "Food poisons people" simply because some types of food product are bad or improperly prepared therefore "all food is bad". Not so, friend. Not so.

I think that in principle you speak with a noble mind and with noble concerns. The problem of life is perhaps, but not exclusively, the problem of evil. Evil exists and many humans, if not evil per se, for it's own sake, have the propensity for evil - when needs must. Anarchy automatically breeds a situation of "needs must..!" Why? The chaos produced by anarchy means that nothing is guaranteed except through strength. To be stronger - thinking from the stance of Nietzshce - man has to be more evil. Perhaps that is too direct an interpretation - in the broadest concept - of what we are discussing, but the moral imperative for many is to survive. We would be shocked at the lengths to which they would go to, just to survive, and if others have to lose out or suffer then that would be the last consideration. Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs" is, of course, very well known, and even in organised civilized and governed society, people are driven to desperate criminal actions to meet those needs. How much further would they be prepared to go in a world of self rule? Think of a world of no cops, no law, no statutory consequences for one's actions! Furthermore, the world of the strong would be exhausting, even for the most strong, because all would be in continuous conflict for the most essential things. Therefore, I propose that if anarchy were the initial situation at the end of government, then organised crime would be the new form of government after only a short time.

In a democratic society they can be removed. — Outlander

In an anarchy there's no one there to be removed! Elections are a wholly inadequate solution to a problem that governments create: concentration of power.

Elections do no moral work when they have not been agreed to by all of those involved. For example, if you and your friends vote to put me in prison, doesn't magically justify you putting me in prison. Why? Because I didn't agree to the vote.

Look, if you think the Jews had no moral rights under the Nazis then it follows that the Nazis did nothing wrong in exterminating them. I can't argue with someone who thinks that way. — Clearbury

Clearbury, you are jumping to conclusion without the required premises, therefore your argument is illogical. That's why I've bee telling you that you need to justify your principles. In the argument stated here, you have only one premise, "the Jews had no moral rights under the Nazis". Then from this one premise you jump to the conclusion: therefore "the Nazis did nothing wrong in exterminating them". You need a premise which provides the link between "moral rights" and "wrong" behaviour.

To assume that "wrong" is opposed to "rights" is to confuse different meanings of "right", and this is known as the fallacy of equivocation. So you need to clear up the obvious equivocation implied when you say that if a person thinks that the Jews had no moral rights under the Nazis, then the person thinks that the Nazis did nothing wrong in exterminating them. In reality, the one is just evidence of the other. The exterminations are evidence that a lack of rights is the truth.

Please allow me to guide you in rephrasing your argument so as to escape the obvious fallacy you have committed. You need a second premise. The premise needs to state that the code of rules called "moral rights" dictates exclusively, what is morally right and what is morally wrong, in human actions. Then you might conclude that if a person does not have the moral right to live it is not wrong to kill that person.

Do you understand this requirement? If not, I think you would be just demonstrating yourself to be an irrational fool. So please reformulate your argument, with the premises required to avoid the obvious equivocation which is implied by it, in its current state.

I agree. One principle of the anarchist tradition is to assume all authority is illegitimate until it proves itself to be legitimate. A parent or teacher can proves its legitimacy, for the most part, even if it is a heavy burden to prove. Any voluntary choice of whom to follow eliminates the need to seek this proof entirely.

But when a politician or agent of the state is an authority through appointment or dictate, their legitimacy cannot be proven.

Right, ignore what everyone is telling you and repeat yourself - that will work.