scombrid
Senior Member.
What's "extreme" about advocating for a society based on voluntarism, the non-aggression principle, and non-violence?
Who's going to enforce that?
What's "extreme" about advocating for a society based on voluntarism, the non-aggression principle, and non-violence?
Then there would be no police. People don't voluntarily pay for things that benefit others as much or more than themselves.
Rational self interest dictates that individuals try to pay less than the next guy if they both derive the same benefit irrespective of contribution.
The net result is that no voluntary payments are made for collective benefits.
The market alternative in the policing arena is that the guy with the deepest pockets that buys best private security team makes the laws.
Who's going to enforce that?
Who else but free individuals?
You know, people don't need a government to possess the right to defend themselves and their families from unwarranted aggression and violence.
A society without a government is an interesting concept. Has such a society ever existed?
Who gets to decide what is unwanted aggression and violence? Every person according to their own thoughts?
How about if 50 people of like mind get together and freely decide that you are a threat to them because your values are different, and so they kill you - is that acceptable because free individuals did so of their own volition?
Well, the first governments were created by people. That means people existed in groups without government.
Rational people do. Who else?
Why would murdering someone, over nothing more than their values, be acceptable?
Really? You sure about that? Then how do you account for the thousands upon thousands of private charities that people donate their money to, thereby benefiting others more than themselves?
In a truly free market, the people could raise their own police forces to compete against the police forces of corrupt businesses, corporations, and the wealthy elite. As it is now, they can't. Our corrupt government operates a monopoly on policing, which prevents the people from having any real recourse.
Rational people do. Who else?
Why would murdering someone, over nothing more than their values, be acceptable?
Could you be more specific? Which groups of people existed without government?
Well there's no government. People are free to decide to do what is necessary to defend their family, right?
Oh, we need a rule against murder? Who is going to enforce that?
A democratically elected panel and whomever they designate to enforce the prohibition against murder. Sounds governmenty to me.
Government has always been a hierarchical concept. family, tribe, village, town, city, municipality, county, state, country, region, world. It arises naturally because societies with forms of government work better than those with none.
It's a utopian fantasy to suggest there would be NO government.
Society IS government.
Because they decided it was acceptable.
What more is needed? Who are you to tell them their actions are not acceptable? Who gets to decide what is murder and what is justified self defence? "Rational people do. Who else?"?? well they have rationally decided to kill you because they see you as a a threat to them. Or because they want your land or your gun or your petrol or your gold or something else you don't want to give or sell to them, or just because they practice polygamy and you won't let one of them marry your daughter, or because you are a different colour and are stopping them using "your people" as slaves, or because you worship a false god, or because you won't join their commune, or just because they don't like you.
There are myriad reasons why people might want to commit murder and think it justified to themselves - and you apparently think they are entitled to do so, because no-one else is allowed to question their freely held belief and their actions.
Sure, they are free as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.
People will, just as they always have.
Don't be ridiculous.
If you are walking down the street minding your own business and someone approaches you and attempts to do you bodily harm, do you need a democratically elected panel to tell you that you are allowed to defend yourself?
No? Wow. How are you able to think for yourself without a government? It boggles the mind!
Straw man logical fallacy.There are myriad reasons why people might want to commit murder and think it justified to themselves - and you apparently think they are entitled to do so, because no-one else is allowed to question their freely held belief and their actions.
The groups of people who hadn't yet developed the concept of government.
And who gets to enforce that?
My scenarios are exactly that = a more powerful bunch of people deciding right and wrong, what is justified and what is not, against the wishes of those being acted against.
Who are you to tell me what is ridiculous and what is not when there is no Govt? I am free to decide my own values without having to conform to your ridiculous so-called morality thank you
Sure you can defend yourself - I never said otherwise. But if there's 5 of them and 1 of you what good is defending yourself going to do? Oh - you have a gun? well so do they........
And this IS thinking for myself - these are obvious and realistic scenarios - we know they are realistic because THEY HAVE ALWAYS HAPPENED IN HISTORY - even with governments and police - they happen every day still - why do you think they would stop happening with no government???
So here's a scenario - a bunch of low-life criminal types start conducting burglaries in an area - a bunch of residents get together & start patrolling & catch a few of the low-life with goods in hand.
What do they do now? there's no prisons - do they beat them up & tell them to f-off or there'll be worse next time? Do they kill them outright? give them a telling off? Go to their homes & take all their "stuff" as recompense??
Whatever they do - the locals decide that it is a good idea to have some sort of organisation to combat "crime" as they see it - they decide that everyone in their community has to agree to provide some resources - time or equipment or food - whenever these things happen (ie it is not a standing police force - just the "citizens" getting together whenever they collectively feel the need). What is that if not government?
Some time later a bunch of citizens feel aggrieved by something done by someone else in the group - but others in the group think it is actually not a problem at all & refuse to countenance teh action - the smaller party gets chucked out of the group by the larger - ie they are expelled for not having the same values. whether violence is involved or not is irrelevant - if you do not conform to the mores of het group you cannot be part of it - that is government too.
All the so-called anti-government organisations actually have rules themselves - it is the first thing they do - define their expectations of "members" and allow in only those who fit those expectations!!
Basically as soon as you have 2 or more people together you have to have some degree of rule-making and agreed standards of behaviour - that is how it works across all of histotry for al of humanity.
To suggest humans can behave otherwise is just ignorant.
In what way is it a straw man? It fits your description perfectly - you are advocating complete sovereignty of each individual, but saying that your idea of what is right and wrong has to be folowed by all of them regardless.
Me pointing out your self-contradiction is not a strawman - it is relevant, it is on topic, and it is something you have actually stated explicitly but apparently do not understand yourself!
Who might that be? Who were these groups of people without a government? Is there any historical record of such a society?
Look, you seem to be very passionate about this subject. I assumed you had enough knowledge on this matter to provide answers that have a little more substance than your post #53. If you don't know the answer to my simple question, just say so. There is no shame in it.
I looked into it briefly and can't seem to find any references to societies that don't have a government. And you, who is much more knowledgeable on this topic than I, can't seem to provide an example of one either. So if even you can't name one, then would you think it fair to say that such a society never existed?
No, it was a straw man. Being sovereign doesn't mean you can do anything you want and expect to get away with it. Being "free" doesn't mean being free to rob, rape, and kill. It only means your rights end where the rights of others begin.In what way is it a straw man? It fits your description perfectly - you are advocating complete sovereignty of each individual, but saying that your idea of what is right and wrong has to be folowed by all of them regardless.
Me pointing out your self-contradiction is not a strawman - it is relevant, it is on topic, and it is something you have actually stated explicitly but apparently do not understand yourself!
I am not confused by my own arguments at all - having a known and shared set of behavioral expectations (laws) means everyone knows what is expected (or at least allows the possibility of that happening) means that there is a known standard of behaviour - you do not get to tell me what is legal based upon your own morality, and I do not get to tell you what is leggal eeither.
It means we can have a polcie force that "solves" at least some of the crimes, and allows for punishment of offenders.
And government IS group dynamics too - but of very large groups.
You really seem to have no idea at all of what it is your concept involves!
Again I ask you - why is it YOU get to decide what is acceptable and what is not? Why is it that you get to set rules that everyone else has to obey, and why is that not government??!!
Who are you to say which laws are "natural" and which are not?
Yet again why is it YOU get to decide for ME how I have to behave?
No, not really. I can't name a single caveman that ever killed a woolly mammoth, but that doesn't mean it never happened, now does it?
If you have some evidence proving that every group of human beings that has ever lived has lived under an organized form of government then show it to me. Can you do that?
What we don't know is that a society without a government ever existed.
So unless you can provide some evidence that such a society ever existed then one can only assume or speculate that one ever did.
Unfortunately, that's what you are doing at this point. Speculating.
Of course one MIGHT have existed. My question is... did one. You don't know of any.
Supporting your claim by challenging me to prove that every group that ever existed was governed in some way is a fallacious argument.
At this point there is no evidence that your society ever existed.
If every group of human beings that has ever lived together did so under an organized government, where's your evidence of this?
If you believe that human beings are incapable of living together and functioning without organized government, where's your evidence of this?
According to you. If that's what you believe, where's your proof?
Did I say that every group of human beings that lived together did so under an organized government? If so, then I'm sure you won't mind showing me in which post I made that statement. Until then, try arguing against things I've actually said instead of things you wished I said.
I'm not sure why you're not getting this. The lack of evidence is self evident. The proof that there is no evidence is the fact that there is no evidence.
Read the following carefully. I'm not making the claim that your society never existed, I'm saying there doesn't seem to be evidence that one existed. Therefore, in the absence of evidence, claiming that societies without governments existed is speculation.
Not really, no. What I am saying is simply intuitive.
then that must mean that societies existed without government.
If by "simply intuitive" you mean "simply guessing", then I agree.
And I've been asking you to provide an example of one... just one such society. Instead you offered a non sequitur about cavemen and wooly mammoths.
Just because basic, logical deduction eludes you,
What for? Why do you need a specific example?
I understand logical deduction. That's why, unlike you, I use evidence as the basis of my conclusions.
Well, I found the idea of a group of people without a governing body interesting. Then I tried to think of examples of such a scenario. I looked at my own personal experiences, did some quick internet searches, and try as I might, I could not find any examples. Every group, no matter what size, age or race, had a governing body. Then I thought, just because I can't find or think of a group of people without a governing body that doesn't mean there never was one.
So I asked you. I mistakenly assumed that the strength of your convictions was based on something other than bunk.
No, it doesn't.
Explain why my arguments are wrong.
Oh good lord. You're now arguing against yourself. I thought you could handle a double negative statement. When I said "that doesn't mean there never was one" I'm saying that there could have been societies without government regardless of whether or not I could find one. However, without evidence, claiming that such societies existed is speculation.
You don't have any evidence to support your claim.
I was agreeing with you.
But that doesn't necessarily mean the claim is wrong.
You're simply making a logically fallacious argument.
Your reply was ambiguous.
I'm not making any argument.
I'm asking you to support yours. You're saying that anarchist societies existed. OK, so prove it to us.