RE: Honey Nazis
What is the difference between the government claiming to use defensive force and actually using excessive force and individuals or private organizations doing that under free market anarchy?
I keep bringing examples and you keep deciding on not addressing them.
When someone commits force or fraud, ANYONE has the right to do what it takes to stop that.
And what happens? Everybody would agree on what was right and wrong? Rightful violence between people until market equilibrium? I keep asking how do you solve that practically and you keep telling me that ANYONE has the right to solve that problem. I find zero practicality in your answer. That's why I remain convinced that your position is utopian. I don't find it immoral, I find it *unfeasible.
The difference--the ONLY difference--THE difference--that makes ALL the difference ... is that "government" is imagined to have rights that you and I do NOT. It is imagined to have the moral right to INITIATE VIOLENCE in situations where normal people have no such right. In short, the belief in "government" and political "authority" is the belief that some people should be ALLOWED to do what would be universally recognized as IMMORAL if anyone else did it.
Now try to explain to me how any of the scenarios you brought up would be improved by giving some people societal permission to use immoral violence.
I apologize for the hugely belated reply, but I decided to finally come back to this discussion.
As I said before, the idea that humans could coexists with no organization, no violence at all and no coercion is utopian. It can be morally superior on every single level, but if it is impossibe to implement, it remains an non-viable idea. That's what makes it an utopia in my book. It simply cannot work like that as just a few bad actors can get it out of whack.
Having government is not perfect, but I do think it's moral to have them as they provide a better state of being with lower amounts of violence and harm than anarchy would. My assertion here is that if there is no legal system, there would be more violence. The Wild West had less government and it was more violent.
The thing with government is that it shouldn't be just any government, it should be a democracy with proper laws.
"What is the difference between the government claiming to use defensive force and actually using excessive force and individuals or private organizations doing that under free market anarchy?"
The difference is that the concepts of government and authority try to justify these acts of aggression by calling them "law".
Is there not one solution you can think of, of how this could work without government?
Yes, I don't see a better solution than government that can be expected to be stable. What I usually hear as suggestions are unstable systems that could only work if everybody participating agreed not to abuse them. But this is standard for utopias. Communism would work perfectly if everybody agreed with it and was willing to participate.
No it's not an agreement where everybody needs to agree. It's the absence of the "agreement" that violence can be justified in the name of government or anything else mafia slavery.
It's also not a constitution, or other paper.
But you can believe of course what you want you can advocate for a violence. I just don't believe that they, or you, or I, can legitimately use of violence, to get someone to do what you want or what you want me to pay for..... that's all.
Thanks for the reply :)
I think you are advocating for a situation where anybody would be able to use violence against anybody unchecked. Saying I'm advocating for things I'm not is just twisting my words or inventing things that I'm not saying.
What I'm saying is that you are advocating for an utopia. Sure, an utopia can sound great when you imagine it as a perfect little world, the thing is you just can't really propose a mechanism that would keep that world better even than the imperfect world we live in. I just don't want to advocate for solutions that I don't think could ever be successfully implemented in practice with satisfactory results.
Yeah, it took me only 18 days :/ Still I got to it eventually.
No. Looking at the replies under this post ;) I think by now you know the NAP
Also no.
There would still be real criminals that need to be dealt with.
Well it would be a big improvement if some people in costume stopped doing immoral acts.
Don't worry sometimes I reply on very old posts too.
I think we've gotten to a point where we understand each other's position, but we simply disagree. I'm well aware of the NAP but for a society to be founded on it, everybody should be practicing it or it breaks down. Just like communism.
And how do you do that armed with just the NAP? That's what I don't get that's where I think it all breaks down and becomes unsustainable.
I think you not quite understand it jet
The difference with communism is it's not a system that uses violence to force everybody to be a certain way. It's just knowing that you may/must defend yourself (or ask someone else) whenever you are attacked of threatend of stolen form. It's very basic. And let say there comes a murderer in my house, It's not necccesary for me to explain to the murderer the NAP, or that we have to agree on the non aggression principle, for me to do something against that attacker. I just practice it in reality. I try to stop the attacker (with deadly force if neccesary. I even think the murderer is, although he does not know the word, familiar with that NAP and the consequences in reality
So it's not the NAP that defends me against criminals. (also the ones in costumes) It's me literally or someone else that does is for me.
Of course it would be easier if more people understood the NAP. Which most do in a sense, except for the giant exception they make for government employees as if they are not normal human beings that ought to be bound by the same "rule", when the commit aggression theft and murder.
I have another question for you regarding your previous reply.
What do you personally believe/advocate should be done to me personally if I don't pay the demanded tribute, via taxes, to the political ruling class or don't obey their commands. Please be literal and specific.