Voluntaryism
The two most commonly accepted concepts of Voluntaryism are very basic. Really they are principles that everyone should be able to get behind. Everyone, from the time that they are very young, is taught not to hurt or take things from others. For some odd reason as we get older we accept that there is a class of people in our society that is immune from these basic rules.
This is where the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) comes in. Simply put, the NAP states that it is immoral to INITIATE force against someone. I emphasize the word initiate because often times it is assumed that people who support the principle are pacifists. This couldn't be further from the truth. We believe that in instances of self defense or defense of property, force is absolutely appropriate.
The second, is the concept of Self-ownership. This one might be even more basic than the NAP. You own yourself. You own the product of your labor. As the sole owner of your body; you alone have the choice of what you consume, who you marry, and what you do to your body; so long as your choices don't harm others.
What happens when you apply these very basic concepts to government though? You, almost instantly, start noticing something. Government breaks these most basic moral principles simply by existing. Through taxation the government has claimed ownership over you. They have claimed the absolute right to your labor and the product of it. There is nothing the government has, that it hasn't stolen. Governments, all around the world, must steal and plunder in order to "produce" anything of value.
Governments regularly lock people in cages for having a plant in their posession or refusing to be extorted. Which means, government is the initiator of force and again has claimed ownership over you.
These two very basic principles are the reason why so many are waking up to the realization that government is immoral, and it always will be.
Anarchy would work fine, and we wouldn't need government at all, if everyone acted morally. That is to say, according to those two principles.
People are pretty bad at following that first principle though, which has led to a need for something to protect weaker people from stronger ones. This led to government which attempts to protect the weak. This requires funding, which requires taxes.
Government follows from the inability of most humans to follow your first principle.
To make things trickier, it's difficult to protect the people in the area if you try to do it on an individual basis. That is, if Bob wants protection but Bill doesn't, and Bill is being attacked a security force has to react stop it before they can assess the parties involved. This, without taxes, would lead to Bill "stealing" a service that Bob paid for... which in itself is a violation of that first principle.
In short, a desire to avoid taxes while living in a society protected by laws is actually a desire to steal. That is violating the first principle, and the government is defending itself... not attacking.
People cannot govern themselves therefore we need to have a group of people govern people.
Im reminded of a quote... It's not that power corrupts, but power attracts the corruptable.
You see normal, moral people don't want to tell others how to live, or what to do. We just want to live our lives. People who want that power can't be trusted with it. It should be pretty obvious with the direction government is heading.
The concept of morality itself is telling others how to live. Pushing for anarchy is telling others how they should live.
Morality isn't telling others how to live. Morality is not infringing upon the life, freedom, or property of another. Pushing for anarchy is defensively going against those who limit the aforementioned within your own life.
This is literally you telling me how to live in order to be moral.
No, I'm explaining the concept. The definition.
For example:
Take the definition of the word "walk" : "an act of traveling or an excursion on foot".
That is not "telling you how to live in order to walk". It is simply explaining the act.
Defining morality is not the concept of "telling people how to live".
The concept of the words, "preach" , "advocate", "promote", and "advise" are much more
accurate representations of the concept of "Telling people how to live."
The concept of morality I explained doesn't reflect those concepts.
Morality isn't based on conveying a message.
And your very last point is based on the social contract argument. The problem is that there is not way to actually opt out of the system in place.
Not exactly, but again.... If you did "opt out" you'd still receive all the benefits the rest of us are paying for. Effectively stealing those services.
Not if you voluntarily pay forvthe service that is used.
So you can either pay for others to use the service, or not have it at all. So your neighbor gets to define your choices in his personal best interest. Yeah, so much different from government. Well, it is... In that any individual can have a negative impact by forcing you to pay for him or go without.
Telos, you are ignoring competition in a free market. In our current systems governments have monopolies on many vital services. In a free market, without government, competition would be the best form of regulation. You literally HAVE to provide good service or face losing your customers. In government monopolies there is no such regulation. They have the monopoly on force too.
I've never heard anyone say that government was created nor used in order for the strong to protect the interest of the weak. If you take this back to tribal societies this is in no way the intent. The weak are often put out to the elements to be killed to not be a burden on society. It is only compassion or having the ability to surpass what the "strong" of the government say is correct that helps the poor. The tribal leader will forceably get his thugs to kill people that are weak. This is still happening in a lot of tribal societies in Africa such as with albinos being killed. A targeted class. Or Christians or witches or any minority really. Government isn't an oversight it is a force of oppression in all of its actions if not oppressing one group, then it oppresses the other.
I take it you only listen to anarchists about government? And christians... A minority? Right.
Tribes are a little different, they don't have a government so much as a leader... But there are no tribes without a leader. Why? Because there needs to be someone to settle disputes and make decisions. (Another function of government.) You see this even on small teams, if no leader is assigned someone will become that leader, sometimes even if they don't want it.
Back to the weakness thing. Some tribes do kill off "deformed" people but that isn't necessarily about weakness. Do you know of any tribes where the leader has his thugs kill the elderly? Or kids, since they are weak? Or allows the murder of women, since they are weaker than men? Hell, even the weakest hunter can't be summarily murdered simply because the best hunter is stronger... Because their society, along with pretty much all societies, don't allow murder. (Except when they do, but that's usually due to a spiritual belief. For instance those African albinos are believed to be cursed.)
Governments have murdered more people than can be counted and regularly take part in mass murder.... excuse me, war.
Yes, war is different. War is killing people in ANOTHER society, not your own. Not saying war is justified, but we're arguing about societies protecting their own members here. War is a completely different subject.
Congratulations @tctravis! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!