even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.
See the chicken and the egg problem there?
If a society DID have 100% fully rational and faultlessly moral people, then they would necessarily have objective laws ("laws" meaning that the laws of man would reflect the objective laws of nature). It would function just fine without an official government.
However ...
If the society is NOT made up 100% of those people, the argument goes that a government MUST be instituted to enforce these objective laws. HOWEVER, if the people who do NOT agree with the morality of natural law are the ones who gain control of that government, then they WILL use the power of that government to enforce what THEY want, even though it violates natural law.
You can't have a FREE society that is also IMMORAL (violates the laws of Nature and of Nature's God).
We are witnessing this EXACT situation today.
Personally, I am a minarchist. I believe that the minimum of government is the most likely to be the best. If that means no government, I am cool with that AS LONG AS it comes about in a philosohpical way, such that MOST people understand WHY it has happened this way. The American founding fathers came closest to this ideal.
But since we are a LONG way away from that today, thanks to GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED schools indoctrinating the population to believe anti-human (anti-moral) ideas, there is likely some need of government. That being the case, we should INSIST on the Constitution being upheld, AS WRITTEN, and should be opposed to any constitutional convention that would undoubtedly sabotage that system.
We should enforce the Constitution against the employees of government, and their co-conspirators hiding in the shadows, by prosecuting them for their crimes.
If we got back to a system where the Constitution was followed, I think we might eventually get to a philosohpical place where we could make even that voluntary.
But there are over 200 countries in the world, and you just know that someone out there will be infiltrated by the very same criminals who have always wanted to be tyrants. So, it would take some time for a true voluntary system to ever be fully implemented.
Until then, we are stuck with the Catch-22, where (a) good people don't need government, (b) but not everyone is good, which is the argument to have a government, even though most people in government are also not good.
"The two enemies of the People are criminals and government. Let there be no talk of confidence in man, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution, so that the latter do not become the former." -- Thomas Jefferson
It ain't exactly a new concept -- that people with a tyrant mindset tend to be attracted to government. It has been known for thousands of years (at least).
The past 2 years should have erased any such doubt.
I know. That's what I thought. My question was whether or not you see the problem, and I suspected that you did not see it. Thanks for confirming (even though you didn't intend to).
I was responding to a premise, not stating one.
If this is from Ayn Rand, then you must know she was a minarchist, not an anarchist. And her vision of government was a far cry from what we have today. Even the Constitution was too much government for her. She wanted only: military, police, and courts. And those must be funded by voluntary means, according to her.
She was as close to an anarchist as anyone in history, without actually being one.
I do not agree with her conclusion that you can get an "ought" from an "is." But other than that, she was spot on in most of her writing. She lived through the first attempt of communist takeover in Russia in 1905, so she had strong opinions that were opposed to big government.
Today, she would have been appalled at the thought that her ideas could be miscontruted as advocating for any sort of government that comes close to what we have today. She was outspoken against such a thing back in the 1960's and 1970's when she was alive. To take her ideas out of context (a big thing with her, which she called "context-dropping") is mentally lazy.
I was pointing out that the idea that government is needed because not everyone is moral (which she would NOT have defined as having anything to do with religion) is a concept that fails when we take into account the fact that the very people in charge of that government are themselves not moral, and therefore will attempt to use that political power against everyone else, thereby defeating the whole point of creating the government.
That is WHY she insisted on ONLY military, police, and courts. She could not figure out how to make these completely voluntary (and nobody else has, either), other than the funding should be 100% voluntary.
She was a true anarchocapitalist's minarchist. But that point seems to have evaded you.
From your link ...
See the chicken and the egg problem there?
If a society DID have 100% fully rational and faultlessly moral people, then they would necessarily have objective laws ("laws" meaning that the laws of man would reflect the objective laws of nature). It would function just fine without an official government.
However ...
If the society is NOT made up 100% of those people, the argument goes that a government MUST be instituted to enforce these objective laws. HOWEVER, if the people who do NOT agree with the morality of natural law are the ones who gain control of that government, then they WILL use the power of that government to enforce what THEY want, even though it violates natural law.
You can't have a FREE society that is also IMMORAL (violates the laws of Nature and of Nature's God).
We are witnessing this EXACT situation today.
Personally, I am a minarchist. I believe that the minimum of government is the most likely to be the best. If that means no government, I am cool with that AS LONG AS it comes about in a philosohpical way, such that MOST people understand WHY it has happened this way. The American founding fathers came closest to this ideal.
But since we are a LONG way away from that today, thanks to GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED schools indoctrinating the population to believe anti-human (anti-moral) ideas, there is likely some need of government. That being the case, we should INSIST on the Constitution being upheld, AS WRITTEN, and should be opposed to any constitutional convention that would undoubtedly sabotage that system.
We should enforce the Constitution against the employees of government, and their co-conspirators hiding in the shadows, by prosecuting them for their crimes.
If we got back to a system where the Constitution was followed, I think we might eventually get to a philosohpical place where we could make even that voluntary.
But there are over 200 countries in the world, and you just know that someone out there will be infiltrated by the very same criminals who have always wanted to be tyrants. So, it would take some time for a true voluntary system to ever be fully implemented.
Until then, we are stuck with the Catch-22, where (a) good people don't need government, (b) but not everyone is good, which is the argument to have a government, even though most people in government are also not good.
"The two enemies of the People are criminals and government. Let there be no talk of confidence in man, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution, so that the latter do not become the former." -- Thomas Jefferson
It ain't exactly a new concept -- that people with a tyrant mindset tend to be attracted to government. It has been known for thousands of years (at least).
The past 2 years should have erased any such doubt.
I'm arguing with you.
If you are not up to the task, just say so.
I know. That's what I thought. My question was whether or not you see the problem, and I suspected that you did not see it. Thanks for confirming (even though you didn't intend to).
I was responding to a premise, not stating one.
If this is from Ayn Rand, then you must know she was a minarchist, not an anarchist. And her vision of government was a far cry from what we have today. Even the Constitution was too much government for her. She wanted only: military, police, and courts. And those must be funded by voluntary means, according to her.
She was as close to an anarchist as anyone in history, without actually being one.
I do not agree with her conclusion that you can get an "ought" from an "is." But other than that, she was spot on in most of her writing. She lived through the first attempt of communist takeover in Russia in 1905, so she had strong opinions that were opposed to big government.
Today, she would have been appalled at the thought that her ideas could be miscontruted as advocating for any sort of government that comes close to what we have today. She was outspoken against such a thing back in the 1960's and 1970's when she was alive. To take her ideas out of context (a big thing with her, which she called "context-dropping") is mentally lazy.
I was pointing out that the idea that government is needed because not everyone is moral (which she would NOT have defined as having anything to do with religion) is a concept that fails when we take into account the fact that the very people in charge of that government are themselves not moral, and therefore will attempt to use that political power against everyone else, thereby defeating the whole point of creating the government.
That is WHY she insisted on ONLY military, police, and courts. She could not figure out how to make these completely voluntary (and nobody else has, either), other than the funding should be 100% voluntary.
She was a true anarchocapitalist's minarchist. But that point seems to have evaded you.