Granted, most see the government as legitimate and somewhat just. My claim is that government cannot be just, as it starts the relationship with threats of violence and theft in the form of taxes. Again, generally being accepted that to take from someone something which isn't yours, is theft.
So what happens when this is not generally accepted? Or you have those individuals that just don't care? "It surely must be better than what we have now" just won't cut it. Stop being lazy and deal with the issue.
It places "the law" at the forefront of all that is government, no matter how silly the premise of the law is, these laws are strictly enforced. Such as the war on drugs, as an example. Now, let's determine how this happens and how does government get this "right" to proclaim itself master of the individual.
Its own opinion? Or a legal contract (like the Constitution) that people hold the government accountable to. The major problem with out gov't is that the people stopped holding it accountable.
Make a specific case for how anarchy will deal with relative morality and power-hungry, well armed individuals/groups who don't share your general opinion of what they should/shouldn't do.
If someone, hurting no one else, wants to ruin their lives with drugs or anything else for that matter, what right does anyone have to stop them, if that's the choice they'd have for their lives? Who is to choose what is acceptable, and what is not? And, how does incarceration solve anything? Notice it's called rehabilitation or correctional behavior modifications or even programming. As if suddenly you don't obey the arbitrary commands of the political class, you're automatically a bad person deserving to be locked up as a danger to society, even though you've hurt no one and there is no victim present to accuse you of your supposed crime. Cops are there as enforcers of these laws, they are the pointy end of politics. Or, the gun in the room.
You're describing bad gov't. I agree, we have bad gov't. You have not made the case against good government, nor have you made the case for anarchy. When push comes to shove, and people show the philosophical problems with anarchy, you inadvertently agree by saying that even the conversation goes nowhere. What happens when it's no longer just a conversation, and it's a real problem to be dealt with in a real society, with real people?
Sure, some good people are cops, but when this system destroys lives, when there is no victim present, how can this be legitimate? I feel cops would fair much better becoming private security.
Sure some people are good (until their kids need toys for Christmas, or they are hungry). But when bad people in an anarchistic system destroy lives, how can it be legitimate?
See how this works?
You can't make an argument for anarchy by pointing out issues in our current system. Eventually you'll have to tell us how anarchy deals with this. Otherwise, you've just made the argument against our current gov't. On that, I agree.
(And 'I feel' statements are the earmark of a baseless argument, especially from someone espousing a relative morality. What if 'I feel' differently? What breaks the tie?)
Where does this vision of authority come from? And, why is it recognized as legitimate? Some say from the consent of the governed. Although, it's hard to imagine anyone giving up sometimes almost half of their production willingly. But we do, every payday. It's not because of your want to do good for society, it's because you'll go to jail if you don't pay. Does the basic rights of human beings become null and void when this extortion occurs under the name of law? Does the collective matter more than the individual when it comes to what is called, the so called the common good?
How will anarchy define and enforce the 'common good'? Until you explain that, you're just making a relative case against one form of gov't.
Anarchism recognizes the fact that each individual owns themselves as well as the fact that no one has the right to rule you. Anarchism is simply removing the coercive force of government from our lives, and basically recognizing property rights, as well as voluntary association, to be the law of the land, so to speak. How can this be handled in a world without government? Through arbitration and private courts. In the world of anarchism, social ostracism would be a very real thing. Someone who continually breaks contracts or commits acts against persons or property wouldn't fair well. Some will say, how can we trust the arbitrators? Same thing, social ostracism. The "judge" would simply be selling his opinion to willing customers who needed his service. If an arbitrator was known for good and fair decisions, he'd likely fair well. The ones who became corrupt and accepted bribes, or gave unfair decisions, they would be ostracized by society.
What about those that aren't buying? What if someone ignores a judge's arbitration, or refuses to participate? Yes. You told us. A private security force to enforce. Sounds eerily like a recreation of gov't under an assumed name.
Except this gov't will be sold to the highest/strongest bidder. In this episode, society would become captive and unable to ostrtacise anyone.
Tell us again what safeguards anarchy has against this usurp of societal freedom.
How would these judgements be enforced? In a world without government, you'd likely have protection agencies who would sell their services to customers. They would recover your goods or fees for damages from the one who was judged guilty. That will lead someone to say, but, what if the guilty person has a protection agency too? Wouldn't there be warfare among the agencies? Perhaps, until they realize that battling each other constantly is very expensive, and mutually agreed upon relationships would occur. An example would be, if agency A has a defendant who is found guilty by an arbitrator, agency B would agree not to defend their client. Again, these things can be agreed to in the initial contract between the individual and the agency.
So, we have judges for hire. Armed security squads for hire. Laws and contracts to be enforced. All based on personal moral opinion. What could possibly go wrong?
It sounds like you've exchanged one gov't for several, competing, mini-governments.
I personally view anarchism as a far better alternative to the current system, where the cop, the judge, and the prosecutor form a triad against the accused.
How about give us more details and safeguards, instead of 'I feel' statements. I agree, we need changes. But I'm not willing to make the jump to anarchism until you, and others, are able to provide better arguments than "Our current system is broken. I'm not sure how anarchism would work out, but I feel..."
When I look at my kids, and you give me the old West as an example, I don't get the warm and fuzzies. I'd rather try to improve what we have until you make better arguments.
