Should Distrust Of Government Be A Phenomenon Exclusive To Gun Owners?

[marshaul]

The issue re the looting and killing is singularly important, some number of citizens will resort to looting and killing and anarchy, as you define it, would evolve/devolve, for necessities sake, back into a form of "government" to deal with violent anarchists. Such is the nature of humanity in my view. Once the "government" (collective if you will) has dealt with the threat we once again start down the path that was started over 200 years ago in this country.

Well now we're getting down to what might be described as semantics, but I would argue that government – the definition derived from its legacy, from despotism, monarchism, mercantilism, communism, to even republicanism/democracy – is necessarily and explicitly the monopolization of retaliatory force. This seems to be closely tied to the legitimization of initiatory/coercive force as well.

No reasonable definition of anarchy implies a lack of reactive/retaliatory measures resembling what the current "justice system" provides at its best. It merely implies that there is no monopoly on the provision of "justice".

I'd like to make a couple comments, in a similar vein.

Someone made a comment about "revenge" earlier. In response, I would ask what, exactly, gives state-sponsored retaliation magical legitimacy or high-horse morality over what might be described as "vigilantism" or "revenge"? Is it the will of the majority? Huh? (What else does government use to justify its existence, if it even bothers?) 'Cuz it better not be that. Protecting the rights of individuals and minorities minorities sounds like a good justification until faced with the reality that every government on earth engages in the wholesale imprisonment and deprivation of rights of its citizens for an immense variety of trivial, non-aggressive offenses.

Which is the second point. There seems to be an unstated premise that government automagically, or somehow inherently, is more just than "vigilante" (a term created by statists, I might point out) justice, that it is more fair, more reliable, less impeachable, more objective. But reality puts lie to this premise. Government justice is monumentally unjust to literally millions of people, every day. People who haven't even harmed a neighbor.

It's hard to imagine how victim-initiated, non-monopolized justice could be any worse than the present state of affairs.

 

[georg jetson]

There was a time when I [strike]would[/strike] have argued vehemently against anarchism. I guess I'd better do some more homework.

Very provocative post Marshaul.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Well now we're getting down to what might be describes as semantics, but I would argue that government – the definition derived from its legacy, from despotism, monarchism, mercantilism, communism, to even republicanism/democracy – is necessarily and explicitly the monopolization of retaliatory force. This seems to be closely tied to the legitimization of initiatory/coercive force as well.

No reasonable definition of anarchy implies a lack of reactive/retaliatory measures resembling what the current "justice system" provides at its best. It merely implies that there is no monopoly on the provision of "justice".

I'd like to make a couple comments, in a similar vein.

Someone made a comment about "revenge" earlier. In response, I would ask what, exactly, gives state-sponsored retaliation magical legitimacy or high-horse morality over what might be described as "vigilantism" or "revenge"? Is it the will of the majority? Huh? (What else does government use to justify its existence, if it even bothers?) 'Cuz it better not be that. Protecting the rights of individuals and minorities minorities sounds like a good justification until faced with the reality that every government on earth engages in the wholesale imprisonment and deprivation of rights of its citizens for an immense variety of trivial, non-aggressive offenses.

Which is the second point. There seems to be an unstated premise that government automagically, or somehow inherently, is more just than "vigilante" (a term created by statists, I might point out) justice, that it is more fair, more reliable, less impeachable, more objective. But reality puts lie to this premise. Government justice is monumentally unjust to literally millions of people, every day. People who haven't even harmed a neighbor.

It's hard to imagine how victim-initiated, non-monopolized justice could be any worse than the present state of affairs.

Government is not necessarily more Just; Government is made more legitimate; love it, hate it, Government is made legitimate by the People.--well, not all Governments...our Government is.

How does reality put lie to the premise? You have no alternative to compare it to...or do you? Please, offer an example of a non Government society that is more Just than a Government society.

It can only be imagined that victim-initiated, non-monopolized justice is at worse as bad; the reason: You mental masturbation is theoretical...it's imaginary...it doesn't exist. Or am I wrong about this?

*I broke your post up, and responded, but figured I would stick with these handful of lines.

 

[marshaul]

Government is not necessarily more Just; Government is made more legitimate; love it, hate it, Government is made legitimate by the People.--well, not all Governments...our Government is.

How does reality put lie to the premise? You have no alternative to compare it to...or do you? Please, offer an example of a non Government society that is more Just than a Government society.

The point wasn't to prove that my way is better, only to challenge the unstated premise that the legacy of government provision of justice is some sort of standard to live up to. Folks talk in hypotheticals about how bad "revenge" or victim-initiated justice would be (when, as you point out, there are no actual examples at the moment one way or the other), the implication being that government is somehow immune to the potential downsides. I'm merely trying to put things in perspective: that government-provided justice is already guilty of the worst potentialities which may be ascribed to non-monopolized justice, up to and including "revenge", or a lynch mob mentality, and that it further provides millions of examples of injustice which would be unfathomable without government (mala prohibita offenses).

To put it another way: if all anarchism has to do is meet or beat the performance of government (as opposed to some ideal), it would be hard to do any worse.

It can only be imagined that victim-initiated, non-monopolized justice is at worse as bad; the reason: You mental masturbation is theoretical...it's imaginary...it doesn't exist. Or am I wrong about this?

Presenting or accepting this as an argument against anything is pretty much the definition of conservatism. You're right, anarchism as I define it doesn't exist presently on earth that I am aware. Government has succeeded in monopolizing every corner of inhabited land. For the moment.

(Remember Agent Smith talking about the human species virus in the first Matrix movie? Government is like that.)

But so what? Every form of government was new at some point. And none of them work well enough to justify their continued existence.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Government is not necessarily more Just; Government is made more legitimate; love it, hate it, Government is made legitimate by the People.--well, not all Governments...our Government is.

How? The majority of the people didn't vote for the guys who "win". So you are "saying might makes right"? California's prop 8 is good law then?

How does reality put lie to the premise? You have no alternative to compare it to...or do you? Please, offer an example of a non Government society that is more Just than a Government society.

We have just discussed several that worked out very well, including the "wild" west.

It can only be imagined that victim-initiated, non-monopolized justice is at worse as bad; the reason: You mental masturbation is theoretical...it's imaginary...it doesn't exist. Or am I wrong about this?

*I broke your post up, and responded, but figured I would stick with these handful of lines.

Why doesn't it exist? Are you absolutely sure it doesn't? Does the villages in remote areas of the world having little to do with any modern government have no forms of justice?

 

[OC for ME]

Well now we're getting down to what might be described as semantics, but I would argue that government – the definition derived from its legacy, from despotism, monarchism, mercantilism, communism, to even republicanism/democracy – is necessarily and explicitly the monopolization of retaliatory force. This seems to be closely tied to the legitimization of initiatory/coercive force as well.

No reasonable definition of anarchy implies a lack of reactive/retaliatory measures resembling what the current "justice system" provides at its best. It merely implies that there is no monopoly on the provision of "justice".

I'd like to make a couple comments, in a similar vein.

Someone made a comment about "revenge" earlier. In response, I would ask what, exactly, gives state-sponsored retaliation magical legitimacy or high-horse morality over what might be described as "vigilantism" or "revenge"? Is it the will of the majority? Huh? (What else does government use to justify its existence, if it even bothers?) 'Cuz it better not be that. Protecting the rights of individuals and minorities minorities sounds like a good justification until faced with the reality that every government on earth engages in the wholesale imprisonment and deprivation of rights of its citizens for an immense variety of trivial, non-aggressive offenses.

Which is the second point. There seems to be an unstated premise that government automagically, or somehow inherently, is more just than "vigilante" (a term created by statists, I might point out) justice, that it is more fair, more reliable, less impeachable, more objective. But reality puts lie to this premise. Government justice is monumentally unjust to literally millions of people, every day. People who haven't even harmed a neighbor.

It's hard to imagine how victim-initiated, non-monopolized justice could be any worse than the present state of affairs.

Semantics? Perhaps, I respectfully submit that we are discussing two distinct words, a concept and those who participate in a concept. You seem to be focused on anarchy, I focus on anarchist. Anarchy as a concept is not inherently bad, I simply find it impractical for me at this point in our history. Anarchists come in all shapes, sizes and temperaments. Some small number of self described anarchists do give "anarchy" a bad name just as some OCers give OCers a bad name.

Back during the time of the founding of our country we had anarchy (the concept) out on the frontier as a result of circumstance, government just was not there. Did those citizens refer to themselves as anarchists? I do not know, but I will wager that practicing "anarchy" was not their motivation to expose themselves to the dangers of the frontier. I submit that these folks primarily traveled to the frontier for more selfish reasons, nothing wrong with this by the way, as well as distancing themselves from government to a certain extent.

"City folk" were closely engaged with government by either choice or circumstance.

Those near the city (country folk), yet not isolated out on the frontier, in my view, enjoyed a "comfortable distance" from government interference. These citizens were able to call upon government to address concerns that they themselves could not reasonably address or were not inclined to address.

Progressing forward, the "wild west" was very much the frontier of a 100 years earlier. More towns being founded resulted in more citizens falling into the "near the city" category and fewer frontiersmen, less frontier if you will, such is progress.

Today there is essentially no frontier, far fewer "near the city" folk and the vast majority of our fellow citizens occupying the "city folk" category. Essentially the near city folk, country folk if you will, now drive to the "city" to partake of the conveniences of the city and the unfortunate by product of exposing themselves to a interfering government.

The reality today is that anarchy as a concept is essentially anarchy-ish in my view. Thus anarchists are anarchists-ish, simply folks who desire to be left to their own "lawful" devices. The complete disassociation by any citizen from government is more a academic exercise these days. If I could divorce myself completely from government and engage in a "pay as you go" relationship with government I would.

I know a few self described anarchists and they are not the anarchist as are shown on TV. They are fine, upstanding, rights respecting citizens who accept government as a "necessary evil" that must be narrowly defined in its powers and limited to the maximum extent possible. These good citizens firmly believe, as I do, that our liberties depend on "a government of the people, by the people, for the people." Our work to persuade our fellow citizens to re-achieve a very limited government, via the ballot box, is a never ending battle and that this battle is worth fighting. We at times may quibble over the finer details of how to re-achieve a very limited government but we share virtually the same principals that our Founders held when they "created" this great nation.

+1 to you Sir for a most stimulating and though provoking discussion. I will bounce a few of your points off of my anarchist friends and see if their views are in alignment with your views. Maybe I am a closet anarchist after all. I will think upon this and get back to you.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Marshaul, I'm going to respond...it's going to take a bit.

How? The majority of the people didn't vote for the guys who "win". So you are "saying might makes right"? California's prop 8 is good law then?

Agreed. Some reasons why there aren't more individuals voting has to do with structural issues in the voting process...who is excluded, included, etc.

Let's not jump around here, so much.

Depending on the context, yes, Might makes right,--in those instances it has the potential to be unfortunate.

We have just discussed several that worked out very well, including the "wild" west.

It worked out well; by who's standards?

Why doesn't it exist? Are you absolutely sure it doesn't? Does the villages in remote areas of the world having little to do with any modern government have no forms of justice?

Please, if there is such a social order, link us up, I'm genuinely interested in observing a society like this.

Don't get me wrong, self-imposed justice does happen; a China man commits suicide because his business failed, and he needs to reddem the honor of his family name---it's a bit extreme of an example.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

The point wasn't to prove that my way is better, only to challenge the unstated premise that the legacy of government provision of justice is some sort of standard to live up to. Folks talk in hypotheticals about how bad "revenge" or victim-initiated justice would be (when, as you point out, there are no actual examples at the moment one way or the other), the implication being that government is somehow immune to the potential downsides. I'm merely trying to put things in perspective: that government-provided justice is already guilty of the worst potentialities which may be ascribed to non-monopolized justice, up to and including "revenge", or a lynch mob mentality, and that it further provides millions of examples of injustice which would be unfathomable without government (mala prohibita offenses).

You derive that implication regarding "folks" views, by implication, are that Government is immune to downsides; we're all prone to being presumptuous.

You're presuming the degree of injustice suffered under Government is unfathomable without Government; and what I'm going to state is: Of course it's unfathomable, there are no non-Government examples.

To put it another way: if all anarchism has to do is meet or beat the performance of government (as opposed to some ideal), it would be hard to do any worse.

I really hate appealing to definitions--I know, coming from me, right LOL--: Anarchy:

1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Anarchy is a political Ideal.

Let's agree, if you're willing, that are isms relating to Government or lack of, are inherently Ideal notions...or maybe not.

It is easy to do much worse. Darfur is one example.--worse than America's political, and Governmental structure.

Presenting or accepting this as an argument against anything is pretty much the definition of conservatism. You're right, anarchism as I define it doesn't exist presently on earth that I am aware. Government has succeeded in monopolizing every corner of inhabited land. For the moment.

(Remember Agent Smith talking about the human species virus in the first Matrix movie? Government is like that.)

But so what? Every form of government was new at some point. And none of them work well enough to justify their continued existence.

No, Agent Smith was referring to humans, and all things that extend from humans: Government, Society, interaction with the outside world, with one another, etc.

Agreed, every form of Government was new at some point. What we have are hybrid Governments.

 

[marshaul]

You derive that implication regarding "folks" views, by implication, are that Government is immune to downsides; we're all prone to being presumptuous.

I don't presume anything of the kind. The unstated premise to which I referred is necessarily implied by certain forms of argument against anarchy.

You're presuming the degree of injustice suffered under Government is unfathomable without Government; and what I'm going to state is: Of course it's unfathomable, there are no non-Government examples.

First of all: you're intentionally reiterating this, which I've accounted for, in order to dodge the point. That makes this a red herring.

Secondly, there may be no examples presently, but you're trying to skirt the facts that A: there is no just government anywhere on earth, and there is no evidence that there ever has been, B: there have been anarchies which in which injustice was largely limited to isolated incidents of one individual aggressing against another.

It is easy to do much worse. Darfur is one example.--worse than America's political, and Governmental structure.

Ah, but I carefully framed things so that Darfur gets puts in the "examples of injustice caused by bad government" camp.

Unless you're going to pretend that Darfur is an anarchy, in which case I'll pretend I'm not laughing.

Actually, I take that back: no, I won't.

No, Agent Smith was referring to humans, and all things that extend from humans: Government, Society, interaction with the outside world, with one another, etc.

Yeah, he was referring to humanity in general. But then again he was a computer program (and a particularly misanthropic one at that). I was applying his descriptive language to government.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I don't presume anything of the kind. The unstated premise to which I referred is necessarily implied by certain forms of argument against anarchy.


First of all: you're intentionally reiterating this, which I've accounted for, in order to dodge the point. That makes this a red herring.

Secondly, there may be no examples presently, but you're trying to skirt the facts that A: there is no just government anywhere on earth, and there is no evidence that there ever has been, B: there have been anarchies which in which injustice was largely limited to isolated incidents of one individual aggressing against another.




Ah, but I carefully framed things so that Darfur gets puts in the "examples of injustice caused by bad government" camp.

Unless you're going to pretend that Darfur is an anarchy, in which case I'll pretend I'm not laughing.

Actually, I take that back: no, I won't.



Yeah, he was referring to humanity in general. But then again he was a computer program (and a particularly misanthropic one at that). I was applying his descriptive language to government.

You got me on Darfur. I concede it.

I see, then I suppose your Mr. Smith example is acceptable.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Agreed. Some reasons why there aren't more individuals voting has to do with structural issues in the voting process...who is excluded, included, etc.

Oh pray tell who's "excluded". Most people choose not to vote, this in my opinion shows a vote of no confidence, they don't like the two yahoos presented.

Let's not jump around here, so much.

Can't help it, it's all connected.

Depending on the context, yes, Might makes right,--in those instances it has the potential to be unfortunate.

So majority rules unless the majority rules are wrong. Who decides this?

It worked out well; by who's standards?

By the standards of the people who decided to live without government and got along peacefully, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Early North Carolina, many in the "wild" west. You have to study more than state propaganda. Isn't amazing how the "winners" and the state (government) they represent are always the "good guys".......

Please, if there is such a social order, link us up, I'm genuinely interested in observing a society like this.

Don't get me wrong, self-imposed justice does happen; a China man commits suicide because his business failed, and he needs to reddem the honor of his family name---it's a bit extreme of an example.

It happens in small ways even in the U.S. there are areas with very little government and the people get along fine. There are whole areas where "contraband" is the communities business, and they protect each other from government. You just have to observe from a non statist lense colored glasses.....

Hmmm you see a China man committing suicide because of the failure of his business as "justice", I automatically question why did it fail, what hardships did the state put upon him that made him fail or made him feel there was no other choice. If all rich business people killed themselves, then what work would you do, where would all the products that raise our quality of life come from............a social contract?

 

[OC for ME]

<snip>

Hmmm you see a China man committing suicide because of the failure of his business as "justice", I automatically question why did it fail, what hardships did the state put upon him that made him fail or made him feel there was no other choice.<snip>

Or, the free market forced him outta business cuz he made cheap Chinese crap that nobody wanted to buy.

Always remember, when a firm fails it may be due to government, a competitor, or the owner. Ironically, a owner who has a good product/service can make a profit and grow his business inspite of the government or his competitors. Happens every day.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Oh pray tell who's "excluded". Most people choose not to vote, this in my opinion shows a vote of no confidence, they don't like the two yahoos presented.



*snippers*

Sorry, but I'm not going to respond to every line.

There is a space on the ballot, below the two primary runners, where you can vote for whoever...including yourself. There ought to be a No Confidence box to check.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Or, the free market forced him outta business cuz he made cheap Chinese crap that nobody wanted to buy.

Always remember, when a firm fails it may be due to government, a competitor, or the owner. Ironically, a owner who has a good product/service can make a profit and grow his business inspite of the government or his competitors. Happens every day.

True. And is how a free market works. I don't think her choice of ethnic background and the socialist who control that country was a mistake and I adressed it looking at it from that perspective.

I truly feel though that even here in "the land of the free" (I call bullshite) the government is the main problem. I am broke which I don't mind, but the pressures put upon me by the state for daring to work for myself is tremendous. And I better dare not hire anybody.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Sorry, but I'm not going to respond to every line.

There is a space on the ballot, below the two primary runners, where you can vote for whoever...including yourself. There ought to be a No Confidence box to check.

Of course, because the other lines had the most significant points.....

Not voting is also the vote of No Confidence. What you said though was those who are "excluded", I am simply pointing out they are not excluded they choose not to partake in a system that sucks for them.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Oh pray tell who's "excluded". Most people choose not to vote, this in my opinion shows a vote of no confidence, they don't like the two yahoos presented.



Can't help it, it's all connected.



So majority rules unless the majority rules are wrong. Who decides this?

The majority. Welcome aboard, social creature.

By the standards of the people who decided to live without government and got along peacefully, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Early North Carolina, many in the "wild" west. You have to study more than state propaganda. Isn't amazing how the "winners" and the state (government) they represent are always the "good guys".......

The Government defines Justice, and Good. You don't like it, change Government. A name: Noam Chomsky....happy reading.

It happens in small ways even in the U.S. there are areas with very little government and the people get along fine. There are whole areas where "contraband" is the communities business, and they protect each other from government. You just have to observe from a non statist lense colored glasses.....

Hmmm you see a China man committing suicide because of the failure of his business as "justice", I automatically question why did it fail, what hardships did the state put upon him that made him fail or made him feel there was no other choice. If all rich business people killed themselves, then what work would you do, where would all the products that raise our quality of life come from............a social contract?

Yes, there are areas where there is the visual presence of Government. Just can't seem to get rid of those damn glasses!


I don't see a china man committing suicide as Justice...he does.

 

[fighting_for_freedom]

The Government defines Justice, and Good. You don't like it, change Government. A name: Noam Chomsky....happy reading.

I've been avoiding this little discussion since you joined in, as I feel there can be nothing gained by arguing with you.

However, this irks me. You use a self-described anarchist (or anarcho-socialist) to try and support your argument against anarchism?

I stole this from wikipedia, as all of my political and philosophical books are still out in my shed:

"Chomsky asserts that authority, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate, and that the burden of proof is on those in authority. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled. Authority for its own sake is inherently unjustified."

The burden of proof is on those in authority. Not the system we have now, is it? If I say that a law is unjust and illegitimate, I have to fight to get it removed. This should not be the case. IF a government MUST exist, then it is the GOVERNMENT'S duty to PROVE that all laws they make are ABSOLUTELY NECCESSARY.

Now I'm gonna go make myself some coffee and dig out my political books.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I've been avoiding this little discussion since you joined in, as I feel there can be nothing gained by arguing with you.

However, this irks me. You use a self-described anarchist (or anarcho-socialist) to try and support your argument against anarchism?

I stole this from wikipedia, as all of my political and philosophical books are still out in my shed:

"Chomsky asserts that authority, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate, and that the burden of proof is on those in authority. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled. Authority for its own sake is inherently unjustified."

The burden of proof is on those in authority. Not the system we have now, is it? If I say that a law is unjust and illegitimate, I have to fight to get it removed. This should not be the case. IF a government MUST exist, then it is the GOVERNMENT'S duty to PROVE that all laws they make are ABSOLUTELY NECCESSARY.

Now I'm gonna go make myself some coffee and dig out my political books.

Then don't argue with me...agree.

I agree with the Chomsky quote, well, some of it. ***I just realized that it wasn't Chomsky in the quote, it was someone claiming what they think Chomsky stated. There are a number of presumptions in the quote.

How is Authority legitimized?--in the case of the U.S., by the citizens who get off their lazy ass to vote. Who dismantles the Authority?--the People.

Authority for it's own sake is unjustified, that is, if you agree with the implied premise, that legitimate Authority is established by Citizens.

Wrong, the burden of proof is not on those Authority to Power. The burden is on the Citizen to assert their Power to Authority (Power to bestow Authority). The Government doesn't have to prove a damn thing. The Government can assert, and the Citizens can dismantle; but only by a collective action.

 

[marshaul]

How is Authority legitimized?--in the case of the U.S., by the citizens who get off their lazy ass to vote.

Defend this premise.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Defend this premise.

You can reject the premise. And my premise will continue to play out, in your face. And whether or not you want to be part of the system we have here, you are part of it, period.