Quote:
Originally Posted by Tecmos Deception
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I'm not posting in here because I'm trying to deny history. But it's not like humanity's history of life under government has been full of peace and love and prosperity, right? It's only been in the last few centuries (out of so many thousands of years), as government has become somewhat less absolute and personal freedoms have generally been greater, that more than a handful of humans rose above bare subsistence.
You say you'll never understand the alternative to government, and I guess it's your prerogative to either refuse to learn or to believe there's nothing to be learned. But personally, I just can't see any reason why a statement like "all human interaction should be voluntary" can be wrong. Denying anarchy is admitting you want to do violence to others who are doing no harm to you, whether you do it via a state or a gang or directly.
|
It's not that I plug my ears at the mention of anarchism and go "lalalalala", it's just that I see it as logically unsound. Anarchism denies mass cooperation which I think is absolutely integral to human prosperity and progress.
The only issue I have with "all human interaction being voluntary" is you shouldn't be able to enjoy the benefits of society (cooperation, safety, rules), without the responsibilities (taxes, civic duty, mutual aid/defense, rules). Which means if you decided you didn't want to sign the contract, you'd have to leave. Unfortunately, the planet is basically full, and all the world's resources are spoken for. We also share an environment.
By denying anarchy I just admit that violence is the way in which the contract is enforced-- if somebody breaks the rules, that causes harm, and violence (force) is society's recourse. In a perfect world the contract is voluntary, you'd be able to leave and go homestead somewhere in the frontier and make your own rules, but I just don't see it.