Convince me government is moral.

[Left Coast]

TLDR: convince me a government could be a moral system.

Government is immoral. Anarchism is the only moral system. I'm sure about this. My religious beliefs fluctuate. My political beliefs have too, but from a super statist (republican) to a mild statist (Libertarian) and then finally to an anarchist. My political beliefs evolved away from statism.

To be a statist is to hold a view of any government system as legitimate.

So essentially everyone on this site except @Heyo and @syo (your an anarchist, right syo? I think I remember right). Any other anarchists here?

Don't get me wrong, anarchism isn't some small movement. The government would like you to think the anarchist movement is small, and don't even want you to know about it.

Anywho it seems like 99% of the world are statists. Every single government indoctrinates their populace to be statists. An obvious example is the pledge of allegiance every day in public school.

So, I am in the minority here. I'm open to being wrong. I really am. So, convince me that a form of government could be a moral system.

I say it is immoral because the existence of a state entails people having control over me and my property. No one, even if they claim to be a state, has a right over my body or property. A state is merely individuals, bandits if you will.

And, by the way, all goods and services can be provided in the absence of a state. There would still be roads and firemen. That's a tangent though.

What makes something moral, to you?

 

[Left Coast]

The rules are not governance, the mods are.
You can have (and need to have) rules in an anarchy. Anarchy isn't lawlessness, it is the absence of a ruler.

Who sets and enforces (your version of) anarchist rules? What happens if I don't like the rules and decide to break them?

 

[Nakosis]

TLDR: convince me a government could be a moral system.

Government is immoral. Anarchism is the only moral system. I'm sure about this. My religious beliefs fluctuate. My political beliefs have too, but from a super statist (republican) to a mild statist (Libertarian) and then finally to an anarchist. My political beliefs evolved away from statism.

To be a statist is to hold a view of any government system as legitimate.

So essentially everyone on this site except @Heyo and @syo (your an anarchist, right syo? I think I remember right). Any other anarchists here?

Don't get me wrong, anarchism isn't some small movement. The government would like you to think the anarchist movement is small, and don't even want you to know about it.

Anywho it seems like 99% of the world are statists. Every single government indoctrinates their populace to be statists. An obvious example is the pledge of allegiance every day in public school.

So, I am in the minority here. I'm open to being wrong. I really am. So, convince me that a form of government could be a moral system.

I say it is immoral because the existence of a state entails people having control over me and my property. No one, even if they claim to be a state, has a right over my body or property. A state is merely individuals, bandits if you will.

And, by the way, all goods and services can be provided in the absence of a state. There would still be roads and firemen. That's a tangent though.

To me it is not the government which is immoral. It is the people. If the people are not moral then the system doesn't matter. In the same sense, if everyone was moral then any system would work.

I don't think that any system will eliminate immoral people.
With Anarchism there will remain enough immoral people to cause problems and people will blame the system of Anarchism as the cause of the immorality.

At this point, because of human nature, I think we need some authority to need with the immoral among us even if that means that immorality will necessarily become embedded in that authority.

Not everyone is capable of protecting themselves against the immoral. They need the state to support them.
The best system would be one which limits as much as possible the number of immoral people that can embed themselves in it.

 

[dybmh]

Private judges, police, and private laws, try to wrap your head around that! I'm still trying to.

This would be a very bad idea. They would be paid per arrest / per conviction? That would unfairly bias the system.

 

[an anarchist]

Because the State prevents the wealthy from oppressing the weakest.
It's like the protector of the most humble.
A very efficient defender.

Because the wealthy do want to exploit the weakest.
That's why they hate the State (or the Government) because the State prevents them from being unruly.

There you go...easy as pie.

The state prevents the poor from being wealthy I think. I think you assume that wealth is a limited resource. Wealth is created. A state only serves to drain the wealth from society. In a free market society, wealth would be continuously generated and spread amongst the poor and rich. The quality of life would improve for everyone

 

[an anarchist]

Western democracies are based upon trust.
Optimism and trust. We need to trust our representatives first, otherwise we cannot trust one another and not even ourselves.

Oof. I don't trust a single one of them

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You must mean by "formally organize society", it's actually authoritarianism and strong centralized government to control the masses

Read Thomas Paine and then we'll get back to this.

 

[Wu Wei]

To the post title

Convince me government is moral.

Nope, and I won't try and convince you up is down and down is up either

 

[Estro Felino]

The state prevents the poor from being wealthy I think. I think you assume that wealth is a limited resource. Wealth is created. A state only serves to drain the wealth from society. In a free market society, wealth would be continuously generated and spread amongst the poor and rich. The quality of life would improve for everyone

It depends. Without the State, employers can impose any wage. Even the lowest ever.
And who will prevent them from imposing it? Nobody will.

 

[an anarchist]

The purpose of government is not to be moral. The purpose of government is to be functional. It's job is to facilitate and safeguard the well-being of everyone it purports to serve.

Then the government is its own detriment to it's "purpose". By monopolizing essential goods and services (such as defense services), it decreases the quality and increases the price.

 

[Wildswanderer]

TLDR: convince me a government could be a moral system.

Government is immoral. Anarchism is the only moral system. I'm sure about this. My religious beliefs fluctuate. My political beliefs have too, but from a super statist (republican) to a mild statist (Libertarian) and then finally to an anarchist. My political beliefs evolved away from statism.

To be a statist is to hold a view of any government system as legitimate.

So essentially everyone on this site except @Heyo and @syo (your an anarchist, right syo? I think I remember right). Any other anarchists here?

Don't get me wrong, anarchism isn't some small movement. The government would like you to think the anarchist movement is small, and don't even want you to know about it.

Anywho it seems like 99% of the world are statists. Every single government indoctrinates their populace to be statists. An obvious example is the pledge of allegiance every day in public school.

So, I am in the minority here. I'm open to being wrong. I really am. So, convince me that a form of government could be a moral system.

I say it is immoral because the existence of a state entails people having control over me and my property. No one, even if they claim to be a state, has a right over my body or property. A state is merely individuals, bandits if you will.

And, by the way, all goods and services can be provided in the absence of a state. There would still be roads and firemen. That's a tangent though.

How can anarchy be moral? It basically works on the principal that whoever's strongest gets the most stuff.

 

[PureX]

Then the government is its own detriment to it's "purpose". By monopolizing essential goods and services (such as defense services), it decreases the quality and increases the price.

Maintaining the ability to defend the society that a government serves is a fundamental responsibility of that government. To do that requires money, and to get that money requires taxation. As do the many other necessary services that government is charged with rendering.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Read Thomas Paine and then we'll get back to this.

I'll take that as a yes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'll take that as a yes.

No, he actually wrote an organized state becomes more necessary as society grows and becomes more complex.
So, go read him and we'll return to this point.

 

[an anarchist]

So you've fatally undermined your own argument right there.

Well, not really. The government has damaged the economy by existing, making me getting food stamps necessary. If there was no government, everyone would be generally wealthier, including perhaps me. And there would still be charity and food banks.

 

[Left Coast]

Well, not really. The government has damaged the economy by existing, making me getting food stamps necessary. If there was no government, everyone would be generally wealthier, including perhaps me.

Prove it.

 

[an anarchist]

Prove it.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I rather plead ignorance than shoddily explain Austrian economics.
I agree with the morality behind Austrian economics, which is why I support it fully. How exactly everything would work and the claims this field asserts, however, I'm not well versed enough to prove it to another. Like saying, "government damages economy" I've read in my ancap book and it was explained to me. Monopolies are bad, free markets are good, yada yada. Best I can do at this point really is echo these assertions. Give me time though.
Though I did post this in political debates, the OP is asking you guys to prove government is moral to me, as I know I ain't convincing anyone the opposite.

 

[Left Coast]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I rather plead ignorance than shoddily explain Austrian economics.
I agree with the morality behind Austrian economics, which is why I support it fully. How exactly everything would work and the claims this field asserts, however, I'm not well versed enough to prove it to another. Like saying, "government damages economy" I've read in my ancap book and it was explained to me. Monopolies are bad, free markets are good, yada yada. Best I can do at this point really is echo these assertions. Give me time though.
Though I did post this in political debates, the OP is asking you guys to prove government is moral to me, as I know I ain't convincing anyone the opposite.

Two questions to follow up:

1) if you can't explain the reasons to someone else, how did these sources convince you?

2) what does it mean for something to be moral, to you?

 

[an anarchist]

1) if you can't explain the reasons to someone else, how did these sources convince you?

The reasoning behind it convinces me, is the morality behind it (I'll get to your second question, sorry I missed it earlier)
Government itself is evil. I can explain that. The economics side of how government damages economies and how free markets work im not the most educated on. As I read and study more what anarcho capitalist philosophers say it make sense to me when it comes to economics. Example, all economists agree monopolies are bad for the consumers. Government is the biggest monopoly as they monopolize plenty of essential services. So obviously from an economic standpoint, it’s bad for us.

2) what does it mean for something to be moral, to you?

I think from a political pov, the non aggression principle (NAP) is a good place to start defining moral.
Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia
By existing, the government is in constant violation of the NAP. I believe the NAP is a moral system, and governments cannot abide by it. So I have my reasons for being an anarchist, I’m not completely uninformed on the subject

Edit: noticed I repeated myself a bit with this post. Oh well sorry

 

[Heyo]

The moment "anarchy" occurs, the bullyboys will pop up and start ordering everyone to do their bidding. And they will become the new method of social governance. "Anarchy" can only exist for a very short time. It's simply not a function of human nature.

That is exactly the reason anarchy can't work today. There are just too many people with a negative image of man. I blame (Abrahamic) religion for that. The assumption that everybody is as bad a person as you are justifies, in your mind, to be a bad person.