Convince me government is moral.

[Left Coast]

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.

The reason monopolies are problematic is because they have a profit motive. So when they have a market cornered, they can price gouge. Governments do not have a profit motive (at least not all of them). Some services for society don't be to be capitalized on as a money making venture (and turning them into a money making venture is actually very problematic).

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

How is the NAP enforced?

 

[PureX]

That is exactly the reason anarchy can't work today.

It never worked, ever. It's not within the scope of human nature. Even the smallest tribes had their chiefs. Someone the people could go to, to resolve disputes. Every social species has their "pecking order".

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.

Abrahamic religions are not responsible for the greed and lust for power or the senseless ego-tripping that is destroying the planet and murdering millions of humans every year. That's built into the DNA of humanity.

 

[Heyo]

It never worked, ever. It's not within the scope of human nature. Even the smallest tribes had their chiefs. Someone the people could go to, to resolve disputes. Every social species has their "pecking order".

There have been attempts at anarchistic societies and they rarely self destructed. Their authoritarian neighbours had too much panic that it could work that they made sure it didn't.

Abrahamic religions are not responsible for the greed and lust for power or the senseless ego-tripping that is destroying the planet and murdering millions of humans every year.

I never said that. Abrahamic religions are responsible for you (and others) to think that way. You simply have no confidence in humans because it is a dogma that humans are inherently flawed. I know a few who aren't.

 

[PureX]

There have been attempts at anarchistic societies and they rarely self destructed. Their authoritarian neighbours had too much panic that it could work that they made sure it didn't.

I never said that. Abrahamic religions are responsible for you (and others) to think that way. You simply have no confidence in humans because it is a dogma that humans are inherently flawed. I know a few who aren't.

I am aware of no anarchist societies, anywhere, that lasted for more than a very short time.

And humans ARE flawed.

 

[an anarchist]

Some services for society don't be to be capitalized on as a money making venture (and turning them into a money making venture is actually very problematic).

As a pure capitalist, I have to disagree with you here. First off, turning everything into a money making venture as you call it is the only moral option as opposed to government control. This is because a free market is based on freedom of association, so it is in not in violation of the NAP. Government control of economic sectors creates a violation of the NAP, does it not? In order to accrue resources for their expenses and personal profit, governments extort people within a certain geographical location.
We probably disagree on competition. I see competition as inherently healthy to the economy. So, complete competition in every economic field is good.

I'll get to your second question want to read a bit on it first

 

[Left Coast]

As a pure capitalist, I have to disagree with you here. First off, turning everything into a money making venture as you call it is the only moral option as opposed to government control. This is because a free market is based on freedom of association, so it is in not in violation of the NAP.

Free markets don't exist, and never have.

Government control of economic sectors creates a violation of the NAP, does it not?

No. If anything, governments are necessary to ensure that things like property rights are enforced.

In order to accrue resources for their expenses and personal profit, governments extort people within a certain geographical location.

No, they don't. In the absence of governments, though, individuals and corporations would certainly do that.

We probably disagree on competition. I see competition as inherently healthy to the economy. So, complete competition in every economic field is good.

As with so many things, moderation is key. Governments help ensure competition is fair.

 

[Heyo]

No. If anything, governments are necessary to ensure that things like property rights are enforced.

And as "Property is theft" - Proudhon, the government is there to protect the thieves.

 

[Estro Felino]

And as "Property is theft" - Proudhon, the government is there to protect the thieves.

In the 19th century, surely.
In the 20th the people figured out that those Freemasons had made the French Revolution just to replace the aristocrats in the tyranny. So after realizing that, they understood the problem is the élites, and that the State is the People. Sovereignty belongs to the People and not to the élites.

 

[Left Coast]

And as "Property is theft" - Proudhon, the government is there to protect the thieves.

A world without property is a world in which theft does not exist.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

Perhaps you should first convince us that you are able and willing to (a) provide a viable definition of "a moral system," and (b) draw reasonable inference from reasonable arguments.

 

[metis]

Anarchism is the only moral system.

Anarchy has never worked in the long run and is usually replaced by a totalitarian leadership so as to restore order.

 

[Heyo]

Anarchy has never worked in the long run and is usually replaced by a totalitarian leadership so as to restore order.

Examples? I can only think of those where anarchist societies where crushed by their neighbours. A working anarchy would be a nightmare to any authoritarian. Who would ever again follow a leader if people knew how superfluous they are? That's why anarchists are attacked and defamed at every instance, in Catalonia, Bavaria, Romania and Russia.

 

[metis]

Examples? I can only think of those where anarchist societies where crushed by their neighbours. A working anarchy would be a nightmare to any authoritarian. Who would ever again follow a leader if people knew how superfluous they are? That's why anarchists are attacked and defamed at every instance, in Catalonia, Bavaria, Romania and Russia.

Where is there an example with an anarchy that succeeded in the long run? With no government there is no order because there's no one to enforce order. Police, for example, are an extension of government.

 

[Heyo]

Where is there an example with an anarchy that succeeded in the long run?

I asked you for an example where anarchy fell by its own, not by outward influence. How about you answer first before you ask questions?

 

[metis]

I asked you for an example where anarchy fell by its own, not by outward influence. How about you answer first before you ask questions?

I asked you first as there's no example that I am aware of that has it that an anarchy would be able to stand on its own without falling into chaos. The closest one could likely get is with the small New England direct democracies, but even direct democracy is still a form of government.

Again, please find an example of any on-going anarchist society. Good luck.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I asked you first as there's no example that I am aware of that has it that an anarchy would be able to stand on its own without falling into chaos. The closest one could likely get is with the small New England direct democracies, but even direct democracy is still a form of government.

Again, please find an example of any on-going anarchist society. Good luck.

In theory the closest we can get is a small self-sufficient group of hunter-gathers, which is the only group of humans in the world. The moment there are more than one, we are in the 4 Fs of biology.

 

[metis]

In theory the closest we can get is a small self-sufficient group of hunter-gathers, which is the only group of humans in the world. The moment there are more than one, we are in the 4 Fs of biology.

In anthropology, we do know that even these groups had a "pecking order", thus a government of sorts.

There's an old English adage that if two Englishmen were stranded on an uninhabited desert island, the first thing they'd do would be to elect a government.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In anthropology, we do know that even these groups had a "pecking order", thus a government of sorts.

There's an old English adage that if two Englishmen were stranded on an uninhabited desert island, the first thing they'd do would be to elect a government.

Yeah, hence the closest. Anarchy is a great theory, but the wrong species.

 

[Stevicus]

I asked you first as there's no example that I am aware of that has it that an anarchy would be able to stand on its own without falling into chaos. The closest one could likely get is with the small New England direct democracies, but even direct democracy is still a form of government.

Again, please find an example of any on-going anarchist society. Good luck.

I agree that it would be quite difficult to find any purely anarchistic society that actually worked and lasted for any length of time. However, one might find examples of societies or situations where there was minimal government involvement in people's day to day lives, such as in the Old West or in the sparsely-settled frontier regions far away from any established government. While there was still a nominal government they might ultimately have had to answer to, I can see where some might have been led to believe that they didn't really need any kind of government to survive.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree that it would be quite difficult to find any purely anarchistic society that actually worked and lasted for any length of time. However, one might find examples of societies or situations where there was minimal government involvement in people's day to day lives, such as in the Old West or in the sparsely-settled frontier regions far away from any established government. While there was still a nominal government they might ultimately have had to answer to, I can see where some might have been led to believe that they didn't really need any kind of government to survive.

Let take a person in a remote part of the world, which still trades with other humans and even goes to the doctor if need. Then there is a government, for enforcing rules of protecting trade and what the doctor can do. But some people can't understand that.