Convince me government is moral.

[Heyo]

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.

Or in Christiania. They have their own little problems and technically it is still a district of
København but it exists for over 50 years now. Although I wouldn't call it a full fledged anarchy.

Most people, at my estimate between 90 and 95%, are tribal in nature. I.e. they are leader/follower types and also susceptible to pear pressure and they can't even imagine a society without rulers.
A few people don't live in that box. They neither want to rule nor follow. They are usually very independent and highly mobile. Put a bunch of those on an island and you have a chance of getting to an anarchistic society. But don't tell anybody.

 

[an anarchist]

Free markets don't exist, and never have.

I agree, they don't. The existence of government makes this so. A free market society would be one absent of a state.

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

I disagree. Every government taxes their citizenry, for example. That is a violation of property rights right there. The government literally requires a systematic regular violation of property rights (such as taxation) in order to function. So your logic does not follow.
It is hypothetical how exactly property rights would be protected in a free market society. a free market society is in the realm of hypotheicals. Economic theory can provide the logic behind how things would work (supply and demand for example), and real world examples can be used to illustrate free market economics in practice.
Have we ever had a society where protection and law was outsourced to the market and private individuals/entities? I don't think so. I do know this however: if there is an opening in the market, it will be filled. Right now government has a monopoly on enforcement (which many laws they enforce are a violation of the NAP). If protection was provided by the market, the quality would be better and the costs lower.
I can provide some hypotheticals on how it might work, but I need more time [^:

Governments help ensure competition is fair.

They do the exact opposite. Ever heard of lobbyists? The government picks and chooses who succeeds. I'm sure if I look through some lectures I've watched I can provide good examples of this.

 

[Heyo]

Have we ever had a society where protection and law was outsourced to the market and private individuals/entities? I don't think so. I do know this however: if there is an opening in the market, it will be filled. Right now government has a monopoly on enforcement (which many laws they enforce are a violation of the NAP). If protection was provided by the market, the quality would be better and the costs lower.

Have you ever played Shadowrun or read novels set in that environment? They have private law enforcement and the city of Berlin is a functioning anarchy. There are multiple powerful entities in the city but none dare to declare themselves rulers, knowing well that every other power will be at their throat at once. So they all are happy that the others don't rule and do everything necessary to keep that status.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

It helps if they follow the same religion and the same god. That way, they (and even the doctor, theoretically) would follow the rules of their faith, in which case they wouldn't need the rules or structure of a secular government.

 

[Stevicus]

Have we ever had a society where protection and law was outsourced to the market and private individuals/entities? I don't think so. I do know this however: if there is an opening in the market, it will be filled. Right now government has a monopoly on enforcement (which many laws they enforce are a violation of the NAP). If protection was provided by the market, the quality would be better and the costs lower.
I can provide some hypotheticals on how it might work, but I need more time [^:

I think probably the more primitive feudal governments probably would be a government of private individuals. They were, essentially, business owners, though instead of calling themselves "CEO," they called themselves "Lord" (or maybe "Baron" or "Prince").

A more modern example might look something like the structure of organized crime, such as the commission of Mob families, or the cartels of Latin America.

Trouble with that kind of set up is that, not unlike the tiny kingdoms and warlords of olden times, they had no effective method of settling disputes, so they're constantly fighting and killing each other all the time.

 

[Stevicus]

Or in Christiania. They have their own little problems and technically it is still a district of
København but it exists for over 50 years now. Although I wouldn't call it a full fledged anarchy.

Most people, at my estimate between 90 and 95%, are tribal in nature. I.e. they are leader/follower types and also susceptible to pear pressure and they can't even imagine a society without rulers.
A few people don't live in that box. They neither want to rule nor follow. They are usually very independent and highly mobile. Put a bunch of those on an island and you have a chance of getting to an anarchistic society. But don't tell anybody.

Yes, I've encountered a number of people who think along similar lines. A lot of them talk about living off the grid and preparing for armageddon - or perhaps some kind of zombie apocalypse or Mad Max type scenario, which is how people might imagine anarchism to be in practice.

 

[Heyo]

Yes, I've encountered a number of people who think along similar lines. A lot of them talk about living off the grid and preparing for armageddon - or perhaps some kind of zombie apocalypse or Mad Max type scenario, which is how people might imagine anarchism to be in practice.

Uh - not my dream of anarchism. I want an anarchism of the future, not one of the stone age.

 

[Left Coast]

I agree, they don't. The existence of government makes this so. A free market society would be one absent of a state.

No no. The existence of government doesn't make it so. The nature of a free market makes it so. It's a fantasy.

I disagree. Every government taxes their citizenry, for example. That is a violation of property rights right there.

No, it isn't.

How do you determine who's property belongs to who?

It is hypothetical how exactly property rights would be protected in a free market society. a free market society is in the realm of hypotheicals.

Yeah, exactly. Because it's unworkable as a system. It only exists in the heads of 20-something dudes. Have you noticed?

I do know this however: if there is an opening in the market, it will be filled. Right now government has a monopoly on enforcement (which many laws they enforce are a violation of the NAP). If protection was provided by the market, the quality would be better and the costs lower.

You have no basis for that claim other than your imagination.

In a government free vacuum, you would simply have power individuals and corporations fill the void, creating monopolies in the market. We already experienced this in the US, back when regulation of business was far less than now. Research the history of antitrust law in the US (from reputable sources, not whatever ancap youtuber you found). We already know what happens when we try to implement your idea. It's not good.

They do the exact opposite. Ever heard of lobbyists? The government picks and chooses who succeeds. I'm sure if I look through some lectures I've watched I can provide good examples of this.

You think stateless society would be free of lobbyists and people picking and choosing winners? LOL. Lobbyists would be worse. They would simply lobby corporations instead of government. So there would be even fewer rules governing them.

 

[an anarchist]

I disagree. Every government taxes their citizenry, for example. That is a violation of property rights right there. The government literally requires a systematic regular violation of property rights (such as taxation) in order to function. So your logic does not follow.

No, it isn't.

Let's focus on this for now. I would like you to explain to me exactly how taxation is not a violation of property rights.
There are two ways to get property in an ancap society: original appropriation and voluntary exchange. These are the only way to acquire property without violating the NAP.
The government does not acquire taxes through voluntary exchange, though some statists happily pay tribute. The government takes money from me without my consent. Again, please explain how it isn't a violation of property rights, as it is. One of us are confused here

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let's focus on this for now. I would like you to explain to me exactly how taxation is not a violation of property rights.
There are two ways to get property in an ancap society: original appropriation and voluntary exchange. These are the only way to acquire property without violating the NAP.
The government does not acquire taxes through voluntary exchange, though some statists happily pay tribute. The government takes money from me without my consent. Again, please explain how it isn't a violation of property rights, as it is. One of us are confused here

You don't own your property as you. That is a social construct just like takes.
You are not an island. So let me show how it works. You own your own property and you know want to trade with me. Fair enough, but to trade with me, you have to pay taxes otherwise you can't trade with me. Now imagine that enough people believe in that and the rest follows along. Then you can't trade without anyone or leave your property, because that is not just you.
You don't control you and you don't control me, but if you want to trade with us, you pay taxes or you are on your own.

 

[an anarchist]

(from reputable sources, not whatever ancap youtuber you found).

Lol, you are making quite an assumption. Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises are not "ancap YouTubers", they are scholars who present research on economics and illustrate Austrian theory in practice and have systematically shown how governments damage economies. I gotta rewatch their lectures, it's been a minute.

 

[an anarchist]

You don't control you and you don't control me, but if you want to trade with us, you pay taxes or you are on your own.

Explain this to me, I am confused. If I don't pay taxes, you wouldn't want to trade? Like, that's ok, you never have to consent to an exchange. An anarchist will never force their services or products on you, unlike the state.

 

[Left Coast]

Let's focus on this for now. I would like you to explain to me exactly how taxation is not a violation of property rights.
There are two ways to get property in an ancap society: original appropriation and voluntary exchange. These are the only way to acquire property without violating the NAP.

And what happens when there is a dispute about who some property belongs to?

The government does not acquire taxes through voluntary exchange, though some statists happily pay tribute. The government takes money from me without my consent. Again, please explain how it isn't a violation of property rights, as it is. One of us are confused here

Oh, on that I agree. We shall see shortly who.

 

[Left Coast]

Lol, you are making quite an assumption. Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises are not "ancap YouTubers", they are scholars who present research on economics and illustrate Austrian theory in practice and have systematically shown how governments damage economies. I gotta rewatch their lectures, it's been a minute.

You are unable to explain the most basic working features of their ideas, so yes, perhaps do that and let me know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Explain this to me, I am confused. If I don't pay taxes, you wouldn't want to trade? Like, that's ok, you never have to consent to an exchange. An anarchist will never force their services or products on you, unlike the state.

I am a member of the state and I will only trade with you if you follow the rules of the democratic representative state. The state is not foreign to me as I am a member of it and believe in it.

 

[an anarchist]

You are unable to explain the most basic working features of their ideas, so yes, perhaps do that and let me know.

I am not the most educated on this topic, but I made this OP so I could be convinced of statism, not to convince you to be an anarchist. And so far I've been unconvinced by everyone. I debate with you though I'm not educated because I know logically the government is not moral, and that I can explain more or less. So I'm looking for arguments that governments are moral, not to spread the news of anarchism

 

[Left Coast]

I am not the most educated on this topic, but I made this OP so I could be convinced of statism, not to convince you to be an anarchist. And so far I've been unconvinced by everyone. I debate with you though I'm not educated because I know logically the government is not moral, and that I can explain more or less. So I'm looking for arguments that governments are moral, not to spread the news of anarchism

The problem (at least one of them) is that you're expecting a binary answer to this question when the answer is not. Governments are made of people. Imagine if I asked, "are humans moral or immoral?" You would likely say some are more moral than others, and that most of us engage in moral and immoral behavior of varying degrees. Governments are much the same. Governments do often engage in immoral behavior, but they also do a great deal of good. And again, no major society on the planet has functioned without them. And despite their shortcomings they routinely prevent excesses of the marketplace from doing even worse.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not the most educated on this topic, but I made this OP so I could be convinced of statism, not to convince you to be an anarchist. And so far I've been unconvinced by everyone. I debate with you though I'm not educated because I know logically the government is not moral, and that I can explain more or less. So I'm looking for arguments that governments are moral, not to spread the news of anarchism

Oksay, first the problem of luck

First the problem of unlucky people. We are not all born equally for possibilities, so now you are a baby. You are born in ditch along a road and your mother died and other family can't be found. You have no insurance, no inheritance and no money/property to your name.
I take you in and feed you, pay for your schooling, give you housing, clothes and pay for the doctor.
When you turn independent I give you the bill of the money you owe me.

 

[syo]

Government is immoral.

clap*clap*clap