First, your argument (or at least in part) is completely self-defeating:
-"no one can confidently make such an argument using evidence, because the future is unpredictable and uncontrollable."
-"Unfortunately, it is true that evil will always exist. You can't prevent everyone from murdering, stealing, attacking and so on."
You can't argue both points.
If you read the beginning of my article carefully, you would have noticed that I said you can't predict
everything, not that you can't predict
anything. Also, I can argue both points, because it's pretty obvious that at least
some humans will always kill, steal etc. The future is still unpredictable and uncontrollable because you can't predict when and where these acts will happen, and you can't stop all of them.
Second, you are just plain wrong here:
-"To tackle the first point: it is not "human nature" to want to obey others."
Humans accept authority in so many different ways. We have parents (and no, not every child is as rebellious as you think), teachers, bosses, CEOs, executives, etc. Our entire society is a chain of people obeying other people because that is the most efficient way to run society. I don't see why politicians and bureaucrats are any different.
You don't have to obey your teachers or bosses outside school or your workplace, and they can't force you to stay once the terms you agreed to at your job expire. Politicians are different because they can make laws that you have to obey even when you're on your own property, such as having to get a permit to build something, preventing you from owning items like some firearms, even if you just want to keep it locked away etc. They can even take your property using "eminent domain".
If it is true that it is human nature to desire freedom ("True human nature is a desire for freedom to be able to experience life to the fullest"), then why is it that there have been no anarchist societies similar to the one you advocate for?
Because people also want protection, and they have been taught that governments are the best way to provide it, when in reality, that is one of the biggest lies, if not the biggest lie. You don't need to obey others for protection; you can voluntarily hire others without being forced to.
And why (in another self-defeating argument) do you simultaneously claim that "humanity has never grasped, and still doesn't grasp, the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression fully"? Which is it?
This isn't a "self-defeating" argument or a contradiction. I said humanity has never grasped these principles
fully. They understand the non-aggression and self-ownership principles for the most part, but don't apply them when it comes to the government, because they wrongfully assume the government has the right to violate these principles as long as it's "the law".
To top it all, you employ circular reasoning:
-"Since it is logically and morally impossible to refute voluntarism"
Perhaps if that was true anarchism would be taken more seriously.
Firstly, it is true, and secondly, it's not that anarchism isn't being taken seriously; it's that not enough people understand anarchy and voluntaryism yet.
You can keep trying to convince yourself that governments are legitimate, but it's easy to prove they're not. Along with all the arguments I have made in this thread, there is plenty more material covering this aspect just for starters.
https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Poli...keywords=michael+humer+problem+with+authority
https://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Rose/dp/145075063X
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIMnIh10po0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMoPBDz5ycA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kza3otq0jc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOWpQrSDc5w
https://steemit.com/politics/@censoredrefugee/how-i-became-a-voluntaryist
Not only this, can you imagine how unproductive humanity would be without a structure. We'd never get off this rock...
I said this before, but I'll say it again: organization can exist without society obeying a particular institution or ruling class like a government.
You don't think leaders have that option? Good politicians are leaders.
Some politicians are also leaders, but
all of them are rulers, because they force others to obey them.
So in other words, a gov't forms to handle things that affect everyone. Without a gov't how do you determine who the real doctors are?
Those who study medicine rigorously.
That's your opinion. I think there are plenty of rational and moral reasons to have laws and a gov't.
Then you still don't even understand what a government truly is, or the concept behind "laws". The law isn't about justice or morality, it is about obeying it solely because it's the law. For example, you can't just argue in court that you broke the law because you believed it was unfair or immoral: you would still be prosecuted because you refused to obey it. In addition, in the legal system, the job of the jury is to review the evidence and decide whether you broke the law, not whether you should be punished for breaking the law in the first place.
A politician is not a "ruler". If a leader says that the people following him must follow certain rules so that the people stay safe, why wouldn't people agree with him?
If the leader says "no raping children" would reasonable people object? If the leader says "must provide proof of guilt in a public trial" who would object. Boom, gov't.
Because then it becomes about following those rules simply because he declared them as rules, not necessarily because those rules are beneficial.
People shouldn't obey others, because everyone is flawed and susceptible to corruption. Instead, they should abide by the only two principles needed for a peaceful society: the self-ownership and non-aggression principles, where 1) you get to decide how to live your life because it's yours, and 2) don't attack others.
I convince 400 out of 500 people to provide me with funds for a road, can i deny use of the road to the 100? How do I enforce it? If no one else cares? They can use the road they paid for.
Yes, and this happens now even with government and taxes. They can't prevent everyone who didn't pay taxes from using roads or other public services.
Nah. People realized that leading via group voting/committee is really ineffective. Large problems are always someone else's issues. Where does the camp waste go? Who cleans the latrine? Who arbitrates arguments?
There doesn't always have to be some particular person or group of people that has to make these decisions. People need to resolve these issues as equals, because they are equal, and nothing can change that fact. They can voluntarily form a hierarchy, but they can't be forced to join or stay in one.
Probably. People should ask how changes to society will work or not. Means you aren't blindly following a fad....
Fair enough, but in this context, I was referring to those who argued that slavery is moral and necessary.
I don't vote for politicians that seek to make me a servant. I vote for politicians that support my views and I inform politicians that I support if laws are being considered that I don't support.
You may not want to be the politicians' servant, but you can't stop them from passing and imposing laws you don't approve of. The only way to be a truly equal and free individual is to recognize that you shouldn't vote for any politician, because that legitimizes them forcing you to obey them.
Tell that to the large and armed group of thugs that have decided to take over an area and force everyone in it to provide them with goods. Anarchy only works if every single person is completely identical in not wanting anything that someone else has. Good luck with that.
Okay, if you want to make up random scenarios that you can't even guarantee will happen, I can too: I have created an even larger group of people trained in combat for self-defense that protects my neighborhood. Problem solved. Also, like I mentioned before,
anarchy is not a system. You don't need everyone to be nice to live in a voluntary society, you just need people to realize that they are equal and free individuals, which means no one has the right to force them to obey him/her, even if he calls his commands "laws".
Who decides I "legitimately earned" or own something?
You don't need anyone deciding this, because whether they decide if you did or not doesn't make it any more true or false. You either earned it legitimately by working for it, or you didn't.
How do I register that I earned/own it?
You wouldn't need to "register it", but you can demonstrate how you worked for it.
What about land my parents owned? Can I not inherit that land?
Sure, unless for whatever reason, they give that land to someone else.
What if my neighbors decide to support the other person? I could lay claim to 50 acres of prime unspoiled land simply for the view. Others come along years later and want to use that land for whatever. They offer bribes to the neighbors. Ignore the requests for help and we'll give you parts of his land. Now what?
This is where the principle of homesteading comes in. You can't simply declare a piece of land is yours for it to be rightfully yours; you have to develop it, work on it or use it.
