Once again you show a fundamental lack of understanding of human nature. The fact you think that everyone is all going to just be play nice and be fair in a world without a governing body is hilarious. People can barely manage that with oversight.
When did I ever say that I believe everyone can be nice to each other without the belief in "government" and "authority"? Stop putting words in my mouth please, I never argued such a thing. I'm well aware human nature isn't perfect, which is why it is silly and destructive to believe some humans should have power over others.
Your perfect world is in reality a world where people go about doing whatever they please without any regard for anyone else because there's nothing preventing them from doing that anymore.
You accuse me of not understanding human nature when you're the one not understanding what I'm advocating, or why "governments" aren't legitimate. Again, I never said the world would be perfect if people stopped imagining those in "government" and "authority" should be obeyed just because they write things down and call it "law". However, the world would be in a much better state, as people wouldn't believe the evil committed by the people acting on behalf of those in "authority", such as droning, instigating war, and theft, is acceptable just because it was ordered by someone or some people in "authority".
Human beings are innately selfish creatures that need oversight and governance to keep each other in check.
This argument is completely contradictory. If humans are "innately selfish", what do you think they are going to do with power? To use your own words: do you think those in "authority" are "all going to play nice and be fair" and not abuse their power?
It's ironic how you say I'm the one imagining a fantasy world, when it's you who believes giving those in "government" power creates a better world, when there is so much evidence that proves the contrary: the idea of "authority" makes corruptible human beings fight for that power and misuse it to extremes, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Kim Jong-un etc.
Also, what acts as a deterrent from humans committing harm to each other is the ability for people to defend themselves or others from those who want to inflict harm upon them, which exists without the belief in "government" and "authority".
Fun fact, you don't need to put quotation marks on a word when describing what it legitimately is.
I already explained in detail why "democracy", "government", and "authority" are not legitimate concepts or institutions. If you don't actually want to think about it, that's not my problem.
Democracy isn't perfect, I'm not going to claim it is.
It's not just imperfect, it's inherently irrational and evil.
It is however a necessity if you want to have a fair and functioning society.
No it's not. What is necessary is people organizing, along with protecting themselves and others.
You think that there's an imbalance of power with democracy?
Obviously. You'd have to be extremely ignorant and/or delusional not to notice those in "democratic governments" have more power and influence than the rest.
Now imagine a world where there's nothing stopping you from mugging someone or killing someone just because you happen to be stronger or have a weapon or have a gang supporting you.
And exactly what would prevent people from organizing to defend themselves? The answer is nothing. By the way, "governments" are the biggest gang around, forcibly taking money from others and calling it "taxation" along with seizing property that isn't theirs and calling it "eminent domain". Changing the name of theft doesn't change the fact that it's theft, and those in "authority" have no right to that money or property just because they say they do.
There's no repercussions to prevent that behaviour in your ideal world..
Yes there are, it's called people defending themselves, others, or hiring others to defend them.
...so it's going to happen a lot more than it already does..
No it won't, because the victims won't see the criminals violating their rights as legitimate if they are in "authority".
...and in your eyes that's perfectly okay because there's no higher authority preventing that.
Again, what prevents evil is the ability to defend against it, not the belief in "government" or "authority".
You're naive idealism completely ignores what people are actually like.
You seem to have a pretty pessimistic view of humans. When was the last time you or someone you know was attacked by someone? Do you see a lot of people killing or harming each other every day as you walk the streets of where you live? You must be horrified to leave your house. (If you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic, because I see you live in Madrid, a considerably developed city compared to others). Also, just in case you forgot, you're a human too. Do you feel the urge to attack someone right now? How often have stolen or killed? The point is, not everyone is the same, and not everyone is violent.
So basically what I said is correct. You don't like that there's a power above you that you have to obey.
This higher power you speak of are just humans like me. I don't see how they are "above" me, because they aren't. I'm not going to apologize or feel guilty about not believing I have to blindly obey people called "politicians".
You can sugar coat it however you like, but you just don't like not being the boss.
I'm not sugarcoating anything, and I don't want to be the boss of anyone. I'd prefer to voluntarily interact with people without using force. I want the same in return (people not using force against me).
Authority exists because the people give the group in power authority.
Not exactly, we were taught in elementary school that it's necessary and legitimate. I never willfully gave power to anyone; I was just tricked into accepting a moronic, irrational and destructive idea called "government", which I no longer believe in.
That is how democracy works. If the people as a whole (or a majority) disagree with what the leadership is doing and find it immoral or unfair then they can simply vote in someone who they think is.
This just proves you barely contemplated my original post, as I already addressed this ineffective argument:
Philosophizer said:
If you?re thinking: ?If the majority of people don?t agree with some of the government?s laws, they can vote for politicians in the coming elections who will pass laws they do agree with?, that is missing the point entirely, as that thought doesn?t address whether those laws should be obeyed and/or enforced in the meantime simply because they are ?laws?.
If a law is immoral or unjust and you reply with ?It can be repealed or changed when other politicians are voted in?, that is like saying: ?Yes, it?s bad to steal, but the person who was stolen from can always recover what was stolen from him or her.? Does the fact that he can get back what was stolen from him make it okay for the thief to steal from him in the first place? Does the fact that a bad law can be changed later make it okay for that bad law to be enforced in the meantime?
That's functional, unlike a bunch of people doing whatever they want because they personally think their actions are moral even if they bring harm to others.
For one, people will never be able to do "whatever they want" without consequences because others don't want to be robbed, attacked, killed etc. and will defend themselves or get others to.
Secondly, what you just described is exactly how "government" and "democracy" functions: the majority believes they can give those in "government" the right to impose whatever laws they pass simply because they voted for it, even if those laws are harmful.
If you donated that full amount to charity it would still be wrong. That's not your money. You didn't earn it. You have no right to it.
Obviously.
I guess it's a good thing we live in a world with governments so people don't just go stealing from others because they think it's right (no matter the harm to the victim), huh?
Oh yeah, thank goodness for a gang of thieves that call themselves "government" and extorts 30% of everyone's income and calls it "taxation". (Yes, I'm using sarcasm again).
Government is the price we pay to live in a civilized society. I think you (Philosophizer) are looking at it the wrong way. Of course by nature government reduces freedom- just as I lose money when I buy a video game. I lose the freedom to spend that money, but I receive greater value in return. Same thing with government. You might not be able to keep 100% of your income, but you get police and fire protection, among a bazillion other things government does. And yes, government isn't perfect, but I think its been well established that we can change the rules in a democracy and we consent to our representatives.
The fact that some of the money those people in "government" steal from their subjects goes to services that can be used by their subjects doesn't make it moral. It's still theft. Also, I know plenty of people don't consent to their "representatives", as the number of anarchists and voluntaryists is growing daily. By the way, a significant amount of the population in many areas of the world don't vote in elections. Did they consent to their "representatives"?
Also about fairness and equality.... define fair and define equality.
I define fairness and equality as everyone being able to live life the way they want to as long as they don't harm others, and being able to decide for yourself how to spend all of what you earn after paying off debts and other obligations.
Economic equality? That will never happen under any free market conditions.
And it doesn't have to. Fairness does not equal equality and vice versa.
Political equality? Well, there is no government, soo...Social equality? unrelated.
Society will never be equal when some people in "authority" are imagined to have extra rights and power over others.
You live in a fantasy world. We already had this mess with your last thread where you said people who voted for X couldnt complain about Y and I explained to you then why what you're presenting is baseless conjecture at best. I really struggle to hold my temper with you because people like you legitimately make Ancoms look stupid and by extension, damage virtually anyone linked to Marxism.
If you ask me, you're the stupid one for believing those in "government" have to be obeyed just because they have a title. In addition, ancoms make themselves look stupid by claiming anarchy and communism are compatible, which is ridiculous. In communism, the proletariat will be a ruling class, and having a ruling class works against freedom, fairness and equality.
How the hell do you think we will enforce what is and isn't self defence in a society without law and order?
How the hell does "government" solve this problem? If we truly can't decide what is self-defense or not, then laws will either be stalled, not passed, or repealed over and over again.
Anyways, it's pretty simple to determine if it's self-defense or not: if you weren't attacked first and you use violence against someone else, you're obviously not using violence in self-defense. If you were attacked first and use violence in self-defense against the person or people who are attacking you, then you are using violence in self-defense.
The only reason we have "rights" is because we decided that we have those rights.
We are
entitled to those rights, regardless of whether others (including politicians) agree or not, and have the right to protect them.
You remove the thing that enforces the protection of those "rights" and guess what skippy?
Skippy? Seriously, grow up and get over yourself for your own sake.
You have no rights. Your property? Mine now, I'm gonna stab you, your family and I'm gonna take that stuff. There's no police anymore and good luck defending yourself after me and my gang have driven knives through you and left you bleeding on the floor. That's the world you're advocating. Where the strong and numerically superior strive and no one is left to help the weak. That's not equality. It's time to drop this fantasy of yours, you are outright wrong in every possible way.
This is outright nonsense. Police are just people with training, guns and other equipment, which can and will exist without "government". I can buy a rifle and hire others to protect me, and you'll be shot dead before you even reach my doorstep. Good luck forming a gang when the majority of people don't want one around, won't view you as legitimate and will feel justified in defending themselves from you and your gang members. Like gimmepie, you're the one who is living in a fantasy world, ignoring the injustice and devastation "governments" and people acting on behalf of "authority" have caused throughout history.
