Government is Irrational.

[Cato]

And if you like Government, I recommend you move to North Korea.

And if you don't like Government, I recommend you move to Antarctica. I hear the land is cheap, and there isn't much in the way of government to inhibit your utopia building.

[little_monkey]

How do you propose that a country be free from the initiation of violence?

Haven't you heard, Joseph? Everybody is just going to start being nice to each other. Those that don't will be shunned. That'll teach em the error of their ways.

I predict that won't last for no more than a nanosecond.

[Koolay]

And if you like Government, I recommend you move to North Korea.

And if you don't like Government, I recommend you move to Antarctica. I hear the land is cheap, and there isn't much in the way of government to inhibit your utopia building.

The utopia of the non initiation of violence...

As opposed to the non utopia of a group of people initiating violence upon others to make the world a better place?

---

Those countries are not free from the initiation of violence. I made it very clear, the initiation of violence is wrong, the costume of your masters are irrelevant.

And if you like Government, I recommend you move to North Korea.

As several people on this thread have pointed out, no society exists without the initiation of violence. Even your pretend Loonatarian utopia would have it.

If you are going to insult me then this conversation is over.

[genkaus]

The utopia of the non initiation of violence...

As opposed to the non utopia of a group of people initiating violence upon others to make the world a better place?

Atleast its realistic.

If you are going to insult me then this conversation is over.

Also, because you have been proven wrong.

[Walking Void]

Keep quiet and vote Ventura for 2016.

[Koolay]

The utopia of the non initiation of violence...

As opposed to the non utopia of a group of people initiating violence upon others to make the world a better place?

Atleast its realistic.

Could you expand on this, why is it unrealistic for people to act voluntarily ?

[bennyboy]

Atleast its realistic.

Could you expand on this, why is it unrealistic for people to act voluntarily ?

You are making a strange syllogism: anarchists act voluntarily, therefore all people who act voluntarily must be anarchists.

You see government as an impediment to liberty. This is true in a sense; certainly you cannot choose to do whatever you want to without restriction. To allow you this right would be to ask humanity to trust in your peaceful and honest nature.

That's fine for you. But I am not willing to extend this trust to all members of humanity. I've met a large cross section of our species, and a bigger group of selfish douchebags, lying thieves, and illogical bullshitters I could never hope to meet. If those pricks are free to act on their own logic, motivations, and education, then this will result in a net LOSS of liberty for me. And that's why we need government. Human beings are douchebags by nature, and we need a mechanism by which to limit that nature. And the ones who most want unlimited freedoms, in my opinion, are usually the biggest douchebags of all-- and I'm glad there is a government to keep them reigned in.

[genkaus]

Atleast its realistic.

Could you expand on this, why is it unrealistic for people to act voluntarily ?

It isn't. That's why your position is unrealistic. People always initiate violence voluntarily. History is full of examples of people voluntarily initiating violence upon others while the examples of doing so involuntarily are few and far in between.

---

You are making a strange syllogism: anarchists act voluntarily, therefore all people who act voluntarily must be anarchists.

You see government as an impediment to liberty. This is true in a sense; certainly you cannot choose to do whatever you want to without restriction. To allow you this right would be to ask humanity to trust in your peaceful and honest nature.

That's fine for you. But I am not willing to extend this trust to all members of humanity. I've met a large cross section of our species, and a bigger group of selfish douchebags, lying thieves, and illogical bullshitters I could never hope to meet. If those pricks are free to act on their own logic, motivations, and education, then this will result in a net LOSS of liberty for me. And that's why we need government. Human beings are douchebags by nature, and we need a mechanism by which to limit that nature. And the ones who most want unlimited freedoms, in my opinion, are usually the biggest douchebags of all-- and I'm glad there is a government to keep them reigned in.

His idea is not only strange - it is illogical and unrealistic. Perfect liberty for all - liberty without rules and limits - is a self-contradictory principle. If I have the complete liberty to do whatever I want, then I should be able to do whatever I want with you and yours, which automatically imposes limits on your liberty. The only logical and realistic approach to liberty is that I should be able to do whatever I want within the limit of not encroaching upon you. Government is necessary to objectively identify, determine and impose these limits.

[Tonus]

Human beings are douchebags by nature, and we need a mechanism by which to limit that nature.

I don't agree with that. I think that human beings, by-and-large, are willing to cooperate and work towards common goals in an organized manner. But I think that this only works well in small communities where everyone in the group knows one another and shunning an uncooperative person is very effective at protecting the group. In large societies where you can't know everyone (which is to say, communities where the group is larger than 150-200 people) trust breaks down and the small number of people who really are douchebags can do considerable harm. Thus, we turn to the rule of law and to systems for protecting the group from the few who would harm it.

Which is the problem that I see with Koolay's vision of the future. Yes, we can raise new generations of children to be more considerate and less prone to "initiating violence." But even if we manage to train the large majority of them, you need only a relative few to cause significant harm to society. Especially a society like the global community today, which is so interconnected and interdependent.

[bennyboy]

Human beings are douchebags by nature, and we need a mechanism by which to limit that nature.

I don't agree with that. I think that human beings, by-and-large, are willing to cooperate and work towards common goals in an organized manner. But I think that this only works well in small communities where everyone in the group knows one another and shunning an uncooperative person is very effective at protecting the group.

Shunning an uncooperative person is an act of government, at least from the shunned person's point of view; who are those other people, he'd think, to decide to punish him for not obeying their dictates? If it was Koolay, he'd be complaining, "You guys are denying me my liberty to fart in our bomb shelter. I never signed a paper saying I wouldn't." Especially after he'd done it about 20 times and someone got physical with him.

Also, a successful shunning has behind it all the implied social stability of a government. Fast wardward to Mad Max days, and try and shun some big alpha male for harrassing your womenfolk. He's going to be real sorry for himself while he ties you down and rapes them one by one, and coerces all the lesser males into picking up weapons and marching to the next village over. The thing about beneficient anarchy is it only takes one man to decide he's the new sheriff in town to establish a government-- and there are very many men who would be more than happy to step into a power void and do just that. And why shouldn't they? There's nothing but benefit for a guy who can get away with making himself king if he can get away with it.