For Those Who Support Anarchy As A Form Of Government

[CrossCuT]

I'm really just an anarchist because of my deep and unending hatred of roads.

 

Haha yeah I feel you! I hate schools

[Winchester]

Haha yeah I feel you! I hate schools

Without roads, there would be no schools. Join us.

[CrossCuT]

Im find with no roads but if I am to be forced to ride a horse...thats where I draw the line. They smell bad

[PhuturePriest]

Im find with no roads but if I am to be forced to ride a horse...thats where I draw the line. They smell bad

 

But horses are pretty. Also, riding a horse is incredibly attractive-looking. Look at this and tell me it's not manly and cool:

 

[4588686]

I don't believe the government has the right to force people to help the poor. If government officials want to make a fund out of their pockets in support of the poor, that's wonderful. But who are you to force someone to give money to the poor?

 

 

You aren't forced.  You live in a country.  These programs were established when other people living in this country voted for somebody who proposed that 'x' should be a rule in the community.  If you fundamentally don't believe that the government should exist then you are free to move somewhere where that is the case.  

[4588686]

The amount of aid that the poor currently (social security, food stands, and, particularly, medicare) receive would not be replicatable without some sort of coordinating agent and an enforcement mechanism to dissuade free riders.  If anarchists can think of a non-governmental way to supply both of those absolutely vital factors without a government which the community broadly agrees ought to have coercive enforcement powers (i.e. a state) then let's hear it.  If not, then let's just admit from the start that the poor would be hit extremely hard by an absence of liberal government.  

 

 

Also, I have a natural right to force people to pay for governmental programs that I like.  

[Aloysius]

I love the non-aggression principle in theory, but I believe it will only be fully realized when we invent Star Trek style replicators.

 

until then, I do believe we should keep the non-aggression principle in mind to remind us that all actions of government are actions of force and violence, and from there always try to think and imagine ways of coordinating anything we can without force and violence, or with a minimum of force and violence.  we should move towards less violent or aggressive applications of state force... ideally in a world without replicators, there'd be a social obligation to pay into these programs and anyone that didn't do so would be publicly shamed and ostracized (with no force having to be initiated against them)... that's not something you can just flip a switch and make happen, but that's the direction I imagine when I imagine humanity going if it ever started moving towards the non-aggression principle.  it's not about no government... it's about non-violent government... it can even be monopolized government if it's a non-violent monopolization.  but like I said, you can't just flip a switch... this is something society has to be able to do at a deeper level than just stopping the violent aspects of the state.  which is why we should just mitigate them as much as possible, move away from the paradigm of a violent state as much as possible, look for supplemental voluntary funding of these programs (in a discussion on this a long time ago, I suggested facetiously a government that's run by bake sales, lol... not that extreme, but seriously, couldn't there be a seeking out of voluntary funding for the good and necessary programs of government right now even while there is a tax system... and if that kind of thing started to be successful, it would make it possible for the actual violence-based taxation structure to lessen the burden)... and hope that eventually someone will invent the food replicator and as soon as that happens we can certainly flip the switch and no longer need government initiation of force.

 

the real problem with flipping the switch is that (1) we already live in an unbalanced world that was unbalanced by fraud and violence (both state and non-state) and it is by no means apparent how we could ever right such an unbalanced power scheme that's inherent to the modern global financial system and (2) because of fallen human nature, human beings will have a tendency not to understand or work in harmony with the natural law principle of the universal destination of goods... and of course that last principle, which is essential to understanding Catholic doctrines on social matters, definitely subverts many of the main preconceptions of those who believe the non-aggression principle actually forbids all government programs for the poor... while it is not easily apparent where to draw the line, if we take it to the absurd extreme we can definitely see that it would be an act of violence against a community if someone hoarded all the natural resources in a given area.  if you did that--totally hoarded all the resources in one area and didn't allow anyone else to have them, even if you were completely within your so called 'property rights' to do so, you would be starving the people in that area... and therefore you would be initiating violence through the exercise of your property rights and it's totally within others rights to respond by violence to repel your attempt to starve them.  now, of course someone, say, for example, making above $200,000/year isn't starving their neighbors... but the more there is an unbalance, the more something in the system is actually committing violence against those who do not have access to these resources.  some generic invisible hand market equilibrium doesn't actually enforce the natural law principle of the universal destination of goods, that market equilibrium is achieved by allowing the 'surplus population' to starve out and decrease, as old Ebenezer would say.

[Era Might]

So my question is what happens to those who can not help themselves?  Such as elderly who have no family to take care of them or children who have no one to care for them or the paralyized person who has no one to care for them or the mentally disabled person who has no one to care for them?  In this form of government who takes care of these people?  Right now in America the government helps these people who can not get help anywhere else.  So in the form of anarchy, who helps these people?  Who is their safety net?  Who supplies them with the needed money to feed, cloth, shelter, medical care and have constant care and supervision? 

 

I'm not against government, but I would just add that I'm wary of saying that the government "takes care of" these people. The government gives them some social infrastructure, but having infrastructure is not a solution in itself. The government gives plenty of people three hots and a cot...it's called prison, but it's also one of our main social illnesses.

 

If your social reality is defined by a chronic reliance on government...that's not a healthy way to live. Forget the public policy debate, it's unhealthy for people, for human beings who have talents, hopes, dreams, potential, etc.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Era Might

[CrossCuT]

I'm not against government, but I would just add that I'm wary of saying that the government "takes care of" these people. The government gives them some social infrastructure, but having infrastructure is not a solution in itself. The government gives plenty of people three hots and a cot...it's called prison, but it's also one of our main social illnesses.

 

If your social reality is defined by a chronic reliance on government...that's not a healthy way to live. Forget the public policy debate, it's unhealthy for people, for human beings who have talents, hopes, dreams, potential, etc.

 

I dont think he has claimed its a healthy way to live. As things are, our country is not doing so hot. No one is saying this is the BEST SOLUTION SINCE FOREVER. He is simply saying that the political agenda anarchist have in abolishing the government will have repercussions for the poor. Government aid doesnt solve any problems, but the fact is we dont seem to have a viable solution enacted at the moment.

 

I do not believe that it is morally justifiable to cut the strings on the poor in order to reach this end goal. If someone can come up with, propose, and set in place a NEW system or method of caring for these people, then I have NO problems with it. But all I am saying is that we cant just pull the rug up from under their feet and pretend we are doing everyone a favor.

 

I know everyone's intentions are good, but it is not morally justifiable. Similarly to how we say "Well, even if the the unborn child comes into a world where it is subject to the adoption system, grows up in poverty, or is a strain on resources...at least at the end of the day we saved a life"

Can we apply the same Catholic principle to this situation? Even if its a financial drain and not the best circumstances, at least at the end of the day we can say we helped people and saved lives.

Edited October 29, 2013 by CrossCuT

[Not The Philosopher]

A lot of these debates tend to involve a lot of talking past each other, since the anarchists are concerned with the question of whether coercion is always an intrinsically evil act, whereas everyone else is concerned with the question of what the social consequences of anarchism would be. These are two separate issues, people.

 

If you think it is the case that coercion is always intrinsically evil, then obviously you cannot do evil so that good can follow, etc.

 

The point is that you can't convince someone like Winchester that anarchism is wrong because it might have certain negative consequences. You first have to take a step back and make the philosophical point that coercion is acceptable within certain limits or for certain ends.

 

(Full disclosure: no, I'm not an anarchist)

[CrossCuT]

A lot of these debates tend to involve a lot of talking past each other, since the anarchists are concerned with the question of whether coercion is always an intrinsically evil act, whereas everyone else is concerned with the question of what the social consequences of anarchism would be. These are two separate issues, people.

 

If you think it is the case that coercion is always intrinsically evil, then obviously you cannot do evil so that good can follow, etc.

 

The point is that you can't convince someone like Winchester that anarchism is wrong because it might have certain negative consequences. You first have to take a step back and make the philosophical point that coercion is acceptable within certain limits or for certain ends.

 

(Full disclosure: no, I'm not an anarchist)

 

You cant tell me what to do!

[Not The Philosopher]

You cant tell me what to do!

 

 

[CrossCuT]

I like that frog

[Winchester]

I find it highly improbable that everyone in such a large geographical area was consulted about, much less acquiesced to, the rule of the Federal government (setting aside the myriad violations of the enumerated powers that would void any other contract between parties, not to mention the bizarre claim that the entity created by the contract has sole final word on whether it is obeying its contract and may prevent parties from leaving). Apart from that, there are the other various levels of government, and it is proposed that all of them arose through consent of everyone in the given territory.  The closest we have to areas of independence from this allegedly universally approved organization are the reservations, and the entity in question still claims certain authorities over them.

 

I don't see how anyone outside of those who believe in things like God, unicorns, leprechauns or the like could entertain such a fanciful notion. It is at least as absurd as the notion that God permitted Himself to be executed by half-wit centurions.

[God the Father]

so how is this not survival of the fittest?

 

Natural selection is reality. That the fit survive and the fittest thrive is fundamental for every species that has ever existed in the universe. What "fitness" really means is a function of context. "Fitness" is different for a human being in 2013 USA than it is for one in 2013 Bangladesh than it is for one in 1620 Plymouth Colony. Fitness is different in the context of anarchy than it is in the context of democracy. Some contexts value productivity and discipline more than artifice and sycophancy; some contexts hold them equal.