This is one of the reasons i’m a Statist. Also one of the reasons i think the fewer, more expansive governments exist, the better for the world. National sovereignty doesn’t mean much to me - borders are arbitrary - i prefer the idea of a system of unified global governance, especially given that the world is “shrinking” in so many ways.
Thoughts and criticisms welcome, of course.
I think the world requires constant reorganization to best meet people’s needs. And governing should occur on different scales, just as biological bodies govern. I also think it’s important that the balance between freedom and responsibility “feels right”, which can only be determined by real people, in real situations. In other words, intelligent and sensitive leaders are required, rather than relying on “ideal” governmental systems.
How to achieve a high level of flexibility is a big question for me. I have no idea how to go about it - other than working to undermine ideology and fixation wherever and however possible.
i totally agree.
oh, i don’t think there’s any ideal system. but i do think it’s detrimental to everyone to have as many different systems as we do now.
if only intelligent, sensitive leaders were easier to identify and agree upon.
i guess part of the problem is that what feels right varies from one person to another, but in the end, that feeling is the only thing we have to go by.
it’s hard to have a society without some static, underlying ideology tho - the notion that individuals exist and have rights at all is an ideology . . . . undermining can be useful (and fun), but ideology in some form is required for people to function together. and governance should be about getting people to function together as much as possible.
Funny that that truth should make you a statist in reaction when it makes me an anti-statist. Of course, for me, the logical conclusion is that I don’t believe in “human rights.”
Well, depending what you mean by “believe in”, i could say i share your conclusion, but i still think rights are necessary conventions.
Do you envision an anarchic world that is not totally violent, yet without human rights?
I meant “human rights” in the sense that you describe. As convencions they do have their logic.
Do I envision an anarchic world without “total” violence? That is a multi-layered question. On the one hand, local feuds between factions would probably go way up. People, having no State judges, would have to either come up with their own arbitration structures or resort to violence. At first, a lot of violence would ensue, and in some places probably stay for good. Eventually, some factions would be wiped out, some marginalized, some stuck in recurring feuds and some with new and constructive equilibriums.
On the other hand, large scale killing, like what we know today as “wars,” would stop completely. There would be no inmense gathering of armed people willing to blindly follow orders. When everybody is responsible only for themselves and perhaps a pack or some portion of a pack, then nobody would risk their lives if they don’t see a bottom line for themselves or theirs. That is somewhat the logic of a State army, “do for your country, in doing so you will do for yourself.” So there would be a shift in the current equilibrium of violence, and whether it would go up or down when all the deaths and wounds are counted, I can’t know for sure.
Anarchy doesn’t propose a “better system.” The word “better” has been too bastardized to be worth anything but propaganda at this point, anyways. Anarchy proposes the “end of a system.” We are not a “how about this instead,” we are a “fuck off with your rules and your armies.”
More importantly to me as an anarchist and more relevantly to your title, it is absolutely true that systems of right, and many other systems, require enforcements.
Anarchy would be, if nothing else, a good way to find out what systems don’t.
Where have you been? http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=176929
I could say the same. http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=177327
Socrates wins, I read the Republic.
James L. Walker is the primary example of missing the point entirely.
He sides with Thrasymachus because if he didn’t he’d be admitting that his perceptions are false or at the very least in need of rethinking.
At some level, yes, actual physical violence needs to be used by some party on another who is breaking the ‘rules’ of the society.
Though why does it have to be a ‘government’ ? I have never heard an adequate answer to this without people falling back on words like ‘constitution’ (meaningless) and ‘democracy’ (nothing inherently good about this). Almost everyone agrees that monopolies are bad, so why not just have competing private security firms / dro’s / whatever ?
Seems like you would be a fun addition to that thread.
because intuitively i think everyone’s rights should be enforced, not just the rights of those who can afford their own private security services. otherwise, rights cease to be rights and simply become commodities
i have a hard time imagining how governance can really work if the primary motive of those in charge is to maximize profit . . .
rights are commodities
how so?
Good point. I had trouble formulating that last part of my post, and it didn’t come out exactly the way I wanted it to. I think I meant fixation and ideology on a more societal scale, rather than a personal scale. For instance, why do we add more and more laws without an eye to what we could be fruitfully subtracting? Why are rights as conceptualized in the 18th century (i.e. right to bear arms) taken so literally that people think it means they have the right to have a nuclear weapon in their basement (just to exaggerate a bit).
I agree with you about rights, by the way. And it’s a great distinction you make between rights and commodities - one of those distinctions that seem so obvious after someone points it out.
My conclusion is the exact same motivations and incentives lie behind government and business. That is the profit incentive. What else do you think would be the incentive driving all the little pieces of the system ?
The difference is that the system labeled government also gets to use force / steal at will and call it moral and virtuous… which I just cannot see as ever leading to the best outcome.
What are you going on about?
What I’m trying to get at is that the government is a profit seeking system in the same way that business is. What else do you think is the predominant motivation that drives all the little pieces (people) to go do their job everyday ? I do understand that there are many varying motivations that drive individual peoples actions…but when you are looking at a system composed of millions of people, then most of the other motivations will be averaged out (sorry I’m not too clear, but whatever). The major reason most people go to work everyday (government job or private job) is to make money.
…
I think a key point is people need to think in terms of systems… I’m not saying anyone in he government is evil, but what are the incentives behind the system which is composed of people. Private companies have an inventive to grow, and these systems do only care about profit, BUT they do not get to have a monopoly of force (people would resist this and I doubt it could be profitable), the reason this monopoly would be very hard to enforce is that children are not taught from an early age that ‘their’ company is the virtuous team but the others are bad and evil and they are not taught that they are born with a ‘duty’ to their ‘company’ and they are not taught company anthems and salute company flags.
Government is a system, composed of people. What is the motivation behind all the little pieces within this system ? As it is composed of people you cannot say that this group of people is somehow virtuous and their only motivation is to help their fellow man. No, their motivation is the same as all other people and animals, to gain control over resources. How does one rise in a government job and earn more money ?? They have to get more people ‘under’ them in the structure. Now what will this lead to ??? It will lead to the growth of the system, new departments will be invented, new legislation will be passed and new government programs will be started. Why can a company not just grow in this way ? Because they are held by the profit motive, which the government is not because it can claim theft is moral and people really do want to be virtuous and moral.
Well think about it. In order to get citizen rights you have to become a citizen of that country. You have to pay and work in order to buy those rights. This goes for any group or club or country. Those rights are held out as a prize or a marketable item. You get this if you do this. See ? Its just like a commercial. Those rights are only yours if you buy them by being a good citizen or earning your citizenship.