Politicians who use the political process to impose their whims on others and infringe upon the rights of others abuse their power. That they do doesn’t negate the need for a moral authority. When an improper government can be reformed through the political process it should be. When it can’t (as in the case of Venezuela for instance) it must be violently overthrown. Either way, there can’t be a market for law and retaliation if rights are to be protected
The power claimed by politicians is illegitimate, and can only be abused. Their claims to authority are inherently immoral. There is no representation, and no delegation, only usurpation. Overthrowing a government only installs a new corrupt government. Instead, such a system must be undermined, and decentralized grassroots systems need to be built. We have historical and current examples of decentralized justice systems, security, dispute arbitration, recordkeeping, etc. already too.
Decentralization isn’t the same as anarchy. Rights can be protected in a decentralized system when there’s a moral authority. They can’t be protected in the absence of one because anyone can use force at any time for any reason he chooses. The only determinant in whether or not he’s able to do so without consequence is whether or not he has the might, when the determinant should be whether or not he is right
Anarchism doesn't mean an absence of rules or authority, it means recognizing the distinction between legitimate authority and illegitimate usurpation. Governments operate entirely by usurpation, and society only exists because of people recognizing legitimate authority.
Anarchism doesn’t recognize any authority. Anarchy is the absence of authority. If there’s a recognized authority (whether it’s a moral or immoral one) there’s a state
Anarchy means the absence of rulers, the people who usurp illegitimate authority. It doesn't mean chaos, destruction, or violence. Those are small scale examples of usurping authority. They are just more manifestations of statism, whether people imagine it legitimate or not.
It means that there is NO authority. If there’s no authority, the only thing that determines whether or not a group or individual can wield force (rightly or wrongly) without consequence (which there must be for wielding it wrongly) is whether or not they have the might instead of whether or not they have the right.
If you stop your blind and knee jerk defense of it and think about what I’m saying you’ll come to see that it’s true.
I think we are talking at cross purposes. What is the nature and source of authority? How does government acquire authority over individuals within its territorial claim? If might or numbers makes right, you have no rational basis for your argument, and you are merely appealing to the status quo.
Politicians who use the political process to impose their whims on others and infringe upon the rights of others abuse their power. That they do doesn’t negate the need for a moral authority. When an improper government can be reformed through the political process it should be. When it can’t (as in the case of Venezuela for instance) it must be violently overthrown. Either way, there can’t be a market for law and retaliation if rights are to be protected
The power claimed by politicians is illegitimate, and can only be abused. Their claims to authority are inherently immoral. There is no representation, and no delegation, only usurpation. Overthrowing a government only installs a new corrupt government. Instead, such a system must be undermined, and decentralized grassroots systems need to be built. We have historical and current examples of decentralized justice systems, security, dispute arbitration, recordkeeping, etc. already too.
Decentralization isn’t the same as anarchy. Rights can be protected in a decentralized system when there’s a moral authority. They can’t be protected in the absence of one because anyone can use force at any time for any reason he chooses. The only determinant in whether or not he’s able to do so without consequence is whether or not he has the might, when the determinant should be whether or not he is right
Anarchism doesn't mean an absence of rules or authority, it means recognizing the distinction between legitimate authority and illegitimate usurpation. Governments operate entirely by usurpation, and society only exists because of people recognizing legitimate authority.
Anarchism doesn’t recognize any authority. Anarchy is the absence of authority. If there’s a recognized authority (whether it’s a moral or immoral one) there’s a state
Anarchy means the absence of rulers, the people who usurp illegitimate authority. It doesn't mean chaos, destruction, or violence. Those are small scale examples of usurping authority. They are just more manifestations of statism, whether people imagine it legitimate or not.
It means that there is NO authority. If there’s no authority, the only thing that determines whether or not a group or individual can wield force (rightly or wrongly) without consequence (which there must be for wielding it wrongly) is whether or not they have the might instead of whether or not they have the right.
If you stop your blind and knee jerk defense of it and think about what I’m saying you’ll come to see that it’s true.
I think we are talking at cross purposes. What is the nature and source of authority? How does government acquire authority over individuals within its territorial claim? If might or numbers makes right, you have no rational basis for your argument, and you are merely appealing to the status quo.