EquALLity wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:43 pm
...the anarchy that Teo was describing has no justice system, so anyone can do whatever they want. All crime would be legal, including murder, rape, theft, etc. etc. causing social hardship. There would also be nothing to regulate corporations and prevent them from exploiting people in ways that would lead to economic hardship.
Like I mentioned, often when there is hardship, people turn to a strong ruler who promises to solve all of their problems and ignore their social rights.
Do you disagree?
Hi. No, I do not disagree that many people turn to rulers in times of hardship. However, I'm suggesting that they do so
precisely because they do not understand, hold to, or even value a principle-based mindset; specifically the principles of non-aggression and self-ownership.
Yes, I suppose anarchy could develop in any number of ways. I am suggesting that it would result necessarily from an adherence to the prescribed philosophical mindset, but I did not mean to imply that it couldn't come about via alternative methods. Violent revolution, for example, could impose the change, but this would be a symptom-focused approach (ignoring causal factors), and as such, would likely fail in the long run because a new ruling body would grow from the fertile ground of fallacy within the minds of the people. We have seen these failed revolutions countless times, and if we lack a historical example for principle-based anarchy, as you have suggested (I do not claim a thorough enough knowledge of history to concede or refute this point), then the lack of a widespread principled foundation seems evident enough. In short, the weeds of authoritarian belief have not been thoroughly rooted out, and anarchy has not grown organically from a firmly-planted seed.
There would presumably be those who may still be inclined to support dictatorship -- and they may subject themselves to it in small societies -- but the prevalent belief would hold sway on a larger scale, disallowing the widespread authoritarian oppression that we see today. If the idea of a voluntary society could be made clear to the majority, we would have a mirror image of what we have today. This would render the authoritarian mindset negligible, just as the anarchist mindset is now. There are anarchists today, but their views do not hold sway, and they are largely ignored. However, it's not simply a matter of two equal ideas in competition. The anarchist view is rooted in sound logic and intuitively-verified moral principles, whereas authoritarianism is rooted in fallacy (that one man can be given the right to rule another), born entirely of fear. For this reason, the former idea is actually more powerful, and would be more difficult to overthrow once established via thorough understanding and experiential knowledge.
The comments about all crime being "legal" implies an unfounded assumption. What you're really saying is that there would be no law to prevent crime, but this assumes that law does, in fact, prevent it, which it clearly does not. A person willing to violate eternal moral principles is highly unlikely to be unwilling to violate man-made law. The people most likely to respect man-made law are also those who already respect natural law without being coerced to do so. This would suggest that law has little to no effect on violent crime, while at the same time creating a far greater amount of criminal activity in the form of victimless crime. In addition, the empowerment of a moral, armed populace is a far greater deterrent to violent crime, for police represent a nigh-unto negligible percentage of the overall population. A violator, who does not fear the nebulous notion of law, but
does fear for his own well-being, would be more likely to resist the impulse toward violence if the majority were seen as the more dangerous obstacle.
Corporations, not bolstered by the supreme power of government (via cronyism), would be far less capable of exploiting the public, as they would be subject to a true free-market system, whereby competition would favor those who engage in reciprocally-beneficial relationships with consumers. If there was no bail-out for banks, they would be forced to serve the people well in order to survive. If there were no laws protecting immoral actions on the part of manufacturers, and no laws preventing the population from simply smashing factories to bits, you can see how businesses would be kept in check. Localities would also be empowered to make new choices in the absence of government monopolies, and free economic competition would naturally regulate everything to the benefit of the people. If you believe the overwhelming majority of people are moral individuals, then you must believe that empowering them to directly guide outcomes in their own communities would serve humanity better than the dictates of corrupt lawmakers imposed from the outside.
The bottom line is that freedom is man's natural state, and the notion of government is unnatural and immoral by definition, regardless of the outcome. I have suggested some likely results, but they are irrelevant. Principle-based living does not guarantee that the world will hold no hardship, but it does dissuade one from seeking temporary solutions which violate natural law, because their disastrous long-term consequences are clearly apprehended. It's a matter of maturity; accepting responsibility for managing the harsh realities of life individually and via cooperation, without succumbing to the false relief of men empowered as gods.
Peaceful transition can only happen when it becomes common knowledge that the power to rule is a mere hallucination, particularly among current and would-be law enforcers and soldiers. Once this happens, we may simple ignore the dictates of power-mongers, and they will fade away via lack of attention. Their power, being illusory, may simply be dispelled, requiring no violent overthrow whatever.
