Is it actually a good thing to trust the institutions?

[BrianBlackwell]

You seem to ignore the fact that there would be much fewer meat-eaters in an anarchy.

Plus there would be no one to issue that bullshit food pyramid. Hahaha

[brimstoneSalad]

By drawing arbitrary lines and in/outgroups you completely defeat the purpose of and all arguments for the NAP.

This is simply not true.

No, it obviously is true. You can't pick and choose arbitrary exceptions to the NAP, otherwise it's no longer the NAP at all; there's a hole in it that permits anything.
You can no more choose to exclude all non-humans as you can choose to exclude another race, or any other arbitrary group.
It's as simple as that.

You have rendered it logically useless.

it has been made utterly defunct (all its purposes and arguments rendered void) by the fact that it doesn't include animals?

Yes, because it gives anybody equal license to not apply the NAP to you and your family based on a whim. The NAP only works when it's universal and doesn't permit arbitrary exception.

Applying the NAP to any group, no matter how small and arbitrary, always serves the purpose of improvement.

First, there's no reason it would stay that way. Anybody for any reason could arbitrarily exclude anybody they don't like and make a new NAP for themselves. It carries no weight because it has no objectivity.

Second, not between groups. Violence between groups is more likely to be harmful than violence between individuals. Group violence lasts generations and creates large scale wars, individual violence is extinguished quickly.
Trying to apply the NAP selectively can easily be worse than not applying it at all.

please be careful to maintain the integrity of your thought -- we can't afford for smart people concerned with morality to descend into madness.

Now with the ad hominems? You're clearly delusional or don't have the IQ to grasp the simple concept or logical integrity; you've pretty much demonstrated this in the past when you rejected science and logic.

The problem is arbitrary exceptions, how can you not understand that?
They destroy the integrity of the argument. When anybody can exclude anybody they want from the NAP at any time for any reason like you do, it effectively does not exist.

You might as well argue for religion on the same basis, that if people accept the arbitrary belief on faith then they'll get along with their in-groups. The problem is that there is no one faith, and this enhances conflict between those groups.

If we want peace, and we want to be able to do away with the need for government, we have to break down arbitrary in-groups.

This description of government is beyond creepy to me. We are talking about an institution that literally enslaves the whole of humanity via violent coercion, and is responsible for mass theft and murder on a scale that renders all other crime nigh unto negligible.

Those things are caused by arbitrary in-groups based on arbitrary and incomplete application of the NAP, like that you're advocating.

You say that the meat-eater need not commit the act of violence himself to be in violation of the NAP, because he commits the violence by proxy when he purchases meat from the producer. With this in mind, please tell me how a voting person (or anyone who condones government) could claim to hold to the NAP, knowing full-well that violence is being done in his name; and that it is not only done with his consent, but it is the sole intention of the voter when he pushes that button.

It's necessary to use force and make a small violation of the NAP to stop others from violating the NAP in a larger way.
If you stopped eating meat, maybe you could convince me that we don't need government to stop people violating the NAP in more severe ways. Right now, you're just a hypocrite and a living argument for government. It's to stop people like you from arbitrarily violating the NAP in much larger ways than government has to violate it to stop you.

I'd be much more open to your thoughts on anarchy if you could prove it's possible for even YOU to truly follow the NAP without making arbitrary exceptions based on your whim. If you can't do it, with as passionately as you speak about it, I don't think people will in general.

Prove me wrong and go vegan. Or don't, and provide me more evidence for why we need government. I'm not going to be convinced by a hypocrite telling me people can follow the NAP when he doesn't.

[BrianBlackwell]

You can't pick and choose arbitrary exceptions to the NAP, otherwise it's no longer the NAP at all... You have rendered it logically useless... The NAP only works when it's universal and doesn't permit arbitrary exception... Anybody for any reason could arbitrarily exclude anybody they don't like... It carries no weight because it has no objectivity.

This proves beyond doubt that you're arguing purely from agenda and backing it up with armchair rationale. You're actually arguing that it's better for a person to have no regard for non-aggression, rather than to apply it in the "limited" capacity of the totality of humanity! Not only that, but the NAP never had any objectivity to begin with, for a variety of reasons, but not least among them is the fact that your version of it already describes an arbitrary in-group based on sentience. It's OK to chop down a tree to built a boat, but it's not OK to kill a cow to make a coat?

And anyone already can arbitrarily exclude anyone they don't like -- there's nothing stopping them -- that's just the nature of reality; so nothing will ever assure the security that you're suggesting the NAP has the potential to deliver. Not to mention, none of this has to do with my arguments against government. Originally, I only suggested the NAP as a method of appeal when discussing anarchy with other people, since most people find it logical and in accord with their own values, even if only in a limited capacity.

You're clearly delusional or don't have the IQ to grasp the simple concept or logical integrity; you've pretty much demonstrated this in the past when you rejected science and logic.

You want me to have rejected science and logic because it makes it easier to paint me as a lunatic who can't be reasoned with; I never did any such thing. I only denied the assertion of objectivity; basically stating that accepting science was a reasonable act of faith, and that logic was subjective because it only exists as applied to the phenomenon of human thought; which is -- by definition -- wholly subjective. This does not deny logic's validity. In fact, it makes no judgement about it at all, it only describes it.

When anybody can exclude anybody they want from the NAP at any time... it effectively does not exist.

...as boldly spoken from the armchair. Even if a person were to apply the NAP only to their girlfriend, it would still exist in this limited capacity, and would be preferable to them not applying it at all.

If we want peace, and we want to be able to do away with the need for government, we have to break down arbitrary in-groups.

No, we do not. Nazis can believe it's OK to kill Jews (and nothing can actually stop them from doing so), but without a throne for them to fight over, it is quite likely that they will simply form their own communities, disallowing Jews from entry, and nobody would ever hear from them again. Even if they did decide to declare war on Jews worldwide, it would be a negligible effort compared to what Hitler achieved, since it would not have the support of a governmental institution to back it up (like the German state, complete with massive taxation to buy all the hideous tools of war, and the ability to command good people to act as agents of evil by the fallacious belief in the authority of governmental "law").

This description of government is beyond creepy to me. We are talking about an institution that literally enslaves the whole of humanity via violent coercion, and is responsible for mass theft and murder on a scale that renders all other crime nigh unto negligible.

Those things are caused by arbitrary in-groups based on arbitrary and incomplete application of the NAP, like that you're advocating.

Regardless of their fundamental cause, their expression is only made possible by the far-reaching power of government. We wouldn't even know Hitler's name today if he did not wield the unnatural power of authority over millions of people, particularly in the form of taxation.

It's necessary to use force and make a small violation of the NAP to stop others from violating the NAP in a larger way.

This mentality is the root of all evil; far more than ignorance or unwillingness relative to the NAP itself. People who don't care about hurting people represent a tiny percentage of the population, but if people can be made to believe that a little injustice is necessary to protect them from XYZ, then tyranny and oppression has its foot in the door and will pry it wider until cattle cars are headed to death camps. This is how evil in the name of good is born (See all of history for more information).

"This is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground, he is a protector..." -- Plato

I'd be much more open to your thoughts on anarchy if you could prove it's possible for even YOU to truly follow the NAP without making arbitrary exceptions based on your whim. If you can't do it, with as passionately as you speak about it, I don't think people will in general.

Prove me wrong and go vegan. Or don't, and provide me more evidence for why we need government. I'm not going to be convinced by a hypocrite telling me people can follow the NAP when he doesn't.

If you are willing to ignore the logic and historical evidence of my arguments simply because of which mouth they spring from, then try looking for Larken Rose or Lysander Spooner on YouTube, because my words can do no work here. If you think the chickens will have a better chance when people like you are too busy building pyramids or picking cotton to help them, I suggest a second look at our situation.

And by the way, I'd be interested to hear a rebuttal to my comments about how voters are in direct violation of the NAP. That seems to have slipped through the cracks. I will re-post it here for your convenience:

You say that the meat-eater need not commit the act of violence himself to be in violation of the NAP, because he commits the violence by proxy when he purchases meat from the producer. With this in mind, please tell me how a voting person (or anyone who condones government) could claim to hold to the NAP, knowing full-well that violence is being done in his name; and that it is not only done with his consent, but it is the sole intention of the voter when he pushes that button.

[brimstoneSalad]

You're actually arguing that it's better for a person to have no regard for non-aggression, rather than to apply it in the "limited" capacity of the totality of humanity!

Not what I said. Reread my post more carefully.

your version of it already describes an arbitrary in-group based on sentience.

Sentience is not an arbitrary in-group. Non-sentient beings have no interests against which you may aggress.
You can't apply aggression to violate the interests of a rock, because it has none. No interests = no rights.
Likewise trees, mushrooms, bacteria, oysters, dust mites, all have no interests because they aren't sentient. Aggression against them doesn't mean anything even to them.

And anyone already can arbitrarily exclude anyone they don't like -- there's nothing stopping them -- that's just the nature of reality;

Because of people like you who believe it's OK to do so. If everybody truly accepted the NAP without violating it with arbitrary in and out-groups, then that wouldn't be a problem.
If people actually valued the NAP, then that would stop them from doing it. Our beliefs and values can shape our actions.

Originally, I only suggested the NAP as a method of appeal when discussing anarchy with other people, since most people find it logical and in accord with their own values, even if only in a limited capacity.

Oh, so you were just being dishonest and making an argument you don't actually believe in for the purpose of deceiving people into accepting your political views.

I see. You're a horrible human being. Ever considered politics? You'd fit right in.

I only denied the assertion of objectivity; basically stating that accepting science was a reasonable act of faith, and that logic was subjective because it only exists as applied to the phenomenon of human thought; which is -- by definition -- wholly subjective. This does not deny logic's validity. In fact, it makes no judgement about it at all, it only describes it.

Human thought isn't wholly subjective, that's a ridiculous assertion. You wouldn't claim the output of a calculator is subjective because there's a one in a billion chance the circuit goes buggy, would you? Humans can fairly reliably compute based on objective mathematical and logical rules, and they can be consistency checked by others assuring as good accuracy as a calculator.
Human thought can be affected by some bias, which is subjective, but this bias can be controlled for by using strict rules (as in logic or mathematics) to limit bias and then by checking against others.
What you are saying is a denial of the validity of logic and science, you may just be too ignorant of what these things actually mean to realize it, and either not intelligent enough or too delusional to grasp my multiple explanations.

Even if a person were to apply the NAP only to their girlfriend, it would still exist in this limited capacity, and would be preferable to them not applying it at all.

I already explained why this is not necessarily true.

Nazis can believe it's OK to kill Jews (and nothing can actually stop them from doing so), but without a throne for them to fight over, it is quite likely that they will simply form their own communities, disallowing Jews from entry, and nobody would ever hear from them again.

Who stops people from building those thrones, exactly?

Even if they did decide to declare war on Jews worldwide, it would be a negligible effort compared to what Hitler achieved,

It's harder for one group to take over, but much easier for many small groups (tribes) to gain power and return to a state of tribal or feudal war.

You're too ignorant of history to understand any of this.

Those things are caused by arbitrary in-groups based on arbitrary and incomplete application of the NAP, like that you're advocating.

Regardless of their fundamental cause, their expression is only made possible by the far-reaching power of government.

Of course you would ignore the root cause and assert your band-aid non-solution instead.

You can't get rid of the government without getting rid of group thinking. Government will always form when people create in-groups and organize to protect themselves from or dominate out-groups for selfish gain.

It's necessary to use force and make a small violation of the NAP to stop others from violating the NAP in a larger way.

This mentality is the root of all evil; far more than ignorance or unwillingness relative to the NAP itself.

No, as I explained above, the root of all evil in this context is dishonest people like you who lie and pretend to respect the NAP but actually think it's OK to arbitrarily exclude others from the NAP for selfish reasons. That's why we need government (the lesser evil) to prevent people like you from harming others, and prevent deterioration into tribal warfare.

Sometimes government goes very wrong, but it's a side effect if we want to protect others overall. On average, violence is declining even despite the few mishaps.

People who don't care about hurting people represent a tiny percentage of the population,

You're one of them. Most people don't care as long as it's not direct, or they don't care enough to do anything about it.
Climate change ring a bell? You probably deny all of the science on that, since you reject science at your whim.

but if people can be made to believe that a little injustice is necessary to protect them from XYZ, then tyranny and oppression has its foot in the door and will pry it wider until cattle cars are headed to death camps.

Or we can put on the chain so only the foot will fit. That's what constitutions and civil rights are for. When they start prying, we need to push back.
But that door needs to stay cracked, or we'll all suffocate as the world deteriorates into tribal warfare because people like you refuse to respect the NAP and instead impose arbitrary limits on it.

If you are willing to ignore the logic and historical evidence of my arguments simply because of which mouth they spring from,

Your best argument is that the NAP can replace government. If not even you, an anarchist, is willing to truly respect the NAP, then your argument falls apart. It particularly looks bad when you lie to us, using an argument you don't even believe in.

If 99.9999% of anarchists actually respected the NAP without arbitrary selfish limitation and proved it by being vegan, then you'd have a very good argument there. You'd have to explain how we'd stop that 0.0001% from doing harm without violating the NAP, but if they're that outnumbered we might not need government to do it, and the harm that those few people could do might be smaller than what government does. We'd probably just know "Oh, that guy is very stabby, we don't help him do things and I recommend when he comes around stay out of the way so he can't stab you". The guy would just have to go live in the woods and forage for food alone because nobody would do business with him.

The trick is having such an overwhelming majority who support the NAP that the one in a million who don't can't do more harm than government would. As it stands, most anarchists I've talked to eat meat and don't really care about the NAP. You're only reinforcing that point.

And by the way, I'd be interested to hear a rebuttal to my comments about how voters are in direct violation of the NAP. That seems to have slipped through the cracks. I will re-post it here for your convenience:

Voting for the lesser of two evils is not a violation of the NAP, it does not fuel government or make it worse.
Paying your taxes could be argued to be a violation. Do you pay taxes, or do you work under the table and collect welfare to bleed the government dry?

(just to be clear, I'm not recommending that anybody not pay their taxes)

[BrianBlackwell]

HIya Brim.

You're actually arguing that it's better for a person to have no regard for non-aggression, rather than to apply it in the "limited" capacity of the totality of humanity!

Not what I said. Reread my post more carefully.

This is what you said:

Trying to apply the NAP selectively can easily be worse than not applying it at all.

This is a concise description of the point you've been making; I don't see the misunderstanding.

Non-sentient beings have no interests against which you may aggress. Aggression against them doesn't mean anything even to them.

This is an unfounded assertion. We do not fully understand the life principle, or the fundamental nature of reality. A tree is obviously going to great lengths to grow and survive, so aggression against it can be said to be in defiance of some manner of will and interest. At the very least, there is reasonable doubt for your assertion, and one who claims to care so deeply about such matters should likely err on the side of caution.

And anyone already can arbitrarily exclude anyone they don't like -- there's nothing stopping them -- that's just the nature of reality;

If everybody truly accepted the NAP...

Utopian. Not all people will, and that's their choice. To establish a violent institution to impose one group's will upon another is a denial of man's inherent freedom. It's immoral and short-sighted to develop solutions based upon such a denial. All systems which attempt to homogenize human will are in direct violation of reality, and are doomed to be unsatisfying at best, and disastrous at worst.

Oh, so you were just being dishonest and making an argument you don't actually believe in for the purpose of deceiving people into accepting your political views.

No. It's been well-established that I personally hold to the NAP in regard to humanity (and in most other cases, except for food), and the majority of others would like to do so also (at least in some capacity). This provides common ground for initiating discussions about government. Also, anarchism is not a political position, just as atheism is not a religion. I am denying government's right to rule (as well as its practical value), not suggesting a new system to replace it. The position is anti-political by definition.

Human thought isn't wholly subjective, that's a ridiculous assertion... Human thought can be affected by some bias, which is subjective... What you are saying is a denial of the validity of logic and science, you may just be too ignorant of what these things actually mean to realize it...

Ok, so let's establish some definitions via the dictionary:

Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought.

Please explain how human thought is not wholly "existing in the mind" and "belonging to the thinking subject"? And yes, bias is subjective (because it is thought), but the term "subjectivity" is not limited to this characteristic, though many people use it synonymously.

Logic: the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference; the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

Please explain how inference, reasoning, knowledge and study are not functions of thought; and how principles regarding the function of a wholly subjective phenomenon can be anything but subjective? Again, this does not deny logic's validity as a means of governing the subjective phenomenon of thought. What's being challenged is the assertion that logic is objective, when 100% of its apprehension, expression and application is subjective.

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

And again, we have knowledge, observation and experimentation -- all subjective phenomena. The argument made for logic also applies here.

Who stops people from building those thrones, exactly?

Obviously no one. However, I am suggesting that people build them from a series of false premises. More importantly, they may choose to build whatever they want, but imposing their creation upon the unwilling is aggression.

I heard an interesting point made once: Why not have elected officials only apply their laws to the individuals who voted them into power? As rational as this seems, it's ridiculous due to its redundancy. People don't need violence-backed laws to make them do what they are already willing to do. Laws are only needed to impose the desires of the willing upon the unwilling. Thus government is revealed to be either unnecessary (in the case of the willing), or immoral (in the case of the unwilling). There is no sound moral logic to it whatever, as its relationship with every citizen is inappropriate. How can this be justified?

It's harder for one group to take over, but much easier for many small groups (tribes) to gain power and return to a state of tribal or feudal war.

So be it. Anarchy does not solve the human tendency to commit violence, but neither does government, and the latter also exacerbates it to an astonishing degree. Tribes do not have the resources to drop a bomb on Hiroshima. Nor do they typically have the inclination, as their concerns are generally localized. And how many people in your town do you suppose have a viable war agenda? Even most extremists are only looking to dictate their own lives, not march off to war. What's more, such wars would expose the aggressor to direct violence and loss (a huge deterrent). The risk/reward of war is much different for government; politicians risk nothing and are always rewarded with greater riches and power, win or lose. They make war for this very reason!

Whatever your opinion, everyone would benefit from reading "War is a Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler, if you haven't already. It's short, interesting and entertaining, and he is a very credible speaker on the topic.

Audiobook is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI3lckqaSk0

Of course you would ignore the root cause and assert your band-aid non-solution instead. You can't get rid of the government without getting rid of group thinking. Government will always form when people create in-groups and organize to protect themselves...

It's not a non-solution. The cause of a bee sting is the bee. The sting can only be expressed, however, if you go near the bee. Destroying all bees is a solution, but so is not going near bees. The former is nigh-onto impossible (like expecting the NAP to be accepted by everyone), the latter is practical, intuitive and effective (like letting natural human individuality to remain intact without the artificial implementation of a ruling class).

Plus, group thinking need not lead to government. A corporation is group thinking "personified", and is entirely voluntary. Organization and hierarchy are not synonymous with government. They are differentiated by the factor of consent. A voluntary society can organize, follow leaders, pool resources, have a defensive force, etc., but their leaders do not claim any rights that the people don't have themselves (namely to dictate laws under threat of violence); nor does their defensive force (making them more like paid Guardian Angels, rather than police). The only thing we loose with anarchy is an oppressive, immorally violent leech on top of our otherwise fruitful efforts. We have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

...we need government (the lesser evil) to prevent people like you from harming others, and prevent deterioration into tribal warfare. Sometimes government goes very wrong, but it's a side effect if we want to protect others overall. On average, violence is declining even despite the few mishaps.

What harm are you suggesting "people like me" create? The only harm I have been accurately accused of is carnism, and the government does not prevent this, in fact, it encourages it. You think government prevents crime better than an armed anarchist society? How's the war on drugs going? All crime associated with drugs is a direct result of the laws that created a black market. Do you see liquor store owners shooting each other? Booze dealers trying to sell vodka to your kids at the park? People having their door smashed down and serving ten years in prison for having a lot of whiskey in their house? Of course not. Liquor is legal, and has a peaceful market (except for the few years directly corresponding to the prohibition era... how coincidental!)

Government does not sometimes go very wrong -- it is inherently an institution of immoral violence. What else does it do, besides dictate commands and enforce them with theft, kidnapping, aggression, and murder? Does it pay for anything? Does it organize anything? Does it actually DO anything? No. It taxes, delegates to organizers in the respective fields, and employs workers to perform the labor. The people are already doing everything themselves! All politicians do is skim off the top for their own lavish lifestyles, artificially direct business to cronies (complete with ridiculously jacked up prices), harass the citizens over victimless crimes, allow corporations to abuse people via legislation and loopholes (while tying the citizens' hands to do anything about it), and make wars which kill millions of citizens, but almost never harm the ruling class. These are not "mishaps."

Ask peaceful middle-eastern citizens if violence is going down. Ask people getting beat up and shot by cops, or the millions who are locked up in prison for victimless crimes. Purse-snatchings are down in the suburbs, so we're doing great? Come on... talk about arbitrary in-groups. Government-related violence destroys more lives than anything else -- by an obscene margin -- and your willful ignorance of this fact is precisely the thing you slam meat-eaters for. Really think about it.

Most people don't care as long as it's not direct, or they don't care enough to do anything about it.

You're right. That's a much more concise way of saying it.

That's what constitutions and civil rights are for. When they start prying, we need to push back.
But that door needs to stay cracked, or we'll all suffocate as the world deteriorates into tribal warfare because people like you refuse to respect the NAP...

Tribal warfare and chaos... like Mad Max or The Purge! The world isn't going to disappear and be replaced with patch-wearing anarchists hanging off the side of scrap-built pick-up trucks. Apple will still be making iphones, people will still be watching Game of Thrones, shopping at the mall, and going to the park with their kids.

We already live with de facto anarchy most of the time. If you think words on paper are what's keeping everyone from going crazy, you've lost it! And I don't think you've lost it. I think you, like myself for most of my life, have bought into government propaganda -- a lie, accepted and repeated everywhere you turn, in both subtle and overt ways. Like V for Vendetta -- "I want everyone to remember why they need us!"

We don't need them. The citizenry lives in harmony the overwhelming majority of the time, of their own accord. Many of them will be free to carry firearms, and will help if there's trouble. Cops who got into the job to help people will be freed to actually do so as privately contracted defenders, and the free market system will handle the rest.

If the constitution and bill of rights is a valid protection, why has it failed so dismally? The constitution has a fundamental fatal flaw in its programming. If you reboot it, it will simply express the same malfunctions again and again. It establishes a ruling class. That will always lead to slavery, just like it has every single time it's been tried, because it is the very nature of the thing.

The trick is having such an overwhelming majority who support the NAP that the one in a million who don't can't do more harm than government would. As it stands, most anarchists I've talked to eat meat and don't really care about the NAP.

Most people DO respect the NAP -- at least as applied to humans. And usually to animals too, just not in relation to their food. And to even suggest that the "one in a million" can do harm anywhere near what government does on an hourly basis is enough to make one's brain short circuit.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is not a violation of the NAP, it does not fuel government or make it worse.
Paying your taxes could be argued to be a violation. Do you pay taxes, or... collect welfare...?

Yes, the tax issue is a prevalent example; I think many agree with us on this point, but they have been taught to believe that government has an exception from morality. I would not accept stolen money in the form of welfare, btw. Voting literally fuels government because it is an explicit acceptance of taxation, which is the lifeblood of the enterprise. Voting is an acknowledgment and advocacy of the ruling class' power. How could condoning and financially supporting something not exacerbate it?

Now, we return to the crux of the entire discussion...

I've explained how voting (or any support of government) is a direct violation of the NAP, and you have not specifically addressed it. I do not kill animals myself, but I support their murder by eating meat, right? So how is voting any different? You KNOW they will commit violence, and you are pushing a button that says "As my representative, go do it on my behalf."

You can ignore everything else I've said, but you must satisfactorily address this question in order to maintain your status as both a supporter of government AND a supporter of the NAP.

[brimstoneSalad]

This is a concise description of the point you've been making; I don't see the misunderstanding.

I was responding to your point.

This is an unfounded assertion.

No it isn't, it's well established in scientific consensus. This is where your rejection of and disrespect for science comes out in full force to defend the harmful idiocy you advocate.

A tree is obviously going to great lengths to grow and survive, so aggression against it can be said to be in defiance of some manner of will and interest.

No, it can not. Just because something does something (like a rock falls) doesn't mean it wants to do it. The only indication of want is true learning as expressed through processes like operant conditioning.

At the very least, there is reasonable doubt for your assertion, and one who claims to care so deeply about such matters should likely err on the side of caution.

There's no reasonable doubt. You'd have to be a moron who is completely ignorant of actual biology and the principles of evolution, and then beyond that you'd have to completely ignore scientific consensus on the topic (which is a qualified authority).

It is known to a moral certainty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_certainty

Utopian. Not all people will, and that's their choice.

It's just their personal choice to kill other people if they want to. It would be wrong to try to stop them.
Then go live somewhere where you don't support a violent government that protects you from more violent people. You won't last long.

No. It's been well-established that I personally hold to the NAP in regard to humanity (and in most other cases, except for food)

Animals are not a source of food. We feed animals food, and as a consequence we have less food.
You kill and eat animals for enjoyment and entertainment.

If you made exceptions only for legitimate reasons of self preservation rather than pleasure that would be a good argument.

Also, anarchism is not a political position, just as atheism is not a religion. I am denying government's right to rule (as well as its practical value), not suggesting a new system to replace it. The position is anti-political by definition.

A position against politics is a political position. You could equate it only to anti-theism, not atheism.

Ok, so let's establish some definitions via the dictionary:

No, you're employing a logical fallacy:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity

I'm referring to subjectivity as the opposite or negation of objectivity. Thought processes exist on a spectrum from subjective to objective depending on the degree of bias that influences them, and they can be corrected for OUTSIDE the mind when committed to paper or word between different individuals. There, between minds or among them symbolic concepts exist collectively, and do not depend on a single mind, thus they can ascend to objectivity when we use certain methods to eliminate the subjective from them.

Please explain how human thought is not wholly "existing in the mind" and "belonging to the thinking subject"?

It's possible that you will see your mistake after reading the above.
However, if you do not:
This is a warning, do not employ that logical fallacy again on this topic.
If you are not clear on how you are making a fallacy I can try to explain it better, but you're engaging in dishonesty here by twisting definitions with ambiguity and that's not in compliance with the forum rules.

And yes, bias is subjective (because it is thought), but the term "subjectivity" is not limited to this characteristic, though many people use it synonymously.

Because in common usage it's an ambiguous term that has no clear meaning. When used rigorously in the context of philosophy we're dealing with it in contrast to objectivity, and that has been the context so far in the conversation.

Again, this does not deny logic's validity as a means of governing the subjective phenomenon of thought. What's being challenged is the assertion that logic is objective, when 100% of its apprehension, expression and application is subjective.

Yes, that is a denial of logic's validity.
If you don't accept logic, you really can't participate in these conversations. It's not appropriate to weasel your way out of having to admit a logical truth because you can deny that logic applies to you, or dismiss logic as subjective.

You need to decide if you're going to respect logic, or bow out of these conversations.

Thought, subjective, logic, science; this is not the place to twist the meanings of words and deny the tools of reason.

People don't need violence-backed laws to make them do what they are already willing to do.

Will is neither permanent nor infallible.
I can agree that we should punish murderers because I don't want others to murder me and it's good for social order, but that doesn't guarantee that I won't in a fit of rage murder somebody. I could recognize that I should be punished for it, but that doesn't guarantee that I will submit to that punishment even if I know it's right.
People can be weak and impulsive.
You really know nothing about human psychology if you don't understand any of this.

Laws are only needed to impose the desires of the willing upon the unwilling.

Wrong.

or immoral (in the case of the unwilling).

Not when it stops them from doing a greater harm to others.

Anarchy does not solve the human tendency to commit violence,

It's not 100%, but all of the evidence from human history says it helps.
Read Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature.
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010

and the latter also exacerbates it to an astonishing degree.

No, it doesn't. It concentrates it, but overall there's less violence. You're just incredibly ignorant of the facts.

the latter is practical, intuitive and effective (like letting natural human individuality to remain intact without the artificial implementation of a ruling class).

No, it is not. You're just ignorant of history and human psychology, as you have demonstrated many times.

What harm are you suggesting "people like me" create? The only harm I have been accurately accused of is carnism, and the government does not prevent this, in fact, it encourages it.

The same was true of slavery a few centuries ago.
The evidence says humanity is getting better, and government is a major cause.

You think government prevents crime better than an armed anarchist society? How's the war on drugs going? All crime associated with drugs is a direct result of the laws that created a black market.

Yes. Government does some stupid things too. But even despite those stupid things it reduces violence, which really speaks very badly of anarchy.
Unlike anarchy, government can be improved. We can fixate on those stupid things and undo them.

Do you see liquor store owners shooting each other?

No, but there are drunk drivers mowing down children.
Do you know the death toll of alcohol? Didn't think so.

Ask peaceful middle-eastern citizens if violence is going down. Ask people getting beat up and shot by cops, or the millions who are locked up in prison for victimless crimes.

Ask a moron who doesn't understand reporting bias or per capita statistics.

The world isn't going to disappear and be replaced with patch-wearing anarchists hanging off the side of scrap-built pick-up trucks. Apple will still be making iphones, people will still be watching Game of Thrones, shopping at the mall, and going to the park with their kids.

Only because they would form governments.

Many of them will be free to carry firearms, and will help if there's trouble. Cops who got into the job to help people will be freed to actually do so as privately contracted defenders, and the free market system will handle the rest.

And they'll violate the NAP to do it, and the broken nature will create tribal warfare, or they'll unify into large governments again.

If the constitution and bill of rights is a valid protection, why has it failed so dismally?

It hasn't. It can stand to be improved, but it has been working fairy well. We continue on a march of progress and reduced violence.

Most people DO respect the NAP -- at least as applied to humans.

They don't respect the NAP, they arbitrarily choose to occasionally do so when they feel like it. Just like you arbitrarily out-group others.
Unless you are against arbitrary out-grouping, you don't respect the NAP and you and anybody else will arbitrarily out-group other human groups the moment it suits them and we will have tribalism again.

Voting literally fuels government because it is an explicit acceptance of taxation, which is the lifeblood of the enterprise. Voting is an acknowledgment and advocacy of the ruling class' power. How could condoning and financially supporting something not exacerbate it?

It literally does nothing to help government. It's easier for the government the less people vote.
You're a complete moron if you think voting is "explicit acceptance" of taxation. Look up those words.

The only reason politicians try to get people to vote is because we have a competitive system. It's a huge drain on the government. Governments without elections have it much better off to do what they want.

I've explained how voting (or any support of government) is a direct violation of the NAP, and you have not specifically addressed it.

I have. You're a moron. I explained why before.

I do not kill animals myself, but I support their murder by eating meat, right? So how is voting any different? You KNOW they will commit violence, and you are pushing a button that says "As my representative, go do it on my behalf."

Your purchase causes more animals to be bred, raised, and killed. The violence increases based on your consumption.
Voting does not increase the violence done. Voting for the lesser of evils actually reduces the violence done. Voting does not fuel government, it is a thorn in government's side.

You can ignore everything else I've said, but you must satisfactorily address this question in order to maintain your status as both a supporter of government AND a supporter of the NAP.

I'm not arguing for the NAP. I said that's the only potentially credible argument for anarchism, IF you could prove anarchists actually support it (like by going vegan). I'm demonstrating how you're a hypocrite.

I argue for reducing harm.

[Jebus]

You're a moron.

Aren't you being a bit too kind here?

Moron: IQ score of 51-70

Imbecile: IQ score of 26-50

Idiot: IQ score of 0-25

[teo123]

Brimstonesalad, why do you think it makes sense to say that plants can't feel pain because there would be no evolutionary advantage for them to do so, but not to say that humans can't be naturally violent because there would be no evolutionary advantage for them to do so? And what do you think caused murders tens of thousands of years ago? Could it simply be alcohol and halucinogens, as it usually happens today?

[brimstoneSalad]

1. There is an evolutionary advantage in the "wild" for a certain level of violence/aggression. Just enough, but not too much.
2. Evolution is good at fine tuning things like number of brain cells, but it's very crude at controlling those brains with any precision once they develop. It can only push general traits which have many purposes. If you don't need anything at all, you can lose it. If you somewhat need something, evolution is a bit clumsy about controlling the application, as is with aggressive tendencies. Maybe you only need them for wars between tribes which protects your own genes' survival, but they can also manifest in beating your children which is not useful (and even counterproductive). It just needs to serve your genes a little better than it costs them.
3. We have likely evolved to be less aggressive, but it's slow going. Unfortunately a modest amount of aggression is still useful for males for attaining mates, thus is selected FOR. As per point #2, aggression can manifest as non-productive physical violence because evolution isn't good at fine tuning this kind of stuff. So they're not just aggressive at courtship or on in sports, but they might lose their temper and kill somebody too.

It's not just that plants don't feel pain, they aren't sentient or truly intelligent at all. There's a thread on this, discussing with ModVegan:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=2782

I don't have time to discuss this at any more length right now. Please see that thread.

[BrianBlackwell]

You're a moron.

We're done. Anyone who resorts to blatant, adolescent insults reveals himself to be arguing from emotion, rather than intellect. Please don't respond to my posts, you're incapable of understanding them anyway (as evidenced by the fact that you have failed to address them with accuracy in almost every case). Better yet, why not honestly embrace your true authoritarian nature by removing me from the site entirely? You're already supporting my oppression by the cowardly act of voting; letting scoundrels do the dirty work you don't have the stomach or backbone to do yourself.