noauthority.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Long live NAS!

Administered by:

Server stats:

1.3K
active users

Matt Hamilton

> "We need government!"

For what?

To form a collective and seize an illegitimate authority of "arbitrary compulsion under threat of violence" that no member individually posses?

I don't have the authority to violate the natural rights of another person.

An arbitrary group of people exerting supposed authority (that none of them have individually), and calling it "Government", is a brazen, illegitimate, out and open criminal enterprise.

> we need government

Explain why we *need* that.

@eriner

This is a very good question.

I believe that this manipulation to make us want someone to rule over us is as old as time. Perhaps the original conspiracy.

@eriner @EvolLove It is the original conspiracy—and the original rebellion. It’s what’s really going on in Genesis 3:5. The entire Bible and its commentary on human sin is really about this one thing. Humanity’s falling short is not about a piece of fruit. It’s about taking power for ourselves in the hope of constructing our own paradise on our terms.

@eriner The urge to form a "governemnt", or join/support a way of organizing a society in order to exert power over "the other" is perhaps a consequence of human nature, or at least responding to unbridled base instincts.

I guess one could construe unbridled base instincts as a "need"

@eriner Government will always exist is the real problem, mostly because people want to rule over others.
@dcc @eriner the ability too live off grid is getting easier and more affordable every year. I think we’ll see a day where large areas in America will be populated by anarcho capitalists that just ignore the state.

@eriner

Moral relativist look to the state to set the morality for the nation. They “need” government because they don’t trust themselves or others to be moral individuals without a nanny state.

@eriner Did you read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers?

Why pretend not to know their arguments?

@Best What relevance does that have?

@eriner I don't know, go eat a bratwurst, you fat fuck. :)

@eriner What if the people in one location agree to form a local government for practical reason? Then it is ok, and because it is practical to coordinate activities and organize commonly used spaces or facilities.

@eriner @rfichoke

because people often disagree on facts. because people violate others' rights, even when they try not to. because some issues have to be decided together, and then some people refuse to accept the outcomes.

and most of us think that the solution to these failures of your theory translating well to reality, shouldn't be the bigger or wealthier or more dangerous clan getting what they want.

@eriner @wjmaggos If people disagree on facts, including what rights people have, or whether rights even exist, how will they “decide issues together”?

Also, bigger, wealthier, and more dangerous clans getting what they want is the direct, demonstrable, and consistent result of the state throughout human history. In fact, it’s essentially the definition of what the state is.

@rfichoke @eriner @wjmaggos If only a group of people could get together
collectively group fund a force of people
which are armed with weapons and vehicles
and other group builds a barrier to prevent
people coming into our zone/district

We could call these things

Civic Armed Force
Moat, Walls
Crowd/Ground Funding

Instead of
Thief
Force
Deception
lack of agency

@rfichoke @wjmaggos you're right of course, but maggos will never reconcile this cognitive dissonance and instead go on and on with non-sequitur after non-sequitur.

@eriner Give me everything you know about the Madison vs.Henry debate in 30 seconds.

Oh, that's tight you know nothing, literal fuck-all. STFU, FATTY.

@rfichoke @eriner

you're right about clans becoming governments. monarchies, not liberal democracies. liberal democratic governments are imperfect, but better than what you seem to be conceding your idealistic society would devolve into (since you avoided my argument).

in liberal democracies, we give power to governments and institutions to resolve the conflicts. we teach civics. we participate. but ultimately we do accept their force upon us, even when we disagree with its decisions.

We need a government for the simple reason that we've got a society that depends on it. As much as I'd like to do without a government, you can't simply turn back the clock to pre-agrarian times.

And redesigning society to do without a government is not only hard, how would you even expect other people to get on board with this new society?