Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Well while the state's actions don't necessarily "prevent people's evil" against others per se.The state's actions do provide some sort of buffer against people's apathy. All that's necessary for "evil" to triumph is for the "good" to do nothing.
I tend to feel I would do more to protect myself from evil if it were my personal responsibility.
What about the actions of the state that instigates, or is in itself, evil?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What a wonderful counter argument.
Well, take this as counter argument. None of my assumptions about human nature make it necessary logically that an anarchist society is formed. Since you stipulate that yours is a valuable argument against my point, could you base it on something that I said which then would prove your point, please?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
To keep the people alive and progress society as a whole rather than further the interests of individuals.
So, to keep miserable people alive in order to get more people that can then be made miserable again? Your system convinces me, my good sir.
Originally posted by inimalistI would to. But then I wouldn't necessarily be inclined to protect others from it.
I tend to feel I would do more to protect myself from evil if it were my personal responsibility.What about the actions of the state that instigates, or is in itself, evil?
Depends on which actions you're referring to. Edit: I misread your statement; states that don't act in the interests of the people they're meant to represent should presumably be overthrown.
Originally posted by Aster PhoenixThat leaves sucky employees up to exploitation.
That leaves employees up to exploitation. You need to have something in place to make sure people get paid a decent amount. Bosses are not going to do it just to be nice.
Oh, also Unions, I forgot Unions. They are there to protect you.
Originally posted by inimalist
you seem to be implying that the state is necessary in protecting people from would be evildoers.
I would make that argument. A government at its basis prevents petty evil by making the risk vs return inefficient and prevents powerful outside forces from harming the citizens.
Originally posted by inimalist
I personalized it in order to make the point more salient, as I don't envision you as someone who is overly violent or out to get others...
No, but that doesn't mean I'm not capable of that or that I'd like to assume random good people will protect me from bad people. As far as I'm concerned government is an inherent result of anarchy for just that reason. The rest builds on it.
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, I agree with it on most accounts. Nothing is perfect, and your criticisms have done little to move me from the moral positions that are the foundation for my anarchist beliefs. Just because "evil people" will exist, in my mind, should not prevent those who are not from being as free as they can. Certainly the existence of evil does not justify government, especially to someone who thinks the concept of authority over another person is immoral.
That would be where we differ. I don't think authority over someone is inherently immoral and that it is capable of causing much more benefit that assuming people will do the right thing.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That leaves sucky employees up to exploitation.Oh, also Unions, I forgot Unions. They are there to protect you.
Unions can only go so far to protect you. And a boss of a company or business tries to up their profits as much as possible. If not forced to pay a living wage they are not going to do so.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Unions can only go so far to protect you. And a boss of a company or business tries to up their profits as much as possible. If not forced to pay a living wage they are not going to do so.
Yeah they will. They are dependent on employees just as the employee is independent on employers. And the negative aspects really totally beat the positive aspects. I grant you a Grapes of Wrath setting is depressing, but that's almost impossible nowadays in a modern world.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, take this as counter argument. None of my assumptions about human nature make it necessary logically that an anarchist society is formed. Since you stipulate that yours is a valuable argument against my point, could you base it on something that I said which then would prove your point, please?
If all of the aspects of human nature you rely on; namely altruism, intelligence, identical personal morals, lack of apathy, lack of desire for power over others and non-violent tendency were generally true governments would be unneeded, unwelcome and most importantly incapable of forming.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So, to keep miserable people alive in order to get more people that can then be made miserable again? Your system convinces me, my good sir.
I doesn't have to. You system does require everyone involved to share the same convictions.
Originally posted by Bardock42Yeah they will. They are dependent on employees just as the employee is independent on employers. And the negative aspects really totally beat the positive aspects. I grant you a Grapes of Wrath setting is depressing, but that's almost impossible nowadays in a modern world.
Yes but the employees that really need the work and cannot choose not to work there can be exploited.
And I don't see a negative aspect to insuring the people get a livable wage.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If all of the aspects of human nature you rely on; namely altruism, intelligence, identical personal morals, lack of apathy, lack of desire for power over others and non-violent tendency were generally true governments would be unneeded, unwelcome and most importantly incapable of forming.
I don't rely on them. I rely on exactly one. Humans being selfish. That's it.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosI am not sure what you are trying to say.
My hammer has an objection to hitting things but I still consider it a valuable tool for hitting things.
Originally posted by Aster PhoenixBecause companies don't get more money just because they are forced to pay more. Ergo they will cut back on jobs, or outsource them or give it to illegal workers.
Why?