You’re likely aware that I’m a libertarian. But I’m actually more than a libertarian. I don’t believe in the right of the State to exist. The reason is that anything that has a monopoly of force is extremely dangerous. As Mao Tse-tung, lately one of the world’s leading experts on government, said: “The power of the state comes out of a barrel of a gun.”
There are two possible ways for people to relate to each other, either voluntarily or coercively. And the State is pure institutionalized coercion. It’s not just unnecessary, but antithetical, for a civilized society. And that’s increasingly true as technology advances. It was never moral, but at least it was possible, in oxcart days, for bureaucrats to order things around. Today it’s ridiculous.
Everything that needs doing can and will be done by the market, by entrepreneurs who fill the needs of other people for a profit. The State is a dead hand that imposes itself on society. That belief makes me, of course, an anarchist.
People have a misconception about anarchists. That they’re these violent people, running around in black capes with little round bombs. This is nonsense. Of course there are violent anarchists. There are violent dentists. There are violent Christians. Violence, however, has nothing to do with anarchism. Anarchism is simply a belief that a ruler isn’t necessary, that society organizes itself, that individuals own themselves, and the State is actually counterproductive.
It’s always been a battle between the individual and the collective. I’m on the side of the individual.
I simply don’t believe anyone has a right to initiate aggression against anyone else. Is that an unreasonable belief?
This opinion piece is full-bore anarchism, the true quill. It’s clarity is useful in exposing what is wrong with it.
The use of force by the state is always illegitimate? How about the use of force by rogues in the absence of a state? How about the use of force in self-defense? Is that illegitimate too? If not, then appreciate that the first function of the state is joining together to use force in common self-defense. If all force is illegitimate, then try telling that to the next Mad Max bully who shoots you for sport.
“The use of force by the state is always illegitimate? ”
Who said that?
Straw man?
Attacking individuals is always illegitimate; no matter who does it..
The author of the original post says that. Some straw men are real.
I was wondering. I guess they were trying to dismiss even the basic legitimate functions that people form governments to perform; mutual defence and security. Or they were trying to separate coercively supported government functions from the same functions produced through voluntary means.
An individual has the legitimate moral right to defend one’s self.
Good. Only a pacifist would deny it. Now, if an individual has a legitimate moral right to defend one’s self, why would it be illegitimate for the individual to team up with others for their common defense? That may not be your position, but it is the position of the opinion piece.
Point is, if organizations are established, then these are entered freely and exited at will.
‘I would agree to a pact that offered protection for my property; for this I would offer my assistance in exchange. For protecting my property, I would voluntarily go in league with those in the community that I would find helpful to me towards such ends. By saying this, I do not suggest any form of monopoly or coercion in this pact – only that it is an agreement that I would enter into.’
Grogg, Ogg, and their buddies form a mutual defense pact. It works; their group prospers; and soon there is a Grogg Jr. and an Ogg Jr. Is the mutual defense pact illegitimate for Grogg Jr. and Ogg Jr.? This really is the same question for you and the US government, just more generations and a more extensive mutual agreement.