On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Chris Edes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... Violation of our > natural rights is the problem, when you state the problem in its > simplest form. Government is merely one arena or venue in which this > occurs.
Agreed. > Under anarchy, our natural rights would *still* be violated. Agreed. > We would > not call the violators government, but that is of no comfort. Anarchy > WILL NOT stop human beings from trying to oppress each other. It will > only change the ways by which they can successfully carry out their > oppression. ... Right. So: We can have a variety of relatively small, competing aggressors who are not entrusted with the legitimate functions of society (trade, protection, justice, etc.), have no social or moral legitimacy, and are universally reviled for what they are (mobs and individual criminals). -or- We can have a large, monopolistic aggressor which has usurped enough of the legitimate functions of society to make itself seem indispensable (especially to those who live off its 'largesse'), and which clothes itself (largely successfully, alas) in a cloak of legitimacy such that people die for its very symbols (flags, etc.). I know which I'd choose! > The majority of people will always tend to have more wealth and power, > than the minority. This is a strange contention. There is no natural 'majority' or 'minority', so you can choose any grouping you like and make this statement come out true. However, I think most people would disagree with you and would say that the greatest part of society's wealth is in a relatively small number of hands. These folks find it ridiculously easy to manipulate a 'democratic' system where the mob (sorry; government) is selected by a 'popular vote'. This is one of the prime reasons that a monopoly government *is* such a bad idea. > They will always be motivated to use this power to > oppress the minority. If there is no Law or Constitution to uphold > individual rights, with enforcement power, no one can intervene and the > tyranny of the majority has free reign. Rein (although 'reign' fits in this case, too). I dispute the notion that 'no one can intervene'. I also dispute the notion that a *majority* operates as a tyranny - for that to happen the majority would have to be in substantive agreement - and we see that is simply not so. What happens *in fact* is that a minority *uses* a majority to draw around itself this cloak of legitimacy I mentioned earlier. > Or, military rule can arise. An army has an advantage over civilians, > no matter how well armed the latter group. Civilians must work and > raise families, and this takes time and energy. An army of young men > doesn't need to work or get married. They can steal the wealth of > others and rape the women. Such an army can focus entirely on > oppression and coercion. Armies rely on government. If you are merely saying that if we had no government, a government would happen, so we should have a government, that's a bit silly. It's like saying that death is inevitable, so why not simply take control and kill yourself and avoid the surprise? > These are the reasons that we establish governments. So that the rule > of the mob, whether manifest as majority tyranny, or mafia tyranny, can > be kept in check by something which is less burdensome. Such as > constitutional representative government. Piffle. In probably EVERY case with the possible exception of the US government, the idea of "constitutional representative government" was simply a cloak FOR the mob to assume (or stay in) control with the willing complicity of the very folks it was parasitizing. > This idea that ending government will somehow end all oppression and > tyranny, is a matter of faith. I prefer not to govern on faith, but > rather by reason. Govern thyself! But please spare me your 'reason', which somehow looks to me more like ex post facto rationalization for government already in existence than the rationale for creating a government. A truly decent government would not need to employ the tactics of a mob to fight a mob. The fact that government DOES behave like a mob should be your first clue that it's purpose isn't to 'secure your rights'. -- Susan Hogarth | Get Free! Libertarian for NC State House 38 http://hogarth4house.com/
