Why Obama's Association with Bill Ayers should disqualify him from the Presidency
I've heard several people claim that it is unfair for John McCain and Sarah Palin to attack Barack Obama over his association with Bill Ayers. They say alternately that the association was not a close one, or that Bill Ayers is a perfectly respectable figure in Chicago politics who many people associated with
( Read more... )
Your abstractions are meaningless. You talk about "our" ally. Whose ally? Mine? Yours? And which people in South Vietnam are you talking about? I never signed any contract. In any case, such alliances are morally worthless. They don't change the reality that American soldiers murdered Vietnamese civilians, or the reality that murder is a grave evil. Comparisons about who killed more, or whose bombs were more accurate, don't bring the innocent dead back to life.
Even according to your own terms, your argument makes no sense, because the American state's alliance with the South Vietnamese state was un-Constitutional. There is no power granted Congress to give Americans' money to foreign governments, or to provide for their defense. (Or do you believe in the "living document" theory?)
Are Southeast Asians real to me? Yes, real enough that I don't cheerlead their slaughter for stupid ideological reasons, or to uphold political abstractions, or to enrich the military contractors.
You have done a fine job pointing out the evils of the North Vietnamese government. Now tell me how those evils are rectified by stealing money from Americans, enslaving over 2 million of them (aka the draft) and sending them to kill more Vietnamese, including between 50,000 and several million civilians, while suffering over 200,000 casualties (dead and wounded) themselves.
It is you who are blind to the millions of lives shattered and destroyed by this war. It's all about "alliances" to you. How simple. How easy to see this as a lesser evil than a few bombs that didn't kill anyone -- nay, as a positive good!
I am unmoved by the self-serving mythology of the state. Thus, I am unmoved by arguments, like yours, that proceed from an uncritical acceptance of that mythology.
Reply
Such is necessary to avoid worse evils. If governments are not morally permitted to defend their people, the people who form such governments will be conquered by other governments lacking those scruples. If individuals are to be granted the same moral authority to make war as governments, then the inevitable consequence is violent anarchy, with each group or individual killing at will, until one group strong enough to impose order conquers all.
I prefer liberal democracy to such an outcome.
Your abstractions are meaningless.
The abstraction of the "state" is quite meaningful, and indeed it is impossible to understand history at all without reference to the existence of such entities.
You talk about "our" ally. Whose ally? Mine? Yours?
The ally of the United States of America, as is obvious from context. Wilful refusal to understand clear statements is not proof of moral superiority.
And which people in South Vietnam are you talking about?
The then- internationally-recognized government of the Republic of Viet Nam, which was a signatory to SEATO with the US and other Powers.
I never signed any contract.
Shall I assume from this that you are a stateless person? Because, if you accept American citizenship, you have by accepting this sworn fealty to the United States of America -- that is what the "citizenship oath" is about. If you were born in America, you got citizenship automatically: shall I assume that you have long since renounced this citizenship, perhaps in favor of some more pacifistic Power?
If not, may I assume that if I want to come take your property you will only resist personally, without calling in any of the authorities of the country to whom you claim no allegience? Or should I, instead, presume that you accept all the benefits of membership in American society while resenting all the responsibilities?
They don't change the reality that American soldiers murdered Vietnamese civilians, or the reality that murder is a grave evil.
Killing in war (save for the deliberate killing of true civilians) is not murder, and while war is itself a grave evil, it is a lesser evil in many cases than is surrender.
Comparisons about who killed more, or whose bombs were more accurate, don't bring the innocent dead back to life.
No, you're not getting it. We (Americans) attacked military targets and unfortunately also killed civilians (because we didn't have special evil-seeking munitions). They (North Vietnamese) deliberately murdered civilians whom they had captured and were holding at their mercy at the time. The torture-murder of South Vietnamese civilians who refused to betray their own country to North Vietnam was standard policy of the Communists during the war.
Nothing will bring the innocent dead back to life. But winning the war might have given their deaths more meaning. John McCain fought bravely to help his country win the war. William Ayers fought treacherously to ensure his own country's defeat. That is a considerable moral difference.
Reply
But you see, the Vietnam War was not a war in defense of the American people. In reality, it was just as much a war [i]against[/i] the American people as it was against the government and people of North Vietnam. Americans were taxed (robbed, in a more honest vocabulary) to pay for it and drafted (enslaved) to fight it. Furthermore, the war was never even declared by Congress and was gotten into by deceitful means (the Gulf of Tonkin incident).
Which brings me to my next point. The mythology of government is that yes, government exists to protect us from the bad guys, and to provide justice and order. But the reality is that, throughout history, states emerged not as well-intentioned attempts to do good, but as the means by which unscrupulous men could live at the expense of the populations they had conquered. The only thing that has changed in modern times, and in the so-called democratic nations, is that this is accomplished in a more subtle manner (although it is still obvious when one is made to realize as much).
There would be nothing moral about democracy, or mob rule, if it even existed, because no man has the right to make arbitrary rules contrary to the natural law, and to force others to obey these rules. But true democracy does not even exist. The real government in this country does not consist in the elected figureheads, but in the powerful special interests, including a permanent bureaucracy with its own power to make laws. Any candidate for high office who threatens the rule of this real government is destroyed by the state-licensed, lapdog media.
Even if my assessment of the details is wrong, everyone knows that nothing ever changes. No matter how badly the government's foreign policy, its monetary policy or its bankrupt welfare state turn out for the American people, no alternatives are given a fair hearing by the political/media establishment. It must be that these policies are not [i]intended[/i] to produce safety, justice and order. That is not why the state exists. It exists as a means for the few, without risking their lives and reputations, to plunder the many. At that, the government's policies are a roaring success.
Make-believe democracy is just a mask to convince the ruled that they are doing all this to themselves, and therefore it must be okay.
You asked me for an alternative system. I don't feel the need to devise one. In fact, to do so would be contrary to my beliefs. How would such a system be imposed, if not by the same evil means that have saddled us with the current system?
Instead, I look at it as such: There will always be murder, rape, robbery and fraud in the world. Anyone who announced a plan to elminate these from the world would be rightly viewed as insane. We live with these evils, but we denounce them and refuse to partake in them. We resist them when necessary. That is all we can do.
I live with in a world of states, which institutionalize murder, robbery and fraud, and which compound these evils by re-naming them and re-categorizing them as virtues, thereby corrupting the morality of the people over whom they rule. I can't get rid of the state, any more than I can get rid of murder, rape, robbery and fraud. But I can denounce it, and refuse to support it, and resist it when necessary. That is all I can do.
Reply
Quite true. It was a war in defense of the Republic of Viet Nam, which was an ally of the United States of America. The United States of America was quite representative of the American people, because it was a functional liberal democracy; the Republic of Viet Nam only imperfectly so, because it was an authoritarian dictatorship. OTOH, the People's Democratic Republic of Viet Nam was even less representative of its people, because North Vietnam was a totalitarian dictatorship and hence needed even less than South Vietnam to please its populace.
The known history of East Asia (North Korea and South Korea, Red China and Nationalist China) strongly implies that East Asian dictatorships of the South Vietnamese type tend to evolve into actual democracies; while those of the North Vietnamese type at best evolve into merely strongly-authoritarian dictatorships (modern Red China) and at worst into monstrously-totalitarian dictatorships (modern North Korea). Hence, the fall of South Vietnam to North Vietnam was clearly bad for the South Vietnamese people -- assuming that you consider being ruled by a representative government to be better for people than being ruled by an un-representative government, as I and most Americans strongly do.
Americans were taxed (robbed, in a more honest vocabulary) to pay for it and drafted (enslaved) to fight it. Furthermore, the war was never even declared by Congress and was gotten into by deceitful means (the Gulf of Tonkin incident).
In order: income taxes are evil, but perhaps a necessary evil, as it is difficult to see how we could support the defense apparatus necessary to survive as a Great Power in the modern world without such impositions. The draft is probably an unnecessary evil, and we have managed without it since the 1970's.
The non-declaration of the war was an evil, since it muddied the legal position (had the war been declared, we wouldn't be talking about William Ayers' career, save to wonder if he'd ever be paroled from federal prison), unfortunately this is an evil that has sprung from the universal hypocritical pretense in America that we have been at "peace" since 1945 (even though we have fought four medium-sized or bigger wars and numerous small ones since then). I don't know what to say about this save that we should probably start declaring wars again. OTOH, the mechanism of Congressional resolution was accepted as legitimate by all parties in 1964 when the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed; and it has been done repeatedly since. I look at it as "the new way of declaring war."
As to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident itself, briefly: there were two Gulf of Tonkin Incidents, the first one was real and the second one an error caused almost certainly by jumpy radar operators. Neither was "faked." The real "deceit" regarding the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a much deeper one.
I suggest you read an actual military history of the event sometime. The notion that it was "faked" has rarely been actively countered by the US military because believing that it was "faked" helps cover up what the destroyers actually were doing off the coast of North Vietnam, which was to escort in raiding parties.
OTOH, this doesn't let North Vietnam off the hook either, because North Vietnam actually invaded South Vietnam much earlier than the massive invasion of 1964-65: in fact the first NVA regulars were fighting in South Vietnam as early as 1960 or so. The causes of the war are a lot more complex and murky than you realize; though it happens to be true that North Vietnam started the war by invading the South.
Reply
Based on my study of history you are mostly right about the origin of states. However, you are assuming too much when you assume that the Big Men who made themselves rulers of the first chiefdoms had evil intent, and that all their successors did as well.
Furthermore, you are making the seriously-flawed unexamined assumption that the alternative to states would be freedom: historically, the alternative to states is usually violent anarchy, the cessation of all but the most heavily-escorted trade, and the common folk living in constant terror of violent death. There is a reason why most states have had little difficulty finding loyal supporters, and the reasons is not as simple as "most people are mooks, unlike we enlightened anarchists."
The only thing that has changed in modern times, and in the so-called democratic nations, is that this is accomplished in a more subtle manner (although it is still obvious when one is made to realize as much).
Yet, oddly, there is close to a perfect correspondence between living under modern liberal democracies and having one's civil rights actually respected (most of the time) by one's government. Liberal democracies are not perfect -- they are run by fallible humans and have institutional tendencies to arrogate governmental power -- but the checks and balances they contain tend to limit the damage done by government better than any alternative system of government. Compare the life of an American or Japanese to that of a Chinese or Iranian.
You may argue that the American or Japanese is merely richer than the Chinese or Iranian. He probably is, but that begs the question as to "why." The answer is that a government which respects civil liberties and thus rarely engages in the arbitrary confiscation of property governs a society in which property is more secure, hence people work harder and are more willing to invest in the future, hence social cooperation is smoother and everyone tends to be richer on average.
This is merely one beneficial effect of living under a liberal democracy rather than an authoritarian dictatorship. Not being hauled off by the secret police to torture, prison or death for mere dissent with the authorities is another one, and not one to be scorned, especially since it is the one which YOU are taking advantage of RIGHT NOW.
Reply
The "elected figureheads" create, expand or contract this "permanent bureaucracy," so they are hardly helpless pawns of its power. Furthermore, the "special interests" mostly do not have the power of law making or law enforcment, nor do they always cooperate with each other. You are looking at a system where power flows in many directions, and willfully blinding yourself to the fact that much of the power flows from the people to their elected representatives, and from them to control the "special interests," because you are so offended at the fact that the "special interests" have any power at all.
Well -- get over it. Every organized society, starting at least with Neolithic farming towns, has had "special interests" (the elders of the important families) who to some extent had power over the formal government (the headman or town council) beyond that strictly contained in the constitution (a customary rather than written one in Neolithic Southwest Asia, of course). So would your anarchy, even if it managed to avoid the likely fate of most anarchies -- disintegration in the war of all against all.
In fact, an anarchy would need the rule of the "special interests" even more, because of its lack of any formal governmental structure! Here, the "special interests" would probably comprise persons who headed large families willing to fight for their rights and the rights of their allies, who would through some sort of occasional meetings iron out differences between their interests and avoid open warfare.
Any candidate for high office who threatens the rule of this real government is destroyed by the state-licensed, lapdog media.
This is so untrue in America, and even to some extent in less liberal democracies, as to be laughable. You don't need a "license" to be "media" in most liberal democracies, or you need a license which is ridiculously easy to get and hard to lose (which is almost the same thing). WE are part of the "media" right now, just by having this discussion in a public forum. Do you have a "state license?" I know I don't have one!
Even if my assessment of the details is wrong, everyone knows that nothing ever changes.
Really? I've studied both world and American history in some detail, and I've seen quite a lot of things change in the 4000+ years that we've begun writing history down. I suspect that you are simply impatient -- you want total change now. I also suspect that you are unrealistic -- you imagine that such change would necessarily be in a direction congenial to your tastes.
No matter how badly the government's foreign policy, its monetary policy or its bankrupt welfare state turn out for the American people, no alternatives are given a fair hearing by the political/media establishment. It must be that these policies are not [i]intended[/i] to produce safety, justice and order. That is not why the state exists. It exists as a means for the few, without risking their lives and reputations, to plunder the many. At that, the government's policies are a roaring success.
Or, alternatively, it may be that most of the people are (reasonably, not perfectly) satisfied with life in a modern liberal democracy, and regard radical change as being more likely to make their own lives worse than better. Hence, they disagree with you; they do not want your sort of change (to some kind of anarchy, near as I can figure out what you are arguing), and (if you want this change) it is your responsibility to argue your case better -- or rethink it.
Reply
If you don't have a better alternative, then all your verbiage amounts to meaningless griping -- a man saying "Damn, it's hot today!" while doing nothing to either change the weather or seek the shade. Logically, when presented with a number of choices, such as between political systems, one chooses the best of the AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES, one does not whine "I don't like any of these" and sulk. And if one does so, one would be a fool to expect others to mistake this sulk for a well-thought-out political position.
I have studied history, I am aware of many political systems which have existed or been proposed. Of these, the one which seems to have worked best now, and have the best chance of working well in the future, is liberal democracy with respect for the life, liberty and property of its citizens central to its constitution. Hence, I align myself with this system, and oppose myself to others in proportion to the degree with which they differ (so I oppose "social democracy" mildly and "totalitarian dictatorship" strongly).
This, I submit, is the behavior of a rational man, who must deal with reality rather than merely whine about its imperfections.
Reply
Logically, when presented with a number of choices, such as between political systems, one chooses the best of the AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES...
And who presents me with these choices, if not my fellow men - specifically, those who would rule over me? And why are they any more fit to impose their social arrangements onto me than I am to impose mine onto them? I refuse to make a choice between political systems because I choose to reject politics, i.e. institutionalized murder, robbery and fraud. If asked by a sadistic doctor to choose, out of myriad horrible diseases, the one with which I would like myself and others to be afflicted, I would likewise reject such a self-destructive choice, and choose to remain healthy instead.
...the one which seems to have worked best now, and have the best chance of working well in the future, is liberal democracy with respect for the life, liberty and property of its citizens central to its constitution.
If you believe, regardless of what the Constitution says, that the U.S. government, taken as a whole, has respect for the life, liberty and property of its subjects, then we must have a very different understanding of how such respect would manifest itself. Of course, there are and have been more vicious governments in the world. To this point, I say: give it time.
I suspect that you are simply impatient -- you want total change now.
Allow me put this in perspective. The American colonists seceded from the British empire over 200 years ago, mainly in protest of minor tariffs, and the warrantless searches and denial of habeas corpus by agents of the king that followed as measures of enforcement.
Today's U.S. government, properly considered, consumes well over half of the national income. It interferes in almost every aspect of economic life. It wages destructive, unnecessary wars and secretly meddles in the political affairs of other nations, thereby endangering its own subjects. And now, we have warrantless searches and the denial of habeas corpus, as well as torture made official policy. To wit, it is as bad as - and in many ways, far worse than - the British rule overthrown by the colonists. And getting worse. So, in the long run, very little of substance changes for the better.
Or, alternatively, it may be that most of the people are (reasonably, not perfectly) satisfied with life in a modern liberal democracy, and regard radical change as being more likely to make their own lives worse than better.
So, the fact that the major news media, which exchanges compliance for access to the power elite, and from which most people heretofore have derived their knowledge of current affairs, allows only a narrow range of views to be aired, has nothing to do with the popular acceptance of, or resignation to, the status quo? You don't really believe that, do you? Or what about the government-funded schools? Do we expect them to challenge the system that enriches the unionized, state-employed teachers and administrators? Isn't it unfair to expect me to change people's minds while I, along with everyone else, is being robbed to fund a massive, ongoing propaganda effort in favor of the current system? It's a bit rigged, don't you think?
So would your anarchy, even if it managed to avoid the likely fate of most anarchies -- disintegration in the war of all against all.
I never presented to you a proposal for "anarchy," whatever is meant by that. I believe in changing oneself, over whom one may legitimately exercise control. This begins with changing one's mind, after which will follow a change in behavior. It is one thing to accept things as they are. I do, and have no illusions about "changing the world." But it is another thing entirely to, uncoerced, defend, cheerlead and partake in the plunder and butchery of the evil and/or insane men who rule over us, and to propagate the mythology that legitimizes their immoral behavior. That, I won't do.
Reply
Reality, of which your fellow men are a part, presents you with these choices. Reality creates the need for human organization to avoid, at a minimum, a confused scramble over resources without any way of registering property claims; and at a maximum, deliberate violence exercised to deprive others of their rights to life, liberty and property.
It is not just "those who would rule over you," but also those who would merely rob you to enrich themselves, or harm or kill you simply for the sheer joy of doing so. Given human nature, some sort of government is an unavoidable necessity.
And why are they any more fit to impose their social arrangements onto me than I am to impose mine onto them?
You are all equally fit. However, you are one: the entire rest of the human race is many. This, too, is part of reality.
If asked by a sadistic doctor to choose, out of myriad horrible diseases, the one with which I would like myself and others to be afflicted, I would likewise reject such a self-destructive choice, and choose to remain healthy instead.
Interestingly, the human body lives with numerous non-human organisms that dwell within it. Every one of these started as parasites: many have become harmless commensalists, and some have become symbionts useful or even vital to our own survival.
Government is not a disease, it is a necessity. Your only real choice is which government, and how it is to be chosen, composed and regulated. This is imposed not by malice, but by the nature of reality.
If you believe, regardless of what the Constitution says, that the U.S. government, taken as a whole, has respect for the life, liberty and property of its subjects, then we must have a very different understanding of how such respect would manifest itself.
It has the most respect for the life, liberty and property of its citizens (not "subjects") of any government which has ever actually been instituted. It is not perfect in this regard, but perfection is unattainable.
I actually agree with you that the US government has (over the last 200 years) in some respects fallen away from its original ideals. OTOH, it has in other respects approached them more closely.
In the long run, we will probably decline into some form of authoritarian dictatorship. But that is because authoritarian dictatorship is the default form of government.
So, the fact that the major news media, which exchanges compliance for access to the power elite, and from which most people heretofore have derived their knowledge of current affairs, allows only a narrow range of views to be aired, has nothing to do with the popular acceptance of, or resignation to, the status quo? You don't really believe that, do you?
No, I really believe that it is a cyclic system, with the media affecting the people and the people affecting the media. I know for certain that there is very little popular support for greatly changing the form of the US Government, and even less for abolishing it entirely.
That is the popular opinion. You may protest that it has been formed unfairly, and that people "really" want what you want, if they only knew it. But this begs the question as to why your opinion is to be taken as governing theirs.
You are coming close to expressing Dr. Horrible Anarchism, aka
"Anarchy/run by me"
which, as Joss Whedon fully understood when he wrote the lines, is a contradiction in terms.
Reply
It is certainly desirable to avoid the conditions you have described, but governments achieve no such result. On the contrary, they are the perpetrators of violence exercised to deprive others of their rights to life, liberty and property, and to a much greater extent than are the small-time criminals from whom they purport to protect us. They are the principle source of economic, and thus social, disorder.
As for the state's claims that it shields us from the predations of other, more vicious states, such claims hardly stand up to historical examination. The U.S. government has repeatedly, against the interests of its subjects (and I use that word deliberately), delivered them into the danger and wholesale slaughter of conflicts between foreign powers. This policy is not a result of the public will, as you seem to believe. For two examples, both Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt won the presidency on promises to keep the American people out of foreign wars, and both worked tirelessly, behind the scenes, to pull their country into such wars.
Did the American voter choose for the CIA to overthrow the political regimes of Iran (1953) and Chile (1973), to name but two examples of which few Americans are even aware; or for the same agency to meddle in the recent Ukranian elections? Do these activities help ensure the safety and well-being of the American people, or, to the contrary, do they engender hatred and hostility towards Americans among the affected foreign peoples? To ask this question is to answer it. So why does this go on and on?
The answer: Government does not exist to serve the interests of the governed. "Governed" is a euphemism for "ruled." Rulers regard those whom they rule as property. Property serves the interests of its owners, not the other way around.
(Continued in next post.)
Reply
You are making the rather huge assumption that, if governments did not exist, all we would have to deal with would be "small-time criminals." Absent governmental interference, there would be nothing to stop said "small-time criminals" from growing into bigger and bigger organizations, until they BECAME states.
Our states, especially in the Western world, have co-evolved with our cultures over extensive periods of time and become relatively symbiotic with their citizenries. The sort of nascent states which would be formed by expanding criminal gangs would in all probability be far more malign, as is demonstrable from the historical examples of situations in which state authority has broken down over wide areas.
You would not be merely worrying about getting mugged or burglarized. You would be worrying about a brigand band moving into your neighborhood, occupying your house and taking everything that you owned, for no better reason than because it could get away with it.
As for the state's claims that it shields us from the predations of other, more vicious states, such claims hardly stand up to historical examination.
[Anonymous then proceeds to talk about America in the World Wars and in the Third World].
First of all, "the state" is a more general class of entity than the United States of America. Your intense focus on the US is a good example of the "Only America Is Real" delusion.
Secondly, of course America has acted to protect its people from the predations of other states. In particular, it was doing so in both World Wars (especially WWII) and in the Cold War. The predatory states in those instances were Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union.
Do these activities help ensure the safety and well-being of the American people, or, to the contrary, do they engender hatred and hostility towards Americans among the affected foreign peoples? To ask this question is to answer it. So why does this go on and on?
Because "to ask this question" is not to "answer it." The US by overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953 helped keep the Soviets out of the Persian Gulf, which ensured cheap oil for the next two decades, which in turn fostered the growth of our economy. The US by overthrowing Allende in 1973 prevented the Soviets from gaining a foothold in South America, which helped us win the Cold War. You assume that these actions were done from a callous disregard of American interests; they were instead done from the desire to promote such interests.
The answer: Government does not exist to serve the interests of the governed. "Governed" is a euphemism for "ruled." Rulers regard those whom they rule as property. Property serves the interests of its owners, not the other way around.
Then why isn't anarchy breaking out almost everywhere? Clearly, most people don't agree with you.
Reply
You would suffer far worse under the rule of the Weathermen than you do under the modern US government.
Now, it's true that the Weathermen had no chance of succeeding. But again: incompetence is not innocence. Nor even its close cousin.
Reply
Government is no more a necessity than are its constituent activities: murder, robbery, fraud, kidnapping and enslavement. All of the above have long plagued the human experience, such is the nature of man, but few would argue that we "need" them.
Furthermore, your "choice" as to which government you have, and the particulars concerning it, is illusory at best. The chance of your vote influencing the outcome of an election is statistically somewhere between "getting struck by lightning," and zero. And even if "your" guy gets in, there's no telling what he'll do, campaign promises notwithstanding. Remember, even this so-called "choice" is between a few candidates vetted by an establishment to which you are nothing but a cash cow and potential cannon fodder. I suppose you can move to live somewhere else, so long as that is still allowed.
Luckily, the nature of reality is such that you do have a choice to free your mind even as your body is enslaved. You don't have to believe the government's fairy tales about itself. You don't have to be a cheerleader and apologist for your own fleecing. Instead of gazing upon your rulers in awe and admiration, you might feel contempt for them, or even pity. And you could stop worshiping the professional killers they hire to keep you in line, and whom they pay to do so with money stolen from you.
If it is too much for you to see things as they are, and to not be fooled by euphemistic labels and propaganda -- that is, if you can't change your own mind -- then yes, you should get used to the way things are, because you will have no reason to expect others to change their minds. And without a change of mind, nothing will change, because behavior follows thought. So long as people think this is the best they can do, it will be so.
Reply
Government is a necessity because anarchy is not an evolutionarily stable system. Do you understand what that means?
An "evolutionarily stable system" is one which can defend itself against those competitors likely to arise.
The problem with anarchy is that violent individuals will arise within it and organize to create, first, criminal organizations, which will develop into states. These states are likely to treat their subjects far worse than do modern Western liberal democracies, for the very good reason that modern Western liberal democracies treat their citizens far better than is the historical norm.
How would an anarchy prevent states from arising out of itself? If you can't answer this question, then you can't logically argue that government is unnecessary -- in fact, it is "necessary" for exactly the same reason that, say, the food chain or gravity are necessary. It springs from natural laws.
Furthermore, your "choice" as to which government you have, and the particulars concerning it, is illusory at best. The chance of your vote influencing the outcome of an election is statistically somewhere between "getting struck by lightning," and zero.
The choice is collective, but a collective is simply a number of individuals. If we fight for and protect liberal democracy, and succeed, we will be better off than if we fight for and protect totalitarian dictatorship, and succeed.
Remember, even this so-called "choice" is between a few candidates vetted by an establishment to which you are nothing but a cash cow and potential cannon fodder. I suppose you can move to live somewhere else, so long as that is still allowed.
Where is this "somewhere" else that you believe you could live under anarchy? Again, I detect "Only America Is Real" -- in fact, if you lived somewhere else, you'd be living under some other government -- and most states treat their people worse than does America.
If it is too much for you to see things as they are, and to not be fooled by euphemistic labels and propaganda -- that is, if you can't change your own mind -- then yes, you should get used to the way things are, because you will have no reason to expect others to change their minds. And without a change of mind, nothing will change, because behavior follows thought. So long as people think this is the best they can do, it will be so.
Suppose that you could wave a magic wand and get some ridiculously high percentage of the people -- say, 90% -- of the whole world to agree with you regarding the evils of all government. And they decided to do away with all government.
How could you prevent the 10% who were willing to form and enforce governments from simply taking over?
Reply
You have grasped that governments are an evil, that their power derives from force. But what is your alternative?
I see no alternative either. Since there is no visible alternative to government, I choose to support that form of government which is the least evil and oppressive -- liberal democracy.
As opposed to what, you might ask? As opposed to, say, totalitarian dictatorships of various political stripes. Or even "social democracy," which is democracy with less economic freedom.
I could choose to emigrate to a dictatorship or a less free democracy. I don't, in part because I like the system of government that we have in America better than those alternatives.
Your fantasy about "others changing their minds" is and must remain a pipe dream as long as you have failed to propose a viable alternative. Others changing their minds to "Gee, it would be nice if we had no government" accomplishes nothing good if the abolition of the liberal democracy under which you live now is simply to be the rise of warlordism and feudal dictatorships, as would almost certainly be the case.
If you have a specific system of anarchy in mind, argue for it. If not, stop complaining about the existence of government. Absent any alternative, it's like complaining about the existence of death. Tiresome, and does nothing to improve the quality of life.
Reply
If by "anarchy," you mean the absence of a single, final, monopolistic arbitrator in matters of justice, then you are describing the situation that currently prevails in the relations between states. Do you think a one-world government would be preferable to this inter-state anarchy?
You are right that if, in a given territory, the state suddenly disappeared, another criminal gang would eventually take its place. But, as you yourself have acknowledged, the current government of the United States will most likely devolve into an overtly authoritarian regime in due time. So, clearly, your favored system is no more sustainable than a condition of statelessness.
The reason I won't answer your call for a better system is because I disagree with the whole premise of the question. I have no more to solve the problem of states than you have to solve the problem of murder. That murder is in the nature of man, and cannot be eliminated from the world, does not make it good or worthy of support, even in a relative sense (i.e. murder one because you think it will save ten). To the extent that people recognize it as evil, and consequently will have nothing to do with it, the world is a better place.
I know, as surely as I can know anything, that we reap what we sow, that our ends are preexistent in the means that we choose. That is the iron law of the moral universe. The mythology of the state is that we "need" a little bit of evil to fight a bigger evil. In other words, a utilitarian argument. But such arguments are unprovable. Who is to say that a worse outcome would result from laying down our arms and welcoming the invading army, than from submitting to taxation and conscription by our rulers, and fighting the enemy to the death?
I'm not arguing for either choice, or even that these are the only choices available. Rather, the desirability of each outcome would depend on the circumstances and subjective valuations of each individual. So a utilitarian policy is impossible, except in the sense of serving the interests of one group at the expense of another.
As an individual, I choose not to pursue evil means, or to argue for them. That means no support for states, at all.
Reply
Leave a comment