If you reject the idea of a political solution (i.e. one that leads to a proper, rights respecting government) then you reject the idea of moral authority, which means that you hope to see might & whim rule over right & reason.
If you reject the idea of a political solution (i.e. one that leads to a proper, rights respecting government) then you reject the idea of moral authority, which means that you hope to see might & whim rule over right & reason.
"a proper, rights respecting government" <-- That, all by itself, is an oxymoron. "Government" is inherently violent, immoral, and irrational. And to pretend that the belief in "authority" is about "right and reason," and NOT about "might and whim," is completely delusional.
Thinking that anarchy can lead to anything other than the imposition of might & whim IS delusional
What do you call politics, then? Might & lies make right?
Politicians who use the political process to impose their whims on others and infringe upon the rights of others abuse their power. That they do doesn’t negate the need for a moral authority. When an improper government can be reformed through the political process it should be. When it can’t (as in the case of Venezuela for instance) it must be violently overthrown. Either way, there can’t be a market for law and retaliation if rights are to be protected
The power claimed by politicians is illegitimate, and can only be abused. Their claims to authority are inherently immoral. There is no representation, and no delegation, only usurpation. Overthrowing a government only installs a new corrupt government. Instead, such a system must be undermined, and decentralized grassroots systems need to be built. We have historical and current examples of decentralized justice systems, security, dispute arbitration, recordkeeping, etc. already too.
Decentralization isn’t the same as anarchy. Rights can be protected in a decentralized system when there’s a moral authority. They can’t be protected in the absence of one because anyone can use force at any time for any reason he chooses. The only determinant in whether or not he’s able to do so without consequence is whether or not he has the might, when the determinant should be whether or not he is right
Anarchism doesn't mean an absence of rules or authority, it means recognizing the distinction between legitimate authority and illegitimate usurpation. Governments operate entirely by usurpation, and society only exists because of people recognizing legitimate authority.
Anarchism doesn’t recognize any authority. Anarchy is the absence of authority. If there’s a recognized authority (whether it’s a moral or immoral one) there’s a state
You lost me where you say " rights respecting government"
First of all, if you don't get to opt out, then they are not respecting your rights.
And second, governments can only take away your rights. And therefore can only abstain from taking them away. What good is that?