Which world would you rather live in?

in democracy •  2 years ago  (edited)

Peace.pngStupid.jpeg

This question is directed to those who claim that it is impossible to achieve a stateless society. Let's suppose that, for whatever reason, the majority of humanity will always believe the lie that governments have legitimate authority and should be obeyed. To begin, even if this was the case (which I don't agree with and will explain why later), no one can confidently make such an argument using evidence, because the future is unpredictable and uncontrollable. Unless you have a crystal ball and can look into the future up until existence stops existing, there is no way to be 100% certain of everything, including what humans will understand and believe later on. Centuries ago, people took it on faith that kings had the "Divine Right" to rule their subjects because God gave them the authority to do so. Now, the few kings that remain have had their roles constrained mostly to ceremonial ones without much political power, if any. In addition, this argument that having a stateless society will never happen doesn't actually address or rebut the fact that governments are illegitimate.

Even assuming that the belief in government will always be around (which, again, I don't agree with), here is where my question comes in: which world would you rather live in? Would you rather live in a world where most people understand that using violence outside of self-defense is wrong, that everyone has equal rights and own themselves, and that the concept of authority is illegitimate because people have the right to disobey immoral commands? Or would you rather live in a world where most people believe that wars are justified, and that attacking innocent people is okay and should even be committed if it is done in the name of the law? Are you okay with most of the world believing forever that words written down and made "law" by random politicians are more important than justice and morality? Does evil and injustice all of a sudden become acceptable simply because they will always occur?

Unfortunately, it is true that evil will always exist. You can't prevent everyone from murdering, stealing, attacking and so on. However, is this a good reason to be apathetic and not try to stop murders and thefts at all? Imagine how that sounds in the following context: "Well yeah, he just got robbed, but who cares? You can't do anything about it. Someone somewhere will always get robbed at some point!" Should we just stop teaching children that attacking and stealing from others is wrong altogether? Hardly.

Deep.jpg

Since it is logically and morally impossible to refute voluntaryism, people who desperately want to hang on to the irrational belief that governments are legitimate resort to the weak excuses that no society has ever been truly voluntary because 1) it can't happen due to human nature, and that 2) apparently, every "attempt" at it has "failed". To tackle the first point: it is not "human nature" to want to obey others. As children, most of us instinctively resist and rebel against having to obey our parents; people we normally love and have a bond with. Considering this, it is absurd to suggest that humans naturally want to obey politicians or others with power; people they hardly know at all in the vast majority of cases. One of the main reasons the idea of government is still implemented is because people have been taught to fear imagining a world without it, not because they have an inclination to be submissive followers. True human nature is a desire for freedom to be able to experience life to the fullest.

As for the second point: anarchy has never existed in the way that voluntaryists like myself envision it, because humanity has never grasped, and still doesn't grasp, the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression fully. If it did, societies wouldn't have established states, since the people would have recognized them for what they are: ruling classes that violate both these principles by asserting the right to do so because they wield "authority". Therefore, voluntaryism has failed no more than the abolition of slavery did when slavery was supported by many.

23g1ly.jpg

If everyone who opposed large-scale injustice decided it was easier to shut up and do nothing instead because it's hard to make a difference, there would be no force for progress towards justice, peace and freedom. Those who did fight against evil and oppression didn't know if they would succeed, and they didn't know of any potential consequences they would face as a result. Yet they fought for their values and vision anyways, because, as the famous saying goes: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing."

This is why, as a voluntaryist, I will never stop arguing that the idea of government is currently the primary obstacle to true peace, justice and morality. What I care about is the truth and justice, not whether I will see a stateless and voluntary society in my lifetime. It would obviously be terrific if I was able to witness a mass evolution of human consciousness where people cared and thought about these issues enough to realize that engaging in politics is counterproductive to achieving any good for society, but this is less important to me than actually laying the foundation for this to happen sometime in the future, even if I'm not alive by then. I'm not saying a voluntary society won't come about in our lifetimes, but it requires dedication and effort for it to become a reality in the first place. Good luck, fellow voluntaryists!

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

most of us instinctively resist and rebel against having to obey our parents

Is that instinctive or manufactured by western societies? Might that be a result of taking children from their family units and putting them in age cohorts, is that natural? Is that how primitive people treated their children?

Wow, I have never thought that family is replaced by peers of the same age. That would be removing family structure and forming ranks.

That's an interesting point! I think that has something to do with it, but I believe we still naturally want to be free to make our own choices and decisions to be able to experience life how we want.

The thing is, not everyone is able to understand the different between Morality and Immorality, living in Natural Law or out of it. That being said, psychopaths are getting away with disgusting things and the laws in place actually protect them. I can't go to court and get justice and I can't dox him either, cause I could get sued for defamation, even if it's true. Without all those laws, we'd be a lot freer, more freedom to expose psychopaths, more creative freedom. Though I believe that some laws that are in place are the reason why some psychopaths stay within the law.

I'm not sure what the middle ground is, but there definitely are way too many laws that restrict people and remove freedoms rather than aid them.

The laws are a run away train. They make laws to make a law that requires them to make laws. It is incredible that they are so focused on one part of their job, making laws, and not others like budgets.

Unless that's what they want us to think and they are happy living in dept because they are using the people's money all the time and it gives them good excuses to make more laws to justify raising taxes and creating more taxes.

"Well yeah, he just got robbed, but who cares? You can't do anything about it. Someone somewhere will always get robbed at some point!"

Sounds like what the desk Sergeant said to me when I tried to report a theft one time and I even told him who did it and where he lives!

Reading your article provokes a lot of questions for me. The major one is how do we get people to not be ruled and controlled? How do we get people to not be afraid to have self ownership? Thanks

Hi migliorino21, thanks for the reply! My answer would be to get people to understand that we can still have protection without governments, and that people should be free to live their lives however they wish as long as they don't harm anyone.

I would love to see a world without borders and boundaries. I thunk that it would be a major undertaking to create a world that is self governing. What happens to the current militaries or governments? It would need to be a supernatural rise of frequencies to make the world see differently.

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do not.

So how do you prevent a Hobbesian nightmare?

I don't believe that Hobbes's interpretation of "the state of man" is accurate, because most already believe it's wrong to attack others and don't want to. Also, it's not in their self-interest to do so, since they would face retaliation and not be trusted.