RE: You Are Probably Overgeneralising In Debates
I absolutely agree that Chile has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism but opposing sites view it as such since it was a post-coup society.
comparing the government to cars simply doesn't work. Cars have absolutely no volition. Governments do.
ofcourse it does. You continue commiting the same fallacy. Which Goverment? For example the Swiss have a system close to anarchy. Really no central goverment. Singapore as well.
Also, we both know that cars can alter personality as much as goverments. plenty of examples outhere. the psychological hype is massive. I would say that every single inanimate and animate object has volition on the individual. this is why it exists afterall with a given set of value.
However, the state is coercive by nature. A state uses government and the government can become the state, but the government doesn't have to be a state.
It is only if it keeps you there without your will. If you can leave then there is no coercion.
Even the most vociferous anarchists agree (sometimes reluctantly) that there needs to be some order.
There is no such thing as order. Order is spontaneous and doesn't need agents.
The distinction that needs to be made is not with goverment vs state but rather goverment/state vs people.
Thanks for the reply @kyriacos.
I didn't really commit a fallacy, because I didn't say anything about "government" other than that they have volition. I didn't characterize them at all, nor state that they all do anything in particular. I certainly didn't say anything about a "central" government. I simply asserted that if a government exists, it has volition. If it doesn't have volition, it doesn't exist. If it's anarchy, it can still be a government, it just can't rule. But it still has volition. As far as a car having volition, we'll have to disagree.
You dismissed my assertion that the state is distinct from the government. If this distinction is not maintained, then of course you'd dismiss the rest of my assertion. If you entertain the distinction I offered, then you most likely can agree with the rest of my assertion... I think. :)
Coercion is not only keeping you against your will. It also involves control of personal assets and forcing certain actions.
kyriacos:We perceive things differently but hey, that's why people are different i guess. I see the car manufacturer as someone who can exert volition on you through the car. same goes about advertising it with a hot chick, paintining red, running wild through the beach. It is not the same as someone running a broke down car. Clearly the object can be used to manipulate behaviour. consumerism is much the same.
A very good example of state without goverment is Switzerland. Ask anybody who is the president and they won't know. the country is divided in cantons and even other subdivisions and all decisions are made with small democratic groups for local areas. An anarchic society would have to work much the same.
In regards to coercion. You can can move your assets elsewhere. Cryptocurrencies allow you this. There is a choice if you want to live anarchic.
In regards to order, I simply don't believe in it existence and I explain it both philosophically and scientifically in the article i tagged. Order is just an erroneous word much like "nothing". there is no such thing as "nothing' there is always something everywhere.
I do accept the distinction of the state vs the goverment. What i meant is that neither are the problem in any state or any goverment. The problem is the agents that control or engage in them.
nice discussion