RE: A World Without Police Monopolies on Force & Violence
Damn dude, you were a tad more incendiary than necessary but I guess I'll bite. Since you obviously have some very polarized views about the morality of the state or 'the man' I'm not going to try to discuss from that angle. We could go back and forth all day about morality until we're blue in the face and we'd get nowhere.
Let's instead look at it from more of a game theory point of view. What exactly are the incentives for having a hierarchy of people trusted with decision making (i.e. authority)? Well, we'll have to start by imagining a world in which there is no government whatsoever. Every man, woman, and child is now looking out for him/herself. The most obvious bonds that would first form are those who share your blood. This should be obvious to you, as looking out for your family is equivalent to looking out for yourself. We're hardwired to do so.
So we have a situation where there are families that are all interacting in the wild, so to speak. Maybe for a little while, families will avoid each other and just make sure that they have enough to provide for themselves. Except sooner or later, someone is going to come up with the bright idea that they can actually save themselves a lot of time and effort by finding another family with a lot of resources, but less firepower, and simply take their resources by force.
This isn't exactly a novel concept, pretty much anyone who can do so will do so. Sooner or later, certain families are going to realize that they increase their chances of surviving an attack or of subjugating another family if they've got help from someone else (i.e 2 vs 1). Thus, alliances are born. The first people to start forming alliances are the ones who will be able to grow/protect their resources and therefore pass their genetic material on for another generation. Of course this logic can be extended the larger such alliances grow. This is NOT rocket science. These are pretty freaking basic evolutionary principles.
Moral of the story: governments today don't exist because 'the man' wants to keep you down, or whatever fucked up ideas you've got about it. Governments exist precisely because a) people benefit from their existence, b) if they didn't exist they'd end up forming again slowly over time, and c) the average person actually wants to be led in exchange for security.
It doesn't matter if you bite or not. You can NOT legitimately delegate rights you don't have. Not one of you agreeing to it, or 74 billion of you agreeing that it magically becomes morality, because you decide it does, changes it from immorality, to morality. Stop trying to justify immorality. Your childish views of moral relativism, are not mature (emotionally or intellectually, in ANY way). Consenting FOR other people is not moral or upstanding in ANY way.
And by the way, i hardly consider sound logic that is actually NOT attempting to sway with fallacies like you are (appeals to tradition, emotion, ignorance, etc) polarizing. Try again.
This is EXTREMELY basic logic we're talking about here, man. Seriously. Imperfect humans ruling over other imperfect humans? Really? At least present an argument that does not expose itself (rolls eyes). This a self-contradiction, and blatantly so. It does not actually make any sense, in practical terms, in evidence, or in logic. And pathetic appeals to tradition, emotion, and ignorance, etc, (as well as whatever other fallacies you attempt to sway with) are NOT hiding the fact that your whole argument exposes itself, as i just pointed out. (rolls eyes, yet again)
Forgive the brief answer, but i'm running late for work here. Leave some more moral relativistic justifications for immorality and giving some people rights that others do not have (pretty disgusting. And YES, it is VERY childish), and when i get off work this evening, i'll more thoroughly destroy your grade school logic and immorality. You scientism worshiping freaks are more close minded, than religious zealots. Pathetic