RE: Would you prefer to live in a just world? - An argument for liberty
At this point I tend to lean on the side that with no laws or enforcement, society would very quickly break down into something awful, there is a part of what you say here that resonates with me. I've often said this: the price of freedom is that many people will make the wrong decision. By this I mean that while laws can curb the grossest of violations, you can't have and enforce laws for everything. Should it be a law that all parents use car seats for their small children and babies when traveling? I believe car seats are a great thing and have saved lives, but what would the cost be of the police making sure all babies were in car seats at all times when in a vehicle? Or, some people believe that vaccinations are necessary for public health, but should everyone be compelled to take them? What of those people who upon research and reflection do not believe they are as beneficial as all that? Most people I interact with are generally in favor of punishing offenses such as murder and other acts which obviously harm another. Where it gets difficult is in those gray areas, such as car seats, smoking in your own home around your kids, vaccinations, or even using marijuana for pain relief purposes.
As for what people would do with no laws, one issue that has to be considered is what Catholics call "original sin," which is the belief that we were all created in a state of justice and holiness (without the inclination to disordered thinking and actions), but that our first parents fell into sin, with one of the consequences being that we are all born with a tendency towards disordered passions, thinking, and to do bad things. Any system of social orgnization that is going to be successful would have to take that situation into account. That's usually why we have laws--to curb that tendency to sin or commit crimes. I'm not saying the current way we do things is necessarily the best way, but sometimes I think people who talk about anarchy aren't taking original sin fully into account. Am I correct on this?
Thanks for your comment @wiser
I can't speak for all anarchists, but I can give my own perspective. I don't think there should be no laws, but I do think that there shouldn't be any organisation which maintains a violent monopoly on law. To me, the idea that phasing out government would mean that there would be no law, is analogous to the idea that, phasing out McDonalds would mean there would be no hamburgers - or even no food.
Now, it's true that some law comes from government. But if you use the term generally, you'll realise that there are many forms of law that actually do not come from government. For example, if you walk into a store and have the opportunity to steal, normally you won't do it. Most people won't do it, even though, in all likelihood, it would be very easy for them to get away with it. By deciding not to steal, they are actually deciding to maintain the law, all by themselves. Curious, isn't it? And if those same people saw a thief, they might even holler out to alert the security guards, or to shame him into putting the merchandise back.
Those are a couple of kinds of law that exist independently of government, but I'm not saying that those would be the only kinds, as of course we need further-reaching systems to address the situations in which people do the wrong thing, like you were talking about. One possible, already existent model for law enforcement is the Detroit Threat Management Center
Another system, already functioning to some degree, is Bitnation, a system which is based on blockchain technology, which can potentially be used for identification and dispute arbitration
https://bitnation.co/
The point is, humans are generally good, and humans are very resourceful. A centralised system of law isn't the only way to maintain order in a society - in fact, there may be as many ways to maintain order as there are people. We just need the opportunity to innovate.
I see your point about how a centralized government is not the only way a society can organize and govern itself. I also think that when people who are not anarchists or voluntaryists (sp?) hear the term "anarchy" we tend to think you all mean "without laws." I'm getting the impression that is a misconception about the anarchy movement?
I think one bit of philosophy we may have in common is the idea of human beings voluntarily holding themselves up to a higher standard than what any kind of law could dictate. For example, take murder. Most people (even those who commit it) would agree that murder is unethical and something that should not be done under ordinary circumstances. Our laws against murder reflect that, and pretty much every society has them.
But the laws can really only address the gross violations, such as when there is a dead body. Now, along comes Jesus Christ and he introduces us to a higher standard while preaching His Sermon on the Mount. He tells us that if we hate our brother, it is just like we have committed murder against him. Well, unlike actual murder, hate is a state of the heart, and not something that any law can adequately address, nor could any government enforce. Today our government sometimes tries to call things hate crimes and that can get very draconian very fast. There is no practical or just way that the state could possibly enforce a prohibition against feeling hatred in your heart for someone.
However, when individual human beings voluntarily hold themselves up to the higher standard of not holding hatred in their hearts for anybody, well then the end result is that you would have a society in which actual murder doesn't take place. In the Catholic tradition, the way in which we do that is that we go to confession when we find ourselves to have violated that higher standard. We present ourselves to the Church already with a guilty verdict and await the sentencing from the Church. And actually, what the Church grants every time is mercy and forgiveness and encouragement to do better. The overall result is that all the laws against murder are not what keeps me in line, so to speak. It's my own choice to put myself under this higher standard of not holding hatred in my heart, and willingness to be held accountable to the Church for when I do, that keeps me far away from committing the crime of murder.
When you say humans are generally good, are you really saying that humans generally will voluntarily hold themselves up to a higher standard than what society's laws can address?
And when a critical mass of humans do not seem to hold themselves to a higher standard, then what do you say is the reason for that? That is what seems to be happening now, with terrorism and certain people targeting white police officers for murder, among other things. Would you say that the violence we see currently is a product of bad government or even unnecessary government? Or would you say that it is an intrinsic problem with human nature itself? Not that humans are categorically bad, but that there is something within humans that if not mastered by humans (each one mastering it within himself), will get worse and more evil and spiral out of control.
Generally, I'd say yes, that's a misconception. I have met the occasional anarchist who wants to vandalise and destroy things senselessly, and thinks laws are stupid, but that's extremely rare. You'll notice I didn't use the words "anarchy" or "voluntaryism" in the post... except for the tags. People can read the article without thinking in those terms if they wish.
Your spelling is correct by the way, though some spell it as "voluntarists".
Right, personal responsibility, religion and the support of friends and family do much more to prevent that problem than a system of law ever could.
Yes. I see people be nice all the time. It's not like they will be punished if they're not nice, and, as in the example I mentioned, it's unlikely that people will be punished even for shoplifting. But most people don't do it. Of course, that doesn't mean that we can't have a system of law as well.
I don't know the cause in every situation, but it does tend to be the exception, not the rule. In a lot of cases, when people are taxed or regulated so much that the amount they spend on food exceeds a certain percentage (I think around 30%), a riot becomes much more likely.
In many cases, yes.
Human nature is very adaptable. If humans are raised and supported in one environment, people will act one way. In a violent or stressful environment, people will act another way. Generally, that thing inside them doesn't just get worse without provocation... it has to be fed. That works for negative influence and positive influence.