[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: Government is Morally Wrong Government is morally wrong. The premise of government is that an "official" group of thugs is perfectly justified in stealing, killing and threatening people at the point of a gun to impose their value system on the entire population for their own gain. Anarchists reject such fallacious moral claims and affirm that no one should be able to monopolize force and use it to threaten an entire population. Whatever their specific position, anarchists hold that only by eliminating government will individuals be able to express their values in the way they see best, and by doing so effect a superior and progressive society. The moral comparison There are four main lines of argument that demonstrate how anarchy is morally superior to statist systems : 1. By showing how statism implies moral contradictions by breaking the principle of universality (Moral Razor). For a moral or political principle to be true, it must apply universally to all persons, at all times and places, because all persons have the same biological, mental and social needs. Statism breaks this universality because it starts from the premise that certain people should initiate force in order to suppress the actions of other people. 2. By presenting real-life cases of anarchy or anarchic systems, and showing their moral superiority (in terms of corruption, war, and coercion in general). As Harry Browne says, "government does not work". 3. By presenting natural moral assumptions, and how statism breaks those assumptions. Example : Most people agree that war is wrong (or at least undesirable). / Government, through taxation and public militaries, makes warfare a profitable and highly oppressive possibility. / Government is morally wrong. 4. By discussing the immorality of belief in collectivism, or collectivism itself, or government itself. Topics in this area would include the social warfare inherent in democratic systems, the gross inefficiency and irresponsibility inherent in the monopoly of force, the fact that government is not accountable, the ontological and moral absurdity of collectivism, and the immorality of belief. Answering questions There are two ways to answer policy or moral questions. The first is by giving a detailed account of government abuse and anarchist "what if" scenarios. While there is a lot of worth to this, and there are articles like this available on this site, it's a form of conversation that requires expertise in many topics, and thus is not really available to anyone. The second, and more accessible, way to answer such questions is to point out that government is an immoral, inferior and parasitic form of organization which cannot fulfill the desires of the questioner as well as an anarchic system could. Here are some examples : Q : What about war ? Wouldn't anarchy just degenerate in gangs that would fight against each other ? A : No one wants to live in a society where war is widespread. That is why I want to eliminate government. War is the health of the state... and the state is the health of war. Only through taxation and the draft can government and big corporations wage war without suffering its consequences. It would be much harder for private individuals to wage war because they would have to bear its costs. The power of taxation is immoral because it gives any government the possibility to wage war on its own population (through the police state) and on other populations as well. Q : In an anarchy, oppressive monopolies would form. A : Most monopolies and cartels exist because of government. Government itself is the biggest monopoly of all, on the most dangerous product there is - force. As for all monopolies, this monopoly of force hurts everyone except those who detain it. This is why government must be abolished. Q : We need government to impose law X or institution Y. A : Actually, you don't need government to do these things. All that government does is impose a singular value system (such as that which is part of "the law") on an entire population, creating social warfare (because people fight for THEIR value system to be imposed and not another's). Anarchy would still permit rules and institutions to exist, but open to personal choice. Also, the free market of ideas will permit better and more efficient solutions to emerge, something which we will never have under government.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: PoliticallyIncorrect (#0)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
Certainly true for the USA.
Well, that stands to reason. Which, in fact, would include paying taxes! Good luck arguing that in any court, though. Judges would never allow a moral defense to reach the jury. You'd fare no better than non-violent resisters of Nazi Germany did in the 30's and 40's, and for the same reason.
Government has grown to its present oppressive state because there are far too many people too lazy and/or stupid to do what's necessary for themselves. Governments thrive on the laziness and indolence of the masses.
As George Washington correctly stated.............. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Thus any man or group of people that uses force to adjudicate their idea of right and wrong is acting as a defacto government. A true anarchist, a person that echews government, is a pacifist. Most people who claim they are anarchist, but never renounce violence or use of weapons, are in fact revolutionaries. A weapon-toting revolutionary can never be considered a true anarchist or a pacifist. A libertarian with a gun is just a weak and primitive form of local government. The only persons that I know of that advocated pacifism-anarchism as an ideal was JC and Gandhi.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||