You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Honey Nazis
The difference--the ONLY difference--THE difference--that makes ALL the difference ... is that "government" is imagined to have rights that you and I do NOT. It is imagined to have the moral right to INITIATE VIOLENCE in situations where normal people have no such right. In short, the belief in "government" and political "authority" is the belief that some people should be ALLOWED to do what would be universally recognized as IMMORAL if anyone else did it.
Now try to explain to me how any of the scenarios you brought up would be improved by giving some people societal permission to use immoral violence.
I apologize for the hugely belated reply, but I decided to finally come back to this discussion.
As I said before, the idea that humans could coexists with no organization, no violence at all and no coercion is utopian. It can be morally superior on every single level, but if it is impossibe to implement, it remains an non-viable idea. That's what makes it an utopia in my book. It simply cannot work like that as just a few bad actors can get it out of whack.
Having government is not perfect, but I do think it's moral to have them as they provide a better state of being with lower amounts of violence and harm than anarchy would. My assertion here is that if there is no legal system, there would be more violence. The Wild West had less government and it was more violent.
The thing with government is that it shouldn't be just any government, it should be a democracy with proper laws.