3 ms·

> No, you forget that a governed society has no right to exist. I don't know that that is true or really what it's supposed to mean, so I'm going to challenge

> No, you forget that a governed society has no right to exist. I don't know that that is true or really what it's supposed to mean, so I'm going to challenge it. > It only gains its legitimacy when it’s preferable to an ungoverned society and other achievable alternatives. I have a feeling there's a lot of suppositions or beliefs one must have prior to making statements like these that I don't share. > it’s rather trivial to build yourself a decent shelter and gather food (if you’re able-bodied). Is it? I've watched a few episodes of "Alone" on Netflix and it sure doesn't look easy to me. Some seasons seem to devolve into "fattest man wins" because he starves last. > What’s not possible in ungoverned society is gathering more resources than you can personally protect. Why is that true? Could I not ask others to help me protect these resources? I don't need a government to do that.

yunwal 4y ago
> I have a feeling there's a lot of suppositions or beliefs one must have prior to making statements like these that I don't share. Do you agree that you can choose to not follow the law? Would you also agree that if enough people chose to not follow the law, government would cease to exist? > Is it? I've watched a few episodes of "Alone" on Netflix and it sure doesn't look easy to me. Some seasons seem to devolve into "fattest man wins" because he starves last. Natural law doesn't really preclude you from cooperating, unlike reality shows. Also, in the natural world you generally migrate to places where resources are not scarce. > Why is that true? Could I not ask others to help me protect these resources? I don't need a government to do that. Why would they protect these resources rather than take them? Perhaps if you knew them personally and rewarded them generously, they'd do it, but then I'd say you're personally involved in protecting them. That doesn't scale to the extremes we have right now. There are no billionaire equivalents without government violence.
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  > Do you agree that you can choose to not follow the law? Not only can you do not follow a law, but people in power do it successfully today. Immigration law is the obvious example. Those in power flout the law so blatantly that the law might as well not exist. Deportation virtually doesn't happen anymore. When there are no consequences for disobeying a law, it is the same as if the law didn't exist. > Would you also agree that if enough people chose to not follow the law, government would cease to exist? I think it might be better to word this as "enough people choose to rebel against their government." When that happens, there is usually some fighting that goes on and the government either wins or gets replaced. There is never a point with no government, however. The reason for this is because just about every government, no matter how tyrannical, is still preferable to anarchy. > Natural law doesn't really preclude you from cooperating, unlike reality shows If you think it's that much easier to feed yourself as a group via hunting and gathering, then I don't know what else to say: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/hunter-gatherer-culture https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/hunter-gat... > Why would they protect these resources rather than take them? Probably for cooperative reasons! It doesn't matter, though. These are hypothetical situations that I don't think there is much value in considering. I'm totally in the "anarchy is so bad I'd prefer tyranny to it" camp.

yunwal 4y ago

> I have a feeling there's a lot of suppositions or beliefs one must have prior to making statements like these that I don't share. Do you agree that you can choose to not follow the law? Would you also agree that if enough people chose to not follow the law, government would cease to exist? > Is it? I've watched a few episodes of "Alone" on Netflix and it sure doesn't look easy to me. Some seasons seem to devolve into "fattest man wins" because he starves last. Natural law doesn't really preclude you from cooperating, unlike reality shows. Also, in the natural world you generally migrate to places where resources are not scarce. > Why is that true? Could I not ask others to help me protect these resources? I don't need a government to do that. Why would they protect these resources rather than take them? Perhaps if you knew them personally and rewarded them generously, they'd do it, but then I'd say you're personally involved in protecting them. That doesn't scale to the extremes we have right now. There are no billionaire equivalents without government violence.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago
> Do you agree that you can choose to not follow the law? Not only can you do not follow a law, but people in power do it successfully today. Immigration law is the obvious example. Those in power flout the law so blatantly that the law might as well not exist. Deportation virtually doesn't happen anymore. When there are no consequences for disobeying a law, it is the same as if the law didn't exist. > Would you also agree that if enough people chose to not follow the law, government would cease to exist? I think it might be better to word this as "enough people choose to rebel against their government." When that happens, there is usually some fighting that goes on and the government either wins or gets replaced. There is never a point with no government, however. The reason for this is because just about every government, no matter how tyrannical, is still preferable to anarchy. > Natural law doesn't really preclude you from cooperating, unlike reality shows If you think it's that much easier to feed yourself as a group via hunting and gathering, then I don't know what else to say: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/hunter-gatherer-culture https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/hunter-gat... > Why would they protect these resources rather than take them? Probably for cooperative reasons! It doesn't matter, though. These are hypothetical situations that I don't think there is much value in considering. I'm totally in the "anarchy is so bad I'd prefer tyranny to it" camp.