Have there been many groups of humans that don't eventually create rules which they then delegate to others to enforce? If so, at what scale?
That seems to be the argument I run into over and over again when discussing this stuff. I'm not sure if it's a lack of imagination or if humans always create a ruling class because they perceive it to improve their well being. I think we need many, many more examples of people truly living free before others will take it seriously. Until then, to them it just sounds like impractical idealism wrapped in ideology. They are not convinced by just hearing the negatives (many of which they agree with). Instead they want to see a positive. They want to see something better. And becuase people are selfish, arguing from a moral angle doesn't seem to work, especially if they've convinced themselves the well being people (and especially them personally) experience now is better than it would be with no government rulers using force to maintain order.
Maybe the real question is: do humans really want to be free?
This is a difficult question to answer, because we don't have words for it yet. But, I will try.
The first problem is the indoctrination/hollywood view of laws. All we have to do is pass a law and it will make it allllll better. This thinking is everywhere, and reinforced in popular media. This thinking is wrong; so very wrong, and its implications are never talked about.
Case in point, there are people that want to outlaw guns. They actually believe that passing a law will get rid of guns! Well, you can't blame them when the mainstream media NEVER talk about hot burglary in places like the UK. Everyone with a thinking brain knows there is no way to get rid of guns. And everyone who has to live at the edges of the wilderness knows that a gun is necessary. But still, there are people that are convinced, no, it is a belief that is more powerful than most believe in the creator, that we could get rid of guns by passing a law.
We think about laws incorrectly, that is the first problem.
Every society has rules. And these rules have to be enforced. If you can't enforce these rules, then society breaks down.
"Hey you, stay off my property." think about trying to enforce that. There are lots of stalkers then continually violate private property and personal space... and very few of them are ever punished. Why? because you are no longer allowed to defend yourself.
So, societies rules need to be enforced, and they have to be enforceable. One of the best ways was to tar and feather a person and then run them out on a rail. This was a very clear line of you have gone to far, and we don't want you around these parts no more.
Society's rules are not easy to put into a law book. In fact, they don't mesh with THE LAW at all.
People are cowards. The vast majority of people are so scared of even enforcing their personal boundaries. At work and with friends, they will let people walk over them so that they don't have to make waves.
These people want someone big and brave to look out for them. But what they most want is to not have to pay the cost of repercussions from standing up for themselves. These people will gladly give up some freedom for some security. Thank goodness most of this is in interpersonal areas, which aren't under the rule of law yet.
So, it is a combination of delusion and not growing up that is the cause of the ruling class.
Just think about this? All the sit coms? Have any of them taught people how to deal effectively with boundaries?
I agree with much of what you said here. I think many would rather call the police on their neighbors than deal with the conflict of asking them to turn their music down. Some may go further and see it as specialization. They've outsourced "keeping the peace" to the "peace officers." Unfortunately, that's now how that works out in practice. Again though, many view their own lives as void of conflict and violence and think, "Well, this system isn't so bad. It would be worse if I didn't have the government providing these services I enjoy, that's for sure!"
The hard part for me is convincing them they are mistaken and how much better things would be if there wasn't a monopoly on currency creation, security services, etc, etc. I think we need a lot more practical examples of what we do want before people will be convinced voluntaryist / anarchist / relationalist ideas are pragmatic and practical enough to work in place of government.
I agree. Most people believe the movies/TV about cops... up until they have to deal with them for real. Lily-da-vine had a post today about people needing to run into the actual police to wake up.
And since this is a Larken Rose piece, Well what about...
the roads - You mean the things that aren't being maintained?
the police - You mean the people that are stealing more than the reported criminals?
the justice system - sorry, no justice here.
the water and electric - sorry, those are private corporations
Lord of the Flies comes to mind...
I get so sick of statists using a fictional narrative about children to represent their view on how adults would act in the real world without rulers.
I'm not labeling you a statist, I'm just sick of the "Lord of the flies" non-answer. The stories we tell ourselves are important and fiction has its place, but we have to move beyond that, IMO, when discussing practical solutions for millions of individuals living together in cities.
Again, not directing my reply at you directly as much as just venting.
People who mention "Lord of the Flies" also never seem to remember the ending. It was NOT "Thank goodness authority showed up and saved the day, so now we can have peace and harmony!" They were "rescued" by a WAR SHIP. (Also, they were children raised in a heavily authoritarian indoctrination camp, so having them fighting over who is "in charge" is not surprising.)
Yep. I remember and appreciative your discussion on the ending. It seems funny how much our brains connect to stories which shape our understanding even if the story or our interpretation of it is incorrect. Religion does this very effectively.
I was going to leave this alone, but your vent @lukestokes really gets my ire. Simply because someone says something about a novel, both you and @larkenrose jump on it. I'm HARDLY a statist. If anything, a "Libertarian with a conscience". Perhaps a "minarchist". But some laws still are necessary to a civilised society.
I totally agree we've gone way too far in the US, and the 'elites' are clamping down everywhere. So, the article resonates. It's a matter of degree.
I wasn't calling you a statist, I just tire at the reference because it doesn't add anything of value for me, but demonstrates (from my perspective) how much people think in terms of labels, memes, and larger (often fabricated) ideas instead of first principles.
Glad my venting enabled your venting as well. We can both get each other worked up and that's okay. We can both learn and grow because of it.