<p>Ah, the old debate about whether man is inherently evil or good…</p>
<p>That is really square one. If man is inherently “good”, then why do we need governments?? I like enderkin’s post #150.</p>
<p>If I were to choose between government or anarchy, I choose government - especially when it of the type we have right here in the U.S.A. It isn’t perfect, but it’s the best thing out there. And the great thing is, as I’ve said before, if you don’t like it, you are FREE to go elsewhere - or you can work to change it. </p>
<p>Yeah, run for Congress on the “Anarchy” platform! :)</p>
<p>“I’m not sure if Hobbes went to the extent I did in addressing specific corrupters rather than gave vague generalizations (e.g. “society corrupts”).”</p>
<p>No, Hobbes put forward the general principle that government is the organization of the means of violence, but that we create social compacts that embody myths (i.e. Divine Right of Kings, and, if he lived today, he’d probably say “natural rights”) that both legitimize violence but also impose societal restraints on its use. </p>
<p>“That is really square one. If man is inherently “good”, then why do we need governments?? I like enderkin’s post #150.”</p>
<p>We don’t. We don’t need one either if man is inherently evil since the government is made up of people and it cannot solve anything. Just because people are inherently good that does not mean they act that way. As I said before, they have been corrupted to redefine goodness.</p>
<p>“If I were to choose between government or anarchy, I choose government - especially when it of the type we have right here in the U.S.A. It isn’t perfect, but it’s the best thing out there. And the great thing is, as I’ve said before, if you don’t like it, you are FREE to go elsewhere - or you can work to change it.”</p>
<p>That’s great. I would also choose to have a government (e.g. a voluntary government like a dispute resolution organization) over none, but that gives me no right to impose my preferences upon other people like you are saying.</p>
<p>“It isn’t perfect, but it’s the best thing out there.”</p>
<p>Baseless assertion (e.g. “Blue is the best color”). You need logic and evidence.</p>
<p>“And the great thing is, as I’ve said before, if you don’t like it, you are FREE to go elsewhere - or you can work to change it.”</p>
<p>So these are my choices?:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Leave the country under the threat of violence. I suppose you would tell people who have their whole town under the “protection” of the Mafia to leave since the Mafia owns their town?</p></li>
<li><p>“work to change it”. By this, I suppose you mean voting and running for office? Again, this does will never remove the assumption of the State: it is okay to force people to do things.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Yeah… anarchy is only “spontaneous order” in the minds of those anarchists who put their faith in people to self-organize in absence of government. While anarchy is a required precursor to spontaneous organization, the opposite is not true.</p>
<p>When there is a lack of a leader, there is spontaneous order since people choose their leaders. This requires no faith (as 1of42 put it) or assumptions of any sort. People naturally act to what they perceive is in their best interests. Some will choose themselves as leaders. Others would prefer to leave the job to others. If they did not, that still would not be a justification for government since the government is made up of people. So I guess you can technically be an anarchist yet not ascribe to spontaneous order, though it would be quite difficult to explain how anarchy can solve the problems of today without that concept.</p>
<p>You are correct that some anarchists don’t “believe” in spontaneous order. Anarchy is really a very general term and there are so many variants that it is nigh-impossible to describe somebody’s beliefs with just that one word. I believe anarchy (my flavor) is a mix of a few concepts: spontaneous order, non-violence, and consistency.</p>
<p>^^That article accurately links the connection between anarchism and spontaneous order. While others see anarchy strictly as the “absence of a government”, that is still a very vague statement since it does not seek to demonstrate what the “government” is. If you say get rid of government and force everybody to work in communes, then I doubt anybody would call that a lack of government (e.g. the values that come with government).</p>
<p>Are you saying that Hobbes would have derailed natural rights if he were alive today? Wasn’t that what he was arguing for rather than the “divine right of kings”?</p>
<p>Upon further investigation, there are several definitions of anarchy so we are all right!</p>
<p>“Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.”
^^That’s the statist definition.</p>
<p>“A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).”
^^That’s the anarcho-capitalist/spontaneous orderish definition.</p>
<p>“Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere.”
^^That’s the anarcho-socialists definition. They seek to destroy any sort of hierarchy, even if it is a voluntary relationship (e.g. worker/boss).</p>
<p>“Are you saying that Hobbes would have derailed natural rights if he were alive today? Wasn’t that what he was arguing for rather than the “divine right of kings”?”</p>
<p>I am saying the Hobbes would have called “natural rights” a bunch of quasi-mystical poppycock, myths created by individuals or groups to defend their place in the social contract short of having to resort to violence. No different in kind than ‘divine right of kings’.</p>
<p>If my understanding of the term “natural rights” is correct, it is not used to defend a place in a social contract. It is used to create universally applicable rights. As such, it is fundamentally different from the ‘divine right of kings’ which ascribes certain rights only for a certain group of people.</p>
<p>Anyway, I don’t think Hobbes is as universally consistent as you may think since he is one of the originators of the social contract.</p>