I’ve been on this boat for a while. I don’t have super strong convictions, but I don’t trust people enough for full on anarchy
Discussion
but you trust them enough to govern you..? 🤔
I mean, this is the obvious flaw, which is why I said I don’t have strong convictions. I know a lot of people do, but I’m not one of them 🤷
No, I never trust government. Keeping them limited requires constant vigilance. But it's better than a world where people just go around doing whatever the fuck they want. Society can't exist like that, and all the anarchist fantasies I've had proposed to me always result in government. They just use word salad to try and make it seem like it isn't government. Governments will always form in some way or another because some humans will always be shitbags or have disagreements. You see it already WITH organized government. I'm skeptical that instances of murder, rape, theft, etc will magically decrease without government. And I'm not interested in a world where disputes are settled with duels or gang warfare. In fact, I don't think property rights and freedom are even possible without a rational government. Whichever bro has the most guns and muscles owns your shit in reality. Which is why you'll likely see the formation of many little governments that are probably more brutal and erratic than what we already have. Pass.
I'd much rather have limited government as Rand described it (see her work if you care to). But that requires rationality and the cultural rejection of collectivism and altruist philosophy. Otherwise, you'll end up with abusive governments, or much worse if you have none at all. Current governments are largely a reflection of the cultures they exist in.
What is your definition of "government" and does it exist without the "state"?
To me, a "Stateless government" is entirely possible and gets you all the things you're desiring - a voluntary, spontaneous order. No serious person I've ever come across has ever advocated for duels, gang warfare. As long as the "government" you are describing is fully opt-in, doesn't coerce individuals to submit to it, and doesn't declare itself the monopolistic owner and rule-maker for territories it doesn't directly own, I wouldn't call that a "State" and I don't have a problem with it.
It all comes down to private property rights.
I'm quite familiar with Rand
I'm not drawing a difference between the two and I think doing so gets into the word salad territory I mentioned. It always devolves into a pointless semantics argument. It doesn't matter for my points.
its helpful as shortcuts if people can agree on definitions.
the State is the monopoly on violence and extortion over a territory they don't own via property rights but make a claim on anyway.
a government is a collection of people who attempt to organize a community.
the former is by definition not something you can opt out of. the latter, depending on its design may allow exit if it respects private property.
what about that is word salad?
My definition is that used by Rand. I can clarify further if you want, but you said you're familiar. For me, early America almost got it right. We certainly did it the best and prospered for the most part as a result. As I said, not perfectly. But going back to extremely limited government and away from the admin state ideals would be my ideal place to start.