This is a dodge. I already addressed this very early in this thread. Others expanded on it. It goes without saying the question refers to peaceful equals.
All equals are peaceful...until they are not. "If men were angels no government would be necessary."
What you and I see as peaceful, half the nation sees as greedily denying them access to some of their rights. What some see as peaceful, private conduct, others see as bigoted discrimination denying people access to basic services to which they are entitled. What some see as a private decision between a woman and her doctor, others see as akin to murder of innocent babies. What some see as a peaceful exchange of labor for compensation, others see as the exploitation of weak workers by powerful corporate interests. What most here see as an imminent threat of violence fully justifying the use of deadly force to stop and prevent, at least one member sees as no crime until the blade or bullet actually damages his clothing or body. What some see as peacefully exercising ones rights, others see as violating the rights of the rest of the community not to be visually assaulted with obscene material or conduct. What I see as a nice steak dinner others see as murder of an innocent cow. What I see as responsible use of natural resources, others view as raping and pillaging the most pristine wilderness they've ever seen.
There are thousands of other examples of honest differences of opinion of what is a right. And while any of them might be dismissed as minutia, they point to the fundamental question of resolving conflicts.
Contrary to all jokes about Puritans being concerned that someone, somewhere is having fun, I have yet to find anyone who wants to control me simply for the sake of controlling me. Offensive as I find the proposals of many, in virtually every case they are sincere in their beliefs that such laws, the proposed or current limits on my conduct, are necessary to protect the rights of others.
The big bad king is not having fun with my life for the sake of his twisted entertainment. Rather, a whole bunch of my fellow citizens feel very strongly that certain limits on my conduct are needed to protect their rights. You and I disagree with them in many cases.
But with or without government, those disagreements have to be arbitrated. And I've not seen that anarchy has any more moral method for doing that than does our current governmental systems.
Also, others have already--repeatedly--addressed the question of how to settle questions of what is and isn't aggression.
No.
ONE other poster has addressed the question exactly
once. I welcome evidence to the contrary. Post numbers from this thread will suffice.
You being the chief proponent and OP on this thread, I should think you'd want to address the question yourself, to make sure it is handle correctly. While I greatly appreciate stealthy's answer, it concedes that when there is a conflict between viewpoints, force will come into play.
Are you willing to make that same concession?
Also, and more importantly, Utbagpiper's
This is very close to talking past me as you have done in the past. When responding to me, quoting my post, and writing to me, the polite form is "you" and "your". It is not polite to address me as a third party as though I were absent. I have repeatedly, and respectfully requested you refrain from this conduct in the past.
I am again making this request. Either ignore me entirely, or address me directly.
He who makes such a fuss of equals should be the last to presume to address another as anything but an equal. As such, your continued conduct is both impolite and hypocritical.
Stop it.
reply amounts to (translation): I think its important to keep existing evil, and that is all I need to make it legitimate. I cannot imagine any other system; therefore the evil system I support and inflict on other equals is legitimate." Which is really just another way of saying, "I am not their equal. I am above them. My ideas (or failure to imagine something better) count more than theirs."
It is also very impolite to presume to impart motive to my words. Please stop doing so.
Address my issues if you desire. Or ignore me entirely. Your choice. But do not impart evil motives to me simply because I disagree with your world view.
My reply is simple:
Diverse groups of people need a way to defend their rights and arbitrate differences. Our constitutional government is not perfect and needs to be put back into its proper, limited scope. But it does a decent job of arbitrating differences and then protecting those rights that have been arbitrated as existing.
Anarchy, as described in this thread, can do no better job. It has no higher moral claim than our current government because ultimately, force will have to be used to settle differences.
You start from a false premise that government is evil. I reject that premise.
Charles
