Sachin on Nostr: This isn’t a tension between the individual and the collective but between ...
This isn’t a tension between the individual and the collective but between voluntary cooperation and coercive monopolies.
You assume legal enforcement requires a centralized authority, but justice can be maintained through competing private defense agencies and arbitration, which are accountable to customers, not rulers.
You conflate voluntary collectives with governments, ignoring that states hold a monopoly on force, while private legal systems allow choice and accountability.
In a state system, you cannot opt out. You are stuck, even if the state doesn't treat you properly and aggresses against you and your property unjustly.
A private legal order - guided by the principle of non-aggression, property rights, due process, proportionality, and voluntary association would uphold justice more effectively than coercive monopolies, which lack the incentive to do so.
The claim that government is the 'least bad' solution assumes coercion prevents societal breakdown, yet states are the greatest sources of war, violence, and systemic exploitation. Government doesn’t solve human failings. It amplifies them by institutionalizing aggression.
It's essential to strive toward a more civilized society by rejecting coercion in favor of voluntary cooperation.
Ideally, it happens as soon as possible.
But it has to happen at some point in the future because I don't think humanity will last long if we keep relying on governments as coercive monopolies to maintain a social order. They are growing bigger all the time and becoming ever more destructive. The last century was a huge warning sign. Doesn't seem like they've become any better this century.
You assume legal enforcement requires a centralized authority, but justice can be maintained through competing private defense agencies and arbitration, which are accountable to customers, not rulers.
You conflate voluntary collectives with governments, ignoring that states hold a monopoly on force, while private legal systems allow choice and accountability.
In a state system, you cannot opt out. You are stuck, even if the state doesn't treat you properly and aggresses against you and your property unjustly.
A private legal order - guided by the principle of non-aggression, property rights, due process, proportionality, and voluntary association would uphold justice more effectively than coercive monopolies, which lack the incentive to do so.
The claim that government is the 'least bad' solution assumes coercion prevents societal breakdown, yet states are the greatest sources of war, violence, and systemic exploitation. Government doesn’t solve human failings. It amplifies them by institutionalizing aggression.
It's essential to strive toward a more civilized society by rejecting coercion in favor of voluntary cooperation.
Ideally, it happens as soon as possible.
But it has to happen at some point in the future because I don't think humanity will last long if we keep relying on governments as coercive monopolies to maintain a social order. They are growing bigger all the time and becoming ever more destructive. The last century was a huge warning sign. Doesn't seem like they've become any better this century.