Scoundrel on Nostr: I can see the idea that a tribe might count as a government with laws, even though ...
I can see the idea that a tribe might count as a government with laws, even though they don't have taxes or use force to extort the taxes from eachother. However, ordinary families have rules too, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who believes that families are states and "take off your shoes before walking in the house" is a law. Similarly, I don't think a contract between two private individuals can be considered a law or considered legally binding unless there's a chance one of them could take the other to civil court. You say "don't honor the contract? Pay money", but how would that be enforced without the state?
If a law on the books would never be enforced, then I don't consider it a law in reality. There are some laws like piracy laws which can be difficult or impossible to enforce, but I wouldn't say that those aren't laws. Rather, I would say that the piracy is happening outside of the state's jourisdiction.
On the topic of rights, I do believe rights are independent of the state. Even in China they have freedom of speech. The state can never decide for you what you meant by your words, especially if you aren't talking directly too them. When you say "Whinnie the Pooh", absolutely nothing can stop you from meaning "Xi Jinping" inside of your head and the head of your intended listener. All they can do is try to punish and exploit anyone who is nice enough to speak in a slightly more straightforward way so that the state to take action against them.
And it goes the other way around too. Even if an organization or government "surrenders" something to us, it doesn't mean that we suddenly have the right to it, especially if we aren't providing anything in return. Suppose an army shows up in another country one day, displaces the previous government, and quickly suppresses any opposition. Then, they start digging up the ground to mine a natural resource far further down then we could have effected.
If they start giving orders to the people living there, would those count as laws? More importantly, if they start imposing artificial rules on themselves, would those constitute rights? Suppose they promised not to demolish and dig underneath daycares. So what? What right would the people have to complain even if they did? Is there any choice the population made that actually helped the foreign power? So what if the people build something and it get's demolished? What right do they have to complain? It's not the foreign powe's fault they decided to build on top of those resources. If anything, the people would be oppressing themselves and violating their own "rights" by building in such stupid places.
The idea of a government that doesn't need its people even for taxes is one that absolutely terrifies me. The people's final line of defense against their government is supposed to be mutually assured destruction. The government can't take money from the people if the people never earn any money. The government can't take people's labor, or the products of their labor if they never work. The scariest thing about civil war to a government is the fact that the people fighting don't have anything better to do. They would rather die and therefore do nothing forever than contribute the slightest bit more towards the state. Without that threat, the government loses the final thing that ties its actions to the will of the people, and the people lose their right to representation.
I probably haven't responded to everything you said, so please repeat anything you still want me to respond to.
If a law on the books would never be enforced, then I don't consider it a law in reality. There are some laws like piracy laws which can be difficult or impossible to enforce, but I wouldn't say that those aren't laws. Rather, I would say that the piracy is happening outside of the state's jourisdiction.
On the topic of rights, I do believe rights are independent of the state. Even in China they have freedom of speech. The state can never decide for you what you meant by your words, especially if you aren't talking directly too them. When you say "Whinnie the Pooh", absolutely nothing can stop you from meaning "Xi Jinping" inside of your head and the head of your intended listener. All they can do is try to punish and exploit anyone who is nice enough to speak in a slightly more straightforward way so that the state to take action against them.
And it goes the other way around too. Even if an organization or government "surrenders" something to us, it doesn't mean that we suddenly have the right to it, especially if we aren't providing anything in return. Suppose an army shows up in another country one day, displaces the previous government, and quickly suppresses any opposition. Then, they start digging up the ground to mine a natural resource far further down then we could have effected.
If they start giving orders to the people living there, would those count as laws? More importantly, if they start imposing artificial rules on themselves, would those constitute rights? Suppose they promised not to demolish and dig underneath daycares. So what? What right would the people have to complain even if they did? Is there any choice the population made that actually helped the foreign power? So what if the people build something and it get's demolished? What right do they have to complain? It's not the foreign powe's fault they decided to build on top of those resources. If anything, the people would be oppressing themselves and violating their own "rights" by building in such stupid places.
The idea of a government that doesn't need its people even for taxes is one that absolutely terrifies me. The people's final line of defense against their government is supposed to be mutually assured destruction. The government can't take money from the people if the people never earn any money. The government can't take people's labor, or the products of their labor if they never work. The scariest thing about civil war to a government is the fact that the people fighting don't have anything better to do. They would rather die and therefore do nothing forever than contribute the slightest bit more towards the state. Without that threat, the government loses the final thing that ties its actions to the will of the people, and the people lose their right to representation.
I probably haven't responded to everything you said, so please repeat anything you still want me to respond to.