RE: The Myth of Authority

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

The Myth of Authority

in anarchy •  7 years ago 

I'm truly sorry to hear of the violent troubles in your country. When I speak of voluntaryism and "no rulers" anarchy, I don't mean to imply evil people doing evil will somehow cease, I do mean it could possibly change for the better. Violent gangs and corrupt governments have the principle of violence-backed authority at thier core.

It is possible to have safety and security without government. Here's an example: Detroit Threat Management: #Anarchy in Detroit, Part II.

Is it possible something like this could work in Nigeria as well?

Nuclear weapons are created by governments and I don't just see governments as a collection of individuals because they claim rights no individual has such as initiating violence force against peaceful people.

I don't intend to make light of the terrible things going on where you are. I just want to explore alternative solutions which don't give us the same results we've been getting. More on that here: The Loop: Why Voting and Revolutions Don't Work. I skimmed through some of the articles you linked to and they are gruesome and terribly troubling. I'm not convinced giving more power to centralized corrupt governments is a good solution because you're likely to get more of the same problems.

What if instead we allow the free market to work and incentivize things like blockchain technology, cryptocurrency, private security, and neighborhood voluntary agreements of mutual aid and support?

If we continue to see rulers as the answer to the problems of being violently ruled by others, we will continue to get the same poor results.

And no, I don't hate you at all, especially not for disagreeing with me. I value that very much. You have a perspective on your country I could never know and all my ideals and ideas mean little if they don't actually work on the ground in the real world. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

If interested, here's a video which gives another perspective on how things might function without a government with monopoly control:

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  
  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Who would have the power over dawn defence?. What if they have decided to use force?. What if he was innocent? What if Tanna justice supported bill even after finding out he was guilty? What if it had resulted into a war? Who decides who is guilty in a free state? Then what do we call the person that decides ones fate?

Did you watch the video on conflict resolution within a free society? I think it covers many of your questions. If businesses don't provide good service or act in ways that are not in the best interests of their communities, they will no longer gain business. People will use competitors. That's what separates a business from a government in that a government has a monopoly on services and it supports that monopoly with the threat of violent force. Businesses have to earn trust voluntarily. Now, often, we see governments creating non-natural monopolies for certain corporate business interests at the expense of individuals, but that's not really a fault of business as much as it's a fault of the system made available to them through lobbies and regulations. For more on that see regulatory capture and revolving door politics.

Your questions display a desire to have an ultimate authority. I don't mean to offend you, but this is the same thinking children have when they need their mom or dad to define reality for them and set the rules. Adults figure things out via consensus. Laws are in many ways emergent properties of rational consensus on morality and human wellbeing. At least, from a common law perspective, that's what they are supposed to be. When we start thinking in terms of authoritarianism where some person gets to decide, we run into real problems. Instead, we should be relying on principles based in reason, logic, and evidence. Ideas which are morally sound and supported by the communities in which they are used.

I watched the video. And you answered my question with this

. If businesses don't provide good service or act in ways that are not in the best interests of their communities, they will no longer gain business. People will use competitors.

But i am not sure if it will work out in my country

But i am not sure if it will work out in my country

I'd love to know more about why not. Could it be because people are programmed from birth to believe the myth of authority and that programming puts rulers in place which end up harming people?

When I think about these things, I think the change has to happen first in people's thinking long before we can see it work in physical reality.

Any slightest chance we have here. We also overuse. We have a lot of ritualist in my country. Imagine this set of ppl been giving freedom. Allowed be behave the way they want.

I like your theory and it is beginning sound interesting to me. My belief can be changed through you but first i need to consider the pros and cons