The first step (for me anyways) was accepting how corrupt government really was. And that I could not jibe that corruption with my morals and principals. Think about the old saying "voting for the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil". This last election was the straw that broke the camels back in my mind. My principles dictated that I could no longer support an openly corrupt government. It is corrupt on every level.
Government is fundamentally corrupt through open hypocrisy: government is allowed to enact violence against its populace as the means of enforcing laws and regulations. We are not allowed to enact violence against each other or the government. An institution founded on hypocrisy is already corrupt and is only open to further corruption.
Note: this is not an argument that we should be permitted to enact violence against others to combat the hypocrisy. Rather, it is an argument against the government having a monopoly on the use of force while deeming it immoral when we do it. Aggressive violence is always immoral, doesn't matter who does it. Self defense is obviously a different story.
The initiation of the use of force is wrong. This is something we all accept in our daily lives and in my opinion is not reasonably up for debate (although you are welcome to).
The government is fundamentally a monopoly on the initiation of force upon a given region. All government regulations and laws are, at the end of the day, enforced with the threat of violence (jail, death if you resist every step of the way through self defense).
Because the initiation of the use of force is immoral and the government is the initiation of the use of force, the government is immoral. Anarchism is the only structure which accommodates a total lack of government.
Consequentialism IS a moral framework which, if used to justify anarchism, would still make anarchy a moral argument (although I think consequentialism is awful). Consequentialism is used to justify statism, too.
Friendly reminder that Anarcho-Capitalism is not anarchy.
I'm an AnCap. I am not an "anarchist".
Please explain how anarchy is a moral argument.
The first step (for me anyways) was accepting how corrupt government really was. And that I could not jibe that corruption with my morals and principals. Think about the old saying "voting for the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil". This last election was the straw that broke the camels back in my mind. My principles dictated that I could no longer support an openly corrupt government. It is corrupt on every level.
Government is fundamentally corrupt through open hypocrisy: government is allowed to enact violence against its populace as the means of enforcing laws and regulations. We are not allowed to enact violence against each other or the government. An institution founded on hypocrisy is already corrupt and is only open to further corruption.
Note: this is not an argument that we should be permitted to enact violence against others to combat the hypocrisy. Rather, it is an argument against the government having a monopoly on the use of force while deeming it immoral when we do it. Aggressive violence is always immoral, doesn't matter who does it. Self defense is obviously a different story.
That makes sense.
I have known that for some time.
Still wonder the morals of ancap when many these days are out for themselves...at least where I live.
There is a simple moral proof for it:
The initiation of the use of force is wrong. This is something we all accept in our daily lives and in my opinion is not reasonably up for debate (although you are welcome to).
The government is fundamentally a monopoly on the initiation of force upon a given region. All government regulations and laws are, at the end of the day, enforced with the threat of violence (jail, death if you resist every step of the way through self defense).
Because the initiation of the use of force is immoral and the government is the initiation of the use of force, the government is immoral. Anarchism is the only structure which accommodates a total lack of government.
It's not, you can take a consequentialist approach
Consequentialism IS a moral framework which, if used to justify anarchism, would still make anarchy a moral argument (although I think consequentialism is awful). Consequentialism is used to justify statism, too.