Don't bother with the practical arguments if you aren't willing to first accept the moral argument.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (8)
sorted by:
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.