I must admit that I am not convinced.
The greatest evils ascribable to governance as we know it is not the administration itself but rather it is the degree of 'verticality' concerned.
The more vertical an organization is, the more alienated the grassroots are from the head. This applies to governments and big corporations alike (even religious institutions).
Where organizations are most vertical is where there exists the greatest potential for the legislation and normalization of evil - as 'the center' is occupied - and those who occupy 'the center' care not one bit about those who do not reside in 'the center'.
This is a big reason why various systems have "failed" (including systems that people are taught to expect to fail).
The cure is not 'no' governance but rather to strive for 'Horizontal' governance.
Horizontal. Localized. Personal. Inherently In-Touch.
The most fundamental unit of horizontal governance is... the family... but a modestly higher level of governance would be far more beneficial than not.
Hello, @pathforger, nice to meet you. I appreciate your comprehensive comment here.
I agree that the family is the absolute core of human society. I also see a place for somewhat larger spheres of voluntary cooperation, and I even can subscribe to the idea that "horizontal is better."
However, I must hasten to point out that we appear to still have a fundamental disagreement. Specifically this: I completely reject the idea of being ruled by the use of initiated force.
I do not accept the concept that any human or group of humans has any right to impose their will upon me and my family as long as I am not attempting to forcibly impose my will upon them.
Greetings @creatr, it is nice to meet you too. :c)
I likewise appreciate your comprehensive response.
I feel that we aren't in as much disagreement on the matter of rulership through initiated force as you may imagine.
To apply force with an aim of control is to seek to capitalize upon a fear-based mechanism.
Fear-based mechanisms are far more prevalent than many of us realize. Why do we not steal? Is it because of a commandment? Maybe so - but leaving aside the inadequate nature of following a rule because it is thus written - is it not true that many of us abide by it for the reason of fearing judgment?
One needn't experiment. Its been demonstrated countless times in history. The aftermath of disasters where police presence is stretched beyond its breaking point sees an exponential rise in looting and crime. A child is far more likely to 'take' something if s/he observes that nobody is watching.
My point being that we are raised to face a world of consequences - when we should be raised to face a world of responsibilities.
After all - it is through respect that even Anarchy doesn't tear at the seams - and it is the same respect that would optimally keep horizontal forms of governance running smoothly in service of rather than in imposition over a given society.
Of course, a failure to live up to any given responsibility is indicative of not being ready to reap the right associated.
Doing X irresponsibly? Revoke the right to X. Generally speaking. ^_~
Thanks for the added insight into your thinking.
One distinction that I make is that between God's law, and man's "law." The distinction between "laws" that are malum in se and malum prohibitum.
Speaking for myself, if at all, only in the case of malum prohibitum "laws." And the judgement I fear is the utterly unjust penalties imposed by an arrogant state. Human governments claim a right to make and enforce malum prohibitum law. I reject that claim entirely.
In the case of malum in se - true trespasses against God, natural law, and fellow man - regarding your comments about "no one is watching," I disagree. Only sociopaths, or those who have intentionally seared over their consciences, will respond as you describe without being plagued by guilt. And to me, anarchy is simply the absence of the pretense of a "right to rule." Good men need no rulers. We are quite capable of self governance.
As for the sociopathic looters and vandals, good men are also quite capable of banding together cooperatively to quell such responses to circumstance. We don't need "law enforcement" agencies with all their present perverse and self-serving incentives to do so. You might find this article I wrote about my personal experience with such perverse incentives to be somewhat of interest in this context, as well as the experiences of several people who responded to it:
Thank you also for the insight @creatr.
Your choosing to set apart the laws of God and the laws of man is fair enough. while one would expect that the latter is reflective of the former, the latter also services the consolidation of power (of itself).
I admit that I do not dwell too much upon whether the person who steals feels regret as s/he follows through with the act. Sociopathic tendencies are not required such as to behave differently in a situation where one does not believe there are consequences for one's actions.
And this applies to many who are taught to behave in a manner out of fear of consequences worldly or otherwise... which is not to be seen as a dig against a religion or God but rather a dig against the ways that such teachings are delivered (Roman Catholicism is very prevalent here).
The sad truth is that a significant portion, if not a majority, of those who seem upstanding under the scrutiny of law and "God" (again, a dig at the teachings, not God) will behave in a completely different manner if given a channel to do so (what those channels might be differ - whether such be operating in a dark alley far from interfering assistance, or confessing one's actions to a priest).
Yes, good women and men are capable of banding together to oppose negative banding in the event of a disaster - but might they not be more preoccupied with assisting the victims of such disaster? Think of a spaghetti western with a sheriff and bandits and a tornado that has just blown through town. Greater things may be afoot than the blacksmith getting looted.
Incidentally your story is quite eye-opening - and feeds my already anti-establishment-leaning inclinations. I do tend to prefer Reformation over Revolution however.