Clearbury

I think all the anarchist conclusion really requires is that it is wrong to extract payment with menaces for deciding - without being commissioned to ...

Does this site have anyone on it who can actually read what someone says rather than attack strawmen of their own invention?

Yes. I 'hire' electricians. If an electrician just decides to change a lightbulb - without asking me - and then bills me and threatens me with violenc...

Engage with the arguments I make and not strawmen.

Yes, I think so. But it doesn't really matter for my purposes here, for if he never intended it to operate as a justification for the state, then it p...

Yes, he doesn't suppose us actually to have signed such a contract. It's just a thought experiment called 'the original position'. It's designed to pr...

Rawls argues that we gain insight into what rules it would be fair to make us live by, by imagining what rules-of-the-game we'd agree to prior to know...

I was some kind of Rawlsian.

Well, haha, I suppose my point in presenting what I take to be a powerful case for anarchism is to extract from others arguments for the state that ca...

That doesn't seem correct to me. I am assuming people have moral rights. But I am not assuming that they are natural (not that I am quite sure what th...

You're taxed to pay for the police whether you wish to be or not. And if you refuse to pay your taxes, the government will eventually imprison you.

The injustice of the government is not a function of what motivates people to obey it, but the fact it claims a monopoly on the use of violence - and ...

Yes, that's fair, although it would also be the unjust use to which they put violence. I take it to be obvious to reasonable people that it would be q...

What a mature response. You confirm what I already believed about you.

I am just repeating myself, but if someone wants to resist my argument by doubling down on grossly implausible claims, then that's fine. It'd be one t...

I think it's perfect. For every reasonable person - and it is only reasonable people who are worth discussing philosophical matters with, as philosoph...

That claim of mine is true, but - as I just explained - my case for anarchy does not depend on it, for it is sufficient for it to go through that the ...

That's a strawman version of my view. There are TWO premises that get one to the anarchist conclusion, not one. First, a person is only entitled to us...

In case you think governments do a good job of protecting your rights, look into how well police perform at solving crimes. It's awful. I live in a fi...

No, I am ignoring those whose views seem to me to be indefensible. Like I say, life's too short to argue with people who a) can't recognize an argumen...

In an anarchy there's no one there to be removed! Elections are a wholly inadequate solution to a problem that governments create: concentration of po...

I've made my position very clear and argued for my view. A view that entails that the Jews who were exterminated by the Nazis did not have their right...

You keep saying things to me. Manners require that I respond.

Yes, that was my goal. I don't wish to have a conversation with someone who thinks the Nazis didn't violate the rights of those whom they exterminated...

Thanks. I agree that the vulnerable would still be vulnerable under an anarchy, but I think they'd be better off overall. For the weak are weaker stil...

The poorest and most vulnerable are not safer under governments. Rather than depending on the generosity and decency of those around them, they depend...

I'm afraid I don't follow your point. Are you just observing that there are people who enjoy violating the rights of others? I don't deny this. I am p...

You're just confusing violating someone's rights with them not having any. Look, if you think the Jews had no moral rights under the Nazis then it fol...

I am arguing that all governments are unjust. That's a moral claim. I am not claiming that governments don't exist or won't emerge over time. If I arg...

I explicitly addressed concerns about consequences in my opening post! As for 'proving' things - I don't have to 'prove' anything. That's a ludicrous ...

My case for anarchy is based on moral evidence. The issue is much simpler than people think. It is almost always wrong to use violence or the threat o...

I think conseqentialism is false (consequences are clearly not the only things that matter morally speaking). But even if it is true, it's not at all ...

Willful misunderstanding. Did I say I can't argue with people I disagree with? No. I said I can't argue with someone who thinks the Nazis didn't viola...

I have justified my belief. Perhaps you missed it. Here it is again: if governments determine what rights people have then the Jews had no rights unde...

I am making the point that anarchy is just and all governments are unjust. I don't think that's a trivial point. That seems highly significant, if tru...

I do not understand your question. My defence of anarchism is not an expression of personal preference. I would prefer to live in a society in which e...

No, they did have rights and those rights were not respected. I am not sure I can argue with someone who thinks a person has a right if and only if th...

Those seem like indefensible claims. First, to think people are entitled to things is not equivalent to thinking the universe operates karmically. A p...

I don't think that's right, though that may accurately characterize the positions most (?) contemporary philosophers hold about the matter. But anothe...

Yes, though I don't think you took it anywhere at all.

That's beside the point. The point is that this claim 'it is the person asociated with the human animal who is doing the thinking' is not question beg...

I explained why 'worked' is question begging. You either mean by 'worked' - achieves justice - in which case by hypothesis it does work, or you have s...

But I am not arguing that his argument is invalid, but that its second premise (and its third) has to be interpreted in a way that makes it question b...

I think Wittgenstein is quite right. Psychologists (those who stay in their lane, anyway - and a lot of them don't) study human behaviour. Philosopher...

I think premise 2 is false and question begging. It's the person associated with the human animal who is doing the thinking. That isn't question beggi...

Those are not opposites. You have thugs in charge so long as people think there need to be people in charge. You think in a democracy you get decent, ...

What do you mean by 'work' though? I am arguing that governments are 'unjust' (not that they don't work - whether they 'work' or not depends on what g...

I don't see how you're addressing the argument I presented. I am defending anarchy. Anarchy does not involve anyone 'organizing' us. It's the opposite...

I don't see your point. Those in charge are people. And might does not make right. Therefore, what it is just for those in charge to do can be determi...

Yes. As is everyone else. Do you think you die when you go to sleep?