So are you saying that there shouldn't be laws, because there shouldn't be any enforcement for them? Which actually just would mean...

Are you against consequences for wrongdoings?

I don't know if this is what you're getting at, but as for the speed limit idea, look at how insanely people drive WITH them. Imagine how it would be without them. It'd be chaos, and I'd be scared to drive, because people would be zipping in and out on me at 90 mph.

I don't know. Relating this to other laws, as well... I'm glad we have a lot of them, and I'm glad someone is out there trying to enforce them.

It sounds like you're talking about anarchy. Not the total chaos that most people think of when they think of anarchy, but a political and social system sometimes called “libertarian socialism”, which I think you would readily identify with. (Wikipedia has a good short article on this under “Anarchy”. See also “libertarian socialism”.)

Where I tend to disagree is with the idea that people are inherently good, and that they really do want to voluntarily form these communities based on mutual interest and so forth. I believe that our fallen sinful nature guarantees a certain amount of selfishness, and God himself established a system of laws with consequences for Israel. I don't think Jesus really spoke on civil law, except to say that it was there for a reason and we are to obey the spirit of that law more than the letter of the law (cf. the Sermon on the Mount).

Now how should we put together a set of laws, and what sort of enforcement should we use? I would certainly agree that we have lots of issues with government today. But I think what we need is a better set of checks-and-balances to dissuade those in power from abusing it with force.

ps - This is kind of a stretch for me. I've been somewhat ignoring politics for the past 7 or 8 years, because I don't know how I “should” feel about these things. But your post was intelligent and well-written, and I respect you, so I thought I'd take a stab.

@Allison:
This post is intended to be solely about the two concepts bolded - about the means - and agnostic about the ends. For example, it's not a commentary about whether speed limits are “right” or “wrong.”

I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws, but neither am I saying there should be laws. That's one of those “variety of directions” questions I will probably reserve for later.

“Wrongdoings” is broad and I cannot answer that question strictly yes or no, so I will rephrase it slightly and say: Yes, I believe there can be legitimate consequences for aggression. The non-aggression principle does not preclude defense against aggression.

@Tim:
Yes, it is much like anarchy or anarcho-capitalism, which I'm quite familiar with. I avoided labels in this discussion because they typically just muddy the waters with preconceived notions and whatnot. I have my labels, and no problems with using them, just wanted to keep it simple. :]

You raise good and interesting points, which I think about a lot. I agree on human selfishness, though it brings up the issue of how much that actually helps a voluntary interaction society, as well as reasons to strongly limit the power of people over others. Again, topics I will probably address more later.

Thanks for the comment. It's been a journey for me, over the last 8 years (coincidentally). While the principle is “simple”, it's not always easy to apply consistently.

Gregor,

I was directed here from Tim, who is a mutual friend of ours. He knew that I have a similar disposition to you and that I have a background in politics and philosophy.

In short, I basically agree with everything you wrote, so I don't know how much I have to add to the discussion directly related to this post, but I suppose questions that should be addressed by this line of thought include: when, if ever, is force legitimate? What is the association between force and manipulation? When is it legitimate to segregate someone from society (e.g. jail) or impose society's will on another?

One question that does directly tie to the premise of this post is: what does this have to do with spirituality or religious convictions? Ostensibly, that's the point of this post, but I'm interested in seeing how you got from being a Christian (which I assume you are and were for several years) to being a sort of anarchist. That association is not very clear from what you have written thus far.

Again, this may all be fodder for subsequent posts, or simply too off-topic for your time and interest. At the risk of being pedantic, if you want to read some like-minded folk, you can check out http://jesusradicals.org/ They are a group of radical Christians - anarchists, vegans, pacifists, agrarians, etc. - and they say similar things to what you've said here.

I'll continue to follow updates to this line of thought.

-JAK

gRegor... I love seeing young people getting their thoughts around these sorts of things. Wish you well figuring it all out — keep asking/looking/thinking... and especially reading (the Bible). There are great answers God has for us all.

In the meantime though... “Gimme yer lunch money Or else!” “Same goes for your sister, too.”

Thanks for commenting, Justin.

I have been a Christian most of my life, and still am. Basically, the more I thought about and questioned politics/government policies, the more I realized they weren't in line with my worldview.

Or perhaps it's just that my worldview became more clear, so that things I previously thought were necessary and just - are no longer. I was raised in a Republican home and in the “us vs them” of politics; it wasn't until later that I began to question that system. Upon learning of the NAP and really thinking it through, I found it to be far more consistent with Christ. I don't see Him initiating force to achieve a desirable political/social order or guiding us to do so.

I was reading the responses and mine seemed to fall right into view with what Tim stated.

I do think it very noble to view mankind in a positive light. I (personally) just find it very difficult. The freedoms that one person takes for granted can (and are progressively moving towards this) interfere with the freedoms that others choose to take.

I guess looking a little closer at your first example might offer a better perspective of what I mean.

If it weren't for the “coercive elements” there would be little keeping John from punching Jim (short of Jim fighting bacK) to take the apple. Assuming that John would never attempt to take the apple assumes a good deal about John's character. Which is probably the point I'm trying to make.

A view where there is a very small government and/or people are allowed to police/govern themselves assumes a lot about the character of the individual and people in general. It seems that a system like that might “devolve” into a series of groups/communities/etc that find themselves believing in one particular philosophy versus another and removing opposing philosophies in the process.

This may also lead to different groups with a feeling of superiority over other groups. I guess that a truly democratic culture involves a heterogeneous population bound by a certain set of rules (which can change over time) but also with a means to enforce these rules.

Maybe I've jumped to a conclusion that normal reasoning doesn't lead to. I'll definitely state that I don't always hold the highest regard for my fellow human beings. I guess I've been too negatively affected by the A-hole Factor. (Simply put the A-hole Factor assumes that regardless of the situation someone is always going to be an A-hole and mess it up.)

Gregor thanks for thinking through this. It's always enjoyable to hear someone's well thought out philosophy. Like the Proverb (or ... um... other passage in the Bible) states, “as iron sharpens iron, so does one man sharpen another.” Without putting your thoughts out there it would be difficult to fashion my own and vice-versa.

p.s. - When you coming to visit G. Eye's gotsa no?