What is the moral justification for the state? (2 Viewers)

[copkiller]

To those of you that believe we need a government, how do you justify it morally?

Do you accept the premise that it is wrong to initiate force against others, except in self defense?

If so, why should the state be granted an exception to this rule?

If not, in what other circumstances is it also okay to initiate force against others?

 

[ComingUpForAir]

you need to define what you mean by 'goverment' and 'morality'..
none of what you assert makes much sense without an objective measure of 'correct' or 'okay' outcomes.

 

[KFunk]

To those of you that believe we need a government, how do you justify it morally?

Do you accept the premise that it is wrong to initiate force against others, except in self defense?

If so, why should the state be granted an exception to this rule?

If not, in what other circumstances is it also okay to initiate force against others?

Fuck the police.

 

[copkiller]

Statists hate actually answering this question seriously.

 

[copkiller]

you need to define what you mean by 'goverment' and 'morality'..
none of what you assert makes much sense without an objective measure of 'correct' or 'okay' outcomes.

Not at all. It doesn't even need to be framed as a moral question. The only part that is relevant is this:

Do you accept the premise that it is wrong to initiate force against others, except in self defense?

If so, why should the state be granted an exception to this rule?

If not, in what other circumstances is it also okay to initiate force against others?

These are very simple, unambiguous questions.

 

[lolokay]

"wrong" is ambiguous

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

To those of you that believe we need a government, how do you justify it morally?

Do you accept the premise that it is wrong to initiate force against others, except in self defense?

If so, why should the state be granted an exception to this rule?

If not, in what other circumstances is it also okay to initiate force against others?

What's with this board being overrun by lolbertarians and anarchists lately?

 

[DavidBenGurion]

couldn't come up with a pun for anarchist ey shodan?

i got one for you

shitdan

ahahahahahahaha!!!!!!1!!!! :rofl:

 

[dieburndie]

What's with this board being overrun by lolbertarians and anarchists lately?

Why don't you answer the questions?

 

[dcb4usmcfr]

I do remember in NSW the basic self defence devices such PEPPER SPRAY are illegal to normal civilians.

Police batons are illegal as well.

 

[SylviaB]

imo main reason for the state is to protect people from one another and to punish people who commit crimes.

Obviously what constitutes a crime needs to be greatly reduced, but you get the picture.

 

[maryBRAHS]

Fuck the police.

YouTube - Help the Police

 

[Silver Persian]

I think most social democrats would respond to this question on utilitarian grounds - arguing that society would not work if the state did not exist. Or in other words, the moral problems created by forcible state intervention are of lesser value than the problems created by the non-existence of the state.


But the free market solves everything, am I right guys?

 

[quik.]

Straight up saying I'm not exactly the deepest thinker, keeping it simple and uncomplicated is p much how I like things but here goes.

Do you accept the premise that it is wrong to initiate force against others, except in self defense?

I'm assuming this question refers to police etc

I believe force is justified if someone is infringing upon another persons freedoms. As long as you aren't negatively impacting on other people then I don't mind what you get up to etc.

Your other questions seem sort of redundant but if I've missed the point entirely feel free to let me know.

 

[Freedom_]

Our police force is a joke. The temptation to wield power of force in a brutal and coercive manner is so high one can only fear those who are supposedly payed to "protect and Serve" us. Our current system clearly shows police being considered by many communities as alien "imperial" colonizers there not to serve the people but the state elite who wish to oppress the very same people it supposedly "represents". “Police brutality” is a well-known feature of the police system, and it is held in check only by remote complaints of the harassed citizenry.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

I think most social democrats would respond to this question on utilitarian grounds - arguing that society would not work if the state did not exist. Or in other words, the moral problems created by forcible state intervention are of lesser value than the problems created by the non-existence of the state.

Agree with this. I mean, humans are, by nature, social creatures in much the same way that other great apes are. We naturally have a structure within our interactions, like to know our place within society, how we fit in etc.

The State functions as a constant that enforces certain basic things upon which many can agree, and imo, it's necessary.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Our police force is a joke. The temptation to wield power of force in a brutal and coercive manner is so high one can only fear those who are supposedly payed to "protect and Serve" us. Our current system clearly shows police being considered by many communities as alien "imperial" colonizers there not to serve the people but the state elite who wish to oppress the very same people it supposedly "represents". “Police brutality” is a well-known feature of the police system, and it is held in check only by remote complaints of the harassed citizenry.

what are your crimes?
if your trying to tell us ur crimes just spite them out

 

[John McCain]

To those of you that believe we need a government, how do you justify it morally?

Do you accept the premise that it is wrong to initiate force against others, except in self defense?

How do you believe a legal system (covering property rights etc.) should be enforced and administrated, if not by a government?

I think your premise, that a government implicitly involves force, is false. Where the government is responsible for administration only in regards to upholding justice against violations of your property and person, it can be said the force is levied in self-defence. A small government whose sole responsibility is organizing minimal legal rights, could be administered voluntarily, by donations or levied through fines for breaches of these legal rights, removing the need for violent taxation.

I'm sure you knew all this anyway, blah.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

How do you believe a legal system (covering property rights etc.) should be enforced and administrated, if not by a government?

I think your premise, that a government implicitly involves force, is false. Where the government is responsible for administration only in regards to upholding justice against violations of your property and person, it can be said the force is levied in self-defence. A small government whose sole responsibility is organizing minimal legal rights, could be administered voluntarily, by donations or levied through fines for breaches of these legal rights, removing the need for violent taxation.

I'm sure you knew all this anyway, blah.

*likes this post*

 

[Riet]

I think their should for two reasons, and only two reasons.
1) Two build infrastructure such as roads and railways
2) To protect the external borders.