Yes they do. Any violence not conducted or sanctioned by the government is illegal and is theoretically punished. When you say there exists violence with no government, you’re agreeing with me.
How about the people who have no home. Do they prefer governments and civilization? Would they not be better off if they could take your things?
Why do you assume that in order for a government to be legitimate, it must only satisfy you? I don’t really care about you or me or any one person. The question is whether the order we operate under is legitimate. In order for it to be legitimate, it must, at the very least, beat disorder for most people.
Would they be better off if idiots could beat them without fear of police?
If they don't prefer civilization, why do they go where civilization exists? Why don't they wander off into some deep national forest land and build their own place?
Because they prefer civilization.
>Why do you assume
Why do you put assumptions in my writing that are not there? Need a strawman?
> In order for it to be legitimate, it must, at the very least, beat disorder for most people.
It does by the simple proof that most people don't just wander out of civilization and create chaos in some wasteland. In fact, only a tiny, tiny minority of people actually do that, so it must be working pretty well for nearly all people.
There’s really nowhere in the lower 48 that fits this description at this point. I’m currently living in MT, and there are plenty of people trying to make this work with trailers, tents, etc. They all get kicked out eventually and often their belongings get taken. If they were growing food, they lose access to it.
> Why do you put assumptions in my writing that are not there? Need a strawman?
You said “I prefer civilization”, implying it’s relevant to the conversation. If it’s not relevant, why say it?
> It does by the simple proof that most people don't just wander out of civilization
People are constantly trying to do this. They can’t without being disrupted by government forces. It’s possible there’s somewhere in the world where you could make a life for yourself without having police called on you, but it’s not easy to find.
I did write that. Why did you then reply with "Why do you assume that in order for a government to be legitimate, it must only satisfy you? " which is not what I wrote? You needed a strawman.
If you want to read into what I actually wrote things you want me to have written, why bother any discussion? Just argue with yourself.
>There’s really nowhere in the lower 48 that fits this description at this point.
Nonsense. If they're going some place with a trailer, they are not remote at all. There's places in the Pahsimeroi area (near Salmon ID) where I've camped often a month at a time over the past 50 years (and my father did this since the 1960s) where you can go a month and not see a soul. In ALL the years I've done this, I've not one ran into a Ranger or law enforcement person.
1/10th of all the area of the US is BLM land, and lots of it is so remote that rangers NEVER go there. 240+ million acres. Lots of it so remote humans so rarely go there.
I have a lot of relatives in the MT and ID regions, so I get that a lot of people out there believe they want yo do this, but I've yet to meet one that will do it completely.
The problem with the people that want to live in a trailer (i.e., near civilization) or live in a tent (not really tenable long term) is they stay close to civilization, so they can access the fruits of civilization. If someone really wanted to be out for good, there's plenty of crazy remote area you can wander into.
And, if someone really wanted to be remote from society, there's plenty of Canada you can simply wander into, no problem (done that too).
Every so often someone comes out of the woods after 20-30 years remote and tells the story. So it's certainly doable. Most people want to think they're remote yet have the ability to access fruits of civilization, like medicine, food, gadgets. So again, they actually prefer civilization, or they could move out.
>People are constantly trying to do this.
Yes, out of 330,000,000 Americans, perhaps 1 in 10,000 do it. As I said - most people prefer civilization.
>They can’t without being disrupted by government forces.
Except for the plenty of people whose story gets reported rarely who actually did it, then gave up.
Another angle is: plenty of people own enough land out west to simply go into the center of their property and never return to civilization. How many do it? Pretty much none.
Because nearly all people prefer civilization.
When you write "People are constantly trying to do this" - what fraction do you think this is?
1/1000? 1/100,000?
It's so tiny that as I wrote: the vast majority of people prefer civilization, and those that do try what you write routinely return to civilization when they get sick, break an arm, face their first hard winter, or get old.
So - what fraction of people do you claim would prefer to live withdrawn from civilization?
> So - what fraction of people do you claim would prefer to live withdrawn from civilization?
I think there are a fair number of people that would be happy to start a new civilization (using civilization loosely here - a commune, whatever). Once this gets big enough, it's shut down by the government, particularly if members don't operate within US law.
There are plenty of things that you'd want to do to survive (clearing trees to farm, etc) that are illegal and would eventually land you in prison, even if you can get away with it for a month at a time. You're taking a very tight definition of being alone in nature, but there are other options that are not available to you including starting your own social order that are preferable to anyone who can't afford food and shelter.
This is probably getting too complicated to discuss over a text-based forum, and we also seem to be reiterating about 400 years of philosophy.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
To refuse the social contract is to accept natural law (law without an organized government with a monopoly on violence). If too many people decide the social contract is not in their favor, they will do this by noncooperation or overthrowing the government. Under natural law, people are not prevented from building shelter, freely gathering food, etc. This is why people believe it is unjust and illegitimate to hold property rights above basic needs. Property (or at least more property than you can personally protect) is essentially a construction of the government, and freedom to gather and grow food is included in natural law. People who are deprived of important natural freedoms are likely to refuse the contract.
No, the "govt has a monopoly on violence" is repeated by the same people that don't read the entirety of links they post, and who use the word "literally" when it is not literally.
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+government
The word "violence" appears in zero actual definitions of government among the first 200 on google (at which point I stopped searching).
Weber's popular phrase has been vastly superseded by political philosophy in the century following his phrase. Read more.
Oh, you're one of those people. Rather than giving a substantive response, you're going to dismiss me because I used the word "literally" in a way not to your liking, despite the fact that the usage of "literally" to mean "figuratively" has been common in English idiomatic practice since at least the 1700s.
And as far as the monopoly on violence goes, by all means, if you're going to go through the effort to condescend to me, enlighten me as well.
Yes, I am aware of the history of literally. I am also aware that when you want to have a "substantive" response, then using hyperbole and claiming things have a definition that simply is not true is no way to have such responses.
If you read your link, including criticism, and realized that the phrase you hang your hat on is not at all where the field that coined it has evolved to over the past 1`00 years, you might as well also argue for a host of other antiquated ideas that are obsolete.
I find when someone clearly does not care to absorb new facts, and they jump to catch phrases and hyperbole, they don't care to learn, and often taunting them gets them mad enough to learn something, when simply presenting the ideas will not suffice.
You fall into that camp. If you want to present Weber's phrase as "literally the definition" of anything, spend some time reading criticisms and Weber's ideas and the evolution of mankind's thought on the topic.
You’re absolutely avoiding the substance of the argument using the semantics of what the guy said, instead of addressing the point that the government decides who can and cannot commit violence and who is and is not subject to violence.
Governments don't have a monopoly on violence. There's plenty of that without governments, even in civilized places. Governments help lower the incidence of violence by banding the people together against as much of the violence that not having a government allows.
And under your form of 'natural law', there is no law except that which you can take. You have no rights, only force.
I prefer governments and civilization.