Nowhere in my argumentation did I say anything about anarchists claiming violence is exclusive to central government. I would help if you read what I wrote.[/quote
I re-read it, and you're right. You didn't say exclusive, you said inherent. I misread.
I haven't mentioned human nature either, [...]
But you did say,
Anarchists often like to think that [...] if only we find ways to get people to behave without violence an functional anarchist society will follow.
But as Noam Chomsky said, we need to understand how complex systems such as human societies work. Unfortunately complex systems tend to have the annoying feature of being complex, and sometimes even grow in complexity.
Yes, complex indeed. And increasing in complexity as well. Agreed.
But complexity is certainly not proof that we need government. Its just proof that the world is complex, nothing more.
The day that we could choose whether or not to create government has past at least 6000 years. For most of the world, government has become the default situation. Anarchists do not have to prove that we don't need it (though I suspect we do), but they do need to prove that there is anything to be gained from getting rid of it that will be worth the cost of doing so.
Yes, they do. A cost/benefit analysis of some sort would suffice.
I've once been to a candlemaker once and I even got to make my own candle. A few months later the whole studio burnt to the ground. The owner had apparently not followed all fire safety regulations... Having a shop full of flammable stuff seems to me evidence enough that some government regulation is necessary.
Are you saying that the owner's negligence to follow fire safety regulations, and in more broad terms, safety in general, is proof that we need more fire safety regulations? Because either this is proof that the regulation failed, and you are arguing we need more of it, or this was a particularly negligent individual.
No, I would say they on average represent the voters. If you want more critical thinking in societies' decision making, it makes more sense to argue in favour of technocracy than anarchy.
I don't want to alter society's decision making.
You mean like wasting your life believing in a political philosophy that shows no evidence that it will ever get popular enough to shape society?
I never said I believed in any political philosophy. And regardless, I'm also agnostic/athiest, am I wasting my life, because that's a partiucularly unpopular opinion, that may never become popular?
And second, if you're referring to anarhism or limited government or libertarianism, I don't think it's actually unpopular, and more importantly, it has shaped the world in dramatic ways. Wouldn't you say it was a small government ideology and belief in liberty that fueled the American revolution?
Countries with effective enough government to enforce all sorts of micromanagement regulations, often tend to have lots of freedom and economic growth. Safety regulations and consumer protection laws seem to be going hand in hand with consumer confidence, and thus economic growth. The Free Market works most effectively if it is free: free of "force" and "fraud". Only government seems capable of keeping the market somewhat free of those things.
Do I have this right? Are you arguing for support for government regulation should be on the grounds that it provides consumer confidence and thus spurs economic growth, and not that it actually spurs economic growth?
Who is going to decide which regulations are "unnecessary" anyway? Someone must have thought they were necessary, otherwise they wouldn't have been implemented.
Someone thinking they are necessary, or being paid by a special interest group, or receiving political pressure from an advocacy group based on emotion or outrage and not science is not what I or any rational person would deem "necessary," but a politician and her staff would.
