Difference between revisions of "Myths/government is violence"
(for now, the Issuepedia article cites references but does not debunk (links back here for that).) |
(category) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | [[category:government]] | |
| + | {{hdr/myth|Government is inherently violent.}} | ||
[[File:15 - 1.jpg|thumb|Freedom is slavery, war is peace, ignorance is strength, and government is violence.]] | [[File:15 - 1.jpg|thumb|Freedom is slavery, war is peace, ignorance is strength, and government is violence.]] | ||
| − | + | ==Myth== | |
| − | == | + | ===Example=== |
| − | Government is not ''inherently'' violent, however | + | "Government is founded upon the initiation of violence." – Tim Rieker, [https://plus.google.com/u/0/113630203692968581887/posts/1KcVx82qdZs comment on Google+] |
| + | ==Reality== | ||
| + | Government is not ''inherently'' violent, however – unless you count the coercive restraint of abusers (a necessary function of any society) as violence. In this area, selective government-initiated "violence" (constraint) is necessary in order to prevent more widespread violence. | ||
| − | + | No alternative to government could possibly avoid this kind of violence, since refraining from constraining abusers would allow the abusers to commit their own violence – so this criticism cannot be used to argue against the need for government. | |
| − | + | The only logically possible way in which an accusation of violence would be a valid argument against the idea of government, or even against any particular form of government, is to offer a system which is demonstrably less violent in actual practice (rather than just in theory). | |
| + | ==Nugget== | ||
| + | This myth comes very close to being a [[reality inversion]], and only escapes due to two facts: | ||
| + | * indeed, government often must engage in some violence while constraining abusers | ||
| + | * most if not all governments engage in far more violence than is actually necessary. | ||
| − | The only | + | Even so, most governments still prevent more violence than they cause, and eliminating government would only increase the overall level of violence. The only way to decrease violence overall is to improve government. |
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
===Reference=== | ===Reference=== | ||
* {{issuepedia|Anti-governmentism/definitionally violent}} | * {{issuepedia|Anti-governmentism/definitionally violent}} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:35, 11 June 2015
| Myth: Government is inherently violent. |
Myth
Example
"Government is founded upon the initiation of violence." – Tim Rieker, comment on Google+
Reality
Government is not inherently violent, however – unless you count the coercive restraint of abusers (a necessary function of any society) as violence. In this area, selective government-initiated "violence" (constraint) is necessary in order to prevent more widespread violence.
No alternative to government could possibly avoid this kind of violence, since refraining from constraining abusers would allow the abusers to commit their own violence – so this criticism cannot be used to argue against the need for government.
The only logically possible way in which an accusation of violence would be a valid argument against the idea of government, or even against any particular form of government, is to offer a system which is demonstrably less violent in actual practice (rather than just in theory).
Nugget
This myth comes very close to being a reality inversion, and only escapes due to two facts:
- indeed, government often must engage in some violence while constraining abusers
- most if not all governments engage in far more violence than is actually necessary.
Even so, most governments still prevent more violence than they cause, and eliminating government would only increase the overall level of violence. The only way to decrease violence overall is to improve government.