A different perspective of government is the bottom-up approach. Instead of seeing government as a consciously planned organization, it sees it as a product of responses to various needs and conditions.
Whose needs? When government isn't purposely planned to protect rights, it shouldn't surprise anyone when it works to violate rights.
-------------- The recognition of individual rights as a precise and detailed concept is not necessary to start with. Instead, we start with a primitive picture of individuals trying to live their lives in peace.
But do these people claim they have a "right" as an "individual" to live their life in peace? And in this picture of individuals... the problem is that some people don't want peace, they want to initiate force. If a group of people organize purposely to stop the initiation of force, then you are at the issue of rights, regardless of how precisely they are defined. On the other hand, if the group decides to simply be more efficient gang and do the robbing themselves, then peace wasn't really the underlying purpose.
--------------- One need not grasp individual rights as moral ideal or political concept to recognize that the actions of others can be a threat to your life.
But that is the very issue that will come up when others claim they are right to take your stuff. The proper resolution of conflict is by a determination of who holds the right. Then to impliment that which is right as a set of rules, which is a political concept.
---------------- It's worth noting that so far we have not referred to government, or an organization within the group. That's because a bottom-up approach does not start with an assumption that we need an organization.
You talk about generating laws and having judges and juries and that this is somehow carried out on behalf of a group of people. That takes a lot of organizing. Sounds to me like you are talking about government. I could start with an assumption that I could build an airplane without a commitment to, or much knowledge of aerodynamic principles or even engineering principles.... and if were indeed a brilliant person of exceptional genius maybe I'd have some success. But I'd clearly be better off to start with a set of assumptions that more closely detailed where I want to end up and a an understanding that it would benefit from an understanding of the subject matter as a set of principles.
------------------ The instantiation of these methods are most commonly seen in the form of government, an organization including selective members of the populace. But it's not necessary. A method for determining the guilt of a person and the appropriate punishment could be as simple as grabbing any 12 people as a jury and making a decision.
That has the appearance of an argument claiming that anarchy could work - that a government is not necessary. I've made the arguments against that many times, in many different threads. Government is the structure you have when you impliment a monopoly of laws for a given jurisdiction. To enforce those laws, it is necessary. Who grabs the 12 people if they don't want to go? If you don't have a government, I don't understand who is enforcing any of this. Is it an adhoc mob rules phenomena with a claim that they will for some reason be reasonable? Is it defence agencies who have made up their own laws?
---------------------
Countries find ways of resolving the same issues without the need for a world government. They form treaties, they have boundaries to demarcate jurisdiction, and rely on method-based solutions instead of organization-based solutions.
Or they launch wars - as they have throughout history, killing people by the millions.
-------------------- A bottom-up approach is more flexible and allows for a wider variety of solutions. It is compatible with decentralized enforcement. It is compatible with alternative methods of creating laws.
The solution to the problem of initiated force starts with an understanding that it cannot be done with a moral sanction, that a single code of laws that most accurately codify that moral concept be enacted and enforced. Decentralized enforcement - what does that mean? And who cares about alternative methods of creating laws, rather than the nature of the laws created?
--------------------- Joe, please tell me if I'm wrong in thinking that you are advocating anarchy as an acceptable alternative to minarchy.
| 
