“A scenario where a group of human thugs [rips and devours your entire family] is still okay-ish in some sense, because no state was involved; at least you have avoided the horrors of non-consensual taxation!”
Suppose that in the anarchist utopia, someone overconfident about their self-defense skills refuses to hire a protection agency, and the next day a group of thugs murders the entire family. I assume the answer would be: “well, they clearly made a mistake, that’s exactly what the protection agencies are for.” The dead family would be a tragedy, but it would not be considered a tragedy caused by the regime.
Compare to the statist utopia, where the police protects everyone, and citizens pay taxes. If someone doesn’t pay, they get thrown in jail. “They clearly made a mistake, you are supposed to pay taxes...” “How dare you!” Every person in the jail (or killed resisting the arrest) is a tragedy caused by the regime.
So, even if hypothetically the former regime had orders of magnitude more tragedies, in the anarchist calculus it would be morally preferable, because those tragedies don’t count as an argument against it.
Michael Huemer and David D Friedman primarily employ consequentialist arguments in favor of philosophical anarchism (especially Friedman). My understanding is that you’re assuming their arguments are rooted in applying a blanket action/omission asymmetry on the part of state actors, implying that the fewer actions states take, the better. I think this view substantially misinterprets their actual arguments though, as I don’t think they lean heavily on this asymmetry in any part in their books.
“A scenario where a group of human thugs [rips and devours your entire family] is still okay-ish in some sense, because no state was involved; at least you have avoided the horrors of non-consensual taxation!”
Sorry, this doesn’t pass the ITT.
Suppose that in the anarchist utopia, someone overconfident about their self-defense skills refuses to hire a protection agency, and the next day a group of thugs murders the entire family. I assume the answer would be: “well, they clearly made a mistake, that’s exactly what the protection agencies are for.” The dead family would be a tragedy, but it would not be considered a tragedy caused by the regime.
Compare to the statist utopia, where the police protects everyone, and citizens pay taxes. If someone doesn’t pay, they get thrown in jail. “They clearly made a mistake, you are supposed to pay taxes...” “How dare you!” Every person in the jail (or killed resisting the arrest) is a tragedy caused by the regime.
So, even if hypothetically the former regime had orders of magnitude more tragedies, in the anarchist calculus it would be morally preferable, because those tragedies don’t count as an argument against it.
Michael Huemer and David D Friedman primarily employ consequentialist arguments in favor of philosophical anarchism (especially Friedman). My understanding is that you’re assuming their arguments are rooted in applying a blanket action/omission asymmetry on the part of state actors, implying that the fewer actions states take, the better. I think this view substantially misinterprets their actual arguments though, as I don’t think they lean heavily on this asymmetry in any part in their books.
Can you say why?