Quote:
Quote by: Winter wind  You need to first prove that the system of government
(or lack thereof) would be helpful rather then harmful to
the people and the progress of society (scientific).
And you don't need to prove it to me, but
to everyone else. |
No, the burden of proof is on the existing system, not the lack thereof. It should be apparent, for example, that one cannot "scientifically" prove a system of government to be legitimate. First of all, you can't prove a negative. No system of coercive authority can ever be totally legitimate, even if it accomplishes some decent things here and there. Any coercion involved already de-legitimzes the system. Even further, authority and society are not entirely even matters of science, nor could they be. Yes, evidence could and should be used to guide our judgments regarding the status quo, but whether or not we wish to be under the yoke is largely a subjective matter.
This is not to say questioning authority has no basis in emprical study. After all, to question why things happen is the basic foundation of science, and anarchists are supposed to be questioning things.
Why do we have authority? Largely because of conquerers, and also because people tend to only listen to things they already believe. If something new comes along to challenge convention, the expected reaction is one of disgust. This is why, whenever I speak against the system, people want me to explain what I would replace it with. People are so used to being ruled that they expect me to be like a ruler. But my mission isn't to prescribe solutions to every possible scenario, nor is that the objective of any legitimate social system. The more a person or system claims to have all the answers, the greater our skepticism should be. Usually, such a person or system winds up persecuting someone else.
Grandpa h.