And I think you're making a lot of assumptions about what I believe. Nothing I believe contradicts the idea of civilization, as long as the basis of that civilization is voluntary participation, with the use of force reserved for defensive purposes.
And hence, the rule of law is born,
But so very much of what passes for "law" today is nothing of the sort. But my view of what constitutes a valid law is pretty much a reflection of what Bastiat had to say (minus the religious stuff):
Maybe one day we'll live in Scott Alexander's Archipelago[0], where you'd be free to move to whatever civilization had the rules you like the most, and if you don't like any, you will start a new one yourself. But we don't live in Archipelago, we live on planet Earth, and we have a lot of work in front of us to build the Archipelago - work that requires us to coordinate, and coordination requires suspending some of our freedoms.
and coordination requires suspending some of our freedoms.
I'm not sure I would agree with that. From my perspective, all coordination requires is voluntary collaboration and free exchange. After all, people can (and do) choose to do things for "the greater good" even when they don't have to.
Cooperation in its root is voluntary suspension of freedoms. I voluntary agree to not do Bad Thing X if you agree to not do Bad Thing X too, and we both reap the benefits. But in practice, coordination is very fragile, and that's why we invent devices for enforcing it - social norms and local enforcement works on small scale (few dozens of people); on a larger scale we usually end up with a government.
> Nothing I believe contradicts the idea of civilization, as long as the basis of that civilization is voluntary participation, with the use of force reserved for defensive purposes.
I was born here, I don't want to move and I don't want to pay taxes. What will your civilization do with me?
Some people will do so voluntarily. If you don't, yay for you, you get to freeload. And the "necessary" defensive force is just what the members of the population are willing to fund.
Then at some point some other state arise that is more efficient at taxing, and conquers your state.
Obviously it's not your fault, but building unrealistic system 100% conforming to your values vs building realistic system that conforms 90% to them is interesting question.
And hence, the rule of law is born,
But so very much of what passes for "law" today is nothing of the sort. But my view of what constitutes a valid law is pretty much a reflection of what Bastiat had to say (minus the religious stuff):
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G004