Now then we can get to the root question - is government (1) a good, (2) a necessary evil, or (3) an unnecessary evil.
Number two, in my opinion, primarily. At least, that is how I see government in its origins: a necessary limitation of individual liberties, in order to provide for the security of the entire community and its property. In order to protect the property of everybody, the rights of certain individuals must sometimes be violated. For example, defensive works could help repel the aggression of bandits and brigands. In order to construct these, taxes must be levied, and perhaps workers will be have to be conscripted for this building project. Perhaps you would like to flood some fields on one side of your village, in order to deny brigands and other aggressors this line of approach. Even if these fields are owned by someone, it may be necessary to appropriate his land. Perhaps the owner can be compensated, but once again, that will require taxation.
All of these are coercive measures, but the community will probably submit to the them, if they face an even worse threat from banditry and other outside forces. The loss of freedom under government is the lesser of two evils here.
But then, these coercive negative acts can lead to positive results. Perhaps if the farmers of my hypothetical community are able to protect more of their crops, then they can run an actual surplus. Perhaps they can bring these surplus crops to a market somewhere, which will enhance the material wealth of the community. This is "good." So government is both a necessary evil
and a cause of positive good. The element of coercion will always be present on some level, however, and the good effects that result are of a secondary and indirect nature. I think it is important to always remind oneself of the intrinsically coercive nature of all forms of government, no matter how this factor is mitigated or concealed.
...all governments, by definition, are aggressive and illegitimate... The same doesn't hold for societies in general. It is possible to envision a society in which NAP is not violated except by people broadly recognised as (and consequently treated as) criminals. Such society may or may not have existed historically. We can still strive for it.
I have taken the liberty of underlining the statement above, because I believe it reveals a major flaw in your reasoning. You should discard the skepticism here ("may or may not"), and just say it outright: No society has ever existed that was completely free of "aggression," as you have defined it. That is my firm opinion, in any case. It is an abstraction. Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with seeking the concrete realization of an abstract ideal. I agree 100% that we should strive for a society governed only by the individual citizens themselves, free of external coercion, each man responsibly administering his own affairs, in accordance with his own interests, with intelligent and informed respect for the rights of other people.
If an ideal is worth anything at all, it is worth fighting for. In other words, it must be imposed by force. I am not saying that you have to literally hold a gun to someone's head and order them to adhere to your ideals. The ways that you can pressure and coerce someone into obeying your will are infinitely varied. In my ideal society, people will organize their own behavior according to the internal dictates of moral suasion, versus the crude instrument of external government force. But, moral suasion is just another particular form of coercion in general. Martin Luther King used this method to impose his ideals on society, and with some success. Gandhi utilized this kind of pressure to force the vast machinery British Empire to obey his will.
That doesn't mean we should only restrict ourselves to these "soft" methods. King had no choice but to use this method. The blacks in the south, while numerous, were still a minority. They could not win through the application of "direct" force (i.e. violence). But there are cases when you under a normative obligation to use violence, when it actually leads to the most efficient and humane result. This can be seen quite plainly in war. If your battalion is opposed by a small force (say an entrenched company of enemy soldiers), then you should never feed your troops into the battle in a piecemeal fashion, one company at a time. As commander, your anxiety over the risk to your own men might make you reluctant to launch a large attack. You will advance your own men in a timid and haphazard manner, and if the enemy are competent, they will make you pay dearly for this reticence. The only humane decision is to attack with the entire battalion, all at once. This may spare the enemy troops pain, just as much as it spares your own. In the face of an overwhelming assault from an obviously superior force, the enemy may capitulate much sooner, sparing casualties on both sides. Sometimes, paradoxically, you must escalate the level of violence, in order to make the situation less violent.
If you can cite any example of a human society free from any form of coercion that is "aggressive and illegitimate," I would be happy to hear it. In the meantime, why would you assume that this "doesn't hold for societies in general"? If all known societies have these characteristics, then it is rational to infer that these are general characteristics.
...perhaps [government] is the least of all evils... If it isn't (as would be my claim), the question of historic roots is moot.
This is irrational. The rational way to define government,
to understand any concrete phenomenon, is to examine the specific instances of it in the historical record. What has it done? How does it operate? How many varieties are there? Are some of these forms good, and others bad? In what ways good, in what ways bad? These judgments have no authority unless they follow a careful and detailed comparison of historical events. I have read some books that attempt to do this. Have you?
Your opinions about the Civil War lead me to think you have not. By the way, I disagree that this discussion is "distracting." It actually cuts right to the heart of the issue. The Civil Rights Act was designed to mitigate racist discrimination against Negroes. You agree that this was a worthy goal, in the abstract; you only disagree with the concrete method employed (positive legislation--you would rather leave the situation alone, and allow it to correct itself over time). But what are the root causes of the subjugation of the Negroes in the South? Why are there Negroes in America in the first place? The answer: Slavery.
Let's examine your justification for the attempted secession of the southern states. You very carefully ignore the central issue: Why did they secede? Instead, you focus on why they fought. Obviously, their aggression against Fort Sumter was an "assertion of independence from the North," and that was the primary motive of the Confederate troops on the ground level in every engagement; they fought to defend their homeland. They saw the Union as foreign invaders. But this war was started by politicians, not ordinary foot soldiers, so we can disregard the popular motives that sustained the lower level combatants, for the time being. What were the motives of the political chiefs on the southern side? Why did they secede? What were their objectives in this action? Once again, the answer is quite simple: To preserve the institution of slavery in the South.
Have you even skimmed the Lincoln-Douglas debates? These debates were published throughout America. The South followed them with great interest, because the main topic of debate was slavery. Douglas was convinced that Lincoln would use his office to attack the institution of slavery in the South. Everyone in the South was afraid of that. That is probably why Lincoln lost this particular Senatorial race. Whether or not Lincoln was personally anti-slavery, he was certainly perceived that way by the pro-slavery party.
It is important to remember the date when outright hostilities commenced. January 9, 1861, "when
the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task." (wiki) South Carolina had already declared its secession on December 26, 1860.
Lincoln was not even inaugurated until March 4, 1861.Do you understand the meaning of these facts? Lincoln hadn't done anything to these people yet. He wasn't even officially president yet! But still, they flipped out, and started a war. Why didn't they at least wait until Lincoln had taken the oath of office? If they had waited, and then Lincoln had pursued an escalation of military aggression against the South, in that case they would have been justified in responding with violence. Outside of these hypothetical fantasies, we have the concrete reality: the South started the fight. They were the initial aggressors. They violated your precious NAP. And yet you continue to press these Orwellian inversions of historical reality:
...the war was started by the North's invasion of the South's territory.
Are you saying that Lincoln
first launched an invasion of the South,
and then the South declared secession and responded with defensive violence? Because that is the implication of these ridiculous assertions. I remind you of the respective dates of South Carolina secession and Lincoln's inauguration:
first December 26, 1860,
and then March 4, 1861.
When you display such confusion on the basic order of events, how can you expect me to trust your judgments on the motives of the actors in these events?
A declaration of secession is a political act. What was the motive behind this act? Fear, primarily. And what was at the root of this fear? Lincoln's electoral victory on November 6, 1860. And why was this event the occasion of so much fear? Because the Presidency had been captured by a man who they considered to be a radical opponent of slavery, and he was backed by a majority of his own party in both chambers of Congress. Now, why did they perceive Lincoln to be a radical opponent of slavery? That one is easy: all you have to do is scan the Lincoln-Douglas debates, or any other of Lincoln's numerous public statements on this issue. The South had very sound and rational reasons to believe that Lincoln was a strong opponent of slavery.
Slavery is at the root of all these questions. Although you would rather avoid this area of discussion, I feel it is of central importance. If you could only grasp the historical significance of slavery in America, perhaps we could move on. That means you would have to acknowledge the fact that slavery,
above all other issues, was the one definitive cause of the Civil War. That the institution of slavery could cause a war is not a novel idea. Intelligent leaders in my country had been pointing this out for a long time.
Madison, when he recorded the arguments of Colonel George Mason, at the Constitutional Convention, wrote:The Western people are already calling out for slaves for their new lands, and will fill that Country with slaves if they can be got through South Carolina & Georgia. Slavery discourages arts & manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immigration of Whites, who really enrich & strengthen a Country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a Country. As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects providence punishes national sins, by national calamities.
One final note. I do not press these tedious historical arguments for their own sake. I am hoping that I can bring you to a more accurate appreciation of the true effects of slavery. This monstrous institution brought about the Civil War, which caused more destruction to our own national territory than any other war in our history. And still the corrosive effects of slavery persisted well into the 20th century (Jim Crow laws, for example). They continue today. If you could appreciate this factual reality, then perhaps you could agree that energetic legislative action was indeed necessary. It is better to take care of a problem like this sooner rather than later.