Governments = Useless? Always?
- Thread starter charlie.simm
- Start date
I haven't seen anyone in this thread make a claim like this. Many of the people who are willing to rob, kill, and otherwise cause harm end up in government. Government gives these people access to things like police forces and armies. That is much scarier than a world without government. I can't imagine a Hitler or Stalin getting very far without a government. Do you really believe that the level of harm under anarchy would eclipse the harm caused by people like this? If so, how?
@Yuckystuff: I take back the kind words I said about you in the other thread... You are clearly past salvation because you have a severely distorted view of how the world works and what the major influences in it are.
I wish I had more time to point some out to you but man, you're so far gone that it would take a week or two just to scratch the surface!
Please go read all of our past Ron Paul threads and the Seasteading thread and you'll get some inkling of what I'm talking about.
I wish I had more time to point some out to you but man, you're so far gone that it would take a week or two just to scratch the surface!
Please go read all of our past Ron Paul threads and the Seasteading thread and you'll get some inkling of what I'm talking about.
Historical Examples of Anarchy without Chaos
Why would he think he could get away with it anymore than now? If there's no police than that makes it more likely that his neighbors will have their own guns, or that the victim's friends won't have to worry about police if they are thinking of getting retribution.
But a lack of government does not equate a lack of police or security. The 90+ percent of people that don't want to kill anyone are more than capable of pooling their resources to establish security forces.
I posted earlier about one Sheriff's department that is run entirely on donations. Do you think their donations would go up or down if the people didn't have to pay taxes?
Why would he think he could get away with it anymore than now? If there's no police than that makes it more likely that his neighbors will have their own guns, or that the victim's friends won't have to worry about police if they are thinking of getting retribution.
But a lack of government does not equate a lack of police or security. The 90+ percent of people that don't want to kill anyone are more than capable of pooling their resources to establish security forces.
I posted earlier about one Sheriff's department that is run entirely on donations. Do you think their donations would go up or down if the people didn't have to pay taxes?
Lots of it looks relevant. One thing is how the west wasn't really that "wild" and became more violent as government got more involved.
My reply and the part I replied to wasn't addressing any of this.
A "government" run by donations is different than one that forces everyone to give up money. Nobody is forced to donate to the Sheriff's department I mentioned.
^^ where can i read the terms of the contract?
or it is about this:
Rule 1. The state is always right.
Rule 2. If the state is not right, read Rule 1.
?
or it is about this:
Rule 1. The state is always right.
Rule 2. If the state is not right, read Rule 1.
?
It's not doing anyone any favor for me to continue to respond to your arguments - the depth of my philosophical knowledge and ability to debate (sorry I don't have all my logical fallacies memorized) are woefully inadequate. Instead, I'll defer to someone much more qualified to address some of your key arguments:
Edward Feser: Rothbard as a philosopher
Edward Feser: Is self-ownership axiomatic?
Edward Feser: Nozick’s Tale of the Slave
An excerpt from another of his entries:
You're probably not a fan of Locke (one of the first to write about the concept of self-ownership), but his philosophy seems a lot more reasonable to me than Rothbard's. Read: A Bleeding Heart History of Libertarian Thought – John Locke | Bleeding Heart Libertarians
That whole site has plenty of interesting posts and discussions, well worth browsing around IMO.
That was over 100 years ago, of course the standard of living has improved. It was bound to happen with or without a government. I doubt that there are detailed crime statistics from back then, but the point was that a lack of government did not lead to utter chaos or what Hollywood films depicted.
The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality: The Independent Review: The Independent Institute
"Eugene Hollon writes that the western frontier “was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society today” (1974, x). Terry Anderson and P. J. Hill affirm that although “the West . . . is perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life,” their research “indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved” (1979, 10).
What were these private protective agencies? They were not governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on keeping order. Instead, they included such organizations as land clubs, cattlemen’s associations, mining camps, and wagon trains."
The writing also mentions that settlers were mostly getting along with and purchasing land from the natives. Then the government came in with their army and waged wars instead.
Not due to huge issues with free neighbors attacking each other.
If some day everyone in society ends up being 100 pounds over weight, that doesn't mean we still can't point out that the better planet would be one where everyone is in a healthy shape.
The first post in here was asking if society would be better off without government. It was not asking if the alternative was perfect, or if it could realistically happen, or how long it would last.
Your "relative level of peace" allows for massive amounts of killing. If we say that 100 million were killed by governments in the 20th century, then 99 million could have occurred with a theoretical earth anarchy, and it would be a relative success in that area.
Peaceful coexistence hasn't worked for whatever reason. It's a pretty shitty track record for humans.
I wasn't making a cause-effect analogy. I'm talking about a theoretical world where obesity does not exist, just like the first post asked about a theoretical world without government.
If all the sudden everyone on earth magically became in perfect shape, within a certain period of time many of them would be unfit again. It's not the concept of being in shape that would cause them to start getting fat, it's a flaw in humanity itself.
Well for one thing, Canada and New Zealand have been part of coalition forces in the middle east.
A world with no government would still have different cultures and other factors that would make violence more prevalent in some areas vs others.
What purpose, or more specifically, what purpose that can't be brought about through donations? I responded to you saying it was necessary so neighbors wouldn't kill each other. I gave examples from the real world showing that humans will voluntarily fund security forces, even when already being taxed.
Again, a world where everyone is in shape is a fantasy. Some would argue that a government forcing everyone to attend Weight Watchers would serve a purpose. Would the world be better off with governments forcing everyone to do so?
You guys constantly railing against government should go live in Mozambique or somewhere for 6 months, then come back. Trust me, you'll be doing alot less bitching, and will be more grateful for the basic services that government does provide. At the moment, you guys don't seem to have the slightest clue as to what the government does provide, and how difficult life would be without it. And please note, WE are the government.
agree with the top, watch Mugabe Against the White African and see what mob rule is like.
but WE are NOT the government. I am the governed. I am a serf that is taxed to death and rules over no one. If you think the people are in control, try changing things.
I hereforewith officially give up trying to show anyone here how the world could be better with anarchy or even just libertarians in charge.
Every time we start to discuss it, someone like Matt, Nym, or now Yucky comes forward with horribly low standards and no imagination and tries to convince me that the world can't be better, and that we have to accept our evil overlords.
Fuckabunchathat.
I see now why Guerilla gave up earlier, this is usually his favorite topic.
For the record, the entire concept that you'll be fucked without a government is EXACTLY what they are teaching in schools worldwide to scare you away from removing them from power. It's their ground zero. And I hear nothing but FEAR talking when you guys regurgitate those talking points.
Even when you point to historical fact all day long, it's STUFF YOU LEARNED AT SCHOOL, isn't it?
Just imagine what you didn't learn there.
I struggled too long and hard to get out from underneath my brainwashing in public schools to put up with those who haven't done so yet. If anyone reading this thread is truly interested and wants to learn about anarchy done the right way or a society without government, there are lots of links in this thread to great resources (like the one Moxie just gave) and of course under the Anarchy page at wikipedia. Check out the Seasteading Institute as well.
I'm outta here... Peace!
Every time we start to discuss it, someone like Matt, Nym, or now Yucky comes forward with horribly low standards and no imagination and tries to convince me that the world can't be better, and that we have to accept our evil overlords.
Fuckabunchathat.
I see now why Guerilla gave up earlier, this is usually his favorite topic.
For the record, the entire concept that you'll be fucked without a government is EXACTLY what they are teaching in schools worldwide to scare you away from removing them from power. It's their ground zero. And I hear nothing but FEAR talking when you guys regurgitate those talking points.
Even when you point to historical fact all day long, it's STUFF YOU LEARNED AT SCHOOL, isn't it?
Just imagine what you didn't learn there.
I struggled too long and hard to get out from underneath my brainwashing in public schools to put up with those who haven't done so yet. If anyone reading this thread is truly interested and wants to learn about anarchy done the right way or a society without government, there are lots of links in this thread to great resources (like the one Moxie just gave) and of course under the Anarchy page at wikipedia. Check out the Seasteading Institute as well.
I'm outta here... Peace!
No one is denying that. But without government, you would have competition to deal with those problems.
The entire issue of one law, one way for everyone also denies human nature, which is biodiversity, sexual diversity, racial diversity, age diversity, cultural diversity etc.
It takes an incredible amount of arrogance to insist we all have to exist under the same system, with no way to improve the system but work with the system, which we all know is fundamentally unchangeable.
That is anti-evolutionary, and anti-progress. And when you fight evolution and progress, you can't have peace.
No, we get that. What we're saying is, when you create a class of people who make the rules, and enforce the rules, and are the check on the rules, the incentive will be for them to bend the rules.
The whole notion of rules binding people believes that the rules themselves have some magical power that supercedes human nature. Does anyone really believe there is a rule set which trumps human nature?
Competition keeps people honest. Competing governments have traditionally kept liberty growing. The entire reason for the false choices in democracy is that we need to be able to choose our own representation and that a diversity of parties and opinions serve the people best.
And yet, that same principle doesn't get applied at the state level.
When you know that humans are fallible and potential dangerous, the last thing you want to do is give them a monopoly on violence and law. The worst, most corruptible, social dangerous always seek power. Why give them power without meaningful accountability or limit?
If you guys who are pro-government were right, then Congress and parliaments would be filled with noble, peace loving, tolerant and intelligent people. When you look at your government, do you see the best of society?
I am not sure Feser is much more qualified, most of his arguments have been torn up by better men than me.
http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2009/lp-1-34.pdf
You're probably not going to be able tojust Google anything worth debating me over, I have several years and many hundreds hours into developing a philosophy of rationality and liberty.
As far as the bleeding heart libertarians, they are not anarcho-capitalists, and so not rigorous logicians, but they are an improvement on the ad hoc positions so often conveyed in this thread.
As long as people deny logic (that is, to embrace cognitive dissonance) no philosophy will be defensible.
Didn't give up, making money.
You can't win over people who won't use logic in argument. What you can do is make the case for the hundreds of lurkers who are reading and will read this thread.
Peace, liberty, competition and commerce have been the standard for a long time at Wickedfire.
lukep, have you ever even been outside of the US? And I don't mean a weekend getaway to Mexico, or a one week vacation to Ibiza. I mean, have you ever wandered around the streets of large cities and/or villages of a 3rd world country, bullshitted with the locals over a few beer, got your mind around how they view the world, and so on?
Have you ever done that? Ever left the comfort of the US? Again, not holidays to 5-star tourist resorts, but actually visiting the countries. Ever been to the ghetto in Barbados for example, to see what it's like to visit place where the police / government decide it's not worth their time? Considering your rhetoric, I'm guessing not.
You're talking fantasy, we're talking reality. That's the difference. Like it or not, you're going to have to get used to the reality.
Have you ever done that? Ever left the comfort of the US? Again, not holidays to 5-star tourist resorts, but actually visiting the countries. Ever been to the ghetto in Barbados for example, to see what it's like to visit place where the police / government decide it's not worth their time? Considering your rhetoric, I'm guessing not.
You're talking fantasy, we're talking reality. That's the difference. Like it or not, you're going to have to get used to the reality.
i knowsuch countries and people there are counting only on themsleves, and for them govt/police are just parasites. at the elections there;s the choice - this shitty scumbag to vote for or the other is the shittier
It's impossible to say whether he did so, or is simply devoting time to his business, family, health, etc. right now. (EDIT: just saw that he posted above.)
But here's the thing about forums: nothing ever concludes, the discussion repeatedly goes off the rails, and it is very difficult to get others to answer for contradictions. This always happens.
Here's an example: I remember long ago when guerilla was discussing related stuff with another member.* This other member - let's call him XYZ - all but agreed with guerilla's points at the end of the thread, though he had adamantly opposed them in the beginning.
Case closed, right? Well, not so fast.
A few months go by, and the discussion happens again. Same topic, with both members on opposite sides. XYZ seemed to no longer agree with guerilla's points. By the end of that thread, he once again agreed.
Months go by, and the same discussion happens again. Same topic, two sides, blah, blah, blah. Same outcome.
And all the shenanigans that have occurred in this thread - most importantly, committing logical fallacies and refusing to resolve contradictions - happened in that thread. That's forum discussion for you.
To the question of whether anarchy always leads to government, I'll leave these papers for those with the curiosity and patience to read them (NOTE: all are PDFs, and should be read in the order listed):
1. http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_08_3_holcombe.pdf
2. http://mises.org/journals/jls/19_3/19_3_4.pdf
3. http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_1/21_1_3.pdf
4. http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_1/21_1_4.pdf
You might disagree with the points made by both authors, and even dismiss one or both as cranks. That is fine. But, it's a good discussion, and worth reading to observe how both authors respond to each other, using logic as a tool in an attempt to resolve their disagreements.
Or, you can keep arguing in this thread about whether history provides irrefutable evidence of causality.