Is government necessary?

My mistake, creatures is a better word.:noworry:

 

I'm working from memory, but here goes. The term "government" makes more sense when representing an action, similar to movement. The terms are often conflated, but a government, nation, regime, state, etc are all different things. If you're punching babies in a park, for example, you are the regime, the punching is government, babies with a common goal (say, not getting punched) are a nation, the park is a country, etc...

I'm arguing the former.

 

"It is necessary to keep the creatures at bay."

I'll ignore the fact that you're trying to justify slavery (again). Why is it necessary to keep the "creatures" at bay?

 

I'm not justifying slavery, I'm saying that before you criticise other people that you are assuming are so horrible, I'm sure you wouldn't mind being in their position. Anyone for that matter wouldn't mind too much. Governments are composed of humans, just like us. We make mistakes, and all have things we wish we wouldn't have done. Let me hold a grudge against you for when you missed the toilet bowl at 3 years old.

Back to the other question. How can you not answer that for yourself? Would you like to live in a world full of Anarchy and no authority? Hoping someone doesn't break into your house, with no consequences, killing your family, etc.? I don't want to go into graphic details, but the list can go on and on. All of this could happen without governement regulated authority.

Those are the creatures we would probably turn into, if we didn't fear the consequences that are in place for us if we commit these acts. You picture a world without authority and consequences, where everyone has to fend for themselves, and tell me how great it is. I'm sure none of us have been pushed to a breaking point of constant fear such as that. It's either be killed or kill. Not sure if you are able to trust anyone. You can use all this talk like I would get a gun and shoot them, but you wouldn't really know yourself until you were pushed to that point.

Edit: I know putting people through hundreds or years through unspeakable acts doesn't compare to not making your piss in the toilet. It's merely an example.

 

What is civilization without a structure... a backbone, an organized way of life?

Cavemen.

 

Alright, let's think about this realistically. I'm not sure on the statistics, but every society has typically lead to the formation of a government. Essentially, all land on this planet is claimed to be owned by a particular Government. A question needs to be asked: why does government keep arising? I personally think that the answer is simple. Human beings, by nature, are predominately followers.

To expand on humans being followers, a follower implies a leader to follow, and government is the absolute leader of a society - do we agree? In fact, this point is further elucidated in everyday social interactions. In friendship groups you have the 'leaders', in year groups you have the 'leaders' in workplaces you have the 'leaders', in almost every facet of life you have the dominant people who are the leaders. Equality doesn't exist in this field, and while the line may be blurry in some cases, leaders will arise spontaneously.

Before I continue, do you accept the notion of humans being followers as opposed to leaders? In other words, do you for all intents and purposes say that humans need leaders?

 

I dont think its necessary, nothing is necessary unless a person wants it to be, and not a single person controls everything(where i live, as i am taking the question personally to give you an accurate response in my opinion).
But i think having a government helps by adding structure. If there was no government there would be less order. Not that order is necessary to function, but it makes things run smoother in this case. A leader creates a comfort zone amongst the people or congregation and gives people a more defined opinion on path to take.

 

On the scale things are today, I believe government is somewhat necessary to regulate things, keep order, and what not. People have lived for thousands of years without government, and they lived perfectly fine.

 

Taxation is theft. They seem content to profit from the threat of violence.

Government is constant war. I'll elaborate on my example of taxation. I earn money. If I do not pay taxes, the government will try to forcefully take my money. If I resist, they will put me in a cage. If I resist arrest, they will, in all likelihood, kill me.

Prove it. Show me what government does to prevent all that. How does constant coercion and theft and murder and rape ensure order and peace?

 

1. How does government provide structure?
2. Chattel slavery was a very structured system as well.

 

1. Chattel slavery was constant until very recently in human development. To say that simply because something has existed for a while means it will continue to exist is foolish.
2. Statehood is a very new concept; it was born around the time imaginary things called "borders" were carved into maps, fittingly as a result of several massacres perpetrated by a man called Napoleon.

Even if your logic here is sound (though it's iffy, at best; see point 1 above), the leader/follower dichotomy does not imply the eventuality of government. Government involves force by its very definition; until that force is introduced, any leader/follower interaction is simply called trade, the opposite of government.

I don't mean to "interrupt" your argument, but here are the points, as I see them:

You must show that...
1. Humans (currently) naturally separate into a dichotomy of leaders and followers.
2. This separation is inherent in human nature.
3. This dichotomy is necessary.
4. This dichotomy must be enforced through coercion.

You have not quite proven 1; bear in mind that rarely, if ever, does a majority of a "country" vote for the official that eventually takes power. For two you must show that the leader/follower role has existed at (essentially) all points of human development, in all places. Your last paragraph merely assumes 3 rather than building to it. 4 is the only step that involves government, and you're a long way from proving it (so far).

 

Good, this assumes very little. What little it does assume, though, is problematic. Aren't competitive markets structured far better than government bureaucracy?

 

That's a good starting point. Could you share some specific functions of government that cannot be accomplished without it? After all, if there is a need, it is generally filled by the market, not the government. Keep in mind that "government" isn't a super power; the only ingredient it adds is coercion, meaning everything that is accomplished today is accomplished by humans, not some mythical creature called government.

 

Okay so think of it this way, those "3rd world" countries. I believe that they wouldn't be "3rd world" if their government wasn't corrupt and was run properly. A corrupt government is basically the same as not having one at all.

 

That's asinine. It's counterintuitive to the point that not only am I unsure how you arrived at the conclusion, but I'm questioning whether we exist in the same logical plane. The fact that you were even able to type that without phasing out of reality is concerning; your continued existence may well be harming the very fabric of the multiverse. Unless you are a being from the fourth dimension, I urge you to undergo a thorough series of MRI scans. If you uttered any statement of comparable psychosis within five-hundred yards of an asylum, the amount of neuroleptics the terrified doctors would force into your arteries would likely stop your heart and turn you into some sort of omniscient vampire. If you're intent on proving the nonsense with which you just tarnished our site's server, you're going to need to employ logical gymnastics that, if employed physically rather than mentally, would win you a gold medal in every Olympic sport invented, as well as some sports not yet invented. If you're able to convince any thinking person of the argument you just put forward, I will be astounded to such a degree that no finite amount of voltage will be capable of electro-shocking me back into coherence.

 

I never said it would continue to exist.

A system of governance has been around for far longer. This system, seems to be in line with what you call 'chattel slavery'. The Romans for example. Whatever the case, my point is there have always been leaders from today all the way back to the cavemen.

Maybe not government by its definition but does give rise to equivalents on a different scale. For example, there are many different friendship groups in the one school. However, when we take a step back, each school bands together in comparison to different schools. Then you have state it state by state, and country by country. Groups tend to arise and there are always leaders in the group.

I understand. The point I wanted to eventually make is that society needs leaders. Government is societies leader. It's not a good leader because it initiates force to achieve it's means, I agree, but it is a leader nonetheless.

It doesn't separate into a perfect dichotamy but if you were to theortically gather up different 'types' of people, the residuals from gathering both leaders and followers I imagine would be quite small. While I don't want to create a false dichotamy, and despite the fact that the antonym for leader is follower, realistically speaking humans naturally form this relationship (from my observations at least).

Humans are social animals. We need to socialize and in doing so form groups. In groups leaders arise spontaneously. While not always, this seems to be the case through observation. In old armies, you have generals, and you have soldiers. The generals are the leaders, and the soldiers are the followers. Then, the generals in turn are followers to the king in some cases, the praetor for romans (I think). Then you have tribal leaders and tribesmen. There is evidence of this leader/follower relationship stretching back for yonks.

This relationship forms spontaneously if you accept the notion of humans being 'social animals'. In order to socialize with people you need to form groups. Here on sythe.org we have the members as followers and moderators as leaders. The moderators themselves are followers to globals, and the globals followers to admins. While this may not address the issue of whether or not this relationship is necessary it's quite simply in our nature to socialize - you could probably make the case that it is necessary to preserve our sanity. If socialising (x) leads to group formation (y) and groups (y) leads to leaders (z) is it not syllogistically correct (assuming you accept each premise) to say that leaders are necessary because socialising is (in my opinion) necessary for survival.

I disagree with coercion, but, I'm trying to make the point that people need leaders, and government one of those leaders. While a governments methodologies may be questioned, I personally think that you can't have a leaderless society so to speak. Note: I have never said that coercion is necessary.

My point is government in the context of a leader can be regarded as necessary. The methodologies of employed by goverment however, is unnecessary. While I understand that if government was removed this relationship would not break down, let's just have a look at what might happen. Look at all the different countries and all the different vernaculars, political idelogies, religions and cultures. I imagine that if government were removed there would be a lot more different 'groups'. Is this a bad thing? Well no, not really. However, in saying that, I'm not trying to say that coercion is necessary, I'm trying to say that by removing the government/coercion you are effectively removing societies leader. I don't think this is pragmatically implementable (as at now).

 

Bear in mind that slavery doesn't evidence a leader/follower relationship; to act on one's nature requires volition, meaning we can't accurately assess the nature of a person without this volition.
Are you sure cavemen had leaders? It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but it's relevant to the discussion of human nature.

Voluntarily, perhaps. Your argument is applicable to the topic, but because you're mentioning leadership roles that benefit a group of individuals who voluntarily participate, it serves to bolster the idea that government isn't truly necessary.

Okay. We already agree on the second part, at least, so why can't this leadership be voluntary? Is it really such an inaccessible concept?

"In groups leaders arise spontaneously." Beautiful. In exercises where leaders are beneficial, you're absolutely right. Contrasting voluntary relationships like group projects, the relationship between soldiers and generals and kings is entirely involuntary. Soldiers were historically drafted; conscription isn't just like slavery, it is slavery. As mentioned before, human nature can only be assessed in an arena where humans are free to express their nature.

Sure, but again, Sythe is a collection of individuals who stay here by their free will. Furthermore, Sythe competes with other similar sites. If the owner began stealing money from users, they'd simply move somewhere else.

I have great news. You don't know it yet, but you're an autarchist.

Whether or not leadership is necessary, it does not require government. The only thing exclusive to government is coercive leadership. That's the last thing you need to understand before conceding every single political argument you've ever had with me (or Sythe).

 

Fair, I agree.

I'm not entirely sure; I'll have a look around, I know that some of them were anarchic based.

What's the largest group (number wise) you think that can voluntarily band together to create some form of society?

In order for this leadership to be entirely voluntary, it must be a unanimous decision, correct? I'll go out and say that unanimous decisions on the scale of millions of people are simply impossible. To be honest, we do get the illusion of choosing our leaders, elections. Although one could be puerile and say it's like choosing between eating your piss or shit, you still get to choose!

Well, if humans are getting the illusion of freedom, then it's fair to say that they are expressing their nature freely. As for your point, it is valid - I'm sure that I could find examples of rebellions fighting against tyrany that have a general - soldier relationship. I'm not sure if Joan of Arc is applicable here. Nevertheless, despite many of these soldiers being conscripted, many were fiercly loyal and had the illusion of freedom.

I agree entirely. However, it's interesting to note that on this site, Sythe has the absolute power. This goes to show that even with voluntary interactions, members with absolute powers naturally arise (for obvious reasons, it's his website). The only noteable difference is that you do not get to choose where you are born, but, you can choose what websites you register and stay on.

Around that area, xD.

Leadership may not require government, I agree. Government however, requires what you say, coercive leadership. The only way for voluntary leadership to arise is in small groups; you cannot have unanimous decisions in large groups, it just doesn't happen.


One question (I've probably asked it above or eluded to it somewhere), what is the largest voluntary society you think that can form? Distinct societies, as in Australia - England - Iraq - France - Fiji, and so on.

 

You can't pin one idea (slavery) on the back of all of government and all of the people within government. Humans are not perfect and there is no way to perfectly organize society so that everyone gets along and so that people do not fight. It is illogical to say that all people who advocate government or want control are inherently bad. Just as in small groups, some people would rather lead and others would rather follow. Should the person who becomes a leader just wants to do what is best for his followers you can not say that he is morally unjust in what he does as long as he is doing what he figures to be the best for his people even if that means forcing them to do things that are good for them that they do not want to do. If someone is too stupid or just plain unable to do something that would make their lives much better, why shouldn't they be forced to? It may take away some of their freedom but if it makes their lives better I do not see a problem.

 

You have chosen two minor inconveniences, one of which is limited to only a few countries. The drinking age has not been lowered, as it should be, due to politicians playing politics instead of doing what makes sense based on scientific study. However, if it were the case that banning alcohol until 21 saved thousands of lives a year, how could it be moral to not ban it? How is it not moral to make people wear a seat belt, which is such a minor inconvenience when doing so saves many, many lives?