Is government necessary?
- Thread starter Tyro
- Start date
- Joined
- May 16, 2011
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 3,223
Because of our human nature government is entirely necessary. One of us will always want control, and if there is not a body or one specific person in charge, this one (or more) person will try to gain control. History has shown that people will use a variety of methods to gain control, like the use of religion, economics, or military power. No matter what the method might be, someone always wants to be in control.
Also..
Since our opinions differ so much from person to person, there has to be a regulator, and the mere existence of governance can prove this. It wouldn't have even come about if it weren't part of our human nature.
Also..
Since our opinions differ so much from person to person, there has to be a regulator, and the mere existence of governance can prove this. It wouldn't have even come about if it weren't part of our human nature.
You just said that government is necessary to prevent government. You're right in saying that bad people want control over others, so government will be populated by bad people; you just made an argument against government, not for it.
People universally don't like being harmed or stolen from, which is what defines government.
Okay, justify this claim, else you're effectively answering the question "is government necessary" with "yes, because government is necessary." Your logic is overtly circular.
That's fallacious. You're saying that the fact that something exists currently shows that it must exist or will always exist. If it was a valid argument, chattel slavery would be considered an absolute eventuality of human nature.
Are you really trying to argue that the Soviet Union wasn't a government...? Communism (by its modern, not philosophical, definition) is the absolute control of government over all sectors of human life. You just gave an argument against government.
1: You don't know what you're talking about, and I mean that in the friendliest way possible. I'm not endorsing communism. Communism isn't a lack of government, it's an extreme generalization of government, effectively maximizing it.
2: Again, I'm not endorsing communism, but I thought I'd clear this up for you. I can't think of a single historical example of Marx's communism, so it's difficult to say that it was a failure. The only incarnations of government called communism have been the governments you call "dictatorships."
'Communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, stateless and revolutionary socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production."
That's just being taken from Wikipedia.
The point of my first post, and sorry if I didn't go into much detail, was that the "Ideal" Communist society has never existed for an extended amount of time. When people attempt to treat everyone as equals and work together, problems will always arise. And because of this, government system is always necessarily.
Now take your question from a different point of view--
What if a number of people who were not involved in any sort of communist ideals were put into a society where no previous government systems existed. What do you think would happen? Because of our nature, someone is always going to want to take power. We as humans are greedy, hungry for it.
Theoretically, lets say that there was some unknown force splitting up any government systems. Where do you think this society would be in a year? Working together and happy? No. They would probably all be dead; it would be chaos. No body would be able to work together and because of that no body would be able to survive.
The government regulates everything. It keeps us in check and helps provide or helps us provide each other the fundamentals that we need to survive.
I firmly believe that living as an individual (no human contact) would work. Maybe even two people. But any sort of society would fail unless a system of government was established.
That's just being taken from Wikipedia.
The point of my first post, and sorry if I didn't go into much detail, was that the "Ideal" Communist society has never existed for an extended amount of time. When people attempt to treat everyone as equals and work together, problems will always arise. And because of this, government system is always necessarily.
Now take your question from a different point of view--
What if a number of people who were not involved in any sort of communist ideals were put into a society where no previous government systems existed. What do you think would happen? Because of our nature, someone is always going to want to take power. We as humans are greedy, hungry for it.
Theoretically, lets say that there was some unknown force splitting up any government systems. Where do you think this society would be in a year? Working together and happy? No. They would probably all be dead; it would be chaos. No body would be able to work together and because of that no body would be able to survive.
The government regulates everything. It keeps us in check and helps provide or helps us provide each other the fundamentals that we need to survive.
I firmly believe that living as an individual (no human contact) would work. Maybe even two people. But any sort of society would fail unless a system of government was established.
Bad people want control of others? Implying that it's not human nature to want complete control. It's not just bad people, and it's not just good people. Most people are just pissed and call them bad people because they wish they were in the other persons position rather than their own probably crappy one.
That shows that it's intended as a political philosophy. The means, communism, is an attempt to achieve an end, "a classless, moneyless, stateless, and revolutionary socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production." Government, or lack thereof, is a state of existence. The two are not the same.
In order to prove that a lack of government fundamentally and exclusively relies upon communism, you must first show that (1) the intended ends of communism are the opposite of government and (2) communism is the only means to said end. Show me that government is defined by class, money, statehood, and exclusive ownership. It won't be easy, which is to be expected when you conflate one broad term (lack of government) and a very exclusive term (communism) that are (spoiler alert) in no way the same.
Did you read my post? You're creating a false dichotomy.
First, this post is guilty of the same fallacy as your previous post. Second, whether government is inevitable (which you didn't prove) isn't relevant to whether it's beneficial.
You're not considering your position at all. You're saying that chaos arises from a lack of working together, while five seconds ago you said the opposite. ("When people attempt to treat everyone as equals and work together, problems will always arise.")
Give examples, and tell me why a private organization couldn't provide the same service far more efficiently. If a need exists, a service to fulfill the need will arise unless someone (the government) violently prevents it.
So the best way to "keep people in check" (presumably, to prevent people from being mean) is to enact total violence against everyone? Further, if "keeping people in check" is your value, slavery is an excellent criterion, meaning any appreciation of ethics immediately discredits your claim.
Give examples of government services and prove that government is necessary in providing them; you still haven't justified a single claim.
Do you think forcing innocent people to do things against their will (read: slavery) is a bad thing? Your post implies that it is morally neutral.
Again, the fact that a given preference is present in human nature doesn't morally justify it. Control over others through non-violence (logical persuasion) is different from control over others through violence (government), just as consensual sex is different from rape.
Again you're implying Government doesn't logically persuade us to commit certain acts. During those times religion would have played a factor in justifying the actions, and you did not question god in those times. They would have murdered you in the streets. Morals are something Governement has a hand in already. Not everyone follows these standards of rules I guess we could call them already. Everyone justifies their actions in some way. No one is a saint, very far from it. If you call yourself perfect, you are honestly full of shit. I don't care what you say, everyone has skeletons in their closet. So it's no different from when Governement justifies their actions no matter how crappy they may be, because the people or citizens do the same thing. Government actions are usually just made public, unlike the private life some of the citizens can enjoy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Sythe Gold
- 900
- Messages
- 5,679
Would you define Government as the monopoly of force in a/n (arbitrary) geographical location?
Okay... but none of that was relevant to the topic at hand. Your response, "governments can justify shitty actions", is not relevant to the question "is government necessary?" Show that government is necessary, or at the very least beneficial in some way.
LOL then why would you try to debate with me? YES! It is necessary to keep the tyrants at bay.
Hey, don't worry about it, bud. I'm just saying that whether or not communism fails isn't relevant to the thread, because communism is a form of government, not a lack thereof.
Feel free to keep trying; it's the only way to improve.
Sure. (That isn't perfect, but it's how I've used it during the thread, for the sake of those who aren't familiar with the technical definitions of political terms.)
Ah. It seems that your idea that coercion isn't a bad thing isn't exactly the antithesis of tyranny.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Sythe Gold
- 900
- Messages
- 5,679
What is the 'perfect' definition then out of curiosity?
By the question 'is government necessary' do you then mean is the monopoly of force or force in general necessary (which one is it)?