Is government necessary?

[0wn_dem_rune_rocks]

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?

I was not arguing if banning or regulating said items is immoral. My argument (a rather shallow one at that, admittedly) is: Why do I have to be FORCED wear a seat belt ( I chose this one because I've already pointed it out)? I understand the logic, but, quite frankly - if you're stupid enough to not wear one, then you deserve whatever happens to you. Darwinism at its finest.

Edit: Just to point it out, I'm not arguing for, or against the government. I just have this one argument (who are the government to decide FOR me?).

 

[SuF]

I was not arguing if banning or regulating said items is immoral. My argument (a rather shallow one at that, admittedly) is: Why do I have to be FORCED wear a seat belt ( I chose this one because I've already pointed it out)? I understand the logic, but, quite frankly - if you're stupid enough to not wear one, then you deserve whatever happens to you. Darwinism at its finest.

Edit: Just to point it out, I'm not arguing for, or against the government. I just have this one argument (who are the government to decide FOR me?).

Why should you? Because in a perfect world the government has a duty to protect its citizens and must do whatever it can to stop morons from dropping dead. However this isn't a perfect world so that is not always the case but, still.

 

[Quaked]

Yes, we do need it as we don't want it chaotic. Although they abuse there powers to some extent.

 

[SuF]

Yes, we do need it as we don't want it chaotic. Although they abuse there powers to some extent.

Lack of government does not necessarily mean chaos.

 

[Jiwi]

I'm one to side with Hobbes. If government isn't instilled, chaos will occur and possibly reign for the simple reason of corrupt human nature. And although I trust my own nature and self-governing rules, I sadly do not have any faith in others to follow these same guidelines.

In anarchy, though, government will eventually be created over time. It's impossible to avoid.

 

[mtn dew]

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?

Freedom isn't free.

 

[SuF]

Freedom isn't free.

Why not?

 

[thatguy1234]

Freedom isn't free.

It depends on the amount of freedom you deem acceptable. Making statements like that most likely wont be accurate. almost nothing is completely 100%.

 

[Tyro]

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?

As many as want to. Everything currently being done is accomplished by humans, so we wouldn't lose any services. We just need to be peaceful. Secularization would help as well.

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!

Sure, but voluntary organizations are rarely enclosed by geographic borders; they're contractual agreements that bind individuals to other individuals. One example of a voluntary "government" is an insurance agency, in that you sacrifice some of your freedom (money, filling out a few papers, etc) in order to secure your health.

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.

Sure, I don't disagree with that.

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.

Yeah, this is a private venue. It's the same as the control any CEO has over his company. The server, the domain, and the copy of vBulletin are all Sythe's property, and he competes with other such sites for our business.

Around that area, xD.

Awesome.

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.

See borders/insurance part above.

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.

The world can be voluntary; schools of anarchism, because they don't involve drawing imaginary lines around massive landmasses and claiming ownership of all the humans inside, are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Tyro]

You can't pin one idea (slavery) on the back of all of government and all of the people within government.

I know, he was just being callous and it bothered me. I don't think it was a fundamentally bad analogy, though; can you think of a difference between slavery and 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.

I agree; I don't want to organize society.

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.

Sure, but my point is this...
If all men are good, government is unnecessary. If all men are bad, government is illogical. If men are good and bad to varying degrees, bad people will generally be attracted to positions of power, and government will reflect their malice.
If ownership of oneself and no one else is a good thing and a given position involves infringing on that right, the position is generally an immoral one.

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.

Okay, what service does government render that cannot be otherwise accomplished?

 

[0wn_dem_rune_rocks]

Why should you? Because in a perfect world the government has a duty to protect its citizens and must do whatever it can to stop morons from dropping dead. However this isn't a perfect world so that is not always the case but, still.

I'm of the "my body, my right," philosophy. Why should I be forced to do something to save my life? If I want to risk my life with stupid decisions, leave me be!

It all comes down to the non-aggression principle for me. As long as a person isn't doing something harmful to non-consenting, third parties they should be allowed to do as they please. To forcefully stop me from doing that is to infringe on my liberty.

 

[Tyro]

Freedom isn't free.

Sounds Orwellian. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

 

[Jimmy]

Taxation is theft.

What leads you to believe this?

 

[Turmoil Gold]

I believe government is necessary but not in the way that we see it, it is needed to help us maintain a proper lifestyle but it is always corrupt which is something that we have to work on, There is no government that is not corrupt or that is not doing something morally or illegally wrong.

 

[SuF]

I believe government is necessary but not in the way that we see it, it is needed to help us maintain a proper lifestyle but it is always corrupt which is something that we have to work on, There is no government that is not corrupt or that is not doing something morally or illegally wrong.

How do you define a proper lifestyle? Some people think homosexuality is wrong and others do not. Who should be making those decisions?

 

[Tyro]

What leads you to believe this?

It's involuntary. It's identical to a mugging, in that if I don't give them money they will kidnap me and if I resist kidnap they'll kill me.

 

[SuF]

I know, he was just being callous and it bothered me. I don't think it was a fundamentally bad analogy, though; can you think of a difference between slavery and government?

Slavery involves forced work, no choice of housing, no choice of food, no ability to go anywhere, punishment without any cause, separation of families, the mindset that you are property. While government may have some similar traits, they are not nearly as restrictive (the US is big compared to a plantation and most people are allowed out of it... North Korea is worse but you can't say government is bad due to the worst form of it). So there are some similarities, you can not say one is the same or anywhere remotely similar to another.

 

[SuF]

I'm of the "my body, my right," philosophy. Why should I be forced to do something to save my life? If I want to risk my life with stupid decisions, leave me be!

It all comes down to the non-aggression principle for me. As long as a person isn't doing something harmful to non-consenting, third parties they should be allowed to do as they please. To forcefully stop me from doing that is to infringe on my liberty.

While I will agree with you that infringing on liberties (such as not wearing a seat belt) is not entirely justified as it will only hurt you, not everyone is smart enough to make the decision for themselves. No one has enough information to be able to determine whether or not seat belts save lives and it has been proven numerous times that people will believe what they do stronger if presented with evidence against it. This means that if your father raised you not wearing a seat belt and someone told you it will save your live and proved it to you, you would most likely reject their arguments and simply believe what you do already more strongly. Essentially what I am saying is that there are people who are not smart enough to take the necessarily steps to protect themselves (when they want to) so they will not do so unless the government steps in and creates an incentive (illegal behaviors are punished) to do so.

 

[Tyro]

I'm one to side with Hobbes. If government isn't instilled, chaos will occur and possibly reign for the simple reason of corrupt human nature. And although I trust my own nature and self-governing rules, I sadly do not have any faith in others to follow these same guidelines.

In anarchy, though, government will eventually be created over time. It's impossible to avoid.

Justify your (pious) claim...

 

[Tyro]

Slavery involves forced work, no choice of housing, no choice of food, no ability to go anywhere, punishment without any cause, separation of families, the mindset that you are property. While government may have some similar traits, they are not nearly as restrictive (the US is big compared to a plantation and most people are allowed out of it... North Korea is worse but you can't say government is bad due to the worst form of it). So there are some similarities, you can not say one is the same or anywhere remotely similar to another.

First and foremost, most of those traits do not define slavery. Slavery is any system which is forced upon a person, and in which they have fewer rights than another. This is particularly apparent in government. Government is given many exclusive rights, including taxation, monopoly by force of police, all "authority" granted to police, monopoly by force of judicial systems (and all of the many horrid abilities of that system), conscription (which is absolute slavery, and to which the US still claims a right - read: Selective Service System), all of the thousands of codes the government enacts and in which we have little say (even if representatives obtain support from a majority of the population, which they never do, these laws are still enacted at the expense of the minority), and on and on.

Secondly, and less importantly, they still apply to government.
Forced to work - we are overtly forced to work by laws against homelessness and indirectly forced to work by the government's demand for taxes. I'll reiterate, though, that being forced to work isn't as important as the fact that the produces of our work are stolen from us at the point of a gun.
No choice of housing - have you ever tried to build or buy a house? You absolutely need the government's permission on everything that you do.
No ability to go anywhere - loitering laws within the US, and neither the US nor other slave organizations will allow you to leave here; even if they do, the fact that you'll be arrested without their permission still shows that we're slaves.