Is government necessary?

[mtn dew]

Why not?

Because most people are taught how to think, and act. Even when you were born, more than likely parents told you what you could or could not do. What you should or should not do. You never know what you truly could have been without these certain influences. If you choose not to follow these guidelines, I'm sure you know what happens.

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

You go on believing that. Not my life.

 

[Tyro]

You go on believing that. Not my life.

If you want to live in Airstrip One, be my guest, but don't force it onto others (particularly me).

 

[mtn dew]

If you want to live in Airstrip One, be my guest, but don't force it onto others (particularly me).

You asked for me to contirbute something to this conversation. Since my saying that power is in human nature wasn't enough. I'm simply playing Devil's Advocate. I honestly have no real intentions of "forcing" whatever it is you say of mine, wheather it be oppinion or anything else onto others. I guess ignorance really isn't strength. :noworry:

 

[YoungBuck-]

Government is necessary.

People need 'something' to be in control. A leader. This is always been this way.Government is needed to control everything and do it in the right way. Like roads. If there wasn't a government. There would be no road. Individuals could build road's but it wouldn't be ordered. Like many things. How about thiefs? Who will catch them? How about hospitals? Who will build them. Sure there would be individuals who could build a hospital,but can they really treat you? How can we know it they didn't get checked by the government. How do we know for sure if they got the right papers or not? What about court cases. They are run by the government to and its a very ordered system. So if you ask me, is government necessary? I would say yes!

 

[Jimmy]

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.

But this assumes that taxes are not legitimately owed dues, does it not?

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.

Who has claimed ownership of all humans inside a nation's border?

 

[aznguy94]

People need 'something' to be in control. A leader.

An unevidenced, unproven assertion. Not an argument.

This is always been this way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
"We need slavery! It has always been this way!"

Government is needed to control everything and do it in the right way.

Again, not an argument.

Like roads. If there wasn't a government. There would be no road.

You did not prove this.

Individuals could build road's but it wouldn't be ordered. Like many things.

Nor did you prove this. Also, it’s highly unlikely that individuals would build roads. Companies would build roads and many companies would build many different ones. This competition in the free market results in high quality and low prices.

Like many things. How about thiefs? Who will catch them?

Private companies. The DRO model is just one example of how this problem could be solved. Individuals who initiate force and disrespect property rights would be ostracized by not being able to partake in any sort of purchase or exchange of goods.

How about hospitals? Who will build them. Sure there would be individuals who could build a hospital,but can they really treat you? How can we know it they didn't get checked by the government. How do we know for sure if they got the right papers or not?

Companies will build hospitals. Again, free market->competition->low prices->high quality. If a hospital does a bad job, they will go out of a business and lose customers to the hospital that is doing a good job.

Also, the government does a terrible job at this because it nearly has a monopoly over it, resulting in lack of incentive, lack of quality, inefficiency, etc.

What about court cases. They are run by the government to and its a very ordered system.

DRO model (this is not necessarily the final solution but only a possible one). Private companies can do the same but much more efficiently. The current system is by no means ordered or effective.





And the main problem with your argument is that you’re arguing the effects of getting rid of government, not moral basis of the proposition. The initiation of force (by taxation, law enforcement, whatever) is morally wrong.

Here’s an argument analogous to yours:
“We can’t get rid of slavery…who will pick the cotton!”

It doesn’t matter who will pick the cotton, all that matters is that slavery is morally wrong and that we should rid of it. No one could have predicted that giant, self-propelled machines would pick the cotton instead of slaves, and I can’t give you a final answer on how roads, hospitals, law enforcement would be run. Nor do i have to in order for my argument to be legitimate.

You are avoiding the actual issue.

 

[Tyro]

/high fives aznguy94

But this assumes that taxes are not legitimately owed dues, does it not?

I assume you're referring to "services" the government provides. I only owe a due if I agree to a service being performed.

It is not fair for someone to point a gun at my head and say "I'll mow your lawn very poorly for $500 dollars (unless I forget) and if you disagree I'll kill you." Less importantly but still worthy of note, lawn-mowing is far more useful than the services the government provides, like slaughtering brown people in droves, kidnapping kids for possessing the wrong type of foliage, and enforcing the dogmas of an almost two thousand year old fantasy novel.

Who has claimed ownership of all humans inside a nation's border?

Those who claim more rights than the rest of us. Try to tax the president and we'll see how quickly you're made into soup. You can't even build on an empty piece of land in the middle of nowhere without the government's permission.

 

[The Fat Controller]

Whether governance should ever violate the non-aggression principle is the actual question being asked.

Natural-rights-based libertarianism doesn't work with consequentialism. However, I think that optimal solutions to problems can require forms of aggression towards innocent people.

For instance, universal healthcare systems tend to be better than opt-in ones. But in the former case you're stuck even if you don't want to pay towards the universal service.

I agree that in the real world governments are murderous. The biggest threat are nuclear weapons, I expect that crazed politicians will blow us all up one day.

 

[Tyro]

Whether governance should ever violate the non-aggression principle is the actual question being asked.

No, you're presupposing government's existence. Further, government is defined by violation of the NAP; name an instance where government's actions (1) cannot be replaced by a private institution and (2) do not violate the NAP.

Natural-rights-based libertarianism doesn't work with consequentialism. However, I think that optimal solutions to problems can require forms of aggression towards innocent people.

Your first sentence presupposes the second. Rights commonly called "natural" could very well be a means to a great end (and I contend that they are).

For instance, universal healthcare systems tend to be better than opt-in ones. But in the former case you're stuck even if you don't want to pay towards the universal service.

1. I'd be interested to see these statistics.
2. They are certainly contaminated by preexisting (and extremely-invasive) government, and don't apply to an unfortunately-theoretical system.
3. "Be better" is too vague; foreigners of means tended to come to the United States (where medicine was already heavily regulated, but less so than other countries) for the best medical procedures.

I agree that in the real world governments are murderous. The biggest threat are nuclear weapons, I expect that crazed politicians will blow us all up one day.

No kidding. It seems to me that you're violating any consequentialist notions you possess (and, by the way, consequentialism is a value I share) by implying the necessity of organizations that tend to be "murderous" in the "real world."

 

[YoungBuck-]

An unevidenced, unproven assertion. Not an argument.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
"We need slavery! It has always been this way!"


Again, not an argument.


You did not prove this.


Nor did you prove this. Also, it’s highly unlikely that individuals would build roads. Companies would build roads and many companies would build many different ones. This competition in the free market results in high quality and low prices.


Private companies. The DRO model is just one example of how this problem could be solved. Individuals who initiate force and disrespect property rights would be ostracized by not being able to partake in any sort of purchase or exchange of goods.



Companies will build hospitals. Again, free market->competition->low prices->high quality. If a hospital does a bad job, they will go out of a business and lose customers to the hospital that is doing a good job.

Also, the government does a terrible job at this because it nearly has a monopoly over it, resulting in lack of incentive, lack of quality, inefficiency, etc.



DRO model (this is not necessarily the final solution but only a possible one). Private companies can do the same but much more efficiently. The current system is by no means ordered or effective.





And the main problem with your argument is that you’re arguing the effects of getting rid of government, not moral basis of the proposition. The initiation of force (by taxation, law enforcement, whatever) is morally wrong.

Here’s an argument analogous to yours:
“We can’t get rid of slavery…who will pick the cotton!”

It doesn’t matter who will pick the cotton, all that matters is that slavery is morally wrong and that we should rid of it. No one could have predicted that giant, self-propelled machines would pick the cotton instead of slaves, and I can’t give you a final answer on how roads, hospitals, law enforcement would be run. Nor do i have to in order for my argument to be legitimate.

You are avoiding the actual issue.

Private companies wouldnt get so far as the government did. How are they supposed to get money for medical examinations? The government collects tax -> give's it to examination centre's -> New & Better Medicine. No one can predict this.

 

[Tyro]

Private companies wouldnt get so far as the government did. How are they supposed to get money for medical examinations? The government collects tax -> give's it to examination centre's -> New & Better Medicine. No one can predict this.

Are you trolling? This is like saying "I put bread in the toaster, I brutally punch myself in the face until I've broken my nose, then I eat my toast; therefore breaking my nose produces toast."

 

[The Fat Controller]

No, you're presupposing government's existence. Further, government is defined by violation of the NAP; name an instance where government's actions (1) cannot be replaced by a private institution and (2) do not violate the NAP.

Even if associations are voluntary, they still constitute a system of government.

Your first sentence presupposes the second. Rights commonly called "natural" could very well be a means to a great end (and I contend that they are).

To make an omelette you have to break a few eggs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#Consequentialist_criticisms

1. I'd be interested to see these statistics.
2. They are certainly contaminated by preexisting (and extremely-invasive) government, and don't apply to an unfortunately-theoretical system.
3. "Be better" is too vague; foreigners of means tended to come to the United States (where medicine was already heavily regulated, but less so than other countries) for the best medical procedures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system#Cross-country_comparisons

"Be better" in terms of health outcomes for the average citizen. Or not being made bankrupt by an unexpected medical bill.

No kidding. It seems to me that you're violating any consequentialist notions you possess (and, by the way, consequentialism is a value I share) by implying the necessity of organizations that tend to be "murderous" in the "real world."

All I think is that it is necessary to disregard the NAP in order have a system of government that can maximise the well-being of citizens.

 

[SuF]

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.

Your definition of slavery is really pushing the limits of what it actually is. It is not an over-sweeping generalization that anyone who has less rights than another is a slave. Telling a blind man he can not drive does not make him a slave in comparison to another. Slavery is about ownership but I will give it to you that there are similar themes among slavery and government, but they are no where near similar. Homelessness is not against the law or it would not exist as they would be arrested and thrown in jail. No one forces you to work. It is silly not to work, even without government because you need a way to provide for yourself and perhaps your family. Thus the government can not be forcing everyone to work when they would rather not. The housing claim is ridiculous to say the least. You are taking governmental regulation to the far extreme of terrible. If I want to rent an apartment, 99.99% of times (at least) I will be able to without the government telling me I can not which makes that argument also extremely weak. The last point is also taken to a far extreme. You could easily just walk into Mexico without much of a problem and getting a passport is extremely easy and it is very rare that the government will revoke it. Again, 99.99% of the time there isn't a problem, so again your argument is fairly weak.

 

[0l3l3y range]

Yes, a form of government is necessary NOW, but if we had never had one in the first place we could have gone without one. The simple fact that unless a whole country/group of people can convert to something like Anarchism then it wont work because people will do things that go against other people living in the community because they now can but if it was never something that was a problem they wouldnt do it...like little kids who arnt aloud to do something but when they finally can they feel so special about it and abuse the power to do it.

 

[Jimmy]

The answer to all of these questions can be found in the Enlightenment-era literature from several hundred years ago.

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.

In a perfect world, government would be unnecessary. From Common Sense:

For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least.

I assume you're referring to "services" the government provides. I only owe a due if I agree to a service being performed.

That's not what I was referring to. From Agrarian Justice:

Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.

Why not?

Because it's purchased on the battlefield through means of bloodshed. From the Crisis:

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

And Paine goes on from here to state that an overarching government causes the status of its citizens to be that of slavery:

Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

 

[BOUNTYLEADER]

YES, without there would be chaos !

 

[SuF]

In a perfect world, government would be unnecessary.

Yes, yes. I worded what I said badly.

 

[Sypherz]

I'm gonna restate my old argument from a week or so ago without reading any of the last 60 posts.

The most pure idea of "government free society" has already been tried and has failed countless times (sorry, I don't have examples but the fact that it, the original theory of class free communism, does not exist in real life seems like evidence enough.)

 

[TxT]

Without governments there will be too much crime and gangs will try and lead communities.

 

[No More Trolls]

I think the big question is, if it wasn't necessary, would the world come to complete chaos?