Is government necessary?

Your analogy is irrelevant. A disabled person is physically unable to drive without encroaching on the rights of others. Telling an able person they cannot move out of a given geographical area, taking their home at the point of a gun, and kidnapping them and locking them in a rape room if they do something you don't like... that's something rather different.

They often are... otherwise they're abused. The government is supposed to protect innocent people using its streets and facilities, but they can't even do that right; there are hundreds of Dnepropetrovsk maniacs terrorizing homeless people and the police do nothing.

A good portion of the money you could spend on the apartment will be stolen by men in costumes. The rent will be much higher because of those same costumed bandits stealing from your landlord, who in turn has to pay a great deal for the apartment complex because of how much the bandits stole from the builders, the mixers, the contractors, the architects, and so on.

And the answer to your answers can be found in countless brilliant sources that have sprung up in a movement that began during, and has strengthened since, the peak of the Enlightenment. Political Justice (Godwin) is a wonderful piece if you spare the time to read it. Tellingly, your sources' works against the state are far more notable.

Barely worth replying to. This is founded upon the foolish premise that man has the option of deferring to another "lawgiver." His conclusion seems like his thousandth Freudian slip supporting Christianity, but I digress. Look around you; the government is not a magical being or even an ethereal social construct, neither of which exist. The government is people with weapons hurting people without them. Whether or not man "needs" another lawgiver, the government is composed of humans who, as it happens, are subject to the same temptations Paine believes necessitate government.

Fine...? Though the premise is flawed, I won't bother addressing it because the quote itself isn't relevant. Anti-authoritarianism has little to do with property ownership. Marx and I are both vehemently anti-state.

1. Prove it. 2. In what way is the United States orderly? 3. Even if you're correct, why is order good?

I haven't endorsed communism at any point during this thread. Communism is a bastardized term and, even by its original definition, is not the only form of anti-statehood. I should've stopped reading your post at "it has already failed countless times (sorry, I have no examples)".

Sort of like... a government?

No, and your statement is proof enough that you're emotionally unable to accept the concept at hand. You just asked: "If government wasn't necessary, would it be necessary?"

 

Is government necessary? - Theoretically No, Practically yes.

Why?

Everything would turn to chaos, there would be widespread famine, there would be no policing, If there was who would fund it? Anyone kind hearted enough to Fund police and feed the hungry would have there money taken from them, Nothing could be done about this due to the lack of funding for police.

Typical examples - War lords that plauge many african countries. If there is no control or order it is impossible for anyone normal doing well for themselves, we would turn back to our basic instincts, fitest survive. Brains mean nothing in a world of chaos.


Although I'd love to not pay taxes and be discriminated frequently by bad police that can't do there job to save there lives. It's simply impossible a life with government is better than a life of chaos, which ultimately will lead to a government.

 

You have to try and understand, who would keep the society in-line and in-check if we had nobody to tell us what to do?

 

you answered your own question No one.

 

All i have to say look at the "wild west" times in the united states.
So if you want to keep people more civilized i would think you need some sort of leadership

P.S dont flame my answer lol its just my opinion.

 

Without government the would would be chaos. Who would stop someone from killing another person? Everything would fall down the drain without order.

 

True liberal = Anarchy. Bad.
True conservative = Unitarianism. Bad.
^The above would only work in a perfect world. We do not have a perfect world.

Government is necessary to find the point right in the middle of left & right, they should allow freedom while maintaining peace and order, and one that believes in "love" as a form of government clearly does not realize that liberalism is a form of increasing entropy, which is the short hand of chaos.

So in essence, yes, government is necessary always in order to maintain stability.
If a government becomes to strict, then the people overthrow it.
If the people become too unruly, natural sense creates the need and formation of law and order by the people.

 

It's clear that none of the above six people read a single post in the thread, and I'm not going to repeat myself for the sake of someone who doesn't care about rationality in the first place.

Any other takers?

 

I don't believe a body of people can remain under anarchy for long. Someone would be bound to aspire to govern them (or rule them dictatorially). And as the sheep people are, enough of them will follow. Someone will promise safety and benefits, and people will believe it.

This doesn't explain why I think government is necessary, but why I don't think there can be a group of people under anarchy for long

 

The problem with a lack of goverment is a lack of leadership, communism is/was an attempt at a egalitarian society where every individual is equal and has the same rights and wealth etc.

The issue with such a society is that it is only a matter of time before an individual takes charge, such books as Animal farm have depicted this fantastically with factors such as the 'committee of pigs' (if my memory serves me correct). Communism as a tool for a egaliatrian society works, it is us as human beings and our nature that 'corrupt' the societal model.

~ Sub

 

Yes, to a certain extent. Without proper authority it would be chaos, on the other hand however, too much authority can be just as bad.

 

Is it not human nature to automatically secularize and create order?

In a perfect world, no government would be just as perfect as government, but we don't live in a perfect world.

(I did read previous posts, I just didn't read anything about human nature)

 

I would agree for the most part, but another way of looking at the situation is that we (for the most part) directly elect our governments, and as such it is also our responsability to make them accountable for their actions, sadly it is this aspect which I believe as a society we have let slip.

 

With out the goverment, there will not be any order, for example, take samolia, that country now is going haywire, there are terriorits, the gangs rule parts of country, and etc.

 

I think so, people have to be controlled somehow, otherwise there'd be crises

 

Everyone above is asserting that the state creates order, but that argument requires two assumptions: (1) humans are chaotic by default and (2) human rulers create order. These assumptions are incompatible.

 

I would say no, but the conditions in which a peaceful society can occur without uniform enforcement of acceptable behavior are many.

 

Incorrect. There are many examples in science where individually unstable things bond together to create a stable unit.
The reason why humans are "chaotic" is because, barring minor emotional ties, we are selfish due to the instinct of self-preservation. This instinct keeps us alive, but it also generates greed, and the desire for power. The society that we live in makes it beneficial for the self-preserving politician to serve the needs of the majority in order to maintain power. Of course the system is not perfect, but yes, order is created.

I have a question: how would you explain the mass looting that occurs during times when there is an unstable government?

 

Weak willed and wicked people to begin with will do that. Look at Japan. After the Tsunami in Japan there were little robberies, the community(and the world) helped out and rebuild.

 

You're saying that (1) humans are unstable individually, (2) humans are stable as a collective, and (3) an individual human ruler creates stability.

Men in blue costumes steal food from the poor and give it to billionaires every day. If the poor resist, the men in blue costumes kidnap them. If the poor don't want to be kidnapped, they are killed. I remain unswayed by this ethereal threat of "mass lootings."