What if government didn't exist?
if we weren’t country’s but we were individual people life would be so much cooler instead of war were millions of people die there would be duels between small groups of people it would be like skyrim but in real life now wouldent that be cool
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Humanity can be likened to a human body and the cells are the people. Each type of cell has its well defined role and when every cell does its job, the entire organism is healthy and happy and, as a consequence, each cell is healthy and happy because everything is interconnected. People in government could be likened to cells in the brain. But the cells in the brain don’t think they are better than other cells and are quite aware that they need the heart to pump nutrition to them and they need the lungs to provide them with oxygen etc.
I don’t know where I stand on this but I think that whatever physical system we’ll try to implement, it all depends on the quality of the people that take part in it. And I think the focus should be on bettering every human being from the point of view of awareness, compassion, empathy, critical thinking etc. and then, a lot of our current problems will simply disappear as a consequence. So, start spreading (in a smart and compassionat way) the values you believe in to the people around you ;)
No doubt there are people prepared for an anarchy situation, such would become probably localized but no less dictators. You would have a feudalism not long after anarchy. Be it a gang feudalism or some kind of corporate feudalism, probably a bit of both. This chain of command thing is pretty much inevidable.
A one world government would be religated strictly to international affairs, if one ever happened. This means that the 3 current levels of government, local/mayoral, state/governoral and federal/presidential would not become obsolete. The only thing that would change is that presidential would be predominantly religated to domestic national affairs.
Government is a monopoly of power, you don’t NEED government to make roads, schools, fire departments, or any of those services.
Any service or product deemed worthy enough to create demand will be met with people willing to spend money on it. If people want or need it, they will barter, pay, work to get it.
When watching the video I saw many arguments against what he says if you don’t already have previous knowledge and understanding of certain things. I was just trying introducing him; I didn’t expect you to argue all of his points. I don’t appreciate the condescending attitude; it’s a crutch to the conversation and a baseball bat to my objectivism.
[I cut out the excess of your response to reveal your argument.]
Sean: It’s ok to initiate force if we agree to it.
Athens: Yes, but as you said not everyone will agree. It creates a dangerous situation where evil people have the opportunity to take advantage. Taking the US constitution as an example – it’s one of the most well written documents in history created by great minds designed to limit government. But now look, it didn’t take very long to fall to pieces. My main argument is that we must have a morally consitant society else it’s doomed to fail, leading on to….
Here’s what I subscribe to: The non-aggression axiom, that everyone is in pursuit of happiness or rational self-interest (Ayn Rand) and that most people are moral. Government breaks the non-aggression axiom. Everything I subscribe to stems from these, to continue the debate you will have to provide sufficient evidence against these viewpoints to justify an abandonment of them. This is of course a huge task and I don’t expect you to do this; a link to something dismantling any of these views however would be a great place to start. I don’t expect you to just accept what I’ve said as being correct, if you are interested in challenging your beliefs you have three topics to start looking at.
The rest of you reply is cringing to read, it’s filled with personal attacks and poorly founded beliefs and misconceptions. At this point judging from your emotionally heated attacks I see no point in fishing out your arguments as it doesn’t seem like you have any inclination to debate rationally or question yourself.
Please don’t scream nonsense at me, I’m happy to debate an individual argument if you show some humility and objectivism.
@giraffe, If I came across as hostile, I apologize. My temper sometimes gets the better of me, and it tends to flare when people take a position of smug superiority disguised in the form of logic. I wasn’t directing my anger at you. I still feel Stefan is misrepresenting facts and being contradictory, and I feel I can and have demonstrated this point. I suppose it’s not that important. This is turning into a lengthy paper, and I could be working on other things considering that no one will read it. Still…
There’s no such thing as “no government” it’s all about Self-government.
Decentralize until the only one in charge of one’s life are the people that they willingly have serve as their leaders. Voluntaryist anarchism!
The whole idea about less or no government giving us more freedoms is true, it will give multinationals the freedom to monopolize. You can privatize society and in no way depend upon government to build infrastructure, but this has costs relative to what we pay on infrastructure anyway. Maybe if we could enforce a privatized system that garantees comptetativeness. This entails the limitation of organizational growth and the threat of someone loosing their organization to someone who has a solid plan to improve it in cost and/or quality. That is a strange idea to me.
But I like the idea of moving toward a “farmers market” type of situation in business and away from multinational corporations. This entails that every factory, every mine and generally every organized section of business that can be individualized becomes an independant entity. Globalizing, in a way, becomes potentially cheaper, at least in the short term while there is competition, because it is generally cheaper to buy in bulk and the bigger the business the bigger the bulk. But again this threatens monopoly, at which point quality for price goes out the window.
If there was no government, wouldn’t there be chaos
Everybody running round, setting petrol bombs off?
And if there was no police force, tell me what you’d do
If thirty thousand rioters came running after you?
And who would clean the sewers? Who’d mend my television?
Wouldn’t people lay about without some supervision?
Who’d drive the fire engines? Who’d fix my video?
If there were no prisons, well, where would robbers go?
And what if I told you to Fxxk Off?
What if there’s no army to stop a big invasion?
Who’d clean the bogs and sweep the floors? We’d have all immigration.
Who’d pull the pint at the local pub? Where’d I get my fags?
Who’d empty out my dustbins? Would I still get plastic bags?
If there were no hospitals, and no doctors too,
If I’d broken both my legs, where would I run to?
If there’s no medication, if there were no nurses,
Wouldn’t people die a lot? And who would drive the hearses?
And what if I told you to Fxxk Off?
If there were no butchers shops, what would people eat?
You’d have everybody starving if they didn’t get their meat.
If there was no water, what would people drink?
Who’d flush away the you-know-what? But of course MINE never stink.
What about the children? Who’d teach them in the schools?
Who’d make the beggers keep in line? Learn them all the rules?
Who’s tell us whitewash windows? When to take down doors?
Tell us make a flask of tea and survive the holocaust?
No Fire Protection*
No Public Education*
and most important, No Intellectual Property Protection (This means that the added money to your income better be enough to support you when you lose your job)
* Unless you pay for on an individual level, which will cost more than you would pay in taxes anyway.
@laskey, Thanks, Paul. I do not claim to be all knowing or want to convert or lead people, that is not even interesting for me. What interests me is promoting objective views on things. I am no doubt wrong about a lot of things but coughing up an opinion at leasts gives people something to consider. “An idea that has not stood to scrutiny has little merit” when you take an opposing view on something, even if you agree with it, it serves only to make the idea stronger, or could save us from blindly following a lie.
(you could also argue the law and order factor, but that could fall under infrastructure)
This “farmers market” system cuts out a lot of the middle man factors, making products comparable to the bulk buy benefits, and it garantees competetiveness. It also gives us more bosses, more oportunity to become a higher wage earner, than the ever shrinking lesser boss over larger business system we have. I’m not saying it is initially better but it helps with a lot of problems we have with ensuring competativeness in the free market system.
In Australia we have IGA the independant grocers of Australia, this is a bonding of independant super markets that give competition to Coles and Woolworths. If IGA were to win this struggle for dominence, it would be the only garantee against the problems with quality and price that come with monopolies.
Things would be so incredible. Life would be so much more “real” as opposed to having countless, endless artificial laws/limitations/fears put on people. I think the “system,” which includes a lot of things, creates far more problems than it solves (when…the whole ‘point’ of the system is to make everything easier for everyone right?). I do believe though, that if all of a sudden, everyone was cut loose from this imaginary “leash,” that all hell may break loose, at least for a little while. Until everyone is actually offered the same opportunities, people will try to steal them (weather it be food, money, whatever), if it’s not provided (which it’s NOT). So, if all of a sudden, there was no governmental involvement, I think it’d be a mess initially. People that had less than everyone else, would of course, steal from everyone else…. people that hated others for petty reasons would kill other people for petty reasons..
Idk if this is a good comparison or not….. but I see the current ‘society’ (for lack of a better term), as if it’s on heroin. It is royally FUCKED, and causing itself such detrimental damage. BUT… in order to get off it, and get better… it’s gonna go through a lot of pain.. just because every single cell in that body (aka every person in this society [to a point]) is beyond brainwashed, or conditioned, to think that it NEEDS it. Once it’s set loose, or gets off the heroin, shit’s gonna be out of control for a little while. But in the long run…. holy fuck, it’s so much better off in every possible way <3
Anyway, how exactly this is relevant to a world without government is that as you have enormous organizations such as corporations and industries, you need equivantent regulators and this is manifested in governments and legal processes. The thing is that the main regulators of corporations are other corporations and public sentiment. However, once rival corporations are gone, public sentiment becomes a non-issue because that only mattered as far as competition. So the smaller the business’, I believe but I could be wrong, offers the opportunities to minimalize government. Especially if we us this farmers market idea to privatize infrastructure.
@laskey, That was the analogy they used in 1984. The idea was that the nation of Oceania was functioning as a single entity, though they stress the point that if a few cells die, the organism keeps going.
I’m not discrediting your idea, just saying that it might amount to that.
While I believe in radical individualism, that’s not what most people believe in, or at least willing to accept. I know this because if it were possible, we would have done it a long time ago.
@thelaughingfool, great comments, I your doing a good job supporting government.
Without government we’re all screwed… let’s say government disappeared tonight. Are you going to do anything different tomorrow. Not paying taxes seems nice, but in 30 years the world’s infrastructure will have collapsed… no roads, no formal education, no medical services. I’m not supporting the current state of affairs, which is more of a banking fault than a governmental one anyways, but government is a result of people coming together in a synergistic relationship to benefit the whole. Abuse of power sucks, but it is a biproduct of freedom, which doesn’t suck. Without government there is no protection, we would all live in a ‘state of nature’ and progress would be impossible. If government was irradiated, in the resulting chaos, the people who were already in control would end up returning as saviors… and then things would suck even more. We should be directing our HEthen intelligence towards improving government, not destroying it. Anarchy will only be fun for week… sidenote, Tyler Durden was destroying financial institutions, not governmental ones.
I don’t like the government much, but nevertheless I think we need something to protect us from the elite/big business. I know the government isn’t even doing much now to help us with that, but with no regulations at all, I think they would give us all a ride on the meat train six ways to Sunday. Food would be made even more cheaply and with even less regard for safety/nutrition because it would be cheaper to do so, car safety would go out the window, there would be no one to enforce pollution laws, and no one to break up monopolies, just to name a few things. There’d be no social welfare programs either, and nothing to defend the weakest members of society from the strongest, I simply don’t think enough people would care to pitch in. Then again maybe it is because people think the government will rescue them that we let things get so bad. It’s like recess, the elite are the school bully, we’re the little nerdy guy, and government is the teacher who’s supposed to make sure the big kids aren’t beating the crap out of the rest of us.
Our Prime minister, here in Australia, and her political party wanted to introduce a law, or bill, or whatever, and she was taken to court and it was found to be in discordance with a U.N regulation, even though the U.N had condoned the action. So tell me, as far as making laws what is it exactly that the government does that a court of law cannot?
@thelaughingfool, Stefan Molenuex covers these issues and many more thoroughly.
He is highly rational, isn’t ‘just another guy’ and isn’t there to waste time.
19 Tough Questions for Libertarians:
He argues from first principal; that being ‘The non-initiation of force.’
Government isn’t the only way to solve problems.
Then again I am for lower taxes though, especially as it rates to top public servants’ pay, and some of the benefits they get are simply obscene. I vehemently disagree with public servants living like rock stars off the taxpayers’ expense.
As long as there are problems that only a few can solve, there will be the construct of leaders and followers. And moreso in a monetary system where it is to the advantage of the few leaders to place a monetary value on the solution of the problem, then the construct will continue to be sustained. The only way a world without government could exist is if people freely shared the solutions to problems with everyone, and everyone was enlightened enough to be interdependent and equally valuable socially. To remove the concept of government, you’d have to also remove the concepts of money and property as well. Otherwise, as pointed out before, a government system would inevitably return.