What if government didn't exist?

I don’t think you’ve considered human nature into your idea. There would always be someone or a group of people extorting their will over others by violence or the threat of it. But to answer your question, if government didn’t exist, I’d probably find the person with the biggest stick and join him.

The only real arguement for governments is that they provide and maintain infrastructure, besides the idea of privatized armies invading the world, as Scott points out. If the sole purpose of tax was to pay for this infrastructure, would be nice. This factor of government maintains what I call “an open boom-gate society” and if you privatize infrastructure it means that you have a toll, fee or cover charge for every public thing you use. This is good in the sense you do not pay for anything you do not use. Bad in the sense that those who use infrasructure the most are business’ so to compensate they increase their prices. We end up paying for their use, in inflation, and our own use as well.
Considering this statement: “The best idea is that people are free to better themselves or not. If this “bettering” of the self manifests in selfless ways in society, or in selfish ways, again that is at the discression of the free individual. Ideally, we should all contribute to subsidize the less fortunate, but most ideally of each of our own volition. Otherwise, what are? Free?”.
That statement would be my idea of utopia, but it also grants plenty of power to exploitation of the system, threatening dystopia. So what do you do, really?
But to answer your question, I would most likely be more limited without government, but I cannot imagine the situation as subjectivly as others.

@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)

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.

once a rebel asked me: isn’t trespassing a fun?
and i never replied him

whether its GOVT. or individuals .. its composed of humans
and every one has got his addictions (by the passage of time)
whether its power, virtue , money , intellectualism or crime

If you consider the way things are now, there are few celebrities who are not advocating some kind of humanitarian thing. Every big business and corporation feel obliged to give back in some way, if only to give some illusion of caring or “playing ball”. Because Greenseas is dolphin free, consciencious people buy their tuna (for example). What role government has in this trend (at least a trend gaining traction in western cultures) I don’t know, but it seems to me that it is not all that bad, it is slow but seems the right direction.

If governments disappeared, it would be a short period of chaos followed by a dictatorship brought about when people got sick of not having a government.

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?

-Crass

@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.

@laskey, Actually, the three nations were all the same nation. They were fighting each other as part of a pact to wage eternal war because War is Peace.

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.

@laskey, I think this: “using the internet to keep everyone educated (Khan Academy), vote for.policies, and commumicate”

is something that could happen. unlikely? sure, but possible. The tech layer exists, and as long as kids keep getting more and more outspoken (as opposed to the “speak when you’re spoken to” kids of generations past) they could push for a more participatory gov’t. here in VT we still have town meetings where regular people can make their opinions known. That kind of thing does make the news and does – subtly – influence the governance of the state, because politicians don’t want to do stuff that’s unpopular. Vermont was moving towards mandatory vaccinations. a bunch of parents showed up with kids, and the state is looking more deeply at the issue. Right or wrong, people caused the gov’t to take a closer look at an issue that was going to be rubber-stamped.

Washington has more secrecy and less transparency than my small state, but that status quo can be changed.

@trek79 “the chain of command thing is pretty much inevitable”, agree 100%. true for many species, not just humans.