What if government didn't exist?
@laskey, One World Government? Illuminati ain’t it?
One way I can think to get at what I think you’re aiming at, would be Anonymous pulling some real Tyler Durden shit, resetting everything, and (luckily) a majority agreeing that we need a completely new way to run things (resource-based economy, etc.). And it’ll happen on 21st Dec 2012.
Joking, but that’s what I think I’d like to see.
NO TAXES? :D
|Sean D Stevens|
* Unless you pay for on an individual level, which will cost more than you would pay in taxes anyway.
|Sean D Stevens|
People who want to abolish the government should watch this little piece:
@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.
@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.
|Sean D Stevens|
@giraffe, It’s taking me a while to get through your video link. It’s hard for me to focus through his Rush Limbaugh levels of arrogance and misinformation. I’ve only listened to ten of the questions he’s “applying logic to”, but so far, he hasn’t gotten one right. I will now take the time to prepare a rebuttal to his arguments. It may take a while.
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.
|Sean D Stevens|
@giraffe, I don’t have time at the moment to counter all his arguments. I have other things to do you know. Still, here’s my response to the first 4 questions raised:
John Stewart: Is Government the Antithesis of Liberty?
Maybe I should start a separate thread when this is done.
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.]
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.
Please don’t scream nonsense at me, I’m happy to debate an individual argument if you show some humility and objectivism.
|Sean D Stevens|
@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…
@thelaughingfool, Ah, thanks for you apology – I have swept any ill feelings I had for you away, so no worries. Shall we just move on? As I don’t think this is the place and it’s a massive job for both of us also considering it’s a personal journey… Haha yeah, lets leave it.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
|Obviously, you’re not a golfer|
@vladtheimpaler, In other words we’d all live in tribes.
As long as there are people who want power (“leaders”) and there are others who need to have some type of cohesion and rules in their lives, there will be some type of government or a set of established cultural norms that they are willing to follow.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.