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.
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.
@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.
@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.
@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?
Stefan Molyneux: Governments do not exist. The initiation of force (or people with guns chasing people without guns) is the antithesis of morality and liberty.
Me: How fascinating. So you subscribe to the vision of the government being the steel toed boot on the neck of the hardworking man robbed of his livelihood. I honestly thought that vision went out with the hand painted Nazi propaganda fliers. Maybe I need to see more of his videos, but what I’m getting here is that a government cannot exist without taking away the rights of the people it’s sworn to protect. Well, yeah, that’s kind of how the social contract works. Every enlightened philosopher who you seem to be drawing morals and ideas from said as much. Rousseau, Locke, Hobbs. And the clincher is that we agreed to this. There are some who disagree with this, and we tend to put them in jails for murdering, robbing, and raping.
John: One of the things that enhances freedoms is roads; Infrastructure enhances freedom; A social safety net enhances freedom (Not sure what the question here was).
Stefan: Freedom isn’t the goal. Morality is the goal. Also, things like welfare give you the opportunity to make bad choices like not completing your education or having too many kids when you can’t afford to have them. It doesn’t matter what the results are. What matters is morality.
Me: Hey jack ass, sit and spin. I personally know some people who are struggling to raise their kids. They didn’t drop out of college and get pregnant because they saw all that welfare money out there and said “Goodness Gracious, I could live like a queen if I took advantage of the system.” They’re not in a bad situation because we have a safety net. They’re in a bad situation because we don’t have a big enough one. Oh, and let’s see how long it takes for you to start asking for freedom again.
John: What should we do with the losers who are picked by the free market?
Stefan: There are two kinds of “losers”; those who are mentally unable to cope and those who bet wrong on their choices. But we have charities for the former (so we don’t need a welfare system) and the latter made a choice. Freedom is risk.
Me: Well that didn’t take long. So do you want freedom or morality, and don’t get greedy on me now. You just made a point that freedom can be countered by morality. Freedom to take risks includes the risk that you will be put into slavery to pay off your debts from your get rich quick scheme. Make up your mind. By the way, those friends I mentioned earlier. Some of them are below the poverty line. As far as I know, they haven’t gotten a cent from any charity (unless you want to call a welfare check charity). I’m pretty sure most of those charities go to saving pandas in China over saving hungry children in America. But hey, I guess those kids took their chances when they decided not to miscarry in their mother’s womb.
John: Do we live in a society or don’t we? Are we a collective? Everybody’s success is predicated on the hard work of all of us. Nobody gets there on their own. Should it be that the people who lose are hung out to dry. For a group that doesn’t believe in evolution, it’s awfully Darwinian.
Stefan: The market is based on a win-win negotiation. This always happens. In evolution (which john Stewart doesn’t understand), the lion eats the gazelle and this is win-lose-and eat. If your business fails, you don’t get eaten by predators. People who succeed have lenders, investors, the people who heat their building, but we voluntarily trade to gain these services and support.
Me: Alright, let’s start from the beginning. There is no such thing as a win-win negotiation. Again, you just said that business ventures are inherently risky. The guy who has a warehouse full of widgets isn’t going to make any money if people don’t want to buy them. And when they can’t pay back the bank loans they took out to fund this venture, the person will go into bankruptcy and lose everything. Thank god we have the safety net of bankruptcy protection law, or people would be sold off like cattle to finance their failures. Also, some woman who I’m ashamed I can’t her name made a great point on this next issue. She said something to the tune of “To sell you goods, you drove trucks over public roads. To work in your factories and stores, you hired people educated by the public education system. All of that was paid for by your tax dollars.” Oh, and one more thing. A lion hunting a gazelle has nothing to do with evolution either. That was a predatory relationship between two species. The Gazelle that didn’t get eaten was the case of evolution.
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.]
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…
@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.
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.
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.
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.