Do we need government?

stephinrazin: Does a government have sound philosophical and moral basis? Can we even consider something so outside normal thought? If not, is is because it is unreasonable? Maybe we are unable to approach it with an unbiased opinion because we have never been allowed to consider life without being ruled?

FogofWar: Does a government have sound philosophical and moral basis?

-the judicial code protects people's rights; and serves to prevent actions that are mutually known to the nation as immoral. Let's go with yes.

Can we even consider something so outside normal thought?

-ants live in a communist community; bees do as well.
-wolves live in a socialist pack.
-gophers live in a society, working together for the community. They take turns on sentry (guard) duty; providing early-warning for the rest of the commune to protect from danger (you may have noticed the military terms I threw in there….for a reason; where do you think we learned these tactics from? )

If not, is is because it is unreasonable?

-Is it reasonable to allow someone to kill indiscriminately without fear of repercussion?

Maybe we are unable to approach it with an unbiased opinion because we have never been allowed to consider life without being ruled?

-How do you think society came about in history? How do you think the first governing bodies formed? Are you implying that mankind was born into a democratic or monarch state?
-If you want to experience life without being ruled; you can always try Somalia.

Outbackjack: Its a very good question.

There are a lot of functions that government carries out that can be done by the people in their communities if they work cooperatively.

I believe that for starters government does need to be decentralised and more power is put into the local community based partly on customary law.

The biggest problem is making sure that there are safety nets for people ,who in any society,slip through the cracks.

stephinrazin: "-the judicial code protects people's rights; and serves to prevent actions that are mutually known to the nation as immoral. Let's go with yes."

I think this is an assumption. The Judicial code protects the interests of the class of individuals that can influence the legislature to pass laws. Sometimes these interests coincide with the majority of people, but not always. We know that murder is immoral, but George Bush still remains free. Why? If the judicial code prevented immoral acts it would prosecute all irregardless of wealth and class.
Community ostracism, human empathy, and physical consequence existed long before codified law. They are the main mechanisms of controlling immoral acts even within legal systems.
"gophers live in a society, working together for the community. They take turns on sentry (guard) duty; providing early-warning for the rest of the commune to protect from danger (you may have noticed the military terms I threw in there….for a reason; where do you think we learned these tactics from? )"
I think there is an important distinction between community and government. Right now in Egypt average people are doing exactly what you describe in order to protect their communities. There is no government, and if the Mubarak regime had not paid thugs to destroy property violence would have been almost non-existent.
"-Is it reasonable to allow someone to kill indiscriminately without fear of repercussion?"
Is it reasonable to allow an institution derived from the inalienable rights of the individual to kill indiscriminately without fear of repercussion?
"-How do you think society came about in history? How do you think the first governing bodies formed? Are you implying that mankind was born into a democratic or monarch state?"
This is a complicated issue. Traditional history argues complex society began around 3500 bce. Humans were developed to the same level physiologically as today around 100,000 BCE. It would seem that humans lived in mutually beneficial groups of small numbers to survive. It is clear from some archeological evidence that these communities existed at least by 35,000 BCE. If humanity could not coexist without codified law and institutionalized government how did they develop? I don't know the answer, and it is a difficult issue to root out.

Leon35: My simple answer is YES we need government to do certain fucations. What are they - laws, a court system, have a readly force to protect us from agression, for starters, ok?

stephinrazin, who did you vote for US Senator on the last election ?

stephinrazin: What if laws and courts are very often mechanisms of injustice? If they fail to protect life and property could their removal make things better or worse? Possibly, or possibly not.
We need protection from "aggressors," or those violent minority of society the argument goes. We do this by giving a monopoly of violence to a minority with a caveat of being above the law. Naturally every megalomaniac, and psychotic will flock to join that minority above all law which we call government. Hardly a reasonable response.
As far as foreign aggression Stefan Molyneux (the voice in the video) makes the case that if governments did not exist to tax farm their population there would be no benefit for one to conquer the next. Why conquer a country with no infrastructure to tax the new livestock? I do not agree that this argument fully addresses natural resources, but I have not challenged him with my questions.
Up until post WW2 a local trained militia could defend against most aggression. Now that governments have such a military advantage over their people this is not so. This only is a problem if there is a state nearby when you have none to defend you. If two neighboring countries have no offensive military there is little danger to either.
What is to stop some people from one community from gathering together, and attacking another community? Nothing.
This danger though is minuscule when compared with giant state driven military machines made expressly for the purpose of conquest. These armies allow a vast superiority for a government over another, and over their own population. That is far more dangerous than one community acting aggressively against a mainly equal foe.

My voting habits are hardly related to the topic. I will say this though.
Why play a game of cards if you know you going to be cheated everytime? If you do play you are helping dupe others into a rigged game.

Wampum6: In answer to the question in the title of the thread, my answer is a resounding "Yes!" Frankly, in my opinion the question begs for the answer given, as do circumstances of history.

oooREDEYEooo:

'WE NEED THE GOVERNMENT'

oooTO-BRAINWASH-AND-USE-US-AS-PAWNS-ECONOMICALLY-EYEooo

PS : '...as like the above sickening video needs people to feel sorry for him as he walks off probably having killed innocent people himself as he blinds himself with stars and stripes endorsing evil men...'

stephinrazin: Not all soldiers feel this way. It is always misleading to paint an entire group in a certain light.

chronology: Jack. Interesting. But decentralisation of Federal Service rarely leads to improving help for the Safety Net. Mr Clintons most notable Bills in his first Presidency was a Trade Reform Act and Welfare Reform, both Bills were based on (or energised by in public perception) negative stereotyping. Welfare people were portrayed by the American Media as being lazy and not wanting work. There were no jobs available, ten years of Reaganomics had seen to that. Welfare folks also did not have the big families they were said to have, welfare families are the same size as everyone else's on average. Welfare was also portrayed as a drain on Society, in fact the biggest loss on Business activity in America was not employing unemployed Americans on livable wages. Creating an underclass of low waged, unemployed people is actually a drag on any Nations economy.

FogofWar: "I believe that for starters government does need to be decentralised and more power is put into the local community based partly on customary law."

One must consider the population however. For more power to be put into local communities based partly on customary law; it must be mutually agreed upon in the community. Communities are growing; not only in numbers, but in diversity as well. I have lived next to neighbours who voted for the exact opposite political stances as myself. Thus there is a major factor to be considered in this.

Is it possible for a large society to sustain with a centralized government that allows local communities to rule? Yes; it worked for Afghanistan for the better part of a thousand years; of course not without problems (as any society has problems). Afghanistan is not a perfect example of a successful version; but it is an example of it working nonetheless.



"I think this is an assumption. The Judicial code protects the interests of the class of individuals that can influence the legislature to pass laws. Sometimes these interests coincide with the majority of people, but not always."

And when it does not coincide; then it is up to the public to stand up and make the change. You cannot blame the government for passing laws they believe in; that differ from your views; if you do not express said views.

It was illegal for abortion in Canada for the longest time. Many people disagreed with the idea of it being illegal; and wanted to change it. They thought it was not only not immoral for abortion to be legal; but that it infringed on a woman's right to decide. The law was changed; it is now legal to perform abortions in Canada….there are millions who think it should be illegal; and are fighting to make it criminal again; including the Prime Minister of Canada.

This isn't a question of whether politics is immoral; it's a matter of people viewing things differently; and discussing to make changes to the state in the interest of everyone. This is the very definition of having a moral basis.

"We know that murder is immoral, but George Bush still remains free. Why?"

Probably because neither George Bush's killed anyone. You cannot charge someone with murder when they have never taken a life.


"Why? If the judicial code prevented immoral acts it would prosecute all irregardless of wealth and class."

As it is designed to do. The problem lies within the legal code and it's structure. There is no room for error anymore; as people have no common sense anymore. A lady sued Winnebago because the manual failed to specify that she could not leave the driver's seat and take a nap when engaging the cruise control. Our legal system comes down to wordings; and any margin for error can cause an entire case to be overthrown.

Rich people get off more than poor because they can afford better lawyers who can take advantage of these loopholes in wordings.


"Right now in Egypt average people are doing exactly what you describe in order to protect their communities."

People in Egypt are posting gophers on sentry????

"There is no government,"

The army has taken control of the nation. This is still a government.

"and if the Mubarak regime had not paid thugs to destroy property violence would have been almost non-existent."

When did you ever see evidence of this? There are many people that were loyal to Mubarak and he did not need to pay them to attack protestors.


"Is it reasonable to allow an institution derived from the inalienable rights of the individual to kill indiscriminately without fear of repercussion?"

Please give an example.

FogofWar: I do know the answer as to how society developed. It developed the same as every animal on the planet that too lives in a structured governing society:

A mother gives birth. She cares for the child and protects the child from danger. Here we already see the primal basis of government.

Government starts in the home. Children are raised under an authority figure; who teaches them how to survive; and provides for them what is required to survive. Families grew larger; and this bond with fellow humans created basic tribes that realized that numerical advantage over competition for territory and food meant greater chance of survival.

Sorry man; but society is rooted in our nature. It's in our blood. We cannot live without it. You could survive…for a time; but we would not sustain for as long as we have.


"As far as foreign aggression Stefan Molyneux (the voice in the video) makes the case that if governments did not exist to tax farm their population there would be no benefit for one to conquer the next. Why conquer a country with no infrastructure to tax the new livestock."

Ahh - resources? That would be a good one.

What was it Japan was looking for in the Pacific in WWII? Ahh…right…Resources. What was it that Lagash tried to take from Umma in the very first documented war? Oh; right….resources! What is it that Russia is after in Canada's north? Resources.

What happens when no one can protect your resources that provide you with food, shelter and other resources to keep you alive? You loose it all.

"Up until post WW2 a local trained militia could defend against most aggression."

Ahhh….not sure where you came up with this one…but how about no.

A trained militia could not defend Japan from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

A trained militia could not defend against dug-in, fortified trenches in WWI.

A trained militia could not defend against air raids; even in 1916.

A trained militia could not stop the German Empire from colonizing African nations that were not already taken by France or Britain.

"If two neighboring countries have no offensive military there is little danger to either."

Accepting of course the danger of other nations that do have a military; and are eyeballing your stockpile of diamonds.

"What is to stop some people from one community from gathering together, and attacking another community? Nothing."

Well, the Canadian Forces protects us from that here in Canada. The US Forces protects the US from that sort of thing. Etc. etc.

If you mean on a smaller scale within society; like a group of civilians in one small town taking over another; then again, there is a force to prevent this; they call themselves police.

"This danger though is minuscule when compared with giant state driven military machines made expressly for the purpose of conquest"

Except for in the case of Russia trying to take Canadian soil up north…..not sure how that is Canada's military trying to conquest what is already ours.

…or the US defending themselves from Japan. Or The US pushing Iraq out of Kuwait….pretty sure that one wasn't conquest either pal.


"These armies allow a vast superiority for a government over another, and over their own population. That is far more dangerous than one community acting aggressively against a mainly equal foe."

So life within the US is far more dangerous than life within Somalia?? You really need to think this theory through pal. Thousands of people are murdered at gunpoint regularly in Somalia. Firefights on the street are a common occurrence. They have no military to give their non-existent government control. The US on the other hand does….and there is far less danger in the US than Somalia.

FogofWar: "My voting habits are hardly related to the topic. I will say this though.
Why play a game of cards if you know you going to be cheated everytime? If you do play you are helping dupe others into a rigged game."

Yes, because not taking part in politics is what helps to change laws and better society. If there's one thing the founding fathers believed in' it's that inactivity would better us as a whole. Wow buddy!

LiptonCambell: I've heard the idea of a more-or-less government-free state that is instead run through private companies called Dispute Resolution Organsations(DRO's)- whom you hire to uphold legal documents and individual rights in a nation without police- in order to recieve justice, unfortunantly, you would *have* to hire these companies, as only DRO's could uphold such things......which sounds awefully alot like a privately run tyranny......

So I don't have an answer for "no government". I think its something worth pondering or trying to acheieve, but I've yet to find a superior system to my personal liking- I simply believe the Government shouldn't be involved in alot of what its doing- it needs to be smaller- It doesn't need to censor media, for example, or determine which kind of drugs we need to be protected from. But I do believe we need the police, and the judges, and the military, and I honestly cannot see anyway for that to work independant of a government...

RUBY: hey LiptonCambell..where have you been?..missed you on the other side...hahahaah

LiptonCambell: Lol I wasn't aware I left

RUBY: hahhah..I meant haven't seen you on General chat

Outbackjack: "For more power to be put into local communities based partly on customary law; it must be mutually agreed upon in the community."

I totally agree Fog.

LiptonCambell: Lol isn't that always the case? Everyone has to voluntarily agree with your opinion for your idealized world to work.

Outbackjack: Smart arse.

oooREDEYEooo:

'GOVERNED TO WAR AND DEATH'

'Probably because neither George Bush's killed anyone. You cannot charge someone with murder when they have never taken a life'.[FogOfDonuts]

Reminds one of the Mafia...as where the hierachy murders indirectly...maybe the 'R.I.C.O Act' is needed opposed to the farcicle attempts of impeachment in future and American Foreign policy will definately repeat history...yet again...and again...and again !


oooRACKETEER-INFLUENCED-AND-CORRUPT-ORGANIZATIONS-ACT-EYEooo

LiptonCambell: Lol don't get me wrong Jack, my beliefs have the same pitfall of "everyone has to agree with me for it to work"- only I think my beliefs are more worthy of everyone believing it lol