I don't understand how not having a government would even work. People in general are to twisted and greedy to live without some power above them. However, governments are corrupt. This is not necessarily because government systems don't work but because the people in government are corrupt, twisted, and greedy.

It seems to me that people aren't mature enough to live without government, yet not mature enough to run of one.

Could someone explain how any form of government could really work for the benefit and freedom of all people?

No, you're headed to a Soviet-like government. As in, insane control over the people.

This topic is dead dude.

We're headed more twords insane conservatism.

this country is headed two ways, either anarchy(which is bad) or total equality (which is bad).
but with anarchy, you are free, completely free to do whatever you want, but it's total caos. with total equality, you are all the same, you have no rights, no freedom whatsoever. with anarchy, someday there will be a leader or some sort of democracy to lead the people. with total equality, there is no way to get a new leader in or a democracy. now which would you choose? personally I would choose anarchy and have a life, than total equality where its better to be dead than alive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrStrangelove:
I always wonder whether the majority of "anarchists" are just people who want a blank slate to start over. Only way I see that happening is either the total collapse of civilization, or a second chance once a colony on another planet becomes self sufficient. Same sort of thing that happened in the American colonies. Improve on the old.

---

If I understand what you are saying, I believe that is a lot of it. A chance at an evolution. A sort of: "If we knew then what we know now, how might've we changed things?"
That would be invaluable. Everyone gets a chance to start again and not live a certain way just because that is what was handed down from the last generation.
Jefferson noted that periodic revolution is not unhealthy for government. One can assume it helps government to stay responsive and modern and to allow for those experiments that people can learn from.

Being anarchists a key element for them would have to be the choice to join or not.

Good point northstar. It's a very good observation of history.

quote:

---

So I have no problem with your feelings of government being more efficient or practical for those who choose it. But if you're willing to accept the first step of being in an anarchic world and _then_ forming a government and letting others do the same, then we're on the same page.

---

I always wonder whether the majority of "anarchists" are just people who want a blank slate to start over. Only way I see that happening is either the total collapse of civilization, or a second chance once a colony on another planet becomes self sufficient. Same sort of thing that happened in the American colonies. Improve on the old.

If you have anarchy, eventually, people would start founding areas of peace and order amoungst the swirlings of pillaging and marauding. That's how feudalism began, through the anarchy desending from the fall of Rome. People moved to where there was saftey and order, around the wealthy man's villa, which later became the Motte and Bailey, which became the dojon, which became the castle. Anarchy would not last indefinately, and it leaves a power vacuum which would eventually be filled by despotism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wildcat526:
I don't understand how not having a government would even work. People in general are to twisted and greedy to live without some power above them. However, governments are corrupt. This is not necessarily because government systems don't work but because the people in government are corrupt, twisted, and greedy.

It seems to me that people aren't mature enough to live without government, yet not mature enough to run of one.

Could someone explain how any form of government could really work for the benefit and freedom of all people?

---

People would own guns, people would be afraid to screw with other people. Its as simple as that.

"Yeah but check this out. People get mugged and killed every day, the government just cleans up the mess. Secondly, without government no one would have a reason to have a nuclear warhead."

Sure, but first of all, it would probably occur so many more times in just a day if there weren't police around. And government doesn't just clean up the messes. It prevents them from happening in the first place. Without government, people are more likely to just go ahead and do it, knowing there are few consequences besides being killed-yet some people don't carry guns. And have you ever heard of terrorists?

By the way:

Previous discussions

More

It seems like this topic pops up once a year or so for a little bit and then dies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrStrangelove:
Government is generally structured to minimize the choas of humanity. It's a hierachicical system of rules that, in it's most basic sense, keep people from doing _whatever_ they want.

The first thing I'd do in an anarchy is establish some sort of government. Reason? You can function much more effeiciently, and keep those under the system in some sort of a protection ring. Life is easier under a government. It's simple.

---

The difference between your hypothetical government though is that theoretically you would form it and poeple would join as they see fit. You, collectively, would then be directly resposible forthe poeple involved and the power would likely be distributed in a fair way because no one is going to join an unfair organization. Then it's all voluntary and people can't complain about the choices they submit to, whereas we now have where we were born and the government to which we were born and the world with it's finite amount of options and little to no room left for genuine freedom of choice in how your life is run and who gets to run it.

So I have no problem with your feelings of government being more efficient or practical for those who choose it. But if you're willing to accept the first step of being in an anarchic world and _then_ forming a government and letting others do the same, then we're on the same page.

ignore this

Yeah, it may be easier, but that's because authority restricts freedom, and less freedom tends to equal less choice, which can make things easier. Hopefully the majority of humans have some sort of morals to live by and wouldn't go around raping and murdering. People like that will kill and rape whether there is a government or not. Even if the government one lives under makes life fairly easy for those it watches over, it can still cause huge destruction to other people. Take the US for example. Our givernment generally doesn't bomb us, but it's glad to make live horrible for people in other countries.

quote:

---

Essentially we're just very niave. Anarchy is really hard to argue for, but think about this. If people are by nature twisted and corrupt, can we be trusted to be led by one of our own? What's more, if we're going to be twisted towards each other while we have a government being twisted towards everyone as well, doesn't that make us worse off?

---

Government is generally structured to minimize the choas of humanity. It's a hierachicical system of rules that, in it's most basic sense, keep people from doing whatever they want.

The first thing I'd do in an anarchy is establish some sort of government. Reason? You can function much more effeiciently, and keep those under the system in some sort of a protection ring. Life is easier under a government. It's simple.

quote:

---

I suppose. Then again, it's nice sometimes not having to be worried about being mugged 24/7 or killed in my sleep or having my area blown to nothing by a nuclear warhead....

---

Yeah but check this out. People get mugged and killed every day, the government just cleans up the mess. Secondly, without government no one would have a reason to have a nuclear warhead.

I suppose. Then again, it's nice sometimes not having to be worried about being mugged 24/7 or killed in my sleep or having my area blown to nothing by a nuclear warhead....

Essentially we're just very niave. Anarchy is really hard to argue for, but think about this. If people are by nature twisted and corrupt, can we be trusted to be led by one of our own? What's more, if we're going to be twisted towards each other while we have a government being twisted towards everyone as well, doesn't that make us worse off?

quote:

---

Originally posted by freedomordeath:
Such as... say... Social Security Programs...?

---

Yes. After I actually got a job that wasn't paid under the table, I was ticked off by the amount of pay that I "lost". Really I just have to file for taxes and get my return because I didn't break 10,000. But if I'm going to be paying a third of my income towards taxes in the future, the I damn well better be able to control where at least some of it goes myself. Everyone else be damned. I am not obligated to pay for anyone else's retirement.

quote:

---

Does that rhyme?

---

Yes it does.