"What 'government' does best" by Larken Rose

[Philosophizer]

Here is an excerpt of the beginning of the article "What 'government' does best" by Larken Rose:

There are two things that "government" does best:

1) Gives malicious psychos a way to drastically increase the amount of harm they can do, and;

2) Transforms regular, decent people into malicious psychos (and then drastically increases the amount of harm they can do).

If you want to know why this is the case, I suggest reading the full article that I have provided a link to above. To those of you who have seen my previous posts in this forum, it shouldn't be surprising that I agree with these two points he raises.

Anyways, the purpose of this thread isn't just merely to advertise the article, it is to create discussion. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Aliencommander1245]

What are your thoughts on this?

It's overly simplistic and kind of dumb, grasping good points (Like police brutality and the american war machine) but taking away a simplistic idea of "government bad" rather than anything particularly useful or insightful

 

[Philosophizer]

It's overly simplistic and kind of dumb, grasping good points (Like police brutality and the american war machine) but taking away a simplistic idea of "government bad" rather than anything particularly useful or insightful

I think you missed the point of the article. He's not merely stating that law enforcers and politicians sometimes behave badly; that's obvious and predictable because they're humans like everyone else.

The useful fact he writes about is that the belief in government and authority makes it a lot easier for people to get away with committing evil, because they can and usually do use the excuse that they have "authority" to do so. This is what makes governments illegitimate: it is solely based on obeying "the law" written by politicians, which can be good or bad. It is not about enforcing actual good principles and morals, because it doesn't matter what the law is: if it's the law it is to be obeyed and enforced, regardless of the consequences.

 

[gimmepie]

I think you missed the point of the article. He's not merely stating that law enforcers and politicians sometimes behave badly; that's obvious and predictable because they're humans like everyone else.

The useful fact he writes about is that the belief in government and authority makes it a lot easier for people to get away with committing evil, because they can and usually do use the excuse that they have "authority" to do so. This is what makes governments illegitimate: it is solely based on obeying "the law" written by politicians, which can be good or bad. It is not about enforcing actual good principles and morals, because it doesn't matter what the law is: if it's the law it is to be obeyed and enforced, regardless of the consequences.

I guess it has been a good while since we've had this discussion. I haven't read the article yet and will get to it later, but there's some stuff to say about your comment here. Firstly, governments are not "illegitimate" because they have the potential to do wrong. They re legitimate so long as the authority they possess is recognised by the people over which they govern. Secondly, the role of the government is to support it's people. Can governments fail, definitely. That's still better than the guaranteed failure of a state without a government though, as you have already pointed out humans tend to be rather selfish, greedy and hurtful to one another and typically need something to keep them in check. That is how a democracy works, in duality. The law is designed to keep the populace in check and the populace keeps lawmakers in check with the power of their vote.

I 100% agree that non-democratic governments are failures as they do not possess this duality and as such cannot accurately represent the will of their people, do not have this fail-safe built in and ultimately do not support the people they govern over. The notion that the concept of a government in and of itself has a negative impact on society, or is even dangerous, is simply wrong.

 

[Philosophizer]

I guess it has been a good while since we've had this discussion. I haven't read the article yet and will get to it later, but there's some stuff to say about your comment here. Firstly, governments are not "illegitimate" because they have the potential to do wrong. They re legitimate so long as the authority they possess is recognised by the people over which they govern. Secondly, the role of the government is to support it's people. Can governments fail, definitely. That's still better than the guaranteed failure of a state without a government though, as you have already pointed out humans tend to be rather selfish, greedy and hurtful to one another and typically need something to keep them in check. That is how a democracy works, in duality. The law is designed to keep the populace in check and the populace keeps lawmakers in check with the power of their vote.

I 100% agree that non-democratic governments are failures as they do not possess this duality and as such cannot accurately represent the will of their people, do not have this fail-safe built in and ultimately do not support the people they govern over. The notion that the concept of a government in and of itself has a negative impact on society, or is even dangerous, is simply wrong.

No government is ever legitimate, even "democratic" ones. Governments are ruling classes that claim the right to forcibly control people and force them to do things that they might not want or need to do, when nobody or any group of people actually has this right.

There is a difference between using force in self-defense to stop an actual attacker, and using force against peaceful people to make them do things you want them to do, even if it's against their will. Governments use force in both these cases, when it is only justified in self-defense. Using the excuse that "it's the law" doesn't legitimize anything, because anything can be declared law. It doesn't make it good.

Also, the fact that you can vote for rulers doesn't make you any more free. You still have to obey them, even if you don't agree with everything they do or pass as "law".

 

[KetsuekiR]

No government is ever legitimate, even "democratic" ones. Governments are ruling classes that claim the right to forcibly control people and force them to do things that they might not want or need to do, when nobody or any group of people actually has this right.

There is a difference between using force in self-defense to stop an actual attacker, and using force against peaceful people to make them do things you want them to do, even if it's against their will. Governments use force in both these cases, when it is only justified in self-defense. Using the excuse that "it's the law" doesn't legitimize anything, because anything can be declared law. It doesn't make it good.

Also, the fact that you can vote for rulers doesn't make you any more free. You still have to obey them, even if you don't agree with everything they do or pass as "law".

I don't see how exactly this works. Politicians in democratic governments are at the mercy of pandering to their people. if they don't, they don't get elected again the next cycle. Bad people, in general, tend not get elected into office as well (eg:- Roy Moore). The people ultimately have the power to decide not only who gets into office, but also who stays in office.

As for using force to make people do what they do, of course not. That's why such events are shunned and result in the ones who do it not being elected again.

On top of this, having a balanced congress that represents two ends of the political spectrum, as is the case with a democratic government, ensures that laws that solely favour one side tend to not be passed. If they are somehow passed, the public takes note and again, those people don't get re-elected.

From your comments, it would seem like you advocate anarchism but correct me if I'm mistaken. I'm curious as to what you think is a better system if you don't mind sharing.

 

[Philosophizer]

I don't see how exactly this works. Politicians in democratic governments are at the mercy of pandering to their people. if they don't, they don't get elected again the next cycle. Bad people, in general, tend not get elected into office as well (eg:- Roy Moore). The people ultimately have the power to decide not only who gets into office, but also who stays in office.

The politicians ultimately have the power because they have the supposed authority to decide whether elections are even held or not, how often and when. They have no obligation to offer elections, as they have the power to decide the rules and enforce them.

As for using force to make people do what they do, of course not. That's why such events are shunned and result in the ones who do it not being elected again.

Governments force people to fund things they don't need or want all the time regardless of who's elected. In addition, some "democratic" governments force the people to vote even when they don't want to, like in Australia.

On top of this, having a balanced congress that represents two ends of the political spectrum, as is the case with a democratic government, ensures that laws that solely favour one side tend to not be passed. If they are somehow passed, the public takes note and again, those people don't get re-elected.

Checks and balances is a contradiction and an irrational concept. If the government is "checked" and fails to pass laws, it's not doing it's job, as it's job is to pass laws and enforce them. Whenever the government does pass laws, then it has bypassed the checks and balances system, making it irrelevant. It's basically saying: "People in authority should have the power to pass and enforce laws...until they shouldn't".

Also, just because politicians can be voted out and "the law" can be changed doesn't make it okay to enforce bad laws in the first place, because they're still bad and cause harm while they are law. This is why governments are illegitimate: they don't have the right to enforce any law that requires the use of force outside of self-defense, which means they don't have any special authority to do so.

From your comments, it would seem like you advocate anarchism but correct me if I'm mistaken. I'm curious as to what you think is a better system if you don't mind sharing.

Yes I'm an anarchist, but more specifically I'm a voluntaryist, because I believe all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual without coercion. My solution is to stop voting for politicians to force your ideas onto others, because it's wrong, and calling it "government" and "law" doesn't change this fact.

 

[KetsuekiR]

...

Before I move on to what type of government we need; government exists to ensure people are protected from other people. That's ultimately why we need some form of it. If we move into an anarchic society, there is nothing stopping the physically or intellectually strong from abusing the weak. There is no fixed moral code to hold ourselves to. If your belief is "all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual without coercion", you need a government to make sure that remains the case.

Now, the case for a democratic government. Government exists in some form because that's the natural state for people to move into. Any anarchic society will develop a government through tribalism. Humans are social creatures and a community cannot exist without leadership. Unfortunately, this form of government tends to be more autocratic or communist. With a democratic government, the power remains with the people.

You stated that this doesn't help because the politicians can decide to drop this system. Imagine the civil uproar if this were to happen. The country wouldn't survive, and likely, neither would the politicians. Thus, there's little evidence such a thing is feasible, if possible.

Given the above, I can't see how an anarchy would, in any form, be a viable form of society. However, you seem to think so, so please do explain.

 

[Arsenic]

Hey Philosophizer, can I ask you a legitimate question?

 

[Philosophizer]

Before I move on to what type of government we need; government exists to ensure people are protected from other people. That's ultimately why we need some form of it. If we move into an anarchic society, there is nothing stopping the physically or intellectually strong from abusing the weak.

So you're saying that without governments that force the weak to obey them and give them money, the weak would be abused?

There is no fixed moral code to hold ourselves to. If your belief is "all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual without coercion", you need a government to make sure that remains the case.

No, what is needed is for people to understand and agree to these principles. Just like now, people can defend themselves and others or hire others to defend them. The only difference would be that they would have the choice who to pay for protection.

If you're going to ask "How can you make sure enough people will agree?", I can ask the same when it comes to governments: How can you make sure enough people will continue to participate in the political process and want to support governments? More and more people, like myself, have realized that they are just ruling classes that don't have any special authority, and therefore will not vote or support these coercive institutions.

Either way, enough people already understand that attacking and stealing from others is wrong. They just need to understand that it's also wrong when those in "authority" do it, and that they have the right to disobey immoral laws, which is why "authority", "government" and "law" is illegitimate. There is no basis to obey laws solely on them being "the law", because as I've said before, something being "the law" doesn't automatically mean it's good.

Now, the case for a democratic government. Government exists in some form because that's the natural state for people to move into. Any anarchic society will develop a government through tribalism. Humans are social creatures and a community cannot exist without leadership. Unfortunately, this form of government tends to be more autocratic or communist. With a democratic government, the power remains with the people.

You stated that this doesn't help because the politicians can decide to drop this system. Imagine the civil uproar if this were to happen. The country wouldn't survive, and likely, neither would the politicians. Thus, there's little evidence such a thing is feasible, if possible.

I actually wrote an article on Steemit addressing one of these points, so I'll just paraphrase that part:

To tackle the first point: it is not "human nature" to want to obey others. As children, most of us instinctively resist and rebel against having to obey our parents; people we normally love and have a bond with. Considering this, it is absurd to suggest that humans naturally want to obey politicians or others with power; people they hardly know at all in the vast majority of cases. One of the main reasons the idea of government is still implemented is because people have been taught to fear imagining a world without it, not because they have an inclination to be submissive followers. True human nature is a desire for freedom to be able to experience life to the fullest.

If you're interested, this is the link to the entire article.

Also, there is a difference between being a leader and being a ruler. With leaders, people have the choice whether to follow them or not, and when to stop following them. With rulers, everyone under their jurisdiction has to obey them whether they want them as rulers or not, and the rulers can declare whatever they want as law because this is what the concept of authority is about. Anyone who has authority is a ruler, because they impose their commands on society, and those commands have to be obeyed.

Of course, like you mentioned before, enough people don't believe that politicians should make whatever they want as law, so they protest against unjust ones, but this contradicts the purpose of governments. Either you have to obey governments because they have authority, or you don't.

There's no middle ground where you get to choose when you feel like obeying the government, because that's not obedience: it is you being equal to those in authority by deciding they don't have the right to force you to obey them when you don't want to obey them. In this case, the politicians don't have authority and are not part of a "government".

Given the above, I can't see how an anarchy would, in any form, be a viable form of society. However, you seem to think so, so please do explain.

All anarchy is is people interacting as equals. The only thing that would be different is that people wouldn't believe that other people with "authority" have to be obeyed just because they write stuff down and call it "law".

Hey Philosophizer, can I ask you a legitimate question?

Sure. I would suggest sending me a private message if you think it might turn into a long discussion though, since I don't want this thread to turn into just us two replying to each other.

 

[Arsenic]

Sure. I would suggest sending me a private message if you think it might turn into a long discussion though, since I don't want this thread to turn into just us two replying to each other.

Nah it's good, I'm only looking for short answers!


Have you read into the last era of the Roman Empire and the start of the Dark Ages?

 

[gimmepie]

Suggesting that humans don't naturally form power-structures and hierarchies doesn't show insight, it displays a fundamental lack of understanding of human nature. Take it from someone who has actually had to learn about child psychology to an extent, the fact that we tend to create hierarchies and power-structures is visible among children on the playground. It's visible via social structures largely, some children are more popular and thus more powerful. Some of them very obviously fill a leadership role in their social circles.

If humans did not naturally tend towards governance through tribalism, there would not be a government.

 

[KetsuekiR]

So you're saying that without governments that force the weak to obey them and give them money, the weak would be abused?

No, I'm saying that without governments, the weak would be abused by the strong with no say in who the strong is. The weak, in a democratic government, can either become the strong or decide on who the strong is. Without such a government, the strong pick themselves - this is where abuse occurs to a FAR greater degree than a government ever could manage.

No, what is needed is for people to understand and agree to these principles. Just like now, people can defend themselves and others or hire others to defend them. The only difference would be that they would have the choice who to pay for protection.

Pay with what, seashells? A very good point for government is the existence of currency.

On another note, imagining a working currency could exist sustainably without regulation, why would anyone want to recieve money forom someone weaker for portection if they can just take it by force?

If you're going to ask "How can you make sure enough people will agree?", I can ask the same when it comes to governments: How can you make sure enough people will continue to participate in the political process and want to support governments? More and more people, like myself, have realized that they are just ruling classes that don't have any special authority, and therefore will not vote or support these coercive institutions.

It's not a question of making sure enough people agree. It's about making sure those that don't agree aren't abusing those that might.

Either way, enough people already understand that attacking and stealing from others is wrong. They just need to understand that it's also wrong when those in "authority" do it, and that they have the right to disobey immoral laws, which is why "authority", "government" and "law" is illegitimate. There is no basis to obey laws solely on them being "the law", because as I've said before, something being "the law" doesn't automatically mean it's good.

Like I said earlier, systems in place prevent laws being passed that do not benefit the population. That's how democracy works. The politicians are NOT above the law, nor does anyone think they should be.

I actually wrote an article on Steemit addressing one of these points, so I'll just paraphrase that part:
If you're interested, this is the link to the entire article.

Thousands of years of evidence that say humans are social creatures disagree with your points against my earlier statements.

Secondly, all of your points assume that humans are natural the most kindhearted and understanding creatures, and that if we get rid of government, all the bad people vanish. It's extremely confusing to me how you think politicians are bad people and yet seem to think a society without any laws wouldn't have people abusing it?

Also, you included a quote in your article to support your ideas from a person (Edmund Burke) who was a huge supporter of Government. This has nothing to do with the discussion but I found it somewhat ironic so I just thought I'd share.

Also, there is a difference between being a leader and being a ruler. With leaders, people have the choice whether to follow them or not, and when to stop following them. With rulers, everyone under their jurisdiction has to obey them whether they want them as rulers or not, and the rulers can declare whatever they want as law because this is what the concept of authority is about. Anyone who has authority is a ruler, because they impose their commands on society, and those commands have to be obeyed.

Exactly, and you don't think the likelihood of a ruler appearing in an anarchy is higher than a leader? I sure do.

Of course, like you mentioned before, enough people don't believe that politicians should make whatever they want as law, so they protest against unjust ones, but this contradicts the purpose of governments. Either you have to obey governments because they have authority, or you don't.

There's no middle ground where you get to choose when you feel like obeying the government, because that's not obedience: it is you being equal to those in authority by deciding they don't have the right to force you to obey them when you don't want to obey them. In this case, the politicians don't have authority and are not part of a "government".

No. None of this is true. When has the purpose of a democratic government ever been to "control the masses"? You're thinking of totalitarian dictatorships and other similar governments. No part of the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, or any form of documentation or statue that gives the government its power, states that the people have to obey those they elect.

I think it may be that you've got "obeying the law" confused with "obeying people in power". They are not the same thing.

All anarchy is is people interacting as equals. The only thing that would be different is that people wouldn't believe that other people with "authority" have to be obeyed just because they write stuff down and call it "law".

Again, it feels like you seem to think that because there's no government, social hierarchies would cease to exist and that a difference in power wouldn't create a ruling class. One of the two is true if that is the case; you're overlooking that practically guaranteed scenario of the morally unjust but physically/emotionally/resourcefully strong ruling, or you think that every human in an anarchy is a symbol of morality and goodness. I can't say I agree with either.

 

[Philosophizer]

Nah it's good, I'm only looking for short answers!

Have you read into the last era of the Roman Empire and the start of the Dark Ages?

I haven't read about it on my own time, but I remember some of what I was taught of it. From what I can tell, the Dark Ages came about because of a struggle between different groups of people trying to grab power.

If humans did not naturally tend towards governance through tribalism, there would not be a government.

Humans tend to respect and imitate those who are stronger and smarter, but this isn't the same as obedience. The concept of government is about obedience, not necessarily about choosing to follow leaders.

Pay with what, seashells?

With whatever currency they want.

A very good point for government is the existence of currency.

Not really. Currencies can exist without government, because people can create and agree on the value of a currency without it being regulated. Cryptocurrencies are a good example.

On another note, imagining a working currency could exist sustainably without regulation. Why would anyone want to receive money from someone weaker for protection if they can just take it by force?

Why are you automatically assuming that those who offer protection will force others to pay them, and that others wouldn't resist?

By the way, this is exactly what governments do now: they force society to pay for services such as these.

It's not a question of making sure enough people agree. It's about making sure those that don't agree aren't abusing those that might.

And governments are no guarantee that those in it won't abuse their power. In fact, it makes it much more likely, because people view their power as legitimate. This is the main point of Larken Rose's article I linked to in my original post.

Like I said earlier, systems in place prevent laws being passed that do not benefit the population. That's how democracy works. The politicians are NOT above the law, nor does anyone think they should be.

It doesn't matter if the politicians "are not above the law" if they have the power to decide "the law" in the first place, which is the entire idea behind "government" and "authority".

Thousands of years of evidence that say humans are social creatures disagree with your points against my earlier statements.

Humans being social creatures has nothing to do with government or authority. People can cooperate and organize voluntarily without having a coercive institution deciding how society will function.

Secondly, all of your points assume that humans are natural the most kindhearted and understanding creatures, and that if we get rid of government, all the bad people vanish.

This is not what I'm suggesting or believe at all.

It's extremely confusing to me how you think politicians are bad people and yet seem to think a society without any laws wouldn't have people abusing it?

A society without governments means bad people won't be able to abuse and manipulate others as much as in a society with governments, because the majority won't believe these bad people have to be obeyed.

Also, you included a quote in your article to support your ideas from a person (Edmund Burke) who was a huge supporter of Government. This has nothing to do with the discussion but I found it somewhat ironic so I just thought I'd share.

Yes, and he was wrong.

Exactly, and you don't think the likelihood of a ruler appearing in an anarchy is higher than a leader? I sure do.

Anarchy literally means "no rulers". On the other hand, like I mentioned before, governments are inherently ruling classes, because they issue commands called "laws" that they impose on society.

No part of the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, or any form of documentation or statue that gives the government its power, states that the people have to obey those they elect.

This is incorrect. Look at the very first part of the U.S. Constitution.

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

"Legislative powers" are powers to force society to obey those with these powers.

I think it may be that you've got "obeying the law" confused with "obeying people in power". They are not the same thing.

They absolutely are. The only reason the law is enforced is because those in government with authority have passed them, which means you're primarily obeying them, not the law. In addition, if the politicians repeal a law, it doesn't have to be obeyed anymore, which again implies that the notion of government is about obeying those with power in it.

Again, it feels like you seem to think that because there's no government, social hierarchies would cease to exist and that a difference in power wouldn't create a ruling class.

When society doesn't establish governments anymore, it will be because people understand that governments are ruling classes that are illegitimate and don't have to be obeyed.

One of the two is true if that is the case; you're overlooking that practically guaranteed scenario of the morally unjust but physically/emotionally/resourcefully strong ruling, or you think that every human in an anarchy is a symbol of morality and goodness. I can't say I agree with either.

I don't believe any of this. Without the power that governments grant, no one can rule. Also, like I said before, I don't believe everyone is nice. I just believe society will be a lot better off without coercive institutions that use force like governments.

 

[Arsenic]

I haven't read about it on my own time, but I remember some of what I was taught of it. From what I can tell, the Dark Ages came about because of a struggle between different groups of people trying to grab power.

Also, have you read about the beginning of the Renaissance era and the end of the Dark Ages?

 

[LDSman]

Humans tend to respect and imitate those who are stronger and smarter, but this isn't the same as obedience. The concept of government is about obedience, not necessarily about choosing to follow leaders.

I think you are splitting hairs here. Good leaders and good governments can show people why they should follow and obey them even with things they don't agree with.

With whatever currency they want.
Not really. Currencies can exist without government, because people can create and agree on the value of a currency without it being regulated. Cryptocurrencies are a good example.

Cryptocurrencies are too unstable. Different groups had different currencies. Giant rocks, gold, etc. Who determines an exchange rate that is reasonable and applicable across all areas? Who enforces it if someone comes buy and tricks you into believing that something else is a currency when it isn't?

Why are you automatically assuming that those who offer protection will force others to pay them, and that others wouldn't resist?

Because all it takes is one person to convince a few others that offering "protection" against a "threat" is better than working the land or some other menial task. People might eventually resist but how long to actually get to that point? Who would organize and lead the resistance? Would the resistance disband afterwards or remain intact in case someone else decides they want to lead? Boom, government.

By the way, this is exactly what governments do now: they force society to pay for services such as these.

Some people are really shortsighted. "Why should I pay for schools now? I don't have kids. I don't use that road." Etc.

And governments are no guarantee that those in it won't abuse their power. In fact, it makes it much more likely, because people view their power as [legitimate[/B]. This is the main point of Larken Rose's article I linked to in my original post.

Chicken or egg argument.

It doesn't matter if the politicians "are not above the law" if they have the power to decide "the law" in the first place, which is the entire idea behind "government" and "authority".

They have a framework within which to decide the laws. They can't just make stuff up. Not in a democratic society anyway.

Humans being social creatures has nothing to do with government or authority. People can cooperate and organize voluntarily without having a coercive institution deciding how society will function.
This is not what I'm suggesting or believe at all.

Please point out a society that operates that way.

A society without governments means bad people won't be able to abuse and manipulate others as much as in a society with governments, because the majority won't believe these bad people have to be obeyed.

Most people don't follow "bad" people. They follow the people that they agree with. Often without realizing they have been tricked or lied to or lead onto a bad path.

Yes, and he was wrong.

Picking and choosing things? :D

"Legislative powers" are powers to force society to obey those with these powers.
They absolutely are. The only reason the law is enforced is because those in government with authority have passed them, which means you're primarily obeying them, not the law. In addition, if the politicians repeal a law, it doesn't have to be obeyed anymore, which again implies that the notion of government is about obeying those with power in it.

I don't agree. If a politician demanded I make him a cheese sandwich, I'd tell him "no". If he passed a law somehow that said I had to, I'd still say no. I not a servant and that law would be recognizable to reasonable people as stupid.

When society doesn't establish governments anymore, it will be because people understand that governments are ruling classes that are illegitimate and don't have to be obeyed.

Nah, it'll be because technology evolved to the point that people could be as sociable or solitary as they wanted and their personal shields and nanites meant they could never be attacked or harmed by anyone else.

I don't believe any of this. Without the power that governments grant, no one can rule. Also, like I said before, I don't believe everyone is nice. I just believe society will be a lot better off without coercive institutions that use force like governments.

Anarchy works until someone decides to take power or convinces others to let him lead. "I'll handle the food issue if you do what I say. You can't guard your fields all the time. Let me give the orders and I'll protect you from harm."

Edit:

How does your system handle property rights?

 

[Philosophizer]

Also, have you read about the beginning of the Renaissance era and the end of the Dark Ages?

A little bit. In my opinion, freer trade between the regions led to the Renaissance, but what are your thoughts on this?

I think you are splitting hairs here. Good leaders and good governments can show people why they should follow and obey them even with things they don't agree with.

Good leaders can get others to follow them, while rulers like politicians don't need to once they are elected, because they have the supposed power to make others obey them regardless.

Cryptocurrencies are too unstable. Different groups had different currencies. Giant rocks, gold, etc. Who determines an exchange rate that is reasonable and applicable across all areas? Who enforces it if someone comes buy and tricks you into believing that something else is a currency when it isn't?

Whoever is interested in solving these issues. I can ask the same of every other field: Who in the future will be doctors or scientists etc.?

Because all it takes is one person to convince a few others that offering "protection" against a "threat" is better than working the land or some other menial task. People might eventually resist but how long to actually get to that point? Who would organize and lead the resistance? Would the resistance disband afterwards or remain intact in case someone else decides they want to lead? Boom, government.

"What if" scenarios don't change the fact that governments, including "democratic ones", are illegitimate, because there's no rational or moral basis for obeying those in power just because they write stuff down and call it "law". Also, like I mentioned before, there is a difference between a leader and a ruler. Leaders don't have the right to force others to even follow them, while many people believe rulers have the right to force others to obey them as long as these rulers are "elected", which is obviously a false assumption. No one has the right to rule, and rituals like "elections" and pretending to give people this right by calling it "law" doesn't give anyone this right either.

Some people are really shortsighted. "Why should I pay for schools now? I don't have kids. I don't use that road." Etc.

It doesn't matter. No one has the right to decide how others spend their money, because it's not his/her money.

Chicken or egg argument.

I would guess that evil people came first, and then they came up with the idea of "legitimate" power to trick people into letting them control society. Either way, evil people gravitate towards power to get away with committing extortion and being corrupt by using the excuse that they have "authority", which is why people should stop believing they should obey them.

They have a framework within which to decide the laws. They can't just make stuff up. Not in a democratic society anyway.

These "frameworks" are bad at stopping governments from infringing on individual rights, because 1) those in power love to find loopholes or make excuses as to why their law doesn't violate the constitution or other frameworks, and 2) these frameworks can be "legally" amended.

Please point out a society that operates that way.

If you lived in the 1800's, would you want to be one of those people asking how the economy or society in general will function without slaves?

Most people don't follow "bad" people. They follow the people that they agree with. Often without realizing they have been tricked or lied to or lead onto a bad path.

Sure, I agree with this.

I don't agree. If a politician demanded I make him a cheese sandwich, I'd tell him "no". If he passed a law somehow that said I had to, I'd still say no.

Congratulations then, you're an anarchist, because you don't recognize his authority to impose his laws on you.

I am not a servant and that law would be recognizable to reasonable people as stupid.

If you truly believe you're not a servant, then don't vote for politicians to make you into their servant by forcing you to obey laws you don't support.

Anarchy works until someone decides to take power or convinces others to let him lead. "I'll handle the food issue if you do what I say. You can't guard your fields all the time. Let me give the orders and I'll protect you from harm."

Anarchy is not a system. It's not about it "working" or not. It's simply about people interacting, organizing and cooperating as equals without any rulers or ruling classes like governments deciding how they should live. Also, there is no "power to take" in an anarchistic/voluntary society; that's the entire point. People may try to force others to obey them, but the difference is that it wouldn't be viewed as legitimate or acceptable.

How does your system handle property rights?

People have a right to whatever property they legitimately earn by working for it, which also gives them the right to protect this property either by themselves, or asking others to.

 

[Arsenic]

Great so you've read into what happens when government capitulates and how we end up back in the same place with a new government.

 

[Philosophizer]

Great so you've read into what happens when government capitulates and how we end up back in the same place with a new government.

Ruling classes like governments can cease to exist when people understand that they don't have to be obeyed.

 

[Somewhere_]

Ruling classes like governments can cease to exist when people understand that they don't have to be obeyed.

Do you have any evidence of this working? There was the American Revolution, but really only 30% of the colonists actually supported the revolution and loyalists were discriminated against. Not to mention, the revolutionaries needed the help of France to win, which had a government. And the entire revolution occurred violently.... and a government had to be installed to fix terrible inflation issues and foreign policy issues.

The idea you are proposing - when taking revolutions like this into consideration - is outlandish. The only peaceful revolution I can think of is the Glorious Revolution, which still resulted in a government being created.

So has any peaceful revolution ever occurred where a government ceased to exist and replaced with a completely free market? And also stable?

I can think of only two anarchist societies: ancient Ireland and anarchist Cambodia. The former lacked the highly complex society today with advanced economies, varying demographics, etc. The latter didn't turn out too well, being communist and unable to allocate resources efficiently. I'm pretty sure they were conquered too.