Democracy makes the purpose of government and authority pointless.

[Philosophizer]

Basically, you want a direct-democracy?

If that means people voluntarily agreeing how to organize and interact, yes.

Because they will be able to do it. Do you think a man with the power and full black morals will care what people believes?

He's not going to have any power. Who would back him if he just wanted to dominate them for no reason?

A monarchy is what you're gonna get without government, because as I said many times already, the strongest will surpass the weak.

Are the people being oppressed just going to sit back and let some violent lunatic and his gang take them all over? He'd have a hard time finding all the people he would need for that.

And without democracy; those power-hungry will have their way easier, and will commit more evil crap.

Like I said, if no one believes in the Monarch's legitimacy (or any government for that matter), the people will just resist or revolt against it as has happened throughout history.

 

[Kanzler]

What? Look at freaking ISIS. They've asserted their control over parts of Syria for a pretty extended amount of time.

 

[Philosophizer]

Philosophizer what you're asking for is unfortunately impossible. Government is a great evil but a necessary one, because humans simply can't be trusted to be good and to be lawful.

Then won't we just make evil laws promoting our nature if placed in government? How does government solve the problem if it is being controlled by the same species that are so evil? We would need to have a government of perfect creatures for it to work. Wow, that sounds like the argument you're making against government! How ironic.

Perfect anarchy with no government only works if all the people are involved are good and aren't inclined to do evil things. The sad thing is the world doesn't function like that; there are a lot of bad people, and even good people often do bad things for personal gain. Bad people often thrive in anarchy because people either can't or don't want to govern themselves and do as they wish; they want to throw the responsibility to someone else, and often this someone else is an oppressive fiend that expunges liberty and lawfulness in their area of influence.

These bad people you just described here are either the government or are the people who want to be in government the most, because they are seen as having the right to dominate just for having the label "authority".

Our current government system is a variation of democracy called a republic, where we elect people we choose to decide laws and regulations and decide things that most people don't have time for. It's anything but flawless, and at the moment it's corrupted, but it's the best we can do. If we could live without government, we'd do so, but that only works with a population of pure hearted people thinking selflessly of everyone else without a single drop of evil in them, and humans just aren't pure like that.

If a group of people are bad, the solution isn't to give some of those bad people power over others via "authority", it is to organize together and use force to defend yourselves. You don't need the concept of law for that, you need action.

Because he has a gun. And a team of thugs. Also, it's not for no reason. People want power. If human beings were perfect creatures your plan would work, but we're not. The world would burn without structure.

Yes we need rules and organization, but we don't need one group of people called "government" imposing their view on how society should be run with "law" over everyone else. Society needs to organize and come together as equals and only use force in self defense, not to impose their views over others.

He wouldn't, really. All it takes is a few promises of power to build a giant gang. And yes, they are going to sit back if they don't want to get shot in the head.

People aren't going to be oblivious to the threat of a possible gang, they'll have means of organizing for self defense.

Again, this is too optimistic. If it was so easy and clean to resist a band of powerful, oppressive band of thugs, then your plan could work, but it's not. Hundreds of lives could be lost during your little "revolt" because there is no established government.

Countless lives aren't lost in wars fought for nothing else but to attain the power "government" offers? I'll take a few dozen or hundred deaths over millions and millions of deaths any day.

What? Look at freaking ISIS. They've asserted their control over parts of Syria for a pretty extended amount of time.

Yeah, and a lot of good the nearby governments did to suppress them.

 

[Kanzler]

Yeah, and a lot of good the nearby governments did to suppress them.

I don't follow.

 

[Philosophizer]

I don't follow.

My point is that government can't solve the problem of violent groups like ISIS either, only force can stop them. A large group of people can organize to use force to defend themselves and succeed, they don't have to be a government or have authority for that.

 

[Kanzler]

My point is that government can't solve the problem of violent groups like ISIS either, only force can stop them. A large group of people can organize to use force to defend themselves and succeed, they don't have to be a government or have authority for that.

Why can't government can't stop ISIS but "force" can? What do you mean by force? What do you mean by government? What do you mean by authority?

 

[mew_nani]

Revolts don't just take dozens or even hundreds of lives. They take thousands, often tens or hundreds of thousands. Around 300k people died in the Civil War alone, which was just as you describe; a revolt. 15-30k people are theorized to have died during the French Revolution. Often these revolutions don't result in any more freedom for the people involved; often dictatorships or similar governments are instituted. Just having everyone band together under mob rule and destroying all boundaries won't fix anything.

 

[Philosophizer]

Why can't government can't stop ISIS but "force" can? What do you mean by force?

The means to physically resist those attempting to victimize you.

What do you mean by government?

A group of people dominating and imposing their will on others and trying to legitimize it by calling it "law" and "authority".

What do you mean by authority?

One group of people having rights other people don't. Everyone automatically has the right to engage in actions that are acceptable, virtuous and moral, so the only reason someone would need authority is to commit actions that are wrong.

 

[Kanzler]

The means to physically resist those attempting to victimize you.

Okay, so I think I was legitimately confused when it appeared as if you were contrasting government with force - it implies that government can't use force? I don't know, but moving on.

A group of people dominating and imposing their will on others and trying to legitimize it by calling it "law" and "authority".

I think that's a fair description and I think it's a definition that agrees with the world as we see it.

One group of people having rights other people don't.

Sure, but I'd go further and say that these rights/powers are used to compel others and enforce obedience. I live in Canada where Aboriginals have rights that others don't but it's safe to say that they aren't exerting authority on anyone.

Everyone automatically has the right to engage in actions that are acceptable, virtuous and moral, so the only reason someone would need authority is to commit actions that are wrong.

I don't see the logical connection here.

 

[Philosophizer]

Okay, so I think I was legitimately confused when it appeared as if you were contrasting government with force - it implies that government can't use force? I don't know, but moving on.

Oh, sorry if I did a bad job of elaborating, I'll try to explain again. All I meant was that you don't need to have authority to use force, you just need weapons and/or a large group of people with the means to resist criminals.

I think that's a fair description and I think it's a definition that agrees with the world as we see it.

If I told you you couldn't drink beer because I think it's bad for you and threatened to punish you if you disobeyed, would you take me seriously and stop drinking beer? Or would you think I don't have the right to tell you not to drink beer? If the people in government passed laws saying you can't drink beer, would you take them seriously?

Sure, but I'd go further and say that these rights/powers are used to compel others and enforce obedience. I live in Canada where Aboriginals have rights that others don't but it's safe to say that they aren't exerting authority on anyone.

Is obedience a virtue? Should you blindly obey everything the people in government pass as law?

 

[Kanzler]

Is obedience a virtue? Should you blindly obey everything the people in government pass as law?

I didn't know we were talking about obedience being a virtue. I just remarked that "some people having rights that other people don't have" doesn't sufficiently describe authority and gave you an example of why that's true.

 

[Philosophizer]

I didn't know we were talking about obedience being a virtue. I just remarked that "some people having rights that other people don't have" doesn't sufficiently describe authority and gave you an example of why that's true.

Well, since all government operates under the concept that you must obey its laws, and you seem to be supporting the idea of government, why would you do so unless you believed obedience was indeed a virtue?

 

[Kanzler]

Well, since all government operates under the concept that you must obey its laws, and you seem to be supporting the idea of government, why would you do so unless you believed obedience was indeed a virtue?

In some ways obedience is a virtue. What does it matter that obedience is a virtue? I have a feeling you're asking me very loaded questions.

 

[gimmepie]

I'm going to be honest here, I mostly just did a skim read so I apologise for anything important I missed.

As for the role of the government. The governments role is first and foremost to represent the wishes of the people, to manage the affairs of the country and enact law to keep the populace and economy safe. In the case of democratic governments, they are held accountable for their actions by the public in elections.

You talk about authority and power but it's not as simple as the government lording over its citizens. The government has power because the citizens give the government power by voting them in. I would argue that authority is always going to rest with the government, but because of the governments accountability, the power truly lies with the people.

Ultimately we decide who we trust the most to run the country and we decide who we give the authority too. If we don't like what they do, then we give that authority to someone else. You can argue that a direct democracy in which ever citizen gets a say is fairer than representative democracy, but it is also far too inefficient a system of government to run a nation the size of even may of our smallest countries. So we do the next best thing, elect the people who most closely reflect our views.

 

[KorpiklaaniVodka]

So basically... Somalia.

We need governments and laws, it's a neccesary evil.

 

[Somewhere_]

So basically... Somalia.

We need governments and laws, it's a neccesary evil.

Somalia has competing governments, so it is not in a state of anarchy. True anarchism has no rulers, and it can be achieved only by removing the belief in a state, so states cannot be formed unless they take over, in which case the state already exists elsewhere.

 

[gimmepie]

Somalia has competing governments, so it is not in a state of anarchy. True anarchism has no rulers, and it can be achieved only by removing the belief in a state, so states cannot be formed unless they take over, in which case the state already exists elsewhere.

You're correct there I believe, but let's not forget that anarchy would also be total mayhem and probably make Somalia look like paradise on Earth. Which is why we need government.

 

[Neil Peart]

"Democracy makes the purpose of government and authority pointless."

OK, let's petition the government to become an authoritarian regime. Who's with me?!

If democracy makes authority so pointless, why are county sheriffs elected rather than just appointed? That's just one example I can think of to poop on this argument.

 

[Philosophizer]

In some ways obedience is a virtue.

So you would rather obey other people than figure out for yourself what is right and wrong, and how to live life?

What does it matter that obedience is a virtue?

Because if obedience isn't a virtue and everyone should understand why actions are right and wrong by thinking it out for themselves rather than being told what is right and wrong, then the concept of "government" isn't virtuous and the politicians' laws should be ignored and considered irrelevant.

As for the role of the government. The governments role is first and foremost to represent the wishes of the people, to manage the affairs of the country and enact law to keep the populace and economy safe. In the case of democratic governments, they are held accountable for their actions by the public in elections.

You talk about authority and power but it's not as simple as the government lording over its citizens. The government has power because the citizens give the government power by voting them in. I would argue that authority is always going to rest with the government, but because of the governments accountability, the power truly lies with the people.

Ultimately we decide who we trust the most to run the country and we decide who we give the authority too. If we don't like what they do, then we give that authority to someone else. You can argue that a direct democracy in which ever citizen gets a say is fairer than representative democracy, but it is also far too inefficient a system of government to run a nation the size of even may of our smallest countries. So we do the next best thing, elect the people who most closely reflect our views.

I addressed these points in my reply to the other thread you posted in; feel free to bring up any other issues you believe I missed or should have touched on.

"Democracy makes the purpose of government and authority pointless."

OK, let's petition the government to become an authoritarian regime. Who's with me?!

How about we just ignore it and interact how we should in society as a whole, rather than just how a few people who pass "laws" say we should?

 

[Neil Peart]

How about we just ignore it and interact how we should in society as a whole, rather than just how a few people who pass "laws" say we should?

Just so I'm not misunderstanding, are you advocating for a lawless society?