Democracy makes the purpose of government and authority pointless.

[Philosophizer]

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

No, there should be rules, I'm just advocating that no one group of people decide those rules over everyone else without justification. "Government" says its laws should be followed because they are the law, that's it. It doesn't matter if they are right and wrong, or if you believe they are right and wrong, you still have to follow them.

 

[Kanzler]

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

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.

Honestly, I'm this close to ignoring this thread right now because of all the dichotomies you're injecting into the discussion. There's something called a middle ground. I think you'd be able to foster more discussion if you'd stop arguing about labels instead of substance and pidgeon-holing people for their answers rather than considering their views with an open mind.

 

[Philosophizer]

Honestly, I'm this close to ignoring this thread right now because of all the dichotomies you're injecting into the discussion. There's something called a middle ground.

No, there isn't a middle ground. You either have a group of people passing laws and dominating you or you don't.

I think you'd be able to foster more discussion if you'd stop arguing about labels instead of substance and pidgeon-holing people for their answers rather than considering their views with an open mind.

I've already considered their views (and everyone else who supports the idea of "government") with an open-mind; no one who currently advocates for government truly understands what it implies. They believe they are free because they get to vote for their representative, despite the fact that if they don't agree with some of the laws he or she passes, you have to follow the laws regardless and beg the people in government to change it.

 

[Neil Peart]

No, there should be rules, I'm just advocating that no one group of people decide those rules over everyone else without justification. "Government" says its laws should be followed because they are the law, that's it. It doesn't matter if they are right and wrong, or if you believe they are right and wrong, you still have to follow them.

If there isn't a group of people deciding the rules over everyone else, then where do the laws come from? Government enacts some pretty essential laws, like regulations on polluters.

 

[Philosophizer]

If there isn't a group of people deciding the rules over everyone else, then where do the laws come from?

Based on compromise and agreement with all parties involved. Do you want to have a say in the rules that apply to you in society, or should only those people in government decide by passing laws?

Government enacts some pretty essential laws, like regulations on polluters.

If the government repealed some pollution laws, is it still wrong to pollute or is it alright now since it's legal? The law doesn't always find what's right, making it irrelevant. All actions and consequences should be based on what is right and wrong, not "the law".

 

[Neil Peart]

Based on compromise and agreement with all parties involved. Do you want to have a say in the rules that apply to you in society, or should only those people in government decide by passing laws?

If the government repealed some pollution laws, is it still wrong to pollute or is it alright now since it's legal? The law doesn't always find what's right, making it irrelevant. All actions and consequences should be based on what is right and wrong, not "the law".

Oh, this is breaking down now. Compromise and agreement? You really have that much faith in the public, so much so that our government should be replaced with just a bunch of people gathering and deciding things? First of all, that's what the Founding Fathers feared - mob rule. We have REPRESENTATION for a reason - this is a massive country with millions of people. It's just not possible to do what you're saying, and it's not even practicable.

And what is this you keep saying about "right and wrong"? The EPA determined it's wrong to fill the air and water supplies with noxious shit, so the government created laws to ensure that the CEOs do the right thing. You really think without laws, people wouldn't lie, cheat, and steal their way to profit? Come on, dude. Without laws, people are left unchecked, and that's bad.

 

[gimmepie]

I'm going to try to say this as politely as possible. You have a very poor understanding of how politics works and are under the illusion that the government are some tyrannical mob forcing us to do their bidding.

I'll say it again, the government has authority because the people give it authority. We select the group who best represents the majority's wishes to govern and they do so. You would be right in your points if we'd been manipulated into some sort of Hitler-esque fascist dictatorship or if they'd taken over by force, but that isn't what has happened. We, as societies, have given our governments authority. That authority comes from the people and therefore the power lies with the people.

If you believe that your current government is doing you wrong, vote in another one. You claim you don't advocate anarchy but what other option is there that would suit you? A direct democracy doesn't work with a nation of people. An oligarchy or similar is unjust and unfair. Anarchy will result in pandemonium. Representative democracy might not be perfect, but it is by far the best we've got.

There's no logic to your arguments, you're telling us we're being oppressed but we're not. I honestly do not know what more to say to you.

 

[Philosophizer]

Oh, this is breaking down now. Compromise and agreement? You really have that much faith in the public, so much so that our government should be replaced with just a bunch of people gathering and deciding things?

How would government exist in the first place if society didn't come together and agree on the system?

First of all, that's what the Founding Fathers feared - mob rule. We have REPRESENTATION for a reason - this is a massive country with millions of people. It's just not possible to do what you're saying, and it's not even practicable.

How do you expect national elections to work then? It's not as if I'm saying everyone has to interact with everyone either, we'd still live in cities and towns.

And what is this you keep saying about "right and wrong"?

Morality.

The EPA determined it's wrong to fill the air and water supplies with noxious ****, so the government created laws to ensure that the CEOs do the right thing.

And if the EPA didn't exist, or the CEO's bribed the EPA to make recommendations against strict pollution laws? Would people still be justified in demanding the CEO's lower their factories' emissions?

You really think without laws, people wouldn't lie, cheat, and steal their way to profit?

This happens regardless of whether laws are in place. Nothing can stop people from being bad, and we have the right to defend ourselves from their actions regardless what the law says.

Come on, dude. Without laws, people are left unchecked, and that's bad.

Again, we can defend ourselves from the evil actions of people; we don't need a few people passing laws to tell us so.

You're saying that you know better than thousands of years of history.

Only on the concept of authority and government. It's obviously not just me either, there are plenty of people who realize the irrationality of these concepts.

You should know that laws and morality are separate things.

I do, and I care about being a good person by following morality, not "obeying the law".

I'm going to try to say this as politely as possible.

I'm not clueless, you can drop the patronizing and condescending tone.

You have a very poor understanding of how politics works and are under the illusion that the government are some tyrannical mob forcing us to do their bidding.

They do force you to do their bidding. If you don't comply with their laws, what do you think happens? They say "oh okay, if you don't agree with us you can go on your way"? No, they send armed law enforcers to arrest and imprison you, and if you try to run away, they will use force to bring you in. If you use force to resist, they will use force back and possibly kill you.

I'll say it again, the government has authority because the people give it authority.

And they shouldn't unless they want to be slaves.

We select the group who best represents the majority's wishes to govern and they do so.

Don't bring me into the equation of "we", I don't consent to anyone being my "representative" and don't participate in the ridiculous ritual of voting.

You would be right in your points if we'd been manipulated into some sort of Hitler-esque fascist dictatorship or if they'd taken over by force, but that isn't what has happened. We, as societies, have given our governments authority. That authority comes from the people and therefore the power lies with the people.

We've given them authority to do what exactly? Do you decide what authority they have, or do they with their laws?

If you believe that your current government is doing you wrong, vote in another one.

It's not "my" government, the people in it don't have the right to rule me. They can use force and threats to get me to comply with their laws I don't agree with, but they will never be justified in doing so. I'm not going to wait until the next election cycle, I'm going to ignore any unjust law immediately.

You claim you don't advocate anarchy but what other option is there that would suit you?

Anarchy doesn't mean no rules, it means there isn't only a small group of people deciding those rules over everyone else. So yes, I advocate anarchy.

A direct democracy doesn't work with a nation of people.

Yet national elections do?

An oligarchy or similar is unjust and unfair.

Yes, and I don't want an oligarchy either.

Anarchy will result in pandemonium.

It will result in equality and less strife because no one will believe they have the right to dominate or control others via "law".

Representative democracy might not be perfect, but it is by far the best we've got.

It's not the best we've got by a mile.

There's no logic to your arguments, you're telling us we're being oppressed but we're not. I honestly do not know what more to say to you.

If you consider what the government is objectively, then you will be able to understand my position. Are you capable of being open-minded and evaluating it rationally? Just because the government does some good things and enforces some good laws doesn't mean the concept behind it is legitimate.

Under the concept of law and government, even those good laws being enforced are enforced because it is the law, not necessarily because you, I or anyone else (except the government) believes they should be enforced. Your "representatives" are under no obligation to pass every law you want, or repeal every law you want repealed. That's not representation at all.

 

[Kanzler]

Are you capable of being open-minded and evaluating it rationally?

No, sorry, we aren't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Somewhere_]

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.

I do not think you understand anarchy. It would be mayhem if not implemented slowly, but if done correctly, its more peaceful than government.

 

[Ivysaur]

If you are implying we -all of us 7 billion people, or the 300 million in the US, or the 500 million in the EU (speaking 20-odd different languages), or the billion in India, etc.- should all meet together and sit down and talk about which rules we all want for ourselves and keep talking until every last one of us is happy with the arrangements, then boy do I have bad news for you. This could have worked in ancient Greece, when the 200 or so free male citizens (who would have slaves or rightless people working for them) were the only ones to have political rights and all the free time in the world to debate those issues for as long as it was needed. But nowadays, getting everybody to sit around a table is slightly impossible. And while you can get people to answer a yes/no question online (or in an old-fashioned ballot box), the "debating" part is nonetheless unavoidable, so... Not to mention most people would rather be, idk, working or doing something else instead.

A representative democracy allows us to send those debates over to people chosen by us so they can act as Greeks while we go on with our lives. And yeah, you can talk about the government telling us what is "moral" or "bad", and all those big words, but I don't really want to sit down and decide what edulcorants can be qualified as dangerous for human consumption, or what percentage of core capital a bank should keep in cash to operate, you know? Mostly because there isn't a single objectively "bad" or "right" answer to either question, and yet those are fundamental issues for any modern society, issues most people don't have a clue what to say about.

And the same way I don't make my own shoes (because I don't know how to) and I don't build my own telecommunications network to be able to connect to the Internet, but instead hire someone who actually specialises at that, I'd rather outsource the "agreeing on the basic rules for our society" job to someone I can trust. Last December I had several lists of people running for that job and I picked one to do it for me. If I don't like his job, I'll choose someone else next time, the same way I have changed my phone company twice in the past decade.

 

[Somewhere_]

Let's say there's anarchy. You honestly think that no one will ever get away with organizing a group of people and eventually have power? Enough power to rule?

First, to have anarchy, all of the people within the geographical region (say the US) must reject all rule. When a people do not want to be ruled, they cannot be ruled. That is why conquering is so effective- the people are already used to a government, so they are easier to handle verses if they had no government to rule over them. Ancient Ireland was an example of an anarchist state that defended themselves from England for hundreds of years. It took a very long time for them to be taken completely over by England.

Second, an anarchist state has a completely free market. A free market cannot handle war for very long, and only on small scales. If say, a security firm decided to take over a whole city, they would have to face other security firms and the people. Say somehow the firm absorbed all of the other security firm into a large company by paying them off (impossible, but go with it), this giant firm does not have the abilities that a government does to create war. It cannot print money, borrow money (can borrow, but it has to pay it back), but it can tax. And they would be attacking their clients, so they would have to steal the money. This model is not sustainable because the people cannot be ruled for very long, even if they are not as well trained. The security firm would quickly collapse on itself.

Now you may be wondering that, if in a free market, how can the people defend themselves from opposing governments because the free market cannot sustain war? If there was a need for an army, demand for private armies would increase significantly, and so they would gain a lot more funding. Unlike governments, these private armies do not have as much inefficiency. In a free market economy, a LOT of money can be poured into these private armies, so defense isn't really an issue.

Finally, to claim we need a government to prevent people from being ruled by a government is ridiculous. At least in the anarchist state, there can be an attempt. You dont lose anything.

Does that make sense? I can answer further questions!

 

[Somewhere_]

I understand your point, but this first statement is just wrong. People will be ruled even if they don't want to, I don't know what makes you think otherwise.

I think this whole debate would go smoother if those who believe in anarchy would answer this simple question:

If there is anarchy; what will stop people who are powerful, resourceful, from ruling over others? Sooner or later, the strongest will assume control and we would be obliged to follow them or die.

"If there is anarchy; what will stop people who are powerful, resourceful, from ruling over others? Sooner or later, the strongest will assume control and we would be obliged to follow them or die."

^so what we have now^ :P

Someone cannot gain enough capital to buy off enough land or army or anything to take over. That individual or company has to get it through voluntary trade or theft. With theft, they lose business. Companies can't get as rich as they do now without government, so there are no large corporations or "bankacracies."

Have you heard of the Powerline theory? It states that a population that has not been ruled, and refuses to be ruled, cannot be ruled. Opposing states or security firms cannot sustain war for very long, or if they somehow win, cannot keep their control. It becomes too expensive, and their resources are finite (especially in a free market).

I can link you to a video that explains the power line theory in more detail in a DM if you want. Its only 15 or so minutes.

 

[gimmepie]

I honestly have nothing else I can possibly say directly to you Philosophizer. There's no chance of either of us swaying the other, but I think in general you would probably find yourself happier if you reevaluated your perspective.

I do not think you understand anarchy. It would be mayhem if not implemented slowly, but if done correctly, its more peaceful than government.

I understand anarchy perfectly fine, it is literally "no system of governance." Basically, anyone can do whatever they want when they want. There is no way to correctly implement anarchy because it cannot work. It will literally always be pandemonium because it will be a bunch of people doing whatever they want.

There is nothing protecting your property. There is nothing protecting your possessions. There is nothing protecting you. There is no job security, no welfare, no police or military or courts. No public education or government scholarships either. There are no rules, period. An anarchy is unsafe, unproductive and in general results in a poorer and less educated populace. Human beings evolved systems of governance for a reason, we need them.

 

[Somewhere_]

I honestly have nothing else I can possibly say directly to you Philosophizer. There's no chance of either of us swaying the other, but I think in general you would probably find yourself happier if you reevaluated your perspective.



I understand anarchy perfectly fine, it is literally "no system of governance." Basically, anyone can do whatever they want when they want. There is no way to correctly implement anarchy because it cannot work. It will literally always be pandemonium because it will be a bunch of people doing whatever they want.

There is nothing protecting your property. There is nothing protecting your possessions. There is nothing protecting you. There is no job security, no welfare, no police or military or courts. No public education or government scholarships either. There are no rules, period. An anarchy is unsafe, unproductive and in general results in a poorer and less educated populace. Human beings evolved systems of governance for a reason, we need them.

This post shows your ignorance on anarchy. Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. Please explain how there cannot be courts, police, education, and how people will be poorer. And explain how it is unproductive.

"I honestly don't know where you're coming from. First, that is not what we have now. Because you get to choose who represents you. Those people are elected and their politics ideologies have to please the majority. In anarchy you won't get to choose who rules over you and that person won't give a damn about your politics ideologies, because they don't have to give a damn if there are no laws. "

How does this have anything to do with defense and people taking over?

In democracy, it is majority rules. It is the majority choosing who rules everyone. In anarchy, people rule themselves. No one rules over another person.

What does people not caring about my political ideologies have anything to do with no laws? How does this discredit anarchy?

 

[Somewhere_]

I take it that you expect from a leaderless society to follow the rules imposed by the majority? Because, like Ivysaur said, you cannot expect to 7 billions of people to agree on anything.

We already have a structure, and is not peaceful. You think there'll be peace without any kind of structure?

How would you "slowly implement" anarchy and make it work better than democracy?

Also, you still have to explain what will stop the power-hungry to enslave others.

There are no rules, but more of a common law with the court systems. Its sort of hard to explain, and my knowledge here is minimal.

Explain how structure is needed for peace.

1. People must lose all respect for the fiat currency and the Federal Reserve abolished. This can occur by auditing it.
2. People must realize that they can rule themselves, and that the government has no true authority. The government only has authority as long as people think it does.
3. A man or woman must be elected president and slowly restore power to local towns and cities in a process called localization
4. After private organizations have been formed and roads slowly privatized to stock companies, the public will not have to worry about instant crime, and there will not be any reason to have a government.
5. This state of anarchy must stay in place for at least 1-2 generations before people get used to it, so a bad incident will not result in a provisional government that will result in another government.

I haven't put too much thought into the actual abolishing of government, but its basically done through education and localization. This is a sort of process I wrote down.

Did you not read my past posts about how to stop the power-hungry from enslaving others?

 

[gimmepie]

This post shows your ignorance on anarchy. Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. Please explain how there cannot be courts, police, education, and how people will be poorer. And explain how it is unproductive.

Whilst your posts show that you're too idealistic and don't have much of an understanding of human nature. :P

Firstly, if there are no rulers then there can be no rules. The minute you start putting rules in place, you have created a ruling class. Besides, without rulers who enacts those rules? If there's no single governing body and everyone has different rules, how can that possibly end well?

Courts - Sorry but courts are a governing body. Those aren't allowed in anarchy.

Police - If there is no government there's no government police. How do police function in an anarchy when there is no law to enact and everyone has different rules they expect upheld?

Poorer people - No minimum wage without a government. No regulations on business without a government. Hell, with no government any boss can just choose not to pay you if they don't feel like it. Oh, and are we all getting paid in the same currency? Because every one person can have their own currency they deal with in an anarchy.

Education - No government means no public education. That leaves self-teaching or private institutions. With a generally poorer populace and the possibility that the school won't even take your currency, good luck getting in. Home schooling is also not so effective when an uneducated or unskilled parent is the one doing the teaching.

But please, tell me how anarchy will solve all our problems.

 

[Somewhere_]

This post shows your ignorance on anarchy. Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. Please explain how there cannot be courts, police, education, and how people will be poorer. And explain how it is unproductive.[/Quote[

Whilst your posts show that you're too idealistic and don't have much of an understanding of human nature.

Firstly, if there are no rulers then there can be no rules. The minute you start putting rules in place, you have created a ruling class. Besides, without rulers who enacts those rules? If there's no single governing body and everyone has different rules, how can that possibly end well?

Courts - Sorry but courts are a governing body. Those aren't allowed in anarchy.

Police - If there is no government there's no government police. How do police function in an anarchy when there is no law to enact and everyone has different rules they expect upheld?

Poorer people - No minimum wage without a government. No regulations on business without a government. Hell, with no government any boss can just choose not to pay you if they don't feel like it. Oh, and are we all getting paid in the same currency? Because every one person can have their own currency they deal with in an anarchy.

Education - No government means no public education. That leaves self-teaching or private institutions. With a generally poorer populace and the possibility that the school won't even take your currency, good luck getting in. Home schooling is also not so effective when an uneducated or unskilled parent is the one doing the teaching.

But please, tell me how anarchy will solve all our problems.

Holy crap this is a lot to explain with really long explanations, so ill save all of this for later. I can deal with each one separately later.

But there are courts with anarchy, police, all of it. I think Ill make a list of things to write about and explain because the concept isn't really difficult at all. You just can't get your brain wrapped around the "no rules" thing. Anarchy works a lot differently from statism. Its not your fault really lol. xD I had all of these exact questions about anarchy as well back when I was a statist.

 

[Neil Peart]

Yeah, I can't deal with Philosophizer any more, either. It's simply impractical and impossible to do what he's proposing.

 

[Ivysaur]

1. People must lose all respect for the fiat currency and the Federal Reserve abolished. This can occur by auditing it.

So, without a currency, what will we use to do trade with? Barter? Or that fiat currency known as gold, which, on top of being as inherently worthless as a dollar, is far less convenient for any sort of payment? Do you understand why paper currency was even developed?

Please explain how there cannot be courts, police, education, and how people will be poorer.

a) Who pays the court? Because if we all are forced to pay a court, then it becomes a tax. And if the court is voluntarily paid by people who want to have a court in place, then what happens to people who refuse to pay because they simply don't feel like it? Who will force me to accept the authority of the court? Who will force me to accept the authority of the law? If we are all supposed to agree on this beforehand, all 7 billion humans, who is nonetheless stopping me from just withdrawing my consent tomorrow? Who will enforce the ruling? *Fun fact: Public courts, financed by a public budget, were developed over time to ensure that they'd be properly financed and that everybody would be covered*

b) Who pays the police? What happens to people who freely decide not to pay for their local police company Inc. because they don't feel at risk? If there is a free market and four different police companies working, then what happens if I'm being robbed and the nearest policeman belongs to force B, when I'm subscribed to force D? Same with, say, firemen and other public insurance services. *Fun fact: Public police was developed over time to ensure that they had the duty to protect all citizens, instead of working privately for any given strongman*

c) What happens if you don't have enough money to pay for a private school? In the current world, you have public schools financed by the Government (aka by the taxes paid from all your co-citizens). If there is no Government, you'd have to choose between, say, eating, or taking your kid to school. Or you'd have to send her to a "cheap school for dummies". Or you'd have to beg your neighbours for money. *Fun fact: Public schools (and a legal obligation to make your kids receive education until a certain age) were created to ensure parents wouldn't just send their kids off to work, as they did in the past when people were poorer and needed every help they could get*

d) Why would they be poorer? Because the Government does a redistributive work to fix the unequalities of the market. Talking about Spain, which is my country and the one I have studied, the poverty rate by market income (aka the money you get after working, raw, no taxes or subsidies) is about 45%- aka 45% of the population get less than 1,000€ per month. After the Government uses its powers to take money from the rich and fund public services (which are mainly used by the poor) and hand out subsidies (and retirement pensions through Social Security), poverty rates sink to 22%. It's still bad, but just half as bad. In an anarchy, where there is no Government to fix the unequalities of the free market, people would be reduced to begging for rich people's charity, a charity that would be random in quantities, regularity and goals (maybe I'll donate 3 billion to help people get education. Your problem was eating? Well, tough luck!).

Modern day Governments aren't a bug. They are a feature.